100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 18 - 19 out of 58 pages.
The Secretary General of CIBAC informed theSecretary General of the HR to formally swear Lokininto office but which was denied in view of thependency of E.M. No. 07-054 which approved thewithdrawal of the nominations of Lokin et. al. andthe substitution of Borje. Cruz-Gonzales wasproclaimed as the official second nominee.Lokin brought before the SC via Mandamusto compel respondent Comelec to proclaim him asthe official second nominee of CIBAC. Also, inanother petition, Lokin assailed Sec. 13 of ResolutionNo. 7804 (Rules and Regulations Governing the filingof Manifestation of Intent to Participate andsubmission of Names of Nominees under the Party-List) and its resolution in E.M. No. 07-054.The Comelec asserts that a petition forcertiorari is an inappropriate recourse in law due tothe proclamation of Cruz-Gonzales as representativeand her assumption of that office; that Lokin’s properrecourse was an electoral protest filed in the HRET,therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over thematter being raised by Lokin. CIBAC posits thatLokin is guilty of forum shopping for filing a petitionfor mandamus and a petition for certiorari,considering that both petitions ultimately seek tohave him proclaimed as the second nominee ofCIBAC.ISSUES: a) Whether or not the Court hasjurisdiction over the controversy. The Court hasjurisdiction. The controversy involving Lokin isneither an EP nor an action for QW, for it concerns avery peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking tobe seated as second nominee of CIBAC. Although anEP may properly be available to one part-listorganization seeking to unseat another party-listorganization to determine which between thedefeated and the winning party-list organizationsactually obtained the majority of the legal votes,Lokin’s case is not one in which a nominee of aparticular party-list organization thereby wants tounseat another nominee of the same party list.Neither does an action for QW lie, considering thatthe case does not involve the ineligibility anddisloyalty of Cruz-Gonzales to the RP, or some othercase of disqualification. Lokin has correctly brought this special civilaction for certiorari against the Comelec to seek thereview of its resolution in accordance with Section 7of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution,notwithstanding the oath and assumption of officeby Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional mandate isnow implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules ofProcedure, which provides for the review of thejudgments, final orders or resolution of the Comelecand the Commission on Audit. As Rule 64 states, themode of review is by a petition for certiorari inaccordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the SC withinthe limited period of 30 days. The Court has originaland exclusive jurisdiction over Lokins certiorari andfor mandamus.