Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    Pungutan v. Abubakar, GR L-33541, January 20, 1972

    Uploaded by

    Shergina Alicando
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruled that it has the power to disregard and annul alleged election returns from four towns (Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk) where it found that no actual elections were held. The COMELEC heard evidence and witnesses and determined the returns from these towns were "spurious" or manufactured, as most votes belonged to unregistered voters and there were mismatches in thumbprints. While petitioners challenged COMELEC's authority, the court upheld that determining whether an election occurred falls under COMELEC jurisdiction, not the courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pungutan v. Abubakar, GR L-33541, January 20, 1972

    Uploaded by

    Shergina Alicando
    69 views1 page
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruled that it has the power to disregard and annul alleged election returns from four towns (Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk) where it found that no actual elections were held. The COMELEC heard evidence and witnesses and determined the returns from these towns were "spurious" or manufactured, as most votes belonged to unregistered voters and there were mismatches in thumbprints. While petitioners challenged COMELEC's authority, the court upheld that determining whether an election occurred falls under COMELEC jurisdiction, not the courts.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruled that it has the power to disregard and annul alleged election returns from four towns (Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk) where it found that no actual elections were held. The COMELEC heard evidence and witnesses and determined the returns from these towns were "spurious" or manufactured, as most votes belonged to unregistered voters and there were mismatches in thumbprints. While petitioners challenged COMELEC's authority, the court upheld that determining whether an election occurred falls under COMELEC jurisdiction, not the courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views1 page

    Pungutan v. Abubakar, GR L-33541, January 20, 1972

    Uploaded by

    Shergina Alicando
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruled that it has the power to disregard and annul alleged election returns from four towns (Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk) where it found that no actual elections were held. The COMELEC heard evidence and witnesses and determined the returns from these towns were "spurious" or manufactured, as most votes belonged to unregistered voters and there were mismatches in thumbprints. While petitioners challenged COMELEC's authority, the court upheld that determining whether an election occurred falls under COMELEC jurisdiction, not the courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Doctrine: Jurisprudence instructs us that where no such election was in fact held as was found by

    respondent Commission with respect to the four towns, it is not only justified but it is its clear duty to
    stigmatize the alleged returns as clearly spurious and manufactured and therefore bereft of any value.

    Pungutan v. Abubakar, GR L-33541, January 20, 1972

    FACTS
    1. Respondent alleged that no elections were held in the towns of Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk in
    view of massive violence, terrorism, and fraud surrounding the election.
    2. Petitioner argued that an election has been held.
    3. The case was duly heard by the Commission with witnesses and evidence.
    4. The Commission declared that the returns from Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk are spurious returns
    or manufactured returns and not returns at all. It also declared that the elections in said
    municipalities were sham.
    5. The bulk of the votes belonged to unregistered or substitute voters.
    6. There were mismatches of thumbprints from the ballots and from the registration record.
    7. The petitioners challenged the authority of the COMELEC to declare those votes as spurious.

    ISSUE
    WON the COMELEC has power to disregard and annul the alleged returns. YES

    RULING
    Jurisprudence instructs us that where no such election was in fact held as was found by respondent
    Commission with respect to the four towns, it is not only justified but it is its clear duty to stigmatize the
    alleged returns as clearly spurious and manufactured and therefore bereft of any value.

    There is distinction between the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and the courts with respect to the exercise
    of the right to vote. If the controversy deals with the denial of the right to vote, it belongs to the
    jurisdiction of the Court. But if the controversy is on the question whether an election has been held, it
    is within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.

    In this case, the crux of the controversy is whether or not elections have been held in the precints of
    Siasi, Tapul, Parang, and Luuk. Hence, it is within the jurisdiction of COMELEC.

    You might also like