11/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

G.R. No. 189600.  June 29, 2010.*

MILAGROS E. AMORES, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and
EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, respondents.

Election Law; Party-List System; A candidate who is more

than 30 on election day is not qualified 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 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.
Same; Same; Changes of Political Party and Sectoral
Affiliation; A nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within
the same party will not only be eligible for nomination under the
new sectoral affiliation of the change has been effected at least six
months before the elections.—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.
Same; Same; A party-list organization’s ranking of its
nominees is a mere indication of preference, their qualifications
according to law are a different matter.—That private respondent
is the first nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was later upheld, is
of no moment. A party-list organization’s ranking of its nominees
is a mere indica-

_______________ 
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001672ad00475207783ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
11/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

* EN BANC.

594

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

tion of preference, their qualifications according to law are a

different matter.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Rogelio Pizarro, Jr. for petitioner.
  Frederick Mikhail I. Farolan for Emmanuel Joel J.
Villanueva.

 
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Via this petition for certiorari, Milagros E. Amores
(petitioner) 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
In her Petition for Quo Warranto[1] seeking the ouster of
private respondent, petitioner alleged that, among other
things, private respondent assumed office without a formal
proclamation issued by the Commission on Elections
(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 CIBAC’s 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

_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 104-113.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001672ad00475207783ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
11/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

595

VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 595

Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

be qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15 of

RA No. 7941.
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]
As earlier reflected, public respondent, by Decision of
May 14, 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 of
Representatives through National Board of Canvassers
(NBC) Resolution No. 07-60 dated July 9, 2007. It also
found the petition which was filed on October 17, 2007 to
be out of time, the reglementary period being 10 days from
private respondent’s proclamation.
Respecting the age qualification for youth sectoral
nominees under Section 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
ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a
sectoral party is thereafter registered exclusively as
representing the youth sector, which CIBAC, a multi-
sectoral organization, is not.
In the matter of private respondent’s shift of affiliation
from CIBAC’s 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.
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

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001672ad00475207783ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
11/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

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 warranto
contesting 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

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001672ad00475207783ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
11/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001672ad00475207783ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
11/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

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 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 term.” (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.)

 
The Court finds no textual support for public
respondent’s 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.
A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when
the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity,
there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is
only room for application.[12]
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-

_______________
[12] Twin Ace Holdings Corporation v. Rufina and Company, G.R. No.
160191, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 368, 376.

599

VOL. 622, JUNE 29, 2010 599

Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

List System Act, it covers ALL youth sector nominees vying

for party-list representative seats.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001672ad00475207783ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
11/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

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
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 or sectoral
affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall not
be eligible for

_______________
[13] Vide Adasa v. Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007, 516 SCRA 261,
280; Philippine Free Press, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132864, October 24,
2005, 473 SCRA 639, 662.

600

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001672ad00475207783ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
11/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

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 having found
that he shifted to CIBAC’s overseas Filipino workers and
their families sector only on March 17, 2007.[16]
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

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001672ad00475207783ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
11/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 622

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.

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001672ad00475207783ac003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9