G.R. No. 190529 - Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections

Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI), represented by its Secretary-General George “FGBF George” Duldulao, petitioned for certiorari and filed a motion for reconsideration to annul COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 (dated October 13, 2009) and a subsequent resolution (dated December 9, 2009). These resolutions delisted PGBI from the roster of registered party-list organizations.
The delisting was based on the provisions of Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act) and its replication in COMELEC Resolution No. 2847. This section provides that the COMELEC may remove or cancel the registration of any party, organization, or coalition if it (a) fails to participate in the last two preceding elections or (b) fails to obtain at least two percent (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in those two elections.

Section 6(8) of RA 7941 clearly stipulates the grounds for removal or cancellation of registration, emphasizing two distinct tests.
The COMELEC’s regulatory framework, established through Resolution No. 2847, mirrors this statutory requirement, prompting strict compliance by party-list organizations.

PGBI was delisted because it failed to secure at least 2% of the votes in the May 2004 elections and did not participate in the May 2007 elections.
PGBI argued that under Section 4 of RA 7941, organizations that have previously registered need not register anew provided they manifest their intent to participate within the prescribed period. It claimed that its prior deferment request should have allowed it to maintain its registration.
Additionally, PGBI contended that the precedent set in the MINERO case was inapplicable to its situation both due to factual differences and because it was not afforded an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The COMELEC maintained that a deferment request does not exempt an organization from the registration requirement if it fails to participate or secure the required vote threshold.
COMELEC held that its Resolution No. 8679, which provided the parties an opportunity to file their opposition, satisfied the requirements of due process.
PGBI’s initial petition was dismissed in light of the MINERO ruling, which had applied Section 6(8) to disqualify a party-list organization that either did not participate or failed to meet the 2% vote requirement.
Subsequent arguments by PGBI, including its reliance on congressional debates (Senate Bill No. 1913) to distinguish its situation from that of entities like MINERO, led the Court to reconsider and eventually reinstate its petition.

PGBI cited Senate deliberations suggesting a different reading of the statutory language, notably that the requirement might involve a 10% threshold or a single election failure rather than a two-election test.
This argument was intended to demonstrate that PGBI’s non-participation in one election, rather than two, should not be the sole basis for delisting.
The case also involved a discussion over whether the gap in the law regarding organizations that partially meet the requirements should be closed by legislative action, thus invoking the separation of powers.

The dissenting opinion, notably by Justice Abad, emphasized that the legislative mechanism was deliberately designed to enforce a “voter preference test” via two distinct criteria.
According to the dissent, allowing PGBI’s continued registration would undermine the integrity of the system by exempting it from the double-strike requirement that ensures only those with consistent voter support remain registered.

Whether COMELEC acted within its legal authority under Section 6(8) of RA 7941 by delisting PGBI based on its failure to participate in one election and secure the minimum vote threshold in the preceding two elections.
Whether the combination or mixing of the two distinct grounds for disqualification under the statute is legally permissible.

Whether PGBI’s constitutional right to due process was violated in the manner its delisting was executed, particularly regarding proper notice and the opportunity to be heard.
Whether the absence of a trial-type hearing affected PGBI’s procedural rights.

Whether the prior MINERO ruling, which disqualified a party-list organization under similar factual circumstances, should continue to govern or be overruled in light of the present arguments.
Whether the Banat ruling’s adjustment of the vote threshold requirement should affect the application of Section 6(8).