We agree, therefore, with both the HRET and Panotes that the
picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are
likewise “official ballots” that faithfully captures in electronic form the
votes cast by the voter, as defined by Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. 9369. As such, the printouts thereof are the
functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus,
may be used for purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest.
It should be pointed out, however, that the provision in question
is couched in the
permissive term "may" instead
of the mandatory
word "shall." Therefore, it
is merely directory,
and the HRET is
not without authority to opt to
proceed with the revision of ballots in the remaining contested precincts even
if there was no reasonable recovery made by the protestant in the initial
revision (Liwayway Vinzons-Chato Vs. House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Elmer E. Panotes/Elmer E. Panotes Vs. House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, G.R. No. 199149/G.R. No.
201350. January 22, 2013).
No comments:
Post a Comment