ELECTION CONTEST

Under the present Constitution, COMELEC exercises original jurisdiction

over all contests, relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
over election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials.
(Sec. 2, Art. IV-C of the 1987 Constitution)
In election contests, the COMELEC is no longer concerned with the
enforcement of the laws or the conduct of elections. Exercising its judicial
functions, COMELEC ascertains who between the contending candidates
actually received the majority or plurality of the legitimate or valid ballots
(Gardiner vs. Romulo, 26 Phil. 521 (1914)
The question asked in election protests is who are the real choices of the
people. (De Mesa vs. Mencias, 18 SCRA 933 (1966); Garcia vs. Court of
Appeals, 36 SCRA 582 (1970) Thus, the allegations of fraud and
irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots and canvass of returns are
examined with end view of ascertaining who among the contestants is the
legitimate winning candidate and not for the holding or continuation of
failed or suspended elections.
The allegations of massive substitution of voters, multiple voting, and other
electoral anomalies should be resolved in a proper election protest in the
absence of any of the three instances justifying a declaration of failure of
election. In an election protest, the election is not set aside, and there is only
a revision or recount of the ballots cast to determine the real winner. (Bago
P. Pasandalan vs. COMELEC, et.al. G.R. No. 150312, July 18, 2002;
Carpio, J.)
Between the determination by the trial court of who of the candidates won
the elections and the finding of the Board of Canvassers as to whom to
proclaim, it is the courts decision that should prevail. (Edgar Y. Santos vs.
Commission on Elections, (1st Division) and Pedro Q. Panulaya, G.R.
No. 155618, March 26, 2003; Ynares-Santiago, J.)
To reiterate, it was petitioner who obtained the plurality of votes in the
contested election. Technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases

should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the electorate.
Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that
the will of the people in the choice of public official may not be defeated by
mere technical objections. (Petronila S. Rulloda vs. COMELEC, et.al.,
G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003; Ynares-Santiago, J.)
Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural
barriers must yield if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the
true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. The Court
frowns upon any interpretation of the law that would hinder in any way not
only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the
correct ascertainment of the results. (Petronila S. Rulloda vs. COMELEC,
et.al., G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003; Ynares-Santiago, J.)
Contrary to respondents claim, the absence of a specific provision
governing substitution of candidates in barangay elections can not be
inferred as a prohibition against said substitution. Such restrictive
construction cannot be read into the law where the same is not written.
Indeed, there is more reason to allow the substitution of candidates where no
political parties are involved than when political considerations or party
affiliations reign, a fact that must have been subsumed by law. (Petronila S.
Rulloda vs. COMELEC, et.al., G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003;
Ynares-Santiago, J.)