Expressio unius est exclusion alterius

The express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.

G.R. No. : 146943
Date : October 4, 2002
Petitioner : Sario Malinias
Respondents : COMELEC, Teofilo Corpuz, Anacleto Tangilag and Victor Dominguez

FACTS:
Petitioners Sario Malinias and Roy Pilando were candidates for governor and congress representatives
respectively during the May 15, 1998 elections in Mountain Province. Petitioners filed a complaint with COMELEC
against private respondents Governor Dominguez, and Provincial Director Corpuz and Police Chief Tangilag for
alleged violations of:
Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6646 and,
Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881, respectively.

Petitioners alleged that on May 15, 1998, an illegal police checkpoint set-up at Nacagang, Sabangan,
Mountain Province blocked their supporters who were on their way to Bontoc Provincial Capitol Building where
the canvassing was being held. They likewise alleged that the Provincial Board of Canvassers never allowed the
canvassing to be made public and consented to the exclusion of the public or representatives of other candidates
except those of Dominguez.

To support their claims, their supporters executed so-called mass affidavits asserting that private
respondents:
(1) prevented them from attending the provincial canvassing,
(2) padlocked the canvassing area, and
(3) threatened the people who wanted to enter the canvassing room.

Private respondents submitted counter-affidavit stating that the checkpoint was not alone in the whole
province and that it was set-up to enforce COMELECs gun ban and upon learning that there were groups who
were out to disrupt the canvass proceedings which usually happens in the province during election.

After investigation was conducted, the COMELEC En Banc dismissed the case against the private
respondents for lack of probable cause.

ISSUE:
Can COMELEC prosecute private respondents for alleged violation of Sections 25 of RA 6646 and 232 of
B.P. Blg. 881?

HELD:

No. The alleged violation of the respondents of Sec. 25 of R.A. 6646 and Sec. 232 of B.P. Blg. No. 881 are
not included in the acts defined as punishable criminal election offenses under Sec. 27 of R.A. 6646 and Sec. 261
and 262 of B.P. Blg. No. 881, respectively.

The COMELEC and private respondents overlooked that Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not one of the
election offenses explicitly enumerated in Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881. While Section 232 categorically
states that it is unlawful for the persons referred therein to enter the canvassing room, this act is not one of the
election offenses criminally punishable under Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881. Thus, the act involved in
Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not punishable as a criminal election offense. Though not a criminal election offense,
a violation of Section 232 certainly warrants, after proper hearing, the imposition of administrative penalties.

Under the rule of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, there is no ground to
order the COMELEC to prosecute private respondents for alleged violation of Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 precisely
because this is a non-criminal act.

It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or
consequence implies the exclusion of all others.

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in anumber of ways. One variation of the
rule is the principle that what is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. Expressium facitcessare tacitum.
Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to other matters