G.R. No. 206844-45 - Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206844-45)

Factual Background

The COMELEC accredited SENIOR CITIZENS as a party-list organization on March 16, 2007. The organization participated in subsequent party-list elections. After the May 10, 2010 elections, SENIOR CITIZENS earned two seats in the House of Representatives, filled by its first nominee, Godofredo V. Arquiza, and its second nominee, David L. Kho. Internal dissension arose within the organization following a national convention in November 2010 that produced rival slates of officers and competing claims to leadership.

The Irrevocable Covenant and Alleged Term-Sharing

On May 5, 2010, the five nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS signed an Irrevocable Covenant specifying an order of nominees and provisions for "sharing of power." The covenant contained detailed term-sharing arrangements describing how nominees would assume and relinquish the party-list seat or seats in staggered intervals depending on how many seats the party would win. The covenant also provided for shared appointment and benefit arrangements.

The Resignation of Rep. Kho and E.M. No. 12-040

In December 2011 the Arquiza faction notified COMELEC that Rep. Kho had tendered his resignation effective December 31, 2011, and sought confirmation of the appointment of the fourth nominee, Remedios D. Arquiza, as replacement. The matter was docketed as E.M. No. 12-040. While the petitioners admitted the existence of the term-sharing agreement during hearings, the Board of Trustees allied with Rep. Arquiza later adopted a resolution recalling acceptance of Rep. Kho’s resignation and allowing him to continue his term subject to conditions. On June 27, 2012 the COMELEC En Banc dismissed the petition in E.M. No. 12-040 and ruled that term-sharing agreements and the resignation made pursuant thereto could not be recognized because they were contrary to public policy and could not alter the order of nominees already submitted to COMELEC.

The COMELEC’s Review and Resolutions Leading to Cancellation

Pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC set summary evidentiary hearings to review continuing compliance of registered party-list organizations that manifested intent to participate in the May 13, 2013 elections. Both factions of SENIOR CITIZENS appeared at such hearings on August 24, 2012. By an en banc vote of four to three on December 4, 2012, the COMELEC ordered cancellation of SENIOR CITIZENS’ registration, finding a term-sharing agreement that purportedly cut short constitutionally mandated three-year terms and thus violated election laws and public policy. On May 10, 2013 the COMELEC En Banc issued an Omnibus Resolution denying the two manifestations of intent to participate and cancelling SENIOR CITIZENS’ registration and accreditation for violating laws, rules, and regulations relating to elections, the stated ground being the term-sharing agreement. COMELEC subsequently treated its May 10, 2013 resolution as final and proceeded with canvassing and partial proclamations in the party-list count.

Procedural Posture Before the Supreme Court

Rival petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 were filed by the Datol and Arquiza factions, both challenging the May 10, 2013 Omnibus Resolution and seeking injunctive relief. The petitions were initially consolidated with related litigation in Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, and the Court issued status quo ante relief, directed COMELEC to include candidate names on ballots, and remanded certain matters to COMELEC for summary hearings. After the May 13, 2013 elections and the issuance of a TRO by the Chief Justice, the Court enjoined further proclamations pending resolution of the petitions and required memoranda from the parties. The petitions raised both procedural and substantive challenges to COMELEC’s action.

The Issues Presented

The primary controversies framed for resolution concerned whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction by: (a) cancelling SENIOR CITIZENS’ certificate of registration without due notice and hearing; (b) relying on a public policy ground not enumerated in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941; (c) applying COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 or its prohibition on term-sharing retroactively; and (d) concluding that a term-sharing agreement, or its alleged implementation, justified cancellation of registration and disqualification from the May 13, 2013 elections.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court granted the petitions. It held that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in cancelling SENIOR CITIZENS’ registration insofar as the cancellation rested on the term-sharing ground because the party was not afforded adequate notice and opportunity to present its case on that particular ground after the remand, and because the asserted ground lacked the necessary factual predicate of implementation. The Court reversed and set aside the May 10, 2013 Omnibus Resolution insofar as it concerned SENIOR CITIZENS and ordered COMELEC to proclaim SENIOR CITIZENS as one of the winning party-list organizations with the seats to which it was entitled based on the total votes it garnered in the May 13, 2013 elections. The petitions were granted with no costs.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied established administrative due process principles as articulated in Ang Tibay and developed in Mendoza v. Commission on Elections, observing that cancellation under Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 requires due notice and hearing and that the decision-maker must consider substantial evidence presented at the hearing and state the reasons supporting its decision. The Court found that while the August 24, 2012 summary hearing permitted the parties to present evidence on accreditation, the parties were not forewarned that the existence and effect of the 2010 term-sharing covenant would constitute a new and determinative ground for cancellation in the subsequent proceedings following the remand from Atong Paglaum. The Court rejected COMELEC’s contention that an earlier April 18, 2012 hearing sufficed because that proceeding addressed E.M. No. 12-040 and did not resolve whether the term-sharing agreement would be invoked to cancel registration in the context of the 2013 accreditation review. Substantively, the Court recognized that COMELEC may properly disallow term-sharing arrangements as contrary to public policy and inconsistent with Section 7, Article VI, 1987 Constitution and Section 14 of R.A. No. 7941, and that COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 proscribing term-sharing was not penal and thus could be applied in COMELEC’s review function. Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that the asserted ground for cancellation must be shown to have been implemented. The record demonstrated that the party’s nominees d

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206844-45)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS) appeared before this Court through two rival factions respectively led by Francisco G. Datol, Jr. and Godofredo V. Arquiza, each filing certiorari petitions against Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
The petitions were filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and sought annullment of the COMELEC En Banc Omnibus Resolution disqualifying and cancelling the registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS.
The petitions alleged, among others, grave abuse of discretion for denial of due process and for cancelling registration on the ground of a purported term-sharing agreement among nominees.
The petitions were consolidated procedurally with other party-list cases remanded to the COMELEC pursuant to this Court's decision in Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections for further administrative determination.

Key Factual Allegations

SENIOR CITIZENS received COMELEC accreditation on March 16, 2007 and later participated in the May 10, 2010 elections after submitting a list of nominees.
The nominees executed an Irrevocable Covenant dated May 5, 2010 providing for an agreed schedule of term sharing among nominees in the event of election of one, two, or three seats.
The May 10, 2010 elections resulted in allocation of two party-list seats to SENIOR CITIZENS, with Godofredo V. Arquiza as first nominee and David L. Kho as second nominee.
A leadership split ensued between the Arquiza Group and the Datol Group after an alleged November 27, 2010 convention and an expulsion of Francisco G. Datol, Jr. on November 30, 2010.
David L. Kho tendered a resignation in late 2011 allegedly effectuating term sharing but the Board of Trustees allied with Arquiza later recalled acceptance of the resignation by Board Resolution No. 003-2012.
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9366 on February 21, 2012, providing in Section 7, Rule 4 that term sharing of nominees shall not be allowed.
COMELEC En Banc, in E.M. No. 12-040 dated June 27, 2012, declined to recognize the resignation and refused to effect a change in the list and order of nominees on the ground that the term-sharing agreement was contrary to public policy.
COMELEC conducted summary hearings under Resolution No. 9513 and on December 4, 2012 and May 10, 2013 issued resolutions that culminated in the cancellation of SENIOR CITIZENS’ registration for alleged violation of laws, rules, and regulations relating to elections due to term sharing.
Despite the cancellation, SENIOR CITIZENS obtained 677,642 votes in the May 13, 2013 elections and the rival factions sought relief from this Court to secure proclamation and vindication of due process rights.

Statutory Framework

Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act) provided the statutory ground for cancellation under Section 6 and the procedures for nomination and replacement of nominees.
The 1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 7, prescribes that Members of the House of Representatives are elected for a three-year term.
COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 set rules governing petitions for registration, manifestations of intent to participate, submission of nominees, and disqualification cases, including Section 7, Rule 4 which prohibits term sharing.
COMELEC Resolution No. 9513 ordered automatic summary evidentiary hearings by the En Banc to determine continuing compliance of registered party-list organizations with statutory requirements.
The Court applied administrative due process standards articulated in Mendoza v. Commission on Elections and the doctrine in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations for quasi-judicial tribunals.

Procedural History

SENIOR CITIZENS was accredited in 2007, participated in the 2010 elections, and executed the Irrevocable Covenant on May 5, 2010.
The Arquiza faction filed E.M. No. 12-040 before COMELEC seeking confirmation of replacement of a resigned nominee and COMELEC En Banc held hearings on April 18, 2012.
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9366 on February 21, 2012 and Board Resolution No. 003-2012 recalled acceptance of Rep. Kho’s resignation on March 12, 2012.
COMELEC En Banc dismissed E.M. No. 12-040 on June 27, 2012 and later under the automatic review scheme issued resolutions cancelling SENIOR CITIZENS’ registration on December 4, 2012 and reaffirmed the cancellation in an Omnibus Resolution of May 10, 2013.
The rival factions filed certiorari petitions with this Court and the Court issued status quo ante and TROs while the cases were consolidated and remanded pursuant to the Court’s Atong Pagl