Title
Layug vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 192984
Decision Date
Feb 28, 2012
Layug sought to disqualify Buhay Party-List from the elections, claiming it was not a legitimate party. The Court ruled there was no due process violation as Layug provided an incorrect address, causing him to miss filings.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10315)

Facts:

  • Filing of Petition to Disqualify
    • On March 31, 2010, Rolando D. Layug, in his capacity as a taxpayer and concerned citizen, filed a Petition to Disqualify Buhay Hayaan Yumabong Party-List (Buhay Party-List) and Mariano Velarde (Brother Mike) as its nominee from participating in the May 10, 2010 Party-List Elections.
    • Layug argued Buhay Party-List was an extension of El Shaddai, a religious sect disqualifying it under Section 5, Paragraph 2, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 6, Paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act).
    • He further contended Brother Mike did not qualify as belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sector as required for party-list nominees under COMELEC Resolution No. 8807.
  • Response by Respondents
    • Buhay Party-List and Brother Mike asserted the party is a political organization composed of various sectors and that Brother Mike belongs to the marginalized elderly group.
    • They argued nominees from a political party such as Buhay Party-List need not come from marginalized sectors.
  • Issues Concerning Service of Documents
    • Layug did not receive the Answer until the April 20, 2010 hearing because the respondents’ counsel claimed Layug’s given address (#70 Dr. Pilapil St., Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City) was nonexistent.
    • Layug’s counsel insisted they could be served at the Nueva Vizcaya address but did not update their official address at COMELEC.
  • COMELEC Proceedings and Finality of Resolution
    • On June 15, 2010, COMELEC Second Division denied the petition lacking substantial evidence and sent its resolution by registered mail to Layug’s Pasig address.
    • Mail was returned unserved with the postmaster’s notation of insufficient address, leading COMELEC to declare Layug a phantom petitioner for providing fictitious address.
    • COMELEC deemed Layug received a copy of the June 15 resolution on June 23, 2010, and with no motion for reconsideration filed on time, the resolution became final and executory as of July 28, 2010.
  • Proclamation of Buhay Party-List
    • Following the finality of the denial, COMELEC En Banc promulgated NBC Resolution No. 10-034 on July 30, 2010, proclaiming Buhay Party-List as a winner with two seats in the House of Representatives.
    • Brother Mike, as the fifth nominee, was not proclaimed a representative.
  • Motion for Reconsideration and Denial
    • On July 28, 2010, Layug filed a motion for reconsideration before COMELEC En Banc, alleging denial of due process because he was not served the June 15 resolution.
    • The motion was denied by COMELEC Second Division on August 4, 2010 for being filed out of time and lacking proper notice of hearing.
  • Filing of Petition for Certiorari
    • Aggrieved, Layug filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court seeking:
      • To enjoin the implementation of COMELEC’s June 15, 2010 resolution.
      • To nullify the July 30, 2010 proclamation.
      • To compel COMELEC En Banc to decide on his motion for reconsideration.
  • Respondents’ Defense and Opposition
    • Respondents questioned the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, asserting the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has exclusive jurisdiction over qualifications of party-list members.
    • They argued Layug was properly served as he gave a fictitious address and refused to correct it despite notice.

Issues:

  • Whether the COMELEC Second Division violated procedural due process by failing to properly serve the petitioner and issue a notice of promulgation.
  • Whether the COMELEC En Banc unlawfully neglected the duty to hear and decide petitioner’s timely filed motion for reconsideration.
  • Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this petition or it lies exclusively with the HRET or COMELEC.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.