G.R. No. 189600 June 29, 2010 CARPIO MORALES, J.

MORALES, J.: discretion against public respondent; and that he became a member
of the overseas Filipinos and their families sector years before the
2007 elections.
MILAGROS E. AMORES, Petitioner,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and It bears noting that the term of office of party-list representatives
EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA,Respondents. elected in the May, 2007 elections will expire on June 30, 2010.
While the petition has, thus, become moot and academic, rendering
of a decision on the merits in this case would still be of practical
Via this petition for certiorari, Milagros E. Amores (petitioner)
value.7
challenges the Decision of May 14, 2009 and Resolution No. 09-
130 of August 6, 2009 of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (public respondent), which respectively dismissed The Court adopts the issues framed by public respondent, to wit: (1)
petitioner’s Petition for Quo Warranto questioning the legality of the whether petitioner’s Petition for Quo Warranto was dismissible for
assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva (private having been filed unseasonably; and (2) whether Sections 9 and 15
respondent) as representative of the party-list organization Citizens’ of RA No. 7941 apply to private respondent.
Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives,
and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
On the first issue, the Court finds that public respondent committed
grave abuse of discretion in considering petitioner’s Petition for Quo
In her Petition for Quo Warranto1 seeking the ouster of private Warranto filed out of time. Its counting of the 10-day reglementary
respondent, petitioner alleged that, among other things, private period provided in its Rules8 from the issuance of NBC Resolution
respondent assumed office without a formal proclamation issued by No. 07-60 on July 9, 2007 is erroneous.
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC); he was disqualified to
be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since, at the time of the
To be sure, while NBC Resolution No. 07-60 partially proclaimed
filing of his certificates of nomination and acceptance, he was
CIBAC as a winner in the May, 2007 elections, along with other
already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to
party-list organizations,9 it was by no measure a proclamation of
Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the
private respondent himself as required by Section 13 of RA No.
Party-List System Act; and his change of affiliation from CIBAC’s
7941.
youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families
sector was not effected at least six months prior to the May 14,
2007 elections so as to be qualified to represent the new sector Section 13. How Party-List Representatives are Chosen. Party-list
under Section 15 of RA No. 7941. representatives shall be proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the
list of names submitted by the respective parties, organizations, or
coalitions to the COMELEC according to their ranking in said list.
Not having filed his Answer despite due notice, private respondent
was deemed to have entered a general denial pursuant to public
respondent’s Rules.2 AT ALL EVENTS, this Court set aside NBC Resolution No. 07-60 in
Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency
v. COMELEC10 after revisiting the formula for allocation of additional
As earlier reflected, public respondent, by Decision of May 14,
seats to party-list organizations.
2009,3 dismissed petitioner’s Petition for Quo Warranto, finding that
CIBAC was among the party-list organizations which the COMELEC
had partially proclaimed as entitled to at least one seat in the House Considering, however, that the records do not disclose the exact
of Representatives through National Board of Canvassers (NBC) date of private respondent’s proclamation, the Court overlooks the
Resolution No. 07-60 dated July 9, 2007. It also found the petition technicality of timeliness and rules on the merits. Alternatively, since
which was filed on October 17, 2007 to be out of time, the petitioner’s challenge goes into private respondent’s qualifications, it
reglementary period being 10 days from private respondent’s may be filed at anytime during his term.
proclamation.
Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must
Respecting the age qualification for youth sectoral nominees under be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or
Section 9 of RA No. 7941, public respondent held that it applied assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure. Once any
only to those nominated as such during the first three congressional of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably
terms after the ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a challenged.11
sectoral party is thereafter registered exclusively as representing
the youth sector, which CIBAC, a multi-sectoral organization, is not.
On the second and more substantial issue, the Court shall first
discuss the age requirement for youth sector nominees under
In the matter of private respondent’s shift of affiliation from CIBAC’s Section 9 of RA No. 7941 reading:
youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families
sector, public respondent held that Section 15 of RA No. 7941 did
not apply as there was no resultant change in party-list affiliation. Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be
nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
Her Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)year immediately
No. 09-130 dated August 6, 2009,4 petitioner filed the present preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a bona fide
Petition for Certiorari.5 member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for
at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at
least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
Petitioner contends that, among other things, public respondent
created distinctions in the application of Sections 9 and 15 of RA
No. 7941 that are not found in the subject provisions, fostering In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be
interpretations at war with equal protection of the laws; and NBC twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the
Resolution No. 07-60, which was a partial proclamation of winning day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains
party-list organizations, was not enough basis for private the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in
respondent to assume office on July 10, 2007, especially office until the expiration of his term. (Emphasis and underscoring
considering that he admitted receiving his own Certificate of supplied.)
Proclamation only on December 13, 2007.
The Court finds no textual support for public respondent’s
In his Comment,6 private respondent avers in the main that interpretation that Section 9 applied only to those nominated during
petitioner has not substantiated her claims of grave abuse of the first three congressional terms after the ratification of the
Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter having found that he shifted to CIBAC’s overseas Filipino workers
registered exclusively as representing the youth sector. and their families sector only on March 17, 2007.161avvphi1

A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear That private respondent is the first nominee of CIBAC, whose
and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for victory was later upheld, is of no moment. A party-list organization’s
construction or interpretation. There is only room for application. 12 ranking of its nominees is a mere indication of preference, their
qualifications according to law are a different matter.
As the law states in unequivocal terms that a nominee of the youth
sector must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) It not being contested, however, that private respondent was
years of age on the day of the election, so it must be that a eventually proclaimed as a party-list representative of CIBAC and
candidate who is more than 30 on election day is not qualified to be rendered services as such, he is entitled to keep the compensation
a youth sector nominee. Since this mandate is contained in RA No. and emoluments provided by law for the position until he is properly
7941, the Party-List System Act, it covers ALL youth sector declared ineligible to hold the same.17
nominees vying for party-list representative seats.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May
As petitioner points out, RA No. 7941 was enacted only in March, 14, 2009 and Resolution No. 09-130 dated August 6, 2009 of the
1995. There is thus no reason to apply Section 9 thereof only to House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are SET ASIDE.
youth sector nominees nominated during the first three Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva is declared ineligible to hold office as
congressional terms after the ratification of the Constitution in 1987. a member of the House of Representatives representing the party-
Under this interpretation, the last elections where Section 9 applied list organization CIBAC.
were held in May, 1995 or two months after the law was enacted.
This is certainly not sound legislative intent, and could not have
SO ORDERED.
been the objective of RA No. 7941.

There is likewise no rhyme or reason in public respondent’s

ratiocination that after the third congressional term from the
ratification of the Constitution, which expired in 1998, Section 9 of
RA No. 7941 would apply only to sectoral parties registered
exclusively as representing the youth sector. This distinction is
nowhere found in the law. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire
debemus. When the law does not distinguish, we must not
distinguish.13

Respecting Section 15 of RA No. 7941, the Court fails to find even

an iota of textual support for public respondent’s ratiocination that
the provision did not apply to private respondent’s shift of affiliation
from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their
families sector as there was no resultant change in party-list
affiliation. Section 15 reads:

Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect. Any elected party-list

representative who changes his political party or sectoral
affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat: Provided,
That if he changes his political party orsectoral affiliation within six
(6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination
as party-list representative under his new party or organization.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

What is clear is that the wording of Section 15 covers changes in

both political party and sectoral affiliation. And the latter may occur
within the same party since multi-sectoral party-list organizations
are qualified to participate in the Philippine party-list system. Hence,
a nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within the same party
will only be eligible for nomination under the new sectoral affiliation
if the change has been effected at least six months before the
elections. Again, since the statute is clear and free from ambiguity,
it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation. This is the plain meaning rule or verba legis, as
expressed in the maxim index animi sermo or speech is the index of
intention.14

It is, therefore, beyond cavil that Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941

apply to private respondent.

The Court finds that private respondent was not qualified to be a

nominee of either the youth sector or the overseas Filipino workers
and their families sector in the May, 2007 elections.

The records disclose that private respondent was already more than
30 years of age in May, 2007, it being stipulated that he was born in
August, 1975.15 Moreover, he did not change his sectoral affiliation
at least six months before May, 2007, public respondent itself