Maliksi contested the 2010 mayoral election results in Imus, Cavite, alleging irregularities. The regional trial court declared Maliksi the winner based on its revision of votes. However, the COMELEC first division ordered the decryption and examination of ballot images without notifying Maliksi. Maliksi argued this violated his due process rights. The Supreme Court dismissed Maliksi's petition, finding that he had opportunities to be heard through notices of decryption and his motion for reconsideration. The Court affirmed that due process means the opportunity to be heard, which was provided through Maliksi's written arguments.
Maliksi contested the 2010 mayoral election results in Imus, Cavite, alleging irregularities. The regional trial court declared Maliksi the winner based on its revision of votes. However, the COMELEC first division ordered the decryption and examination of ballot images without notifying Maliksi. Maliksi argued this violated his due process rights. The Supreme Court dismissed Maliksi's petition, finding that he had opportunities to be heard through notices of decryption and his motion for reconsideration. The Court affirmed that due process means the opportunity to be heard, which was provided through Maliksi's written arguments.
Maliksi contested the 2010 mayoral election results in Imus, Cavite, alleging irregularities. The regional trial court declared Maliksi the winner based on its revision of votes. However, the COMELEC first division ordered the decryption and examination of ballot images without notifying Maliksi. Maliksi argued this violated his due process rights. The Supreme Court dismissed Maliksi's petition, finding that he had opportunities to be heard through notices of decryption and his motion for reconsideration. The Court affirmed that due process means the opportunity to be heard, which was provided through Maliksi's written arguments.
Maliksi contested the 2010 mayoral election results in Imus, Cavite, alleging irregularities. The regional trial court declared Maliksi the winner based on its revision of votes. However, the COMELEC first division ordered the decryption and examination of ballot images without notifying Maliksi. Maliksi argued this violated his due process rights. The Supreme Court dismissed Maliksi's petition, finding that he had opportunities to be heard through notices of decryption and his motion for reconsideration. The Court affirmed that due process means the opportunity to be heard, which was provided through Maliksi's written arguments.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
MALIKSI vs.
COMELEC (CASE #6-DUE PROCESS)
March 12, 2013
FACTS: During the 2010 Elections, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Saquilayan the winner for the position of Mayor of Imus, Cavite. Maliksi, the candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes, brought an election protest in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite alleging that there were irregularities in the counting of votes in 209 clustered precincts.
Subsequently, the RTC held a revision of the votes, and, based on the results of the revision, declared Maliksi as the duly elected Mayor of Imus commanding Saquilayan to cease and desist from performing the functions of said office. Saquilayan appealed to the COMELEC. In the meanwhile, the RTC granted Maliksi a motion for execution pending appeal, and Maliksi was then installed as Mayor.
In the decision promulgated on March 12, 2013, the Court, by a vote of 8-7, dismissed Maliksi a petition for certiorari. The Court concluded that Maliksi had not been denied due process because: (a) he had received notices of the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images by the First Division a” referring to the orders of the First Division directing Saquilayan to post and augment the cash deposits for the decryption and printing of the ballot images; and (b) he had been able to raise his objections to the decryption in his motion for reconsideration.
The Court then pronounced that the First Division did not abuse its discretion in deciding to use the ballot images instead of the paper ballots, explaining that the printouts of the ballot images were not secondary images, but considered original documents with the same evidentiary value as the official ballots under the Rule on Electronic Evidence; and that the First Division a finding that the ballots and the ballot boxes had been tampered had been fully established by the large number of cases of double-shading discovered during the revision. Hence, Maliksi filed the petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: W/O Maliksi was deprived of due process when the COMELEC First Division ordered on appeal the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images in the CF cards.
HELD: The petition was dismissed. Maliksi alleged that he was denied due process when the COMELEC First Division directed the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images in the CF cards for the first time on appeal without notice to him, thus depriving him of his right to be present and observe the decryption proceedings. The records also showed that Maliksi was aware of the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images by the COMELEC First Division. Clearly, Maliksi was not denied due process. He received notices of the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images by the COMELEC First Division. In addition, Maliksi raised his objections to the decryption in his motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. The Court has ruled: The essence of due process, we have consistently held, is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain one a side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
There is no denial of due process where there is opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings. It is settled that an opportunity to be heard does not only mean oral arguments in court but also written arguments through pleadings. Thus, the fact that a party was heard on his motion for reconsideration negates any violation of the right to due process. The Court has ruled that denial of due process cannot be invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration. Maliksi vs. COMELEC April 11, 2013 In Maliksi a Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration he argued that the Supreme Court en banc gravely erred in dismissing the instant petition despite a clear violation of petitioner a constitutional right to due process of law considering that decryption, printing and examination of the digital images of the ballots.
Instant download NFPA 265 Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile or Expanded Vinyl Wall Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls 2015 Edition National Fire Protection Association pdf all chapter
