Case Summary (G.R. No. 190529)
Applicable Law
The legal framework applicable to this case is rooted in Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), known as the Party-List System Act. Specifically, Section 6(8) of RA 7941 outlines the grounds for the removal or cancellation of registration of national, regional, or sectoral party-list organizations, articulating the necessity for either non-participation in the last two preceding elections or failing to secure the requisite percentage of votes.
Background on COMELEC Resolutions
COMELEC's Resolution No. 8679 was issued in preparation for the May 2010 elections, which included deleting various party-list groups, including PGBI, from its registry due to their electoral performance. PGBI filed an opposition to this resolution and sought readmission as a party-list organization, arguing for its entitlement to participate in the elections based on its earlier election manifest.
Arguments from PGBI
PGBI contended that the COMELEC's resolution infringed upon its rights under Section 4 of RA 7941, which allows for continued registration without the need for re-registration if a prior manifestation to participate is made. They argued that the interpretations from previous cases, particularly the Philippine Mines Safety Environment Association (MINERO) case, were misapplied in their instance. Furthermore, PGBI maintained that due process was violated as they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard.
COMELEC's Rationale for Denial
In denying PGBI's motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC pointed out that PGBI misinterpreted the import of Section 4 of RA 7941. According to the COMELEC, since PGBI did not manifest its desire to participate in the elections properly, it was required to undergo the requalification process. The ruling emphasized that granting a deferment of participation did not excuse PGBI from the requirements necessary for remaining registered.
Supreme Court Findings
The Supreme Court began by outlining the specific issues—the legal basis for PGBI's delisting and the violation of PGBI's right to due process. The Court initially found merit in PGBI's position that the interpretation of Section 6(8) of RA 7941 had been incorrectly applied in prior rulings, primarily the MINERO ruling. The judicial decision clarified that the law provided separate grounds for delisting and that the COMELEC should not conflagrate the distinct grounds of non-participation and inadequate vote percentage.
Ruling on Due Process
On the issue of due process, the Supreme Court concluded that PGBI was afforded the opportunity to se
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 190529)
Background of the Case
- The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) filed a petition for certiorari against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to nullify Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009, which delisted PGBI from the roster of registered parties under the party-list system.
- This resolution was based on PGBI's failure to secure at least 2% of the votes in the elections of 2004 and its non-participation in the 2007 elections.
- Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) allows for the removal of a party if it fails to participate in the last two elections or fails to obtain the requisite percentage of votes.
Legal Framework
- Section 6(8) of RA 7941 explicitly states:
- The COMELEC may remove or cancel a party’s registration for either:
- Failing to participate in the last two preceding elections.
- Failing to obtain at least 2% of the votes in the same elections.
- The COMELEC may remove or cancel a party’s registration for either:
- The COMELEC reiterated this rule in Resolution No. 2847, which governs the election of party-list representatives.
Procedural History
- PGBI filed an opposition to Resolution No. 8679 and sought to be accredited as a party-list organization.
- PGBI argued that Section 4 of RA 7941 allows registered parties to continue without re-registration, provided they file a manifestation of intent to participate within 90 days before the election.
- The COMELEC denied PGBI’s motion, asserting that their interpret