- The petitioners sought to restrain the COMELEC from canvassing the senatorial elections results and declare a failure of the elections due to alleged irregularities. However, the petition lacked specifics on the time, place, and manner of the alleged irregularities.
- The alleged irregularities involved the COMELEC's administrative duties in distributing election forms and materials, which are not under the Court's jurisdiction to review. Moreover, administrative issues should not negate the people's right to suffrage.
- The COMELEC has the constitutional role to enforce election laws and should be allowed to complete the canvassing without obstruction, subject later to Court review if warranted. At this stage, there was no
- The petitioners sought to restrain the COMELEC from canvassing the senatorial elections results and declare a failure of the elections due to alleged irregularities. However, the petition lacked specifics on the time, place, and manner of the alleged irregularities.
- The alleged irregularities involved the COMELEC's administrative duties in distributing election forms and materials, which are not under the Court's jurisdiction to review. Moreover, administrative issues should not negate the people's right to suffrage.
- The COMELEC has the constitutional role to enforce election laws and should be allowed to complete the canvassing without obstruction, subject later to Court review if warranted. At this stage, there was no
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
- The petitioners sought to restrain the COMELEC from canvassing the senatorial elections results and declare a failure of the elections due to alleged irregularities. However, the petition lacked specifics on the time, place, and manner of the alleged irregularities.
- The alleged irregularities involved the COMELEC's administrative duties in distributing election forms and materials, which are not under the Court's jurisdiction to review. Moreover, administrative issues should not negate the people's right to suffrage.
- The COMELEC has the constitutional role to enforce election laws and should be allowed to complete the canvassing without obstruction, subject later to Court review if warranted. At this stage, there was no
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
GRAND ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY vs. COMELEC 150 SCRA 665 Facts: In this special civil action for certiorari, the petitioners seeks to restrain respondent COMELEC from canvassing the senatorial elections just concluded and to declare a failure of such elections on the ground of alleged irregularities in the conduct thereof. The said election body is claimed to have conspired with the private respondents, official candidates of the Lakas ng Bansa, to frustrate and falsify the will of the electorate. This petition could have been dismissed outright as deficient in form and substance, being couched in general terms only, without precise indication of the time, place and manner of the commission of the alleged irregularities as a basis for annulling the elections throughout the country, let alone the jurisdictional infirmity. Issue: Whether or not the Restraining Order against the COMELEC should be issued. Held: The petition lacks merit and at best is premature until after the COMELEC has heard and resolved petitioners complained. The alleged irregularities such as the omissions of the COMELEC in the distribution and protection of the election forms and paraphernalia, involved the discharge of its administrative duties and so do not come under the jurisdiction of this Court, which can review the decisions, orders and rulings of the body onlyin cases of grave abuse of discretion committed by it in the discharge of its quasi-judicial powers. Moreover, the administrative shortcomings complained of should not and cannot operate to divest the people of their right of suffrage. The COMELEC is the body entrusted by the Constitution to enforce all laws relative to the conduct of elections. It should be permitted to discharge its constitutional role without obstruction or molestation, subject only to review by this Court when and as the occasion may warrant in accordance with our own constitutional duty. That occasion is not now. Hence, we hold that, as the canvass of the senatorial elections is still in progress and there being no showing of any valid justification to restrain it in its ascertainment of the electorates will.