Case No.

351
In the matter of the brewing controversies in the elections of the IBP
AM 09-5-2-Sc.
April 11,2013
Art. 3 Sec. 1
Facts:
A Decision made by the Supreme Court last December 10, 2010 saying that only the
Western Visayas Region and Eastern Mindanao Region of the IBP are allowed to field their
governors for the IBP EVP position. The precedent decision was re-opened because of the
motion for resolution which the court shall settle in this case is a plea for intervention by IBPSouthern Luzon Region (IBP-SLR). A Special Investigating Committee was created to
investigate leadership and election controversies within the IBP, which then resulted into this
resolution. They found that only the Western Visayas Region and the Eastern Mindanao Region
have not yet had their turn as the IBP EVP. This is material as the system of voting in the IBP
only allows a region one term as the President or EVP for every cycle wherein every region must
hold the position. In accordance, Atty. Libarios of IBP-Eastern Mindanao Region became IBP
president for the 2011-2013 term. Upon Proclamation, the IBP SLR files the motion for
resolution in the case at bar. In said motion, the IBP-SLR contends that the disqualification of
their candidate for the 2009-2011 election means that they may field their governor in contention
for the 2011- 2013 term. The western visayas region of the IBP also filed a complaint as the
disqualification of the original candidate in the 2009-2011 term led Libarios of the Eastern
Mindanao Region to be the president. They therefore motion for the court to declare only the
Western Visayas region to be eligible to field their governor.

Issues: W/n the intervention of the IBP-SLR should be allowed.

Held:
Yes, the supreme court said that the IBP-SLR has already selected 2 governors, one as the
EVP and the other one that stood as president until he was disqualified. Therefore, in accordance
of the rules , they can no longer field a governor as candidate. Also, IBP-SLR cant say that they
have been denied equal protection of the laws because the decision that they seek to reopen is
already final and executory prior to the filing of their intervention. The publication of the
decision gives no reason for IBP-SLR to ignore its finality. Their denial of their motion to
intervene can be denied without the denial fo their rights to equal protection.

Prepared By: Ma-yr-zar Martin B. Teruel