Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Intramuros, Manila

EN BANC

IN THE MATTER OF
WITHDRAWAL OF RONALD GIAN
CARLO L. CARDEMA, GIAN
CARLO P. GALANG, CATHERINE R.
SANTOS, KERWIN M. PAGARAN,
AND SHARAH SHAN MAKABALI
AS NOMINEES OF DUTERTE
YOUTH, THE SUBMISSION OF
CERTICICATE OF NOMINATION
OF DUTERTE-YOUTH PARTY-LIST,
AND THE CERTIFICATES OF
NOMINATION AND ACCEPTANCE
OF DUCIELLE MARIE S. CARDEMA,
GUILLERMO B. VILLAREAL JR.,
KRIZZA D. REYES, AND ROBERT D.
GARCIA AS THE NEW
SUBSTITUTE NOMINEES OF
DUTERTE YOUTH PARTY-LIST
x------------------------------------------------x

DISSENTING OPINION

I dissent from the ruling of the majority granting the Notices of

Withdrawal of Gian Carlo P. Galang (“Galang”), Catherine R.
Santos (“Santos”), Kerwin M. Pagaran (“Pagaran”), and Sharah
Shan Makabali (“Makabali”) (collectively, “Original Substitute
Nominees”) and accepting the nominations and the Certificates of
Nomination and Acceptance (“CONA”) of Ducielle Marie S.
Cardema (“Ducielle Cardema”), Guillermo B. Villareal Jr.
(“Villareal”), Krizza D. Reyes (“Reyes”), and Robert D. Garcia
(“Garcia”) (collectively, “New Substitute Nominees”).

It is my opinion that the notices of withdrawal and the CONAs

of the Original Substitute Nominees, including Gian Carlo L.
Cardema, and the New Substitute Nominees, respectively, must be
rejected for being violative of the law and rules governing the party-
list system of representation.

FACTS
 Page 2 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

On 17 October 2018, Duterte Youth filed its Certificate of

Nomination and the Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance
(“CONAs”) of all of its five (5) nominees:

1. Ducielle Marie D. Suarez

2. Joseph M. De Guzman
3. Benilda C. De Guzman
4. Arnaldo B. Villafranca
5. Elizabeth Anne F. Cardema

12 May 2019, the original five (5) nominees of Duterte Youth

filed their notices of withdrawal citing various reasons, thus:

Name Reason for Withdrawal

Can no longer fulfill the expectations set forth by
Ducielle Marie D. Suarez
the party nor able to fulfill her obligations
He sees himself working unnoticed and
Joseph M. De Guzman supporting the political stance of the party away
from the public opinion
Her passion for teaching is something she
Benilda C. De Guzman
treasures the most
He wishes to fulfill his obligation to his family
Arnaldo B. Villafranca under normal and ordinary ways of living where
privacy and familial life is being maintained
Employment opportunities abroad where [she]
Elizabeth Anne F. Cardema
can join [her] relatives and friends

On even date, six (6) new substitute nominees of Duterte Youth

filed their CONAs with the following handwritten information
indicated in their respective certificates:

NAME AGE DATE OF BIRTH

Ronald Gian Carlo L. Cardema, 34 12 April 1985

Gian Carlo P. Galang 36 10 January 1983

Catherine R. Santos 33 26 August 1985

Kerwin M. Pagaran 31 15 May 1987

 Page 3 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

Sharah Shan Makabali 29 2 December 1989

Allan Kevin C. Payawal 27 22 October 1991

On 22 May 2019, Duterte Youth was proclaimed one of the

winning party-list groups for the 2019 NLE. It was allocated one (1)
seat in the House of Representatives under the Party-List System of
Representation.

On 14 May 2019, the Commission En Banc promulgated

Resolution No. 19-0568 giving due course to the CONAs of the
Substitute Nominees, except for the CONA of Allan Kevin C.
Payawal.

On 23 May 2019 and 17 June 2019, a Petition for Disqualification

and a Petition to Deny Due Course and/or Cancel Party-List Nomination,
respectively, were filed before the Commission praying for the
cancellation of the CONA of therein Respondent Ronald Cardema.

On 5 August 2019, the Commission (First Division) issued a

Resolution cancelling the CONA of Ronald Cardema on the ground
of ineligibility for failure to meet the age requirement prescribed for a
youth sector representative, thus:

Accordingly, the present consolidated Petitions seeking for the

cancellation of Respondent’s nomination must be granted. For
emphasis, this Commission reiterates its unmistakable conclusion
based on facts, law, and jurisprudence, that Respondent Ronald
Gian Carlo L. Cardema is not eligible for nomination to represent
Duterte Youth in the House of Representatives.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is

GRANTED. The nomination of Respondent, Ronald Gian Carlo L.
Cardema, as the first nominee of Duterte Youth party-list is hereby
CANCELLED.

On 13 August 2019, Respondent filed his Motion for

Reconsideration on the Resolution of the Commission (First Division).

On different dates from July 18 to 23, the second, third, fourth,

and fifth nominees of Duterte Youth filed with the Commission their
Notices of Withdrawal:
 Page 4 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

NAME Reason for Withdrawal

Would like to continue working with the private
Gian Carlo P. Galang
sector away from any political matters
Can no longer fulfill the expectations set forth by
the party; prefers to work unnoticed and support
Catherine R. Santos
the political stance of the party away from public
opinion
Can no longer fulfill the expectations set forth by
Kerwin M. Pagaran the party; will be performing a different job
which he feels his principles are aligned

Sharah Shan Makabali Decided to go and work out of the country

On 6 August 2019, Duterte Youth filed another Certificate of

Nomination designating the following as the party’s new substitute
nominees:

1. Ronald Gian Carlo L. Cardema

2. Ducielle Marie S. Cardema
3. Guillermo B. Villareal Jr.
4. Krizza D. Reyes
5. Robert D. Garcia

Attached to the Certificate of Nomination are the CONAs of

Ducielle Cardema, Villareal, Reyes, and Garcia as the new substitute
nominees of Duterte Youth.

Ducielle Cardema, Villareal, Reyes, and Garcia were nominated

to substitute the previous second to fifth nominees, who were
themselves substitute nominees but withdrew their nominations in
July 2019. Notably, when Duterte Youth filed a new Certificate of
Nomination on 6 August 2019, Ronald Cardema is still its standing
first nominee based on its previous list of nominees filed on 12 May
2019.

On 13 September 2019, Ronald Cardema filed with the

Commission’s Law Department a Notice of Withdrawal signifying his
intent to withdraw from his nomination as the first nominee of
 Page 5 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

Duterte Youth. On even date, Duterte Youth likewise filed a

Withdrawal of Party-List approving Ronald Cardema’s withdrawal as
first nominee of the party.

ISSUES

In view of the foregoing factual considerations, the following

are the issues that must be resolved by the Commission (En Banc):

1. Whether or not the Original Substitute Nominees may

validly withdraw their CONAs; and

2. Whether or not the submission by Duterte Youth of

additional nominees must be allowed.

DISCUSSION

After careful review of the law, rules, and jurisprudence, I vote

to deny and reject outright the notices of withdrawal of the Original
Substitute Nominees, namely, Ronald Cardema, Galang, Santos,
Pagaran, and Makabali; the Certificate of Nomination filed by
Duterte Youth on 6 August 2019; and the CONAs of the New
Substitute Nominees, Ducielle Cardema, Villareal, Reyes, and Garcia
based on grounds hereinafter set forth.

The Withdrawal of CONAs, the CONAs of

the additional nominees, and the Certificate
of Nomination filed by Duterte Youth on 6
August 2019 were not timely filed.
-------------------------------------------------------------

First. Section 4, Rule 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366

provides in no uncertain terms that no withdrawal or acceptance of
nomination shall be filed with the Commission before the close of polls:

SEC. 4. Withdrawal of nomination or acceptance of nomination. –

Withdrawal of nominations or acceptance of nominations shall be
in writing and under oath, and filed with the Law Department of
the Commission in Manila before the close of polls.
 Page 6 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

Thus, Duterte Youth only had until 6:00 PM of 13 May 2019

within which to file its Certificate of Nomination. Thereafter, based
on the above-quoted provision, the nominees can no longer
withdraw their CONAs. Similarly, Duterte Youth can no longer file a
new set of nominees, beyond the day and hour fixed by law for the
closing of the polls, to substitute those whose nominations have
already been approved and accepted by the Commission En Banc

Duterte Youth’s original substitute nominees filed their

respective notices of withdrawal on different dates between July 18 to
July 23, 2019. Furthermore, Duterte Youth’s Certificate of Nomination
and the CONAs of its new substitute nominees were all filed only on 6
August 2019. Needless to state, all these party-list documents were
submitted to the Commission long after the polls have already
closed. Following the letter of the rules, the withdrawal of the original
substitutes and the acceptance by the new substitutes of their
nominations can no longer and must not be given due course. They
must be rejected outright for being violative of the clear requirement
and proscription of Section 4, Rule 4 of COMELEC Resolution No.
9366.

Second. It is true that Section 5 of the same Rule 4 of COMELEC

Resolution No. 9366 allows (a) the change and alteration in the order
or names of nominees and (b) the submission of new names and the
substitution of nominees based on the following grounds:
withdrawal of nomination, death, or incapacity. Section 5 however is
not a stand-alone provision; it must be read in conjunction with
Section 4 and the rest of the relevant provisions in the rules. Both
Sections 4 and 5 must be given full effect and meaning, construed in a
manner that would not render any of the provision inutile or in
contradiction with each other. This bedrock principle in legal analysis
and hermeneutics is settled in our jurisdiction, thus:

It is hornbook doctrine in statutory construction that [t]he whole

and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the
meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious
whole. A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give
effect to all its provisions whenever possible.1

1 Alex Raul B. Blay vs. Cynthia B. Bana, G.R. No. 232189, 7 March 2018.
 Page 7 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

It is in this context that both Section 5 and Section 4 must be

analyzed.

Section 5 of Rule 4 states:

SEC. 5. Nomination of Party-List representatives. – A person may

be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who have given
their consent in writing may be named in the list. The list shall not
include any candidate for any elective office or a person who has
lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding
elections. No change of names or alteration of the order of
nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted
to the COMELEC in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in
writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the
name of the substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list.2

Thus the above-quoted Section 5, Rule 4 of COMELEC

Resolution No. 9366 lays down the following rules:

1. As a general rule, no change of names or alteration

of the order of nominees shall be allowed once the list is
submitted to the Commission;

2. By way of exception, change of names or alteration

of the list shall only be allowed in the following instances:

a. voluntary withdrawal
b. death
c. incapacity

2
Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7941, or the Party-List System Act also
provides:

Section 8. Nomination of Party-List Representatives. . . . . No

change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be
allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the
COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or
withdraws in writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated in
which case the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed
last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House
of Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system
shall not be considered resigned.
 Page 8 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

Section 5 however is qualified by Section 4, which prohibits

withdrawal and substitution, or acceptance of nomination, after the
close of polls. Therefore while Section 5 on one hand allows the
change of names or alteration of the order of nominees by reason of
(a) voluntary withdrawal, (b) death, or (c) incapacity, Section 4 on the
other hand lays down an exception to Section 5 by decreeing that
withdrawal or acceptance of nomination cannot be effected after the
close of polls. After the elections and insofar as it concerns the
Commission, no such change can be made.

The language of Section 4 is clear and free from any doubt or

ambiguity. Pursuant to the verbal legis rule, the letter of the provision
must be applied plainly: the prohibition applies straightforwardly
and absolutely to the (a) withdrawal of nominations, and (b)
acceptance of nominations. The Commission cannot depart from the
clear letter and the ineluctable meaning of the rules. Where the
language of the law is clear, there is no room for interpretation, only
for application.

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.
As the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule or
verba legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or
“speech is the index of intention.” Furthermore, there is the maxim
verba legis non est recedendum, or “from the words of a statute there
should be no departure.”3

The rationale underlying the prohibition on the submission of

additional nominees after the close of polls is not difficult to divine.
Under the law and the rules, the lists of nominees submitted by the
parties are subject to the publication requirement, in satisfaction of
the people’s constitutional right to information. This allows voters to
scrutinize the nominees and their qualifications, and thus make an
informed decision with respect to their choice among a plethora of
party-list aspirants. The completion of the list of nominees after the
elections, or post-election, defeats this constitutional purpose. In the

3 Bolos vs. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, 20 October 2010.

 Page 9 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

succinct words of the Supreme Court in COCOFED-Philippine

Coconut Producers Federation Inc. vs. Commission on Elections,4

The publication of the list of nominees does not only serve as the
reckoning period of certain remedies and procedures under the
resolution. Most importantly, the required publication satisfies
the people’s constitutional right to information on matters of
public concern. The need for submission of the complete list
required by law becomes all the more important in a party-list
election to apprise the electorate of the individuals behind the party
they are voting for. If only to give meaning to the right of the
people to elect their representatives on the basis of an informed
judgment, then the party-list group must submit a complete list of
five nominees because the identity of these five nominees carries
critical bearing on the electorate’s choice. A post-election
completion of the list of nominees defeats this constitutional
purpose.

Allowing the indiscriminate withdrawal and substitution of

party nominees after the close of polls ultimately defeats the policy
on transparency and the people’s constitutional right to information.
The list is reduced to being an unreliable and a potentially useless
source of information that is easily manipulated by the party. It
serves no real and meaningful purpose for the voters and for the
furtherance of their right to information. Whether the public is
informed of the list pre- or post-elections becomes inconsequential,
because just the same, the list is subsequently alterable post-elections
depending on the whims and caprices of party leadership.

The ruling in Cocofed is essentially a reiteration of the

pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in the case of Lokin vs.
Commission on Elections et al.5 In Lokin, the High Court held that
the alteration of the list after the same has been submitted to the
Commission is violative of the people’s right to transparency:

The prohibition is not arbitrary or capricious; neither is it without

reason on the part of lawmakers. The COMELEC can rightly
presume from the submission of the list that the list reflects the true
will of the party-list organization. The COMELEC will not concern
itself with whether or not the list contains the real intended
nominees of the party-list organization, but will only determine
whether the nominees pass all the requirements prescribed by the
law and whether or not the nominees possess all the qualifications

4 G.R. No. 207026, 6 August 2013.

5 G.R. No. 179431-32, 22 June 2010, consolidated with G.R. No. 180443.
 Page 10 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

and none of the disqualifications. Thereafter, the names of the

nominees will be published in newspapers of general circulation.
Although the people vote for the party-list organization itself in a
party-list system of election, not for the individual nominees,
they still have the right to know who the nominees of any
particular party-list organization are. The publication of the list of
the party-list nominees in newspapers of general circulation serves
that right of the people, enabling the voters to make intelligent and
informed choices. In contrast, allowing the party-list organization
to change its nominees through withdrawal of their nominations,
or to alter the order of the nominations after the submission of
the list of nominees circumvents the voters’ demand for
transparency. The lawmakers’ exclusion of such arbitrary
withdrawal has eliminated the possibility of such
circumvention.6

Moreover, the Supreme Court in the more recent case of

Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. Commission on
Elections7 explained more emphatically that the purpose of the law
in requiring the submission of a complete list before the elections is to
preclude the arbitrary substitutions of party-list nominees and rid a
party-list organization of the prerogative to substitute and replace
its nominees, in derogation and circumvention of the voters’ right to
information and transparency:

Compliance with Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 is essential as the said

provision is a safeguard against arbitrariness. Section 8 of R.A. No.
7941 rids a party-list organization of the prerogative to substitute
and replace its nominees, or even to switch the order of the
nominees, after submission of the list to the COMELEC.8

xxx

In contrast, allowing the party-list organization to change its

nominees through withdrawal of their nominations, or to alter the
order of the nominations after the submission of the list of
nominees circumvents the voters’ demand for transparency. The
lawmakers’ exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal has eliminated
the possibility of such circumvention.

Clearly, it is the intent of the law to submit and publish the

complete list of nominees before the elections, and not after. To allow

6 Emphases supplied.
7 G.R. No. 206987, 10 September 2013.
8 Emphases supplied.
 Page 11 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

the parties to alter their lists of nominees post-elections is

qualitatively equivalent to allowing them to submit their complete
lists of nominees only after the elections. The mandatory requirement
to submit and publish a complete list of nominees becomes illusory;
the law and the rules are rendered inutile; and the voters’ claimed
constitutional right to information will come to naught. The
Commission (En Banc) must not countenance this circumvention of
the law and the rules. What cannot be done directly cannot be done
indirectly.9

The policies that animate the rules and the law proscribing the
arbitrary withdrawal and substitution of nominees may thus be
summarized as follows based on the above jurisprudential
pronouncements of the Supreme Court:

1. The submission and publication of the list serve to satisfy the

people’s constitutional right to information and the policy
on transparency.

2. The submission and the publication of the list allow the

electorate to make an informed decision with respect to their
choice of party-list aspirants.

3. The submission of the complete list of nominees post-

elections defeats the people’s constitutional right to
information and transparency.

4. The prohibition on the change of names and/or alteration of

the order of nominees is meant to preclude any
circumvention of the voter’s right to transparency.

5. The prohibition on the change of names and/or alteration of

the order of nominees is a safeguard against arbitrariness
and rids a party-list organization of the prerogative to
substitute and replace its nominees.

In the case of Duterte Youth, the “withdrawal” of the original

substitute nominees in July 2019 does not fall under either (a) death
or (b) incapacity of nominees and was made---as in the case of the
belated submission of the new substitute nominees---beyond the date
9 See Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water District, G.R.
No. 166471, 22 March 2011.
 Page 12 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

and hour fixed for the close of polls. These indiscriminate and
capricious withdrawal and filing of additional nominees as new
substitutes are thus outright, gross, and patent violations of Section 4,
Rule 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366. They defeat the people’s
constitutional right to information and circumvent the policy on
transparency. They must therefore be disallowed and rejected.

The Certificate of Nomination filed by

Duterte Youth and the CONAs of the New
Substitute Nominees must be rejected for
being violative of Section 6, Rule 4 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 9366.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Section 6, Rule 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 provides

for another way by which a party-list organization or sector may be
allowed to submit additional nominees. Under the said provision,
where there is vacancy in the seat or seats reserved for party-list
representatives, the seat shall automatically be filled by the nominee
next in line in the order submitted to the Commission. When the list
is exhausted, the party shall submit to the Commission a new set of
list of nominees or substitutes:

SEC. 6. Vacancy. – In case of vacancy in the seats reserved for

party-list representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled
by the next representative from the list of nominees in the order
submitted to the COMELEC by the same party, organization, or
coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is
exhausted, the party, organization, or coalition concerned shall
submit additional nominees.

The foregoing provision borrows completely from Section 16 of

Republic Act No. 9741, or the Party-List System Act, which similarly
provides, thus:

Section 16. Vacancy. In case of vacancy in the seats reserved for

party-list representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled
by the next representative from the list of nominees in the order
submitted to the COMELEC by the same party, organization, or
coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is
exhausted, the party, organization, or coalition concerned shall
submit additional nominees.
 Page 13 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

From both Section 6, Rule 4 of Resolution No. 9366 and Section

16 of R.A. No. 9741, the submission of a new set of list of nominees or
substitute nominees is allowed only and contingent upon the
existence of a vacancy in the reserved seats for party-list
representatives and the exhaustion of the party’s list of nominees
submitted to the Commission. Thus there must be a concurrence of
the following conditions or elements before the Commission can
entertain, consider, and accept additional nominees from the party:

a. Vacancy in the seats reserved for party-list representatives;

and

b. Exhaustion of the list of nominees submitted by the party-

list organization or sector to the Commission.

None of the above conditions or elements, however, is

obtaining in the case of Duterte Youth.

There is no vacancy as contemplated by the

rules.

Duterte Youth was proclaimed one of the winning party-list

groups during the 13 May 2019 NLE. One seat was allocated in its
favor based on the total votes it obtained. Thus, only the first
nominee in the list of nominees submitted by Duterte Youth can
assume office as party-list representative. Under Section 7, Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution, the term of office of the members of the
House of Representatives shall commence at noon on the 30th day of
June following the elections:

Section 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be

elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise
provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following
their election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall
serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the
full term for which he was elected.

Ronald Cardema---who is Duterte Youth’s first nominee based

on the original list of substitutes---should have assumed office, if
 Page 14 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

qualified and eligible to serve as such nominee. Regrettably however,

Ronald Cardema was unable to validly take his oath, assume office,
and discharge the functions of a party-list representative on account
of a pending cancellation case him based on the fact that he is over
the age of thirty (30), the maximum age for youth sector
representative.10

Under Section 6, Rule 4 of Resolution No. 9366 and Section 16

of R.A. No. 7941, where there is vacancy in the seat or seats reserved
for party-list representatives, the seat shall be automatically filled by
the nominees next in line. The vacancy contemplated by law and by
the rules is clearly such that will trigger the succession of nominees
in the order appearing in the list submitted to the Commission. This
is deducible from the clear mandate to automatically fill the vacancy in
the seats reserved for party-list representatives in accordance with
the party’s list of nominees.

In Ronald Cardema’s case, his failure to assume office was due

to the pendency of the cancellation cases filed against him. The mere
pendency of the cases against Ronald Cardema does not however
have the legal effect of triggering the “succession” of party-list
nominees. Ronald Cardema remains in fact as the first nominee of
Duterte Youth, and shall continue to be so until his CONA is
cancelled with finality. Necessarily there is no legal vacancy in the
lone seat reserved for Duterte Youth, in the sense contemplated by
Section 6, Rule 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366.

There is another reason why I find that no vacancy in the party-

list exists in the case of Duterte Youth. The determination as to
whether there is a vacancy in the seat reserved for a party-list
representative is a business that primarily belongs to the House of
Representatives. COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 15-027111
explicitly provides that “for a valid succession of nominees to take
place, there has to be a vacancy created by reason of the death,
incapacity or resignation in writing of the nominee.” It further
decrees that such vacancy must be determined, acknowledged, and
declared by the House of Representatives through its Speaker by
way of a formal communication to the Commission:

10
COMELEC (First Division) Resolution on SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) and SPA No. 19-004 (DCN)
(5 August 2019).
11
Attached to this Opinion as “Annex A”
 Page 15 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

xxx

2. that a formal communication be received by COMELEC from

the Speaker of the House of Representatives, himself
acknowledging and declaring, that indeed a vacancy exists in the
seat of the party-list, and requesting for a certification as to the
nominee next-in-line as approved by COMELEC;
xxx

The party, or the Commission for that matter, cannot therefore

motu proprio assume the existence of a vacancy in the House of
Representatives. It is beyond the power of the Commission to make
such a declaration. It is the Speaker of the House who is laden with
the authority to determine whether or not such vacancy in the party-
list seat exists; without a formal communication from the Speaker of
the House confirming the existence of a vacancy, no such vacancy can
be presumed. Duterte Youth cannot invoke Section 6.

There is no exhaustion of the list of

nominees.

The list of original substitute nominees filed by Duterte Youth

on 12 May 2019 has not yet been exhausted.

First. The withdrawal of the original substitute nominees on

July 18 to 23, 2019 in the case of Galang, Santos, Pagaran, and
Makabali, and on 13 September 2019 on the part of Ronald Cardema,
cannot be recognized and given legal effect by the Commission En
Banc. Their withdrawal, as shown previously, is not only bereft of
legal basis but also a patent violation of Section 4, Rule 4 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 9344. It is prohibited by the express terms
of the rules.

Necessarily, the original substitutes’ nominations and their

status as nominees of Duterte Youth remain, until and unless such
nominations are cancelled and voided by the Commission. Therefore
the list of nominees of Duterte Youth has not yet been exhausted.
Section 6 has no application to Duterte Youth. It cannot be invoked to
justify the party’s submission of additional nominees.

Second. It is worth noting that the filing and the pendency of the
petitions seeking the cancellation of Ronald Cardema’s CONA
 Page 16 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

likewise do not bear upon and affect the status of Ronald Cardema as
the first nominee of Duterte Youth. The Resolution of the
Commission (First Division) cancelling his CONA is still the subject of
a pending motion for reconsideration with the Commission (En
Banc). The Resolution has not yet attained finality. Consequently
there is neither vacancy nor exhausted list to speak of. Duterte
Youth’s case falls outside the purview of Section 6.

Since Ronald Cardema remains the first nominee of Duterte

Youth, which is entitled only to one (1) one party-list seat, the party’s
list of nominees cannot be considered exhausted so as to set in
operation Section 6, Rule 4 of Resolution No. 9366.

To reiterate, Section 6 authorizes the submission of additional

nominees only when there is vacancy in the reserved seat for the
party-list representative, and the list of nominees submitted by the
party has already been exhausted. Clearly therefore, Duterte Youth’s
submission of additional nominees finds no basis in law or in the
rules. On the contrary, all the relevant provisions which govern and
lay down the procedure for the withdrawal and submission of
additional nominees are either inconsistent with and contradictory to
Duterte Youth’s submission of a new Certificate of Nomination and
additional nominees, or otherwise impose certain conditions which
the party unfortunately does not meet. Without an exhausted list and
a vacancy declared by the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Duterte Youth cannot anchor its submission of additional nominees
on Section 6. Their new list of nominees submitted on 6 August 2019
must therefore not be accepted.

Ronald Gian Carlo L. Cardema’s nomination

in Duterte Youth’s Certificate of Nomination
filed on 6 August 2019.
-------------------------------------------------------------

On 12 May 2019, Ronald Cardema was nominated for the first

time by Duterte Youth as its first nominee. When the new Certificate
of Nomination naming Ronald Cardema as the first nominee of
Duterte Youth was filed on 6 August 2019, after the elections on 13
May 2019, his original nomination as the party’s first nominee was
still effective. A day before the filing of a Certificate of Nomination
 Page 17 of 18
Dissenting Opinion

however, or on 5 August 2019, the Commission (First Division)

promulgated a Resolution cancelling the CONA of Ronald Cardema.

The submission of a second Certificate of Nomination naming

Ronald Cardema yet again as its first nominee is thus a clear act of his
re-nomination as the party’s first nominee.

This is an unmistakable display of defiance and a brazen

attempt to circumvent the Resolution issued by the Commission
(First Division) cancelling Ronald Cardema’s CONA and declaring
him ineligible to serve as nominee of Duterte Youth. More
significantly, Duterte Youth’s incessant streak of withdrawal,
substitution, and then another withdrawal and substitution of its
nominees speaks of its cold disregard of the law---and of its intent to
“game” and manipulate the party-list rules. As the constitutional
organ entrusted with the sacred duty to protect the electoral
processes, the Commission must, with all its might, resist any
attempt at manipulation by those who are consumed by their own
ignoble self-interest. We must put an absolute end to this unrelenting
travesty and derogation, not only of the Commission’s authority, but
also of the democratic institutions and processes for which the
Commission stands.

In view of the foregoing, I vote to deny due course to and/or

reject outright the

a. The Notices of Withdrawal of Ronald Gian Carlo L.

Cardema, Gian Carlo P. Galang, Catherine R. Santos, Kerwin
M. Pagaran, and Sharah Shan Makabali;

b. The Certificate of Nomination filed by Duterte Youth on 6

August 2019 naming Ronald Gian Carlo L. Cardema,
Ducielle Marie S. Cardema, Guillermo B. Villareal Jr., Krizza
D. Reyes, and Robert D. Garcia as its new substitute
nominees; and

c. The Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance of Ducielle

Marie S. Cardema, Guillermo B. Villareal Jr., Krizza D.
Reyes, and Robert D. Garcia as Duterte Youth’s substitute
nominees.
it)is)reassuring)that)w e,)your)Commissioners)and)C
can)count)on)your)support)and)cooperation.)
)
) I)look)forw ard)to)meeting)you)or)your)officers
Page 18 of 18
set)an)appointment)w ith)me)in)the)future,)please)cal
Dissenting Opinion
0917Q
849Q
0181.)
)
Very)truly)yours,)
)

)
M A .)ROWEN A )A M ELIA )V.)GUA N ZON )
MA. ROWENA AMELIA V. GUANZON
Commissioner)
Commissioner
Commission)on)Elections)