|
|
|
|
The purpose of the governing statutes on the conduct of elections
[i]s to protect
the integrity of elections to suppress all evils that may violate its
purity and defeat the will of the voters. The purity of the elections is
one of the most fundamental requisites of popular government. The
Commission on Elections, by constitutional mandate, must do everything in
its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the
elections. In the performance of its duties, the Commission must be
given a considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will
insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created
to promote free, orderly, and honest elections. The choice
of means taken by the Commission on Elections, unless they are clearly
illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered
with."8
[Cauton v. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 911 (1967)] Guided by the above-quoted pronouncement, the legal compass from which the COMELEC should take its bearings in acting upon election controversies is the principle that "clean elections control the appropriateness of the remedy."9 [Pacis v. COMELEC, 25 SCRA 377 (1968)] En Banc, Ynares-Santiago, LININDING PANGANDAMAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LANAO DEL SUR, MAHED MUTILAN, ALEEM, AMERRODIN SARANGANI and NARRA ABDUL JABBAR JIALIL, respondents. [G.R. No. 134340. November 25, 1999] It must be borne in mind that the purpose of governing statutes on the conduct of elections
[i]s to protect the integrity of elections
to suppress all evils that may violate its purity and defeat the will of
the voters. The purity of the elections is one of the most fundamental
requisites of popular government. The Commission on Elections, by
constitutional mandate must do everything in its power to secure a fair
and honest canvass of the votes cast in the elections. In the performance
of its duties, the Commission must be given a considerable latitude in
adopting means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the
great objective for which it was created to promote free, orderly
and honest elections. The choice of means taken by the Commission on
Elections, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of
discretion, should not be interfered with.21 [Cauton v. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 911 [1967].] Section 2 (1) of Article IX of the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." There can hardly be any doubt that the text and intent of this constitutional provision is to give COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. In accordance with this intent, the Court has been liberal in defining the parameters of the COMELECs powers in conducting elections. Sumulong v. COMELEC22 [73 Phil. 288 [1941].] aptly points out that Politics is a practical matter, and political questions must be dealt with realistically not from the standpoint of pure theory. The Commission on Elections, because of its fact-finding facilities, its contacts with political strategists, and its knowledge derived from actual experience in dealing with political controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide complex political questions xxx. There are no ready made formulas for solving public problems. Time and experience are necessary to evolve patterns that will serve the ends of good government. In the matter of the administration of laws relative to the conduct of election xxx we must not by any excessive zeal take away from the Commission on Elections that initiative which by constitutional and legal mandates properly belongs to it. Succinctly stated, laws and statutes governing election contests especially the appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities.23 [Pangandaman v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134340, 25 November 1999, p. 1, citing Punzalan v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 702 [1998], citing Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 273 [1995]; Pahilan v. Tabalba, 230 SCRA 205 [1994]; Aruelo, Jr. v. CA, 227 SCRA 311 [1993]; Tatlonghari v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 849 [1991]; Unda v. COMELEC, 190 SCRA 827 [1990]; De Leon v. Guadiz, Jr., 104 SCRA 591 [1981].] An election protest is imbued with public interest so much so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative,24 [Punzalan v. COMELEC, supra.] much more so in this case considering that a mere twenty (20) votes separates the winner from the loser of the contested election results.
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
