Title
Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 177271
Decision Date
May 4, 2007
Petitioners challenged Comelec's refusal to disclose party-list nominees' names, citing violation of the constitutional right to information. Supreme Court ruled in favor of disclosure, affirming public's right to know, but upheld Comelec's accreditation process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 126703)

Petitioners

• G.R. No. 177271 (BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR) seek to annul Comelec resolutions accrediting certain private respondents and to enjoin their participation for failure to verify nominee qualifications.
• G.R. No. 177314 (Rosales et al.) seek mandamus to compel disclosure of the names of nominees of accredited party-list groups.

Respondents

• Commission on Elections (Comelec)
• Thirty-three private party-list organizations in G.R. No. 177271
• Fourteen party-list groups in G.R. No. 177314, seven of which overlap with the first petition

Key Dates

• January 12, 2007: Comelec issues Resolution No. 7804 prescribing party-list filing rules.
• March 29 & 31, 2007: Petitioner Rosales requests nominee lists.
• April 3, 2007: Comelec en banc Resolution 07-0724 declares nominee names confidential until election day.
• April 18, 2007: Petition in G.R. No. 177271 filed.
• April 21, 2007: Rosales obtains copy of Resolution 07-0724.
• April 24, 2007: Supreme Court requires comments.
• May 4, 2007: Decision rendered.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Article III § 7 (right to information; access to official records) and Article II § 28 (policy of full public disclosure).
• Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act), especially § 4 (registration), § 7 (certified list), and § 8 (nominee submission).
• Rules on special civil actions for certiorari (to correct grave abuse of discretion) and mandamus (to compel performance of duty).

Facts

Comelec Resolution 7804 set deadlines for party-list registration and nominee submission. Fourteen private groups filed and were accredited without public disclosure of their nominees. BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR filed an urgent petition with Comelec to disqualify certain nominees but lacked access to the nominee roster. Petitioner Rosales separately requested, via letters, the names of nominees; Comelec’s Law Department did not respond. A Manila Bulletin report announced that Comelec would not release nominee names, asserting that party-list elections are not personality-oriented. Unbeknownst to Rosales, Resolution 07-0724 had been issued on April 3, 2007, withholding nominee names until after polls. Both Supreme Court petitions challenged Comelec’s accreditation process and non-disclosure policy.

Issues

  1. Did Comelec commit grave abuse of discretion by accrediting party-list groups without verifying that their nominees meet RA 7941 qualifications?
  2. Did Comelec’s refusal to disclose nominees’ names violate the constitutional right to information and the policy of full public disclosure?
  3. Does RA 7941 mandate an absolute bar on revealing nominee names, or is the prohibition limited to the certified list posted on election day?

Supreme Court Ruling

• Accreditation Nullification: Petitioners in G.R. No. 177271 fail to show grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari cannot entertain factual inquiries into whether parties or nominees truly represent marginalized sectors; that remedy lies within Comelec’s pending disqualification proceedings (SPA Case No. 07-026).
• Disclosure Mandamus: Both petitions merit enforcement of the constitutional right to information. Comelec’s blanket non-disclosure of nominee names unduly restricts citizen access to official records and undermines informed voting.

Rationale

• Certiorari Relief: The Court’s review is limited to jurisdictional issues or grave abuse of discretion, not factual determinations. RA 7941 contains no requirement that nominee qualifications be verified simultaneously with organizational accreditation.
• Right to Information: Under the 1987 Constitution, citizens have a self-executing right to access official documents on matters of public concern, subject only to lawfu



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.