For any reason beyond sanity, let me say I’d like to have a severe headache. How? By reading the following:
"This Court has emphasized that in this species of controversy involving the determination of the true will of the electorate, time is indeed of paramount importance – second to none, perhaps, except the genuine will of the majority. To be sure, an election controversy, which by its very nature touches upon the ascertainment of the people’s choice as gleaned from the medium of the ballot, should be resolved with utmost dispatch, precedence and regard to due process."
Ouch! It’s a migraine.
Now let me try to dissipate the pain. The quote is evidently from a court which is saying that electoral protests should be decided on immediately. The court is also saying that immediate action on such protests is most important, but it is not sure about this as it uses the word "perhaps" to cite the "genuine will of the majority" as a possible exception.
Now, the migraine is mellowing. Let me stretch further the kink then.
The quote goes on to declare that the Court is sure that any electoral protest should be acted upon immediately by saying "to be sure, an election controversy, which by its very nature touches upon the ascertainment of the people’s choice as gleaned from the medium of the ballot, should be resolved with utmost dispatch, precedence and regard to due process." Wait, isn’t this what it already said in the shorter preceding sentence?
Ouch! The migraine, the migraine.
Let me drop that paragraph and proceed to the next: "The considerations that dictate early on the expeditious disposition of election protests hold true today. The term of an elective office is short. There is the contestant’s personal stake which generates feuds and discords. Above all is the public interest. A title to public elective office must not be left long under a cloud."
I like halo-halo as refreshment as it combines assorted bits that, when orchestrated in the cold of crushed ice, transforms into gustatory delight. But isn’t the above-written variety a case of horrendous hodgepodge?
Still, let this layman strip the paragraph to its elements, with an advance plea for forgiveness in case I divert too much from the original intent of the quote, whatever the intent had been. The court seems to be saying that up to the present, it believes that electoral protests should be resolved soonest.
Now a frog leap: "The term of public officials is short". No explanation needed here, unless one is referring to the president whose term is six years. But trying to explain the next sentences intensifies migraine pain.
Understanding will be helped by revealing that the quoted paragraphs were from the resolution of the Supreme Court in dismissing the petition of Gov. Eddie Panlilio against the initial verdict of the Commission on Elections’ second division upholding the electoral protest of former provincial board member Lilia Pineda who claimed irregularities in the last gubernatorial post.
So word contestant in the second quoted paragraph must refer to Mrs. Pineda whose "personal stake…generates feuds and discords."
But never mind this. I just can’t squeeze out enough sense from it. Proceed to the next sentences: "Above all is the public interest. A title to public elective office must not be left long under a cloud." Cloud? Dark? Raining outside? My umbrella, my umbrella.
Oh. Blame the migrane.
