Case Digest (G.R. No. 190529)
Facts:
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010, the Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner PGBI, represented by its Secretary-General George "FGBF George" Duldulao, sought relief under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 (October 13, 2009) and the COMELEC resolution of December 9, 2009 denying PGBI’s motion for reconsideration in SPP No. 09‑004 (MP), insofar as those resolutions delisted PGBI from the roster of registered party‑list organizations.The factual and regulatory backdrop is Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), particularly Section 6(8), which authorizes COMELEC to remove or cancel registration of a party‑list organization that (a) fails to participate in the last two preceding elections, or (b) fails to obtain at least 2% of the party‑list votes in the two preceding elections. COMELEC reiterated the provision in its Resolution No. 2847 and implemented it in preparation for the May 2010 elections.
On October 13, 2009 COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 8679 deleting several party‑list organizations, including PGBI, because PGBI allegedly failed to secure 2% of the votes in 2004 and did not participate in 2007. The resolution, however, allowed affected groups to file verified oppositions by October 26, 2009. PGBI filed an Opposition and, ad cautelam, sought accreditation as a party‑list; it argued, among other things, that Section 4 of RA 7941 (manifestation to participate) and congressional deliberations showed that the Section 6(8) grounds are separate and not cumulative, that Philippine Mines Safety & Environment Association (MINERO) v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 177548) was distinguishable, and that it was denied due process.
COMELEC denied PGBI’s opposition and motion. COMELEC held: (1) Section 4 did not exempt a party that asked for deferment from having to re‑register; (2) MINERO was controlling because MINERO had failed to secure 2% in 2001 and did not participate in 2004; and (3) PGBI had been given opportunity to be heard under Resolution No. 8679. COMELEC also found PGBI’s accreditation motion untimely (Deadline under Resolution 8646 was August 17, 2009).
PGBI filed a Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court. T...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did COMELEC have legal basis under Section 6(8) of RA 7941 to delist PGBI?
- Was PGBI’s right to due process violated by the delisting and COMELEC’s proc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)