Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc.

(PGBI) v COMELEC
G.R. No. 190529, 20 April 2010

FACTS:

Among other several party-list groups or organizations, PGBI was delisted from the roster of
registered national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list
system through COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 and the Resolution
dated December 9, 2009. COMELEC later denied PGBI’s motion for reconsideration in a
Special Pleading in accordance with Section 6(8) of RA 7941 (Party-List System Act) which
provides that:

Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration - The COMELEC may motu proprio or
upon 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:

(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.

PGBI was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 ​AND ​it did not
participate in the 2007 elections.

In PGBI’s opposition to COMELEC Resolution No. 8679, they asserted the following arguments:

(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 le 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 led 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.

COMELEC denied PGBI’s motion for lack of merit.

(1) COMELEC observed that PGBI misunderstood the import of Section 4 of RA 7941. It
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.
(2) 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. 
(3) PGBI was given an opportunity to be heard or to seek the reconsideration of the action
or ruling complained of which is evident in Resolution No. 8679 which expressly gave
them the opportunity to file their opposition.

PGBI then filed a petition for certiorari to nullify those COMELEC Resolutions.

Petition was initially denied because of the MINERO ruling, which was disqualified because
Section 6(8) of RA 7941 was applied. MINERO failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and did not
participate at all in the 2004 election, it ​necessarily failed to get at least 2% of the votes cast in
the two preceding elections.

PGBI moved to reconsider, asserting that RA 7941 does not apply they will consider the
interpellation in Senate Bill 1913. In the interpellation it was said that those are ​two separate
grounds​. First, failure to participate in the last 2 preceding elections. Second, failure to obtain at
least 10% of the votes cast under the party-list system in either of the last ​2 preceding​ elections.

With this, PGBI asserts that RA 7941 does not apply to them because it failed to participate in
only 1 preceding election. Impliedly, it also failed to secure the required 2% in only 1 preceding
election.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether there is legal basis for delisting PGBI

(2) Whether PGBI’s right to due process was violated
RULING: Petition was granted and COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 and Resolution dated
December 9, 2009 was annulled. PGBI is qualified to be voted upon as party-list group or
organization in the May 2010 elections.

RATIONALE:

(1) There was no legal basis. MINERO characterized non-participation of a party-list

organization in an election as similar to a failure to garner 2% vote, by default. MINERO
ruling is an erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941 as shown in the mentioned
interpellations for the Senate Bill, hence, it cannot be adhered to as a precedent and it
cannot sustain PGBI’s delisting, thus, it would be an exception to the principle of stare
decisis. The word ‘OR’ in the two grounds signifies disassociation and independence. It
provides for ​2 ​separate ​reasons for delisting. These grounds cannot be mixed or
combined to support delisting. The disqualification for failure to garner 2% votes in 2
preceding elections should be understood, in light of Banat ruling, to mean failure to
qualify for a party-list seat in 2 preceding elections for the constituency in which it has
registered. In the case of Banat, it was said that a party-list group or organization
garnering less than 2% of the votes may yet qualify for a seat in the allocation of
additional seats. Thus, a party-list group or organization which qualified for the second
round of seat allocation cannot now validlt be delisted for the reason alone that it
garnered less than 2% in the last 2 elections.

(2) Due process was not violated because it was given opportunity to seek reconsideration
of Resolution No. 8679.