Pimentel Vs COMELEC, 101 SCRA 769 (1994)

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Huerto, Joseph Albert B.

2015-0366

Case Digest

Pimentel vs Comelec (101 Scra 769)

Facts: Petitioner Aquilino Pimentel filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for TRO.
The Petition stemmed from the 14 May 2007 national elections for 12 senatorial posts. At the
time of filing of the Petition, around two months after the said elections, the 11 candidates with
the highest number of votes had already been officially proclaimed and had taken their oaths of
office as Senators. The 12th post is between petitioner Pimentel and Miguel Zubiri. Public
respondent COMELEC en banc, acting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBC), continued
to conduct canvass proceedings so as to determine the twelfth and last Senator-elect in the 14
May 2007 elections. The Special Provincial Board of Canvass (SPBOC-Maguindanao) was
created because the canvass proceedings held before the original Provincial Board of
Canvassers for Maguindanao (PBOC-Maguindanao), chaired by Provincial Election Supervisor
(PES) Lintang Bedol, were marred by irregularities, and the PCOC (Bedol PCOC) and other
electoral documents submitted by the said PBOC-Maguindanao were tainted with fraud and
statistical improbabilities. On 29 June 2007, the SPBOC-Maguindanao submitted to the NBC
the second PCOC for Maguindanao. Pimentel’s counsel reiterated her request to propound
questions to PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and the SPBOC-
Maguindanao. The NBC, however, refused to grant her request. He contends that said canvass
proceedings were conducted by the NBC and SPBOC-Maguindanao in violation of his
constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process and equal protection of the laws,
and in obvious partiality to Zubiri. In the meantime, without any TRO and/or Status Quo Ante
Order from the Court, the canvass proceedings before the NBC continued, and by 14 July 2007,
Zubiri (with 11,004,099 votes) and Pimentel (with 10,984,807 votes) were respectively ranked
as the twelfth and thirteenth Senatorial candidates with the highest number of votes in the 14
May 2007 elections.Thus, petitoner filed the case at bar.

Issue: Whether or not there is a violation of due process on the part of petitioner when he was
denied of his petition.

Ruling: This Court finds Pimentel’s argument of deprivation of due process problematic since he
has not established what he is being deprived of: life, liberty, or property. He was a candidate in
the senatorial elections. At the time he filed the instant Petition, he might have been leading in
the canvassing of votes, yet the canvass proceedings were still ongoing, and no winner for the
twelfth and last senatorial post had been proclaimed. May he already claim a right to the
elective post prior to the termination of the canvass proceedings and his proclamation as
winner, and may such a right be considered a property right which he cannot be deprived of
without due process? These were clearly substantial and weighty issues which Pimentel did not
address. Unfortunately, this Court cannot argue and settle them for him.

You might also like