05 - limits on rule making 3

8/9/2019 05 - Limits on Rule Making 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/05-limits-on-rule-making-3 1/25

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION AND CBC PROPERTIES AND COMPUTER CENTER,

INC., petitioners, vs. THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, HOME

DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF); HDMF PRESIDENT; AND THE HOME MUTUAL

DEVELOPMENT FUND, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

GONZAGA-REYES, J .:

This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure “on pure questions

of law fro! the "rder of the Re#ional Trial Court of $a%ati& 'ranch 59 dated "ctober 1(& 1997 and fro!

the "rder of the sa!e court dated )ece!ber 19& 1997 denyin# petitioners* !otion for reconsideration+

'riefly& petitioners China 'an%in# Corporation ,C'C- and C'C Properties and Co!puter Center .nc+

,C'C/PCC.- are both e!ployers who were #ranted by the 0o!e )evelop!ent $utual und ,0)$-

certificates of waiver dated 2uly 7& 1995 and 2anuary 19& 1993 ,coverin# respectively the periods of 2uly

1& 1995 to 2une (& 1993 for C'C and 2anuary 1 to )ece!ber 1& 1995 for C'C/PCC.- for the identicalreason of “uperior Retire!ent Plan pursuant to ection 19 of P+ )+ 1756 otherwise %nown as the 0o!e

)evelop!ent $utual und aw of 198( whereunder e!ployers who have their own eistin# provident

and:or e!ployees/housin# plans !ay re#ister for annual certification for waiver or suspension fro!

covera#e or participation in the 0o!e )evelop!ent $utual und created under said law+

.t appears that in 2une 1994& Republic ;ct <o+ 7746& a!endin# P+ )+ 1756 was approved+ =1> "n

epte!ber 1& 1995& respondent 0)$ 'oard issued an ;!end!ent to the Rules and Re#ulations

.!ple!entin# R+;+ 7746 ,“The ;!end!ent- and pursuant to said ;!end!ent& the said 'oard issued on

"ctober 6& 1995 0)$ Circular <o+ 164/' or the Revised ?uidelines and Procedure for filin#

;pplication for @aiver or uspension of und Covera#e under P+)+ 1756 ,“?uidelines-+ Ander the

;!end!ent and the ?uidelines& a co!pany !ust have a provident:retire!ent and housin# plan superior

to that provided under the Pa#/.'.? und to be entitled to ee!ption:waiver fro! fund covera#e+

C'C and C'C/PCC. applied for renewal of waiver of covera#e fro! the fund for the year 1993& but

the applications were disapproved for the identical reason thatB

“"ur evaluation of your co!pany*s application indicates that your retire!ent plan is not superior to Pa#/

.'.? und+ urther& the a!ended .!ple!entin# Rules and Re#ulations of R+ ;+ 7746 provides that to

qualify for waiver& a co!pany !ust have retire!ent:provident and housin# plans which are both superior

to Pa#/.'.? unds+

Petitioners thus filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Re#ional Trial Court of $a%ati

see%in# to annul and declare void the ;!end!ent and the ?uidelines for havin# been issued in ecess of Durisdiction and with #rave abuse of discretion a!ountin# to lac% of Durisdiction alle#in# that in requirin#

the e!ployer to have both a retire!ent:provident plan and an e!ployee housin# plan in order to be

entitled to a certificate of waiver or suspension of covera#e fro! the 0)$& the 0)$ 'oard eceeded

its rule/!a%in# power+

Respondent 'oard filed a $otion to )is!iss and the court a quo& in its first challen#ed order dated

"ctober 1(& 1997 #ranted the sa!e+ The Court dis!issed the petition for certiorari on the #rounds ,1-

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/may99/131787.htm#_edn1




that the denial or #rant of an application for waiver:covera#e is within the power and authority of the

0)$ 'oard& and the said 'oard did not eceed its Durisdiction or act with #rave abuse of discretion in

denyin# the applicationsE and ,6- the petitioners have lost their ri#ht to appeal by failure to appeal within

the periods provided in the Rules for appealin# fro! the order of denial to the 0)$ 'oard of Trustees&

and thereafter& to the Court of ;ppeals+ The Court stated that certiorari will not lie as a substitute for a

lost re!edy of appeal+

$otion for reconsideration of the above/"rder havin# been denied in the "rder of )ece!ber 19&

1997& this petition for review was filed under Rule 45 alle#in# thatB

“1+ The court a quo erred in the appreciation of the issue& as it !ista%enly noted that petitioner is

contestin# the authority of respondent to issue rules pursuant to its rule/!a%in# powerE

6+ The court a quo erred in observin# that the !atter bein# assailed by the petitioners were the denial of

their application for waiver ,;nnees “0 and “.-& and therefore& appeal is the proper re!edy+

Fssentially& petitioners contend that it does not question the power of respondent 0)$& as an

ad!inistrative a#ency& to issue rules and re#ulations to i!ple!ent P+)+ 1756 and ection 5 of R+;+ 7746Ehowever& the subDect ;!end!ent and ?uidelines issued by it should be set aside and declared null and

void for bein# irrevocably inconsistent with the enablin# law& P+)+ 1756& as a!ended by R+;+ 7746&

which !erely requires as a pre/condition for ee!ption for covera#e& the eistence of either a

superior provident ,retire!ent- plan or a superior housin# plan& and not the concurrence of both plans+

Petitioners clai! that certiorari is the proper re!edy as what are bein# questioned are not the

orders denyin# petitioners* application for renewal of waiver for covera#e which were ad!ittedly issued in

the eercise of a quasi/Dudicial function& but rather the validity of the subDect ;!end!ent and ?uidelines&

which are a “patent nullityE hence the doctrine of ehaustion of ad!inistrative re!edies does not apply+

.n their co!!ent& respondents contend that there is no question of law involved+ The interpretation

of the phrase “and:or is not purely a le#al question and it is susceptible of ad!inistrative

deter!ination+ .n denyin# petitioners* application for waiver of covera#e under Republic ;ct <o+ 7746 the

respondent 'oard was eercisin# its quasi/Dudicial function and its findin#s are #enerally accorded not

only respect but even finality+ $oreover& the ;!end!ent and the ?uidelines are consistent with the

enablin# law& which is a piece of social le#islation intended to provide both a savin#s #eneration and a

house buildin# pro#ra!+

@e find !erit in the petition+

The core issue posed in the court below and in this Court is whether the respondents acted in

ecess of Durisdiction or with #rave abuse of discretion a!ountin# to lac% of Durisdiction in issuin# the

;!end!ent to the Rules and Re#ulations .!ple!entin# R+;+ 7746 and 0)$ Circular <o+ 164/' on theRevised ?uidelines and Procedure for ilin# ;pplication for @aiver or uspension of und Covera#e

under P+)+ 1756& as a!ended by R+;+ 7746& insofar as said ;!end!ent and ?uidelines i!pose as a

require!ent for ee!ption fro! covera#e or participation in the 0o!e )evelop!ent $utual und the

eistence of both a superior housin# plan and a provident plan+

The procedural issue raised in the petition as to the propriety of certiorari in lieu of appeal has not

been traversed by the respondents+ uffice it to note that the petitioners sou#ht to annul or declare null



and void the questioned ;!end!ent and ?uidelines and not !erely the denial by the respondent 'oard

of petitioners* application for waiver or ee!ption fro! covera#e of the fund+ ;s noted by the court a

quo, the petition below squarely raised in issue the validity of the ;!end!ent to the Rules and

Re#ulations and of 0)$ Circular <o+ 164/' insofar as these require the eistence of both

provident:retire!ent and housin# plans for the #rant of waiver:suspension by the 'oard and prayed that

the sa!e be declared void for want of Durisdiction+

@e hold that it was an error for the court a quo to rule that the petitioners should have ehausted its

re!edy of appeal fro! the orders denyin# their application for waiver:suspension to the 'oard of

Trustees and thereafter to the Court of ;ppeals pursuant to the Rules+ Certiorari is an appropriate

re!edy to question the validity of the challen#ed issuances of the 0)$ which are alle#ed to have been

issued with #rave abuse of discretion a!ountin# to lac% of Durisdiction+=6>

$oreover& a!on# the accepted eceptions to the rule on ehaustion of ad!inistrative re!edies

areB ,1- where the question in dispute is purely a le#al oneE and ,6- where the controverted act is

patently ille#al or was perfor!ed without Durisdiction or in ecess of Durisdiction+=> $oreover& while certiorari as a re!edy !ay not be used as a substitute for an appeal& especially for a

lost appeal& this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is #enuinely !eritorious+=4>

.t has beensaid that where the ri#id application of the rules would frustrate substantial Dustice& or bar the

vindication of a le#iti!ate #rievance& the courts are Dustified in ee!ptin# a particular case fro!

the operation of the rules+=5>

@e vote to #ive the petition due course+ The assailed ;!end!ent to the Rules and Re#ulations and

the Revised ?uidelines suffer fro! a le#al infir!ity and should be set aside+

The law pertinent to the 0o!e )evelop!ent $utual und& otherwise %nown as the Pa#/.'.? und&

should be revisited+

The 0u!an )evelop!ent $utual unds were created by Presidential )ecree <o+ 15(& pro!ul#ated

on 2une 11& 1978+ The said funds& one for #overn!ent e!ployees and another for private e!ployees&

were to be established and !aintained fro! contributions by the e!ployees and counterpart

contributions by their e!ployers+ P+)+ <o+ 1756& enacted on )ece!ber 1& 198(& a!ended P+ )+ 15( to

!a%e the 0o!e )evelop!ent $utual und a body corporate and to !a%e its covera#e !andatory upon

all e!ployers covered by the ocial ecurity yste! and the ?overn!ent ervice .nsurance yste!+

ection 19 of P+)+ <o+ 1756 provides for waiver or suspension fro! covera#e or participation in the fund&

thusB

“ection 19+ Fistin# Provident:0ousin# Plans+ / ;n e!ployer and:or e!ployee/#roup who& at the ti!e

this )ecree beco!es effective have their own provident and:or e!ployee/housin# plans& !ay re#ister

with the und& for any of the followin# purposesB

,a- or annual certification of waiver or suspension fro! covera#e or participation in the und& which shall

be #ranted on the basis of verification that the waiver or suspension does not contravene any effective

collective bar#ainin# a#ree!ent and that the features of the plan or plans are superior to the und or

continue to be soE or

,b- or inte#ration with the und& either fully or partially+












The establish!ent of a separate provident and:or housin# plan after the effectivity of this )ecree shall

not be a #round for waiver of covera#e in the undE nor shall such covera#e bar any e!ployer and:or

e!ployee/#roup fro! establishin# separate provident and:or housin# plans+ ,underscorin# ours-

"n 2une 17& 1994& Republic ;ct <o+ 7746& a!endin# certain sections of P+)+ 1756 was approved+

ection 5 of the said statute provides “that within sity ,3(- days fro! the approval of the ;ct& the 'oard of

Trustees of the 0o!e )evelop!ent $utual und shall pro!ul#ate the rules and re#ulations necessary for

the effective i!ple!entation of ,this- ;ct+

Pursuant to the above authority the 0o!e )evelop!ent $utual und 'oard of Trustees

pro!ul#ated The .!ple!entin# Rules and Re#ulations of Republic ;ct 7746 a!endin# Presidential

)ecree <o+ 1756& Fecutive "rder <os+ 5 and 9(& which was published on ;u#ust 1& 1994+ Rule G..

thereof readsB

“RAF G..

@;.GFR "R APF<."<

FCT."< 1+ @aiver or uspension/Fistin# Provident or Retire!ent Plan+

;n e!ployer and:or e!ployee #roup who has an eistin# provident or retire!ent plan as of the

effectivity of Republic ;ct <o+ 7746& qualified under Republic ;ct <o+ 4917 and actuarially deter!ined to

be sound and reasonable by an independent actuary duly accredited by the .nsurance Co!!ission& !ay

apply with the und for waiver or suspension of covera#e+ uch waiver or suspension !ay be

#ranted by the President of the und on the basis of verification that the waiver or suspension does not

contravene any effective collective bar#ainin# or other eistin# a#ree!ent and that the features of the

plan or plans are superior to the und and continue to be so+ The certificate of waiver or suspension of

covera#e issued herein shall only be for a period of one ,1- year but the sa!e !ay be renewed for

another year upon the filin# of a proper application within a period of sity ,3(- days prior to the epiration

of the eistin# waiver or suspension+

FCT."< 6+ @aiver or uspension/Fistin# 0ousin# Plan+

;n e!ployer and:or e!ployee #roup who has an eistin# housin# plan as of the effectivity of Republic

;ct <o+ 7746 !ay apply with the fund for waiver or suspension of covera#e+ uch waiver or suspension

of covera#e !ay be #ranted by the President of the und on the basis of verification that the waiver or

suspension of covera#e does not contravene any effective collective bar#ainin# or other eistin#

a#ree!ent and that the features of the plan or plans are superior to the und and continue to be so+ The

certificate of waiver or suspension of covera#e issued herein shall only be for a period of one ,1- year but

the sa!e !ay be renewed for another year upon the filin# of a proper application within a period of sity

,3(- days prior to the epiration of the eistin# waiver or suspension+

ubsequently& the 0)$ 'oard adopted in its pecial 'oard $eetin# held on epte!ber 1& 1995&

;!end!ents to the Rules and Re#ulations .!ple!entin# Republic ;ct 7746+ ;s a!ended& Rule G.. on

“@aiver or uspension now readsB

“RAF G..



@;.GFR " APF<."<

FCT."< 1+ @aiver or uspension 'ecause of Fistin# Provident:Retire!ent and 0ousin# Plan+

;ny e!ployer with a plan providin# both for a provident:retire!ent and housin# benefits for all his

e!ployees and eistin# as of )ece!ber 14& 198(& the effectivity date of Presidential )ecree <o+

1756& !ay apply with the und for waiver or suspension of covera#e + The provident:retire!ent aspect of

the plan !ust be qualified under R+;+ 4917 and actuarially deter!ined to be sound and reasonable by an

independent& actuary duly accredited by the .nsurance Co!!ission+ The provident:retire!ent and

housin# benefits as provided for under the plan !ust be superior to the provident:retire!ent and housin#

benefits offered by the und+

uch waiver or suspension !ay be #ranted by the und on the basis of actual verification that the waiver

or suspension does not contravene any collective bar#ainin# a#ree!ent& any other eistin# a#ree!ent or

clearly spelled out !ana#e!ent policy and that the features of the plan or plans are superior to the und

and continue to be so+

Provided further that the application !ust be endorsed by the labor union representin# a !aDority of thee!ployees or in the absence thereof by at least a !aDority vote of all the e!ployees in the said

establish!ent in a !eetin# specifically called for the purpose+ Provided& further!ore that such a !eetin#

be held or be conducted under the supervision of an authoriHed representative fro! the und+

The certificate of waiver or suspension of covera#e issued herein shall only be for a period of one ,1- year

effective upon issuance thereof+ <o certificate of waiver issued by the President of the und shall have

retroactive effect+ ;pplication for renewal !ust be filled within/sity ,3(- days prior to the epiration of the

eistin# waiver or suspension and such application for renewal shall only be #ranted based on the sa!e

conditions and require!ents under which the ori#inal application was approved+ Pendin# the approval of

the application for waiver or suspension of covera#e or the application for renewal& the e!ployer and his

covered e!ployees shall continue to be !andatorily covered by the und as provided for under R+;+

7746+ ,underscorin# ours-

"n "ctober 6& 1995& 0)$ Circular <o+ 164/' entitled “Revised ?uidelines and Procedure for

ilin# ;pplications for @aiver or uspension of und Covera#e under P+)+ <o+ 1756& as a!ended by

Republic ;ct <o+ 7746& was pro!ul#ated+ The Circular pertinently providesB

“.+ ?R"A<) "R @;.GFR "R APF<."< " A<) C"GFR;?F

;+ APFR."R PR"G.)F<T:RFT.RF$F<T P;< ;<) 0"A.<? P;<

;<I F$P"IFR @0" 0; ; PR"G.)F<T& RFT.RF$F<T& ?R;TA.TI "R PF<."< P;< ;<) ;

0"A.<? P;<& FJ.T.<? ; " )FCF$'FR 14& 198(& T0F FFCT.G.TI " P+)+ <"+ 1756& !ayfile an application for waiver or suspension fro! und covera#e& provided& that / /

1+ The retire!ent:provident plan is qualified as such under Republic ;ct <o+ 4917 ,;n

;ct Providin# That Retire!ent 'enefits of F!ployees of Private ir!s hall <ot 'e ubDect

to ;ttach!ent& evy& or Fecution or ;ny Ta @hatsoever-& as certified by the 'ureau of

.nternal RevenueE



6+ The retire!ent:provident plan is actuarially deter!ined to be financially sound and

reasonable by an independent actuary duly accredited by the .nsurance Co!!issionE

+ The retire!ent:provident plan is superior to the retire!ent :provident benefits

offered by the und in ter!s ofB

/ vestin# features

/full and i!!ediate creditin# of e!ployer*s contribution to the e!ployee*s account& the T;G of

which the e!ployee carries with hi! in the event he transfers to another e!ployerE or he

beco!es self/e!ployed or une!ployedE

/e!ployer*s contribution ,K or provident plans-

/!ust be equal to or hi#her than two percent ,6L- of e!ployee*s !onthly co!pensation&

defined in the 0)$ .!ple!entin# Rules and Re#ulations as the e!ployee*s basic !onthly

salary plus Cost of ivin# ;llowanceE

/retire!ent a#e and years of service required to avail of plan benefits

/85 or lower

/1( years of service or less

/a!ount of benefits etended to FFs ,K or retire!ent plans-

/at least fifty ,5(L- of !onthly co!pensation& as defined in the 0)$ .RR& for every year of service+

4+ The housin# plan !ust be superior to the P;?/.'.? 0ousin# oan Pro#ra! in ter!s ofB

/residency require!ent as e!ployee of the co!pany or !e!ber of the plan to avail of housin# loan under

the plan

/si ,3- !onths or lessE

/interest rates

/equal to or lower than the prescribed rates under the P;?/.'.? Fpanded 0ousin#

oan Pro#ra! ,F0P-E

/ repay!ent period

/65 years or !oreE

/loanable a!ount

/equal to or #reater than the !ai!u! loan a!ount under the P;?/.'.? Fpanded

0ousin# oan Pro#ra!E and



/percenta#e of covered FFs benefitted by the 0ousin# Plan

/FFs who have availed of the 0ousin# Plan benefits as of date of waiver application

!ust be no less than five ,5L- of the total+

5+ The application for waiver or suspension& based on actual verification of the und& does not

contravene any effective collective bar#ainin# or any other a#ree!ent eistin# between the

e!ployer and his e!ployees+

3+ The application !ust be endorsed by the labor union representin# a !aDority of the

e!ployees& or& in the absence thereof& at least a !aDority vote of all co!pany e!ployees in a

!eetin# specifically called for the purpose and conducted under the supervision of an

authoriHed representative of the und+

;s above stated& when petitioners C'C and C'C/PCC. applied for the renewal of waiver of und

covera#e for the year 1993& the applications were disapproved on identical #rounds

na!ely& that the retire!ent plan is not superior to Pa#/.'.? und and that the a!ended .!ple!entin#

Rules and Re#ulations of R+;+ 7746 provides that to qualify for waiver& a co!pany !ust haveretire!ent:provident and housin# plan which are both superior to Pa#/.'.? unds+

Petitioner contends that respondent& in the eercise of its rule !a%in# power has “overstepped the

bounds and eceeded its li!it&+ The law provides as a condition for ee!ption fro! covera#e& the

eistence of either a superior provident ,retire!ent- plan& and:or a superior housin# plan& and not the

eistence of both plans+

"n the other hand& respondents clai! that the use of the words “and:or in ection 19 of P+)+ <o+

1756& which words are “dia!etrically opposed in !eanin#& can only be used interchan#eably and not

to#ether& and the option of !a%in# it either both or any one belon#s to the 'oard of Trustees of 0)$&

which has the power and authority to issue rules and re#ulations for the effective i!ple!entation of the

Pa#/.'.? und aw& and the #uidelines for the #rant of waiver or suspension of covera#e+

There is no question that the 0)$ 'oard has rule/!a%in# powers+ ection 5 of R+;+ <o+

7746 states that the said 'oard shall pro!ul#ate the rules and re#ulations necessary for the effective

i!ple!entation of said ;ct+ .ts rule/ !a%in# power is also provided in ection 1 of P+)+ <o+ 1756 which

states insofar as pertinent that the 'oard is authoriHed to !a%e and chan#e needful rules and

re#ulations to provide for& a!on# others&

“a+ the effective ad!inistration& custody& develop!ent& utiliHation and disposition of the und or parts

thereof includin# pay!ent of a!ounts credited to !e!bers or to their beneficiaries or estatesE

b+ Ftension of und covera#e to other wor%in# #roups and waiver or suspension of covera#e or itsenforce!ent for reasons therein stated+

i+ "ther !atters that& by epress or i!plied provisions of this ;ct& shall require i!ple!entation by

appropriate policies& rules and re#ulations+



The controversy lies in the le#al si#nification of the words “and:or+

.n the instant case& the le#al !eanin# of the words “and:or should be ta%en in its ordinary

si#nification& i+e+& “either and orE e+#+ butter and:or e##s !eans butter and e##s or butter or e##s+=3>

“The ter! “and:or !eans that effect shall be #iven to both the conDunctive “and and the disDunctive “orE

or that one word or the other !ay be ta%en accordin#ly as one or the other will best effectuate the

purpose intended by the le#islature as #athered fro! the whole statute+ The ter! is used to avoid a

construction which by the use of the disDunctive “or alone will eclude the co!bination of several of the

alternatives or by the use of the conDunctive “and will eclude the efficacy of any one of the alternatives

standin# alone+=7>

.t is accordin#ly ordinarily held that the intention of the le#islature in usin# the ter! “and:or is that

the word “and and the word “or are to be used interchan#eably+=8>

.t is see!s to us clear fro! the lan#ua#e of the enablin# law that ection 19 of P+)+ <o+ 1756&

intended that an e!ployer with a provident plan or an e!ployee housin# plan superior to that of the fund

!ay obtain ee!ption fro! covera#e+ .f the law had intended that the e!ployee should have both asuperior provident plan and a housin# plan in order to qualify for ee!ption& it would have used the words

“and instead of “and:or+ <otably& para#raph ,a- of ection 19 requires for annual certification of waiver

or suspension& that the features of the plan or plans are superior to the fund or continue to be so+ The law

obviously conte!plates that the eistence of either plan is considered as sufficient basis for the #rant of

an ee!ptionE needless to state& the concurrence of both plans is !ore than sufficient+ To require the

eistence of both plans would radically i!pose a !ore strin#ent condition for waiver which was not

clearly envisioned by the basic law+ 'y re!ovin# the disDunctive word “or in the i!ple!entin# rules the

respondent 'oard has eceeded its authority+

.t is well settled that the rules and re#ulations which are the product of a deli#ated power to create

new or additional le#al provisions that have the effect of law& should be within the scope of the statutory

authority #ranted by the le#islature to the ;d!inistrative a#ency+=9> “)epart!ent Heal !ay not be per!itted

to outrun the authority conferred by statute+=1(> ;s aptly observed in People vs+ $aceren=11>B

“ ;d!inistrative re#ulations adopted under le#islative authority by a particular depart!ent !ust be in

har!ony with the provisions of the law& and should be for the sole purpose of carryin# into effect its

#eneral provisions+ 'y such re#ulations& of course& the law itself cannot be etended+ A++ vs+ Tupasi

$olina& supra-+ ;n ad!inistrative a#ency cannot a!end an act of Con#ress ,antos vs+ FstenHo& 1(9

Phil+ 419 466E Teoon vs+ $e!bers of the 'oard of ;d!inistrators& /65319& 2une (& 197(& CR;

585E $anuel vs+ ?eneral ;uditin# "ffice& /68956& )ece!ber 69& 1971& 46 CR; 33(E )eluao vs+

Casteel& /619(3& ;u#ust 69& 1939 CR; 5(-+

The rule !a%in# power !ust be confined to details for re#ulatin# the !ode or proceedin# to carry intoeffect the law as it has been enacted+ The power cannot be etended to a!endin# or epandin# the

statutory require!ents or to e!brace !atters not covered by the statute+ Rules that subvert the statute

cannot be sanctioned+ ,Aniversity of anto To!as vs+ 'oard of Ta ;ppeals& 9 Phil+ 73& 86& citin# 16

C+ 2+ 845/43+ ;s to invalid re#ulations& see Collector of .nternal Revenue vs+ Gillaflor& 39 Phil+ 19E @ise

Co+ vs+ $eer& 78 Phil+ 355& 373E )el $ar vs+ Phil+ Geterans ;d!inistration& /67699& 2une 67& 197& 51

CR; 4(& 49-+ “


















@hile it !ay be conceded that the require!ent of the concurrence of both plans to qualify for

ee!ption would stren#then the 0o!e )evelop!ent $utual und and !a%e it !ore effective both as a

savin#s #eneration and a house buildin# pro#ra!& the basic law should prevail as the e!bodi!ent of the

le#islative purpose& and the rules and re#ulations issued to i!ple!ent said law cannot #o beyond its

ter!s and provisions+

@e accordin#ly find !erit in petitioner*s contention that ection 1& Rule G.. of the Rules and

Re#ulations .!ple!entin# R+;+ 7746& and 0)$ Circular <o+ 164/' and the Revised ?uidelines and

Procedure for ilin# ;pplication for @aiver or uspension of und Covera#e under P+)+ 1756&

as a!ended by R+;+ 7746& should be declared invalid insofar as they require that an e!ployer !ust

have both a superior retire!ent:provident plan and a superior e!ployee housin# plan in order to be

entitled to a certificate of waiver and suspension of covera#e fro! the 0)$+

WHEREFORE& the petition is #iven due course and the assailed "rders of the court a quo dated

"ctober 1(& 1997 and )ece!ber 19& 1997 are hereby set aside+ ection 1 of Rule G.. of the ;!end!ents

to the Rules and Re#ulations .!ple!entin# R+;+ 7746& and 0)$ Circular <o+ 164/' prescribin# the

Revised ?uidelines and Procedure for ilin# ;pplications for @aiver or uspension of und Covera#e

under P+)+ 1756& as a!ended by R+;+ <o+ 7746& insofar as they require that an e!ployer should haveboth a provident:retire!ent plan superior to the retire!ent:provident benefits offered by the und and a

housin# plan superior to the Pa#/.'.? housin# loan pro#ra! in order to qualify for waiver or suspension

of fund covera#e& are hereby declared null and void+

SO ORDERED.



MAIMA REALTY MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. PARKWAY

REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION !"#!"$"%&"' LUZ LOURDES

FERNANDEZ *%' SEGOVIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J .:

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailin# the )ece!ber 9& 1998 )ecision of the Court of

;ppeals in C;/?+R+ P <o+ 41833=1> which affir!ed in toto the 2une 6& 1998 "rder of the "ffice of the

President in "+P+ Case <o+ 5397=6> dis!issin# petitioner*s appeal for havin# been filed out of ti!e+

The subDect of the controversy is Anit M7(6 of 0eart Tower Condo!iniu!& covered by Condo!iniu!

Certificate of Title <o+ 16156 and located alon# Galero treet& alcedo Gilla#e& $a%ati City+ aid unit was

ori#inally sold by e#ovia )evelop!ent Corporation ,e#ovia- to $asahi%o $orishita& who in turn sold

and assi#ned all his ri#hts thereto in favor of Par%way Real Fstate )evelop!ent Corporation ,Par%way-

on "ctober 13& 1989+=>

o!eti!e in ;pril 199(& Par%way and petitioner $ai!a Realty $ana#e!ent and )evelop!ent

Corporation ,$ai!a- entered into an a#ree!ent to buy and sell& on install!ent basis& Anit M7(6 in

consideration of the a!ount of $illion Pesos+=4> .t was further a#reed that failure to pay any of the

install!ents on their due dates shall entitle Par%way to forfeit the a!ounts paid by way of liquidated

da!a#es+=5>

$ai!a defaulted in the pay!ent of the install!ents due but was #ranted several #race periods until

it has paid a total of P1&18(&(((+((& leavin# a balance of P1&86(&(((+((+=3>

$eanwhile on $ay 1(& 199(& Par%way& with the consent of e#ovia& eecuted a )eed of ;ssi#n!enttransferrin# all its ri#hts in the condo!iniu! unit in favor of $ai!a+ This )eed was intended to enable

$ai!a to obtain title in its na!e and use the sa!e as security for P1&86(&(((+(( loan with RiHal

Co!!ercial 'an%in# Corporation ,RC'C-& which a!ount will be used by $ai!a to pay its obli#ation to

Par%way+ "n the other hand& e#ovia and $ai!a a#reed to transfer title to the condo!iniu! unit directly

in $ai!a*s na!e subDect to the condition that the latter shall pay e#ovia the a!ount of P58&114+((&

representin# transfer fee& utility epenses& association dues and !iscellaneous char#es+ =7>

"n 2une 5& 199(& RC'C infor!ed Par%way of the approval of $ai!a*s P1&86(&(((+(( loan subDect

to the sub!ission of& a!on# others& the Condo!iniu! Certificate of Title transferred in the na!e of

$ai!a and the Certificate of Co!pletion and turn over of unit+=8>

$ai!a& however& failed to pay e#ovia the a!ount of P58&114+(( for fees and char#es+ Thus&

e#ovia did not transfer the title of the condo!iniu! unit to $ai!a+ ince Par%way was not paid the

balance of P1&86(&(((+((& it cancelled its a#ree!ent to buy and sell and )eed of ;ssi#n!ent in favor of

$ai!a+=9>

"n $ay 6& 1991& $ai!a filed with the "ffice of ;ppeals& ;dDudication and e#al ;ffairs of the

0ousin# and and Ase Re#ulatory 'oard ,0AR'-& a co!plaint =1(> for specific perfor!ance to enforce the

a#ree!ent to buy and sell Anit M7(6+

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/136492.htm#_ftn1























"n )ece!ber 17& 1996& the 0AR' ;rbiter sustained the nullification of the )eed of ;ssi#n!ent and

ordered Par%way to refund to $ai!a the a!ount of P1&18(&(((+((+ e#ovia was further ordered to issue

the condo!iniu! certificate of title over Anit M7(6 in favor of Par%way upon pay!ent by the latter of the

re#istration fees+ The dispositive portion thereof& readsB

Pre!ises considered& Dud#!ent is hereby rendered N

1+ declarin# the nullification of the )eed of ;ssi#n!ent between co!plainant $ai!a and Par%wayE

6+ orderin# respondent Par%way to refund to co!plainant $ai!a the a!ount of "ne $illion "ne

0undred Fi#hty Thousand Pesos ,P1&18(&(((+((-E

+ orderin# respondent e#ovia to issue the certificate of title in favor of Par%way upon pay!ent by

the latter of only the re#istration fees+

<o pronounce!ent as to costs+=11>

'oth $ai!a and Par%way appealed to the 'oard of Co!!issioners of the 0AR' ,'oard-+=16> )urin# the pendency of the appeal& $ai!a offered to pay the balance of P1&86(&(((+((& which was

accepted by Par%way+ The 'oard then ordered $ai!a to deliver said a!ount in the for! of !ana#er*s

chec% to Par%wayE and directed e#ovia to transfer title over the property to $ai!a+ =1> The latter&

however& failed to !a%e #ood its offer& which co!pelled Par%way to file a $anifestation =14> that the appeal

be resolved+=15>

"n $arch 14& 1994& the 'oard rendered Dud#!ent !odifyin# the decision of the 0AR' ;rbiter by

forfeitin# in favor of Par%way 5(L of the total a!ount paid by $ai!a and orderin# e#ovia to pay

Par%way the a!ount of P1(&(((+(( as attorney*s fees+ The decretal portion of the decision& statesB

@0FRF"RF& the decision of the "ffice of ;ppeals ;dDudication and e#al affairs ,";;;- dated)ece!ber 17& 1996 is hereby affir!ed with respect to the followin#B

1- )eclarin# the nullification of the )eed of ;ssi#n!ent between co!plainant and Par%wayE

6- "rderin# Respondent e#ovia to i!!ediately issue the certificate of title in favor of Par%way upon

pay!ent by the latter of only the re#istration epenses+ This order for delivery of title in the na!e of

Par%way is now final and i!!ediately eecutory+

and is !odified as followsB

- )eclarin# the forfeiture of 5(L of the total pay!ents !ade by the co!plainant to Par%way by way of

da!a#es and penalty& and for Par%way to refund the re!ainin# balance of the said pay!ents to the

co!plainant within thirty ,(- days fro! finality of this decision with le#al interest thereon thereafter& for

each day said a!ount re!ain unpaidE and

4- "rderin# e#ovia to pay Par%way the su! of P1(&(((+(( as and by way of attorneys fees+

.T . " "R)FRF)+=13>
















"n $ay 1(& 1994& $ai!a appealed=17> to the "ffice of the President which dis!issed the appeal for

havin# been filed out of ti!e+=18>

Andaunted& $ai!a filed a petition for review with the Court of ;ppeals+ "n "ctober 1& 1998&

e#ovia filed its Co!!ent that as the ori#inal owner/developer of Anit M7(6& it had already consu!!ated

the sale and transferred title of said property to Par%way+=19>

"n )ece!ber 9& 1998& the Court of ;ppeals affir!ed in toto the )ecision of the "ffice of the

President+

0ence& the instant petition on the sole issue ofB @as petitioner*s appeal before the "ffice of the

President filed within the re#le!entary periodO

.n SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the President=6(> it was settled that the period within which to

appeal the decision of the 'oard of Co!!issioners of 0AR' to the "ffice of the President is fifteen ,15-

days fro! receipt of the assailed decision& pursuant to ection 15 =61> of Presidential )ecree <o+ 957

,otherwise %nown as the ubdivision and Condo!iniu! 'uyer*s Protection )ecree- and ection 6 =66> of

Presidential )ecree <o+ 144+=6> The Court ruled that the thirty ,(- day period to appeal to the "ffice of the President fro! decisions of the 'oard as provided in ection 67 of the 1994 0AR' Rules of

Procedure&=64> is not applicable& because special laws providin# for the re!edy of appeal to the "ffice of

the President& such as Presidential )ecree <o+ 597 and Presidential )ecree <o+ 144& !ust prevail over

the 0AR' Rules of Procedure+ ThusB

=@>e find petitioner*s contention bereft of !erit& because of its reliance on a literal readin# of cited rules

without correlatin# the! to current laws as well as presidential decrees on the !atter+

ection 67 of the 1994 0AR' Rules of Procedure provides as followsB

ection 67+ Appeal to the Office of the President + N ;ny party !ay& upon notice to the 'oard and the other party& appeal the decision of the 'oard of Co!!issioners or its division to the "ffice of the President

within thirty ,(- days fro! receipt thereof pursuant to and in accordance with ;d!inistrative "rder <o+

18& of the "ffice of the President dated ebruary 16& 1987+ )ecision of the President shall be final subDect

only to review by the upre!e Court on certiorari or on questions of law+

"n the other hand& ;d!inistrative "rder <o+ 18& series of 1987& issued by public respondent readsB

ection 1+ Anless otherwise #overned by special laws& an appeal to the "ffice of the President shall be

ta%en within thirty ,(- days fro! receipt by the a##rieved party of the decision:resolution:order

co!plained of or appealed fro!+

;s pointed out by public respondent& the aforecited ad!inistrative order allows =the> a##rieved party to file

its appeal with the "ffice of the President within thirty ,(- days fro! receipt of the decision co!plained

of+ <onetheless& such thirty/day period is subDect to the qualification that there are no other statutory

periods of appeal applicable+ .f there are special laws #overnin# particular cases which provide for a

shorter or lon#er re#le!entary period& the sa!e shall prevail over the thirty/day period provided for in the

ad!inistrative order+ This is in line with the rule in statutory construction that an ad!inistrative rule or

re#ulation& in order to be valid& !ust not contradict but confor! to the provisions of the enablin# law+




http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/126999.htm




















@e note that indeed there are special laws that !andate a shorter period of fifteen ,15- days within which

to appeal a case to public respondent+ irst& ection 15 of Presidential )ecree <o+ 957 provides that the

decisions of the <ational 0ousin# ;uthority ,<0;- shall beco!e final and eecutory after the lapse of

fifteen ,15- days fro! the date of receipt of the decision+ econd& ection 6 of Presidential )ecree <o+

144 states that decisions of the <ational 0ousin# ;uthority shall beco!e final and eecutory after the

lapse of fifteen ,15- days fro! the date of its receipt+ The latter decree provides that the decisions of <0;

is appealable only to the "ffice of the President+ urther& we note that the re#ulatory functions of <0;

relatin# to housin# and land develop!ent has been transferred to 0u!an ettle!ents Re#ulatory

Co!!ission& now %nown as 0AR' =by virtue of F+"+ <o+ 384 ,7 ebruary 1981- and F+"+ <o+ 9( ,17

)ece!ber 1983->+ Thus& said presidential issuances providin# for a re#le!entary period of appeal of

fifteen days apply in this case+ ;ccordin#ly& the period of appeal of thirty ,(- days set forth in ection 67

of 0AR' 1994 Rules of Procedure no lon#er holds true for bein# in conflict with the provisions of

aforesaid presidential decrees+ or it is aio!atic that ad!inistrative rules derive their validity fro! the

statute that they are intended to i!ple!ent+ ;ny rule which is not consistent with =the> statute itself is null

and void+

.n this case& petitioner received a copy of the decision of 0AR' on "ctober 6& 1995+ Considerin# that

the re#le!entary period to appeal is fifteen days& petitioner has only until <ove!ber 7& 1995& to file itsappeal+ Anfortunately& petitioner filed its appeal with public respondent only on <ove!ber 6(& 1995 or

twenty/ei#ht days fro! receipt of the appealed decision& which is obviously filed out of ti!e+=65>

.n the case at bar& $ai!a had until $ay 4& 1994& the fifteenth day fro! receipt of the decision of the

'oard on ;pril 19& 1994&=63> to appeal to the "ffice of the President+ The appeal which was filed on $ay 1(&

1994 was clearly beyond the re#le!entary period+

WHEREFORE& in view of all the fore#oin#& the )ece!ber 9& 1998 )ecision of the Court of ;ppeals

in C;/?+R+ P <o+ 41833 which sustained the 2une 6& 1998 "rder of the "ffice of the President in "+P+

Case <o+ 5397 is ;.R$F)+

SO ORDERED.








G.R. N+$. /0-01 23%" 11, 144

LUIS K. LOKIN, 2R., *$ &5" $"6+%' %+78%"" +9 CITIZENS BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION

(CIBAC),Petitioner&

vs+

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS *%' &5" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents+

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

G.R. N+. 4//0

LUIS K. LOKIN, 2R., Petitioner&

vs+

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), EMMANUEL 2OEL 2. VILLANUEVA, CINCHONA C.

GONZALES *%' ARMI 2ANE R. BOR2E, Respondents+

) F C . . " <

BERSAMIN, J.:

The principal question posed in these consolidated special civil actions for certiorari and !anda!us is

whether the Co!!ission on Flections ,C"$FFC- can issue i!ple!entin# rules and re#ulations ,.RRs-

that provide a #round for the substitution of a party/list no!inee not written in Republic ;ct ,R+;+- <o+

7941&1 otherwise %nown as the Party/ist yste! ;ct& the law that the C"$FFC thereby i!ple!ents+

C+77+% A%&"6"'"%&$

The CitiHens* 'attle ;#ainst Corruption ,C.';C- was one of the or#aniHed #roups duly re#istered under

the party/list syste! of representation that !anifested their intent to participate in the $ay 14& 6((7synchroniHed national and local elections+ To#ether with its !anifestation of intent to participate&6 C.';C&

throu#h its president& F!!anuel 2oel 2+ Gillanueva& sub!itted a list of five no!inees fro! which its

representatives would be chosen should C.';C obtain the required nu!ber of qualifyin# votes+ The

no!inees& in the order that their na!es appeared in the certificate of no!ination dated $arch 69&

6((7& wereB ,1- F!!anuel 2oel 2+ GillanuevaE ,6- herein petitioner uis Q+ o%in& 2r+E ,- Cinchona C+

CruH/?onHalesE ,4- herwin Tu#naE and ,5- F!il + ?alan#+ The no!inees* certificates of acceptance

were attached to the certificate of no!ination filed by C.';C+ The list of no!inees was later published in

two newspapers of #eneral circulation& The Philippine tar <ews4 ,sic- and The Philippine )aily .nquirer+5

Prior to the elections& however& C.';C& still throu#h Gillanueva& filed a certificate of no!ination&

substitution and a!end!ent of the list of no!inees dated $ay 7& 6((7&3 whereby it withdrew the

no!inations of o%in& Tu#na and ?alan# and substituted ;r!i 2ane R+ 'orDe as one of the no!inees+ The

a!ended list of no!inees of C.';C thus includedB ,1- Gillanueva& ,6- CruH/?onHales& and ,- 'orDe+

ollowin# the close of the polls& or on 2une 6(& 6((7& Gillanueva sent a letter to C"$FFC Chairperson

'enDa!in ;balos&7 trans!ittin# therewith the si#ned petitions of !ore than 81L of the C.';C !e!bers& in

order to confir! the withdrawal of the no!ination of o%in& Tu#na and ?alan# and the substitution of

'orDe+ .n their petitions& the !e!bers of C.';C averred that o%in and Tu#na were not a!on# the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_179431_2010.html#fnt1




















no!inees presented and proclai!ed by C.';C in its procla!ation rally held in $ay 6((7E and that

?alan# had si#nified his desire to focus on his fa!ily life+

"n 2une 63& 6((7& C.';C& supposedly throu#h its counsel& filed with the C"$FFC en banc sittin# as

the <ational 'oard of Canvassers a !otion see%in# the procla!ation of o%in as its second

no!inee+8 The ri#ht of C.';C to a second seat as well as the ri#ht of o%in to be thus proclai!ed were

purportedly based on Party/ist Canvass Report <o+ 63& which showed C.';C to have #arnered a #rand

total of 744&374 votes+ Asin# all relevant for!ulas& the !otion asserted that C.';C was clearly entitled to

a second seat and o%in to a procla!ation+

The !otion was opposed by Gillanueva and CruH/?onHales+

<otwithstandin# Gillanueva*s filin# of the certificate of no!ination& substitution and a!end!ent of the list

of no!inees and the petitions of !ore than 81L of C.';C !e!bers& the C"$FFC failed to act on the

!atter& pro!ptin# Gillanueva to file a petition to confir! the certificate of no!ination& substitution and

a!end!ent of the list of no!inees of C.';C on 2une 68& 6((7+9

"n 2uly 3& 6((7& the C"$FFC issued Resolution <o+ 8619&1( whereby it resolved to set the !atterpertainin# to the validity of the withdrawal of the no!inations of o%in& Tu#na and ?alan# and the

substitution of 'orDe for proper disposition and hearin#+ The case was doc%eted as F+$+ <o+ (7/(54+

.n the !eanti!e& the C"$FFC en banc, sittin# as the <ational 'oard of Canvassers& issued <ational

'oard of Canvassers ,<'C- Resolution <o+ (7/3( dated 2uly 9& 6((711 to partially proclai! the followin#

parties& or#aniHations and coalitions participatin# under the Party/ist yste! as havin# won in the $ay

14& 6((7 elections& na!elyB 'uhay 0ayaan Iu!abon#& 'ayan $una& C.';C& ?abriela @o!ens Party&

;ssociation of Philippine Flectric Cooperatives& ;dvocacy for Teacher F!power!ent Throu#h ;ction&

Cooperation and 0ar!ony Towards Fducational Refor!s& .nc+& ;%bayanS CitiHens ;ction Party& ;la#ad&

uHon ar!ers Party& Cooperative/<atco <etwor% Party& ;na% Pawis& ;lliance of Rural Concerns and

;bonoE and to defer the procla!ation of the no!inees of the parties& or#aniHations and coalitions with

pendin# disputes until final resolution of their respective cases+

The C"$FFC en banc issued another resolution& <'C Resolution <o+ (7/76 dated 2uly 18&

6((7&16 proclai!in# 'uhay 0ayaan Iu!abon# as entitled to 6 additional seats and 'ayan $una& C.';C&

?abriela @o!ens Party& and ;ssociation of Philippine Flectric Cooperatives to an additional seat eachE

and holdin# in abeyance the procla!ation of the no!inees of said parties& or#aniHations and coalitions

with pendin# disputes until the final resolution of their respective cases+

@ith the for!al declaration that C.';C was entitled to an additional seat& Ricardo de los antos&

purportedly as secretary #eneral of C.';C& infor!ed Roberto P+ <aHareno& ecretary ?eneral of the

0ouse of Representatives& of the pro!ul#ation of <'C Resolution <o+ (7/76 and requested that o%in be

for!ally sworn in by pea%er 2ose de Genecia& 2r+ to enable hi! to assu!e office+ <aHareno replied&however& that the request of )elos antos could not be #ranted because C"$FFC aw )irector ;lioden

)+ )alai# had notified hi! of the pendency of F+$+ (7/(54+

"n epte!ber 14& 6((7& the C"$FFC en banc resolved F+$+ <o+ (7/(541 thuswiseB

@0FRF"RF& considerin# the above discussion& the Co!!ission hereby approves the withdrawal of the

no!ination of ;tty+ uis Q+ o%in& herwin <+ Tu#na and F!il ?alan# as second& third and fourth


















no!inees respectively and the substitution thereby with ;tty+ Cinchona C+ CruH/?onHales as second

no!inee and ;tty+ ;r!i 2ane R+ 'orDe as third no!inee for the party list C.';C+ The new order of C.';Cs

no!inees therefore shall beB

1+ F!!anuel 2oel 2+ Gillanueva

6+ Cinchona C+ CruH/?onHales

+ ;r!i 2ane R+ 'orDe

" "R)FRF)+

The C"$FFC en banc eplained that the actions of Gillanueva in his capacity as the president of C.';C

were presu!ed to be within the scope of his authority as suchE that the president was char#ed by ection

1 of ;rticle .G of the C.';C 'y/aws to oversee and direct the corporate activities& which included the act

of sub!ittin# the partys !anifestation of intent to participate in the $ay 14& 6((7 elections as well as its

certificate of no!ineesE that fro! all indications& Gillanueva as the president of C.';C had always been

provided the leeway to act as the partys representative and that his actions had always been consideredas validE that the act of withdrawal& althou#h done without any written 'oard approval& was acco!plished

with the 'oard*s acquiescence or at least understandin#E and that the intent of the party should be #iven

para!ount consideration in the selection of the no!inees+

;s a result& the C"$FFC en banc proclai!ed CruH/?onHales as the official second no!inee of

C.';C+14 CruH/?onHales too% her oath of office

as a Party/ist Representative of C.';C on epte!ber 17& 6((7+15

Precs of the Consolidated Cases

.n ?+R+ <o+ 17941 and ?+R+ <o+ 17946& o%in see%s throu#h !anda!us to co!pel respondent

C"$FFC to proclai! hi! as the official second no!inee of C.';C+

.n ?+R+ <o+ 18(44& o%in assails ection 1 of Resolution <o+ 78(4 pro!ul#ated on 2anuary 16&

6((7E13 and the resolution dated epte!ber 14& 6((7 issued in F+$+ <o+ (7/(54 ,approvin# C.';C*s

withdrawal of the no!inations of o%in& Tu#na and ?alan# as C.';C*s second& third and fourth no!inees&

respectively& and the substitution by CruH/?onHales and 'orDe in their stead& based on the ri#ht of C.';C

to chan#e its no!inees under ection 1 of Resolution <o+ 78(4-+17 0e alle#es that ection 1 of

Resolution <o+ 78(4 epanded ection 8 of R+;+ <o+ 7941+18 the law that the C"$FFC see%s to thereby

i!ple!ent+

.n its co!!ent& the C"$FFC asserts that a petition for certiorari is an inappropriate recourse in law due

to the procla!ation of CruH/?onHales as Representative and her assu!ption of that officeE that o%in*s

proper recourse was an electoral protest filed in the 0ouse of Representatives Flectoral Tribunal ,0RFT-E

and that& therefore& the Court has no Durisdiction over the !atter bein# raised by o%in+

or its part& C.';C posits that o%in is #uilty of foru! shoppin# for filin# a petition for !anda!us and a

petition for certiorari& considerin# that both petitions ulti!ately see% to have hi! proclai!ed as the second

no!inee of C.';C+
















I$$3"$

The issues are the followin#B

,a- @hether or not the Court has Durisdiction over the controversyE

,b- @hether or not o%in is #uilty of foru! shoppin#E

,c- @hether or not ection 1 of Resolution <o+ 78(4 is unconstitutional and violates the Party/

ist yste! ;ctE and

,d- @hether or not the C"$FFC co!!itted #rave abuse of discretion a!ountin# to lac% or

ecess of Durisdiction in approvin# the withdrawal of the no!inees of C.';C and allowin# the

a!end!ent of the list of no!inees of C.';C without any basis in fact or law and after the close of

the polls& and in rulin# on !atters that were intra/corporate in nature+

R38%<

The petitions are #ranted+

A

T5" C+3!& 5*$ =3!8$'86&8+% +>"! &5" 6*$"

The C"$FFC posits that once the procla!ation of the winnin# party/list or#aniHation has been done

and its no!inee has assu!ed office& any question relatin# to the election& returns and qualifications of the

candidates to the 0ouse of Representatives falls under the Durisdiction of the 0RFT pursuant to ection

17& ;rticle G. of the 1987 Constitution+ Thus& o%in should raise the question he poses herein either in an

election protest or in a special civil action for quo warranto in the 0RFT& not in a special civil action for

certiorari in this Court+

@e do not a#ree+

;n election protest proposes to oust the winnin# candidate fro! office+ .t is strictly a contest between the

defeated and the winnin# candidates& based on the #rounds of electoral frauds and irre#ularities& to

deter!ine who between the! has actually obtained the !aDority of the le#al votes cast and is entitled to

hold the office+ .t can only be filed by a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has

been voted for in the precedin# elections+

; special civil action for quo warranto refers to questions of disloyalty to the tate& or of ineli#ibility of the

winnin# candidate+ The obDective of the action is to unseat the ineli#ible person fro! the office& but not to

install the petitioner in his place+ ;ny voter !ay initiate the action& which is& strictly spea%in#& not a contest

where the parties strive for supre!acy because the petitioner will not be seated even if the respondent

!ay be unseated+

The controversy involvin# o%in is neither an election protest nor an action for quo warranto, for it

concerns a very peculiar situation in which o%in is see%in# to be seated as the second no!inee of

C.';C+ ;lthou#h an election protest !ay properly be available to one party/list or#aniHation see%in# to

unseat another party/list or#aniHation to deter!ine which between the defeated and the winnin# party/list



or#aniHations actually obtained the !aDority of the le#al votes& o%in*s case is not one in which a no!inee

of a particular party/list or#aniHation thereby wants to unseat another no!inee of the sa!e party/list

or#aniHation+ <either does an action for quo warranto lie& considerin# that the case does not involve the

ineli#ibility and disloyalty of CruH/?onHales to the Republic of the Philippines& or so!e other cause of

disqualification for her+

o%in has correctly brou#ht this special civil action for certiorari a#ainst the C"$FFC to see% the review

of the epte!ber 14& 6((7 resolution of the C"$FFC in accordance with ection 7 of ;rticle .J/; of the

1987 Constitution& notwithstandin# the oath and assu!ption of office by CruH/?onHales+ The

constitutional !andate is now i!ple!ented by Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure& which

provides for the review of the Dud#!ents& final orders or resolutions of the C"$FFC and the

Co!!ission on ;udit+ ;s Rule 34 states& the !ode of review is by a petition for certiorari in accordance

with Rule 35 to be filed in the upre!e Court within a li!ited period of ( days+ Andoubtedly& the Court

has ori#inal and eclusive Durisdiction over o%in*s petitions for certiorari and for !anda!us a#ainst the

C"$FFC+

B

P"&8&8+%"! 8$ %+& <38& +9 9+!37 $5+##8%<

oru! shoppin# consists of the filin# of !ultiple suits involvin# the sa!e parties for the sa!e cause of

action& either si!ultaneously or successively& for the purpose of obtainin# a favorable Dud#!ent+ Thus&

foru! shoppin# !ay ariseB ,a- whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one foru!& a party see%s a

favorable decision ,other than by appeal or certiorari - in anotherE or ,b- if& after havin# filed a petition in

the upre!e Court& a party files another petition in the Court of ;ppeals& because he thereby deliberately

splits appeals Uin the hope that even as one case in which a particular re!edy is sou#ht is dis!issed&

another case ,offerin# a si!ilar re!edy- would still be openUE or ,c- where a party atte!pts to obtain a writ

of preli!inary inDunction fro! a court after failin# to obtain the writ fro! another court+19

@hat is truly i!portant to consider in deter!inin# whether foru! shoppin# eists or not is the veation

caused to the courts and the liti#ants by a party who accesses different courts and ad!inistrative

a#encies to rule on the sa!e or related causes or to #rant the sa!e or substantially the sa!e reliefs& in

the process creatin# the possibility of conflictin# decisions bein# rendered by the different fora upon the

sa!e issue+6(

The filin# of identical petitions in different courts is prohibited& because such act constitutes foru!

shoppin#& a !alpractice that is proscribed and conde!ned as triflin# with the courts and as abusin# their

processes+ oru! shoppin# is an i!proper conduct that de#rades the ad!inistration of Dustice+61

<onetheless& the !ere filin# of several cases based on the sa!e incident does not necessarily constitute

foru! shoppin#+ The test is whether the several actions filed involve the sa!e transactions and the sa!e

essential facts and circu!stances+66 The actions !ust also raise identical causes of action& subDect!atter& and issues+6Flsewise stated& foru! shoppin# eists where the ele!ents of litis pendentia are

present& or where a final Dud#!ent in one case will a!ount to res udicata in the other+64

o%in has filed the petition for !anda!us to co!pel the C"$FFC to proclai! hi! as the second

no!inee of C.';C upon the issuance of <'C Resolution <o+ (7/76 ,announcin# C.';C*s entitle!ent to

an additional seat in the 0ouse of Representatives-& and to stri%e down the provision in <'C Resolution

<o+ (7/3( and <'C Resolution <o+ (7/76 holdin# in abeyance Uall procla!ation of the no!inees of
















concerned parties& or#aniHations and coalitions with pendin# disputes shall li%ewise be held in abeyance

until final resolution of their respective cases+U 0e has insisted that the C"$FFC had the !inisterial duty

to proclai! hi! due to his bein# C.';C*s second no!ineeE and that the C"$FFC had no authority to

eercise discretion and to suspend or defer the procla!ation of winnin# party/list or#aniHations with

pendin# disputes+

"n the other hand& o%in has resorted to the petition for certiorari to assail the epte!ber 14& 6((7

resolution of the C"$FFC ,approvin# the withdrawal of the no!ination of o%in& Tu#na and ?alan# and

the substitution by CruH/?onHales as the second no!inee and 'orDe as the third no!inee-E and to

challen#e the validity of ection 1 of Resolution <o+ 78(4& the C"$FFC*s basis for allowin# C.';C*s

withdrawal of o%in*s no!ination+

;pplyin# the test for foru! shoppin#& the consecutive filin# of the action for certiorari and the action for

!anda!us did not violate the rule a#ainst foru! shoppin# even if the actions involved the sa!e parties&

because they were based on different causes of action and the reliefs they sou#ht were different+

C

I%>*8'8& +9 S"6&8+% 0 +9 R"$+3&8+% N+. 4/

The le#islative power of the ?overn!ent is vested eclusively in the e#islature in accordance with the

doctrine of separation of powers+ ;s a #eneral rule& the e#islature cannot surrender or abdicate its

le#islative power& for doin# so will be unconstitutional+ ;lthou#h the power to !a%e laws cannot be

dele#ated by the e#islature to any other authority& a power that is not le#islative in character !ay be

dele#ated+65

Ander certain circu!stances& the e#islature can dele#ate to eecutive officers and ad!inistrative boards

the authority to adopt and pro!ul#ate .RRs+ To render such dele#ation lawful& the e#islature !ust

declare the policy of the law and fi the le#al principles that are to control in #iven cases+ The e#islature

should set a definite or pri!ary standard to #uide those e!powered to eecute the law+ or as lon# as the

policy is laid down and a proper standard is established by statute& there can be no unconstitutional

dele#ation of le#islative power when the e#islature leaves to selected instru!entalities the duty of

!a%in# subordinate rules within the prescribed li!its& althou#h there is conferred upon the eecutive

officer or ad!inistrative board a lar#e !easure of discretion+ There is a distinction between the dele#ation

of power to !a%e a law and the confer!ent of an authority or a discretion to be eercised under and in

pursuance of the law& for the power to !a%e laws necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be+ 63

The authority to !a%e .RRs in order to carry out an epress le#islative purpose& or to effect the operation

and enforce!ent of a law is not a power eclusively le#islative in character& but is rather ad!inistrative in

nature+ The rules and re#ulations adopted and pro!ul#ated !ust not& however& subvert or be contrary to

eistin# statutes+ The function of pro!ul#atin# .RRs !ay be le#iti!ately eercised only for the purpose of

carryin# out the provisions of a law+ The power of ad!inistrative a#encies is confined to i!ple!entin# thelaw or puttin# it into effect+ Corollary to this is that ad!inistrative re#ulation cannot etend the law and

a!end a le#islative enact!ent+ .t is aio!atic that the clear letter of the law is controllin# and cannot be

a!ended by a !ere ad!inistrative rule issued for its i!ple!entation+ .ndeed& ad!inistrative or eecutive

acts shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution+67

To be valid& therefore& the ad!inistrative .RRs !ust co!ply with the followin# requisites to be validB68











1+ .ts pro!ul#ation !ust be authoriHed by the e#islatureE

6+ .t !ust be within the scope of the authority #iven by the e#islatureE

+ .t !ust be pro!ul#ated in accordance with the prescribed procedureE and

4+ .t !ust be reasonable+

The C"$FFC is constitutionally !andated to enforce and ad!inister all laws and re#ulations relative to

the conduct of an election& a plebiscite& an initiative& a referendu!& and a recall+69 .n addition to the

powers and functions conferred upon it by the Constitution& the C"$FFC is also char#ed to pro!ul#ate

.RRs i!ple!entin# the provisions of the "!nibus Flection Code or other laws that the C"$FFC

enforces and ad!inisters+(

The C"$FFC issued Resolution <o+ 78(4 pursuant to its powers under the Constitution& 'atas

Pa!bansa 'l#+ 881& and the Party/ist yste! ;ct+1 0ence& the C"$FFC !et the first requisite+

The C"$FFC also !et the third requisite+ There is no question that Resolution <o+ 78(4 underwent theprocedural necessities of publication and disse!ination in accordance with the procedure prescribed in

the resolution itself+

@hether ection 1 of Resolution <o+ 78(4 was valid or not is thus to be tested on the basis of whether

the second and fourth requisites were !et+ .t is in this respect that the challen#e of o%in a#ainst ection

1 succeeds+

;s earlier said& the dele#ated authority !ust be properly eercised+ This si!ply !eans that the resultin#

.RRs !ust not be ultra vires as to be issued beyond the li!its of the authority conferred+ .t is basic that an

ad!inistrative a#ency cannot a!end an act of Con#ress&6 for ad!inistrative .RRs are solely intended to

carry out& not to supplant or to !odify& the law+ The ad!inistrative a#ency issuin# the .RRs !ay notenlar#e& alter& or restrict the provisions of the law it ad!inisters and enforces& and cannot en#raft

additional non/contradictory require!ents not conte!plated by the e#islature+

ection 8 of R+;+ <o+ 7941 readsB

ection 8+ !o"ination of Party#$ist Representatives.#Fach re#istered party& or#aniHation or coalition shall

sub!it to the C"$FFC not later that forty/five ,45- days before the election a list of na!es& not less than

five ,5-& fro! which party/list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required nu!ber of

votes+

; person !ay be no!inated in one ,1- list only+ "nly persons who have #iven their consent in writin# !ay

be na!ed 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 i!!ediately precedin# election+ <o chan#e of na!es or alteration

of the order of no!inees shall be allowed after the sa!e shall have been sub!itted to the C"$FFC

ecept in cases where the no!inee dies& or withdraws in writin# his no!ination& beco!es incapacitated in

which case the na!e of the substitute no!inee shall be placed last in the list+ .ncu!bent sectoral

representatives in the 0ouse of Representatives who are no!inated in the party/list syste! shall not be

considered resi#ned+















The provision is dayli#ht clear+ The e#islature thereby deprived the party/list or#aniHation of the ri#ht to

chan#e its no!inees or to alter the order of no!inees once the list is sub!itted to the C"$FFC& ecept

whenB ,a- the no!inee diesE ,b- the no!inee withdraws in writin# his no!inationE or ,c- the no!inee

beco!es incapacitated+ The provision !ust be read literally because its lan#ua#e is plain and free fro!

a!bi#uity& and epresses a sin#le& definite& and sensible !eanin#+ uch !eanin# is conclusively

presu!ed to be the !eanin# that the e#islature has intended to convey+ Fven where the courts should

be convinced that the e#islature really intended so!e other !eanin#& and even where the literal

interpretation should defeat the very purposes of the enact!ent& the eplicit declaration of the e#islature

is still the law& fro! which the courts !ust not depart+4@hen the law spea%s in clear and cate#orical

lan#ua#e& there is no reason for interpretation or construction& but only for application+5 ;ccordin#ly& an

ad!inistrative a#ency tas%ed to i!ple!ent a statute !ay not construe it by epandin# its !eanin# where

its provisions are clear and una!bi#uous+3

The le#islative intent to deprive the party/list or#aniHation of the ri#ht to chan#e the no!inees or to alter

the order of the no!inees was also epressed durin# the deliberations of the Con#ress& viHB

$R+ ;?$;<B ;nd a#ain on ection 5& on the no!ination of party list representatives& . do not see any

provision here which prohibits or for that !atter allows the no!inatin# party to chan#e the no!inees or toalter the order of prioritiHation of na!es of no!inees+ .s the i!plication correct that at any ti!e after

sub!ission the na!es could still be chan#ed or the listin# alteredO

$R+ ;'AF?B $r+ pea%er& that is a #ood issue brou#ht out by the distin#uished ?entle!an fro! ;lbay

and perhaps a perfectin# a!end!ent !ay be introduced therein+ The sponsorin# co!!ittee will #ladly

consider the sa!e+

$R+ ;?$;<B .n other words& what . would li%e to see is that after the list is sub!itted to the C"$FFC

officially& no !ore chan#es should be !ade in the na!es or in the order of listin#+

$R+ ;'AF?B $r+ pea%er& there !ay be a situation wherein the na!e of a particular no!inee has been

sub!itted to the Co!!ission on Flections but before election day the no!inee chan#ed his political party

affiliation+ The no!inee is therefore no lon#er qualified to be included in the party list and the political

party has a perfect ri#ht to chan#e the na!e of that no!inee who chan#ed his political party affiliation+

$R+ ;?$;<B Ies of course+ .n that particular case& the chan#e can be effected but will be the eception

rather than the rule+ ;nother eception !ost probably is the no!inee dies& then there has to be a chan#e

but any chan#e for that !atter should always be at the last part of the list so that the prioritiHation !ade

by the party will not be adversely affected+7

The usa#e of U<oU in ection 8 N U<o chan#e of na!es or alteration of the order of no!inees shall be

allowed after the sa!e shall have been sub!itted to the C"$FFC ecept in cases where the no!inee

dies& or withdraws in writin# his no!ination& or beco!es incapacitated& in which case the na!e of thesubstitute no!inee shall be placed last in the listU N renders ection 8 a ne#ative law& and is indicative of

the le#islative intent to !a%e the statute !andatory+ Prohibitive or ne#ative words can rarely& if ever& be

directory& for there is but one way to obey the co!!and Uthou shall not&U and that is to co!pletely refrain

fro! doin# the forbidden act&8 subDect to certain eceptions stated in the law itself& li%e in this case+














ection 8 does not unduly deprive the party/list or#aniHation of its ri#ht to choose its no!inees& but

!erely divests it of the ri#ht to chan#e its no!inees or to alter the order in the list of its no!inees* na!es

after sub!ission of the list to the C"$FFC+

The prohibition is not arbitrary or capriciousE neither is it without reason on the part of law!a%ers+ The

C"$FFC can ri#htly presu!e fro! the sub!ission of the list that the list reflects the true will of the

party/list or#aniHation+ The C"$FFC will not concern itself with whether or not the list contains the real

intended no!inees of the party/list or#aniHation& but will only deter!ine whether the no!inees pass all

the require!ents prescribed by the law and whether or not the no!inees possess all the qualifications

and none of the disqualifications+ Thereafter& the na!es of the no!inees will be published in newspapers

of #eneral circulation+ ;lthou#h the people vote for the party/list or#aniHation itself in a party/list syste! of

election& not for the individual no!inees& they still have the ri#ht to %now who the no!inees of any

particular party/list or#aniHation are+ The publication of the list of the party/list no!inees in newspapers of

#eneral circulation serves that ri#ht of the people& enablin# the voters to !a%e intelli#ent and infor!ed

choices+ .n contrast& allowin# the party/list or#aniHation to chan#e its no!inees throu#h withdrawal of their

no!inations& or to alter the order of the no!inations after the sub!ission of the list of no!inees

circu!vents the voters* de!and for transparency+ The law!a%ers* eclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal

has eli!inated the possibility of such circu!vention+

D

E?6"#&8+%$ 8% S"6&8+% +9 R.A. / *!" "?63$8>"

ection 8 of R+;+ <o+ 7941 enu!erates only three instances in which the party/list or#aniHation can

substitute another person in place of the no!inee whose na!e has been sub!itted to the C"$FFC&

na!elyB ,a- when the no!inee diesE ,b- when the no!inee withdraws in writin# his no!inationE and ,c-

when the no!inee beco!es incapacitated+

The enu!eration is eclusive& for& necessarily& the #eneral rule applies to all cases not fallin# under any of

the three eceptions+

@hen the statute itself enu!erates the eceptions to the application of the #eneral rule& the eceptions

are strictly but reasonably construed+ The eceptions etend only as far as their lan#ua#e fairly warrants&

and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the #eneral provision rather than the eceptions+ @here the

#eneral rule is established by a statute with eceptions& none but the enactin# authority can curtail the

for!er+ <ot even the courts !ay add to the latter by i!plication& and it is a rule that an epress eception

ecludes all others& althou#h it is always proper in deter!inin# the applicability of the rule to inquire

whether& in a particular case& it accords with reason and Dustice+9%avvphi%

The appropriate and natural office of the eception is to ee!pt so!ethin# fro! the scope of the #eneral

words of a statute& which is otherwise within the scope and !eanin# of such #eneral words+

Consequently& the eistence of an eception in a statute clarifies the intent that the statute shall apply toall cases not ecepted+ Fceptions are subDect to the rule of strict constructionE hence& any doubt will be

resolved in favor of the #eneral provision and a#ainst the eception+ .ndeed& the liberal construction of a

statute will see! to require in !any circu!stances that the eception& by which the operation of the

statute is li!ited or abrid#ed& should receive a restricted construction+





E

S"6&8+% 0 +9 R"$+3&8+% N+. 4/ "?#*%'"'

&5" "?6"#&8+%$ 3%'"! S"6&8+% +9 R.A. N+. /

ection 1 of Resolution <o+ 78(4 states&

ection 1+ ubstitution of no!inees+ N A #*!&-8$& %+78%"" 7* " $3$&8&3&"' +% @5"% 5" '8"$,

+! 58$ %+78%*&8+% 8$ @8&5'!*@% &5" #*!&, +! 5" "6+7"$ 8%6*#*68&*&"' &+ 6+%&8%3" *$ $365, +!

5" @8&5'!*@$ 58$ *66"#&*%6" &+ * %+78%*&8+%. .n any of these cases& the na!e of the substitute

no!inee shall be placed last in the list of no!inees+

<o substitution shall be allowed by reason of withdrawal after the polls+

Anli%e ection 8 of R+;+ <o+ 7941& the fore#oin# re#ulation provides four instances& the fourth bein# when

the Uno!ination is withdrawn by the party+U

o%in insists that the C"$FFC #ravely abused its discretion in epandin# to four the three statutory

#rounds for substitutin# a no!inee+

@e a#ree with o%in+

The C"$FFC& despite its role as the i!ple!entin# ar! of the ?overn!ent in the enforce!ent and

ad!inistration of all laws and re#ulations relative to the conduct of an election&4( has neither the authority

nor the license to epand& etend& or add anythin# to the law it see%s to i!ple!ent thereby+ The .RRs the

C"$FFC issues for that purpose should always accord with the law to be i!ple!ented& and should not

override& supplant& or !odify the law+ .t is basic that the .RRs should re!ain consistent with the law they

intend to carry out+41

.ndeed& ad!inistrative .RRs adopted by a particular depart!ent of the ?overn!ent under le#islativeauthority !ust be in har!ony with the provisions of the law& and should be for the sole purpose of carryin#

the law*s #eneral provisions into effect+ The law itself cannot be epanded by such .RRs& because an

ad!inistrative a#ency cannot a!end an act of Con#ress+46

The C"$FFC eplains that ection 1 of Resolution <o+ 78(4 has added nothin# to ection 8 of R+;+

<o+ 7941&4 because it has !erely reworded and rephrased the statutory provision*s phraseolo#y+

The eplanation does not persuade+

To reword !eans to alter the wordin# of or to restate in other wordsE to rephrase is to phrase anew or in a

new for!+44 'oth ter!s si#nify that the !eanin# of the ori#inal word or phrase is not altered+

0owever& the C"$FFC did not !erely reword or rephrase the tet of ection 8 of R+;+ <o+ 7941&

because it established an entirely new #round not found in the tet of the provision+ The new #round

#ranted to the party/list or#aniHation the unilateral ri#ht to withdraw its no!ination already sub!itted to

the C"$FFC& which ection 8 of R+;+ <o+ 7941 did not allow to be done+ <either was the #rant of the

unilateral ri#ht conte!plated by the drafters of the law& who precisely denied the ri#ht to withdraw the

no!ination ,as the quoted record of the deliberations of the 0ouse of Representatives has indicated-+ The

#rant thus conflicted with the statutory intent to save the no!inee fro! fallin# under the whi! of the party/















list or#aniHation once his na!e has been sub!itted to the C"$FFC& and to spare the electorate fro!

the capriciousness of the party/list or#aniHations+

@e further note that the new #round would not secure the obDect of R+;+ <o+ 7941 of developin# and

#uaranteein# a full& free and open party/list electoral syste!+ The success of the syste! could only be

ensured by avoidin# any arbitrariness on the part of the party/list or#aniHations& by seein# to the

transparency of the syste!& and by #uaranteein# that the electorate would be afforded the chance of

!a%in# intelli#ent and infor!ed choices of their party/list representatives+

The insertion of the new #round was invalid+ ;n aio! in ad!inistrative law postulates that ad!inistrative

authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of their .RRs& but !ust ensure that

their .RRs are reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the end in view+ .f the .RRs are shown to bear no

reasonable relation to the purposes for which they were authoriHed to be issued& they !ust be held to be

invalid and should be struc% down+45

F

E99"6& +9 #*!&8* %38& +9 S"6&8+% 0 +9 R"$+3&8+% N+. 4/

;n .RR adopted pursuant to the law is itself law+43 .n case of conflict between the law and the .RR& the law

prevails+ There can be no question that an .RR or any of its parts not adopted pursuant to the law is no

law at all and has neither the force nor the effect of law+47 The invalid rule& re#ulation& or part thereof

cannot be a valid source of any ri#ht& obli#ation& or power+

Considerin# that ection 1 of Resolution <o+ 78(4 N to the etent that it allows the party/list or#aniHation

to withdraw its no!ination already sub!itted to the C"$FFC N was invalid& C.';C*s withdrawal of its

no!ination of o%in and the others and its substitution of the! with new no!inees were also invalid and

ineffectual+ .t is clear enou#h that any substitution of o%in and the others could only be for any of the

#rounds epressly stated in ection 8 of R+;+ <o+ 7941+ Resultantly& the C"$FFC*s approval of

C.';C*s petition of withdrawal of the no!inations and its reco#nition of C.';C*s substitution& both

throu#h its assailed epte!ber 14& 6((7 resolution& should be struc% down for lac% of le#al basis+

Thereby& the C"$FFC acted without Durisdiction& havin# relied on the invalidly issued ection 1 of

Resolution <o+ 78(4 to support its action+

WHEREFORE, we #rant the petitions for certiorari and !anda!us+

@e declare ection 1 of Resolution <o+ 78(4 invalid and of no effect to the etent that it authoriHes a

party/list or#aniHation to withdraw its no!ination of a no!inee once it has sub!itted the no!ination to the

Co!!ission on Flections+

;ccordin#ly& we annul and set asideB

,a- The resolution dated epte!ber 14& 6((7 issued in F+ $+ <o+ (7/(54 approvin# CitiHens*

'attle ;#ainst Corruption*s withdrawal of the no!inations of uis Q+ o%in& 2r+& herwin <+ Tu#na&

and F!il ?alan# as its second& third& and fourth no!inees& respectively& and orderin# their

substitution by Cinchona C+ CruH/?onHales as second no!inee and ;r!i 2ane R+ 'orDe as third

no!ineeE and









,b- The procla!ation by the Co!!ission on Flections of Cinchona C+ CruH/?onHales as a Party/

ist Representative representin# CitiHens* 'attle ;#ainst Corruption in the 0ouse of

Representatives+

@e order the Co!!ission on Flections to forthwith proclai! petitioner uis Q+ o%in& 2r+ as a Party/ist

Representative representin# CitiHens* 'attle ;#ainst Corruption in the 0ouse of Representatives+

@e !a%e no pronounce!ents on costs of suit+

" "R)FRF)+

05 - limits on rule making 3

Documents