You are on page 1of 7

8/23/2015 G.R. No.

177271

TodayisSunday,August23,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.177271May4,2007

BANTAYREPUBLICACTORBARA7941,representedbyMR.AMEURFINOE.CINCO,Chairman,AND
URBANPOORFORLEGALREFORMS(UPLR),representedbyMRS.MYRNAP.PORCARE,Secretary
General,Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,BIYAHENGPINOY,KAPATIRANNGMGANAKAKULONGNAWALANGSALA
(KAKUSA),BARANGAYASSOCIATIONFORNATIONALADVANCEMENTANDTRANSPARENCY(BANAT),
AHONPINOY,AGRICULTURALSECTORALLIANCEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,INC.(AGAP),PUWERSANG
BAYANINGATLETA(PBA),ALYANSANGMGAGRUPONGHALIGINGAGHAMATTEKNOLOHIYAPARASA
MAMAMAYAN,INC.(AGHAM),BABAEPARASAKAUNLARAN(BABAEKA),AKSYONSAMBAYANAN
(AKSA),ALAYSABAYANNGMALAYANGPROPESYUNALATREPORMANGKALAKAL(ABAYPARAK),
AGBIAGTIMPUYOGILOCANO,INC.(AGBIAG!),ABANTEILONGGO,INC.(ABAILONGGO),AANGATTAYO
(AT),AANGATANGKABUHAYAN(ANAK),BAGONATIONALCULTURALSOCIETYOFTHEPHILIPPINES
(BAGO),ANGATANTASKABUHAYANPILIPINOMOVEMENT(AANGATKAPILIPINO),ARTSBUSINESS
ANDSCIENCEPROFESSIONAL(ABS),ASSOSASYONNGMGAMALILIITNANEGOSYANTENG
GUMAGANAPINC.(AMANG),SULONGBARANGAYMOVEMENT,KASOSYOPRODUCERSCONSUMER
EXCHANGEASSOCIATION,INC.(KASOSYO),UNITEDMOVEMENTAGAINSTDRUGS(UNIMAD),PARENTS
ENABLINGPARENTS(PEP),ALLIANCEOFNEOCONSERVATIVES(ANC),FILIPINOSFORPEACE,JUSTICE
ANDPROGRESSMOVEMENT(FPJPM),BIGKISPINOYMOVEMENT(BIGKIS),1UNITEDTRANSPORT
KOALISYON(1UNTAK),ALLIANCEFORBARANGAYCONCERNS(ABC),BIYAYANGBUKID,INC.,
ALLIANCEFORNATIONALISMANDDEMOCRACY(ANAD),AKBAYPINOYOFWNATIONALINC.,(APOI),
ALLIANCETRANSPORTSECTOR(ATS),KALAHISECTORALPARTY(ADVOCATESFOROVERSEAS
FILIPINO)ANDASSOCIATIONOFADMINISTRATORS,PROFESSIONALSANDSENIORS(AAPS),
Respondents.

xx

G.R.No.177314May4,2007

REP.LORETTAANNP.ROSALES,KILOSBAYANFOUNDATION,BANTAYKATARUNGANFOUNDATION,
Petitioners,
vs.
THECOMMISSIONONELECTIONS,Respondent.

DECISION

GARCIA,J.:

BeforetheCourtarethesetwoconsolidatedpetitionsforcertiorariandmandamustonullifyandsetasidecertain
issuances of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) respecting partylist groups which have manifested their
intentiontoparticipateinthepartylistelectionsonMay14,2007.

Inthefirstpetition,docketedasG.R.No.177271,petitionersBantayRepublicAct(BARA7941,forshort)andthe
Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UPLR, for short) assail the various Comelec resolutions accrediting private
respondents Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the forthcoming partylist elections on May 14, 2007 without
simultaneouslydeterminingwhetherornottheirrespectivenomineespossesstherequisitequalificationsdefinedin
RepublicAct(R.A.)No.7941,orthe"PartyListSystemAct"andbelongtothemarginalizedandunderrepresented
sector each seeks to represent. In the second, docketed as G.R. No. 177314, petitioners Loreta Ann P. Rosales,
Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution 070724 dated April 3,
2007effectivelydenyingtheirrequestforthereleaseordisclosureofthenamesofthenomineesofthefourteen(14)
accreditedparticipatingpartylistgroupsmentionedinpetitionerRosalespreviousletterrequest.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_177271_2007.html 1/7
8/23/2015 G.R. No. 177271
WhilebothpetitionscommonlyseektocompeltheComelectodiscloseorpublishthenamesofthenomineesofthe
various partylist groups named in the petitions,1 the petitioners in G.R. No. 177271 have the following additional
prayers:1)thatthe33privaterespondentsnamedthereinbe"declare[d]asunqualifiedtoparticipateinthepartylist
elections as sectoral organizations, parties or coalition for failure to comply with the guidelines prescribed by the
[Court]in[AngBagongBayaniv.Comelec2]"and,2)correspondingly,thattheComelecbeenjoinedfromallowing
respondentgroupsfromparticipatingintheMay2007elections.

InseparateresolutionsbothdatedApril24,2007,theCourtenbancrequiredthepublicandprivaterespondentsto
filetheirrespectivecommentsonthepetitionswithinanonextendibleperiodoffive(5)daysfromnotice.Apartfrom
respondent Comelec, seven (7) private respondents3 in G.R. No. 177271 and one partylist group4 mentioned in
G.R. No. 177314 submitted their separate comments. In the main, the separate comments of the private
respondentsfocusedontheuntenabilityandprematurityofthepleaofpetitionersBARA7941andUPLRtonullify
theiraccreditationaspartylistgroupsandthusdisqualifythemandtheirrespectivenomineesfromparticipatingin
theMay14,2007partylistelections.

Thefacts:

OnJanuary12,2007,theComelecissuedResolutionNo.7804prescribingrulesandregulationstogovernthefiling
of manifestation of intent to participate and submission of names of nominees under the partylist system of
representationinconnectionwiththeMay14,2007elections.Pursuantthereto,anumberoforganizedgroupsfiled
thenecessarymanifestations.AmongtheseandostensiblysubsequentlyaccreditedbytheComelectoparticipate
inthe2007electionsare14partylistgroups,namely:(1)BABAEKA(2)ANGKASANGGA(3)AKBAYPINOY
(4)AKSA(5)KAKUSA(6)AHONPINOY(7)OFWPARTY(8)BIYAHENGPINOY(9)ANAD(10)AANGATANG
KABUHAYAN(11)AGBIAG(12)BANAT(13)BANTAYLIPAD(14)AGINGPINOY.PetitionersBARA7941and
UPLRpresentedalonger,albeitanoverlapping,list.

SubsequenteventssawBARA7941andUPLRfilingwiththeComelecanUrgentPetitiontoDisqualify,thereunder
seekingtodisqualifythenomineesofcertainpartylistorganizations.Bothpetitionersappearnottohavethenames
ofthenomineessoughttobedisqualifiedsincetheystillaskedforacopyofthelistofnominees.Docketedinthe
ComelecasSPACaseNo07026,thisurgentpetitionhasyettoberesolved.

Meanwhile,reactingtotheemergingpublicperceptionthattheindividualsbehindtheaforementioned14partylist
groupsdonot,astheyshould,actuallyrepresentthepoorandmarginalizedsectors,petitionerRosales,inG.R.No.
177314, addressed a letter5 dated March 29, 2007 to Director Alioden Dalaig of the Comelecs Law Department
requesting a list of that groups nominees. Another letter6 of the same tenor dated March 31, 2007 followed, this
timepetitionerRosalesimpressinguponAtty.Dalaigtheparticularurgencyofthesubjectrequest.

NeithertheComelecPropernoritsLawDepartmentofficiallyrespondedtopetitionerRosalesrequests.TheApril
13,2007issueoftheManilaBulletin,however,carriedthefrontpagebannerheadline"COMELECWONTBARE
PARTYLISTNOMINEES",7withthefollowingsubheading:"Abalossayspartylistpollsnotpersonalityoriented."

On April 16, 2007, Atty. Emilio Capulong, Jr. and exSenator Jovito R. Salonga, in their own behalves and as
counselsofpetitionerRosales,forwardedaletter8totheComelecformallyrequestingactionanddefinitivedecision
on Rosales earlier plea for information regarding the names of several partylist nominees. Invoking their
constitutionallyguaranteedrighttoinformation,Messrs.CapulongandSalongaatthesametimedrewattentionto
thebannerheadlineadvertedtoearlier,witharequestfortheComelec,"collectivelyorindividually,toissueaformal
clarification,eitherconfirmingordenyingthebannerheadlineandtheallegedstatementofChairmanBenjamin
Abalos, Sr. xxx" Evidently unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was the issuance of Comelec en banc
Resolution0707249underdateApril3,2007virtuallydeclaringthenomineesnamesconfidentialandinneteffect
denyingpetitionerRosalesbasicdisclosurerequest.Initsrelevantpart,Resolution070724readsasfollows:

RESOLVED,moreover,thattheCommissionwilldisclose/publicizethenamesofpartylistnomineesinconnection
withtheMay14,2007Electionsonlyafter3:00p.m.onelectionday.

LettheLawDepartmentimplementthisresolutionandreplytoalllettersaddressedtotheCommissioninquiringon
thepartylistnominees.(Emphasisadded.)

According to petitioner Rosales, she was able to obtain a copy of the April 3, 2007 Resolution only on April 21,
2007. She would later state the observation that the last part of the "Order empowering the Law Department to
implement this resolution and reply to all letters inquiring on the partylist nominees is apparently a foolproof
bureaucraticwaytodistortandmanglethetruthandgivetheimpressionthattheantedatedResolutionofApril3,
2007isthefinalanswertothetwoformalrequestsofPetitioners".10

Thehereinconsolidatedpetitionsarecastagainsttheforegoingfactualsetting,albeitpetitionersBARA7941and
UPLR appear not to be aware, when they filed their petition on April 18, 2007, of the April 3, 2007 Comelec

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_177271_2007.html 2/7
8/23/2015 G.R. No. 177271
Resolution070724.

To start off, petitioners BARA 7941 and UPLR would have the Court cancel the accreditation accorded by the
Comelec to the respondent partylist groups named in their petition on the ground that these groups and their
respectivenomineesdonotappeartobequalified.InthewordsofpetitionersBARA7941andUPLR,Comelec

xxxcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitgrantedtheassailedaccreditationsevenwithoutsimultaneously
determining whether the nominees of herein private respondents are qualified or not, or whether or not the
nominees are likewise belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they claim to represent in
Congress,inaccordancewithNo.7oftheeightpointguidelinesprescribedbytheHonorableSupremeintheAng
BagongBayani11casewhichstatesthat,"notonlythecandidatepartyororganizationmustrepresentmarginalized
and underrepresented sectors so also must its nominees." In the case of private respondents, public respondent
Comelecgrantedaccreditationswithouttherequiredsimultaneousdeterminationofthequalificationofthenominees
as part of the accreditation process of the partylist organization itself. (Words in bracket added italization in the
original)12

TheCourtisunabletograntthedesiredpleaofpetitionersBARA7941andUPLRforcancellationofaccreditation
onthegroundsthusadvancedintheirpetition.For,suchcourseofactionwouldentailgoingoverandevaluatingthe
qualities of the sectoral groups or parties in question, particularly whether or not they indeed represent
marginalized/underrepresented groups. The exercise would require the Court to make a factual determination, a
matter which is outside the office of judicial review by way of special civil action for certiorari. In certiorari
proceedings,theCourtisnotcalledupontodecidefactualissuesandthecasemustbedecidedontheundisputed
factsonrecord.13Thesolefunctionofawritofcertiorariistoaddressissuesofwantofjurisdictionorgraveabuse
ofdiscretionanddoesnotincludeareviewofthetribunalsevaluationoftheevidence.14

NotlostontheCourtofcourseisthependencybeforetheComelecofSPACaseNo.07026inwhichpetitioners
BARA7941andUPLRthemselvesseektodisqualifythenomineesoftherespondentpartylistgroupsnamedin
theirpetition.

Petitioners BARA 7941s and UPLRs posture that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it
grantedtheassailedaccreditationswithoutsimultaneouslydeterminingthequalificationsoftheirnomineesiswithout
basis.NowhereinR.A.No.7941istherearequirementthatthequalificationofapartylistnomineebedetermined
simultaneouslywiththeaccreditationofanorganization.AndasaptlypointedoutbyprivaterespondentBabaePara
saKaunlaran(BabaeKa),Section4ofR.A.No.7941requiresapetitionforregistrationofapartylistorganizationto
be filed with the Comelec "not later than ninety (90) days before the election" whereas the succeeding Section 8
requiresthesubmission"notlaterthanfortyfive(45)daysbeforetheelection"ofthelistofnameswhencepartylist
representativesshallbechosen.

Now to the other but core issues of the case. The petition in G.R. No. 177314 formulates and captures the main
issuestenderedbythepetitionersintheseconsolidatedcasesandtheymaybesummarizedasfollows:

1. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal the names of the nominees of the various partylist
groups,hasviolatedtherighttoinformationandfreeaccesstodocumentsasguaranteedbytheConstitution
and

2.WhetherrespondentComelecismandatedbytheConstitutiontodisclosetothepublicthenamesofsaid
nominees.

While theComelecdid notexplicitlysay so,itbasedits refusaltodisclose thenames of thenomineesof subject


partylist groups on Section 7 of R.A. 7941. This provision, while commanding the publication and the posting in
pollingplacesofacertifiedlistofpartylistsystemparticipatinggroups,nonethelesstellstheComelecnottoshowor
includethenamesofthepartylistnomineesinsaidcertifiedlist.Thus:

SEC. 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election,
prepareacertifiedlistofnational,regional,orsectoralparties,organizationsorcoalitionswhichhaveappliedorwho
havemanifestedtheirdesiretoparticipateunderthepartylistsystemanddistributecopiesthereoftoallprecincts
forpostinginthepollingplacesonelectionday.Thenamesofthepartylistnomineesshallnotbeshownon
thecertifiedlist.(Emphasisadded.)

AnddoubtlesspartofComelecsreasonforkeepingthenamesofthepartylistnomineesawayfromthepublicis
deduciblefromthefollowingexcerptsofthenewsreportappearingintheadvertedApril13,2007issueoftheManila
Bulletin:

TheCommissiononElections(COMELEC)firmedupyesterdayitsdecisionnottoreleasethenamesofnominees
of sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions accredited to participate in the partylist election which will be held
simultaneouslywiththeMay14midtermpolls.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_177271_2007.html 3/7
8/23/2015 G.R. No. 177271
COMELECChairmanBenjaminS.Abalos,Sr.saidheand[theotherfiveCOMELEC]Commissionersbelieve
thatthepartylistelectionsmustnotbepersonalityoriented.

Abalossaidunder[R.A.]7941,thepeoplearetovoteforsectoralparties,organizations,orcoalitions,notfor
theirnominees.

HesaidthereisnothinginR.A.7941thatrequirestheComelectodisclosethenamesofnominees.xxx(Wordsin
bracketsandemphasisadded)

Insofarasthedisclosureissueisconcerned,thepetitionsareimpressedwithmerit.

AssayedagainstthenondisclosurestanceoftheComelecandthegivenrationalethereforistherighttoinformation
enshrinedintheselfexecutory15Section7,ArticleIIIoftheConstitution,viz:

Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records,andtodocuments,andpaperspertainingtoofficialacts,transactions,ordecisions,aswelltogovernment
researchdatausedasbasisforpolicydevelopment,shallbeaffordedthecitizen,subjecttosuchlimitationsasmay
beprovidedbylaw.

Complementingandgoinghandinhandwiththerighttoinformationisanotherconstitutionalprovisionenunciating
the policy of full disclosure and transparency in Government. We refer to Section 28, Article II of the Constitution
reading:

Sec.28.Subjecttoreasonableconditionsprescribedbylaw,theStateadoptsandimplementsapolicyoffullpublic
disclosureofallitstransactionsinvolvingpublicinterest.

Therighttoinformationisapublicrightwheretherealpartiesininterestarethepublic,orthecitizenstobeprecise.
And for every right of the people recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part of those who
governtorespectandprotectthatright.ThisistheessenceoftheBillofRightsinaconstitutionalregime.16Without
a governments acceptance of the limitations upon it by the Constitution in order to uphold individual liberties,
without an acknowledgment on its part of those duties exacted by the rights pertaining to the citizens, the Bill of
Rightsbecomesasophistry.

Byweightofjurisprudence,anycitizencanchallengeanyattempttoobstructtheexerciseofhisrighttoinformation
and may seek its enforcement by mandamus.17 And since every citizen by the simple fact of his citizenship
possessestherighttobeinformed,objectionsongroundoflocusstandiareordinarilyunavailing.18

Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information and its companion right of access to official
recordsarenotabsolute.AsarticulatedinLegaspi,supra,thepeoplesrighttoknowislimitedto"mattersofpublic
concern"andisfurthersubjecttosuchlimitationasmaybeprovidedbylaw.Similarly,thepolicyoffulldisclosureis
confinedtotransactionsinvolving"publicinterest"andissubjecttoreasonableconditionsprescribedbylaw.Too,
thereisalsotheneedofpreservingameasureofconfidentialityonsomematters,suchasmilitary,trade,banking
anddiplomaticsecretsorthoseaffectingnationalsecurity.19

Theterms"publicconcerns"and"publicinterest"haveeludedprecisedefinition.Butbothtermsembrace,toborrow
fromLegaspi,abroadspectrumofsubjectswhichthepublicmaywanttoknow,eitherbecausethesedirectlyaffect
theirlives,orsimplybecausesuchmattersnaturallywhettheinterestofanordinarycitizen.Attheendoftheday,it
isforthecourtstodetermine,onacasetocasebasis,whetherornotatissueisofinterestorimportancetothe
public.

If,asinLegaspi,itwasthelegitimateconcernofacitizentoknowifcertainpersonsemployedassanitariansofa
healthdepartmentofacityarecivilserviceeligibles,surelytheidentityofcandidatesforaloftyelectivepublicoffice
shouldbeamatterofhighestpublicconcernandinterest.

Asmaybenoted,nonationalsecurityorlikeconcernsisinvolvedinthedisclosureofthenamesofthenomineesof
the partylist groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing the
legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the nominees of the partylist groups subject of their respective
petitions.Mandamus,therefore,lies.

ThelastsentenceofSection7ofR.A.7941reading:"[T]henamesofthepartylistnomineesshallnotbeshownon
the certified list" is certainly not a justifying card for the Comelec to deny the requested disclosure. To us, the
prohibitionimposedontheComelecundersaidSection7islimitedinscopeandduration,meaning,thatitextends
only to the certified list which the same provision requires to be posted in the polling places on election day. To
stretchthecoverageoftheprohibitiontotheabsoluteistoreadintothelawsomethingthatisnotintended.Asit
were, there is absolutely nothing in R.A. No. 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even publishing
through mediums other than the "Certified List" the names of the partylist nominees. The Comelec obviously

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_177271_2007.html 4/7
8/23/2015 G.R. No. 177271
misread the limited nondisclosure aspect of the provision as an absolute bar to public disclosure before the May
2007 elections. The interpretation thus given by the Comelec virtually tacks an unconstitutional dimension on the
lastsentenceofSection7ofR.A.No.7941.

TheComelecsreasoningthatapartylistelectionisnotanelectionofpersonalitiesisvalidtoapoint.Itcannotbe
taken,however,tojustifyitsassailednondisclosurestancewhichcomes,asitwere,withaweightypresumptionof
invalidity,impinging,asitdoes,onafundamentalrighttoinformation.20Whilethevotecastinapartylistelections
is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would
eventuallysitintheHouseofRepresentatives.

The Court is very much aware of newspaper reports detailing the purported reasons behind the Comelecs
disinclination to release the names of partylist nominees. It is to be stressed, however, that the Court is in the
businessofdispensingjusticeonthebasisofhardfactsandapplicablestatutoryanddecisionallaws.Andlestitbe
overlooked,theCourtalwaysassumes,atthefirstinstance,thepresumptivevalidityandregularityofofficialactsof
governmentofficialsandoffices.

Ithasbeenrepeatedlysaidinvariouscontextsthatthepeoplehavetherighttoelecttheirrepresentativesonthe
basisofaninformedjudgment.Hencetheneedforvoterstobeinformedaboutmattersthathaveabearingontheir
choice.Theidealcannotbeachievedinasystemofblindvoting,asveritablyadvocatedintheassailedresolutionof
theComelec.TheCourt,sincethe1914caseofGardinerv.Romulo,21hasconsistentlymadeitclearthatitfrowns
uponanyinterpretationofthelaworrulesthatwouldhinderinanywaythefreeandintelligentcastingofthevotesin
anelection.22Soitmustbehereforstillotherreasonsarticulatedearlier.

Inall,weagreewiththepetitionersthatrespondentComelechasaconstitutionaldutytodiscloseandreleasethe
namesofthenomineesofthepartylistgroupsnamedinthehereinpetitions.

WHEREFORE,thepetitioninG.R.No.177271ispartlyDENIEDinsofarasitseekstonullifytheaccreditationofthe
respondentsnamedtherein.However,insofarasitseekstocompeltheComelectodiscloseorpublishthenamesof
thenomineesofpartylistgroups,sectorsororganizationsaccreditedtoparticipateintheMay14,2007elections,
the same petition and the petition in G.R. No. 177314 are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Comelec is hereby
ORDERED to immediately disclose and release the names of the nominees of the partylist groups, sectors or
organizationsaccreditedtoparticipateintheMay14,2007partylistelections.TheComelecisfurtherDIRECTEDto
submittotheCourtitscomplianceherewithwithinfive(5)daysfromnoticehereof.

ThisDecisionisdeclaredimmediatelyexecutoryuponitsreceiptbytheComelec.

Nopronouncementastocost.

SOORDERED.

CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice AsscociateJustice

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice AsscociateJustice

(onleave) (onleave)
MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice AsscociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice AsscociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_177271_2007.html 5/7
8/23/2015 G.R. No. 177271
AssociateJustice AsscociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR. ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AsscociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionhadbeen
reachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Atleastnine(9)partylistgroupssubjectofthesecondpetitionarerespondentsinthefirstpetition.

2G.R.No.147589,June26,2001,359SCRA698.

3ABS,BabaeKa,PEP,ANC,FPJPM,AAPS,AANGATkaPilipinoandKALAHI.

4AKSA.

5Annex"E,"ofPetitioninG.R.No.177314.

6Annex"F,"ofPetitioninG.R.No.177314.

7Petition(G.R.177314),p.8.

8Annex"G,"ofPetitioninG.R.No.177314.

9Annex"B,"ofPetitioninG.R.No.177314.

10PetitioninG.R.SP.No.177314,p.3.

11AngBagongBayaniOFWLaborPartv.CommissiononElections,Supranote2.

12Page5ofthepetitioninG.R.No.177271.

13Pobrev.Gonong,G.R.No.L60575,March16,1987,148SCRA553.

14SeaPowerShippingEnterprises,Inc.v.CA,G.R.No.138270,June28,2001,360SCRA173Orov.Diaz,
G.R.No.140974,July11,2001,361SCRA108.
15Gonzalesv.Narvasa,G.R.No.140835,August14,2000,337SCRA733.

16Legaspiv.CivilServiceCommission,G.R.No.L72119,May19,1987,150SCRA530,citingCooley.

17Tanadav.Tuvera,G.R.No.L63915,April24,1985,136SCRA27.

18Bernas,TheConstitutionofthePhilippines:ACommentary,1996ed.,p.334.

19Chavezv.PCGG,G.R.No.130716,December9,1998,299SCRA744.

20AyerProductionsPty.Ltd.v.Capulong,G.R.No.L82380,April29,1988,160SCRA861.

21G.R.No.L8921,January9,1914,26Phil.521.

22Rodriquezv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.L61545,December27,1982,119SCRA465.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_177271_2007.html 6/7
8/23/2015 G.R. No. 177271
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/may2007/gr_177271_2007.html 7/7

You might also like