CASE 6.

Title:

LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., as the second nominee of CITIZENS BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION
(CIBAC), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents.

FACTS:

The Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) was one of the organized groups duly registered under
the party-list system of representation that manifested their intent to participate in the May 14, 2007
synchronized national and local elections. Together with its manifestation of intent to participate, CIBAC,
through its president, Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, submitted a list of five nominees from which its
representatives would be chosen should CIBAC obtain the required number of qualifying votes. The
nominees, in the order that their names appeared in the certificate of nomination dated March 29,
2007, were:

1. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva;

The nominees’ certificates of acceptance were attached to the certificate of nomination filed by CIBAC.
The list of nominees was later published in two newspapers of general circulation, The Philippine Star
News (sic) and The Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Prior to the elections, however, CIBAC, still through Villanueva, filed a certificate of nomination,
substitution and amendment of the list of nominees dated May 7, 2007,whereby it withdrew the
nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and substituted Armi Jane R. Borje as one of the nominees. The
amended list of nominees of CIBAC thus included:

1. Villanueva,
2. Cruz-Gonzales, and
3. Borje.

Election results showed that CIBAC was entitled to a second seat and that Lokin, as second nominee on
the original list, to a proclamation, which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales.

The COMELEC resolved the matter on the validity of the amendment of the list of nominees and the
withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. It approved the amendment of the list of
nominees with the new order as follows:

1. Emmanuel Joel Villanueva

Lokin filed a petition for mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC to proclaim him as the official
second nominee of CIBAC. Likewise, he filed another petition for certiorari assailing Section 13 of
Resolution No. 7804 alleging that it expanded Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 by allowing CIBAC to change
its nominees.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the controversy;

2. Whether or not Lokin is guilty of forum shopping;

3. Whether or not Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 is unconstitutional and violates the Party-List
System Act; and

4. Whether or not 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 polls.

RULING:

1. YES. The Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case. Lokin’s case is not an election protest
nor an action for quo warranto. Election protest is a contest between the defeated and the winning
candidates, based on the grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities, to determine who obtained
the higher number of votes entitling them to hold the office. On the other hand, a special civil
action for quo warranto questions the ineligibility of the winning candidate. This is a special civil
action for certiorari against the COMELEC to seek the review of the resolution of the COMELEC
in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution.
2. NO. Petitioner is not guilty of forum shopping because the filing of the action for certiorari and
the action for mandamus are based on different causes of action and the reliefs they sought were
different. Forum shopping consists of the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for
the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively to obtain a favorable judgment.
3. YES. The Court held that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 was invalid. The COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 7804 as an implementing rules and regulations in accordance with the provisions
of the Omnibus Election Code and the Party-List System Act. As an administrative agency, it
cannot amend an act of Congress nor issue IRRs that may enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions
of the law it administers and enforces. Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 provides that: Each registered
party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-five (45) days
before the election a list of names, not less than five (5), from which party-list representatives
shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who have given their consent in
writing may be named 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 shal be allowed after the same shall have
been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in
 writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitute nominee
shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives
who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned.
The above provision is clear and unambiguous and expresses a single and definite meaning, there
is no room for interpretation or construction but only for application. Section 8 clearly prohibits
the change of nominees and alteration of the order in the list of nominees’ names after submission
of the list to the COMELEC. It enumerates only three instances in which an organization can
substitute another person in place of the nominee whose name has been submitted to the
COMELEC : (1) when the nominee fies; (2) when the nominee withdraws in writing his
nomination; and (3) when the nominee becomes incapacitated. When the statute enumerates the
exception to the application of the general rule, the exceptions are strictly but reasonably
construed.
4. YES. Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded the exceptions under Section 8 of R.A. No.
7941 when it provided four instances by adding “nomination is withdrawn by the party” as
statutory ground for substituting a nominee. COMELEC had no authority to expand, extend, or
add anything to law it seeks to implement. An IRR should remain consistent with the law it
intends to carry out not override, supplant or modify it. An IRR adopted pursuant to the law is
itself law but in case of conflict between the law and the IRR, the law prevails. The petitions for
certiorari and mandamus were granted. Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 was declared invalid
and of no effect to the extent that it authorizes a party-list organization to withdraw its nomination
of a nominee once it has submitted the nomination to the COMELEC.