RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila

ENBANC

LIBERALPARTY,representedby
itsPresidentManuelA.RoxasII
andSecretaryGeneralJoseph
EmilioA.Abaya,
Petitioner,

versus

COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,
NACIONALISTAPARTY,
representedbyitsPresidentManuel
B.VillarandNATIONALIST
PEOPLESCOALITION,allegedly
representedbyitsChairman
FaustinoS.Dy,Jr.,
Respondents.

G.R.No.191771

Present:

PUNO,C.J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,and
MENDOZA,JJ.

Promulgated:
May6,2010
xx

DECISION

BRION,J.:

ThiscaseposestotheCourt,atthisverylatestageofourelectionperiod,issuesinvolving
theregistrationofpoliticalcoalitions,thegrantofaccreditationtothedominantpartiesunderthe
first time ever automated election system in the country, and validity of the COMELEC en
bancs(enbanc)authoritytoactontheregistrationofpoliticalcoalitions.

The challenged ruling is a Per Curiam Resolution of the Commission on Elections

[1]
(COMELEC) datedApril12,2010inSPP10(DM)grantingtheapplicationforregistration
oftheNacionalistaPartyNationalistPeoplesCoalition(NPNPCorcoalition)anddeferringthe
questionofthecoalitionsdominantminoritystatustoafutureresolution.Thechallengecomes
[2]
[3]
fromtheLiberalParty(LP) throughapetitionforcertiorariandprohibition withaprayer
fortheissuanceofapreliminaryinjunctionorastatusquoorder.Weissuedastatusquoorder
throughourResolutionofApril20,2010.

I.THEBACKGROUNDFACTS

a.GeneralBackground

OnJuly14,2009,theCOMELECpromulgatedResolutionNo.8646settingAugust17,2009as
the last day for the filing of petitions for registration of political parties. On January 21,
2010,theCOMELECpromulgatedResolutionNo.8752,providing,amongothers,fortherules
forthefilingofpetitionsforaccreditationforthedeterminationofthedominantmajorityparty,
thedominantminorityparty,tenmajornationalparties,andtwomajorlocalpartiesfortheMay
10, 2010 elections. Resolution No. 8752 also set the deadline for filing of petitions for
accreditation on February 12, 2010 and required that accreditation applicants be registered
politicalparties,organizationsorcoalitions.

On February 12, 2010, the LP filed with the COMELEC its petition for accreditation as
dominant minority party. On the same date, the Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Nationalist
PeoplesCoalition(NPC)filedapetitionforregistrationasacoalition(NPNPC)andaskedthat
itberecognizedandaccreditedasthedominantminoritypartyforpurposesoftheMay10,2010
[4]
elections. It was docketed as an SPP (DM) case, indicating pursuant to COMELEC
ResolutionNo.8752thatitwasanaccreditationcase.

[5]
On February 23, 2010, the LP filed its Opposition to the NPNPCs petition on the
followinggrounds:

1)TheNPNPCspetitionshouldbedeniedsinceitwasnotadulyregisteredcoalitionofpolitical
partiesatthetimeoffilingoftheirpetitionforaccreditationasdominantminorityparty

2) The COMELEC en banc has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for registration as a
coalitionbecausethepetitionshouldhavebeenfirstbroughtbeforetheproperDivision
3)ThepetitionforregistrationasacoalitionwasfiledwiththeClerkoftheCommissioninstead
oftheLawDepartmentinviolationoftheCOMELECRulesofProcedure
4) ThepetitionforregistrationasacoalitionwasfiledbeyondtheAugust17,2009deadlineset
bytheCOMELECand
5)Therespectivechapters,incumbentsandcandidatesoftheNPandtheNPCseparatelycannot
be taken into account for purposes of accreditation as dominant minority party because the
NPNPCasacoalitionisanentirelydifferententity.

The COMELEC issued an Order dated February 16, 2010 and a Notice of Hearing on
February 17, 2010 setting for hearing the petitions for accreditation for the purpose of
determining the dominant majority party, dominant minority party, ten (10) major national
partiesandtwo(2)majorlocalpartiesinconnectionwiththeMay10,2010elections. Among
the petitions set for hearing were the LPs and the NPNPCs petitions for accreditation as the
[6]
dominantminorityparty.
On March 9, 2010, the LP presented Rep. Lualhati Antonino (a member of the NPCs
[7]
National Convention) as its witness. Rep. Antonino testified, among others, that the NPC
NationalConventiondidnotauthorizeitsNationalCentralCommitteetoenterintoacoalition
[8]
withtheNP, andthatneithertheNationalConventionnorthegeneralmembershipwasever
[9]
consultedaboutthemergerwiththeNP.

OnMarch10,2010,theNPNPCpresentedformerGov.FaustinoDy,Jr.asitswitnessto
[10]
refuteRep.Antoninostestimony.
On March 15, 2010, the LP and the NPNPC filed their
[11]
respectiveMemoranda.

b.TheAssailedCOMELECResolution
On April 12, 2010, the en banc granted the NPNPCs petition for registration as a
coalitionthroughtheResolutionassailedinthepresentcase.InthesameResolution,theenbanc
deferredtheresolutionoftheNPNPCsapplicationforaccreditationasdominantminorityparty.

[12]
Ontheissueofjurisdiction,theenbanccitingBaytanv.Comelec
heldthattheregistration
ofcoalitionsinvolvestheexerciseofitsadministrativepowersandnotitsquasijudicialpowers
hence, the en banc can directly act on it. It further held that there is no constitutional
requirementthatapetitionforregistrationofacoalitionshouldbedecidedfirstbyadivision.In
Baytan,theCourtheldthattheConstitutionmerelyveststheCOMELECsadministrativepowers
intheCommissiononElections,whileprovidingthattheCOMELECmaysitenbancorintwo
divisions.Thus,theenbanccanactdirectlyonmattersfallingwithinitsadministrativepowers.

Theenbanc ruled further that although the NPNPCs failure to file the petition with the Law
DepartmentconstitutedaviolationoftheCOMELECRulesofProcedure(COMELEC Rules),
theenbanchasthediscretiontosuspendtheapplicationoftherulesintheinterestofjusticeand
[13]
speedy disposition of cases
in any case, the authority to approve or deny the Law
Departmentsrecommendationontheregistrationofthecoalitionrestswiththeenbanc.

On the timeliness of the filing of the petition, the en banc held that no rule exists setting a
deadlinefortheregistrationofcoalitions.Itopinedthattheregistrationofacoalitionissimplya
recognitionbytheCOMELECofapoliticalreality.ItheldthatiftheNPNPCisgenuine,then
theapprovalofitsregistrationbytheCOMELECisamererecognitionofanoperativefact.

On the merits, the en banc found that both the NP and the NPC have validly agreed to join
forcesforpoliticalorelectionpurposes.ItheldthattheNPNPCsatisfactorilysubmittedallthe
documentaryrequirementstoprovethemergersvalidity.Itopined,too,thatiftheConstitution
and ByLaws of either the NP or the NPC was violated by the merger, the representatives or
membersofeitherpartypossessthelegalstandingtoquestionthecoalitiontheLP,astrangerto
theinternaldynamicsofbothparties,doesnothavethisrequiredstanding.

TheenbancnotedthatnorepresentativefromeithertheNPortheNPCeverfiledanyformal
opposition to the NPNPC petition for registration and accreditation. It thus concluded that
hardlyanycontroversyexistedforittoresolve.Atthesametime,itdisregardedRep.Antoninos
testimony,sinceshelostherNPCmembershipwhensheadmittedsupportforthecandidacyof
Sen.ManuelA.RoxasIItheLiberalPartycandidateforvicepresidentagroundprovidedunder

theConstitution

[14]
andByLawsoftheNPC.
c.TheSarmientoDissent

[15]
CommissionerReneV.Sarmientodissentedonvariousgrounds.
First, he ruled that
theCOMELECsittingenbanchadnojurisdictionoverNPNPCspetitionforregistrationasa
coalitionandaccreditationasdominantminorityparty.
Rule32oftheCOMELECRulesgovernstheregistrationofcoalitions.Rule32isfoundunder
Letter F of the Rules entitled Special Proceedings. According to Section 3 of the COMELEC
Rules, the Commission sitting in two (2) Divisions, shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide
casesfallingunderspecialproceedings,withtheexceptionoftheaccreditationofcitizensarms
oftheCOMELEC.Thedissentconcludedthatthepresentpetitioniswithinthejurisdictionof
theCOMELECsittinginDivisionandnotoftheCOMELECsittingenbanc,citingVillarosav.
[16]
COMELEC.

Commissioner Sarmiento secondly took the position that the relaxation of the Rules is
inappropriateinthepresentcase.

Ingeneral,electionlawsmaybedividedintothreepartsforpurposesofapplyingtherulesof
statutory construction. The first part refers to the provisions for the conduct of elections that
electionofficialsarerequiredtofollowtheseprovisionsaremerelydirectory.Thesecondpart
covers those provisions that candidates for office are required to comply with and are
necessarily mandatory. The last part embraces those procedural rules designed to ascertain, in
case of dispute, the actual winner in the elections this requires liberal construction. The NP
NPCspetitionfallsunderthesecondpart,sotheapplicablerequirementsoflawaremandatory.
Thedissentarguedthattherelaxationoftherulesisnotapplicabletothepresentcase,becauseit
does not involve the determination of the will of the electorate thus, the rules governing the
registrationofcoalitionsshouldbeconstruedstrictlyandnotliberally.

CommissionerSarmientosthirdpointisthatnovalidcoalitionwasformedbetweentheNPand
theNPC.

He pointed out that the Constitutions and ByLaws of both parties require that the parties
respective National Conventions give their approval before their parties can enter into any
coalitionagreementwithanotherpoliticalparty.Thedissentfoundthattherecordsarebereftof
anyproofthattheNationalConventionsofboththeNPandtheNPCauthorizedtheirofficersto
formtheNPNPC.ThedissentheldthattheactionoftheExecutiveCommitteesoftheNPand
theNPCinissuingtheJointResolution(declaringtheNPNPCmerger)wasaclearviolationof
thepartiesConstitutionsandByLawsandwasthusultraviresandvoid.
The dissent also branded the NPNPC as a sham whose sole purpose was to secure
dominantminoritypartystatus.TheCommissionernotedthatmembersoftheNPandNPCare
pittedagainsteachotherandarevyingforthesameelectionpositionsanabsurdsituationina
coalition,sincenoallianceforacommoncausecanexistifmembersofthecomponentparties
arecompetingagainsteachotherforthesamepositions.

Commissioner Sarmiento pointed out as his last point that the NPNPC cannot seek
accreditation as the dominant minority party without the requisite recognition by the
COMELEC.
COMELECResolutionNo.8752requiresthatonlypoliticalpartiesdulyregisteredwith
theCOMELECmayseekaccreditationasadominantparty.At the time the NPNPC filed its
petitionforaccreditationonFebruary12,2010,itwasstillseekingregistrationasacoalitionof
politicalparties.Byfilingthepetition,boththeNPandtheNPCadmittedthattheCOMELEC
had not extended any recognition to their coalition without the requisite recognition and
registration, the NPNPC could not seek accreditation as the dominant minority party for the
May10,2010elections.

The dissent also noted that the NPNPC could no longer seek accreditation since the
deadline for filing a petition for accreditation had lapsed. Finally, while the NP and NPC are
both duly accredited political parties, their recognition cannot benefit the NPNPC, since the
latterseeksaccreditationasanentityseparateanddistinctfromboththeNPandtheNPC.

II.THEPETITION

The LP now assails the April 12, 2010 COMELEC Resolution for having been issued with
graveabuseofdiscretion,asfollows:

1) TheCOMELECenbanc has no jurisdiction at the first instance to entertain petitions for

registrationofpoliticalcoalitions
2) The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the registration of the
purportedNPNPCcoalitiondespitethelapseofthedeadlineforregistration
3) The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the registration of the
purported NPNPC coalition despite patent and manifest violations of the NPC Constitution
andByLawsand
4) ThepurportedNPNPCcoalitionisabogus,shamandpapercoalitionthatmakesamockery
[17]
oftheelectoralprocess.

Insupportofitspetition,thepetitionerattachedtheSwornAffidavitsoftwoprominent
members of the NPC, namely: Atty. Sixto S. Brillantes (the current NPC Legal Counsel) and
DanielLaogan(amemberoftheNPCsNationalCentralCommittee)toshowthattheNPNPC
was entered into without consultations much less, the approval of the NPCs National
[18]
Conventionwhichwasnotevenconvened.
a.CommentsfromtheOSGandtheCOMELEC

OnApril27,2010,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)filedaManifestationandMotion
InLieuofComment.The OSG manifested that the duty to appear and defend on their behalf
and on behalf of the COMELEC falls on the respondents, since they are the real parties
interestedinupholdingtheassailedCOMELECResolution.TheCOMELEC,asamerenominal
party, does not need to file a separate comment. We responded to the OSGs manifestation by
requiringtheCOMELECtofileitsowncomment,whichitdidonMay4,2010.

On the merits, the OSG argues that the present petition is premature. It notes that the
petitionsrealthrustistoforeclosethepossibilitythatrespondentNPNPCwouldbedeclaredthe
dominantminoritypartyinthecomingMay10,2010elections.TheOSGemphasizesthatthe
assailedCOMELECResolutiononlyaffirmativelyresolvedtheregistrationoftheNPNPC,not
its accreditation. Thus, the petitions core issue is not yet ripe for adjudication. As expressly
indicated in the assailed Resolution, the accreditation has yet to be the subject of a coming
separateresolution.

The OSG also argues that no violation of due process attended the registration process,
since the petitioner was given the opportunity to be heard. The OSG notes that the petitioner

filed its Opposition to the NPNPCs application for registration and accreditation before the
COMELEC.Inaddition,hearingswerescheduledandheldwheretheCOMELECallowedthe
petitionertosubmititsevidence,bothtestimonialanddocumentary.
The COMELECs comment is practically a reiteration of the rulings in the assailed
Resolution,heretoforesummarized.Forthisreason,weshallnolongerreflectonandrepeatthe
COMELECspositionsindetail.

b.TheNPNPCCoalitionsComment

IntheirComment,therespondentsarguethatthepresentpetitionshouldbedismissedoutright
sinceitisplaguedwithproceduralinfirmities.

First,therespondentscontendthatthepetitionerviolatedSection5(2)ofRule64ofthe
RulesofCourtwhichrequiresthatthepetitionbeaccompaniedbycertifiedtruecopiesofsuch
material portions of the record the petition referred to. The respondents point out that the
petitionerfailedtoattachtherequiredcertifiedtruecopiesofthedocumentstoitspetition.

Second,therespondentsarguethatthepetitionerunjustifiablyfailedtoimpleadtheNP
NPC as a party to the present case. The respondents contend that NPNPC is a real partyin
interest, as well as an indispensable party without the participation of which no final
determinationofthecasecanbesecured.

Third,therespondentsarguethatthepresentpetitionraisesmereerrorsofjudgmentthat
arenotwithintheCourtsauthoritytoactuponunderitscertiorarijurisdiction,sincethepresent
petitionmerelyassailstheenbancsappreciationoffactsandevidence.

Onthemerits,therespondentsaverthattheenbancdidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretionin
grantingtheregistrationoftheNPNPC.

First,therespondentsarguethatthattheenbanchadjurisdictiontoentertaintheirpetitionfor
registration of the NPNPC. The respondents emphasize that the NPNPCs registration falls

within the ambit of the COMELECs administrative powers hence, the en banc properly
assumedjurisdictionovertheirpetition.

[19]
The respondents cite Baytan v. COMELEC
as authority for its position. The Court
held in this cited case that the COMELECs administrative powers include the registration of
politicalpartiesandcoalitionsunderSection2(5)ofArticleIXoftheConstitution.The Court
alsoruledthatsincetheConstitutionmerelyveststheCOMELECsadministrativepowersinthe
Commission on Elections while providing that the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two
Divisions,theenbanccanactdirectlyonmattersfallingwithinitsadministrativepowers.

Second,therespondentsalsocontendthattheirpetitionforregistrationasacoalitionisnottime
barred. They argue that the August 17, 2009 deadline applied only to political parties and to
parties,organizationsandcoalitionsunderthepartylistsystem.Therespondentsemphasizethat
there is no deadline for petitions for the registration of coalition of parties, since COMELEC
ResolutionNo.8646hasnotspecificallysetadeadline.Thus,theyconcludethattheAugust17,
2009deadlineappliesonlytotheregistrationofnewandunregisteredpoliticalparties,andnot
to the registration of coalitions between previously registered political parties such as the NP
andtheNPC.

Third, the respondents point out that the NPNPC was validly formed, and that the requisite
approvalsweredulyobtained.Therespondentscontendthattheenbancsfactualfindingsonthe
formation of the coalition and the submission and approval of the requisite documents are
supportedbysubstantialevidence,andthusarefinalandbindingonthisCourt.Therespondents
emphasizethatthe1993RevisedRulesoftheNPdoesnotrequiretheapprovaloftheNational
ConventionforpurposesofcoalescingwithanotherpoliticalpartyneitherdotheRulesconfer
on the National Convention the power to approve a coalition with another political party.
Similarly, the respondents point out that the NPCs Constitution and ByLaws is silent on and
doesnotconferanypowertoapproveacoalitionwithanotherpoliticalparty.Therespondents
emphasizethattheycannotviolateanonexistentrequirementRep.Antoninoinfactaffirmed
thatthereisnospecificprovisionintheNPCsConstitutionandByLawsrelatingtoacoalition
withanotherparty.

TherespondentsarguethatNPCChairmanDystestimonyadequatelyshowedthattheNPNPC
was entered into after meetings and consultations with party members and the NPC national
organizationinfact,70%75%ofthoseconsultedsupportedthecoalition.Therespondentsalso
aver that it is a common party practice that the NPC National Convention decides through a
seriesofsmallmeetingsofleadersandmembers,whethertoarriveataconsensus.

Therespondentspointoutthat,todate,nomemberoftheNPorNPChaseverexpressed
hisorherobjectiontotheNPNPC.Therespondentsemphasizethatthewisdomofenteringinto
acoalitionisstrictlyaninternalmatterandnothirdpartysuchastheLP,noteventhecourts,
[20]
can interfere. The respondents cite Sinaca v. Mula
as authority that political parties are
generallyfreetoconducttheirinternalaffairsfreefromjudicialsupervision.

Fourth, the respondents contend that Commissioner Sarmientos thesis that the coalition is a
shamsincetheyarefieldingcontendingcandidatesisbaseless.Asexplainedinthehearings,the
NPandNPCagreedonanarbitrationproceduretosettletheseconflicts,althoughnoarbitration
hastakenplacetodate,sincetheregistrationoftheNPNPChasnotattainedfinality.
Fifth, the respondents contend that the newspaper reports presented by the petitioner to show
that there was no valid NPNPC is inadmissible and carries no probative value for being
hearsay. The respondents further argue that the affidavits ofAtty. Sixto Brillantes and Daniel
Laogan,attachedtothepresentpetition,areinadmissibleastheCourtcannotreceiveevidence
orconductatrialdenovounderitscertiorarijurisdiction.Inaddition,therespondentsarguethat
the affidavits are hearsay evidence, since Atty. Brillantes and Daniel Laogan were never
presentedduringthehearingsbeforetheenbancandwerenotsubjectedtocrossexamination.
Finally,therespondentspointoutthatthesubjectmatterofAtty.Brillantesaffidavitiscovered
bytheattorneyclientprivilegehewastheNPCsgeneralcounselwhorepresentedtheNPCin
alllegalproceedings.

III.THEISSUES

Thepartiespositionsraisethefollowingissuesforresolution:
1.PreliminaryIssues:

a.Shouldthepetitionbedismissedoutrightforproceduralandtechnical

infirmities?

b.Isthepresentpetitionprematuresinceitsobjectistoforeclosearulingon
theunsettledNPNPCissue?

c.IstheNPNPCpetitionbeforetheCOMELEC,viewedasapetitionfor

registration,timebarred?
i.IstheNPNPCanoperativefactthattheCOMELECsimplyhastonote
andrecognizewithoutneedofregistration?
2.Doestheenbanchavejurisdictionatthefirstinstancetoentertainthepetition?
3. Onthemeritsandassumingthattheenbanchasjurisdiction,diditgravelyabuse
itsdiscretionwhenitallowedtheregistrationoftheNPNPC?
a.Wasdueprocessobservedingrantingtheregistration?
b.Didthecoalitiontakeplaceasrequiredbylaw:
i.intermsofcompliancewithinternalrulesoftheNPandtheNPC?
ii.intermsoftheconsenttoorsupportfor,andthelackofobjectionto,
thecoalition?

IV.THECOURTSRULING

Wefindthepetitionmeritorious.

a.PreliminaryConsiderations

1.Thetechnicalandproceduralquestions
Wehaveindicatedmanytimesinthepastthataprimaryfactorinconsideringtechnical
and procedural objections is the nature of the issues involved. We have been strict when the
issues are solely confined to the parties private interests and carry no massive ripple effects
[21]
directly affecting the public,
but have viewed with liberality the technical and procedural
[22]
threshold issues raised when grave public interests are involved.
Our liberality has even
gone beyond the purely technical and procedural where Court intervention has become
[23]
[24]
imperative.
Thus,wehaverecognizedexceptionstothethresholdissuesofripeness
and

[25]
[26]
mootness
ofthepetitionsbeforeus,aswellasquestionsonlocusstandi.
Wehavealso
brushedasideproceduraltechnicalitieswheretheissuesraised,becauseoftheparamountpublic
interestinvolvedandtheirgravity,noveltyorweightasprecedentsdeservetheCourtsattention
[27]
andactiveintervention.

Weseeeveryreasontobeliberalinthepresentcaseinviewofinterestsinvolvedwhich
are indisputably important to the coming electoral exercise now fast approaching. The
registration of political parties, their accreditation as dominant parties, and the benefits these
recognitionsprovideparticularly,theonlinerealtimeelectronictransmissionofelectionresults
fromtheBoardofElectionInspectors(BEI)throughthePrecinctCountOpticalScan(PCOS)
machinestheimmediateaccesstoofficialelectionresultstheperdiemsfromthegovernment
that watchers of accredited parties enjoy and the representation at the printing, storage and
distributionofballotsthatthedominantpartystatusbringsconstitutedistinctadvantagestoany
partyanditscandidates,ifonlyintermsofthereadyinformationenablingthemtoreactfasterto
[28]
developingsituations.
Thevalueoftheseadvantagesexponentiallyrisesinanelectionunder
an automated system whose effectiveness and reliability, even at this late stage, are question
markstosome.Tothepublic,theproperregistrationandtheaccreditationofdominantparties
areevidenceofequitablepartyrepresentationatthesceneofelectoralaction,andtranslateinno
smallmeasuretotransparencyandtotheelectionscredibility.

Thus, our focus is on the core issues that confront us and the parties, bypassing the
technicalandproceduralquestionsraisedthatdonotanywayaffecttheintegrityofthepetition
beforeusorprejudicethepartiesinvolved,andconcentratingaswellontheissuesthatwould
resolvethecasesoonestsothatthepartiesinvolvedandtheCOMELECcanmoveontotheir
assignedtimesensitiverolesandtasksinthecomingelections.

We note that while the respondents placed in issue defects in the attachments to the
petition,theirobjectionisaformaloneastheydonotdenytheexistenceandbasiccorrectness
of these attachments. We see no resulting harm or prejudice therefore if we overrule the
[29]
objectionraised,giventheweightofthecounterbalancingfactorsweconsideredabove.

We do not likewise find the failure to formally implead the NPNPC a sufficient
reason to dismiss the petition outright. Without any finally confirmed registration in the
coalitions favor, NPNPC does not legally exist as a coalition with a personality separate and
distinctfromthecomponentNPandNPCparties.We find it sufficient that the NP and the
NPChaveseparatelybeenimpleadedasofthemoment,theyaretherealpartiesininterestas
theyarethepartiestrulyinterestedinlegallyestablishingtheexistenceoftheircoalition.Again,
wefindnoresultingharmorprejudiceintheomissiontoimpleadNPNPC,asthecomponent
partieshavevoicedouttheconcernsthecoalitionwouldhaveraisedhaditbeenimpleadedasa
separateandproperlyexistingpersonality.

Therespondentsnextarguethatthepetitionscitedgroundsaremereerrorsoflawanddo
not constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This
objectioncanbereadasafacialobjectiontothepetitionorasasubstantiveonethatgoesinto
themeritsofthepetition.Wewilldiscussunderthepresenttopicthefacialobjection,asitisa
thresholdissuethatdetermineswhetherweshallproceedtoconsiderthecaseorsimplydismiss
thepetitionoutright.

A facial objection is meritorious if, expressly and on the face of the petition, what is
evident as cited grounds are erroneous applications of the law rather than grave abuse of
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.After due consideration, we conclude
thatthepetitionpassesthefacialobjectiontest.

[30]
In Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,
the Court, through
formerChiefJusticeArtemioV.Panganiban,gaveaverysuccinctexpositionofgraveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictioninrelationtoerrorsoflaw.TheCourtthen
said:

Awritofcertiorarimaybeissuedonlyforthecorrectionoferrorsofjurisdictionorgraveabuseof
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other
purpose,asitsfunctionislimitedtokeepingtheinferiorcourtwithintheboundsofitsjurisdiction.

xxxx

Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority. There is
excessofjurisdictionwhenthecourttranscendsitspoweroractswithoutanystatutoryauthority.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be
equivalenttolackorexcessofjurisdictioninotherwords,powerisexercisedinanarbitraryor
despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility and such exercise is so

patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to

performthedutyenjoinedortoactatallincontemplationoflaw.

Between an appeal and a petition for certiorari, there are substantial distinctions which
shallbeexplainedbelow.

AstothePurpose.Certiorariisaremedydesignedforthecorrectionoferrorsofjurisdiction,not
errorsofjudgment.InPureFoodsCorporationv.NLRC,weexplainedthesimplereasonforthe
ruleinthislight:

When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not
depriveitofthejurisdictionbeingexercisedwhentheerroriscommitted.Ifitdid,every
error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous
judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be allowed. The administration of
justicewouldnotsurvivesucharule.Consequently,anerrorofjudgmentthatthecourt
may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original
civilactionofcertiorari.

The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be
exercisedforthepurposeofreviewingtheintrinsiccorrectnessofajudgmentofthelowercourt
onthebasiseitherofthelaworthefactsofthecase,orofthewisdomorlegalsoundnessof
thedecision.Evenifthefindingsofthecourtareincorrect,aslongasithasjurisdictionoverthe
case,suchcorrectionisnormallybeyondtheprovinceofcertiorari.Wheretheerrorisnotoneof
jurisdiction,butofanerroroflaworfactamistakeofjudgmentappealistheremedy.[Emphasis
supplied.]

The most obvious ground cited in the petition that, if properly established, would
constitutegraveabuseofdiscretionistheallegedunwarrantedactionoftheenbancinactingon
the registration of the NPNPC when the COMELECs own Rules of Procedure provides that
registration is under the jurisdiction of the Division at the first instance. This alleged error is
morethananerroroflaw.Ifthiscitedgroundiscorrect,thentheenbanc acted without legal
[31]
authorityandtherebycommittedajurisdictionaltransgression
itsaction,beingultra vires,
wouldbeanullity.

AnotherallegationofanultraviresactisthattheCOMELEC,byappropriateresolution,
orderedthatAugust17,2009bethecutoffdatefortheregistrationofparties,andyetapproved
theregistrationofNPNPClongafterthiscutoffdatehadpassedwithoutanyvalidjustification
orreasonforsuspendingtherule.Fortheen banc to so act was not a mere error of law. The
grant of registration was an act outside mandatory legal parameters and was therefore done
when the COMELEC no longer had the authority to act on it. In this sense, it is a proper
allegationofgraveabuseofdiscretionunderRule64oftheRulesofCourt.

Inourview,thesejurisdictionalchallengestotheenbancResolution,ifestablished,
constituteultraviresactsthatwouldrendertheResolutionvoid.

b.Prematurity
Isthepresentpetitionpremature,sinceitsobjectistoforeclosearulingontheunsettled
NPNPCaccreditationissue?

Thisisanotherthresholdissue,raisedthistimebytheOSG,andwerulethattheOSGs
objectionhasnomerit.

The root of the present petition is the NPNPC petition before the COMELEC for
registrationasacoalitionandaccreditationasthedominantminorityparty.While the en banc
claimed that it had jurisdiction over the registration of coalitions and in fact decreed the NP
NPCsregistration,itstrangelydidnotruleontheaccreditationaspectofthepetition.
Theregistrationofacoalitionandtheaccreditationofadominantminoritypartyaretwo
separate matters that are substantively distinct from each other. Registration is the act that
[32]
bestowsjuridicalpersonalityforpurposesofourelectionlaws
accreditation,ontheother
hand,relatestotheprivilegedparticipationthatourelectionlawsgranttoqualifiedregistered
[33]
parties.

Section 2(5), Article IXC of the Constitution and Rule 32 of the COMELEC Rules
regulate the registration of political parties, organizations or coalitions of political parties.
AccreditationasadominantpartyisgovernedbyCOMELECResolutionNo.8752,Section1of
whichstatesthatthepetitionforaccreditationshallbefiledwiththeClerkoftheCommission
who shall docket it as an SPP (DM) case, in the manner that the NPNPC petition before the
COMELEC was docketed. While the registration of political parties is a special proceeding
[34]
clearlyassignedtoaDivisionforhandlingundertheCOMELECRules,
nosimilarclearcut
ruleisavailableforapetitionforaccreditationasadominantparty.Wethusmakenostatement
onthispoint,asitisnotamatterinissue.
Underthecircumstancesofthepresentcasewheretheregistrationwashandledattheen
banc, action at the COMELEC ended upon the en bancs issuance of the assailed Resolution
underRule13,Section1(d)oftheCOMELECRules,amotionforreconsiderationofanenbanc
ruling is a prohibited pleading, except in election offense cases. Any request for accreditation

thatmaybefiledisconceptuallyaseparatematterfortheCOMELECtohandle.Thus,afterthe
enbancissuedtheassailedResolutionresolvingtheNPNPCsapplicationforregistrationasa
coalition,theCOMELECspartintheregistrationprocesswasbroughttoaclose,renderingthe
ResolutionripeforreviewbythisCourt.

Thepresentpetitionhasopenlystateditsobjectiveofforestallingtheaccreditationofthe
respondent NPNPC the petition expressly and frontally sought the issuance of a writ of
prohibitionandrestrainingordertopreventtheCOMELECfromaccreditingacoalitionthatis
notregisteredasaparty.Thecombinationofapetitionforcertiorariandforprohibitionunder
thecircumstancesofthepresentcaseisfullyjustified,astheregistrationandtheaccreditation
thatthepetitioncoversarelinkedwithandinfactsequentiallyfollowoneanother.Accreditation
canonlybegrantedtoaregisteredpoliticalparty,organizationorcoalitionstatedotherwise,a
registration must first take place before a request for accreditation can be made. Once
registrationhasbeencarriedout,accreditationisthenextnaturalsteptofollow.

Wheretheregistrationisflawedforhavingbeenattendedbygraveabuseofdiscretion,as
alleged in the petition, the filing of a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a preliminary
injunction can only be expected as a logical remedial move otherwise, accreditation, unless
restrained, will follow. Thus, from the point of view of prohibition, there is absolutely no
prematurityasitsavowedintentisinfacttoforestallaneventtheaccreditationthataccordingto
the assailed Resolution shall soon take place. From the point of view of the petition for
certiorariquestioningtheregistrationmade,noprematurityissueisinvolvedasthenullification
of a past and accomplished act is prayed for. From these perspectives, the OSG objection
basedonprematurityisshowntobecompletelygroundless.

c.Timeliness

IstheNPNPCpetitionbeforetheCOMELEC,viewedasapetitionforregistration,time
barred?
This issue, raised by the petitioner, strikes at the heart of the petition that the assailed
COMELEC Resolution passed upon, and that the divided en banc decided in the NPNPCs
favor.

Ourshortanswertothequestionposedis:yes,theNPNPCspetitionforregistration
as a coalition is timebarred. Thus, the en banc was wrong in ordering the outoftime

registrationoftheNPNPCcoalition.

Admittedly,ResolutionNo.8646simplystatesthatAugust17,2009isthe[L]astdayfor
filing petitions for registration of political parties, without mentioning organizations and
coalitionsinthewaythatthethreeentitiesareseparatelymentionedunderSection2(5),Article
IXCoftheConstitutionandRule32,Section1oftheCOMELECRules.ResolutionNo.8646,
however,issimplyalistingofelectoralactivitiesanddeadlinesfortheMay10,2010elections
it is not in any way a resolution aimed at establishing distinctions among political parties,
organizations,andcoalitions.Intheabsenceofanynote,explanationorreasonwhythedeadline
only mentions political parties, the term political parties should be understood in its generic
sensethatcoverspoliticalorganizationsandpoliticalcoalitionsaswell.

To rule otherwise is to introduce, through a COMELEC deadlinesetting resolution, a

meaning or intent into Section 2(5), Article IXC, which was not clearly intended by the
Constitution or by the COMELEC Rules Resolution No. 8646 would effectively differentiate
between political parties, on the one hand, and political organizations and coalitions, on the
other.

In fact, no substantial distinction exists among these entities germane to the act of
registration that would justify creating distinctions among them in terms of deadlines. Such
distinctions in the deadlines for the registration of political organizations and coalitions, if
allowed, may even wreak havoc on the procedural orderliness of elections by allowing these
registrations to introduce late and confusing signals to the electorate, not to mention their
possibleadverseeffectsonelectionsystemsandprocedures.This,theenbancverywellknows,
andtheirlackofunanimityonthedisputedpointoftimelinessshowshowunusualthemajoritys
readinghasbeen.

The en bancs failure to follow its own rules on deadlines may, at first blush, be a
negligibleerrorthatdoesnotaffectitsjurisdiction(assumingforthesakeofargumentthatthe
enbanchastheauthoritytoactatthefirstinstance).AnexaminationofResolutionNo.8646,
however,showsthatthedeadlineforregistrationcannotbutbeafirmandmandatorydeadline
thattheCOMELEChasset.

Wenoteinthisregardthattheregistrationofpartiesisthefirstinalistofelectionrelated
activitiesthatpeaksinthevotingonMay10,2010.Thislisttakesintoaccounttheclosestep
bystep procedure the COMELEC has to undertake in implementing the automated election
system(AES).Wenote,too,thatacloselyrelatedactivityistheholdingofpoliticalconventions
toselectandnominateofficialpartycandidatesforallelectionpositions,scheduledonOctober
[35]
21, 2009,
and November 20, 2009 was the deadline for the filing of the certificates of
candidacyforallelectivepositionsanundertakingthatrequiredthecandidatesmanifestationof
their official party affiliation. There is also a host of election activities in which officially
registeredpartieshavetoparticipate,principally:theexaminationandtestingofequipmentor
[36]
devicesfortheAESandtheopeningofsourcecodesforreview
thenominationofofficial
[37]
watchers
and the printing, storage and distribution of official ballots wherein accredited
[38]
political parties may assign watchers.
Of course, registered political parties have very
significantparticipationonelectionday,duringthevotingandthereaftertheCOMELECneeds
to receive advance information and make arrangements on which ones are the registered
politicalparties,organizationsandcoalitions.

AllthesearerelatedtoshowthattheCOMELECdeadlinecannotbutbemandatorythe
wholeelectoralexercisemayfailoratleastsufferdisruptions,ifthedeadlinesarenotobserved.
Forthisreason,theCOMELEChasinthepastinfactrejectedapplicationsforregistrationfor
havingbeenfiledoutoftime.AcaseinpointistheapplicationofthepoliticalpartyPhilippine
[39]
Guardians Brotherhood, Inc.,
where the COMELEC denied the plea for registration for
[40]
having been filed out of time,
among other grounds. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood
mightnothavebeentheonlypoliticalpartywhoseapplicationforregistrationwasdeniedatthe
COMELEClevelforlatefiling.We are sure that all these other organizations would now cry
foulandrightlysobecauseofthedenialoftheirapplicationsonthegroundoflatefiling,when
theNPNPChasbeenmadeanexceptionwithoutrhymeorreason.

Given the mandatory nature of the deadline, subject only to a systemic change (as
contrastedtoanadhocchangeorasuspensionofthedeadlineinfavorofapartyinthecourse
ofapplication),theenbancactedinexcessofitsjurisdictionwhenitgrantedtheregistrationof
NPNPC as a coalition beyond the deadline the COMELEC itself had set the authority to
register political parties under mandatory terms is only up to the deadline. Effectively, the

mandatorydeadlineisajurisdictionalmatterthatshouldhavebeensatisfiedandwasnot.Where
conditionsthatauthorizetheexerciseofageneralpowerarewanting,fatalexcessofjurisdiction
[41]
results.

Separatelyfromtheaboveconsideration,weviewtheenbancspositionthatthedeadline
for registration is only for political parties and not for organizations and coalitions to be
preposterous,giventheimportanceoftheparticipationofpoliticalpartiesintheelectionprocess
andtherigidschedulesthathavetobeobservedinordertoimplementautomatedelectionsas
efficientlyandasharmoniouslyaspossible.WenotethattheCOMELEChasnotevenbothered
to explain why it imposed a deadline applicable only to political parties, but not to political
organizations and coalitions. In our view, this kind of ruling was patently unreasonable,
made as it was without basis in law, in fact or in reason and was a grave abuse of
[42]
discretionthatfatallyafflictedtheassailedCOMELECResolution.

1.TheOperativeFactIssue

Other than the matter of timeliness which is an openandshut consideration under the
clear deadline imposed, the more important issue is raised by the statement in the assailed
Resolution that the coalition was an operative fact that the en banc could note and thereafter
recognize, thereby implying that coalitions of political parties may not need any separate
registrationifthecomponentpartiesarealreadyregistered.

Whether one party would coalesce or work together in partnership, or in close

collaborationwithanotherpartyforpurposesofanelectoralexercise,isamatterthatthelawas
a rule does not and cannot regulate. This is a part of the freedom of choice derived from the
[43]
freedom of individuals constituting the political parties to choose their elected leaders,
as
[44]
wellasfromtheconceptsofdemocracyandsovereigntyenshrinedinourConstitution.
This
isafreedom,too,thatcannotbutberelatedtoindividualsassociationalrightsundertheBillof
[45]
Rights.
Wementionthisfreedom,asitwasapparentlythebasisfortheoperativefactthat
the assailed COMELEC Resolution spoke of. In effect, the assailed Resolution implied that
registered political parties are well within their right to coalesce and that this coalition, once
proven, should already bind the COMELEC, rendering registration a mere recognition of an
operativefact,i.e.,amereministerialformality.


We categorically reject this COMELEC position and its implication the freedom to
coalesceortoworktogetherinanelectiontosecurethevoteforchosencandidatesisdifferent
from the formal recognition the Constitution requires for a political party, organization or
coalitiontobeentitledtofullandmeaningfulparticipationintheelectionsandtothebenefits
thatproceedfromformalrecognition.Registrationandtheformalrecognitionthataccompanies
itarerequired,asthewordsoftheConstitutionthemselvesshow,becauseoftheConstitutions
concern about the character of the organizations officially participating in the elections. Thus,
the Constitution specifies religious and ideological limitations, and in clear terms bars alien
participationandinfluenceinourelections.Thisconstitutionalconcern,amongothers,servesas
areasonwhyregistrationisnotsimplyachecklistexercise,butonethatrequirestheexerciseof
[46]
profounddiscretionandquasijudicialadjudicationbytheCOMELEC.
Registrationmustbe
undertaken,too,underthestrictformalitiesofthelaw,includingthetimelimitsanddeadlines
setbytheproperauthorities.

Explained in these terms, it is easy to discern why the operative fact that the assailed
Resolutionspeaksofcannotsimplybeequatedwiththeformalrequirementofregistration,and
whythisprocessshouldbehandledinallseriousnessbytheCOMELEC.Tocarrythisstatement
further, the Constitution itself has spoken on the matter of registration and the applicable
processesandstandardstherecanbenodisputeaboutthewisdom,propriety,reasonablenessor
advisabilityoftheconstitutionalprovisionandthestandardsandprocessesitimposed.Onlythe
peopleasasovereigncandwellonthesemattersintheirconsiderationoftheConstitutionina
properlycalledpoliticalexercise.Inthissense,thequestionofwhetheracoalitionofregistered
parties still needs to be registered is a nonissue for being beyond the power of this Court to
resolve this Court can only rule that the Constitution has set the norms and procedures for
registration,andthesehavetobefollowed.
Tosumup,politicalcoalitionsneedtoregisterinaccordancewiththeestablishednorms
andprocedures,iftheyaretoberecognizedassuchandbegiventhebenefitsaccordedbylawto
registeredcoalitions.Registeredpoliticalpartiescarryadifferentlegalpersonalityfromthatof
thecoalitiontheymaywishtoestablishwithothersimilarlyregisteredparties.If they want to
coalescewithoneanotherwithouttheformalregistrationoftheircoalition,theycandosoon
their own in the exercise of their and their members democratic freedom of choice, but they
cannot receive official recognition for their coalition. Or they can choose to secure the
registration of their coalition in order to be accorded the privileges accruing to registered

coalitions,includingtherighttobeaccreditedasadominantmajorityorminorityparty.There
arenoifsandbutsabouttheseconstitutionalterms.

2.TheJurisdictionalandOtherQuestionsRaised

Aside from the threshold and timeliness questions we have extensively discussed, this
case raises other important questions as well that, without the time constraints the coming
electionsimposeonus,wouldhavebeenfertileareasfordiscussioninexploringthelimitsand
parametersofCOMELECauthorityontheregistrationofcoalitions.Thesequestions,however,
arenotforustoanswernow,givenourtimeconstraintsandthedecisiveimpactonthepresent
caseofourrulingontimeliness.Thus,wereserveforanothercaseandanothertimetheanswers
tothesenolessimportantquestions.

Wesolelyrulefornowthattheenbancgravelyabuseditsdiscretionwhenitdisregarded
its own deadline in ruling on the registration of the NPNPC as a coalition. In so ruling, we
emphasize that the matter of party registration raises critical election concerns that should be
handled with discretion commensurate with the importance of elections to our democratic
system. The COMELEC should be at its most strict in implementing and complying with the
standardsandprocedurestheConstitutionandourlawsimpose.

InlightofthetimeconstraintsfacingtheCOMELECandthepartiesastheelectionisnomore
thanaweekaway,wefinditcompellingtodeclarethisDecisionimmediatelyexecutory.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weherebyGRANTthepetitionand,accordingly,
NULLIFY and SET ASIDE the Resolution of the Commission on Elections dated April 12,
2010intheapplicationforregistrationoftheNacionalistaPartyNationalistPeoplesCoalitionas
apoliticalcoalition,docketedasSPP10(DM).TheCommissiononElectionsisDECLARED
BARREDfromgrantingaccreditationtotheproposedNPNPCCoalitionintheMay10,2010
electionsforlackoftherequisiteregistrationasapoliticalcoalition.ThisDecisionisdeclared
immediatelyexecutory.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ

AssociateJustice

AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA

AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
[1]
With Commissioners Ferrer, N.T., Tagle, L.N., Velasco, A.C., Yusoph, E.R., and Larrazabal, G.Y., concurring Chairman Melo,
J.A.R.,andSarmiento,R.V.,dissenting.
[2]
RepresentedbyitsPresident,ManuelA.RoxasII,andSecretaryGeneral,JosephEmilioA.Abaya.
[3]
Under Rule 64 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with Urgent Application for Temporary Restraining Order Status Quo Ante
and/orWritofPreliminaryInjunction.
[4]
Annex1,supranote2.
[5]
Annex5,supranote2.
[6]
Petition,AnnexE,supranote2.
[7]
TSN,March9,2010,pp.4951.
[8]
Id.at7273.
[9]
Id.at8486.
[10]
TSN,March10,2010,pp.2931.
[11]
Petition,AnnexTandAnnexU,supranote2.
[12]
G.R.No.153945,February4,2003,396SCRA703.
[13]
COMELECRULES,Rule1,Section4.
[14]
Section7oftheNPCsConstitutionandByLawsstates:

Section7.LossofMembership.MembershipfromthePartyshallbelostby:
xxxx
b.Affiliationwithoractivesupportofanotherpoliticalpartyand/oropposingthePartysofficial
candidates,unlessotherwiseauthorizedbytheNationalCentralCommitteeasprovidedinSection
2ofthisArticle.
[15]
Petition,AnnexA,supranote2.

[16]
G..R.No.133927,November29,1999,319SCRA470.
[17]
Petition,supranote2.
[18]
Id.at4346.
[19]
Supranote13.
[20]
373Phil.896(1999).
[21]
See, for example, our ruling in Pates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184915, June 30, 2009 where we refused to relax the strict
applicationofproceduralrules.
[22]
SeeDavidv.MacapagalArroyo,G.R.Nos.171396,171409,171485,171483,171400,171489,171424,May3,2006,489SCRA
160.Strongreasonsofpublicpolicyandtheimportanceofthesecasestothepublicdemandsthatwesettletheissuespromptlyand
definitely, brushing aside, if we must technicalities of procedure.Seealso J. YnaresSantiagos Separate Concurring Opinion in
ProvinceofNorthCotobatov.GovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesPeacePanelonAncestralDomain(GRP),G.R.Nos.
183591,183752,183893,183951,183962,October14,2008,568SCRA402.
[23]
SeeOsmenav.Comelec,G.R.Nos.100318,100308,100417,100420,July30,1991,199SCRA750,wheretheCourtheldthat
whereseriousconstitutionalquestionsareinvolved,thetranscendentalimportancetothepublicofthecasesinvolveddemandsthat
theybesettledpromptlyanddefinitelybrushingasidetechnicalitiesofprocedures.
[24]
SeeProvinceofNorthCotobatov.GovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesPeacePanelonAncestralDomain(GRP),supra
note23,citingGuingona,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,354Phil.415,427228(1998)andFrancisco,Jr.v.HouseofRepresentatives,460
Phil.830,901902(2003).
[25]
See Santiago v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121908, January 26, 1998, 285 SCRA 16, 22 Quizon v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
177927,February15,2008,545SCRA635.
[26]
SeeFranciscov.HouseofRepresentatives,supranote25.SeeDeGuiav.Comelec,G.R.No.104712,May6,1992,208SCRA
420,wheretheCourtheldthattheimportanceoftheissuesinvolvedconcerningasitdoesthepoliticalexerciseofqualifiedvoters
affected by the apportionment, necessitates the brushing aside of the procedural requirements of locusstandi.See also Aquino v.
Comelec,84 Phil. 368 (1949)where the Court resolved to pass upon the issues raised due to the farreaching implications of the
petitionnotwithstandingitscategoricalstatementthatthepetitionerthereinhadnopersonalitytofilethesuit.
[27]
SeeProvinceofNorthCotobatov.GovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesPeacePanelonAncestralDomain(GRP),supra
note23.SeealsoIntegratedBarofthePhils.v.Hon.Zamora,392Phil.618(2000).
[28]
The law accords special treatment to political parties. See Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino v. COMELEC,G.R. No. 161265,
February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 665, 678. The dominant majority party and the dominant minority party as determined by the
COMELECareentitledto:(a)examinationandtestingofequipmentordeviseoftheAutomatedElectionSystemandopeningofthe
sourcecodeforreview(Section14,RepublicAct(RA)No.8436asamended)(b)assignmentofofficialwatchers(Section26,RA
7166,asamended)(c)assignmentofwatchersintheprinting,storageanddistributionofofficialballots(Section15,RA8436,as
amended) (d) spend more per voter for election campaign together with the candidate than a candidate without a political party
(Section13,RA7166)(e)affixthesignaturesandthumbmarksoftheirassignedwatchersontheprintedelectionreturns(Section
22,RA8436,asamended)(f)acopyoftheprintedelectionreturns(Section22,RA8436,asamended)(g)affixthesignaturesand
thumbmarksoftheirassignedwatchersontheprintedcertificatesofcanvass(Section26,RA8436,asamended)and(h)acopyof
theprintedCertificateofCanvass(Section26,RA8436,asamended).
[29]
SeeVanMellePhils.Inc.v.Endaya,G.R.No.143132,Sept.23,2003,411SCRA528,rulingonthepetitionersfailuretoattach
certifiedcopiesofmaterialpleadings,held:

In a case of recent vintage, we held that while a petition for certiorari must be accompanied by a duplicate
originalorcertifiedtruecopyofthejudgment,order,resolutionorrulingsubjectthereof,thereisnorequirementthat
all other relevant documents attached to the petition should be certified true copies as well. The CA nevertheless
outrightly dismissed the petition on account of the petitioners' failure to append certified true copies of certain
relevantdocumentsreferredtotherein.

Inanyevent,weagreewiththepetitionersthatevenassumingthattheRulesrequireallattachmentstoapetition
forcertioraritobecertifiedtruecopies,theCAshouldhaveneverthelesstakencognizanceofthepetition.Ithasbeen
theconsistentholdingofthisCourtthatcasesshouldbedeterminedonthemerits,afterfullopportunitytoallparties
forventilationoftheircausesanddefenses,ratherthanontechnicalityorsomeproceduralimperfections.Insodoing,
the ends of justice would be better served. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or
resolutionofcasesandothermatterspendingincourt.Astrictandrigidapplicationoftherulesthatwouldresultin
technicalitiesthattendtofrustrateratherthanpromotesubstantialjusticemustbeavoided.

Thus,indismissingthepetitionbeforeit,theappellatecourtclearlyputapremiumontechnicalitiesandsimply
brushedasidetheissueposedbythepetitionerswhetherthelaborarbitercommittedagraveabuseofhisdiscretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionindenyingtherespondent'smotiontodismissonthegroundthattheSEC
(nowtheRTC)hadexclusivejurisdictionoverthesaidcomplaint.

[30]
G.R.No.156067,August11,2004,436SCRA123,133134.
[31]
Petition,supranote2,at34.
[32]
JoaquinG.Bernas,SJ,The1987ConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines(2003).
[33]
Supranote1.
[34]
Section1,Rule32oftheCOMELECRulesonSpecialProceedingsstates:

Section 1. Petition for Registration. Any political party, organization or coalition of political parties seeking
registration pursuant to Section 2 (5), Subdivision C of Article IX of the Constitution shall file with the Law
DepartmentoftheCommissionapetitiondulyverifiedbyitsPresidentandSecretaryGeneral,oranyofficialduly
authorizedtodosounderitsConstitutionandByLaws.

TheabovecitedruleshouldbereadinrelationtoSection3,Rule3oftheCOMELECRuleswhichstates:

Sec.3.The Commission Sitting in Divisions.The Commission shall sit in two (2) Divisions to hear and decide protests or
petition in ordinary actions, special actions, special cases, provisional remedies, contempt, and special proceedings
exceptinaccreditationofcitizensarmsoftheCommission.

[35]
PursuanttoSection13,R.A.9369.
[36]
Sec.13ofRA8436,asamendedbyRA9369.
[37]
Section26ofRA7166,asamendedbyRA9369.
[38]
Section15ofRA8436,asamendedbyRA9369.
[39]
WhosecasecametousasPhilippineGuardiansBrotherhood,Inc.v.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.190529,May1,2010.
[40]
COMELECResolutionNo.8679datedOctober13,2009,inrelationtoSPPNo.09004(MP).
[41]
SeeLandBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.129368,August25,2003,409SCRA455,480,citingConnersv.
CityofKnoxville,189S.W.870(1916).SeealsoJonesandDeVillars,PrinciplesofAdministrativeLaw,Carswell,1985,pp.109
110.
[42]
SeeInformationTechnologyFoundationofthePhilippinesv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.159939,January13,2004,419
SCRA141,148,168,wheretheCourtheldthatCOMELECgravelyabuseditsdiscretioninarbitrarilyfailingtoobserveitsown
rules,policiesandguidelinesinthebiddingprocess,therebynegatingafair,honestandcompetitivebidding.
[43]
CONSTITUTION,ArticleV,Section1.
[44]
Id.,ArticleII,Section1.
[45]
Id.,ArticleIII,Section8.
[46]
SeeBernas,supranote32,explainingtheconceptofregistration.