G.R. Nos. 179431-32 and G.R. No.

180443
June 22, 2010

Petitioner: LUIS K. LOKIN, JR.,

Respondents: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), EMMANUEL JOEL J.

VILLANUEVA, CINCHONA C. GONZALES and ARMI JANE R. BORJE

Summary:

Petitioner Lokin filed two cases against respondents COMELEC, Villanueva, Gonzales, and Borja:
a mandamus to COMELEC to proclaim petitioner as second nominee for CIBAC under NBC
Resolution No. 07-72 (CIBAC’s entitlement to an additional seat in the House of Representatives)
and strike provisions in NBC Resolutions No. 07-60 and No. 07-72 stating that "all proclamation
of the nominees of concerned parties, organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall
likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.", and a civil action for
certiorari for the review of Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 (IRR) against Section 8 of R.A. No.
7941 (Partylist Act) in the Supreme Court through Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987
Constitution.

Prior to discussion of constitutional matters/delegation of powers are two questions:

The respondents questioned the jurisdiction of Supreme Court in deciding matters on Partylist
elections stating that cases concerning such shall be filed with the HRET under election protest
or quo warranto. SC upheld that the said actions are for ousting a winning candidate by the
defeated one, and for questions of disloyalty to the state, respectively. This also follows Section
7 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution which states that “Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy
thereof.” Hence, the action for certiorari is proper.

The second is forum shopping which was denied by SC because the cases filed, despite having
the same facts and parties, differ in causes of action.

The petition in this case were both granted by the Supreme Court.

Doctrine:

Separation of powers specifically on legislative power and its delegation to the executive
in matters concerning the enactment of laws through Implementing Rules and Regulations.

“Legislature can delegate to executive officers and administrative boards the authority to
adopt and promulgate IRRs. To render such delegation lawful, the Legislature must declare
the policy of the law and fix the legal principles that are to control in given cases. The
Legislature should set a definite or primary standard to guide those empowered to execute
the law.”
Facts:

1. As required by the Partylist Act, the Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) manifested
their intent to participate in the May 14, 2007 elections accompanied by a list of five nominees
including certificates of acceptance which were attached to the certificate of nomination filed
by CIBAC. The nominees were: (1) Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva; (2) herein petitioner Luis K.
Lokin, Jr.; (3) Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales; (4) Sherwin Tugna; and (5) Emil L. Galang.
2. Prior to the elections, CIBAC through Villanueva, filed a certificate of nomination, substitution
and amendment of the list of nominees. The amended list of nominees of CIBAC thus included:
(1) Villanueva, (2) Cruz-Gonzales, and (3) Borje.
3. Following the close of the polls, Villanueva sent signed petitions of more than 81% of the
CIBAC members confirming the withdrawal of the nomination of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and
the substitution of Borje citing that Lokin and Tugna were not proclaimed and Galang had
signified his desire to focus on his family life.
4. On June 26, 2007, CIBAC, supposedly through its counsel, filed with the COMELEC en banc
sitting as the National Board of Canvassers a motion seeking the proclamation of Lokin as its
second nominee which they got for having gotten the required number of votes for a second
seat in the House.
5. The motion was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales.
6. On July 6, 2007, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8219 to set the matter pertaining to the
validity of the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and the substitution
of Borje for proper disposition and hearing.
7. COMELEC en banc resolved E.M. No. 07-05413, approving the withdrawal of the nomination
of Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Sherwin N. Tugna and Emil Galang and substitution of Atty. Cinchona
C. Cruz-Gonzales.
8. Lokin seeks through mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC to proclaim him as the
official second nominee of CIBAC. Lokin assails Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804
promulgated on January 12, 2007;16 and the resolution dated September 14, 2007 issued in
E.M. No. 07-054 (approving CIBAC’s withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and
Galang as CIBAC’s second, third and fourth nominees, respectively, and the substitution by
Cruz-Gonzales and Borje in their stead, based on the right of CIBAC to change its nominees
under Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804).
9. Lokin also alleges that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded Section 8 of R.A. No.
7941.18.

Issue:

1. WON Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941.18.

2. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in approving the withdrawal of the nominees of CIBAC and allowing the
amendment of the list of nominees of CIBAC without any basis in fact or law and after
the close of the polls, and in ruling on matters that were intra-corporate in nature.

Decision:

1. Yes. The Section 13 of the IRR expanded the exemptions present in the Party-List System
Act by adding one more provision:
 Section 13. Substitution of nominees. – A party-list 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 his acceptance to a nomination.

COMELEC’s defense states that it is merely a rewording does not suffice because verbal
legis, the text rules on how the law is to be understood. The addition of a fourth, separated
clause, is not rephrasing especially that it has different meaning when construed textually.

SC: “Indeed, administrative IRRs adopted by a particular department of the Government

under legislative authority must be in harmony with the provisions of the law and should
be for the sole purpose of carrying the law’s general provisions into effect. The law itself
cannot be expanded by such IRRs, because an administrative agency cannot amend
an act of Congress.”

On IRRs:
a. Its promulgation must be authorized by the Legislature;
b. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the Legislature;
c. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; and
d. It must be reasonable.

2. Yes. Following the doctrine that: An IRR adopted pursuant to the law is itself law.
“In case of conflict between the law and the IRR, the law prevails. There can be no question
that an IRR or any of its parts not adopted pursuant to the law is no law at all and has
neither the force nor the effect of law.47 The invalid rule, regulation, or part thereof cannot
be a valid source of any right, obligation, or power.
Considering that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 – to the extent that it allows the party-
list organization to withdraw its nomination already submitted to the COMELEC – was
invalid, CIBAC’s withdrawal of its nomination of Lokin and the others and its substitution
of them with new nominees were also invalid and ineffectual. It is clear enough that any
substitution of Lokin and the others could only be for any of the grounds expressly stated
in Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941. Resultantly, the COMELEC’s approval of CIBAC’s petition
of withdrawal of the nominations and its recognition of CIBAC’s substitution, both through
its assailed September 14, 2007 resolution, should be struck down for lack of legal basis.
Thereby, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction, having relied on the invalidly issued
Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 to support its action.” (Bersamin, 2010)