Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

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. COMELEC9 (Banat) where we partly 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 of Section
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 party-list 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 Minero and
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.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

C E RTI F I CATI O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Footnotes

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.

10
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."

See Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009, citing Fermin v. People, G.R. No.
11

157643, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 132.

Id., citing Chinese Young Men's Christian Association of the Philippine Islands v.
12

Remington Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 159422, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 180.

13
Ibid.

14
Bautista v. Comelec, 460 Phil, 459, 478 (2003).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

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 Party-List X Party-List Y PGBI Party

May 2004 Deficient votes Did not run Deficient votes
May 2007 Deficient votes Did not run Did not run
May 2010 Cancelled Cancelled 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.

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

Footnotes

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.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation