Director Janes Viner Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Intramuros, Manila FIRST DIVISION RAOUL DANNIEL MANUEL, National Spokesperson of National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP); PAULA SABRINE JANER, Secretary-General of College Editor's, Guild of the Philippines (CEPG); and RAAINAH PUNZALAN, Convenor of Youth Act Now Against Tyranny, SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) Petitioners, - versus - RONALD GIAN CARLO L. CARDEMA, Respondent, x x AUNELL ROSS R. ANGCOS, CYRA R. SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) AURELIO and HANNAH J. NAVARROZA, Petitioners, - versus - RONALD GIAN CARLO L. CARDEMA, Promulgated! Respondent. AUG 15 2019Page 2 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division RESOLUTION In case of a nominee of the youth sector, the law, particularly Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, requires that he must at least be twenty- five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. The Case For resolution are the consolidated cases, namely, the Petition for the Disqualification of Ronald Gian Carlo L. Cardema as Nominee of Duterte Youth Partylist? filed by Raoul Danniel Manuel, Paula Sabrine Janer, and Raainah Punzalan, docketed as SPA No. 19-003 (DCN), and the Petition to Deny Due Course and/or to Cancel Party-List Nomination? of Ronald Gian Carlo L. Cardema (“Respondent”) for the Duterte Youth Partylist, docketed as SPA No. 19-004 (DCN). The Facts On May 2, 2018, a Petition for Registration‘ was filed by the Duty to Energize the Republic through the Enlightenment of the Youth Sectoral Party-List Organization (“Duterte Youth”), representing the youth and young professionals based in Region IV-A, pursuant to the Party-List System Act, for purpose of the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections. Though registration was initially denied, such denial was later on reconsidered and set aside,$ allowing Duterte Youth to be registered and accredited as a party-list organization that may participate in the 2019 National and Local Elections (“NLE”), with the following set of nominees: Ducielle Marie D. Suarez Joseph M. De Guzman Benilda C. De Guzman Arnaldo B. Villafranca Elizabeth Anne F. Cardema 4 Seep e Otherwise known as the “Party-list System Act.” Records of SPA No. 19-003 (DCN), at 1-11 Records of SPA No, 19-004 (DCN), at 1-20. Records of SPA No. 19-003 (DCN), at 139. Id, at 69-71. Id, at 89-94.Page 3 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division However, on May 12, 2019 (Sunday), at 5:30 in the afternoon, with only several hours to go before the holding of the elections, all five abovementioned nominees of Duterte Youth filed their sworn notices of withdrawal” A new Certificate of Nomination’ designating substitute nominees for Duterte Youth was likewise submitted, with Respondent Cardema now as the first nominee,? to wit: Ronald Gian Carlo L. Cardema Gian Carlo Galang Catherine R. Santos Kerwin M. Pagaran Sharah Shane T. Makabali ee eee The above withdrawals and substitutions of nomination were affirmed by the Commission En Banc through Minute Resolution No. 19-0568 dated May 14, 2019.2 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) On May 22, 2019, Raoul Danniel Manuel, Paula Sabrine Janer and Raainah Punzalan filed a Petition"! docketed as SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) for the disqualification of Respondent as nominee of Duterte Youth, alleging that he does not possess the age qualification of party- list nominees under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, requiring that representatives of the youth sector must be at least twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. According to the Petitioners, Respondent is already thirty-four (34) years old on the day of the election, and thus, he is ineligible as a nominee of a party-list group that represents the youth sector such as Duterte Youth. On June 11, 2019, Respondent filed his Answer,!? where he claims that the present Petition was filed out of time, as it was filed only after the winning party-list organizations were proclaimed,’ in violation of the reglementary period for filing of petitions for disqualifications Id, at 58-67. Id, at 54, Id, at 55-56. Id, at 39-41, Supra, note 2. ® Records of SPA No. 19-008 (DCN), at 114-120. Id, at116,Page 4 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division involving party-list nominees under COMELEC Resolution No. 10245,14 which requires that such petition be filed not later than the date of proclamation. According to the Respondent, such proclamation took place during a formal program held on May 22, 2019, which ended at around 7:45 PM, but the proof of receipt of the present Petition shows that it was filed with this Commission’s Law Department on the same day at around 8:10 in the evening, and the corresponding filing fees were paid only on the following day, May 23, 2019.15 Respondent likewise claims that he is not bound by the age limit imposed by law upon youth sector representatives, as Duterte Youth part-list represents not only the youth sector, but also the professional sector.1¢ Further, Respondent Cardema argues that the notarization by a certain Atty. Henry D. Adasa of the present Petition’s verification was defective. It was claimed that under Rule IV, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Notarial Practice, a notary public is prohibited from performing notarial acts outside his regular place of work or business. However, as pointed out by the Respondent, the notarial stamp of Atty. Adasa indicates his address as “Pasay City,” while his notarial commission is for the City of Manila.” During the hearing held on June 11, 2019, Respondent admitted that Duterte Youth has not yet caused the publication of its revised list of nominees.'8 Considering that a petition to deny due course or cancellation of nomination of party-list nominees should be filed within five (5) days after such publication,!? it was clarified by the Petitioners that the present petition was filed only as a precautionary measure,? and should not be treated as premature. According to the Petitioners, since the term of office of Members of the House of Representatives would already start on June 30, 2019, and there being no assurance that Duterte Youth will make good its commitment to publish its revised list of nominees, the present petition was filed ad 1. See also: Section 4(b), Rule 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366. It states that “[pletition for disqualification of party-list nominees shall be filed at any day not later than the date of roclamation.” »s Records of SPA No, 19.003 (DCN), at 116.117 4 Id, at 116. ¥ Id, at 118. 8 TSN, Gune 11, 2019), at 16 Supra, note 14. » TSN. Gune 11, 2019), at19.Page 5 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division cautelam so as not to allow the Respondent to benefit from his own inaction! and defeat suits questioning his eligibility.22 On June 16, 2019, Duterte Youth's revised list of nominees was finally published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation, particularly the Daily Tribune and Manila Standard.” SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) On June 17, 2019, or a day after the publication of Duterte Youth’s revised list of nominees, Aunell Ross R. Angcos, Cyra R. Aurelio and Hannah J. Navarroza filed a Petition®4 docketed as SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) praying for the denial of due course and/or cancellation of the Respondent's party-list nomination in Duterte Youth, alleging that material misrepresentation in the Respondent's qualification as nominee was committed. Petitioners alleged that since Respondent is already thirty four (34) years old, he is now beyond the maximum age to qualify as representative of the youth sector pursuant to Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, which requires such youth sector representative to be at least twenty five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Thus, it was argued that the Respondent committed material misrepresentation when he deliberately and knowingly declared in his Certificate of Acceptance that he is eligible for the office for which he was nominated, as he possess all the legal qualifications and none of the disqualifications.® It was likewise argued that, even assuming that Duterte Youth is a “multi-sectoral” party-list group representing both the youth and professional sectors, Respondent should not be allowed to abandon the youth sector and jump ship to the professional sector to exempt himself from the age requirement. Citing Amores vs. HRET,7” the Petitioners assert that a nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within the same party will only be eligible for nomination under the 4 Records of SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), at 4 2 TSN. June 1, 2019), at 20 Records of SPA No. 19-003 (DCN), at 210-215. Supra, note 3 Records of SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), at 5. Id, at 11-12. GR. No. 189600, June 29, 2010. yeoePage 6 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division new sectoral affiliation if the change has been effected at least six (6) months before the elections.2* On June 25, 2019, Respondent filed his Verified Answer,? where he insists that he did not commit material misrepresentation in his Certificate of Acceptance because he possess all the qualifications to be nominated by Duterte Youth.% On this score, Respondent argues that the matter of Duterte Youth's registration as a sectoral party representing not only the youth but also the young professionals is already settled by the fact that it was registered as such,*" and while there may be no legal definition for the term, “professionals,” it would be erroneous to say that professionals are only those who are licensed by the Professional Regulation Commission (“PRC”). According to the Respondent, there are various other occupations engaged in by other individuals who are considered professionals even though their profession may not be regulated by the PRC such as lawyers, boxers, and drivers. Respondent continued that the constitution and by-laws of Duterte Youth intentionally did not define the term “young professional,” as it is something that is internal to the party. Thus, Respondent argued that it is not for the Petitioners to give meaning to the term “young professional” for that would unduly encroach upon what may have been agreed upon by the party members through their charter, which is a contract among them.%3 It was further argued by the Respondent that the Constitution itself provides for the qualifications for the position of Member of the House of Representatives, and Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 cannot provide qualifications in addition to what the Constitution requires. Also, Respondent contends that even on the assumption that he does not belong to either the youth or young professional sector, the same becomes inconsequential in the light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. COMELEC, which held that the nominees of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, % Records of SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), at 12. ® Id, at 125-137. 2 Id, at 128-129.Page 7 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division or must have a track record of advocacy for the sector sought to be represented. In this regard, Respondent claims that he has a track record of his advocacy for the sector Duterte Youth represents, which is, the youth and young professionals,” particularly the “uniformed professionals” in the police and military. Lastly, Respondent moved for the dismissal of the Petition on “jurisdictional grounds,” arguing that the case cannot be taken cognizance of by the Commission in Division. According to him, since the matter of approving the substitution of nominees rests on this Commission’s administrative powers within the ambit of the Commission En Banc, so must also be the determination of eligibility of such nominees. Meanwhile, on June 19, 2019, this Commission (First Division) ordered for the consolidation of SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) and SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), finding that both cases involve the same issues against the same Respondent? The two cases were jointly heard on June 25, 2019, where both Petitioners and Respondent were directed to submit their respective memorandum." ‘On June 28, 2019, the Petitioners in SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) filed their Memorandum‘? wherein they reiterated the arguments in their previous pleadings. Petitioners in SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) filed an Ex Parte Manifestation and Memorandum‘ where they expressed their intention not to re-file“ their ad cautelam Petition despite the fact of publication of Duterte Youth’s revised list of nominees. Relative to this, Petitioners manifested that their petition for the disqualification of the Respondent as a nominee of Duterte Youth party-list may instead be treated by this Commission as a petition to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of nomination of the Respondent, which, despite having been filed prior to publication of the revised list of nominees, should not be considered as premature because Duterte Youth’s substitution, a %_ Records of SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), at 131, % Id, at 132. Id, at 138. 2 Id, at 134. “© Records of SPA No. 19-008 (DCN), at 237-238; SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), at 121-122. 4 Records of SPA No. 19-008 (DCN), at 250-251 ® Id, at 258-274, 276-285 (Ex Parte Manifestation); unpaginated (Memorandum). 4 Id, at 276. © Id, at277.Page 8 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division of nominees was already publicly known at the time the Petition was filed.46 On the other hand, Respondent also filed a Manifestation in Liew of Memorandum,” where he adopts the arguments he raised in his previous pleadings. Respondent also attached in his Manifestation a copy of his Oath of Office'® in in the House of Representatives dated July 1, 2019, and contends that by virtue of his assumption to office, this controversy should now fall under the sole jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (“HRET”), in accordance with Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution.” The parties having submitted their respective positions and arguments in relation with the issues raised, the present consolidated petitions are now ripe for this Commission’s resolution. The Issues The following are the issues to be resolved: 1. Jurisdiction to hear and decide the present case; a, This Commission vis-a-vis the HRET; and b. This Commission, sitting in Division vis-a-vis this Commission, sitting En Banc; 2. The timeliness of filing of the petition for disqualification (SPA No. 19-003 [DCN]; 3. The validity of the notarization of the verification portion of the petition for disqualification (SPA No. 19-003 [DCN]); 4. The validity of Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, insofar as it provides for additional qualifications for Member of the House of Representatives; X “© Id, at 281. © Id, at314-317, © Id., Records of SPA No. 19-003 (DCN), at 318, Records of SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), at 192. ® Id.,at190,Page 9 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division 5. The eligibility of the Respondent as a party-list nominee of Duterte Youth; 6. The fact of rhaterial misrepresentation in the Respondent's Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination. The Ruling I. JURISDICTION OVER THE PRESENT CASE A, This Commission, or the HRET? Before touching the merits of the Petition, We deem it better to resolve first this Commission's jurisdiction over the present consolidated Petitions vis-a-vis that of the HRET, in view of the Respondent's supposed taking of his Oath of Office® in the House of Representatives as party-list representative for Duterte Youth. Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, “[t]he Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.” In view of this constitutional provision, the Supreme Court had the occasion to declare in Vinzons-Chato vs. COMELEC; and later in Abayon vs. HRET;® that the jurisdiction of the HRET begins once the winning candidate has been proclaimed, has taken oath, and has assumed office as member of the House of Representatives. It is worth noting that Respondent himself has not yet secured a Certificate of Proclamation from this Commission, the issuance of which was held in abeyance during the pendency of the present consolidated cases questioning the Respondent's eligibility for the office he seeks to assume. For this reason, Respondent would not be able to validly assume office in the House of Representatives, notwithstanding his supposed oath of office. To be sure, assumption to any public office requires taking the oath, but the taking of such oath, by itself, should not be equated to assumption of office. 5° Supra, note 48. 51 GR. No. 172131, April 2, 2007. 5 GR. No. 189466, February 11, 2010.Page 10 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division Since Respondent cannot possibly assume office without him having secured a Certificate of Proclamation, this Commission is still undoubtedly possessed with jurisdiction to take cognizance of, and to resolve, the present consolidated cases. Certainly, before such assumption to office, the Respondent cannot be considered yet to have already become a Member of the House of Representatives over which jurisdiction is effectively exercised by the HRET. Even assuming for the sake of discussion that the Respondent's supposed Oath of Office is the operative act that determines his assumption to the office in the House of Representatives, such fact would not be sufficient to divest this Commission of jurisdiction over the present case, as the principle of adherence of jurisdiction is already well entrenched in our jurisprudence. Under such principle, once the jurisdiction of a court attaches, it continues until the case is finally terminated.* Jurisdiction cannot be ousted therefrom by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character that would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.5 There is no dispute as to this Commission’s jurisdiction at the time the present consolidated Petitions were commenced on May 22, 2019 (for SPA No. 19-003 [DCN]) and June 17, 2019 (for SPA No. 19- 004 [DCN}). Applying the principle of adherence of jurisdiction, this Commission shall retain its jurisdiction over these cases until they are finally resolved, regardless of subsequent events taking place—such as Respondent's supposed taking of oath and assumption to office— that would have transferred jurisdiction to the HRET. B. This Commission sitting in Division, or En Banc? With this Commission’s jurisdiction as against that of the HRET having been resolved in the affirmative, We now settle the issue on the jurisdiction of this Commission to decide the present case sitting in Division vis-a-vis sitting En Banc. Respondent argues that the case cannot be taken cognizance of by this Commission sitting in Division because since the matter of approving the substitution of nominees rests on the Commission En Banc in performance its administrative powers, the determination off 5 See: Baritua vs, Mercader, G.R. No. 136048, January 23,2001, citing Tinitigan vs. Tinitigan, Sr., 100 SCRA 619. 4 Ibid, citing Ramos vs. Central Bank, 41 SCRA 565, and Dioquino vs. Cruz, Jr., 116 SCRA 451Page 11 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division eligibility of the nominees should also be resolved administratively by the En Banc. We do not agree. The Supreme Court has already recognized in Cerafica vs, COMELEC* the need for this Commission to exercise its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of the eligibility of a candidate—or in this case, a party-list nominee, which is similarly situated as a candidate insofar as qualification issues are concerned. As held in Cerafica: “The determination of whether a candidate is eligible for the position he is seeking involves a determination of fact where parties must be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. We thus caution the Comelec against its practice of impetuous cancellation of COCs via minute resolutions adopting the recommendations of its Law Department when the situation properly calls for the case’s referral to a Division for summary hearing.” (Emphasis supplied) The above-quoted jurisprudential pronouncement is consistent with Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution, which mandates that in the exercise of this Commission’s quasi-judicial functions, election cases shall be heard and decided by the Division. “Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.” Moreover, it is evident in the above constitutional provision that the jurisdiction of this Commission, sitting En Banc, is limited only in resolving motions for reconsideration of the decisions or resolutions issued by a Division. This was emphasized in Pacificador vs. COMELEC,” when it declared: “.. The COMELEC sitting en banc, however, does not have the authority to hear and decide election cases, including pre- proclamation controversies in the first instance, as the COMELEC in division has such authority. Te COMELEC en bane can exercise y Supra, note 39. 5 GR. No. 205136, December 2, 2014. GR_No. 178259, March 13, 2009,Page 12 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division jurisdiction only on motions for reconsideration of the resolution or decision of the COMELEC in division.” For these reasons, it is clear that this Commission, when sitting in Division, is possessed with jurisdiction to hear and decide the present Petitions involving the question of eligibility of Respondent as a party-list nominee. Il. TIMELINESS OF FILING OF THE PETITION The period of filing of petitions for disqualification of party-list nominees, or for cancellation of their nomination, is found under Section 4, Rule 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366: “Section 4. When to file petitions. - Petitions for denial / cancellation / disqualification of party-list nominees shall be filed as follows: “a. Petition to deny due course or cancellation of nomination of party-list nominees shall be filed within five (6) days after the publication of the list of nominees; and “b. Petition for disqualification of party-list nominees shall be filed at any day not later than the date of proclamation.” According to the Respondent, the petition seeking for his disqualification (SPA No. 19-003 [DCN]) was filed out of time, as it was filed only after the winning party-list groups, which include Duterte Youth, were proclaimed,58 which is beyond the period prescribed under the above-quoted rule requiring that petitions for disqualification should be filed at any day not later than the date of proclamation. Respondent alleged that such proclamation was made during a formal program held on May 22, 2019, which ended at around 745 PM, but the Petition was filed with this Commission’s Law Department on the same day at around 8:10 PM, and the corresponding filing fees were paid only on the following day, May 23, 59, 2019: x 58 Supra, note 13. 5 Supra, note 15.s Page 13 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division Based on records, it would appear that, indeed, the petition for disqualification was filed on May 23, 2019, or one (1) day beyond the period provided by the rules. It must be noted that, as shown by Official Receipt No. 7508489, the filing fee was paid only on May 23, 2019. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but also the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.s! Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Here, payment of the required filing fees were made only on May 23, 2019, which is already beyond the prescriptive period for the commencement of the action, as it was already a day after Duterte Youth’s proclamation on May 22, 2019. Also, despite the Petition having been actually received by this Commission’s Law Department on May 22, 2019, it is worth noting that such Petition was received by the wrong office, as the rules require that it be filed, not with the Law Department, but with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 which states that: “Section 3. Where to file petitions. - The petitions herein mentioned shall be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, Commission on Elections, Intramuros, Manila “Petitions for disqualification filed with office other than with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission shall not be accepted.” (Emphasis supplied) Relative to this, the Petitioners made an Ex Parte Manifestation® wherein they argued that this Commission may instead treat their present petition for disqualification as a petition to deny due course to or cancel the Respondent's nomination. However, if this Commission will treat the present petition as one for cancellation of nomination, another procedural gaffe will unavoidably be committed. Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. ® Records of SPA No. 19-008 (DCN), at 12. 6 See: Tacay vs. RTC of Tagum, G.R. No. 88075-77, December 20, 1989. @ id. © Records of SPA No. 19-003 (DCN), at 276-285. Id, at 277.Page 14 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division 9366 provides that a petition to cancel nomination shall be filed within five (5) days after the publication of the list of nominees. It must be pointed out, however, that the revised list of nominees was published by Duterte Youth only on June 16, 2019, or almost a month after the Petition was filed, making it premature. Petitioners, however, clarified that the filing of the Petition prior to publication of the list of nominees was done ad cautelam, or as a precautionary measure, considering that the term of office of the Members of the House of Representatives are about to start on June 30, 2019, and there is no guarantee at that time that Duterte Youth will indeed publish its revised list of nominees anytime soon. Prudence therefore dictates that the present petition should be filed ad cautelam so as not to allow the Respondent to benefit from his own inaction and defeat suits questioning his eligibility. This Commission (First Division) finds the Petitioner's reasons for filing an ad cautelam petition justified. Ruling otherwise would set a dangerous precedent where last-minute substitute nominees would simply delay the publication of their nomination indefinitely, thereby preventing the whole world from having a remedy to question their eligibility through procedural technicalities. Surely, the rules neither intend to give substitute nominees the privilege of immunity from suit, nor to make the availability of remedies against them completely at their mercy. Also, this Commission does not lose sight of the fact that the subject petition for disqualification (SPA No. 19-003 [DCN]) was consolidated with another petition seeking to deny due course and/or cancel Respondent's party-list nomination (SPA No. 19-004 [DCN]), which was timely filed on June 17, 2019, or one (1) day after the list of nominees was published on June 16, 2019. Considering that both Petitions deal on the same issue against the same Respondent, We deem it best to resolve the two cases jointly, and dispose them both based on their merits. x © Supra, note 23. © Supra, note 20-22.Page 15 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division Ill. NOTARIZATION OF PETITION’S VERIFICATION According to Respondent, the notarization by a certain Atty. Henry D. Adasa of the verification portion of the Petition in SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) was defective. It was argued that under Rule IV, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Notarial Practice, a notary public is prohibited from performing notarial acts outside his regular place of work or business, but Atty. Adasa, whose notarial commission was for the City of Manila, has indicated “Pasay City” as his address in his notarial stamp” This Commission is of the view that the supposed notarial defect on the Petition’s verification would not be sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the case. This is not to say that We are doing away with the requirement that the Petition must have a proper sworn verification—because there is no dispute that the Petition was indeed sworn before an officer authorized to administer oaths. The Respondent could argue all day that the notary public may have notarized the Petition in some place outside the territorial jurisdiction of his notarial commission, but such defect, at most, can only subject the notary public to a possible administrative liability under the pertinent rules of notarial practice, and would not be enough to invalidate the document in question. Besides, verification of a pleading is only a formal requirement, and not jurisdictional. As held in Valdecantos vs. People: “The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination ora matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.” (Emphasis supplied) Also, considering that the Petition in SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) was consolidated with another Petition in SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), the latter © ‘Supra, note 17.a Page 16 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division of which appears not to possess the same defects in verification, it would be better under the circumstances to resolve them together based on substance, and not on formal niceties. IV. ADDITIONAL STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS In his Verified Answer,‘ Respondent claims that Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, which fixes a maximum age for youth sector nominees at thirty (30) years on election day, should not apply to him, arguing that the law cannot provide qualifications for Member of the House of Representatives in addition to those minimum qualifications that the Constitution itself provides. ‘The Respondent, however, does not support his argument with legal basis. Moreover, as far as this Commission is concerned, We have the constitutional duty to implement and administer all laws and regulations relative to the elections,” including R.A. No. 7941, which regulates the party-list system in the country. As long as Section 9 of the said law is still in our statute books, this Commission will enforce it decisively, as every youth sector nominee should be bound by it. It isa time-honored principle that laws enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. If laws would not be presumed constitutional, then that would be the ultimate insult to co-equal branches of the government. To borrow the words of the Supreme Court, it would be “an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it.””! Besides, the Respondent cannot raise any issue involving the constitutionality of Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 in the present proceedings. For reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be attacked collaterally | © Supra, note 29. © Supra, note 34. 7 Article DCC, Section 2(1). 7 LAMP vs Secretary of Budget and Management, G.R. No, 164987, April 24, 2012. 7 PNB vs. Palma, GR. No. 157279, August 9, 2005| Page 17 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division V. ELIGIBILITY OF RESPONDENT AS NOMINEE The meat of the controversy is hinged on the Respondent's eligibility as nominee of Duterte Youth. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent does not possess all qualifications of a party-list nominee, particularly the age qualification set forth under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, which requires that nominees representing the youth sector should be at least twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years old on the day of the election. To quote: “Section 9. Qualification of Party-List Nominees. - No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. “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 representative who attains the age of thirty years during his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of his term.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) There is no dispute that Respondent was born on April 12, 1985, and thus, already thirty-four (34) years old on the day when the elections were held on May 13, 2019. What the Respondent claims, however, is that the said age qualification under the above-quoted provision does not apply to him. According to Respondent, Duterte Youth is a multi-sectoral party representing not only the youth sector, but also the young professionals, and thus, he is eligible to be nominated despite already being thirty-four (34) years of age. A. The youth and young professionals. Though it may appear that most of Duterte Youth’s public representations are geared toward the youth sector, the said party was registered by this Commission as a party-list group based on the declarations contained in its petition for party-list registration, where it claims to represent both the youth and professionals.” But taking the k 7 Records of SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), at 129. Id, at 28.Page 18 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division entire petition as a whole, including its title, it can be observed that the party intended to limit its representation of professionals only insofar as “young professionals” are concerned.”> Admissions to this effect were even made by Respondent himself in the pleadings he filed before this Commission. The problem, however, is that “young” is very subjective. Duterte Youth could have defined the meaning of the term “young professionals” in its constitution and by-laws to help solve the puzzle, but it did not do so. In fact, Duterte Youth is even hiding behind the cloak of self-serving secrecy by claiming that the definition of the term “young professional” is a matter internal to the party.” While it may be true that Duterte Youth party-list represents both the youth and young professionals, it is important to consider that the professionals being represented by the party are the “young” ones, who would also necessarily belong to the youth sector. With this, the party cannot really claim that it is indeed multi-sectoral when the so- called “professional sector” it claims to represent evidently forms part of the main sector—the “youth sector”—that Duterte Youth clearly stands for. With these in mind, this Commission finds no reason why the age qualification provided by law for nominees of the youth sector should not be applied to the Respondent. B. Respondent's affiliation as a nominee. Even assuming only for the sake of discussion that Duterte Youth is indeed a “multi-sectoral” party representing two distinct sectors, the youth and professionals, Respondent's nomination still cannot be allowed simply by claiming that he is representing only the professional sector, and not the youth sector. Respondent's youth sectoral affiliation as a nominee is plain, and hardly needs skillful interpretation just to be clear. To be sure, the Respondent is a known youth advocate, and all of his public appearances, interviews, speeches and representations are for the % Id, at24. % Id. at 127, 128, 130. 7 Id, at 130.Page 19 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division youth and never for the professionals.”8 Duterte Youth may have been registered as a party-list group representing the youth and young professionals, but it would appear that Respondent Cardema himself was affiliated with the youth, and not with the professionals. It would thus be necessary for the Respondent to convincingly prove his change his affiliation if he is to be a nominee of a supposed “multi-sectoral” party-list group, for him to validly represent the professional sector instead of the youth. Records would show that the Respondent started to highlight the professionals only after the filing of a petition against him questioning his eligibility to represent the youth sector. Pursuing such afterthought would not be enough to comply with the express mandate of Section 15 of R.A. No. 7941, which requires that changes in affiliation should be done at least six (6) months before the election to be eligible for nomination. Quoting the subject provision: “Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect. - Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat: provided, that if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization.” (Emphasis supplied) The said postulate is supported by Amores vs. HRET,? where the now senator Joel Villanueva, who was then thirty-one (31) years of age, was disallowed by the Supreme Court from being nominated by CIBAC party-list (a multi-sectoral group) because his change of sectoral affiliation from the youth sector to the overseas Filipino workers and their families sector took place within six (6) months before the election, in violation of Section 15 of R.A. No. 7941. The Supreme Court went on to declare that: “What is clear is that the wording of Section 15 covers changes in both political party and sectoral affiliation. And the latter may occur within the same party since multi-sectoral party-list organizations are qualified to participate in the Philippine party-list system. Hence, 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. Again, since the statute is clear and ¥ % [d.at30-44; SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), at 84-88, 7 G.R_No. 189600, June 29, 2010.Page 20 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is the plain meaning rule or verba legis, as expressed in the maxim index animi sermo or speech is the index of intention.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Following Amores, even working under the assumption that Duterte Youth is indeed a multi-sectoral organization (which is not), it is still necessary for Respondent to prove clearly and convincingly that he effected a change in his affiliation from the youth sector to the professional sector at least six (6) months before the elections were held. Respondent's failure to do so has rendered him ineligible for party-list nomination. C. Track record of advocacy. The Respondent advances that even assuming that he does not belong to either the youth or young professional sector, he can still be nominated to represent said sectors in view of the doctrine in Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. COMELEC,® where it was declared that nominees of sectoral parties either must belong to the sector, or must have a track record of advocacy for the sector sought to be represented. Since Respondent claims to possess track record of advocacy for the youth and young professionals, particularly the “uniformed professionals” in the police and military, he argues that he is eligible for nomination to represent said sectors.8! Let Us revisit the relevant guidelines set forth in Atong Paglaum regarding nominees, where the Supreme Court held: “5, x x x. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the ‘marginalized and underrepresented,’ or that represent those who lack ‘well-defined political constituencies,’ either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations. (Emphasis supplied) We do not find merit in the contention. While it may be true that track record of advocacy would ordinarily be enough to comply with the eligibility requirements for nominees under Atong Paglaum, said rule cannot be applied to representatives of the youth sector, 2 Supra, note 35. 51 Supra, note 36-38.Page 21 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division considering that there is a law, particularly Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, which provides for a specific age qualification that nominees of the youth sector must comply with. Taking into account that the Duterte Youth party-list cannot be considered as a multi-sectoral group despite representing the youth and young professionals, it is necessary for the Respondent to possess all the qualifications of a representative of the youth sector, including the age qualification of at least twenty-five (25) years but not more than thirty (30) years on the day of the election. Unfortunately for the Respondent, no amount of track record of advocacy for the youth sector would confer such eligibility upon him. Neither should his supposed track record of advocacy for the “professionals” be considered. The law puts a heavy burden on the nominee to prove his advocacy through his track record. To be clear, the track record is not a mere recital of his visions for the organization and the trivial activities he conducted under the guise of promoting the causes of the sector. He must actually and actively be espousing the interests of the sector by undertaking activities directly addressing its concerns. Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC® is instructive where the High Court ruled that the party-list group and its nominees must submit documentary evidence in consonance with the Constitution, R.A. No. 7941, and other laws, to duly prove that the nominees truly belong to the sector they seek to represent, which may include but not limited to the following: Track record of the party-list group/organization showing, active participation of the nominee/s in the undertakings of the party-list group/organization for the advancement of the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s, the sectoral party, organization, political party or coalition they seek to represent; “b. Proofs that the nominee/s truly adheres to the advocacies of the party- list group/organizations (prior declarations, speeches, written articles, and such other positive actions on the part of the nominee/s showing his/her adherence to the advocacies of the party-list group/ organizations); “c. Certification that the nominee/s is/are a bona fide member of the party-list group/ organization for at least ninety (90) days prior to the election; and. "= Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013, © G.RNo. 193808, June 26, 2012.Page 22 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division “d. In case of a party-list group/organization seeking representation of the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s, proof that the nominee/s is not only an advocate of the party-list/organization but is/are also a bona fide member/s of said marginalized and underrepresented sector.” It is worthy to emphasize that the Respondent's purported “track record of advocacy” for the professionals only surfaced on June 25, 2019, as an annex to his Verified Answer. We hereby make the following observations: 1. The said track record of advocacy for professionals was not included in Duterte Youth’s petition for registration as a party-list group, which bolsters the finding that the said group is not multi-sectoral, but instead represents only the youth. Thus, it would not be proper for Us to consider Respondent's track record of advocacy for a sector that the party itself does not seek to represent. 2. The said track record of advocacy would show that the same involves only a specific type of professionals—the uniformed professionals in the police and military service— which does not involve the “young professionals” being represented by Duterte Youth. Also, even assuming that the young people in the police and military could be included in said advocacy, the same would still not be enough to qualify the Respondent as nominee, because the “young professionals” are actually part of the youth sector as already discussed above. It is, therefore, imperative for the Respondent to still comply with the age requirement for representatives of the youth sector. Given the foregoing, it would be highly improper for this Commission to declare Respondent eligible as nominee of Duterte Youth on account of its purported track record of advocacy for both the youth sector and professional sector. It is, therefore, necessary for the Respondent to face the inescapable consequences of his lack of eligibility as a party-list nominee. | Records of SPA No. 19-004 (DCN), at 138-153.Page 23 of 25 SPA No. 19-008 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division ‘VI. EXISTENCE OF MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION Section 1, Rule 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 provides, as a remedy, the filing of petitions to deny due course to and/or cancel nomination of nominees, to wit: “Section 1. Petition to deny due course and/or cancellation; Grounds. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course the nomination of nominees of party-list groups may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that a material misrepresentation has been committed in the qualification of the nominees.” Under the foregoing rule, the sole ground for cancellation of nomination is when there is material misrepresentation committed in the qualification of nominees. A close perusal of the Respondent's Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination®> would reveal his declarations contained therein. Under Item No. 15 thereof, he stated that: “15. | AM ELIGIBLE for the office for which I am nominated as I possess all. the legal qualifications and none of the disqualification (sic). xx x.” As already exhaustively discussed above, all the circumstances would more than adequately show that Respondent was not eligible to be nominated as representative of Duterte Youth party-list, which is contrary to the declaration he made in his Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination. Respondent is aware that he is already thirty-four (34) years old, and thus, committed a falsity when he misrepresented that he is eligible for nomination by Duterte Youth despite not possessing the age qualification provided by law for representatives of the youth sector, which is at least twenty-five (25) years but not more than thirty (30) years old on the day of the election. In view thereof, this Commission finds Respondent to have committed material misrepresentation on his qualifications. This is in consonance with the ruling in the case of Francisco vs. COMELEC,% with reference to Aratea vs. COMELEC,§” aX Id, at 138-153. % G.R. No. 230249, April 24, 2018. © GR No. 195229, October 9, 2012.Page 24 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division “In the landmark case of Aratea v. COMELEC, for instance, the COC of Romeo D. Lonzanida was cancelled and declared void ab initio because of his misrepresentation as to-his eligibility. He knew fully well that he had been elected, and had served, as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales for more than three consecutive terms yet he still certified that he was eligible to run for mayor for the next succeeding term, thus constituting false material representation. No prior judgment recognizing Lonzanida's service for three terms was necessary to effect the cancellation of his COC. (Emphasis supplied) Accordingly, the present consolidated Petitions seeking for the cancellation of Respondent’s nomination must be granted. For emphasis, this Commission reiterates its unmistakable conclusion based on facts, law, and jurisprudence, that Respondent Ronald Gian Carlo L. Cardema is not eligible for nomination to represent Duterte Youth in the House of Representatives. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The nomination of Respondent, Ronald Gian Carlo L. Cardema, as the first nominee of Duterte Youth party-list is hereby CANCELLED. so ORDERED. \- (On Official Business) AL A. PARRENO “ Presiding Commissioner WITH CRPARATE CONCURRING OPINION MA. pL es ake GUANZON Commissioner: Page 25 of 25 SPA No. 19-003 (DCN) SPA No. 19-004 (DCN) First Division CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in consultation among the members of the Commission before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Commission (First Division). mah (OWENA Koop V. GUANZON Acting Presiding Commissioner