Case Summary (G.R. No. 203133)
Key Dates and Procedural History
COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 issued October 13, 2009 (delisting several party‑list organizations including PGBI); deadline for filing opposition stated as October 26, 2009. COMELEC denial of PGBI’s motion for reconsideration dated December 9, 2009. Supreme Court initially dismissed PGBI’s petition relying on Minero (G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007), then reinstated the petition on PGBI’s motion for reconsideration; the Court ultimately granted relief and annulled the COMELEC resolutions insofar as PGBI is concerned, qualifying PGBI for the May 2010 elections.
Applicable Law
Republic Act No. 7941 (Party‑List System Act), particularly Section 6(8): COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon verified complaint, remove or cancel registration after due notice and hearing on grounds including (a) failure to participate in the last two preceding elections, or (b) failure to obtain at least two percent (2%) of the votes cast under the party‑list system in the two preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. COMELEC’s implementing rules: COMELEC Resolution No. 2847 (Rules and Regulations Governing the Election of the Party‑List Representatives).
Background Facts and Parties’ Contentions
COMELEC delisted PGBI because it allegedly failed to obtain 2% of party‑list votes in 2004 and did not participate in 2007. PGBI filed an opposition and sought accreditation ad cautelam. PGBI’s principal arguments: (1) Section 4 of RA 7941 (manifestation to participate) permits a previously registered party to defer participation without losing status if it filed a manifestation within the prescribed period; PGBI alleged it filed a timely request/manifestation for deferment in 2007; (2) the Court’s Minero ruling is inapplicable because factual circumstances differ and Minero was afforded a hearing prior to delisting; (3) Banat (G.R. No. 179271) relaxed the 2% requirement and COMELEC’s delisting denied equal protection; (4) PGBI’s due process rights were violated because of alleged failure to notify as required by Section 6(8).
COMELEC’s Response and Initial Judicial Action
COMELEC denied PGBI’s opposition for lack of merit: it construed Section 4 to require requalification if no proper manifestation was filed; found Minero controlling (party failed to get 2% in one election and did not participate in the next); noted PGBI had an opportunity to be heard via the opposition process provided in Resolution No. 8679; and held PGBI’s accreditation motion was time‑barred under COMELEC Resolution 8646 (deadline Aug. 17, 2009). The Supreme Court initially dismissed PGBI’s certiorari petition on the authority of Minero.
Issues Presented to the Court
(a) Whether COMELEC had a legal basis to delist PGBI under Section 6(8) of RA 7941; and (b) whether PGBI’s right to due process was violated by COMELEC’s actions.
Supreme Court’s Legal Interpretation of Section 6(8)
The Court held that Section 6(8) sets out two distinct, disjunctive grounds for delisting—failure to participate in the last two preceding elections; or failure to obtain at least 2% of the party‑list votes in the two preceding elections. Emphasizing the disjunctive “or,” the Court reasoned that these are independent bases and must not be conflated. The Court found Minero to have erred by treating non‑participation as equivalent to failing to secure 2% of votes, thereby improperly fusing separate statutory grounds into one jurisdictional test.
Effect of Banat on the 2% Threshold and Application to Delisting
The Court recognized its earlier decision in Banat, which declared the 2% threshold unconstitutional as applied in the distribution of additional seats because it prevented attainment of the 20% permissive ceiling for party‑list representatives. In light of Banat, the Court read the 2% disqualification in Section 6(8) to mean failure to qualify for a seat in the last two elections (i.e., failure to secure the percentage of votes actually required to obtain a seat under the allocation rules then operative), rather than literal failure to secure 2% in every instance. Therefore, a party that qualified for a seat in the second round under Banat’s allocation principles could not be delisted solely for having garnered less than a literal 2% in prior elections.
Abandonment of Minero and Stare Decisis Consideration
The Court concluded that Minero was an erroneous application of Section 6(8) and inconsistent with legislative intent and statutory language; accordingly, the Court abandoned Minero as precedent. The Court acknowledged the doctrine of stare decisis but found compelling reasons—error in legal interpretation and inconsistency with statutory text and intent—to depart from Minero and correct the law. The Court noted that any factual gap left by this interpretation (e.g., a party that ran once and did not run thereafter) is a legislative matter for Congress to address.
Due Process Analysis
On procedural due process, the Court held that PGBI was not denied due process because it was afforded an opportunity to be heard: COMELEC’s Resolution No. 8679 expressly allowed adversely affected parties to file oppositions and seek reconsideration. The Court reiterated that in administrative proceedings the essence of due process is opportunity to be heard, not necessarily a formal trial‑type hearing; absolute lack of notice or hearing is what would constitute a due process violation, which did not occur here.
Disposition
The Court granted
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 203133)
Case Citation and Nature of Proceeding
- Reported at 633 Phil. 590, En Banc, G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010.
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court challenging Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolutions that delisted the petitioner from the roster of registered party-list organizations and denying its motion for reconsideration (COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009; Resolution dated December 9, 2009 in SPP No. 09-004 (MP)).
- Relief sought: annulment of COMELEC delisting of PGBI and qualification of PGBI to be voted upon as a party-list organization in the May 2010 elections.
Statutory Provision at Issue
- Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) as reproduced:
- COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
- (8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
- COMELEC reproduced this provision in COMELEC Resolution No. 2847 (Rules and Regulations Governing the Election of the Party-List Representatives) promulgated June 25, 1996.
- Relevant legislative history excerpts from the Records of the Senate (Senate Bill No. 1913, October 19, 1994) were cited by petitioner to construe the provision.
Factual Background and COMELEC Action
- For the May 2010 elections, COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 8679 (October 13, 2009) deleting several party-list organizations from the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions.
- PGBI was delisted on the stated ground that it failed to obtain 2% of the votes in 2004 and did not participate in the 2007 elections.
- Resolution No. 8679 expressly provided that adversely affected national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions could personally or through an authorized representative file a verified opposition on October 26, 2009.
- PGBI filed an Opposition to Resolution No. 8679 and, ad cautelam, sought admission of its petition for accreditation as a party-list organization under RA 7941.
Petitioner's Principal Arguments
- PGBI contested the delisting and raised, among others, the following points:
- Section 4 of RA 7941 permits already-registered parties, organizations or coalitions to avoid re-registration by filing, not later than 90 days before the election, a manifestation of desire to participate; PGBI filed a Request/Manifestation seeking deferment of participation in the 2007 elections within the required period and thereby retained an option regarding subsequent participation without losing rights and responsibilities.
- The Supreme Court ruling in Minero (G.R. No. 177548) is inapplicable because (a) the factual milieu differs; and (b) Minero was afforded opportunity to be heard prior to delisting whereas PGBI and the others were not.
- The Court’s ruling in Banat (G.R. No. 179271) relaxed application of the 2% requirement and PGBI’s exclusion amounted to denial of equal protection of the laws.
- The implementation of the challenged resolution should be suspended/aborted to prevent miscarriage of justice due to alleged failure to notify the parties in accordance with Section 6(8) of RA 7941.
- As alternative relief, sought accreditation; argued compliance with procedural requisites or excusal therefrom.
COMELEC’s Response and Rationale for Denial of Opposition / Motion
- COMELEC denied PGBI’s motion/opposition for lack of merit, stating:
- PGBI misconstrued Section 4 of RA 7941: the provision does not exempt a party that failed to manifest; absence of manifestation means the party must apply for requalification and cannot rely on a deferment request as exemption from re-registration.
- The Minero ruling was applicable: MINERO failed to obtain 2% in 2001 and did not participate in 2004, thus failing Section 6(8)'s requirements; COMELEC’s action was consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
- PGBI was given an opportunity to be heard: Resolution No. 8679 expressly gave adversely affected parties the opportunity to file opposition; the essence of due process was satisfied.
- PGBI’s alternative relief (application for accreditation) was filed out of time: Resolution 8646 set August 17, 2009 as the accreditation deadline; PGBI’s motion was months late.
Supreme Court Initial Disposition and Reconsideration
- PGBI filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court reiterating arguments raised before COMELEC.
- The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition in light of its prior ruling in Minero (G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007), holding that no grave abuse of discretion existed where prevailing law and jurisprudence were correctly applied.
- PGBI subsequently moved to reconsider the dismissal, reiterating that Section 6(8) should be read in light of legislative deliberations and that Minero was wrongly applied.
- The Court granted PGBI’s motion for reconsideration and reinstated the petition on the court docket for further consideration.
Issues Presented to the Court
- Whether there is a legal basis for delisting PGBI under Section 6(8) of RA 7941.
- Whether PGBI’s right to