Scribd
Upload
21 views2 pages

Lina V Rodriguez

The case involves a protest by Jose Lino Luna against the election results favoring Eulogio Rodriguez, with issues regarding the validity of polling hours, assistance to incapacitated voters, and the adequacy of voting booths. The court ruled that extending polling hours was valid due to irregularities that did not constitute fraud, and that ballots from incapacitated voters could not be rejected despite the lack of required oaths. Additionally, while voting booths did not fully comply with legal standards, they still allowed for secrecy in ballot preparation, thus upholding the lower court's conclusions.

Uploaded by

baguiostudent2600
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views2 pages

Lina V Rodriguez

The case involves a protest by Jose Lino Luna against the election results favoring Eulogio Rodriguez, with issues regarding the validity of polling hours, assistance to incapacitated voters, and the adequacy of voting booths. The court ruled that extending polling hours was valid due to irregularities that did not constitute fraud, and that ballots from incapacitated voters could not be rejected despite the lack of required oaths. Additionally, while voting booths did not fully comply with legal standards, they still allowed for secrecy in ballot preparation, thus upholding the lower court's conclusions.

Uploaded by

baguiostudent2600
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

LINA V RODRIGUEZ

FACTS

This case stemmed when Jose Lino Luna, a candidate for governor who received 4, 157 votes,
protested against the proclamation of Eulogio Rodriguez who have received the plurality of
votes of 4, 321. In the municipality of Taytay, Judge McMahon found from the evidence that 50
ballots cast for Eulogio Rodriguez should not be counted and ordered the deduction votes to his
count. In the municipality of Binangonan, Judge McMahon found that inspectors did not close
the polls at 6 o’clock p.m., concluding that Jose Lino Luna had received the plurality of votes.
Both parties appealed.

ISSUES:

a. Whether or not holding of polls open after the hour fixed is valid.

b. Whether or not the rendering of assistance by the inspectors to incapacitate person, without
requiring of such person an oath valid.

c. Whether or not the failure of the part authorities to provide proper voting booths valid.

RULING

a. The holding of polls opens after the hour fixed is valid in this case.

The law provides that all elections be held from 7 o’clock in the morning until 6 o’clock in the
afternoon, during which period not more than one member of the board of inspectors shall be
absent at one time, and then for not to exceed twenty minutes at one time. However, in some
instances, when that is done and no frauds had been committed, the ballots should be counted
and the election should not be declared null.

The purpose of election is to give the voters direct participation in the affairs of their
government, either in determining who shall be their public officials and determining some
question of public interest; and for that purpose, all of the legal voters should be permitted,
unhampered and unmolested. In the present case, it was admitted that the polls were not
closed at 6 p.m.
One of the reasons are the board of inspectors failed to have the list of voters properly prepared
at 7 am and therefore many voters made it impossible to vote before the regular time of closing
polls. The candidates and board of inspectors agreed without any objection. Hence, the court
firmly affirmed instead of depriving the innocent voters of their right to participate in the affairs
of the government irregularities committed by the election inspectors, the latter should be held
liable

b. The law provides that a voter who declares that he cannot write, blind or having physical
disability, may make oath to the effect that he is disabled and the nature of his disability and
that he desires the inspectors to assist him in the preparation of such ballot.

In this case, record shows that many incapacitated persons voted without taking the oath
required and were assisted by one inspector only in the preparation of their ballots. However,
such ballots have not been identified, therefore, it cannot be rejected.

The remedy is against the inspectors for failure to comply. Innocent voters should not be
nullified on that account.

c. Section 9 of Act No. 1582, as amended by Section 512 of Act No. 2657 and Section 415 of
2711 provides that there shall be in each polling place, during each election, a sufficient number
of voting booths, not less than one for every fifty voters, in the election precinct.

The purpose of this is to furnish each voter an opportunity to prepare his ballot in secrecy. In
this case, proofs clearly show that booths were not constructed in strict accordance of the law
however, the constructed booths still afforded each voter an opportunity to prepare ballot in
absolute secrecy. Hence, there’s no reason for changing or modifying conclusion of lower court

You might also like