Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUIS K. LOKIN v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 205357 2014-09-02	GMA NETWORK v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Clearly, the respondent in this instance went beyond its legal mandate when it provided for rules beyond what was contemplated by the law it is supposed to implement. As we held in Lokin, Jr. v. Commission on Elections:[47]
	GR No. 206987 2013-09-10	ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
In Lokin, Jr. v. Comelec,[12] the Court discussed the importance of Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 7941 in this wise:The prohibition is not arbitrary or capricious; neither is it without reason on the part of lawmakers. The COMELEC can rightly presume from the submission of the list that the list reflects the true will of the party-list organization. The COMELEC will not concern itself with whether or not the list contains the real intended nominees of the party-list organization, but will only determine whether the nominees pass all the requirements prescribed by the law and whether or not the nominees possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Thereafter, the names of the nominees will be published in newspapers of general circulation. Although the people vote for the party-list organization itself in a party-list system of election, not for the individual nominees, they still have the right to know who the nominees of any particular party-list organization are. The publication of the list of the party-list nominees in newspapers of general circulation serves that right of the people, enabling the voters to make intelligent and informed choices. In contrast, allowing the party-list organization to change its nominees through withdrawal of their nominations, or to alter the order of the nominations after the submission of the list of nominees circumvents the voters' demand for transparency. The lawmakers' exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal has eliminated the possibility of such circumvention.
	GR No. 207026 2013-08-06	COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Additionally, the submission of a complete list is mandatory under the terms of Section 8 of RA No. 7941. As we held in Lokin, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[16] the submission of a complete list goes into the right of the voters to know and make intelligent and informed choice.
	GR No. 203766 2013-04-02	ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
- Failure to show that its nominees are marginalized and underrepresented, have actively participated in programs for the advancement of farmers, and adhere to its advocacies. Resolution dated 14 November 2012[43] 34 204158 12-158 (PLM) Action Brotherhood for Active Dreamers, Inc. (ABROAD) Cancelled registration and accreditation
	GR No. 203766 2013-04-02	ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
To begin with, the electorate votes for the party-list group or organization itself, not for the individual nominees.[200] The nominees do not file a certificate of candidacy nor do they launch a personal campaign for themselves.[201] It is the party-list group that runs as candidate and it is the name of the group that is indicated in the ballot. The list of nominees submitted to the COMELEC becomes relevant only when the party-list group garners the required percentage of votes that will entitle it to a seat in Congress. At any rate, the party-list group does not cease in existence even when it loses the electoral race. And, should it decide to make another electoral bid, it is not required to keep its previous list of nominees and can submit an entirely new set of names.
	GR No. 188635 2013-01-29	BRENDA L. NAZARETH v. REYNALDO A. VILLAR BERSAMIN, J.
It bears emphasizing that the exception in favor of the high officials named in Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution limiting the authority to transfer savings only to augment another item in the GAA is strictly but reasonably construed as exclusive. As the Court has expounded in Lokin, Jr. v. Commission on Elections:[15]
	GR No. 176162 2012-10-09	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. CA MENDOZA, J.
The CSC, as the central personnel agency of the government, has the power to appoint and discipline its officials and employees and to hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal.[17] Section 2(1), Article IX(B) of the 1987 Constitution defines the scope of the civil service: The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
	GR No. 198742 2012-08-10	TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON v. COMELEC REYES, J.
We find no reason to depart from the mandatory nature infused by the above rulings to the phrase "sworn renunciation". The language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. It expresses a single, definite, and sensible meaning and must thus be read literally.[25] The foreign citizenship must be formally rejected through an affidavit duly sworn before an officer authorized to administer oath.
	GR No. 167715 2010-11-17	PHIL PHARMAWEALTH v. PFIZER PERALTA, J.
It bears to reiterate that what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue.[34]