The Author

The author is a practicing lawyer, who began this law blog in 2011.

LAW PRACTICE

The author took the bar in 2015 and passed the same. She went into private practice and taught as a university professor. She entered the public attorneys office in 2017.

Education

The author is a graduate of Bachelor of Arts in Mass Communication and Bachelor of Laws (conferred with Juris Doctor). She is an alumna of Holy Name University.

Leisure

The author loves to write, travel, and write about her travels.

BLOG

Visit her blog: hitchhikersguidetothephilippines.blogspot.com

Showing posts with label G. R. No. 149803. January 31. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G. R. No. 149803. January 31. Show all posts

Monday, March 21, 2016

Case Digest: Ampatuan, et al. vs. COMELEC


Ampatuan, et al. vs. COMELEC

G. R. No. 149803.  January 31, 2002

FACTS:

The COMELEC lifted its order suspending the proclamation and thereafter proclaimed petitioners as the victors in the May 14, 2001 Maguindanao Provincial election. Respondents petitioned before the Supreme Court the suspension of  the effects of  the said proclamation and insisted that there had been a “failure of election”. The COMELEC ordered the consolidation of respondents’ petitions and  a random technical examination on several precincts.

Petitioners contended that by virtue of their proclamation, the proper remedy available to respondents was not a petition for declaration of failure of elections but an election protest.

Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC had jurisdiction to act on respondents’ petitions even after proclamation of petitioners as winners

Ruling:

The Comelec en banc has the authority to annul election results and/or declare a failure of elections.

The Court held that respondents’ allegations of massive fraud and terrorism, which led to a failure to elect, fell squarely within Sec 6. Of the Omnibus Election Code (Failure of Election). “The Comelec is duty-bound to conduct an investigation as to the veracity of respondents’ allegations of massive fraud and terrorism that attended the conduct of the May 14, 2001 election”. There can be no assumption that petitioners’ proclamation and assumption into office on June 30, 2001, was legal precisely because the conduct by which the elections were held was put in issue by respondents.

The Court, in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, directed COMELEC to proceed with the hearing of the consolidated petitions and the technical examination with deliberate dispatch.