G.R. No. 261123 - Duty to Energize the Republic Through the Enlightenment of the Youth Party-List vs. Commission on Elections

The consolidated petitions involve Duterte Youth Party-List represented by Ronald Gian Carlo and Ducielle Marie Cardema (petitioners) challenging the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Komunidad ng Pamilya, Pasyente at Persons with Disabilities (P3PWD) Party-List, represented by nominees including Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon (respondents).
COMELEC adopted Resolution No. 9366 in 2012 regulating withdrawal and substitution of party-list nominees, amended by Resolution No. 10690 in 2021 which imposed new deadlines.

P3PWD filed its registration petition in March 2021.
P3PWD submitted nominees in October 2021; later filed withdrawal with substitution of nominees in November 2021, approved by COMELEC on November 24, 2021.
COMELEC published final list including P3PWD in December 2021.
After the May 2022 elections, P3PWD won one seat, and nominees started resigning en masse in June 2022.
P3PWD filed substitution of nominees including Guanzon after elections; COMELEC approved substitution on June 15, 2022 subject to publication.
Petitioners opposed the substitution citing deadlines and possible conflict of interest as Guanzon was former COMELEC Commissioner.
COMELEC denied opposition and proclaimed P3PWD’s nominees; Guanzon took oath June 23, 2022.
Supreme Court issued Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on June 29, 2022 enjoining COMELEC and House of Representatives (HOR) from allowing Guanzon and substitutes to assume office.

Petitioners question legality of substitution post-election and beyond COMELEC's deadlines, alleging violation of voters' right to information and conflict of interest.
Respondents assert COMELEC’s approval valid and substitution in accordance with law.

Petitioners filed urgent petition for certiorari on June 21, 2022; COMELEC resolved opposition and enforced TRO.
Petition for indirect contempt filed against Guanzon for alleged violations of TRO.
Oral arguments held; parties submitted memoranda.

Standing of petitioners to contest COMELEC resolutions.
Correct legal remedy for challenging COMELEC’s administrative decisions.
Whether COMELEC’s minute resolutions were final determinations.
Whether COMELEC acted in quasi-judicial or administrative capacity.
Jurisdiction over the matter: COMELEC vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
Whether petition was premature before COMELEC resolved opposition.

Validity and effectivity of deadlines for withdrawal and substitution of party-list nominees.