Supreme Court: CIBAC party-list representative ineligible to run in 2007 polls

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has declared that Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) party-list Rep. Emmanuel Joel Villanueva should not have been a member of the 14th Congress (July 2007 to June 2010) because he was not eligible to hold office.

Villanueva, son of defeated presidential candidate and evangelist Eddie Villanueva, was recently appointed by President Aquino as the new director general of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority.

In a 10-page decision penned by Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the High Court set aside the May 14, 2009 and Aug. 6, 2009 rulings of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which dismissed the petition filed by Milagros Amores questioning the legality of Villanueva’s assumption of office as party-list representative and her subsequent motion for reconsideration.

The High Court said Villanueva was a member of the 13th Congress, which followed the 2004 national elections.

Morales said Amores had alleged, among others, that Villanueva was disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since the former was already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to Sec. 9 of Republic Act 7941 (the Party-List System Act) at the time of the filing of his certificates of nomination and acceptance.

Morales alleged that Villanueva’s 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 Sec. 15 of RA 7941.

“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 Supreme Court ruled.

The Supreme Court said records show that Villanueva was already more than the required 30 years of age in May 2007 and that he changed his sectoral affiliation only on March 17, 2007, a violation of RA 7941.

The High Court also found the HRET to have committed grave abuse of discretion in considering Amores’s petition filed out of time.

The Supreme Court said that the HRET’s counting of the 10-day reglementary period provided in its rules from the issuance of NBC Resolution No. 07-60 on July 9, 2007 was erroneous.