You are on page 1of 2

GR No. L-2302 October 25, 1948 ISAIAH YCAIN, appellant-appellant,vs. PABLO CANEJA, contested-appellee.

Facts: BrigidoCaneja and Isaiah Ycain filed their certificate of candidacy for the office of Mayor ofthe municipality of Naval, Leyte, within the period prescribed by law. Brigido Caneja request yourregistration as a voter and the Board of Inspectors denied because they had not had six months ofresidence. Paul Caneja presented on November 4 certificate of candidacy for the office of mayor, butthe City Clerk refused it because it was submitted after the time fixed by law. On November 7, 1947,Brigido Caneja sent a communication to the City Clerk giving account that had been sentto all Boards Scrutiny of all election precincts of the municipality a notice that he had withdrawn hiscandidacy.On December 27, 1947, the Municipal Canvassing Board elected mayor proclaimed PaulCaneja, with a majority of four votes over his opponent Ycain Isaias, and January 3 next year, thispresented his protest was dismissed after the corresponding view .Issue: WON Paul Caneja certification of election is in accordance with the provision of the law. Held: Yes, Article 38 of the Electoral Code Revised provides: "If, after the deadline for the filing ofcertificates of candidacy, dies or subject disqualified a candidate with certificate of candidacy dulyfiled, any person legally entitled may file a certificate of candidacy for office to which the candidatewas deceased or disabled according to the latest articles on or before noon on election day. " Thecertificate of candidacy thus Caneja Paul has performed in accordance with this provision of the law.We conclude that Paul is not ineligible Caneja: should hold the position that the will of theelectorate of Naval been given. Prevent this citizen certificate of candidacy after expiry of thedeadline set by law and registered after the candidate has withdrawn his certificate, is put in thehands of this guy - his artitrio and caprice - the popular vote. Since no one can prevent him towithdraw his certificate of candidacy - with perverse or legitimate purposes - is only right in ademocracy allow another arises in its place, so that voters have a chance to express through theirballots free will. Prevent someone from filing his candidacy in such cases is to sanction the electionof the only remaining candidate with one vote, yours. That is absurd under a regime in which publicopinion should be duly addressed. G.R. No. 166229 June 29, 2005MS. BAIRANSALAM LAUT LUCMAN, petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MOSAMA M. PANDI, respondents. Facts: Petitioner Bairansalam Laut Lucman and private respondent Mosama M. Pandi were mayoraltycandidates in Poona-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, during the May 10, 2004 elections.During the canvassing ofvotes, private respondent objected to the inclusion of ten election returns. The Municipal Board ofCanvassers (Board) overruled private respondents objections on the disputed returns,2and proclaimed petitioner as the winning candidate, as shown in the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation ofthe Winning Candidates for Municipal Offices. Petitioner

won over private respondent by a margin of 16votes. Private respondent filed with Commission on Elections (COMELEC) an appeal from the ruling ofthe Board, alleging massive fraud and irregularities in the conduct of the elections, e.g., force, threat andintimidation were employed on the voters, double voting, substitution of voters, snatching of ballots,padding of ballots and existence of flying voters. Issue: WON Issues such as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election process is a valid issues inapre-proclamation controversy. Held: That the padding of the List of Voters may constitute fraud, or that the Board of ElectionInspectors may have fraudulently conspired in its preparation, would not be a valid basis for a pre-proclamation controversy either. For, whenever irregularities, such as fraud, are asserted, the propercourse of action is an election protest.Such irregularities as fraud, vote-buying and terrorism are proper grounds in an election contest butmay not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure of election and to disenfranchise the greater number ofthe electorate through the misdeeds, precisely, of only a relative few. Otherwise, elections will never becarried out with the resultant disenfranchisement of the innocent voters, for the losers will always cryfraud and terrorism

You might also like