4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No.

180443

TodayisThursday,April20,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.Nos.17943132June22,2010

LUISK.LOKIN,JR.,asthesecondnomineeofCITIZENSBATTLEAGAINSTCORRUPTION(CIBAC),
Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONONELECTIONSandtheHOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVES,Respondents.

xx

G.R.No.180443

LUISK.LOKIN,JR.,Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONONELECTIONS(COMELEC),EMMANUELJOELJ.VILLANUEVA,CINCHONAC.GONZALES
andARMIJANER.BORJE,Respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

Theprincipalquestionposedintheseconsolidatedspecialcivilactionsforcertiorariandmandamusiswhetherthe
CommissiononElections(COMELEC)canissueimplementingrulesandregulations(IRRs)thatprovideaground
for the substitution of a partylist nominee not written in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941,1 otherwise known as the
PartyListSystemAct,thelawthattheCOMELECtherebyimplements.

CommonAntecedents

TheCitizensBattleAgainstCorruption(CIBAC)wasoneoftheorganizedgroupsdulyregisteredunderthepartylist
systemofrepresentationthatmanifestedtheirintenttoparticipateintheMay14,2007synchronizednationaland
localelections.Togetherwithitsmanifestationofintenttoparticipate,2CIBAC,throughitspresident,EmmanuelJoel
J.Villanueva,submittedalistoffivenomineesfromwhichitsrepresentativeswouldbechosenshouldCIBACobtain
therequirednumberofqualifyingvotes.Thenominees,intheorderthattheirnamesappearedinthecertificateof
nominationdatedMarch29,2007,3were:(1)EmmanuelJoelJ.Villanueva(2)hereinpetitionerLuisK.Lokin,Jr.
(3) Cinchona C. CruzGonzales (4) Sherwin Tugna and (5) Emil L. Galang. The nominees certificates of
acceptancewereattachedtothecertificateofnominationfiledbyCIBAC.Thelistofnomineeswaslaterpublished
intwonewspapersofgeneralcirculation,ThePhilippineStarNews4(sic)andThePhilippineDailyInquirer.5

Prior to the elections, however, CIBAC, still through Villanueva, filed a certificate of nomination, substitution and
amendmentofthelistofnomineesdatedMay7,2007,6wherebyitwithdrewthenominationsofLokin,Tugnaand
GalangandsubstitutedArmiJaneR.Borjeasoneofthenominees.TheamendedlistofnomineesofCIBACthus
included:(1)Villanueva,(2)CruzGonzales,and(3)Borje.

Followingthecloseofthepolls,oronJune20,2007,VillanuevasentalettertoCOMELECChairpersonBenjamin
Abalos,7transmittingtherewiththesignedpetitionsofmorethan81%oftheCIBACmembers,inordertoconfirm
the withdrawal of the nomination of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and the substitution of Borje. In their petitions, the
members of CIBAC averred that Lokin and Tugna were not among the nominees presented and proclaimed by
CIBACinitsproclamationrallyheldinMay2007andthatGalanghadsignifiedhisdesiretofocusonhisfamilylife.

OnJune26,2007,CIBAC,supposedlythroughitscounsel,filedwiththeCOMELECenbancsittingastheNational
BoardofCanvassersamotionseekingtheproclamationofLokinasitssecondnominee.8TherightofCIBACtoa
second seat as well as the right of Lokin to be thus proclaimed were purportedly based on PartyList Canvass
ReportNo.26,whichshowedCIBACtohavegarneredagrandtotalof744,674votes.Usingallrelevantformulas,
themotionassertedthatCIBACwasclearlyentitledtoasecondseatandLokintoaproclamation.

ThemotionwasopposedbyVillanuevaandCruzGonzales.

Notwithstanding Villanuevas filing of the certificate of nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of
nominees and the petitions of more than 81% of CIBAC members, the COMELEC failed to act on the matter,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 1/10
4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No. 180443
promptingVillanuevatofileapetitiontoconfirmthecertificateofnomination,substitutionandamendmentofthelist
ofnomineesofCIBAConJune28,2007.9

OnJuly6,2007,theCOMELECissuedResolutionNo.8219,10wherebyitresolvedtosetthematterpertainingto
thevalidityofthewithdrawalofthenominationsofLokin,TugnaandGalangandthesubstitutionofBorjeforproper
dispositionandhearing.ThecasewasdocketedasE.M.No.07054.

In the meantime, the COMELEC en banc, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, issued National Board of
Canvassers (NBC) Resolution No. 0760 dated July 9, 200711 to partially proclaim the following parties,
organizationsandcoalitionsparticipatingunderthePartyListSystemashavingwonintheMay14,2007elections,
namely:BuhayHayaanYumabong,BayanMuna,CIBAC,GabrielaWomen'sParty,AssociationofPhilippineElectric
Cooperatives, Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards
Educational Reforms, Inc., Akbayan! Citizen's Action Party, Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party, CooperativeNatco
NetworkParty,AnakPawis,AllianceofRuralConcernsandAbonoandtodefertheproclamationofthenominees
oftheparties,organizationsandcoalitionswithpendingdisputesuntilfinalresolutionoftheirrespectivecases.

TheCOMELECenbancissuedanotherresolution,NBCResolutionNo.0772datedJuly18,2007,12proclaiming
BuhayHayaanYumabongasentitledto2additionalseatsandBayanMuna,CIBAC,GabrielaWomen'sParty,and
AssociationofPhilippineElectricCooperativestoanadditionalseateachandholdinginabeyancetheproclamation
ofthenomineesofsaidparties,organizationsandcoalitionswithpendingdisputesuntilthefinalresolutionoftheir
respectivecases.

With the formal declaration that CIBAC was entitled to an additional seat, Ricardo de los Santos, purportedly as
secretarygeneralofCIBAC,informedRobertoP.Nazareno,SecretaryGeneraloftheHouseofRepresentatives,of
thepromulgationofNBCResolutionNo.0772andrequestedthatLokinbeformallysworninbySpeakerJosede
Venecia,Jr.toenablehimtoassumeoffice.Nazarenoreplied,however,thattherequestofDelosSantoscouldnot
begrantedbecauseCOMELECLawDirectorAliodenD.DalaighadnotifiedhimofthependencyofE.M.07054.

OnSeptember14,2007,theCOMELECenbancresolvedE.M.No.0705413thuswise:

WHEREFORE, considering the above discussion, the Commission hereby approves the withdrawal of the
nomination of Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Sherwin N. Tugna and Emil Galang as second, third and fourth nominees
respectivelyandthesubstitutiontherebywithAtty.CinchonaC.CruzGonzalesassecondnomineeandAtty.Armi
JaneR.BorjeasthirdnomineeforthepartylistCIBAC.TheneworderofCIBAC'snomineesthereforeshallbe:

1.EmmanuelJoelJ.Villanueva

2.CinchonaC.CruzGonzales

3.ArmiJaneR.Borje

SOORDERED.

The COMELEC enbanc explained that the actions of Villanueva in his capacity as the president of CIBAC were
presumedtobewithinthescopeofhisauthorityassuchthatthepresidentwaschargedbySection1ofArticleIVof
theCIBACByLawstooverseeanddirectthecorporateactivities,whichincludedtheactofsubmittingtheparty's
manifestationofintenttoparticipateintheMay14,2007electionsaswellasitscertificateofnomineesthatfromall
indications, Villanueva as the president of CIBAC had always been provided the leeway to act as the party's
representativeandthathisactionshadalwaysbeenconsideredasvalidthattheactofwithdrawal,althoughdone
withoutanywrittenBoardapproval,wasaccomplishedwiththeBoardsacquiescenceoratleastunderstandingand
thattheintentofthepartyshouldbegivenparamountconsiderationintheselectionofthenominees.

Asaresult,theCOMELECenbancproclaimedCruzGonzalesastheofficialsecondnomineeofCIBAC.14Cruz
Gonzalestookheroathofoffice

asaPartyListRepresentativeofCIBAConSeptember17,2007.15

PrecsoftheConsolidatedCases

In G.R. No. 179431 and G.R. No. 179432, Lokin seeks through mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC to
proclaimhimastheofficialsecondnomineeofCIBAC.

InG.R.No.180443,LokinassailsSection13ofResolutionNo.7804promulgatedonJanuary12,200716andthe
resolutiondatedSeptember14,2007issuedinE.M.No.07054(approvingCIBACswithdrawalofthenominations
ofLokin,TugnaandGalangasCIBACssecond,thirdandfourthnominees,respectively,andthesubstitutionby
CruzGonzalesandBorjeintheirstead,basedontherightofCIBACtochangeitsnomineesunderSection13of
ResolutionNo.7804).17HeallegesthatSection13ofResolutionNo.7804expandedSection8ofR.A.No.7941.18
thelawthattheCOMELECseekstotherebyimplement.

In its comment, the COMELEC asserts that a petition for certiorari is an inappropriate recourse in law due to the
proclamation of CruzGonzales as Representative and her assumption of that office that Lokins proper recourse
was an electoral protest filed in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and that, therefore, the
CourthasnojurisdictionoverthematterbeingraisedbyLokin.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 2/10
4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No. 180443
Foritspart,CIBACpositsthatLokinisguiltyofforumshoppingforfilingapetitionformandamusandapetitionfor
certiorari,consideringthatbothpetitionsultimatelyseektohavehimproclaimedasthesecondnomineeofCIBAC.

Issues

Theissuesarethefollowing:

(a)WhetherornottheCourthasjurisdictionoverthecontroversy

(b)WhetherornotLokinisguiltyofforumshopping

(c)WhetherornotSection13ofResolutionNo.7804isunconstitutionalandviolatesthePartyListSystem
Actand

(d) Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdictioninapprovingthewithdrawalofthenomineesofCIBACandallowingtheamendmentofthelistof
nomineesofCIBACwithoutanybasisinfactorlawandafterthecloseofthepolls,andinrulingonmatters
thatwereintracorporateinnature.

Ruling

Thepetitionsaregranted.

A
TheCourthasjurisdictionoverthecase

The COMELEC posits that once the proclamation of the winning partylist organization has been done and its
nomineehasassumedoffice,anyquestionrelatingtotheelection,returnsandqualificationsofthecandidatestothe
House of Representatives falls under the jurisdiction of the HRET pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.Thus,Lokinshouldraisethequestionheposeshereineitherinanelectionprotestorinaspecialcivil
actionforquowarrantointheHRET,notinaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariinthisCourt.

Wedonotagree.

Anelectionprotestproposestooustthewinningcandidatefromoffice.Itisstrictlyacontestbetweenthedefeated
andthewinningcandidates,basedonthegroundsofelectoralfraudsandirregularities,todeterminewhobetween
themhasactuallyobtainedthemajorityofthelegalvotescastandisentitledtoholdtheoffice.Itcanonlybefiledby
acandidatewhohasdulyfiledacertificateofcandidacyandhasbeenvotedforintheprecedingelections.

AspecialcivilactionforquowarrantoreferstoquestionsofdisloyaltytotheState,orofineligibilityofthewinning
candidate.Theobjectiveoftheactionistounseattheineligiblepersonfromtheoffice,butnottoinstallthepetitioner
inhisplace.Anyvotermayinitiatetheaction,whichis,strictlyspeaking,notacontestwherethepartiesstrivefor
supremacybecausethepetitionerwillnotbeseatedeveniftherespondentmaybeunseated.

ThecontroversyinvolvingLokinisneitheranelectionprotestnoranactionforquowarranto,foritconcernsavery
peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to be seated as the second nominee of CIBAC. Although an election
protestmayproperlybeavailabletoonepartylistorganizationseekingtounseatanotherpartylistorganizationto
determinewhichbetweenthedefeatedandthewinningpartylistorganizationsactuallyobtainedthemajorityofthe
legalvotes,Lokinscaseisnotoneinwhichanomineeofaparticularpartylistorganizationtherebywantstounseat
another nominee of the same partylist organization. Neither does an action for quowarrantolie, considering that
thecasedoesnotinvolvetheineligibilityanddisloyaltyofCruzGonzalestotheRepublicofthePhilippines,orsome
othercauseofdisqualificationforher.

Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action for certiorari against the COMELEC to seek the review of the
September 14, 2007 resolution of the COMELEC in accordance with Section 7 of Article IXA of the 1987
Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and assumption of office by CruzGonzales. The constitutional mandate is
nowimplementedbyRule64ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,whichprovidesforthereviewofthejudgments,
finalordersorresolutionsoftheCOMELECandtheCommissiononAudit.AsRule64states,themodeofreviewis
byapetitionforcertiorariinaccordancewithRule65tobefiledintheSupremeCourtwithinalimitedperiodof30
days. Undoubtedly, the Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokins petitions for certiorari and for
mandamusagainsttheCOMELEC.

B
Petitionerisnotguiltyofforumshopping

Forumshoppingconsistsofthefilingofmultiplesuitsinvolvingthesamepartiesforthesamecauseofaction,either
simultaneouslyorsuccessively,forthepurposeofobtainingafavorablejudgment.Thus,forumshoppingmayarise:
(a) whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by
appeal or certiorari) in another or (b) if, after having filed a petition in the Supreme Court, a party files another
petitionintheCourtofAppeals,becausehetherebydeliberatelysplitsappeals"inthehopethatevenasonecase
inwhichaparticularremedyissoughtisdismissed,anothercase(offeringasimilarremedy)wouldstillbeopen"or
(c)whereapartyattemptstoobtainawritofpreliminaryinjunctionfromacourtafterfailingtoobtainthewritfrom
anothercourt.19

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 3/10
4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No. 180443
Whatistrulyimportanttoconsiderindeterminingwhetherforumshoppingexistsornotisthevexationcausedtothe
courtsandthelitigantsbyapartywhoaccessesdifferentcourtsandadministrativeagenciestoruleonthesameor
related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of
conflictingdecisionsbeingrenderedbythedifferentforauponthesameissue.20

The filing of identical petitions in different courts is prohibited, because such act constitutes forum shopping, a
malpractice that is proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts and as abusing their processes. Forum
shoppingisanimproperconductthatdegradestheadministrationofjustice.21

Nonetheless, the mere filing of several cases based on the same incident does not necessarily constitute forum
shopping.Thetestiswhethertheseveralactionsfiledinvolvethesametransactionsandthesameessentialfacts
andcircumstances.22Theactionsmustalsoraiseidenticalcausesofaction,subjectmatter,andissues.23Elsewise
stated,forumshoppingexistswheretheelementsoflitispendentia are present, or where a final judgment in one
casewillamounttoresjudicataintheother.24

Lokin has filed the petition for mandamus to compel the COMELEC to proclaim him as the second nominee of
CIBACupontheissuanceofNBCResolutionNo.0772(announcingCIBACsentitlementtoanadditionalseatin
theHouseofRepresentatives),andtostrikedowntheprovisioninNBCResolutionNo.0760andNBCResolution
No.0772holdinginabeyance"allproclamationofthenomineesofconcernedparties,organizationsandcoalitions
with pending disputes shall likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases." He has
insistedthattheCOMELEChadtheministerialdutytoproclaimhimduetohisbeingCIBACssecondnomineeand
that the COMELEC had no authority to exercise discretion and to suspend or defer the proclamation of winning
partylistorganizationswithpendingdisputes.

Ontheotherhand,LokinhasresortedtothepetitionforcertioraritoassailtheSeptember14,2007resolutionofthe
COMELEC(approvingthewithdrawalofthenominationofLokin,TugnaandGalangandthesubstitutionbyCruz
Gonzales as the second nominee and Borje as the third nominee) and to challenge the validity of Section 13 of
ResolutionNo.7804,theCOMELECsbasisforallowingCIBACswithdrawalofLokinsnomination.

Applyingthetestforforumshopping,theconsecutivefilingoftheactionforcertiorariandtheactionformandamus
did not violate the rule against forum shopping even if the actions involved the same parties, because they were
basedondifferentcausesofactionandthereliefstheysoughtweredifferent.

C
InvalidityofSection13ofResolutionNo.7804

ThelegislativepoweroftheGovernmentisvestedexclusivelyintheLegislatureinaccordancewiththedoctrineof
separationofpowers.Asageneralrule,theLegislaturecannotsurrenderorabdicateitslegislativepower,fordoing
sowillbeunconstitutional.AlthoughthepowertomakelawscannotbedelegatedbytheLegislaturetoanyother
authority,apowerthatisnotlegislativeincharactermaybedelegated.25

Under certain circumstances, the Legislature can delegate to executive officers and administrative boards the
authoritytoadoptandpromulgateIRRs.Torendersuchdelegationlawful,theLegislaturemustdeclarethepolicyof
thelawandfixthelegalprinciplesthataretocontrolingivencases.TheLegislatureshouldsetadefiniteorprimary
standardtoguidethoseempoweredtoexecutethelaw.Foraslongasthepolicyislaiddownandaproperstandard
is established by statute, there can be no unconstitutional delegation of legislative power when the Legislature
leavestoselectedinstrumentalitiesthedutyofmakingsubordinateruleswithintheprescribedlimits,althoughthere
isconferredupontheexecutiveofficeroradministrativeboardalargemeasureofdiscretion.Thereisadistinction
betweenthedelegationofpowertomakealawandtheconfermentofanauthorityoradiscretiontobeexercised
underandinpursuanceofthelaw,forthepowertomakelawsnecessarilyinvolvesadiscretionastowhatitshall
be.26

The authority to make IRRs in order to carry out an express legislative purpose, or to effect the operation and
enforcementofalawisnotapowerexclusivelylegislativeincharacter,butisratheradministrativeinnature.The
rulesandregulationsadoptedandpromulgatedmustnot,however,subvertorbecontrarytoexistingstatutes.The
functionofpromulgatingIRRsmaybelegitimatelyexercisedonlyforthepurposeofcarryingouttheprovisionsofa
law.Thepowerofadministrativeagenciesisconfinedtoimplementingthelaworputtingitintoeffect.Corollaryto
thisisthatadministrativeregulationcannotextendthelawandamendalegislativeenactment.Itisaxiomaticthat
the clear letter of the law is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule issued for its
implementation.Indeed,administrativeorexecutiveactsshallbevalidonlywhentheyarenotcontrarytothelawsor
theConstitution.27

Tobevalid,therefore,theadministrativeIRRsmustcomplywiththefollowingrequisitestobevalid:28

1.ItspromulgationmustbeauthorizedbytheLegislature

2.ItmustbewithinthescopeoftheauthoritygivenbytheLegislature

3.Itmustbepromulgatedinaccordancewiththeprescribedprocedureand

4.Itmustbereasonable.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 4/10
4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No. 180443
The COMELEC is constitutionally mandated to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, a plebiscite, an initiative, a referendum, and a recall.29 In addition to the powers and
functionsconferreduponitbytheConstitution,theCOMELECisalsochargedtopromulgateIRRsimplementingthe
provisionsoftheOmnibusElectionCodeorotherlawsthattheCOMELECenforcesandadministers.30

The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7804 pursuant to its powers under the Constitution, Batas Pambansa Blg.
881,andthePartyListSystemAct.31Hence,theCOMELECmetthefirstrequisite.

The COMELEC also met the third requisite. There is no question that Resolution No. 7804 underwent the
procedural necessities of publication and dissemination in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the
resolutionitself.

WhetherSection13ofResolutionNo.7804wasvalidornotisthustobetestedonthebasisofwhetherthesecond
andfourthrequisitesweremet.ItisinthisrespectthatthechallengeofLokinagainstSection13succeeds.

Asearliersaid,thedelegatedauthoritymustbeproperlyexercised.ThissimplymeansthattheresultingIRRsmust
not be ultra vires as to be issued beyond the limits of the authority conferred. It is basic that an administrative
agencycannotamendanactofCongress,32foradministrativeIRRsaresolelyintendedtocarryout,nottosupplant
ortomodify,thelaw.TheadministrativeagencyissuingtheIRRsmaynotenlarge,alter,orrestricttheprovisionsof
thelawitadministersandenforces,andcannotengraftadditionalnoncontradictoryrequirementsnotcontemplated
bytheLegislature.33

Section8ofR.A.No.7941reads:

Section8.NominationofPartyListRepresentatives.Eachregisteredparty,organizationorcoalitionshallsubmitto
theCOMELECnotlaterthatfortyfive(45)daysbeforetheelectionalistofnames,notlessthanfive(5),fromwhich
partylistrepresentativesshallbechosenincaseitobtainstherequirednumberofvotes.

Apersonmaybenominatedinone(1)listonly.Onlypersonswhohavegiventheirconsentinwritingmaybenamed
in the list. The list shall not include any candidate of any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an
elective office in the immediately preceding election. No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees
shallbeallowedafterthesameshallhavebeensubmittedtotheCOMELECexceptincaseswherethenominee
dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitute
nomineeshallbeplacedlastinthelist.IncumbentsectoralrepresentativesintheHouseofRepresentativeswhoare
nominatedinthepartylistsystemshallnotbeconsideredresigned.

Theprovisionisdaylightclear.TheLegislaturetherebydeprivedthepartylistorganizationoftherighttochangeits
nominees or to alter the order of nominees once the list is submitted to the COMELEC, except when: (a) the
nomineedies(b)thenomineewithdrawsinwritinghisnominationor(c)thenomineebecomesincapacitated.The
provision must be read literally because its language is plain and free from ambiguity, and expresses a single,
definite,andsensiblemeaning.SuchmeaningisconclusivelypresumedtobethemeaningthattheLegislaturehas
intended to convey. Even where the courts should be convinced that the Legislature really intended some other
meaning, and even where the literal interpretation should defeat the very purposes of the enactment, the explicit
declarationoftheLegislatureisstillthelaw,fromwhichthecourtsmustnotdepart.34Whenthelawspeaksinclear
and categorical language, there is no reason for interpretation or construction, but only for application.35
Accordingly,anadministrativeagencytaskedtoimplementastatutemaynotconstrueitbyexpandingitsmeaning
whereitsprovisionsareclearandunambiguous.36

Thelegislativeintenttodeprivethepartylistorganizationoftherighttochangethenomineesortoaltertheorderof
thenomineeswasalsoexpressedduringthedeliberationsoftheCongress,viz:

MR.LAGMAN:AndagainonSection5,onthenominationofpartylistrepresentatives,Idonotseeanyprovision
herewhichprohibitsorforthatmatterallowsthenominatingpartytochangethenomineesortoaltertheorderof
prioritizationofnamesofnominees.Istheimplicationcorrectthatatanytimeaftersubmissionthenamescouldstill
bechangedorthelistingaltered?

MR.ABUEG:Mr.Speaker,thatisagoodissuebroughtoutbythedistinguishedGentlemanfromAlbayandperhaps
aperfectingamendmentmaybeintroducedtherein.Thesponsoringcommitteewillgladlyconsiderthesame.

MR.LAGMAN:Inotherwords,whatIwouldliketoseeisthatafterthelistissubmittedtotheCOMELECofficially,
nomorechangesshouldbemadeinthenamesorintheorderoflisting.

MR.ABUEG:Mr.Speaker,theremaybeasituationwhereinthenameofaparticularnomineehasbeensubmitted
to the Commission on Elections but before election day the nominee changed his political party affiliation. The
nomineeisthereforenolongerqualifiedtobeincludedinthepartylistandthepoliticalpartyhasaperfectrightto
changethenameofthatnomineewhochangedhispoliticalpartyaffiliation.

MR.LAGMAN:Yesofcourse.In that particular case, the change can be effected but will be the exception rather
thantherule.Anotherexceptionmostprobablyisthenomineedies,thentherehastobeachangebutanychange
for that matter should always be at the last part of the list so that the prioritization made by the party will not be
adverselyaffected.37

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 5/10
4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No. 180443
Theusageof"No"inSection8"Nochangeofnamesoralterationoftheorderofnomineesshallbeallowedafter
the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in
writinghisnomination,orbecomesincapacitated,inwhichcasethenameofthesubstitutenomineeshallbeplaced
last in the list" renders Section 8 a negative law, and is indicative of the legislative intent to make the statute
mandatory. Prohibitive or negative words can rarely, if ever, be directory, for there is but one way to obey the
command "thou shall not," and that is to completely refrain from doing the forbidden act,38 subject to certain
exceptionsstatedinthelawitself,likeinthiscase.

Section8doesnotundulydeprivethepartylistorganizationofitsrighttochooseitsnominees,butmerelydivestsit
oftherighttochangeitsnomineesortoaltertheorderinthelistofitsnomineesnamesaftersubmissionofthelist
totheCOMELEC.

Theprohibitionisnotarbitraryorcapriciousneitherisitwithoutreasononthepartoflawmakers.TheCOMELEC
canrightlypresumefromthesubmissionofthelistthatthelistreflectsthetruewillofthepartylistorganization.The
COMELEC will not concern itself with whether or not the list contains the real intended nominees of the partylist
organization, but will only determine whether the nominees pass all the requirements prescribed by the law and
whetherornotthenomineespossessallthequalificationsandnoneofthedisqualifications.Thereafter,thenames
ofthenomineeswillbepublishedinnewspapersofgeneralcirculation.Althoughthepeoplevoteforthepartylist
organizationitselfinapartylistsystemofelection,notfortheindividualnominees,theystillhavetherighttoknow
whothenomineesofanyparticularpartylistorganizationare.Thepublicationofthelistofthepartylistnomineesin
newspapers of general circulation serves that right of the people, enabling the voters to make intelligent and
informedchoices.Incontrast,allowingthepartylistorganizationtochangeitsnomineesthroughwithdrawaloftheir
nominations, or to alter the order of the nominations after the submission of the list of nominees circumvents the
voters demand for transparency. The lawmakers exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal has eliminated the
possibilityofsuchcircumvention.

D
ExceptionsinSection8ofR.A.7941areexclusive

Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 enumerates only three instances in which the partylist organization can substitute
anotherpersoninplaceofthenomineewhosenamehasbeensubmittedtotheCOMELEC,namely:(a)whenthe
nominee dies (b) when the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination and (c) when the nominee becomes
incapacitated.

Theenumerationisexclusive,for,necessarily,thegeneralruleappliestoallcasesnotfallingunderanyofthethree
exceptions.

Whenthestatuteitselfenumeratestheexceptionstotheapplicationofthegeneralrule,theexceptionsarestrictly
butreasonablyconstrued.Theexceptionsextendonlyasfarastheirlanguagefairlywarrants,andalldoubtsshould
beresolvedinfavorofthegeneralprovisionratherthantheexceptions.Wherethegeneralruleisestablishedbya
statutewithexceptions,nonebuttheenactingauthoritycancurtailtheformer.Noteventhecourtsmayaddtothe
latter by implication, and it is a rule that an express exception excludes all others, although it is always proper in
determiningtheapplicabilityoftheruletoinquirewhether,inaparticularcase,itaccordswithreasonandjustice.39 1avvphi1

Theappropriateandnaturalofficeoftheexceptionistoexemptsomethingfromthescopeofthegeneralwordsofa
statute,whichisotherwisewithinthescopeandmeaningofsuchgeneralwords.Consequently,theexistenceofan
exceptioninastatuteclarifiestheintentthatthestatuteshallapplytoallcasesnotexcepted.Exceptionsaresubject
totheruleofstrictconstructionhence,anydoubtwillberesolvedinfavorofthegeneralprovisionandagainstthe
exception. Indeed, the liberal construction of a statute will seem to require in many circumstances that the
exception,bywhichtheoperationofthestatuteislimitedorabridged,shouldreceivearestrictedconstruction.

E
Section13ofResolutionNo.7804expanded
theexceptionsunderSection8ofR.A.No.7941

Section13ofResolutionNo.7804states:

Section 13. Substitution of nominees. A partylist nominee may be substituted only when he dies, or his
nomination is withdrawn by the party, or he becomes incapacitated to continue as such, or he withdraws
hisacceptancetoanomination.Inanyofthesecases,thenameofthesubstitutenomineeshallbeplacedlastin
thelistofnominees.

Nosubstitutionshallbeallowedbyreasonofwithdrawalafterthepolls.

Unlike Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941, the foregoing regulation provides four instances, the fourth being when the
"nominationiswithdrawnbytheparty."

LokininsiststhattheCOMELECgravelyabuseditsdiscretioninexpandingtofourthethreestatutorygroundsfor
substitutinganominee.

WeagreewithLokin.

TheCOMELEC,despiteitsroleastheimplementingarmoftheGovernmentintheenforcementandadministration
of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,40 has neither the authority nor the license to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 6/10
4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No. 180443
expand,extend,oraddanythingtothelawitseekstoimplementthereby.TheIRRstheCOMELECissuesforthat
purposeshouldalwaysaccordwiththelawtobeimplemented,andshouldnotoverride,supplant,ormodifythelaw.
ItisbasicthattheIRRsshouldremainconsistentwiththelawtheyintendtocarryout.41

Indeed,administrativeIRRsadoptedbyaparticulardepartmentoftheGovernmentunderlegislativeauthoritymust
be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying the laws general
provisionsintoeffect.ThelawitselfcannotbeexpandedbysuchIRRs,becauseanadministrativeagencycannot
amendanactofCongress.42

TheCOMELECexplainsthatSection13ofResolutionNo.7804hasaddednothingtoSection8ofR.A.No.7941,43
becauseithasmerelyrewordedandrephrasedthestatutoryprovisionsphraseology.

Theexplanationdoesnotpersuade.

To reword means to alter the wording of or to restate in other words to rephrase is to phrase anew or in a new
form.44Bothtermssignifythatthemeaningoftheoriginalwordorphraseisnotaltered.

However, the COMELEC did not merely reword or rephrase the text of Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941, because it
establishedanentirelynewgroundnotfoundinthetextoftheprovision.Thenewgroundgrantedtothepartylist
organizationtheunilateralrighttowithdrawitsnominationalreadysubmittedtotheCOMELEC,whichSection8of
R.A.No.7941didnotallowtobedone.Neitherwasthegrantoftheunilateralrightcontemplatedbythedraftersof
thelaw,whopreciselydeniedtherighttowithdrawthenomination(asthequotedrecordofthedeliberationsofthe
House of Representatives has indicated). The grant thus conflicted with the statutory intent to save the nominee
fromfallingunderthewhimofthepartylistorganizationoncehisnamehasbeensubmittedtotheCOMELEC,and
tosparetheelectoratefromthecapriciousnessofthepartylistorganizations.

WefurthernotethatthenewgroundwouldnotsecuretheobjectofR.A.No.7941ofdevelopingandguaranteeinga
full, free and open partylist electoral system. The success of the system could only be ensured by avoiding any
arbitrariness on the part of the partylist organizations, by seeing to the transparency of the system, and by
guaranteeing that the electorate would be afforded the chance of making intelligent and informed choices of their
partylistrepresentatives.

Theinsertionofthenewgroundwasinvalid.Anaxiominadministrativelawpostulatesthatadministrativeauthorities
should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of their IRRs, but must ensure that their IRRs are
reasonableandfairlyadaptedtosecuretheendinview.IftheIRRsareshowntobearnoreasonablerelationtothe
purposesforwhichtheywereauthorizedtobeissued,theymustbeheldtobeinvalidandshouldbestruckdown.45

F
EffectofpartialnullityofSection13ofResolutionNo.7804

AnIRRadoptedpursuanttothelawisitselflaw.46IncaseofconflictbetweenthelawandtheIRR,thelawprevails.
TherecanbenoquestionthatanIRRoranyofitspartsnotadoptedpursuanttothelawisnolawatallandhas
neithertheforcenortheeffectoflaw.47Theinvalidrule,regulation,orpartthereofcannotbeavalidsourceofany
right,obligation,orpower.

Considering that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 to the extent that it allows the partylist organization to
withdrawitsnominationalreadysubmittedtotheCOMELECwasinvalid,CIBACswithdrawalofitsnominationof
Lokin and the others and its substitution of them with new nominees were also invalid and ineffectual. It is clear
enoughthatanysubstitutionofLokinandtheotherscouldonlybeforanyofthegroundsexpresslystatedinSection
8ofR.A.No.7941.Resultantly,theCOMELECsapprovalofCIBACspetitionofwithdrawalofthenominationsand
its recognition of CIBACs substitution, both through its assailed September 14, 2007 resolution, should be struck
downforlackoflegalbasis.Thereby,theCOMELECactedwithoutjurisdiction,havingreliedontheinvalidlyissued
Section13ofResolutionNo.7804tosupportitsaction.

WHEREFORE,wegrantthepetitionsforcertiorariandmandamus.

We declare Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 invalid and of no effect to the extent that it authorizes a partylist
organizationtowithdrawitsnominationofanomineeonceithassubmittedthenominationtotheCommissionon
Elections.

Accordingly,weannulandsetaside:

(a)TheresolutiondatedSeptember14,2007issuedinE.M.No.07054approvingCitizensBattleAgainst
Corruptions withdrawal of the nominations of Luis K. Lokin, Jr., Sherwin N. Tugna, and Emil Galang as its
second, third, and fourth nominees, respectively, and ordering their substitution by Cinchona C. Cruz
GonzalesassecondnomineeandArmiJaneR.Borjeasthirdnomineeand

(b) The proclamation by the Commission on Elections of Cinchona C. CruzGonzales as a PartyList

RepresentativerepresentingCitizensBattleAgainstCorruptionintheHouseofRepresentatives.

We order the Commission on Elections to forthwith proclaim petitioner Luis K. Lokin, Jr. as a PartyList
RepresentativerepresentingCitizensBattleAgainstCorruptionintheHouseofRepresentatives.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 7/10
4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No. 180443
Wemakenopronouncementsoncostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR. ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

(OnLeave)
JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
DecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes

1EntitledAnActProvidingfortheElectionofPartyListRepresentativesthroughthePartyListSystem,and
AppropriatingFundsTherefor.
2Rollo,G.R.No.179431andNo.179432,pp.7475.

3Id.,p.76.

4Id.,p.90.

5Id.,p.89.

6Id.,pp.9192.

7Id.,pp.93196.

8Id.,pp.5155.

9Id.,pp.197200.

10Id.,pp.6871.

11Id.,pp.3742.

12Id.,pp.4347.

13Id.,pp.243260.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 8/10
4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No. 180443
14Id.,p.324.

15Id.,p.325.

16 Entitled Rules and Regulations Governing the Filing of Manifestation of Intent to Participate, and
SubmissionofNamesofNomineesUnderthePartyListSystemofRepresentation,inConnectionwiththe14
May2007SynchronizedNationalandLocalElections.

17Rollo,G.R.No.180443,pp.6582.

18EntitledAnActProvidingfortheElectionofPartyListRepresentativesthroughthePartyListSystem,and
AppropriatingFundsTherefor.
19ExecutiveSecretaryv.Gordon,G.R.No.134171,November18,1998,298SCRA736.

20 First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115849, January 24, 1996, 252 SCRA
259.
21 Bugnay Construction and Development Corporation v. Laron, G.R. No. 79983, August 10, 1989, 176
SCRA240.
22Paredes,Jr.v.Sandiganbayan,SecondDivision,G.R.No.108251,January31,1996,252SCRA641.

23 International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.116910,October18,1995,

249SCRA389.

24Buanv.Lopez,Jr.,G.R.No.L75349,October13,1986,145SCRA34.

25Crawford,Earl.T.,TheConstructionofStatutes,ThomasLawBookCompany,St.Louis,Missouri,pp.24
25(1940).
26Id.,pp.2930.

27 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission, G.R. No.
144322,February6,2007,514SCRA346,349350.
28Cruz,PhilippineAdministrativeLaw,pp.5051(2007).

291987Constitution,ArticleIXC,Section2(1).

30BatasPambansaBilang881,ArticleVII,Section52(c).

31ThePartyListSystemAct(R.A.No.7941)provides:

Section18.RulesandRegulations.TheCOMELECshallpromulgatethenecessaryrulesandregulationsas
maybenecessarytocarryoutthepurposesofthisact.

32 BoieTakeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna, G.R. Nos. 92174 and 102552, December 10, 1993, 228
SCRA329.

33PilipinasKao,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.105014,December18,2001,372SCRA548,551552
CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.CentralLuzonDrugCorporation,G.R.No.159647,April15,2005,456
SCRA414,441.

34Black,ConstructionandInterpretationofLaws,2ndEdition,p.45.

35LandBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.118712and118745,July5,1996,258SCRA
404.
36Agpalo,StatutoryConstruction,p.65(5thed.,2003).

37RecordoftheDeliberationsoftheHouseofRepresentatives,3rdRegularSession(19941995),VolumeIII,
November22,1994,p.336.
38McGeev.Republic,94Phil.820(1954).

39Salaysayv.Castro,98Phil.364(1956).

40Section2(1)ofArticleIXCofthe1987Constitution.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 9/10
4/20/2017 G.R. No. 179431-32 and G.R. No. 180443
41Romulo,Mabanta,Buenaventura,SayocandDelosAngelesv.HomeDevelopmentMutualFund,G.R.No.
131082,June19,2000,333SCRA777.

42CebuOxygen&AcetyleneCo.,Inc.v.Drilon,G.R.No.82849,August2,1989,176SCRA24,29.

43Rollo,p.509.

44Webster'sThirdNewInternationalDictionary.

45Lupangcov.CourtofAppeals,No.L77372,April29,1988,160SCRA848,858859.

46BancoFilipinoSavingsandMortgageBankv.Navarro,No.L46591,July28,1987,152SCRA346.

47CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.CentralLuzonDrugCorporation,supra,note33.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html 10/10