You are on page 1of 11

Supreme Court of the Philippines

633 Phil. 590


EN BANC

G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010


PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI),
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL GEORGE "FGBF
GEORGE" DULDULAO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
BRION, J.:
The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) seeks in this petition for certiorari[1] and
in the motion for reconsideration it subsequently filed to nullify Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 insofar as it relates to PGBI, and
the Resolution dated December 9, 2009 denying PGBI's motion for reconsideration in SPP
No. 09-004 (MP). Via these resolutions, the COMELEC delisted PGBI from the roster of
registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the
party-list system.
BACKGROUND
Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party-List System
Act, provides:
Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. - The COMELEC may motu
proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due
notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization
or coalition on any of the following grounds:
xxxx
(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.[Emphasis supplied.]
The COMELEC replicated this provision in COMELEC Resolution No. 2847 - the Rules and

Regulations Governing the Election of the Party-List Representatives through the Party-List
System - which it promulgated on June 25, 1996.
For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC en banc issued on October 13, 2009
Resolution No. 8679 deleting several party-list groups or organizations from the list of
registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions. Among the
party-list organizations affected was PGBI; it was delisted because it failed to get
2% of the votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate in the 2007 elections.
Nevertheless, the COMELEC stated in this Resolution that any national, regional sectoral
party or organizations or coalitions adversely affected can personally or through its
authorized representative file a verified opposition on October 26, 2009.
PGBI filed its Opposition to Resolution No. 8679, but likewise sought, through its pleading,
the admission ad cautelam of its petition for accreditation as a party-list organization under
the Party-List System Act. Among other arguments, PGBI asserted that:
(1)

The assailed resolution negates the right of movant and those similarly situated to invoke Section 4 of R.A.
No. 7941, which allows any party, organization and coalition already registered with the Commission to no
longer register anew; the party though is required to file with the Commission, not later than ninety (90) days
before the election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system; since PGBI filed a
Request/Manifestation seeking a deferment of its participation in the 2007 elections within the required period
prior to the 2007 elections, it has the option to choose whether or not to participate in the next succeeding
election under the same conditions as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed;

(2)

The Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No. 177548 - Philippine Mines Safety Environment Association, also
known as "MINERO" v. Commission on Elections - cannot apply in the instant controversy for two reasons: (a)
the factual milieu of the cited case is removed from PGBI's; (b) MINERO, prior to delisting, was afforded the
opportunity to be heard, while PGBI and the 25 others similarly affected by Resolution No. 8679 were not.
Additionally, the requirement of Section 6(8) has been relaxed by the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 179271
(Banat v. COMELEC) and the exclusion of PGBI and the 25 other party-list is a denial of the equal protection
of the laws;

(3)

The implementation of the challenged resolution should be suspended and/or aborted to prevent a miscarriage
of justice in view of the failure to notify the parties in accordance with the same Section 6(8) or R.A. No.
7941.[2]

The COMELEC denied PGBI's motion/opposition for lack of merit.


First, the COMELEC observed that PGBI clearly misunderstood the import of Section 4 of
R.A. 7941.[3] The provision simply means that without the required manifestation or if a
party or organization does not participate, the exemption from registration does not arise
and the party, organization or coalition must go through the process again and apply for
requalification; a request for deferment would not exempt PGBI from registering anew.
Second, the MINERO ruling is squarely in point, as MINERO failed to get 2% of the votes
in 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections.

Third, PGBI was given an opportunity to be heard or to seek the reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of - the essence of due process; this is clear from Resolution
No. 8679 which expressly gave the adversely affected parties the opportunity to file their
opposition.
As regards the alternative relief of application for accreditation, the COMELEC found the
motion to have been filed out of time, as August 17, 2009 was the deadline for accreditation
provided in Resolution 8646. The motion was obviously filed months after the deadline.
PGBI came to us in its petition for certiorari, arguing the same positions it raised with the
COMELEC when it moved to reconsider its delisting.
We initially dismissed the petition in light of our ruling in Philippine Mines Safety
Environment Association, also known as "MINERO" v. Commission on Elections (Minero);
[4]
we said that no grave abuse of discretion exists in a ruling that correctly applies the
prevailing law and jurisprudence. Applying Section 6(8) of RA 7941, the Court
disqualified MINERO under the following reasoning:
Since petitioner by its own admission failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and did not
participate at all in the 2004 elections, it necessarily failed to get at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast in the two preceding elections. COMELEC, therefore, is not duty
bound to certify it.
PGBI subsequently moved to reconsider the dismissal of its petition. Among other
arguments, PGBI claimed that the dismissal of the petition was contrary to law, the
evidence and existing jurisprudence. Essentially, PGBI asserts that Section 6(8) of RA 7941
does not apply if one is to follow the tenor and import of the deliberations inclusive of the
interpellations in Senate Bill No. 1913 on October 19, 1994. It cited the following excerpts
from the Records of the Senate:
Senator Gonzales: On the other hand, Mr. President, under ground no. (7), Section 5
- there are actually two grounds it states: " Failure to participate in the last two (2)
preceding elections or its failure to obtain at least ten percent (10%) of the votes case
under the party-list system in either of the last two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered"
In short, the first ground is that, it failed to participate in the last two (2) preceding
elections. The second is, failure to obtain at least 10 percent of the votes cast under the
party-list system in either of the last two preceding elections, Mr. President,
Senator Tolentino: Actually, these are two separate grounds.

Senator Gonzales: There are actually two grounds, Mr. President.


Senator Tolentino: Yes, Mr. President.[5] [Underscoring supplied.]
PGBI thus asserts that Section 6(8) does not apply to its situation, as it is obvious that it
failed to participate in one (1) but not in the two (2) preceding elections. Implied in this
is that it also failed to secure the required percentage in one (1) but not in the two (2)
preceding elections.
Considering PGBI's arguments, we granted the motion and reinstated the petition in the
court's docket.
THE ISSUES
We are called upon to resolve: (a) whether there is legal basis for delisting PGBI; and (b)
whether PGBI's right to due process was violated.
OUR RULING
We find the petition partly impressed with merit.
a. The Minero Ruling
Our Minero ruling is an erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941; hence, it cannot
sustain PGBI's delisting from the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral parties,
organizations or coalitions under the party-list system.
First, the law is clear - the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any
interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any
national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition if it: (a) fails to participate in
the last two (2) preceding elections; or (b) 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.[6] The word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying
disassociation and independence of one thing from the other things enumerated; it should,
as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word.
[7]
Thus, the plain, clear and unmistakable language of the law provides for two (2) separate
reasons for delisting.
Second, Minero is diametrically opposed to the legislative intent of Section 6(8) of RA
7941, as PGBI's cited congressional deliberations clearly show.

Minero therefore simply cannot stand. Its basic defect lies in its characterization of the
non-participation of a party-list organization in an election as similar to a failure to garner
the 2% threshold party-list vote. What Minero effectively holds is that a party list
organization that does not participate in an election necessarily gets, by default, less than
2% of the party-list votes. To be sure, this is a confused interpretation of the law, given the
law's clear and categorical language and the legislative intent to treat the two scenarios
differently. A delisting based on a mixture or fusion of these two different and separate
grounds for delisting is therefore a strained application of the law - in jurisdictional terms,
it is an interpretation not within the contemplation of the framers of the law and hence is a
gravely abusive interpretation of the law.[8]
What we say here should of course take into account our ruling in Barangay Association for
Advancement and National Transparency v. COMELEC[9] (Banat) where
wepartly invalidated the 2% party-list vote requirement provided in RA 7941 as follows:
We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of
the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second
clause ofSection 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two
percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of
available party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The
continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats
frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House
of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.
The disqualification for failure to get 2% party-list votes in two (2) preceding elections
should therefore be understood in light of the Banat ruling that party-list groups or
organizations garnering less than 2% of the party-list votes may yet qualify for a seat in the
allocation of additional seats.
We need not extensively discuss Banat's significance, except to state that a party-list group
or organization which qualified in the second round of seat allocation cannot now validly be
delisted for the reason alone that it garnered less than 2% in the last two elections. In
other words, the application of this disqualification should henceforth be contingent on the
percentage of party-list votes garnered by the last party-list organization that qualified for
a seat in the House of Representatives, a percentage that is less than the 2% threshold
invalidated in Banat. The disqualification should now necessarily be read to apply to partylist groups or organizations that did not qualify for a seat in the two preceding elections for
the constituency in which it registered.
To reiterate, (a) Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate grounds for delisting;
these grounds cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting; and (b) the
disqualification for failure to garner 2% party-list votes in two preceding elections should

now be understood, in light of the Banat ruling, to mean failure to qualify for a party-list
seat in two preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. This, we
declare, is how Section 6(8) of RA 7941 should be understood and applied. We do so under
our authority to state what the law is,[10] and as an exception to the application of the
principle of stare decisis.
The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to
unsettle things which are established) is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines which provides, thus:
ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a
part of the legal system of the Philippines.
The doctrine enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to
follow the rule established in a decision of its Supreme Court.That decision becomes
a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The
doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been
examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. [11] The
doctrine is grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability of judicial
decisions, thus:
Time and again, the court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial
practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state
of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are
substantially the same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and
disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a
conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts
are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from
the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations,
like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the
same event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case
litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any
attempt to relitigate the same issue.[12]
The doctrine though is not cast in stone for upon a showing that circumstances attendant in
a particular case override the great benefits derived by our judicial system from the
doctrine of stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting it aside.[13]
As our discussion above shows, the most compelling reason to abandon Minero exists;it was clearly an erroneous application of the law - an application that the principle of
stability or predictability of decisions alone cannot sustain. Minero did unnecessary
violence to the language of the law, the intent of the legislature, and to the rule of law in

general. Clearly, we cannot allow PGBI to be prejudiced by the continuing validity of an


erroneous ruling. Thus, we now abandon Mineroand strike it out from our ruling case law.
We are aware that PGBI's situation - a party list group or organization that failed to garner
2% in a prior election and immediately thereafter did not participate in the preceding
election - is something that is not covered by Section 6(8) of RA 7941. From this
perspective, it may be an unintended gap in the law and as such is a matter for Congress to
address. We cannot and do not address matters over which full discretionary authority is
given by the Constitution to the legislature; to do so will offend the principle of separation
of powers. If a gap indeed exists, then the present case should bring this concern to the
legislature's notice.
b. The Issue of Due Process
On the due process issue, we agree with the COMELEC that PGBI's right to due process
was not violated for PGBI was given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a
reconsideration of Resolution No. 8679. The essence of due process, we have consistently
held, is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to administrative proceedings, due
process is the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration
of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in
all instances essential. The requirement is satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. What is frowned
upon is absolute lack of notice and hearing x x x.[14] We find it obvious under the attendant
circumstances that PGBI was not denied due process. In any case, given the result of this
Resolution, PGBI has no longer any cause for complaint on due process grounds.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petition and
accordingly ANNUL COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 insofar as the
petitioner PGBI is concerned, and the Resolution dated December 9, 2009 which denied
PGBI's motion for reconsideration in SPP No. 09-004 (MP). PGBI is qualified to be voted
upon as a party-list group or organization in the coming May 2010 elections.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Corona, Carpio Morales, Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Perez, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Puno, C.J., and Velasco, Jr., JJ., joins the dissent of J. Abad.
join J.
Peralta and Villarama, Jr., JJ., in the result.
Abad, J., see dissenting opinion.

[1]

Filed under Rule 65 of the RULES OF COURT.

[2]

Rollo, pp. 42-48.

[3]

Sec. 4. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List System. - Any party, organization or


coalition already registered with the Commission need not register anew. However, such
party, organization or coalition shall file with the Commission, not later than ninety (90)
days before the election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system.
[4]

G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007; see rollo of G.R. No. 177548, pp. 46-48.

[5]

Rollo, pp. 74-75.

[6]

Numbering supplied.

[7]

Agpalo, Statutory Construction, p. 204 (2003); see also The Heirs of George Poe v.
Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009.
[8]

See Varias v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189078, February 11, 2010 where we
held that the use of wrong considerations is an act not in contemplation of law - a
jurisdictional error for this is one way of gravely abusing one's discretion.
[9]

G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009.

Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch [5 US] 137, 2 L ed 60 [1803]) holds that "it is


emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law
is."
[10]

[11]

See Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009, citing Fermin v. People, G.R. No.

157643, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 132.


[12]

Id., citing Chinese Young Men's Christian Association of the Philippine Islands v.
Remington Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 159422, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 180.
[13]

Ibid.

[14]

Bautista v. Comelec, 460 Phil, 459, 478 (2003).

DISSENTING OPINION

ABAD, J.:
This case stems from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc resolution
removing petitioner Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) from the roster of
registered party-list organizations because of its failure to obtain at least 2% party-list
votes in the May 2004 election and to participate in the May 2007 election.
I agree with the view of Justice Arturo D. Brion that Republic Act (R.A.) 7941 provides for
two separate grounds for delisting a party-list organization, namely: a) failure to participate
in the last two preceding elections; or b) failure to garner at least 2% of the votes cast
under the party-list system in the two preceding elections for the constituency in which it
has registered.
I also agree that because of the Court's decision in BANAT,[1] the needed minimum 2% of
the votes cast in the two preceding elections should now be understood to mean the actual
percentage of the votes garnered by the last party-list organization that qualified for a seat
in the House of Representatives. But this could not apply to PGBI because BANAT took
effect only in the preceding May 2007 elections and PGBI did not run in the same. It ran in
the preceding May 2004 elections, when the BANAT ruling did not yet exist, but failed to
get at least 2% of the votes cast in those elections.
I must disagree with the ponencia's view that the Court should reverse
the Minero ruling[2] that invoked Section 6(8) of R.A. 7941, which provides:
Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. -- The COMELEC may, motu
proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after
due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional, or sectoral
party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
xxxx
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections 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.
Since by its own admission, Minero failed to get at least 2% of the votes in the 2001
elections and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections, the Court held that it
necessarily failed to get at least 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections. The
COMELEC was thus justified in canceling its registration.
The ponencia would allow PGBI to remain in the register of party-list organizations and

avert disqualifications because, according to it, PGBI cannot be said to have failed to get at
least 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections because it only ran in one of those
two elections. It cannot also be said to have failed to take part in the two preceding
elections because it ran in one of them. What is needed, the ponencia claims, are two
strikes for the same ground in the two preceding elections.
But it is evident from Section 6(8) above that the legislature intended the two separate
tests--failure to take part in the last two preceding elections or failure to garner at least 2%
of the votes cast in such elections--to be complimentary. Their purpose is to put every
party-list organization, which won the right to be registered, to a two-election wringer,
a voters' preference test, for lack of a better term to describe it.
This means that, to remain in the party-list register and enjoy the right to take part in the
party-list election, a party must prove by the results of the preceding two elections that it
retains the required level of voters' preference. Failing in this, such party shall be dropped
by the COMELEC, without prejudice to its applying for new registration after a mandatory
one-term rest.
If the ponencia's views were to be followed, petitioner PGBI would be able to circumvent
the voters' preference test that it needs to pass to remain in the register of party-list
organizations. It would succeed in putting one over the parties that exerted efforts to get
the required level of voters' preference. The following example should illustrate the unfair
result:
Election Year
May 2004
May 2007
May 2010

Party-List X
Deficient votes
Deficient votes
Cancelled

Party-List Y
Did not run
Did not run
Cancelled

PGBI Party
Deficient votes
Did not run
Not cancelled

The register of party-list organizations cannot be allowed to grow infinitely. The system
cannot tolerate sectoral parties with low-levels of voters' preference to remain on the
ballot. For this reason, the legislature established a mechanism for attrition, the
enforcement of which is an important responsibility of the COMELEC.
The Court must not abandon Minero. I vote to deny PGBI's motion for reconsideration.

[1]

Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on


Elections, G.R. No. 179295, April 21, 2009.

[2]

Philippine Mine Safety & Environment Association, also known as "MINERO" v.


Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007.

You might also like