3/23/25, 12:50 AM Case Digest: G.R. No. 179431-32 - Lokin, Jr. vs.

Commission on Elections

Title
Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 179431-32 Jun 22, 2010

CIBAC's nominee substitution for the 2007 elections was invalidated due to
COMELEC's unconstitutional expansion of withdrawal grounds, leading to
Lokin's enforced proclamation.

Jur.ph - Case Digest (G.R. No. 179431-32)

Reasoning Model - Advanced

Facts:

Background and Party-List Nomination

Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) is an organized party‐list
organization duly registered under the Party-List System Act (R.A. No. 7941).
In its initial certificate of nomination dated March 29, 2007, CIBAC submitted
a list of five nominees in the following order: Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva;
Luis K. Lokin, Jr.; Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales; Sherwin Tugna; and Emil L.
Galang.
The submitted list and the corresponding certificates of acceptance were
published in two widely circulated newspapers, ensuring public notice.

Amendment of Nomination and Withdrawal Controversy

Prior to the May 14, 2007 elections, CIBAC, through its president Villanueva,
filed a certificate of nomination, substitution, and amendment on May 7, 2007.

- This filing withdrew the nominations of Lokin, Tugna, and Galang. - It substituted
the name of Armi Jane R. Borje as one of the nominees.

COMELEC’s Resolution and Subsequent Proclamation

Due to the pending dispute, the COMELEC initially set the matter aside by
issuing Resolution No. 8219 on July 6, 2007, which deferred action on the
controversial withdrawals and substitutions.
Later, the COMELEC en banc issued NBC Resolutions No. 07-60 (on July 9,
2007) and No. 07-72 (on July 18, 2007), which:

- Proclaimed additional seats for several party-list organizations, including CIBAC. -

Held in abeyance the proclamation of nominees from organizations with pending
disputes. - The new order of nominees for CIBAC thus became: Villanueva, Cruz-
Gonzales, and Borje. - Cruz-Gonzales subsequently took her oath of office on
September 17, 2007.

Petitions and Relief Sought by the Petitioner

Luis K. Lokin, Jr., the excluded second nominee, filed consolidated special
civil actions for certiorari and mandamus.

- His petition for certiorari sought the annulment of the September 14, 2007,
COMELEC resolution. - His petition for mandamus requested that COMELEC
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/lokin-jr-v-commission-on-elections?q=25.%09Lokin+v.+COMELEC%2C+G.R.+No.+180443%2C+June+22%2C+201… 1/5
3/23/25, 12:50 AM Case Digest: G.R. No. 179431-32 - Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

proclaim him as the official second nominee of CIBAC. - The validity of Section 13 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 7804, which provided expanded grounds for nominee
substitution. - The propriety of allowing withdrawal and substitution of nominees
after the submission of the certificate of nomination.

Administrative and Procedural Context

The controversy also touched on the proper exercise of administrative power
by the COMELEC:

- The Commission had issued implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) under
Resolution No. 7804 to carry out the Party-List System Act. - Section 13 of this
resolution, which allowed a party-list organization unilateral power to withdraw a
nominee (beyond the express statutory exceptions), became the focus of legal
challenge. - Jurisdiction over election disputes, especially those involving returns
and qualifications of party-list nominees, should fall under the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) or through election protests. - Petitions for
certiorari were not the proper remedy given that a nominee (Cruz-Gonzales) had
already assumed office. - Lokin’s petitions arose from the same underlying
controversy but were based on different legal grounds and reliefs, implying no forum
shopping.

Issue:

Jurisdiction
Whether the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
petitions for certiorari and mandamus despite COMELEC’s contention that
matters involving nomination and qualifications of party-list representatives
are reserved for the HRET.

Forum Shopping
Whether Lokin’s filing of parallel petitions (for both certiorari and mandamus)
constitutes impermissible forum shopping by seeking multiple remedies for
the same underlying issue.

Constitutionality and Validity of Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804

Whether Section 13, which expanded the statutory exceptions under Section 8
of R.A. No. 7941 to allow substitution of nominees upon withdrawal by the
party (in addition to death, written withdrawal by the nominee, or incapacity),
is a valid exercise of the COMELEC’s delegated authority.
Whether such expansion contravenes the express provisions of the Party-List
System Act.

Abuse of Discretion by COMELEC

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in:

- Approving the withdrawal of nominations and allowing amendments to the

submitted list after the close of polls. - Acting in an intra-corporate matter without a
proper basis in fact or law.

Ruling:

Jurisdiction
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/lokin-jr-v-commission-on-elections?q=25.%09Lokin+v.+COMELEC%2C+G.R.+No.+180443%2C+June+22%2C+201… 2/5
3/23/25, 12:50 AM Case Digest: G.R. No. 179431-32 - Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

The Supreme Court ruled that it has original and exclusive jurisdiction to
review the petitions for certiorari and mandamus against the COMELEC
under Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 64 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court rejected the COMELEC’s contention that issues concerning election
returns and qualifications could only be raised through an election protest or
in the HRET.

Finding on Forum Shopping

The Court determined that filing both a petition for mandamus and a petition
for certiorari did not constitute forum shopping.
It explained that the remedies sought in the separate petitions were based on
different legal grounds and involved distinct causes of action.

On the Constitutionality of Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804

The Court held that Section 13 is invalid and unconstitutional to the extent
that it authorizes a party-list organization to withdraw its nomination after
submission.
It reasoned that by expanding the express exceptions provided in Section 8 of
R.A. No. 7941, the COMELEC exceeded its delegated authority.
The administrative IRRs, even though promulgated pursuant to legislative
authority, must not alter or supplant the clear provisions of the statute.

Effect of the Ruling on the Nomination Issue

As a result of the invalidity of Section 13, the withdrawal of Lokin’s
nomination and its substitution by Cruz-Gonzales were found to be without
legal basis.
The COMELEC’s resolution, which had proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales as the
party-list representative for CIBAC, was annulled.
The Court ordered the COMELEC to immediately proclaim petitioner Luis K.
Lokin, Jr. as the official second nominee representing CIBAC.

Relief Granted and Costs

The petitions for certiorari and for mandamus were both granted.
The invalid portions of the COMELEC’s resolutions were set aside.
No specific pronouncements were made regarding costs, aside from the
acknowledgment of the successful relief sought by Lokin.

Ratio:

Jurisdiction and Proper Remedy Considerations

The Court clarified that controversies involving party-list nominations are not
purely electoral disputes in the traditional sense (such as election protests or
quo warranto actions) but involve the interpretation and application of
statutory provisions.
Petitions for certiorari are the appropriate remedy when the issue involves
the annulment of administrative or executive actions that are ultra vires.

Limits of Delegated Legislative Power

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/lokin-jr-v-commission-on-elections?q=25.%09Lokin+v.+COMELEC%2C+G.R.+No.+180443%2C+June+22%2C+201… 3/5
3/23/25, 12:50 AM Case Digest: G.R. No. 179431-32 - Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

The legislative power is reserved for Congress; the COMELEC, as an

administrative agency, may only exercise the authority delegated by statute.
This delegated authority does not include the power to alter, expand, or
modify the clear and unambiguous provisions of R.A. No. 7941 concerning the
nomination rules.

Textual and Literal Interpretation of Statutory Provisions

The clear language of Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 explicitly restricts the
substitution of nominees to three specific exceptions: death, written
withdrawal by the nominee, or incapacity.
The Court emphasized that when the legislature speaks in plain terms, there
is no room for administrative interpretation that would alter this meaning.

Preservation of the Integrity of the Party-List System

Allowing unilateral withdrawal and substitution of nominees by party-list
organizations would undermine voter transparency and the stability of the
electoral process.
The Court underscored that the statutory scheme was designed to reflect the
true will of the party-list organization as submitted to the COMELEC and to
protect the electorate from arbitrary changes post-submission.

Administrative Law Principles

The principles of due process and separation of powers require that
administrative agencies act within the scope of legislation.
An IRR that departs from the statutory mandate is invalid because it
effectively amounts to an unauthorized amendment of the law.

Doctrine:

Doctrine on Delegation and Non-Delegation of Legislative Power

The case reinforces the non-delegation doctrine which states that while
legislative bodies may delegate administrative powers to implement laws,
such delegation cannot extend to the alteration of the fundamental provisions
of the law.
An administrative agency must strictly adhere to the statutory limits set by
Congress and is precluded from adding new exceptions or modifying
substantive rights.

Principle of Separation of Powers

The decision highlights that executive or administrative agencies (such as the
COMELEC) are not endowed with inherent legislative power.
Any attempt by such agencies to fill gaps or add to the law through IRRs will
be struck down as unconstitutional.

Importance of Statutory Supremacy and Textualism

The case reiterates the doctrine that the clear and unambiguous language of a
statute governs the rights and obligations of parties.
Administrative rules must give effect to the statute’s objectives and cannot
subvert the legislative intent as manifested in the statutory text.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/lokin-jr-v-commission-on-elections?q=25.%09Lokin+v.+COMELEC%2C+G.R.+No.+180443%2C+June+22%2C+201… 4/5
3/23/25, 12:50 AM Case Digest: G.R. No. 179431-32 - Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Prohibition Against Forum Shopping

The ruling also clarifies that filing multiple legal remedies for the same
underlying issue is not inherently abusive if the petitions are based on
distinct legal grounds.
This doctrine is vital to ensuring judicial efficiency and the avoidance of
conflicting decisions while still allowing access to appropriate legal recourse.

Judicial Review of Administrative Acts

The decision underscores that administrative actions, including the
promulgation of IRRs, are subject to judicial scrutiny.
If such actions are found to be ultra vires or inconsistent with the law, they
must be nullified to uphold constitutional and statutory mandates.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/lokin-jr-v-commission-on-elections?q=25.%09Lokin+v.+COMELEC%2C+G.R.+No.+180443%2C+June+22%2C+201… 5/5