STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

CASTILLO, E.G.

GR NO. 190529

PETITIONER: PHILIPPINE GUARDIAN BROTHERHOOD INC.

RESPONDENT: COMELEC
CARPIO, J.:

I. FACTS
COMELEC issued a Resolution deleting several party-list groups from the list to be used on the May 2010
elections under the grounds of RA 7941 Sec 6(8).
 Fails to participate in the last 2 elections; or
 Fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes in the 2 preceding elections for the constituency in which it has
registered.
Among those delisted is PGBI for failing to get 2% of the votes last 2004 and for not participating in the 2007
elections. COMELEC then stated that those delisted can file a verified opposition which PGBI did.

PGBI filed its opposition to the Resolution citing among others that the SC ruling in MINERO v. COMELEC
cannot apply because of 2 reasons; (1) the factual milieu of the cited case is removed from PGBI and (2)
MINERO, prior to delisting was given the chance to be heard while PGBI was not.

COMELEC argued that the MINERO case is squarely in point, as MINERO failed to get 2% votes in 2001 and did
not participate at all in the 2004 elections.

The SC initially dismissed the petition with reference to the MINERO case citing that it failed to get 2% votes in
2001 and also 2004 for not participating in the said election.

PGBI moved for reconsideration citing the deliberations of the Senate that there are to separate grounds for
delisting a party.

II. ISSUE
 Whether or not there is legal basis for delisting PGBI.
III. RULING – we GRANT the petition and ANNUL the COMELEC resolution delisting PGBI.
 The court said the MINERO ruling is an erroneous application of RA 7941 Sec 6(8). The use of the disjunctive
word “or” which signifies disassociation from the things enumerated. Thus, plain and unmistakable language
of law provides for 2 reasons for delisting.
 The MINERO ruling is opposed to the legislative intent as shown in PGBI’s citation of Senate deliberations. A
delisting based on a mixture of 2 separate grounds is a strained application of the law and not within the
contemplation of those who framed it.

PGBI v. COMELEC