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 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 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 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.

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.

[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).

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.

[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.

 Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: December 11, 2014

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

Supreme Court E-Library