Title
ABC Party List vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 193256
Decision Date
Mar 22, 2011
COMELEC reinstated petition to cancel ABC Party-List’s registration, citing due process and jurisdiction over pre-proclamation disputes, despite procedural defects. Supreme Court upheld, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
cancellation of registration
accreditation
religious organization

Case Summary (G.R. No. 193256)

Factual Background

On May 25, 2010, private respondent Melanio Mauricio, Jr. filed with the COMELEC a petition to cancel the registration and accreditation of ABC (Alliance for Barangay Concerns) on the ground that ABC was a front for a religious organization and thus disqualified under Section 6(1) of R.A. No. 7941. Mauricio alleged that ABC was organized, established and run by the religious group known as Children of God International or Ang Dating Daan; that the real first nominee was Arnulfo "Noel" Molero, a known official of that religious group; that the group’s resources and membership supported ABC; and that ABC made untruthful statements in its accreditation petition and received foreign support. ABC denied the allegations, asserted that it was a bona fide political party-list with national constituency whose registration and accreditation the COMELEC had validly approved, and noted its prior participation in the 2007 elections.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC Second Division

The COMELEC, Second Division dismissed Mauricio’s petition by Resolution dated June 16, 2010 on procedural and substantial grounds. Procedurally, the Second Division found the petition’s verification defective because the acknowledgment did not identify Mauricio before the notary public in accordance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule II, Sections 1 and 6. Substantively, the Second Division concluded that ABC was not a religious sect and therefore was not disqualified under Section 6(1) of R.A. No. 7941.

Subsequent Filings and Motions Before the COMELEC

Mauricio filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated June 22, 2010 with a Motion to Annul Proclamation and Suspend Its Effects, asserting that he had attached photocopies of identification cards to the verification and seeking the opportunity to present evidence as required by Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941. ABC filed an Answer and an opposition with an extremely urgent motion to dismiss on July 6, 2010 and later supplemented its pleadings. Mauricio submitted a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on July 6, 2010 together with documentary evidence. ABC contended that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction because the Secretary General of the House of Representatives had recognized ABC as a proclaimed winner and had invited its first nominee to an orientation on July 8, 2010. Mauricio countered that ABC was not validly proclaimed.

COMELEC En Banc Resolution of August 3, 2010

The COMELEC en banc partially granted Mauricio’s Motion for Reconsideration on August 3, 2010, reinstated the petition, and directed the Commission Secretary to schedule a hearing with notice to the parties. The Resolution’s dispositive portion read: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion for reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The petition is hereby REINSTATED and the Commission Secretary is hereby DIRECTED TO SCHEDULE a hearing on the petition with notice to the parties.” The en banc found that the verification page substantially complied with the 2004 Notarial Rules because Mauricio attached a Community Tax Certificate and two identification cards. The en banc also found that the Second Division had issued its dismissal without conducting a hearing, thereby depriving Mauricio of the opportunity to present evidence, and invoked Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 and the due process requirement as articulated in Sandoval v. Commission on Elections.

Issues Presented in the Petition for Certiorari

ABC brought a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, attacking the COMELEC en banc’s August 3, 2010 Resolution. The petition raised four principal contentions: that the COMELEC en banc no longer had jurisdiction after ABC was proclaimed a winner; that the en banc committed grave abuse by setting the petition for hearing despite Mauricio having had opportunity to present his evidence; that the en banc committed grave abuse by not recognizing the petition’s facial unmeritorious and procedural defects; and that the en banc improperly singled out ABC for hearing while dismissing similar cases motu proprio.

Petitioner’s Principal Arguments

ABC argued that once it had been proclaimed a winner pursuant to National Board of Canvassers Resolution No. 10-009 promulgated May 31, 2010, the COMELEC was divested of jurisdiction to pass upon its qualification and that jurisdiction vested exclusively in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal under Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution. ABC further contended that Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 applied only to non-winning party-list organizations because some enumerated grounds, such as failure to obtain two percent of votes, are obviously applicable only to losing groups. ABC maintained that Mauricio had been afforded due process and had submitted his evidence through attachments to his motions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Jurisdiction

The Court rejected ABC’s jurisdictional argument. It explained that the COMELEC’s authority to register and to cancel the registration of political parties, organizations, or coalitions derives from Section 2(5), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, which expressly forbids the registration of religious denominations and sects and authorizes cancellation on specified grounds. By contrast, the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal under Section 17, Article VI is the sole jurisdiction to decide contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House. The Court adopted the distinction recognized in Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal that the ballot chooses the party-list organization but that it is the party-list nominee who becomes the member of the House; therefore, contests as to the qualification of a party-list nominee are for the HRET, while the COMELEC retains jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the party-list organization under Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941. Accordingly, the COMELEC en banc properly exercised jurisdiction over Mauricio’s petition to cancel the registration of ABC.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Due Process and Verification

The Court upheld the COMELEC en banc’s conclusion that Mauricio substantially complied with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by attaching a Community Tax Certificate and two identification cards to the verification page. The Court recognized that the COMELEC has discretion to liberally construe procedural rules to achieve a just and speedy resolution of cases before it. The Court also agreed that Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 requires due notice and an actual hearing and that the Second Division’s dismissal without hearing deprived Mauricio of the opportunity to present evidence. The Court cited Sandoval v. Commission on Elections for the proposition that procedural due process demands notice and hearing, and it found no grave abuse of discretion in the en banc’s decision to reinstate the petition and direct that a hearing be set.

Supreme Court’s Response to the Allegation of Singling Out

The Court addressed ABC’s contention that the en banc had improperly singled out its case for hearing while other similar petitions were dismissed. The Court explained that the cited di

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms