0% found this document useful (0 votes)
31 views3 pages

Case Summary - G.R. No. 148334 - Tolentino vs. Commission On Elections

Uploaded by

Jeriel Ivan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
31 views3 pages

Case Summary - G.R. No. 148334 - Tolentino vs. Commission On Elections

Uploaded by

Jeriel Ivan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Title

Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections

Case Decision Date


G.R. No. 148334 Jan 21, 2004

The Supreme Court dismisses a petition challenging the compliance of the


Commission on Elections with election requirements, ruling that the lack of
notice did not invalidate the election and emphasizing the importance of an
informed citizenry and access to information in a functioning democracy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 148334)

Case Background and Petitioners' Arguments


The case involves a petition challenging the compliance of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) with election requirements.
The petitioners, Arturo M. Tolentino and Arturo C. Mojica, sought to set aside two
resolutions of COMELEC that proclaimed the 13 candidates elected as Senators in
the May 2001 elections.
The petitioners argued that COMELEC failed to notify the electorate of the position
to be filled in the special election, failed to require senatorial candidates to indicate
their election preference, and failed to specify the candidates seeking election under
the special or regular senatorial elections.
They claimed that these omissions invalidated the election and violated election
laws.

Court's Ruling on Notice of Special Election


The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that COMELEC's failure to give
notice of the special election did not negate the calling of the election.
The Court held that the calling of an election, or the giving of notice of the time and
place of its occurrence, is indispensable to the election's validity.
However, in the case of a special election to fill a vacancy, where the law does not fix
the time and place for holding the election, the failure to give notice is considered
mandatory and renders the election a nullity.
In this case, the Court found that COMELEC's failure to give notice of the office to be
filled and the manner of determining the winner in the special election did not
mislead a sufficient number of voters to change the result of the election.
Therefore, the special election was deemed valid.

Court's Rejection of Separate Documentation and Canvassing Requirement


The Court also rejected the petitioners' argument that separate documentation and
canvassing of the special election were required.
The Court held that there were no such requirements in the election laws and that
COMELEC's method of conducting the special election was a legitimate exercise of
its discretion.

Emphasis on Informed Citizenry and Access to Information


The Court emphasized the importance of an informed citizenry and access to
information in a functioning democracy.
It acknowledged that while COMELEC's failure to comply with certain requirements
may have been a deviation from past practices, it did not invalidate the election.
The Court reminded COMELEC to strictly comply with all requirements under
applicable laws in future elections.

Constitutional History of Democracy and Republicanism in the Philippines


The case involves the interpretation of the provisions on elections and the right to
information in the Philippine Constitution.
The Court discusses the importance of informed judgment in elections and the
principles of democracy and republicanism.
It traces the evolution of democracy from ancient times to the present, highlighting
the views of philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, and Thomas
Jefferson.
The Court emphasizes the importance of an informed citizenry in a democratic
society and the need for access to information and open discourse.

Right to Vote and its Significance in a Democratic Society


The Court discusses the right to vote and its significance in a democratic society.
It explains that suffrage is a privilege granted by the state to citizens and that it is
essential for the preservation and enjoyment of other rights.
The Court cites various cases and legal principles from the United States to support
the importance of an informed electorate and the right to receive information in a
democracy.

Voter Information and Transparency in Elections


The Court examines the specific issue of voter information in the context of
elections.
It explains that for the right to vote to have value, the electorate must be informed
about public matters and the candidates in order to make an enlightened choice.
The Court cites cases from the United States and the Philippines to support the need
for access to information and transparency in elections.
It emphasizes that the right to information is a constitutional right in the Philippines
and that it is essential for holding free, fair, and intelligent elections.

Conclusion
The Court rules in favor of the petitioners and declares the special senatorial
election invalid due to the lack of notice and information given to the electorate.
The Court emphasizes the importance of an informed electorate in a democracy and
the need to ascertain the true will of the people in an election.

You might also like