Case Digest (G.R. No. 190529)
Facts:
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190529, March 22, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) filed a petition for certiorari challenging Comelec Resolution No. 8679 that delisted PGBI from the roster of accredited party-list groups for the May 10, 2010 elections. After preliminary consideration of PGBI’s motion for reconsideration, the Court issued a Status Quo Order dated February 2, 2010 directing the Comelec to restore and maintain PGBI’s status prior to delisting — specifically, to include PGBI in the list of party-list organizations to be voted upon pending final resolution of the certiorari petition. The Status Quo Order was served on Comelec on February 2, 2010.
Comelec had published a certified list of candidates on January 30, 2010 and set a self-imposed correction deadline of five days (until February 4, 2010) for misspellings or omissions. On February 3, 2010 Comelec filed an “extremely urgent” motion for reconsideration to lift the Status Quo Order, asserting that automation of the May 10 elections made compliance technically, legally and physically impossible and would disrupt ballot template generation, PCOS/CCS configuration, printing and shipment of some 4.8 million ballots and deployment of 12,000 PCOS units. PGBI replied that Comelec’s reasons were misleading and that the Commission could have complied.
On April 29, 2010 the Court granted PGBI’s petition, annulled the Comelec delisting resolutions and declared PGBI qualified to be voted upon as a party-list group in the May 10, 2010 elections. Despite the Status Quo Order and that Resolution, PGBI’s name was not included in the ballots and thus it was not voted upon. PGBI filed a manifestation and the Court, by Resolution of May 7, 2010, required Comelec to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for its failure to obey the Status Quo Order. Comelec submitted a Compliance (May 21, 2010) reiterating its automation-based impossibility defense; PGBI continued to allege contumacious disregard.
The Court resolved the incidental matters by way of this Resolution: (a) whether Comelec was guilty of contempt for disobeying the Status Quo Order, and (b) whether PGBI should be deemed to have participated in the May 10, 2010 party-list elections given Comelec’s noncompliance. The Court found the Comelec Chair and Members guilty of indirect contempt and imposed a severe reprimand; it also ruled that PGBI shall be deemed not to have transgressed the participation and level-of-votes requirements of Section 6(8) of R.A....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Comelec Chair and Members commit indirect contempt by disobeying the Supreme Court’s Status Quo Order of February 2, 2010?
- Should PGBI be deemed to have participated in the May 10, 2010 party-list elections for purposes of Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 despite not being ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)