G.R. No. 189600. June 29, 2010.

* Against Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives, and denied

MILAGROS E. AMORES, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, In her Petition for Quo Warranto[1] seeking the ouster of private
respondents. respondent, petitioner alleged that, among other things, private respondent
Election Law; Party-List System; A candidate who is more than 30 on election day is not qualified assumed office without a formal proclamation issued by the Commission on
to be a youth sector nominee.—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) years of age on the day Elections (COMELEC); he was disqualified to be a nominee of the youth
of the election, so it must be that a candidate who is more than 30 on election day is not qualified to sector of CIBAC since, at the time of the filing of his certificates of nomination
be a youth sector nominee. Since this mandate is contained in RA No. 7941, the Party-List System Act, and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30
it covers ALL youth sector nominees vying for party-list representative seats.
Same; Same; Changes of Political Party and Sectoral Affiliation; A nominee who changes his pursuant to Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the
sectoral affiliation within the same party will not only be eligible for nomination under the new sectoral Party-List System Act; and his change of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth
affiliation of the change has been effected at least six months before the elections.—What is clear is that sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector was not
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 effected at least six months prior to the May 14, 2007 elections so as to
_______________
participate in the Philippine party-list system. Hence, a nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation
[1] Rollo, pp. 104-113.
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 595
free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 595
This is the plain meaning rule or verba legis, as expressed in the maxim index animi sermo or speech is Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
the index of intention.
Same; Same; A party-list organization’s ranking of its nominees is a mere indication of preference, be qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15 of RA No. 7941.
their qualifications according to law are a different matter.—That private respondent is the first Not having filed his Answer despite due notice, private respondent was
nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was later upheld, is of no moment. A party-list organization’s ranking deemed to have entered a general denial pursuant to public respondent’s
of its nominees is a mere indica-
_______________ Rules.[2]
* EN BANC.
594
As earlier reflected, public respondent, by Decision of May 14,
5 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 2009,[3] dismissed petitioner’s Petition for Quo Warranto, finding that CIBAC
94 was among the party-list organizations which the COMELEC had partially
Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal proclaimed as entitled to at least one seat in the House of Representatives
tion of preference, their qualifications according to law are a different matter. through National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Resolution No. 07-60 dated July
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court 9, 2007. It also found the petition which was filed on October 17, 2007 to be
of Appeals. out of time, the reglementary period being 10 days from private respondent’s
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. proclamation.
Rogelio Pizarro, Jr. for petitioner. Respecting the age qualification for youth sectoral nominees under Section
Frederick Mikhail I. Farolan for Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva. 9 of RA No. 7941, public respondent held that it applied only to those
nominated as such during the first three congressional terms after the
CARPIO-MORALES, J.: ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is
Via this petition for certiorari, Milagros E. Amores (petitioner) challenges thereafter registered exclusively as representing the youth sector, which
the Decision of May 14, 2009 and Resolution No. 09-130 of August 6, 2009 of CIBAC, a multi-sectoral organization, is not.
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (public respondent), which In the matter of private respondent’s shift of affiliation from CIBAC’s
respectively dismissed petitioner’s Petition for Quo Warranto questioning the youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector, public
legality of the assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva (private respondent held that Section 15 of RA No. 7941 did not apply as there was no
respondent) as representative of the party-list organization Citizens’ Battle resultant change in party-list affiliation.
 Her Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution No. 09-
130 dated August 6, 2009,[4] petitioner filed the present Petition
for Certiorari.[5]
_______________
[2] Id., at p. 33.
[3] Id., at pp. 32-45.
[4] Id., at pp. 46-47.
[5] Id., at pp. 3-31.
596
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
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 interpretations at war with
equal protection of the laws; and NBC Resolution No. 07-60, which was a
partial proclamation of winning party-list organizations, was not enough
basis for private respondent to assume office on July 10, 2007, especially
considering that he admitted receiving his own Certificate of Proclamation
only on December 13, 2007.
In his Comment,[6] private respondent avers in the main that petitioner
has not substantiated her claims of grave abuse of discretion against public
respondent; and that he became a member of the overseas Filipinos and their
families sector years before the 2007 elections.
It bears noting that the term of office of party-list representatives 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 value.[7]
The Court adopts the issues framed by public respondent, to wit: (1)
whether petitioner’s Petition for Quo Warranto was dismissible for having
been filed unseasonably; and (2) whether Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941
apply to private respondent.
On the first issue, the Court finds that public respondent committed grave
abuse of discretion in considering petitioner’s Petition for Quo Warranto filed
out of time. Its counting of the 10-day reglementary period provided in its
Rules[8]
_______________
[6] Id., at pp. 176-187.
[7] Vide Malaluan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120193, March 6, 1996, 254 SCRA 397, 403-404.
[8] Rule 17 of the 2004 Rules of public respondent provides:
Rule 17. Quo Warranto.—A verified petition for quo warrantocontesting the election of a Member of the House
of Representatives on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to
597
VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 597
Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
from the issuance of NBC Resolution No. 07-60 on July 9, 2007 is erroneous.
To be sure, while NBC Resolution No. 07-60 partially proclaimed CIBAC as
a winner in the May, 2007 elections, along with other party-list
organizations,[9] it was by no measure a proclamation of private respondent
himself as required by Section 13 of RA No. 7941.
“Section 13. How Party-List Representatives are Chosen.—Party-list 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.”
AT ALL EVENTS, this Court set aside NBC Resolution No. 07-60
in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency
v. COMELEC[10] after revisiting the formula for allocation of additional seats
to party-list organizations.
Considering, however, that the records do not disclose the exact date of
private respondent’s proclamation, the Court overlooks the technicality of
timeliness and rules on the merits. Alternatively, since petitioner’s challenge
goes into private respondent’s qualifications, it may be filed at anytime
during his term.
“Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the
time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure. Once any
of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged.”[11]
_______________
the Republic of the Philippines shall be filed by any voter within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the winner.
xxx
[9] Vide Rollo, pp. 93-94.
[10] G.R. Nos. 179271 & 179295, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 210.
[11] Vide Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989, 174 SCRA 245, 255.
598
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
On the second and more substantial issue, the Court shall first discuss the
age requirement for youth sector nominees under Section 9 of RA No. 7941
reading:
“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
Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election, able
to read and write, a bona fide 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.
 In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than Respecting Section 15 of RA No. 7941, the Court fails to find even an iota
thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains
the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his of textual support for public respondent’s ratiocination that the provision did
term.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) 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
The Court finds no textual support for public respondent’s interpretation resultant change in party-list affiliation. Section 15 reads:
that Section 9 applied only to those nominated during the first three “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,
congressional terms after the ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, That if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election,
unless a sectoral party is thereafter registered exclusively as representing the he shall not be eligible for
youth sector. _______________
[13] Vide Adasa v. Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007, 516 SCRA 261, 280; Philippine Free Press, Inc. v. Court of
A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and Appeals, G.R. No. 132864, October 24, 2005, 473 SCRA 639, 662.
free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or 600
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
interpretation. There is only room for application.[12]
Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
As the law states in unequivocal terms that a nominee of the youth nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization.” (emphasis and
sector must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) underscoring supplied.)
years of age on the day of the election, so it must be that a candidate who
is more than 30 on election day is not qualified to be a youth sector nominee. What is clear is that the wording of Section 15 covers changes in both
Since this mandate is contained in RA No. 7941, the Party- political party and sectoral affiliation. And the latter may occur within the
_______________
[12] Twin Ace Holdings Corporation v. Rufina and Company, G.R. No. 160191, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 368,
same party since multi-sectoral party-list organizations are qualified to
376. participate in the Philippine party-list system. Hence, a nominee who changes
599 his sectoral affiliation within the same party will only be eligible for
VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 599 nomination under the new sectoral affiliation if the change has been effected
Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal at least six months before the elections. Again, since the statute is clear and
List System Act, it covers ALL youth sector nominees vying for party-list free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without
representative seats. attempted interpretation. This is the plain meaning rule or verba legis, as
As petitioner points out, RA No. 7941 was enacted only in March, 1995. expressed in the maxim index animi sermo or speech is the index of
There is thus no reason to apply Section 9 thereof only to youth sector intention.[14]
nominees nominated during the first three congressional terms after the It is, therefore, beyond cavil that Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 apply to
ratification of the Constitution in 1987. Under this interpretation, the last private respondent.
elections where Section 9 applied were held in May, 1995 or two months after The Court finds that private respondent was not qualified to be a nominee
the law was enacted. This is certainly not sound legislative intent, and could of either the youth sector or the overseas Filipino workers and their families
not have been the objective of RA No. 7941. sector in the May, 2007 elections.
There is likewise no rhyme or reason in public respondent’s ratiocination The records disclose that private respondent was already more than 30
that after the third congressional term from the ratification of the years of age in May, 2007, it being stipulated that he was born in August,
Constitution, which expired in 1998, Section 9 of RA No. 7941 would apply 1975.[15] Moreover, he did not change his sectoral affiliation at least six
only to sectoral parties registered exclusively as representing the youth months before May, 2007, public respondent itself having found that he
sector. This distinction is nowhere found in the law. Ubi lex non distinguit nec shifted to CIBAC’s overseas Filipino workers and their families sector only on
nos distinguire debemus. When the law does not distinguish, we must not March 17, 2007.[16]
distinguish.[13]
 That private respondent is the first nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was
later upheld, is of no moment. A party-list
_______________
[14] Vide Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 519, 531.
[15] Vide Rollo, p. 33.
[16] Vide Rollo, p. 43.
601
VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 601
Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
organization’s ranking of its nominees is a mere indication of preference, their
qualifications according to law are a different matter.
It not being contested, however, that private respondent was eventually
proclaimed as a party-list representative of CIBAC and rendered services as
such, he is entitled to keep the compensation and emoluments provided by
law for the position until he is properly declared ineligible to hold the
same.[17]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 14,
2009 and Resolution No. 09-130 dated August 6, 2009 of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal are SET ASIDE. Emmanuel Joel J.
Villanueva is declared ineligible to hold office as a member of the House of
Representatives representing the party-list organization CIBAC.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Corona (C.J.), No Part.
Nachura, J., No Part.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.
Note.—Garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election
of a disqualified candidate because the application of the constitutional and
statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity. (Lopez
vs. Commission on Elections, 559 SCRA 696 [[2008])
——o0o——
_______________
[17] Vide Malaluan v. COMELEC, supra note 7 at 407.