CCHOPE ELECTION 2001

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH NAMFREL, PPCRV, VOTECARE AND MAJOR MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS!

 

SUSPENSION OF COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURES

We quote some portions of the questioned resolution of the COMELEC, thus:

"However, this Commission cannot countenance an injustice that will be done to petitioner if his allegation of error if proven would result into a loser becoming a winner. The Commission in order to fulfill its mandate in faithfully determining the will of the electorate may brush aside its rules if it stands in the way of finding the truth. The Supreme Court recognized the Commission’s paramount role when it pronounced that, ‘While election controversies should be speedily settled, so as not to frustrate the expression of the people’s will, this laudable objective does not free the Commission from compliance with established principles of fairness and justice and the adjudication of cases not on technicality but on their substantive merits’ (Rodriguez versus Comelec, 119 SCRA 465). If the rules are obstacles in the way of doing justice, then it can be said that it is a mere technicality that should not stand in the way of determining as to who between the contending parties have the mandate of the electorate."18 [Orig. Record, p. 289; Rollo, p. 42.]

xxx

"xxx (T)he Commission in order to do justice and truly determine the rightful winner in the elections may suspend its rules provided the right of the parties are equally protected and act thereon pro hac vice." xxx19 [Ibid., p. 290; Ibid., p. 43.]

From the above, we could glean why there was a need to suspend the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Without its suspension, the Supplemental Petition would have been dismissed.

The allegation that it was Republic Act 7166 that was suspended and not the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure is not correct. Both R.A. 7166 and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure cover the same subject on which the suspension was made, to wit: Sections 17 and 20 of R.A. 7166 (now found under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines) and Sections 2 and 9, Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

EN BANC, Justice Buena, WENCESLAO P. TRINIDAD, petitioner vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PASAY CITY BOARD OF ELECTION CANVASSERS and JOVITO CLAUDIO, respondents.[G.R. No. 134657. December 15, 1999]



For any inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
Last Updated: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:46:40 PM