Amores Vs HRET Case Digest

Amores vs HRET
Case Digest
Facts:
Via this petition for certiorari, Milagros E. Amores (petitioner) challenges the Decision of May
14, 2009 and Resolution No. 09-130 of August 6, 2009 of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (public respondent), which respectively dismissed... petitioner's Petition for Quo
Warranto questioning the legality of the assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva
(private respondent) as representative of the party-list organization Citizens' Battle Against
Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives,... In her Petition for Quo Warranto...
petitioner alleged that, among other things, private respondent assumed office without a formal
proclamation issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC); he was... disqualified to be a
nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since, at the time of the filing of his certificates of
nomination and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant
to Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the
Party-List System Act; and his change of affiliation from CIBAC's youth sector to its overseas
Filipino workers and their families sector was not effected at least six months prior to the May
14, 2007 elections so as to be qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15... of RA No.
7941.
As earlier reflected, public respondent, by Decision of May 14, 2009,[3] dismissed petitioner's
Petition for Quo Warranto, finding that CIBAC was among the party-list organizations which the
COMELEC had partially proclaimed as entitled to at least... one seat in the House of
Representatives through National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Resolution No. 07-60 dated July
9, 2007. It also found the petition which was filed on October 17, 2007 to be out of time, the
reglementary period being 10 days from private respondent's... proclamation.
Issues:
(1) whether petitioner's Petition for Quo Warranto was dismissible for having been filed
unseasonably; and (2) whether Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 apply to private respondent.
Ruling:
On the first issue, the Court finds that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
considering petitioner's Petition for Quo Warranto filed out of time. Its counting of the 10-day
reglementary period provided in its Rules[8] from the... issuance of NBC Resolution No. 07-60
on July 9, 2007 is erroneous.
To be sure, while NBC Resolution No. 07-60 partially proclaimed CIBAC as a winner in the
May, 2007 elections, along with other party-list organizations,[9] it was by no measure a
proclamation of private respondent himself as required by Section 13 of RA No.
Considering, however, that the records do not disclose the exact date of private respondent's
proclamation, the Court overlooks the technicality of timeliness and rules on the merits.
Alternatively, since petitioner's challenge goes into private respondent's... qualifications, it may
be filed at anytime during his term.
Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at
the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure.
Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be... seasonably challenged.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than
thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains
the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed... to continue in office until the expiration
of his term
As petitioner points out, RA No. 7941 was enacted only in March, 1995. There is thus no reason
to apply Section 9 thereof only to youth sector nominees nominated during the first three
congressional terms after the ratification of the Constitution in 1987. Under this... interpretation,
the last elections where Section 9 applied were held in May, 1995 or two months after the law
was enacted. This is certainly not sound legislative intent, and could not have been the objective
of RA No. 7941.
a nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within the same party will only be eligible for
nomination under the new sectoral affiliation if the change has been effected at least six months
before the elections.
The Court finds that private respondent was not qualified to be a nominee of either the youth
sector or the overseas Filipino workers and their families sector in the May, 2007 elections.
The records disclose that private respondent was already more than 30 years of age in May,
2007, it being stipulated that he was born in August, 1975.[15] Moreover, he did not change his
sectoral affiliation at least six months before May, 2007,... public respondent itself having found
that he shifted to CIBAC's overseas Filipino workers and their families sector only on March 17,
2007.[16]
Principles:
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than
thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains
the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed... to continue in office until the expiration
of his term.

Amores Vs HRET Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amores Vs HRET Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amores Vs HRET Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amores vs HRET

You might also like