Scribd
Upload
77 views

Lokin Vs COMELEC - Neil

This case involves a dispute over the nomination of candidates for the Citizen's Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) party-list group in the 2004 elections. CIBAC originally nominated a list of five candidates, including Luis K. Lokin, Jr., but later attempted to substitute three nominees including Lokin. The COMELEC failed to act on the substitution. After the election, Lokin was proclaimed as the second nominee, but others contested this. The COMELEC eventually approved the substituted list. Lokin filed petitions for mandamus and certiorari against the COMELEC. The Supreme Court ruled it had jurisdiction to hear the case and that Lokin correctly filed a petition for certior

Uploaded by

Michael Donasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
77 views

Lokin Vs COMELEC - Neil

This case involves a dispute over the nomination of candidates for the Citizen's Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) party-list group in the 2004 elections. CIBAC originally nominated a list of five candidates, including Luis K. Lokin, Jr., but later attempted to substitute three nominees including Lokin. The COMELEC failed to act on the substitution. After the election, Lokin was proclaimed as the second nominee, but others contested this. The COMELEC eventually approved the substituted list. Lokin filed petitions for mandamus and certiorari against the COMELEC. The Supreme Court ruled it had jurisdiction to hear the case and that Lokin correctly filed a petition for certior

Uploaded by

Michael Donasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Luis K. Lokin, JR., petitioner v.

Commission on Elections and the House of


Representatives, respondents
(G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010)

FACTS:

The Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), a duly registered party-list organization,
intended to participate in the May 14, 2004 synchronized national and local elections. A list of
five nominees was submitted from which its representatives would be chosen.

Prior to the elections, CIBAC, through Villanueva, filed a certificate of nomination, substitution
and amendment of the list of nominees. Nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang were
withdrawn, and substituted Armi Jane R. Borje as one of the nominees.

Notwithstanding the filing of the certificate of nomination, substitution and amendment of the
list of nominees and the petitions of more than 81% of CIBAC members, the COMELEC failed to
act on the matter, prompting Villanueva to file a petition to confirm the certificate of nomination,
substitution and amendment of the list of nominees of CIBAC on June 28, 2007.

The election result manifested that CIBAC was entitled to a second seat. Lokin, as second
nominee on the original list was proclaimed, but such was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-
Gonzales.

The COMELEC resolved the matter on the validity of the amendment of the list of nominees and
the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. It approved the amendment of
the list of nominees as follows: (1) Villanueva; (2) Cruz-Gonzales; (3) Borje.

The COMELEC en banc proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales as the official second nominee of CIBAC.

Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus, compelling the COMELEC to proclaim him as the official
second nominee of CIBAC. Thereafter, he filed a petition for certiorari assailing Section 13 of
Resolution No. 7804 alleging that it expanded Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 by allowing CIBAC to
change its nominees.

CIBAC alleged that Lokin is guilty of forum shopping for filing a petition for mandamus and a
petition for certiorari, considering that both petitions ultimately seek to have him proclaimed as
the second nominee of CIBAC.

ISSUE:

May the Court acquire jurisdiction over the controversy?

RULING:

Yes. The Court may acquire jurisdiction over the controversy. Lokin has correctly brought this
special civil action for certiorari against the COMELEC to seek the review of the September 14,
2007 resolution of the COMELEC in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987
Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and assumption of office by Cruz-Gonzales. The
constitutional mandate is now implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
which provides for the review of the judgments, final orders or resolutions of the COMELEC and
the Commission on Audit. As Rule 64 states, the mode of review is by a petition for certiorari in
accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the Supreme Court within a limited period of 30 days.
Undoubtedly, the Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokin’s petitions for
certiorari and for mandamus against the COMELEC.

You might also like