Republic of the 

Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
 
 
EN BANC
 
 
PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS G.R. No. 190529
BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI),  
represented by its Secretary- Present:
General GEORGE FGBF PUNO, C.J.,
GEORGE DULDULAO, CARPIO,
Petitioner, CORONA,
  CARPIO MORALES,
  VELASCO, JR.,
  NACHURA,
  LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
  BRION,
  PERALTA,
-        versus - BERSAMIN,
  DEL CASTILLO,
  ABAD,
  VILLARAMA, JR.,
  PEREZ, and
  MENDOZA, JJ.
  Promulgated:
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,  
Respondent. April 29, 2010
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
 
 
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 PGBIs 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:
 
x x x x
 
(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 Courts 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
PGBIs; (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 Courts 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 PGBIs 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 PGBIs arguments, we granted the motion and reinstated the
petition in the courts docket.
 
 
 
 
 
THE ISSUES
We are called upon to resolve: (a) whether there is legal basis for
delisting PGBI; and (b) whether PGBIs 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 PGBIs 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 PGBIs 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
laws 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 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 Banats 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 PGBIs 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 legislatures notice.
b.     The Issue of Due Process
On the due process issue, we agree with the COMELEC that PGBIs 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 ones 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 PGBIs 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
 
   
   
  RENATO C. CORONA
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
Associate Justice  
   
   
   
   
  PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
  Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES  
Associate Justice  
   
   
   
  TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice
Associate Justice  
   
   
   
   
  LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice
Associate Justice  
   
   
   
  ROBERTO A. ABAD
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
Associate Justice  
   
   
   
   
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
   
 
 
 
 JOSE C
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice

 
 

CERTIFICATION
 
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

[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 ones 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.
[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).