2022 PANGASINAN ELECTION

HERE’S lesson to be learned that can be applied in future elections like the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections in October 30 and in 2025 national/local elections.

The Supreme Court En Banc, on August 17, 2023, denied the apela or Request for Manual Recount of the Votes in the 2022 elections in Pangasinan won by then Fifth District Rep. Ramon Guico III and his running mate reelectionist Vice Governor Mark Lambino.

Denied in a decision penned by Justice Samuel Gaerlan was a Petition for Certiori and Mandamus filed by one Claryn Legaspi, et al. against the Commission on Elections on May 27, 2022, questioning the May 9, 2022 results of the elections in Pangasinan on, and asked  for a recount of the votes cast.

On May 31, 2022, the COMELEC Law Department initially replied  that the petition informing the signatories that their “Apela” did not comply with the requirements for election protests.

In his letter to the COMELEC on June 5, 2022, lawyer Laudemer Fabia, who was responsible for preparing and distributing the “Apela” signed by 71,000 duly registered Pangasinan voters, appealed to the poll body to reconsider the request given that the petition is not an election protest filed by a losing candidate, but a People’s Initiative petitioning the COMELEC for a manual recount of votes.

In response, the COMELEC, in a letter on July 7, 2022, cited COMELEC Resolution No. 10650, which provides the requirements in the filing of petitions to commence the process of initiative and referendum.

The denial prompted Fabia and other petitioners to go to the Supreme Court.

In dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court stressed that an actual case or controversy must exist for the Court to exercise its power for judicial review, meaning when the aggrieved party’s rights are fully established to be extant, due, and demandable vis-a-vis the other party’s actions, which either violate or deny the said rights.

The Supreme Court also held that there was no violation of their right of suffrage, since they were able to exercise their right to vote by casting their votes in the May 9, 2022. Neither was there any proof of manipulations and anomalies that would have prevented their votes from being counted.

As for petitioners’ right to petition the government for redress of grievances, the Court held that nothing prevented the petitioners from being heard before the COMELEC and before the Court.

Neither did the Court find violations of the petitioners right to information. (Leonardo Micua)

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments