MILAGROS E. AMORES, Petitioner, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Emmanuel Joel J. VILLANUEVA, Respondents
MILAGROS E. AMORES, Petitioner, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Emmanuel Joel J. VILLANUEVA, Respondents
AMORES, Petitioner,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and EMMANUEL JOEL
J. VILLANUEVA,Respondents.
Via this petition for certiorari, Milagros E. Amores (petitioner) challenges the
Decision of May 1, !""# and Resol$tion %o. "#&1'" of A$g$st (, !""# of the )o$se
of Representatives Electoral *ri+$nal (p$+lic respondent), ,hich respectively
dismissed petitioner-s Petition for .$o /arranto 0$estioning the legality of the
ass$mption of o1ce of Emman$el 2oel 2. Villan$eva (private respondent) as
representative of the party&list organi3ation 4iti3ens- 5attle Against 4orr$ption
(465A4) in the )o$se of Representatives, and denied petitioner-s Motion for
Reconsideration.
6n her Petition for .$o /arranto
1
see7ing the o$ster of private respondent,
petitioner alleged that, among other things, private respondent ass$med o1ce
,itho$t a formal proclamation iss$ed +y the 4ommission on Elections (48ME9E4):
he ,as dis0$ali;ed to +e a nominee of the yo$th sector of 465A4 since, at the time
of the ;ling of his certi;cates of nomination and acceptance, he ,as already '1
years old or +eyond the age limit of '" p$rs$ant to <ection # of Rep$+lic Act (RA)
%o. =#1, other,ise 7no,n as the Party&9ist <ystem Act: and his change of
a1liation from 465A4-s yo$th sector to its overseas >ilipino ,or7ers and their
families sector ,as not e?ected at least si@ months prior to the May 1, !""=
elections so as to +e 0$ali;ed to represent the ne, sector $nder <ection 1A of RA
%o. =#1.
%ot having ;led his Ans,er despite d$e notice, private respondent ,as deemed to
have entered a general denial p$rs$ant to p$+lic respondent-s R$les.
!
As earlier reBected, p$+lic respondent, +y Decision of May 1, !""#,
'
dismissed
petitioner-s Petition for .$o /arranto, ;nding that 465A4 ,as among the party&list
organi3ations ,hich the 48ME9E4 had partially proclaimed as entitled to at least
one seat in the )o$se of Representatives thro$gh %ational 5oard of 4anvassers
(%54) Resol$tion %o. "=&(" dated 2$ly #, !""=. 6t also fo$nd the petition ,hich ,as
;led on 8cto+er 1=, !""= to +e o$t of time, the reglementary period +eing 1" days
from private respondent-s proclamation.
Respecting the age 0$ali;cation for yo$th sectoral nominees $nder <ection # of RA
%o. =#1, p$+lic respondent held that it applied only to those nominated as s$ch
d$ring the ;rst three congressional terms after the rati;cation of the 4onstit$tion or
$ntil 1##C, $nless a sectoral party is thereafter registered e@cl$sively as
representing the yo$th sector, ,hich 465A4, a m$lti§oral organi3ation, is not.
6n the matter of private respondent-s shift of a1liation from 465A4-s yo$th sector to
its overseas >ilipino ,or7ers and their families sector, p$+lic respondent held that
<ection 1A of RA %o. =#1 did not apply as there ,as no res$ltant change in party&
list a1liation.
)er Motion for Reconsideration having +een denied +y Resol$tion %o. "#&1'" dated
A$g$st (, !""#,
*his petition +eing one for mandam$s and the provision of la, relied $pon +eing
clear on its face, it ,o$ld appear that no favora+le action can +e ta7en on this
appeal. /e a1rm.
1. *he applica+le provision of Rep$+lic Act %o. !"!' 0$oted earlier, spea7s for itself.
*here is no am+ig$ity. As th$s ,orded, it ,as so applied. Petitioner&appellant cannot
therefore raise any valid o+Dection. >or the lo,er co$rt to vie, it other,ise ,o$ld
have +een to alter the la,. *hat cannot +e done +y the D$diciary. *hat is a f$nction
that properly appertains to the legislative +ranch. As ,as pointed o$t in .on/aga v.
Court of AppealsE
!
J6t has +een repeated time and time again that ,here the
stat$tory norm spea7s $ne0$ivocally, there is nothing for the co$rts to do e@cept to
apply it. *he la,, leaving no do$+t as to the scope of its operation, m$st +e o+eyed.
8$r decisions have consistently +orn to that e?ect.
"
.
!. 4learly, then, mandam$s does not lie. Petitioner&appellant ,as $na+le to sho, a
clear legal right. *he very la, on ,hich he ,o$ld +ase his action fails to s$pply any
+asis for this petition. A more rigoro$s analysis ,o$ld have prevented him from
instit$ting a a s$it of this character. 6n 0.R.1. 2usiness Corporation v. 3ontesa,
#
this
4o$rt held. JMan&dam$s is the proper remedy if it co$ld +e sho,n that there ,as
neglect on the part of a tri+$nal in the performance of an act, ,hich speci;cally the
la, enDoins as a d$ty or an $nla,f$l e@cl$sion of a party from the $se and
enDoyment of a right to ,hich he is entitled.
$
*he opinion contin$ed in this
,iseEJAccording to former 4hief 2$stice Moran,J only speci;c legal rights may +e
enforced +y mandam$s if they are clear and certain. 6f the legal rights are of the
petitioner are not ,ell de;ned, clear, and certain, the petition m$st +e dismissed. 6n
s$pport of the a+ove vie,, 4iu)a e Hi5os )e Crispulo 6amora v. 7right ,as cited. As
,as there categorically statedE J*his co$rt has held that it is f$ndamental that the
d$ties to +e enforced +y mandam$s m$st +e those ,hich are clear and enDoined +y
la, or +y reason of o1cial station, and that petitioner m$st have a clear, legal right
to the thing and that it m$st +e the legal d$ty of the defendant to perform the
re0$ired act.F As e@pressed +y the then 2$stice Recto in a s$+se0$ent opinionE J6t is
,ell esta+lish that only speci;c legal rights are enforcea+le +y mandam$s, that the
right so$ght to +e enforced m$st +e certain and clear, and that the ,rit not iss$e in
cases ,here the right is do$+tf$l.J *o the same e?ect is the form$lation of s$ch
doctrine +y former 2$stice 5arreraE J<tated other,ise, the ,rit never iss$es in
do$+tf$l cases. 6t neither confers po,ers nor imposes d$ties. 6t is simply a
command to e@ercise a po,er already possessed and to perform a d$ty already
imposed.J
%
<o it has +een since then.
&
*he latest reported case, Province. of
Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission,
1'
this co$rt spea7ing thro$gh 2$stice
4oncepcion 2r., reiterated s$ch a ,ell&settled doctrineE J6t has also +een held that it
is essential to the iss$ance of the ,rit of mandam$s that the plainti? sho$ld have a
clear legal right to the thing demanded, and it m$st +e the imperative d$ty of the
defendant to perform the act re0$ired. 6t never iss$es in do$+tf$l cases.
11
/)ERE>8RE, the appealed decision is a1rmed.
I I I