View full case

LUIS K. LOKIN v. COMELEC

FACTS:

In this case, the party-list group Citizens' Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) submitted a list of five nominees for the 2007 elections. Later, CIBAC filed a certificate of nomination, substitution, and amendment, withdrawing the nominations of three nominees and substituting a new nominee. CIBAC requested confirmation of the substitution from the COMELEC Chairperson and filed a motion for the proclamation of one of its nominees. The COMELEC failed to act on these matters until CIBAC filed a petition to confirm the certificate. The COMELEC eventually approved the withdrawal of nominations and substitution. However, the House of Representatives denied the request to swear in the newly proclaimed nominee due to another pending case before the COMELEC.

The controversy centers around the seating of the second nominee of CIBAC. The COMELEC proclaimed Atty. Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales as the official second nominee after the withdrawal of the original second, third, and fourth nominees. The original second nominee, Lokin, filed petitions to be proclaimed as the official second nominee, arguing that the withdrawal and substitution were invalid. The COMELEC and CIBAC claimed that Lokin should have resorted to an electoral protest filed in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. However, the Court held that it had jurisdiction over the case as it did not fall under the purview of an election protest or quo warranto action.

Lokin filed a petition for mandamus, seeking the COMELEC to proclaim him as the second nominee of CIBAC. Additionally, he filed a petition for certiorari challenging the COMELEC's resolution approving the withdrawal of his nomination. These actions were not considered forum shopping as they did not involve the filing of multiple suits for the same cause of action in different courts.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the actions filed by Lokin involve the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances, causes of action, subject matter, and issues, thus constituting forum shopping.

  2. Whether Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804, which allowed the withdrawal of Lokin's nomination, is valid.

  3. Whether or not the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) can allow changes in the names or order of nominees in the party-list system after the list has been submitted

  4. Whether or not Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act) is a mandatory provision

  5. Whether the list of nominees of a party-list organization should contain the real intended nominees and be published in newspapers of general circulation.

  6. Whether the exceptions in Section 8 of R.A. 7941 are exclusive.

  7. Whether Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded the exceptions under Section 8 of R.A. 7941.

  8. Whether the insertion of the new ground in Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804, which allows a party-list organization to withdraw its nomination of a nominee even after submitting the nomination to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), is valid.

  9. Whether the withdrawal of nominations and substitution of new nominees by Citizens' Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) based on the invalidly issued Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 are valid and effective.

  10. Whether the COMELEC's approval of CIBAC's withdrawal of nominations and recognition of the substitution are legally justified.

RULING:

  1. The consecutive filing of the action for certiorari and the action for mandamus did not violate the rule against forum shopping. The actions were based on different causes of action and sought different reliefs.

  2. Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 is invalid because it did not meet the second and fourth requisites for a valid administrative rule. The delegated authority must be properly exercised and the resulting IRRs must not be ultra vires.

  3. No, the COMELEC cannot allow changes in the names or order of nominees in the party-list system after the list has been submitted. The provision in Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7941 explicitly states that "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 in which case the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list." This provision must be read literally because its language is clear and unambiguous, and expresses a single, definite, and sensible meaning.

  4. Yes, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7941 is a mandatory provision. The usage of the word "No" in the provision renders it a negative law, indicative of the legislative intent to make the statute mandatory. Prohibitive or negative words can rarely, if ever, be directory, for there is only one way to comply with the command "thou shall not," which is to completely refrain from doing the forbidden act, subject to certain exceptions stated in the law itself.

  5. The list of nominees of a party-list organization should contain the real intended nominees and be published in newspapers of general circulation. While the people vote for the party-list organization itself, they have the right to know who the nominees are. The publication of the list of nominees serves the right of the people to make informed choices.

  6. The exceptions in Section 8 of R.A. 7941 are exclusive. The enumeration in the statute only allows substitution when a nominee dies, withdraws in writing, or becomes incapacitated. The general rule applies to all cases not falling under the exceptions.

  7. Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded the exceptions under Section 8 of R.A. 7941. The regulation added a fourth ground for substitution, which is when the nomination is withdrawn by the party. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) exceeded its authority by expanding the exceptions and issuing regulations that do not align with the law.

  8. The insertion of the new ground in Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804, which allows a party-list organization to withdraw its nomination of a nominee once submitted to the COMELEC, is invalid and of no effect. The grant of such authority conflicts with the statutory intent of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941) to save the nominee from falling under the whim of the party-list organization and to ensure transparency and informed choices by the electorate in the party-list electoral system.

  9. The withdrawal of nominations and substitution of new nominees by CIBAC based on the invalidly issued Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 are also invalid and ineffectual. Any substitution can only be allowed based on the grounds expressly stated in Section 8 of RA 7941. Therefore, the COMELEC's approval of CIBAC's petition for withdrawal of nominations and recognition of the substitution are lacking legal basis.

  10. The COMELEC's actions in approving the withdrawal of nominations and recognizing the substitution, based on the invalid Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804, are without jurisdiction. The COMELEC acted contrary to the law and its actions should be struck down for lack of legal basis.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.

  • The Legislature cannot surrender or abdicate its legislative power, but it can delegate non-legislative powers.

  • The power to make IRRs is administrative in nature and must not subvert or be contrary to existing statutes.

  • Administrative IRRs must be authorized, within the scope of authority, promulgated in accordance with prescribed procedure, and reasonable.

  • The COMELEC is constitutionally mandated to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to elections and can issue IRRs to implement these laws.

  • Administrative agencies issuing Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs) are not empowered to modify the law they are intended to carry out.

  • Courts should interpret a provision literally when its language is clear and unambiguous.

  • Legislative intent expressed during deliberations is relevant in determining the meaning of a statutory provision.

  • Provisions stated in prohibitive or negative language are usually mandatory and must be complied with.

  • The exceptions in a statute are strictly construed, with doubts resolved in favor of the general provision rather than the exceptions.

  • An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress and its regulations must be consistent with the law they intend to carry out.

  • An administrative authority should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of its implementing rules and regulations (IRRs). IRRs must be reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the purpose for which they were authorized.

  • In case of conflict between the law and the IRR, the law prevails. An IRR or any of its parts not adopted pursuant to the law has no force or effect of law.

  • The invalidity of a rule, regulation, or part thereof cannot be a valid source of any right, obligation, or power.

  • Substitution of nominees in a party-list organization can only be allowed based on the grounds expressly stated in the law.