§2 Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the

will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere
technical objections. Adherence to technicality that would put a stamp on a
palpably void proclamation, with the inevitable result of frutrating the people's
will, can never be countenanced. (Jaramilla vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 155717, October
23, 2003, 414 SCRA 337.)
§3 x x x Indeed, this Court is loathe to annul elections and will only do so when
it is "impossible to distinguish what votes are lawful and what are unlawful, or to
arrive at any certain result whatever, or that the great body of the voters have
been prevented by violence, intimidation, and threats from exercising their
franchise." Otherwise, the consistent rule has been to respect the electorate's
will and let the results of the election stand, despite irregularities that may
have attended the conduct of the elections. This is but to acknowledge the purpose
and role of elections in a democratic society such as ours, which is: to give the
voters a direct participation in the affairs of their government, either in
determining who shall be their public officials or in deciding some question of
public interest; and for that purpose all of the legal voters should be permitted,
unhampered and unmolested, to cast their ballot. When that is done and no frauds
have been committed, the ballots should be counted and the election should not be
declared null. Innocent voters should not be deprived of their participation in the
affairs of their government for mere irregularities on the part of the election
officers, for which they are in no way responsible. A different rule would make the
manner and method of performing a public duty of greater importance than the duty
itself. x x x This Court has consistently acknowledged and affirmed COMELECs wide
latitude of discretion in adopting means to carry out its mandate of ensuring free,
orderly, and honest elections subject only to the limitation that the means so
adopted are not illegal or do not constitute grave abuse of discretion. x x x
(Tolentmo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 438.)
§4 As the body mandated by the Constitution to enforce and administer all laws
relative to the conduct of elections, it is the bounden duty of the COMELEC to
ensure that the will of the electorate prevails. However, as of now there is no
basis for the proclamation of the winning candidate for vice-mayor. The COMELEC
decided to limit the canvass of the election returns from the four (4) contested
precincts. In order to determine the winning vice-mayoral candidate, however, it
is necessary and proper for the new Butig MBC to recanvass the returns for vice-
mayor in all the forty (40) precincts of the municipality. (Salic vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 157007; and Ditual vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157015, March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 735.)