Amores Vs Hret

AMORES VS HRET
AMORES vs HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Facts: Petition for certiorari, Milagros E. Amores challenges the Decision of May 14, 2009 and
Resolution No. 09-130 of August 6, 2009 of the HRETribunal (public respondent), which
respectively dismissed petitioners Petition for Quo Warranto questioning the legality of the
assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva (private respondent) as representative of the
party-list organization Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives,
and denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
Seeking the ouster of private respondent, petitioner alleged that, among other things, private
respondent assumed office without a formal proclamation issued by COMELEC; he was disqualified
to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since, at the time of the filing of his certificates of
nomination and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to
Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act; and his
change of affiliation from CIBACs 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 under Section 15 of RA No. 7941.

ISSUES: (1) whether petitioners 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.

Ruling: 1) Court finds that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in considering
petitioners Petition for Quo Warranto filed out of time. Its counting of the 10-day reglementary
period provided in its Rules from the issuance of NBC Resolution No. 07-60 on July 9, 2007 is
erroneous. NBC Resolution No. 07-60 partially proclaimed CIBAC as a winner in the May, 2007
elections, along with other party-list organizations, it was by no measure a proclamation of private
respondent himself as required by Section 13 of RA No. 7941.
2) Court finds no textual support for public respondents interpretation that Section 9 applied only
to those nominated during the first three congressional terms after the ratification of the
Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter registered exclusively as representing
the youth sector. 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 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. Since this mandate is contained in RA No. 7941, the Party-
List System Act, it covers ALL youth sector nominees vying for party-list representative seats.
As petitioner points out, RA No. 7941 was enacted only in March, 1995. There is thus no reason to
apply Section 9 thereof only to youth sector nominees nominated during the first three congressional
terms after the ratification of the Constitution in 1987. Under this interpretation, the last elections
where Section 9 applied were held in May, 1995 or two months after the law was enacted. This is
certainly not sound legislative intent, and could not have been the objective of RA No. 7941.
There is likewise no rhyme or reason in public respondents 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.
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. Moreover, he did not change his sectoral
affiliation at least six months before May, 2007, public respondent itself having found that he shifted
to CIBACs overseas Filipino workers and their families sector only on March 17, 2007

Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 14, 2009 and Resolution No. 09-130 dated August
6, 2009 of the HRET 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.

Amores Vs Hret

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amores Vs Hret

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amores Vs Hret

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMORES VS HRET

AMORES vs HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

You might also like