ELECTION PYRRHIC VICTORY

G.R. No. L-52749 March 31, 1981

SOTERO OLFATO, MAURO V. BARADAS, CIRIACO L. PADILLA, MANUEL S. GONZALES, CECILIO F. HERNANDEZ LUCIO P. MENDOZA, JR., BENEDICTO C. MAGSINO, and BIENVENIDO P. TRINIDAD, Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FRANCISCO E. LIRIO, Respondents.

The well-known delay in the adjudication of election protests often gave the successful contestant a mere pyrrhic victory, i.e., a vindication when the term of office is about to expire, or has expired. And so the notion has spread among candidates for public office that the 'important thing' is the proclamation; and to win it, they or their partisans have tolerated or abetted the tampering or the 'manufacture' of election returns just to get the proclamation, and then let the victimized candidate to file the protest, and spend his money to work for an empty triumph.

It is generally admitted that the practice has prevailed in all previous elections. Never was the point pressed upon us in a more clear-cut manner. And without, in any way modifying our stand as outlined in the Nacionalista Party vs. Commission decision, we feel the mores of the day require application - even extension - of the principle in the Mitchell decision, which is realistic and common sensical even as it strikes a blow at such pernicious "grab-the- proclamation-prolong-the-protest" slogan of some candidates or parties.