EN BANC

[G.R. No. 193808. June 26, 2012.]

LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. and TERESITA F. PLANAS , petitioners, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), CITIZENS' BATTLE
AGAINST CORRUPTION PARTY LIST represented by VIRGINIA
S. JOSE, SHERWIN N. TUGNA, and CINCHONA CRUZ-
GONZALES, respondents.

DECISION

SERENO, J : p

The present petition having been filed beyond the reglementary

period, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court compels a dismissal on this basis alone.
Despite petitioner's inexplicable disregard of basic concepts, this Court
deems it appropriate to reiterate the specific procedure for the review of
judgments made by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) as laid down in
Rule 64, and how it is differentiated from the more general remedy afforded
by Rule 65.
On 5 July 2010, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution 1
expunging the Certificate of Nomination which included herein petitioners as
representatives of the party-list group known as Citizens' Battle Against
Corruption (CIBAC). The COMELEC en banc affirmed the said Resolution,
prompting Luis Lokin, Jr. and Teresita F. Planas to file the present Petition for
Certiorari. Petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
COMELEC in issuing both Resolutions, praying that they be recognized as the
legitimate nominees of CIBAC party-list, and that petitioner Lokin, Jr. be
proclaimed as the CIBAC party-list representative to the House of
Representatives. SHcDAI

Respondent CIBAC party-list is a multi-sectoral party registered 2 under

Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act.
As stated in its constitution and bylaws, the platform of CIBAC is to fight graft
and corruption and to promote ethical conduct in the country's public
service. 3 Under the leadership of the National Council, its highest
policymaking and governing body, the party participated in the 2001, 2004,
and 2007 elections. 4 On 20 November 2009, two different entities, both
purporting to represent CIBAC, submitted to the COMELEC a "Manifestation
of Intent to Participate in the Party-List System of Representation in the May
10, 2010 Elections." The first Manifestation 5 was signed by a certain Pia B.
Derla, who claimed to be the party's acting secretary-general. At 1:30 p.m.
of the same day, another Manifestation 6 was submitted by herein
respondents Cinchona Cruz-Gonzales and Virginia Jose as the party's vice-
president and secretary-general, respectively.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 On 15 January 2010, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8744 7 giving
due course to CIBAC's Manifestation, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE . . . TO the
determination which of the two factions of the registered party-
list/coalitions/sectoral organizations which filed two (2)
manifestations of intent to participate is the official representative
of said party-list/coalitions/sectoral organizations . . . ." 8
On 19 January 2010, respondents, led by President and Chairperson
Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, submitted the Certificate of Nomination 9 of
CIBAC to the COMELEC Law Department. The nomination was certified by
Villanueva and Virginia S. Jose. On 26 March 2010, Pia Derla submitted a
second Certificate of Nomination, 10 which included petitioners Luis Lokin, Jr.
and Teresita Planas as party-list nominees. Derla affixed to the certification
her signature as "acting secretary-general" of CIBAC.
Claiming that the nomination of petitioners Lokin, Jr. and Planas was
unauthorized, respondents filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Expunge
from the Records and/or for Disqualification," seeking to nullify the
Certificate filed by Derla. Respondents contended that Derla had
misrepresented herself as "acting secretary-general," when she was not
even a member of CIBAC; that the Certificate of Nomination and other
documents she submitted were unauthorized by the party and therefore
invalid; and that it was Villanueva who was duly authorized to file the
Certificate of Nomination on its behalf. 11
In the Resolution dated 5 July 2010, the COMELEC First Division granted
the Petition, ordered the Certificate filed by Derla to be expunged from the
records, and declared respondents' faction as the true nominees of CIBAC. 12
Upon Motion for Reconsideration separately filed by the adverse parties, the
COMELEC en banc affirmed the Division's findings. In a per curiam Resolution
dated 31 August 2010, 13 the Commission reiterated that Pia Derla was
unable to prove her authority to file the said Certificate, whereas
respondents presented overwhelming evidence that Villanueva deputized
CIBAC Secretary General Virginia Jose to submit the Certificate of Nomination
pursuant to CIBAC's Constitution and bylaws. SHacCD

Petitioners now seek recourse with this Court in accordance with Rules
64 and 65 of the Rules of Court, raising these issues: I) Whether the
authority of Secretary General Virginia Jose to file the party's Certificate of
Nomination is an intra-corporate matter, exclusively cognizable by special
commercial courts, and over which the COMELEC has no jurisdiction; and II)
Whether the COMELEC erred in granting the Petition for Disqualification and
recognizing respondents as the properly authorized nominees of CIBAC
party-list.
As earlier stated, this Court denies the petition for being filed
outside the requisite period. The review by this Court of judgments and
final orders of the COMELEC is governed specifically by Rule 64 of the Rules
of Court, which states:
Sec. 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the review of
judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Elections and the Commission on Audit.

Sec. 2. Mode of review. — A judgment or final order or

resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on
Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on
certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.
The exception referred to in Section 2 of this Rule refers precisely to
the immediately succeeding provision, Section 3 thereof, 14 which provides
for the allowable period within which to file petitions for certiorari from
judgments of both the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. Thus, while
Rule 64 refers to the same remedy of certiorari as the general rule in Rule
65, they cannot be equated, as they provide for different reglementary
periods. 15 Rule 65 provides for a period of 60 days from notice of judgment
sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court, while Section 3 expressly
provides for only 30 days, viz.:
SEC. 3. Time to file petition. — The petition shall be filed
within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new
trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or
resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the
Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed.
If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the
petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less
than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

Petitioner received a copy of the first assailed Resolution on 12 July

2010. Upon the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners on 15 July
2010, the COMELEC en banc issued the second assailed Resolution on 31
August 2010. This per curiam Resolution was received by petitioners on 1
September 2010. 16 Thus, pursuant to Section 3 above, deducting the three
days it took petitioners to file the Motion for Reconsideration, they had a
remaining period of 27 days or until 28 September 2010 within which to file
the Petition for Certiorari with this Court. AECcTS

However, petitioners filed the present Petition only on 1 October 2010,

clearly outside the required period. In Pates v. Commission on Elections and
Domingo v. Commission on Elections, 17 we have established that the fresh-
period rule used in Rule 65 does not similarly apply to the timeliness of
petitions under Rule 64. In Pates , this Court dismissed the Petition for
Certiorari on the sole ground that it was belatedly filed, reasoning thus:
. . . . While it is true that a litigation is not a game of
technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and
speedy administration of justice. There have been some instances
wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of the rules,
but this flexibility was "never intended to forge a bastion for erring
litigants to violate the rules with impunity."

xxx xxx xxx

Under this unique nature of the exceptions, a party
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 asking for the suspension of the Rules of Court comes to us
with the heavy burden of proving that he deserves to be
accorded exceptional treatment. Every plea for a liberal
construction of the Rules must at least be accompanied by an
explanation of why the party-litigant failed to comply with the
rules and by a justification for the requested liberal
construction.
xxx xxx xxx
. . . . Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution expressly requires
that the COMELEC's rules of procedure should expedite the disposition
of election cases. This Court labors under the same command, as our
proceedings are in fact the constitutional extension of cases that start
with the COMELEC.

Based on these considerations, we do not find convenience and

uniformity to be reasons sufficiently compelling to modify the required
period for the filing of petitions for certiorari under Rule 64. While the
petitioner is correct in his historical data about the Court's
treatment of the periods for the filing of the different modes of
review, he misses out on the reason why the period under
Section 3, Rule 64 has been retained. The reason, as made
clear above, is constitutionally-based and is no less than the
importance our Constitution accords to the prompt
determination of election results. 18 . . . . (Emphasis supplied,
footnotes omitted.)

In this case, petitioners do not even attempt to explain why the Petition
was filed out of time. Clearly, they are aware of the applicable period for
filing, as they themselves invoke the remedy under Rule 64 in conjunction
with Rule 65. Hence, there is no acceptable reason for their failure to comply
with the proper procedure. But even if this Court were to apply liberality and
take cognizance of the late Petition, the arguments therein are flawed. The
COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases pertaining to party leadership
and the nomination of party-list representatives.
Petitioners contend that the COMELEC never should have taken
cognizance of respondents' Petition to Expunge and/or for Disqualification.
They have reached this conclusion by characterizing the present matter as
an intra-corporate dispute and, thus, cognizable only by special commercial
courts, particularly the designated commercial court in this case, the
Regional Trial Court in Pasig City. 19 Pia Derla purportedly filed the
Certificate of Nomination pursuant to the authority granted by the Board of
Trustees of the "CIBAC Foundation, Inc.,'' the non-stock entity that is
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 20
Thus, petitioners insist that the group that participated in the party-list
system in the 2004 and 2007 elections was the SEC-registered entity, and
not the National Council, which had allegedly become defunct since 2003.
That was the year when CIBAC Foundation, Inc. was established and
registered with the SEC. 21 On the other hand, respondents counter that the
foundation was established solely for the purpose of acting as CIBAC's legal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and financial arm, as provided by the party's Constitution and bylaws. It was
never intended to substitute for, or oust CIBAC, the party-list itself. 22 ACTIcS

Even as petitioners insisted on the purely intra-corporate nature of the

conflict between "CIBAC Foundation" and the CIBAC Sectoral Party, they
submitted their Certificate of Nomination and Manifestation of Intent to
participate in the party-list elections. Precisely, petitioners were seeking the
COMELEC's approval of their eligibility to participate in the upcoming party-
list elections. In effect, they invoke its authority under the Party-List System
Act. 23 Contrary to their stance that the present dispute stemmed from an
intra-corporate matter, their submissions even recognize the COMELEC's
constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. 24 More
specifically, as one of its constitutional functions, the COMELEC is also
tasked to "register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must
present their platform or program of government." 25
In any case, the COMELEC's jurisdiction to settle the struggle for
leadership within the party is well established. This singular power to rule
upon questions of party identity and leadership is exercised by the COMELEC
as an incident to its enforcement powers. In Laban ng Demokratikong
Pilipino v. Commission on Elections, 26 the Court held:
. . . . Corollary to the right of a political party "to identify the
people who constitute the association and to select a standard bearer
who best represents the party's ideologies and preference'' is the right
to exclude persons in its association and to not lend its name and
prestige to those which it deems undeserving to represent its ideals. A
certificate of candidacy makes known to the COMELEC that the person
therein mentioned has been nominated by a duly authorized political
group empowered to act and that it reflects accurately the sentiment
of the nominating body. A candidate's political party affiliation is also
printed followed by his or her name in the certified list of candidates. A
candidate misrepresenting himself or herself to be a party's
candidate, therefore, not only misappropriates the party's
name and prestige but foists a deception upon the electorate,
who may unwittingly cast its ballot for him or her on the
mistaken belief that he or she stands for the party's principles.
To prevent this occurrence, the COMELEC has the power and
the duty to step in and enforce the law not only to protect the
party but, more importantly, the electorate, in line with the
Commission's broad constitutional mandate to ensure orderly
elections. 27 (Emphasis supplied.) THCASc

Similar to the present case, Laban delved into the issue of leadership
for the purpose of determining which officer or member was the duly
authorized representative tasked with filing the Certificate of Nomination,
pursuant to its Constitution and bylaws, to wit:
The only issue in this case, as defined by the COMELEC itself, is
who as between the Party Chairman and the Secretary General has the
authority to sign certificates of candidacy of the official candidates of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the party. Indeed, the petitioners' Manifestation and Petition before the
COMELEC merely asked the Commission to recognize only those
certificates of candidacy signed by petitioner Sen. Angara or his
authorized representative, and no other. 28

In the 2010 case Atienza v. Commission on Elections, 29 it was

expressly settled that the COMELEC possessed the authority to resolve intra-
party disputes as a necessary tributary of its constitutionally mandated
power to enforce election laws and register political parties. The Court
therein cited Kalaw v. Commission on Elections and Palmares v. Commission
on Elections, which uniformity upheld the COMELEC's jurisdiction over intra-
party disputes:
The COMELEC's jurisdiction over intra-party leadership disputes
has already been settled by the Court. The Court ruled in Kalaw v.
Commission on Elections that the COMELEC's powers and functions
under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, "include the
ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate
officers responsible for its acts." The Court also declared in another
case that the COMELEC's power to register political parties necessarily
involved the determination of the persons who must act on its behalf.
Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intra-party leadership dispute, in a
proper case brought before it, as an incident of its power to register
political parties. 30

Furthermore, matters regarding the nomination of party-list

representatives, as well as their individual qualifications, are outlined in the
Party-List System Law. Sections 8 and 9 thereof state:
Sec. 8. Nomination of Party-List Representatives. — Each
registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC
not later than forty-five (45) days before the election a list of names,
not less than five (5), from which party-list representatives shall be
chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.
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
election. 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.
Sec. 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.

By virtue of the aforesaid mandate of the Party-List Law vesting the

COMELEC with jurisdiction over the nomination of party-list representatives
and prescribing the qualifications of each nominee, the COMELEC
promulgated its "Rules on Disqualification Cases Against Nominees of Party-
List Groups/Organizations Participating in the 10 May 2010 Automated
National and Local Elections." 31 Adopting the same qualifications of party-
list nominees listed above, Section 6 of these Rules also required that:
The party-list group and the nominees must submit documentary
evidence in consonance with the Constitution, R.A. 7941 and other
laws to duly prove that the nominees truly belong to the marginalized
and underrepresented sector/s, the sectoral party, organization,
political party or coalition they seek to represent, which may include
but not limited to the following:cSaCDT

a. Track record of the party-list group/organization showing

active participation of the nominee/s in the undertakings of the party-
list group/organization for the advancement of the marginalized and
underrepresented sector/s, the sectoral party, organization, political
party or coalition they seek to represent;

b. Proofs that the nominee/s truly adheres to the advocacies

of the party-list group/organizations (prior declarations, speeches,
written articles, and such other positive actions on the part of the
nominee/s showing his/her adherence to the advocacies of the party-
list group/organizations);

c. Certification that the nominee/s is/are a bona fide member

of the party-list group/organization for at least ninety (90) days prior to
the election; and
d. In case of a party-list group/organization seeking
representation of the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s,
proof that the nominee/s is not only an advocate of the party-
list/organization but is/are also a bona fide member/s of said
marginalized and underrepresented sector.
The Law Department shall require party-list group and nominees
to submit the foregoing documentary evidence if not complied with
prior to the effectivity of this resolution not later than three (3) days
from the last day of filing of the list of nominees.

Contrary to petitioners' stance, no grave abuse of discretion is

attributable to the COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC en banc. The
tribunal correctly found that Pia Derla's alleged authority as "acting
secretary-general" was an unsubstantiated allegation devoid of any
supporting evidence. Petitioners did not submit any documentary evidence
that Derla was a member of CIBAC, let alone the representative authorized
by the party to submit its Certificate of Nomination. 32 The COMELEC ruled:
A careful perusal of the records readily shows that Pia B. Derla,
who has signed and submitted, as the purported Acting Secretary
General of CIBAC, the Certificates of Nomination of Respondents, has
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 no authority to do so. Despite Respondents' repeated claim that Ms.
Derla is a member and officer of CIBAC, they have not presented any
proof in support of the same. We are at a loss as to the manner by
which Ms. Derla has assumed the post, and We see nothing but
Respondents' claims and writings/certifications by Ms. Derla herself
that point to that alleged fact. Surely, We cannot rely on these
submissions, as they are the very definition of self-serving declarations.

On the other hand . . . We cannot help but be convinced that it

was Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, as the Party President and Chairman,
who had been given the sole authority, at least for the 10 May 2010
Elections, to submit the list of nominees for the Party. The records
would show that, in accordance with the Party's Constitution and by-
laws, its National Council, the highest policymaking and governing
body of the Party, met on 12 November 2009 and there being a
quorum, then proceeded to elect its new set of officers, which included
Mr. Villanueva as both Party President and Party Chairman, and Virginia
S. Jose as Party Secretary General. During the same meeting, the
Party's New Electoral Congress, which as per the CIBAC's Constitution
and By-Laws, was also composed of the National Council Members and
had the task of choosing the nominees for the Party in the Party-List
Elections, unanimously ruled to delegate to the Party President such
latter function. This set of facts, which had not been belied by concrete
contrary evidence, weighed heavily against Respondents and favorably
for Petitioner. 33

Pia Derla, who is not even a member of CIBAC, is thus a virtual stranger
to the party-list, and clearly not qualified to attest to petitioners as CIBAC
nominees, or certify their nomination to the COMELEC. Petitioners cannot
use their registration with the SEC as a substitute for the evidentiary
requirement to show that the nominees, including Derla, are bona fide
members of the party. Petitioners Planas and Lokin, Jr. have not even
presented evidence proving the affiliation of the so-called Board of Trustees
to the CIBAC Sectoral Party that is registered with COMELEC.
Petitioners cannot draw authority from the Board of Trustees of the
SEC-registered entity, because the Constitution of CIBAC expressly
mandates that it is the National Council, as the governing body of CIBAC,
that has the power to formulate the policies, plans, and programs of the
Party, and to issue decisions and resolutions binding on party members and
officers. 34 Contrary to petitioners' allegations, the National Council of CIBAC
has not become defunct, and has certainly not been replaced by the Board of
Trustees of the SEC-registered entity. The COMELEC carefully perused the
documents of the organization and outlined the process followed by the
National Council before it complied with its task of choosing the party's
nominees. This was based on the "Minutes of Meeting of CIBAC Party-List
National Council" held on 12 November 2009, which respondents attached to
their Memorandum. 35
For its part, the COMELEC en banc also enumerated the documentary
evidence that further bolstered respondents' claim that it is Chairman
Villanueva and Secretary General Virginia Jose who were duly authorized to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 submit the Certificate of Nomination to the COMELEC. 36 These include:
a. The Joint Affidavit of Resolutions of the CIBAC National
Council and the National Electoral Congress of CIBAC dated
12 November 2009; acCITS

b. Certificate of Deputization and Delegation of Authority issued

to CIBAC Secretary-General Virginia S. Jose by the CIBAC
President;
c. Constitution and By-Laws of CIBAC as annexed to its Petition
for Registration as Sectoral Organization Under the Party-List
System filed by CIBAC on 13 November 2000; and
d. Manifestation dated 8 January 2010 by CIBAC's Secretary
General Virginia S. Jose providing the official list of officers of
CIBAC. 37
WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
COMELEC in issuing the assailed Resolutions, the instant Petition is
DISMISSED. This Court AFFIRMS the judgment of the COMELEC expunging
from its records the Certificate of Nomination filed on 26 March 2010 by Pia
B. Derla. The nominees, as listed in the Certificate of Nomination filed on 19
January 2010 by Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, President and Chairman of
Citizens' Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) Party List, are recognized as the
legitimate nominees of the said party.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., took no part due to relationship to a party.
Mendoza, J., is on leave.

Footnotes
1.Penned by Commissioner Armando C. Velasco, concurred in by Presiding
Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento and Commissioner Gregorio T. Larrazabal
in SPA No. 10-014 (DCN), rollo, pp. 66-75.

2.Petition for Registration as Sectoral Organization Under the Party List System,
attached as Annex A to the Comment, rollo, p. 397.

3.Annex A-1 of the Comment, rollo, p. 403.

4.Comment, p. 5, rollo, p. 356.
5.Annex L of the Petition, rollo, p. 153.
6.Annex B of the Comment, rollo, p. 432.
7.In the Matter of the Manifestations of Intent to Participate Under the Party-List
System of Representation in Connection with the May 10, 2010 Automated
National and Local Elections, COMELEC Resolution No. 8744, 15 January
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 2010. Available at
http://comelec.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/com_res_8744.pdf (Visited 24
April 2012).
8.Id. at 25.

9.Attached as Annex C to the Comment, rollo, p. 437.

10.Attached as Annex M to the Petition, rollo, p. 155.
11."Petition to Expunge from the Records and/or for Disqualification," filed on 31
March 2010, rollo, p. 164.
12.Rollo , p. 74.
13.Per Curiam Resolution, rollo, pp. 76-84.
14.Pates v. Commission on Elections , G.R. No. 184915, 30 June 2009, 591 SCRA
481.
15.Id. at 486.

16.Rollo , p. 9.
17.372 Phil. 188 (1999).
18.Supra note 14 at 487-489.
19.Petition, rollo, p. 51.
20.Id. at 18.

21.Id. at 19.
22.Comment, rollo, p. 356.
23.Republic Act No. 7941, An Act Providing for the Election of Party-List
Representatives Through the Party-List System, and Appropriating Funds
Therefor, enacted on 3 March 1995.
24.1987 Constitution, Art. IX-C, Sec. 2, par. 2.
25.Id. at par. 5.
26.468 Phil. 70 (2004).
27.Id. at 84.

28.Id. at 84-85.
29.G.R. No. 188920, 16 February 2010, 612 SCRA 761.
30.Id. at 778-779.
31.Promulgated on 25 March 2010.
32.Resolution dated 5 July 2010, issued by the COMELEC First Division, rollo, p. 69.

33.Id. at 70.
34.Constitution and By-Laws of the CIBAC, Article VIII on the National Council, rollo,
p. 411.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 35.Rollo , p. 72.
36.Id. at 79.
37.COMELEC Records, Vol. 4, pp. 40-99, 153-159, 363-422, as cited in the
Resolution of the COMELEC en banc.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com