Practice question
A losing candidate in an automated local election labels a demand for examination of thousands of ballots a pre-proclamation controversy. The sole allegation is that valid votes inside the ballots were miscounted; no illegal board composition or illegal board proceeding is alleged. Which assessment follows the stated automated framework?
- The label alone creates pre-proclamation jurisdiction over every recount
- Any ballot grievance automatically becomes illegal board composition
- The request must be granted merely because it precedes proclamation
- The stated claim does not fit the two pre-proclamation grounds; any proper election-contest remedy must meet its own requirements
- Every candidate may privately recount official ballots at will
Legal references
- COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, Rules 3 and 4, pre-proclamation controversies in an automated election system: https://lawphil.net/administ/comelec/comres2010/comres_8804_2010.html
- Marcos v. Robredo, P.E.T. Case No. 005, February 16, 2021, main decision, automated-election pre-proclamation grounds: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/feb2021/pet_005_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.