LABOR | 2 - SANCHEZ ROMAN 1
Amores v HRET 3. In the matter of private respondent’s shift of affiliation
Digest by: Louis F. Palma Gil | G.R. No. 189600. June 29, 2010.
PARTIES: MILAGROS E. AMORES, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and EMMANUEL
JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, respondents
NATURE OF THE CASE: PETITION for review on certiorari of
the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
This case involves a petition for Quo Warranto which was filed
by Amores against Villanueva contending that he is not
eligible as a candidate for CIBAC Party List group because he
is 31 years of age (in violation of Sec 9 of RA 7941) and he
changed sectoral affiliation within 6 months prior to the
elections (in violation of Sec 15 of RA 7941); The Court held
that the HRET was in error in dismissing the case for indeed
Villanueva is not qualified to be a candidate;
FACTS:
Amores filed a petition for Quo Warranto against Villanueva
claiming that he is not eligible to assume office as
representative of the Citizen;s Battle Against Corruption
(CIBAC) Party List in the House of Representatives; Amores cites
three (3) grounds:
1. Villanueva assumed office without a formal
proclamation issued by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC);
2. he was disqualified to be a nominee of the youth
sector of CIBAC since, at the time of the filing of his
certificates of nomination and acceptance, he was
already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30
pursuant to Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941,
otherwise known as the Party-List System Act
3. his change of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to
its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector
was not effected at least six months prior to the May
14, 2007 elections so as to be qualified to represent
the new sector under Section 15 of RA No. 7941.
The HRET dismissed the case claiming that:
1. finding that CIBAC was among the party-list
organizations which the COMELEC had partially
proclaimed as entitled to at least one seat in the
House of Representatives through National Board of
Canvassers (NBC) Resolution No. 07-60 dated July 9,
2007.
2. public respondent held that it applied only to those
nominated as such during the first three congressional
terms after the ratification of the Constitution or until
1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter registered
exclusively as representing the youth sector, which
CIBAC, a multisectoral organization, is not.
from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino
workers and their families sector, public respondent
held that Section 15 of RA No. 7941 did not apply as
there was no resultant change in party-list affiliation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Quo Warranto against Villanueva
should be granted (YES)
RULING:
The Court initially ruled that the petition should have been
dismissed for being filed out of time; however the Court
overlooked this technicality and rules still on the merits of the
case;
Anent the Age Requirement (Sec. 4 of RA 7941)
“Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees.—No
person shall be nominated as party-list representative
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a
period of not less than one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election, able to read and
write, a bona fide member of the party or organization
which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90)
days preceding the day of the election, and is at least
twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the
election. In case of a , he must at least be twenty-five
(25) but 30 . Any youth sectoral representative who
attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be
allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his
term.”
It is not correct to apply section 9 to youth nominees only
of the 1st 3 congressional terms – Contention of HRET IS
WRONG.
There is thus no reason to apply Section 9 thereof only to youth
sector nominees nominated during the first three congressional
terms after the ratification of the Constitution in 1987. Under
this interpretation, the last elections where Section 9 applied
were held in May, 1995 or two months after the law was
enacted. This is certainly not sound legislative intent, and could
not have been the objective of RA No. 7941.
Anent Change of Sectoral affiliation
“Section 15. Change of Affiliation; ffect.—Any elected
partylist representative who changes his during his
term of office shall forfeit his seat: Provided, That if he
changes his within six (6) months before an election,
he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list
representative under his new party or organization.”
aaaaaa
 LABOR | 2 - SANCHEZ ROMAN 2

Hence, a nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within

the same party will only be eligible for nomination under the
new sectoral affiliation if the change has been effected at least
six months before the elections.

In this case;

The records disclose that private respondent was already more

than 30 years of age in May, 2007, it being stipulated that he
was born in August, 1975. Moreover, he did not change his
sectoral affiliation at least six months before May, 2007, public
respondent itself having found that he shifted to CIBAC’s
overseas Filipino workers and their families sector only on
March 17, 2007.

Anent contention that he was 1st nominee the same is of no

moment since such is only a ranking and has nothing to do
with his qualifications;

That private respondent is the first nominee of CIBAC, whose

victory was later upheld, is of no moment. A partylist
organization’s ranking of its nominees is a mere indication of
preference, their qualifications according to law are a different
matter.

He is still entitled to emoluments for service rendered

It not being contested, however, that private respondent was

eventually proclaimed as a party-list representative of CIBAC
and rendered services as such, he is entitled to keep the
compensation and emoluments provided by law for the
position until he is properly declared ineligible to hold the
same.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May

14, 2009 and Resolution No. 09-130 dated August 6, 2009 of
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are SET ASIDE.
Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva is declared ineligible to hold office
as a member of the House of Representatives representing the
party-list organization CIBAC. SO ORDERED.

aaaaaa
 LABOR | 2 - SANCHEZ ROMAN 3

Rivera and Lokin v Comelec for quo warranto under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, docketed
Digest by: Louis F. Palma Gil | G.R. No. 210273. April 19, 2016. as G.R. No. 213069, filed by CIBAC Foundation, Inc. against the
& G.R. No. 213069. April 19, 2016
CIBAC National Council and COMELEC.

PARTIES: On February 10, 2001, CIBAC was registered as a multisectoral

BIBIANO C. RIVERA and LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., petitioners, vs. party with the COMELEC under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), THE SECRETARY- otherwise known as the Party-List System Act.
GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SHERWIN N.
TUGNA and CINCHONA C. CRUZ-GONZALES, respondents. On April 18, 2012, Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva (Villanueva),
& CIBAC National Council’s Chairman and President, submitted to
CITIZENS’ BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC) COMELEC a “Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the Party-
FOUNDATION, as represented by JESUS EMMANUEL L. List System of Representation in the May 13, 2013 Elections” as
VARGAS, petitioner, vs. CIBAC NATIONAL COUNCIL as
well as a “Certificate of Nomination” containing the following
represented by EMMANUEL JOEL VILLANUEVA, and the
nominees to represent CIBAC in the House of Representatives:6
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), respondents.
1. Sherwin N. Tugna
NATURE OF THE CASE: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the 2. Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales
Supreme Court. Certiorari and Quo Warranto
3. Armi Jane R. Borje
4. Virginia S. Jose, and
This case involves a consolidation of 2 petitions; a petition for
5. Stanley Clyde C. Flores
certiorari by Rivera and Lokin against several Comelec
Resolutions affirming the nominees of the CIBAC party list and On May 31, 2012, CIBAC Foundation, headed by Maria Blanca
a petition for Quo Warranto by CIBAC Foundation against Kim Bernardo-Lokin (Maria Blanca), who claimed to be
CIBAC National Council claiming that the latter has already
CIBAC’s President, also submitted a “Manifestation of Intent to
been rendered defunct by virtue of the registration of the Board
Participate in the Party-List System of Representation in the
of Trustees of the CIBAC Foundation before the Securities and
May 13, 2013 Elections”7 and a “Certificate of Nomination” of
Exchange Commission. This controversy arose when Both
Villanueval CIBAC National Chairman and Maria Blanca the following persons as CIBAC’s nominees:
chairman of CIBAC Foundation filed a “Manifestation of Intent
1. Luis K. Lokin, Jr.
to Participate in the Party-List System of Representation” for the
2. Bibiano C. Rivera, Jr.
May 2013 elections. The Court here however held that:
3. Antonio P. Manahan, Jr.
- Comelec has Jurisdiction to settle the struggle for
4. Teresita F. Planas, and
leadership within a party such as here where there is a dispute
as to who is the leader within CIBAC a multi-sectoral party list; 5. Jesus Emmanuel L. Vargas
- Registration in the SEC did not make CIBAC
Summary hearing by Comelec
National council defunct; for such registration with the SEC
On September 3, 2012, the COMELEC conducted a summary
does not dispense the evidentiary requirement under RA 7941
hearing, pursuant to its Resolution No. 9513 dated August 2,
that the nominees must be bona fide members and nominees
2012, to settle the issue of whose nominees should represent
of the party.
CIBAC in the 2013 elections.
- That anent the Quo warranto filed by CIBAC
foundation against CIBAC National Council and its elected
Motion for Clarificatory Judgement by Villanueva
nominees Tugna and Gonzales; such should have been filed
Villanueva’s group filed a Motion for Clarificatory Judgment,10
with the HRET; by virtue of Art. IV Sec 17 of the Constitution
dated April 30, 2013, claiming that Maria Blanca was neither
vesting the HRET with exclusive Jurisdiction over all contests
CIBAC’s President nor a member of its National Council; and
relating the E, R, and Q, of members of the House of
that it was CIBAC National Council which, on March 28, 2012,
Representatives.
resolved to authorize its President or Secretary-General to sign
and submit all necessary documents to signify its participation
FACTS: in the May 2013 elections
This case involves 2 petitions:
Maria Blanca’s opposition/Comment
One is a petition for certiorari1 under Rule 64 in relation to Rule
(1) CIBAC National Council has been superseded by the
65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as G.R. No. 210273, filed by
Board of Trustees (BOT) of the CIBAC Foundation,
Bibiano C. Rivera (Rivera) and Luis K. Lokin, Jr. (Luis), alleged
following the latter’s registration with the Securities and
lawful nominees of the CIBAC Party-List, against the Exchange Commission (SEC) as a nonstock foundation in
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The second is a petition 2003;

aaaaaa

(2) since CIBAC National Council is now nonexistent,
CIBAC’s true and legitimate President who has been duly
authorized by its BOT to file its Certificate of Nomination
for the May 2013 elections is Maria Blanca and not
Villanueva; and
(3) Pia B. Derla (Derla), CIBAC’s Secretary-General, was duly
authorized to file the Manifestation of Intent to
Participate in the Party-List System of Representation in
the May 2013 elections.
Cibac Won on 2013 elections with 2 seats
On June 5, 2013, CIBAC was proclaimed as one of the winning
party-list groups in the May 2013 elections and was given two
seats in the House of Representatives. Consequently, CIBAC
National Council nominees Sherwin N. Tugna(Tugna) and
Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales (Gonzales) were sworn in by
House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. as party-list members of
the House of Representatives representing CIBAC
NBOC Resolution by COMELEC
In the meantime, the COMELEC issued the National Board of
Canvassers (NBOC) Resolution No. 0011-1316 dated June 5,
2013 recognizing as CIBAC’s nominees those names listed in its
Certificate of Nomination dated April 18, 2012, without
expressly resolving Villanueva’s clarificatory motion. Thereafter,
the COMELEC issued, on July 10, 2013, the second assailed
NBOC Resolution No. 0013-1317 ruling as moot the
“Manifestation and Motion for Proclamation as First Nominee
of CIBAC” filed by Luis.
Rivera and Luis filed a petition for certiorari against
comelec because of the NBOC Resolution
Rivera and Luis argued that:
(1) the registration of CIBAC with the SEC as CIBAC
Foundation was precisely intended to forestall
questions raised in the past as to its qualification to
participate in the party-list election as a multi-sectoral
party;
(2) CIBAC National Council has become “defunct,” having
been replaced by the BOT of CIBAC Foundation since
its registration with the SEC in 2003;
(3) pursuant to Section 6(7) of R.A. No. 7941, CIBAC
National Council has lost its authority to represent
CIBAC in the COMELEC; and
(4) it was, in fact, the SEC-registered CIBAC which had been
participating in the 2004 and 2007 party-list elections,
and not the CIBAC National Council.
To support their petition they cited the case of Lokin Jr v
Comelec and Amores v Comelec; and they prayed for the
nullification of the resolutions by the Comelec proclaiming as
winners the candidates under CIBAC National Council.
CIBAC Foundation files a Quo Warranto against CIBAC
National Council and its winning nominees;
LABOR | 2 - SANCHEZ ROMAN 4
CIBAC Foundation filed a petition for quo warranto,27 posted
on June 30, 2014, docketed as G.R. No. 213069, arguing in the
main that the CIBAC National Council lost its legal existence
following the registration of CIBAC with the SEC as CIBAC
Foundation by reason of which it is now governed by a BOT. By
recognizing the nominees of CIBAC National Council, CIBAC
Foundation insists that the COMELEC unlawfully deprived it of
its right and authority to represent CIBAC in Congress.
Thus, CIBAC Foundation raised the issue of whether they are
the rightful and legitimate representatives of CIBAC Party-List
in the 16th Congress.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the registration of CIBAC Foundation
with the SEC operated to make the CIBAC National
Council defunct; (NO)
2. Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the petition for Quo Warranto (NO)
RULING:
Comelec has jurisdiction to settle struggles for leadership
within the party;
the COMELEC’s jurisdiction to settle the struggle for leadership
within the party is well-established, emanating from one of its
constitutional functions, under Article IX-C, Section 2,
paragraph 5, of the 1987 Constitution, which is to “register, after
sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or
coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must
present their platform or program of government,” and that this
singular power of COMELEC to rule upon questions of party
identity and leadership is an incident to its enforcement
powers.
In this case; no evidence of affiliation of BOT of CIBAC
Foundation
(1) the petitioners have shown no evidence of the affiliation
of the BOT of CIBAC Foundation to the CIBAC sectoral
party which is registered with the COMELEC;
(2) it is the CIBAC National Council, the COMELEC-
registered governing body of CIBAC under its
Constitution, which is empowered to formulate its
policies, plans, and programs, and to issue decisions and
resolutions binding on party members and officers; and
(3) the CIBAC National Council alone can authorize the
party’s participation in party-list elections and the
submission of its nominees.
In this case; Registration in SEC v Registration in COMELEC
Thus, in view of CIBAC’s subsisting registration with the
COMELEC as a multisectoral organization, CIBAC National
Council has not become defunct or nonexistent, nor replaced
by the BOT of the SEC-registered entity, CIBAC Foundation,
whose registration with the SEC will not per se dispense with
the evidentiary requirement under R.A. No. 7941 that its
aaaaaa
 LABOR | 2 - SANCHEZ ROMAN 5

nominees must be bona fide members and nominees of the

party.

Anent the invocation of the case of Lokin Jr v COMELEC

The petitioners erred in citing the consolidated Lokin Case.
what was at issue in the consolidated Lokin case was not
whether the CIBAC National Council, headed by Villanueva,
could no longer represent CIBAC in the COMELEC for purposes
of party-list elections, but whether the withdrawal by
Villanueva, as CIBAC President, of the nomination of Luis in
favor of a new list of nominees was valid. The Court ruled that:
(1) Villanueva’s act was contrary to Section 848 of R.A. No. 7941,
which requires the submission, not later than 45 days before
the election, of a list of not less than five (5) nominees; and (2)
Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804, containing the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7941 issued by
the COMELEC, invalidly expanded the exceptions in Section 8
of R.A. No. 7941 for the substitution of nominees.

Anent the invocation of Amores v Comelec

Lastly, the petitioners invoke Amores,49 where it was declared
that Villanueva was ineligible to hold office as a member of the
House of Representatives representing the youth sector of
CIBAC; The Court clarified that clarified that NBOC Resolution
No. 07-60 was not a proclamation of Villanueva himself, but of
CIBAC as one of the party-list winners.

Anent Quo Warranto by CIBAC Foundation such is within

HRET Jurisdiction
Concerning now the quo warranto petition, G.R. No. 213069, of
CIBAC Foundation, the Court reminds the petitioners that under
Section 17 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications
of the Members of the House of Representatives is the House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

Section 17. The Senate and the House of

Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members, x x x.

Because the nominees of CIBAC National Council, Tugna and

Gonzales, assumed their seats in Congress on June 26, 2013
and July 22, 2013, respectively, G.R. No. 213069 should be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It should be noted that since
they had been already proclaimed, the jurisdiction to resolve
all election contests lies with the HRET as it is the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of its Members.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are

DISMISSED. SO ORDERED

aaaaaa