Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 193256 March 22, 2011
ABC (ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS) PARTY LIST, represented herein by its Chairman, JAMES MARTY LIM, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MELANIO MAURICIO, JR., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is a special civil action for certiorari1 alleging that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolution dated August 3, 2010, which reinstated the petition to cancel the registration and accreditation of petitioner ABC (Alliance for Barangay Concerns) Party-List, and directed the Commission Secretary to schedule a hearing on the petition.
The facts are as follows:
On May 25, 2010, private respondent Melanio Mauricio, Jr. filed a petition2 with the COMELEC for the cancellation of registration and accreditation of petitioner ABC Party-List3 on the ground that petitioner is a front for a religious organization; hence, it is disqualified to become a party-list group under Section 6 (1)4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act.
Private respondent contends that ABC is a front for a religious group called the Children of God International, which is more popularly known as Ang Dating Daan, based on the following circumstances:
1. Although its National Chairman, James Marty Lim, was being publicly bruited as its first nominee, the real number one nominee of the party is Arnulfo "Noel" Molero, who is a known top official of Ang Dating Daan;
2. ABC was organized, established and is being run by Ang Dating Daan not as a party-list organization for political purposes [envisioned by R.A. No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act)], but as a religious sect for religious purposes;
3. The resources of Ang Dating Daan are being used to finance the campaign of ABC on a nationwide scale; and
4. The membership of ABC is composed of the members of Ang Dating Daan.5
Private respondent also alleged that ABC made an untruthful statement in its petition for accreditation, as it stated that it does not possess any of the disqualifications provided by the Party-List System Act when it is disqualified for being, in reality, a religious organization. In addition, he alleged that ABC is receiving support from third parties abroad.
Private respondent prayed that the accreditation of ABC be cancelled, and that it be declared disqualified as a party-list group for violating R.A. No. 7941.
In its Answer,6 petitioner ABC denied private respondent’s allegations, which were unproven by any material and convincing evidence. It averred that ABC, as a political party, is allowed by law to be registered and run under the party-list system of representation. The COMELEC has approved petitioner’s registration and accreditation as a party-list group, and petitioner had participated and was voted upon in the 2007 elections.
Moreover, petitioner stated that as a political party of national constituency, it was founded and headed by Mr. James Marty Lim, who held the position of National President of the Association of Barangay Chairmen for 11 years. Its stature as a party-list organization with national constituency that could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation for the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society should remove any doubt that it was established for religious purposes. Petitioner averred that it has not been identified with any religious entity or aggrupation.
On June 16, 2010, the COMELEC, Second Division issued a Resolution7 dismissing the petition based on procedural and substantial grounds.
The dismissal on procedural grounds was grounded on the lack of proper verification of the petition. According to the COMELEC, Second Division, the Verification with Certification Re: Forum Shopping and Special Power of Attorney was not duly notarized in accordance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended. Sections 1 and 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require that the person appearing before a notary public must be known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity. In this case, the COMELEC, Second Division found that the "Acknowledgment" at the end of the verification did not contain the name of private respondent who supposedly appeared before the notary public, and he was not identified by any competent evidence of identity as required by the rules on notarial practice.
The COMELEC, Second Division also dismissed the petition based on substantial grounds, as it found that ABC is not a religious sect, and is, therefore, not disqualified from registration.
On June 22, 2010, private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Annul Proclamation and Suspend its Effects.8 He argued that his petition was not defective since attached to the verification were photocopies of his identification cards. He likewise argued that he should be given the opportunity to present his evidence to support his Petition in accordance with Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941.
On July 6, 2010, petitioner filed its Comment/Opposition with Extremely Urgent Motion to Dismiss.9
On July 6, 2010, private respondent submitted a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration10 and his evidence to support his petition.
In response thereto, petitioner filed on July 21, 2010 a Supplement11 to its Comment/Opposition with Extremely Urgent Motion to Dismiss that was filed on July 6, 2010. Petitioner urged the COMELEC to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, since the Secretary General of the House of Representatives had already recognized ABC as a proclaimed party-list group by asking its first nominee to attend the Orientation Program for the new members of the House of Representatives, Fifteenth Congress on July 8, 2010 at the plenary hall.
On July 30, 2010, private respondent filed a Comment/Opposition12 to petitioner's motion to dismiss, arguing that ABC was not validly proclaimed; hence, the COMELEC still has jurisdiction over the case.
On August 3, 2010, the COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution13 partially granting private respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Annul Proclamation and Suspend Its Effects dated June 22, 2010. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion for reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The petition is hereby REINSTATED and the Commission Secretary is hereby DIRECTED TO SCHEDULE a hearing on the petition with notice to the parties.14
Contrary to the findings of the Second Division, the COMELEC en banc found that the petition’s verification page substantially complied with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, thus:
x x x A perusal of the said verification page immediately shows that photostatic copies of Mauricio, Jr.’s Community Tax Certificate No. CCI2009 30975061, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Lifetime Membership Card, and Permit to Carry Firearms No. 09083204 were attached thereto, thereby making them an integral part of said verification page. Clearly, Mauricio Jr.’s submission of his community tax certificate and two (2) identification cards, with the verification page substantially complies with the requirements of the 2004 Notarial Rules.15
More importantly, the COMELEC en banc stated that the records of the case showed that the Resolution of the Second Division was issued without any hearing, which deprived Mauricio of the opportunity to submit evidence in support of his petition. The COMELEC en banc averred that Section 616 of R.A. No. 7941 requires the sending out of notices and that an actual hearing is held to ensure that the parties’ right to due process is respected. It cited the case of Sandoval v. Commission on Elections,17 which held that procedural due process demands notice and hearing.
ABC filed this petition raising the following issues:
1. The Commission en banc has no more jurisdiction to entertain the petition for cancellation of registration and accreditation since ABC was already proclaimed as winner.
2. Granting that public respondent still has jurisdiction, the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it set the petition of Mauricio for hearing when he was already given all the time and opportunity to present and substantiate his case.
3. Granting that public respondent still has jurisdiction, the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amountING to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it did not recognize that on its face the petition of Mauricio is unmeritorious and procedurally defective.
4. Granting that public respondent still has jurisdiction, the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it singled out the case of ABC, setting the same for hearing when all the other cases of the same nature were all summarily and motu proprio dismissed by the COMELEC.
5. Because of the foregoing, the assailed Resolution of August 3, 2010 is a patent nullity; hence, direct resort to this honorable Supreme Court is proper.18
Petitioner contends that the COMELEC en banc no longer had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for cancellation of registration and accreditation of ABC Party-List after it was already proclaimed as one of the winners in the party-list elections of May 10, 2010 per National Board of Canvassers Resolution No. 10-00919 promulgated on May 31, 2010.
Petitioner avers that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that "[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." Hence, once a candidate for House of Representatives is proclaimed, the COMELEC is divested of jurisdiction to pass upon its qualification and the same is vested with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
Petitioner states that in this case, there is no dispute that ABC Party-List has been proclaimed by the COMELEC as one of the winners in the party-list elections of May 10, 2010; therefore, any question as to its qualification should be resolved by the HRET and not by the COMELEC. Petitioner asserts that once a party-list group has been proclaimed winner and its nominees have taken their oath, the COMELEC should be divested of its jurisdiction over both the party-list group and its nominees.
Further, petitioner submits that Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941, which states that the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition, is applicable only to a non-winning party-list group. According to petitioner, its submission is supported by the fact that one of the grounds for the cancellation of the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party is failure to obtain the required two percent of votes or to participate in the past two elections which are obviously applicable only to losing party-list groups.
The arguments of petitioner do not persuade.
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over petitions for cancellation of registration of any political party, organization or coalition is derived from Section 2 (5), Article IX-C of the Constitution, which states:
Sec, 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
x x x x
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections constitute interference in national affairs, and when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.20
Based on the provision above, the Constitution grants the COMELEC the authority to register political parties, organizations or coalitions, and the authority to cancel the registration of the same on legal grounds. The said authority of the COMELEC is reflected in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941, which provides:
Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. -- The Comelec may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes;
x x x
It is, therefore, clear that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the instant petition for cancellation of the registration of the ABC Party-List.
In the case of the party-list nominees/representatives, it is the HRET that has jurisdiction over contests relating to their qualifications. Although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not the organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of Representatives,21 but it is the party-list nominee/representative who sits as a member of the House of Representatives.
The members of the House of Representatives are provided for in Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution:
Sec. 5. (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party‑list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.22
Thus, the members of the House of Representatives are composed of the members who shall be elected from legislative districts and those who shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal23 held:
x x x x [F]rom the Constitution's point of view, it is the party-list representatives who are "elected" into office, not their parties or organizations. These representatives are elected, however, through that peculiar party-list system that the Constitution authorized and that Congress by law established where the voters cast their votes for the organizations or parties to which such party-list representatives belong.
Once elected, both the district representatives and the party-list representatives are treated in like manner. They have the same deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments. They can participate in the making of laws that will directly benefit their legislative districts or sectors. They are also subject to the same term limitation of three years for a maximum of three consecutive terms.
It may not be amiss to point out that the Party-List System Act itself recognizes party-list nominees as "members of the House of Representatives," thus:
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible. (Underscoring supplied)24
Since the representative of the elected party-list organization becomes a member of the House of Representatives, contests relating to the qualifications of the said party-list representative is within the jurisdiction of the HRET, as Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides:
Sec. 17. The 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.
Abayon held:
x x x [P]arty-list nominees are "elected members" of the House of Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins.25
Therefore, the jurisdiction of the HRET over contests relating to the qualifications of a party-list nominee or representative is derived from Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, while the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over petitions for cancellation of registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition is derived from Section 2 (5), Article IX-C of the Constitution.1avvphi1
In sum, the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over the petition for cancellation of the registration and accreditation of petitioner ABC Party-List for alleged violation of Section 6 (1) of R.A. No. 7941.
Moreover, petitioner contends that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it still set the petition for hearing despite the fact that private respondent had the opportunity to be heard and was not denied due process, and he presented his evidence as attachments to his Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
The contention lacks merit.
The COMELEC has the constitutional mandate to register political parties, organizations and coalitions, and to cancel their registration on legal grounds; hence, the COMELEC en banc, in this case, has the prerogative to direct that a hearing be conducted on the petition for cancellation of registration of the ABC Party-List. The COMELEC en banc stated in its Resolution that only then can the petition be resolved on its merits with due regard to private respondent’s right to due process.
Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.26 The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.27 It is absent in this case.
As regards the alleged lack of proper verification of the petition of private respondent, the COMELEC en banc held that private respondent substantially complied with the requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as he submitted his community tax certificate and two identification cards with the verification page. The Court agrees with the ruling of the COMELEC en banc, which has the discretion to liberally construe procedural rules in order to achieve a just and speedy resolution of every action brought before the COMELEC.
Further, petitioner contends that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion when it singled out this case and directed that it be set for hearing when other cases of the same nature were summarily and motu proprio dismissed by the COMELEC, citing the cases of Barangay Natin Party-List (BANAT) v. Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) Foundation, Inc., and BANAT v. 1st Consumers Alliance for Rural Energy (1-CARE) and Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC).28
The contention is without merit.
In the cited case of BANAT v. CIBAC Foundation, Inc., the COMELEC dismissed the petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration and accreditation of CIBAC Foundation Inc. on the ground that this Court had already determined the eligibility of CIBAC as a registered/accredited party-list organization, unlike in this case.29
In regard to the case of BANAT v. 1-CARE and APEC,30 the COMELEC dismissed a similar petition on the ground that the registration and qualification of APEC and its nominees have been settled affirmatively by this Court in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections.31
In fine, the COMELEC en banc did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolution dated August 3, 2010.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO MO. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice |
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice |
On Leave
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA*
Associate Justice |
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* On leave.
1 Under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
2 Rollo, pp. 80-89.
3 The case was docketed as SPP No. 10-013.
4 SEC. 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. -- The COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. (Emphasis supplied.)
5 COMELEC, Second Division Resolution, rollo, pp. 48-49.
6 Rollo, pp. 90-102.
7 Id. at 48-55.
8 Id. at 103-120.
9 Id. at 121-135.
10 Id. at 136-157.
11 Id. at 158-166.
12 Id. at 173-176.
13 Id. at 43-47.
14 Id. at 46.
15 Id. at 45.
16 Sec. 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. -- The Comelec may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
17 380 Phil. 375 (2000).
18 Rollo, pp. 20-21.
19 Annex "E," id. at 64-67.
20 Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
21 Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 189466, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 375, 381.
22 Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
23 Supra note 21.
24 Id. at 382.
25 Supra note 21, at 385.
26 Batul v. Bayron, 468 Phil. 130, 148 (2004).
27 Id.
28 Comelec Resolutions in SPP No. 10-015 dated July 1, 2010 and in SPP No. 10-014, dated August 5, 2010, Annexes "N" & "P," rollo, pp. 177-179, 185-189, respectively.
29 Annex "O," id. at 180-184.
30 Annex "P," id. at 185.
31 452 Phil. 899 (2003).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
