Case Summary (G.R. No. 189466)
Facts: Palparan Quo Warranto Petition
Lesaca and other party-list members petitioned HRET to oust Bantay’s seat and its first nominee, Palparan, on grounds that he did not belong to the victims’ and CAFGU sectors Bantay purportedly represented and that he committed gross human rights violations. Palparan contended that only Bantay, not he personally, was elected and that nominee eligibility disputes were internal party matters. HRET dismissed the organization’s disqualification but retained jurisdiction over Palparan’s qualifications.
Issue Presented
Does the HRET have jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of party-list nominees who have assumed their seats in the House of Representatives under the Constitution and RA 7941?
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
- Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the 1987 Constitution classifies members of the House into district-elected and party-list–elected representatives, treating both as “members” once elected.
- Article VI, Sec. 17 establishes HRET as the sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications of House members.
- RA 7941 Sec. 9 prescribes nominee qualifications (natural-born citizenship, residency, voter registration, literacy, bona fide party membership, age).
- RA 7941 Sec. 2 and Sec. 13 recognize nominees as future members selected by their parties but require bona fide membership.
Analysis
The Constitution contemplates that party-list nominees, once proclaimed and having taken their oaths, are “members” of the House in the same manner as district representatives. Jurisdiction over pre-proclamation qualifications lies with COMELEC for party registration, but post-proclamation challenges to a member’s qualifications fall under HRET’s exclusive domain by virtue of Article VI, Sec. 17. While RA 7941 delegates initial nominee selection and verification of party-membership requirements to the party and COMELEC, it does
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189466)
Procedural History
- Two separate quo warranto petitions were filed before the HRET: HRET Case 07-041 (Abayon) and HRET Case 07-040 (Palparan).
- In each, private respondents challenged the qualifications of the first nominees of winning party-list groups.
- On July 16 and July 23, 2009, the HRET dismissed the petitions against the party-list organizations but asserted jurisdiction over the nominees’ qualifications.
- Motions for reconsideration were denied by HRET Resolution 09-183 (September 17, 2009) and Resolution 09-178 (September 10, 2009).
- Petitioners Abayon and Palparan filed consolidated special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Abayon Case (G.R. No. 189466)
- Aangat Tayo, a national multi-sectoral party-list, won one seat in the 2007 House elections.
- Daryl Grace J. Abayon, its first nominee, assumed office upon proclamation.
- Perfecto C. Lucaban, Jr., Ronyl S. Dela Cruz, and Agustin C. Doroga filed quo warranto, alleging:
- Aangat Tayo did not represent marginalized sectors;
- Abayon was not a bona fide member of those sectors (she was the wife of an incumbent congressman and had lost as second nominee of a different party-list in 2004).
- Abayon’s defenses:
- COMELEC had already certified her sectoral membership and the party’s registration;
- Her prior nomination did not constitute an electoral “loss” to disqualify her;
- HRET lacked jurisdiction over party-list registration matters, which fall under COMELEC;
- Eligibility questions were internal to Aangat Tayo.
- HRET dismissed the challenge against Aangat Tayo but entertained the question of Abayon’s personal qualifications.
Facts of the Palparan Case (G.R. No. 189506)
- Bantay party-list won one seat in the 2007 elections; Jovito S. Palparan, Jr. was proclaimed first nominee.
- Reynaldo Lesaca, Jr., Cristina Palabay, Renato M. Reyes, Jr., Erlinda Cadapan, Antonio Flores, and Joselito Ustarez filed quo warranto, alleging:
- Palparan did not belong to the marginalized sectors Bantay claimed to represent (v