G.R. No. 179431-32 - Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179431-32)

Factual Background: Original Nominees, Publication, and Submission

CIBAC, through its president Villanueva, timely filed a certificate of nomination for the May 14, 2007 elections listing five nominees in order: (1) Villanueva; (2) Luis K. Lokin, Jr.; (3) Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales; (4) Sherwin Tugna; and (5) Emil L. Galang. Certificates of acceptance accompanied the submission, and the nominees’ list was published in two newspapers of general circulation, fulfilling notice requirements.

Amended Nomination: Withdrawal and Substitution Filings

On May 7, 2007 CIBAC, again through Villanueva, filed an amended certificate withdrawing the nominations of Lokin, Tugna, and Galang and substituting Armi Jane R. Borje, producing an amended three-name list (Villanueva, Cruz-Gonzales, Borje). After the election, Villanueva transmitted petitions from a majority of CIBAC members asserting support for the withdrawal and substitution. Later motions by parties within CIBAC sought proclamation of Lokin as second nominee based on allocation formulas showing entitlement to a second seat.

COMELEC Proceedings and NBC Proclamations

COMELEC en banc referred the controversy to E.M. No. 07-054 for resolution. The NBC issued provisional proclamations (NBC Resolutions No. 07-60 and 07-72) partially proclaiming party-list winners and holding proclamations in abeyance for parties with pending disputes. On September 14, 2007 the COMELEC en banc resolved E.M. No. 07-054 to approve the withdrawal of Lokin, Tugna, and Galang and the substitution of Cruz-Gonzales and Borje, thereby proclaiming Cruz-Gonzales as CIBAC’s second nominee; Cruz-Gonzales thereafter took her oath.

Procedural Posture: Petitions Filed by Lokin

Lokin filed consolidated special civil actions seeking: (a) mandamus to compel COMELEC to proclaim him as CIBAC’s second nominee following NBC Resolution No. 07-72; and (b) certiorari to annul the COMELEC resolution of September 14, 2007 and to challenge Section 13 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7804 as unconstitutional and as an unlawful expansion of R.A. No. 7941. COMELEC argued the matter should have been pursued before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) or via election protest/quo warranto; CIBAC alleged forum shopping.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court identified the dispositive issues as: (a) whether it had jurisdiction over the case despite the assumption of office by the proclaimed nominee and potential HRET jurisdiction; (b) whether petitioner engaged in forum shopping; (c) whether Section 13 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7804 is unconstitutional or beyond COMELEC’s authority vis-à-vis R.A. No. 7941; and (d) whether COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in approving the withdrawals and substitutions after the close of the polls and in matters of intra-corporate governance.

Jurisdictional Analysis: Supreme Court’s Original Review Power

The Court held that it retained original and exclusive jurisdiction to entertain petitions for certiorari and mandamus directed at COMELEC under Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 64 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court reasoned that Lokin’s controversy was neither a classical election protest (which adjudicates electoral fraud and is a contest between competing candidates) nor a quo warranto (which addresses ineligibility or disloyalty). Instead, the dispute concerned the validity of COMELEC’s administrative action approving intra-party substitutions and the legality of its implementing rule, matters subject to certiorari review in the Supreme Court.

Forum Shopping Determination

Applying established tests, the Court concluded that Lokin was not guilty of forum shopping. Although he filed distinct remedies (mandamus and certiorari) addressing related events, the actions were based on different causes of action and sought different reliefs: mandamus to compel proclamation under NBC Resolution No. 07-72 and certiorari to annul COMELEC’s September 14 resolution and its enabling regulation. The Court emphasized that forum shopping requires substantially identical causes and reliefs or the presence of litis pendentia; those elements were absent.

Legal Standards for Administrative Rules and IRRs

The Court reiterated the governing principles on administrative rulemaking: the Legislature may delegate to administrative agencies the power to adopt implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) only if the statute establishes policy and legal standards to guide the agency. Valid IRRs must: (1) be authorized by the Legislature; (2) remain within the scope of delegated authority; (3) be promulgated in accordance with prescribed procedures; and (4) be reasonable. Importantly, administrative IRRs cannot enlarge, alter, or amend the statute they implement, nor be contrary to its clear text.

Construction and Effect of Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941

The Court examined Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941, which requires party-list groups to submit a list of at least five nominees not later than forty-five days before the election and contains the prohibition: “No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall 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 …” The Court treated the provision as plain, prohibitory, and mandatory, observing that the Legislature deliberately limited post-submission changes to specific exceptions. Legislative deliberation extracts confirmed the intent to prohibit further changes except in narrowly enumerated circumstances. The Court stressed that the prohibition promotes transparency and protects voters’ entitlement to know nominees prior to voting.

Exclusivity and Strict Construction of Statutory Exceptions

The Court applied the canon that enumerated statutory exceptions are exclusive and to be strictly construed. Because Section 8 expressly listed only three grounds for substitution (death, written withdrawal by the nominee, or incapacitation), neither courts nor implementing agencies may judicially or administratively expand those exceptions bey

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 179431-32)

Case Summary / Principal Question

The consolidated special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus raise whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) may validly issue implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) that provide a ground for substitution of a party-list nominee not found in Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act), the statute COMELEC implements.
The petitions challenge COMELEC’s Resolution No. 7804 (specifically Section 13) and COMELEC’s September 14, 2007 resolution in E.M. No. 07-054 approving the withdrawal and substitution of certain CIBAC nominees, and seek mandamus compelling COMELEC to proclaim Luis K. Lokin, Jr. as CIBAC’s second nominee.

Common Antecedents / Facts

Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) was a duly registered party-list group participating in the May 14, 2007 synchronized elections and submitted a manifestation of intent to participate.
CIBAC’s certificate of nomination dated March 29, 2007 listed five nominees, in order: (1) Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva; (2) Luis K. Lokin, Jr.; (3) Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales; (4) Sherwin Tugna; and (5) Emil L. Galang; certificates of acceptance were attached.
The list of nominees was published in The Philippine Star News and The Philippine Daily Inquirer.
On May 7, 2007, CIBAC, through Villanueva, filed an amended certificate of nomination withdrawing Lokin, Tugna, and Galang and substituting Armi Jane R. Borje; the amended list included Villanueva, Cruz-Gonzales, and Borje.
After the polls, on June 20, 2007, Villanueva transmitted signed petitions of more than 81% of CIBAC members to COMELEC confirming the withdrawals and substitution; members claimed Lokin and Tugna were not presented at a proclamation rally and Galang wished to focus on family life.
On June 26, 2007, CIBAC (supposedly through counsel) filed a motion with the National Board of Canvassers seeking proclamation of Lokin as second nominee based on Party-List Canvass Report No. 26 showing CIBAC had 744,674 votes and was entitled to a second seat; Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales opposed the motion.
COMELEC did not act immediately on the competing claims, prompting Villanueva to file a petition to confirm the certificate of nomination, substitution and amendment on June 28, 2007.
July 6, 2007: COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8219 setting the dispute for hearing (docketed as E.M. No. 07-054).
July 9, 2007: National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Resolution No. 07-60 partially proclaimed several parties, including CIBAC, and deferred proclamation of nominees with pending disputes.
July 18, 2007: NBC Resolution No. 07-72 proclaimed additional seats for certain parties including CIBAC, and held in abeyance proclamations of nominees with pending disputes.
Ricardo de los Santos (purportedly CIBAC secretary general) requested Lokin be sworn in after NBC Resolution No. 07-72; House Secretary General Nazareno declined, advised of pendency of E.M. 07-054.
September 14, 2007: COMELEC en banc resolved E.M. No. 07-054 approving withdrawal of Lokin, Tugna, and Galang and substituting Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales as second nominee and Armi Jane R. Borje as third nominee; COMELEC explained Villanueva’s acts were presumed within his authority and that party intent should be paramount.
September 17, 2007: Cruz-Gonzales took her oath of office as CIBAC Party-List Representative.

Procedural History / Consolidated Cases

G.R. Nos. 179431 and 179432: Lokin filed mandamus to compel COMELEC to proclaim him as CIBAC’s second nominee.
G.R. No. 180443: Lokin challenged Section 13 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7804 and COMELEC’s September 14, 2007 resolution in E.M. No. 07-054 that approved CIBAC’s withdrawal and substitution of nominees.
COMELEC argued that questions about election, returns, and qualifications of House candidates belong to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and that Lokin’s remedy was an electoral protest or quo warranto before the HRET; CIBAC accused Lokin of forum shopping.

Issues Presented

(a) Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the controversy.
(b) Whether Lokin is guilty of forum shopping.
(c) Whether Section 13 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7804 is unconstitutional and violates the Party-List System Act (R.A. No. 7941).
(d) Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in approving the withdrawal and substitution of CIBAC nominees after the close of polls and in ruling on matters intra-corporate in nature.

Jurisdiction — Court’s Analysis and Holding

COMELEC’s contention: matters involving proclamation and assumption of office fall under HRET jurisdiction per Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; remedies should be electoral protest or quo warranto before HRET.
Court’s analysis:
- Election protest: intended to oust a winning candidate in favor of a defeated candidate based on electoral fraud or irregularities; can be filed only by a candidate who filed a certificate of candidacy and was voted for.
- Quo warranto: addresses ineligibility or disloyalty to the State; objective is to unseat an ineligible person; any voter may initiate but petitioner will not be seated even if respondent unseated.
- Lokin’s controversy is peculiar: he seeks to be seated as CIBAC’s second nominee rather than to oust another party’s nominee or challenge ineligibility.
- The controversy is therefore neither a classic election protest nor quo warranto.
- Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution and Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide the mode for review of COMELEC resolutions by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Holding: The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokin’s petitions for certiorari and mandamus against COMELEC; the petitions for certiorari and mandamus were properly brought to the Court notwithstanding Cruz-Gonzales’s oath and assumption of office.

Forum Shopping — Court’s Analysis and Holding

Definition and tests (as applied in the decision):
- Forum shopping: filing multiple
...continue reading