8/24/2015 G.R. No.

190529

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila


ENBANC


PHILIPPINEGUARDIANS G.R.No.190529
BROTHERHOOD,INC.(PGBI),
representedbyitsSecretary Present:
GeneralGEORGEFGBF PUNO,C.J.,
GEORGEDULDULAO, CARPIO,
Petitioner, CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
versus BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,and
MENDOZA,JJ.
Promulgated:
COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,
Respondent. April29,2010
xx


RESOLUTION

BRION,J.:

[1]
ThePhilippineGuardiansBrotherhood,Inc.(PGBI)seeksinthispetitionforcertiorari
and in the motion for reconsideration it subsequently filed to nullify Commission on
Elections(COMELEC)ResolutionNo.8679datedOctober13,2009insofarasitrelatesto
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 1/12
8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

PGBI, and the Resolution dated December 9, 2009 denying PGBIs motion for
reconsideration in SPP No. 09004 (MP). Via these resolutions, the COMELEC delisted
PGBIfromtherosterofregisterednational,regionalorsectoralparties,organizationsor
coalitionsunderthepartylistsystem.

BACKGROUND

Section6(8)ofRepublicActNo.7941(RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party
ListSystemAct,provides:

Section6.Removaland/orCancellationofRegistration.TheCOMELECmaymotu
proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due
noticeandhearing,theregistrationofanynational,regionalorsectoralparty,organization
orcoalitiononanyofthefollowinggrounds:

xxxx

(8)Itfailstoparticipateinthelasttwo(2)precedingelectionsorfailstoobtainat
least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the partylist system in the two (2)
precedingelectionsfortheconstituencyinwhichithasregistered.[Emphasissupplied.]

The COMELEC replicated this provision in COMELEC Resolution No. 2847 the Rules
and Regulations Governing the Election of the PartyList Representatives through the
PartyListSystemwhichitpromulgatedonJune25,1996.

For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC en banc issued on October 13,
2009ResolutionNo.8679deletingseveralpartylistgroupsororganizationsfromthelist
ofregisterednational,regionalorsectoralparties,organizationsorcoalitions.Amongthe
partylistorganizationsaffectedwasPGBIitwasdelistedbecauseitfailedtoget2%
ofthevotescastin2004anditdidnotparticipateinthe2007elections.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
representativefileaverifiedoppositiononOctober26,2009.

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 partylist

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 2/12
8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

organization under the PartyList System Act. Among other arguments, PGBI asserted
that:

(1)Theassailedresolutionnegatestherightofmovantandthosesimilarlysituatedto
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)
daysbeforetheelection,amanifestationofitsdesiretoparticipateinthepartylist
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
responsibilitiesimposed

(2) The Supreme Courts ruling in G.R. No. 177548 Philippine Mines Safety
Environment Association, also known as MINERO v. Commission on Elections
cannotapplyintheinstantcontroversyfortworeasons:(a)thefactualmilieuofthe
citedcaseisremovedfromPGBIs(b)MINERO,priortodelisting,wasafforded
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
beenrelaxedbytheCourtsrulinginG.R.No.179271(Banatv.COMELEC) and
theexclusionofPGBIandthe25otherpartylistisadenialoftheequalprotection
ofthelaws

(3) Theimplementationofthechallengedresolutionshouldbesuspendedand/or
aborted to prevent a miscarriage of justice in view of the failure to notify the
[2]
partiesinaccordancewiththesameSection6(8)orR.A.No.7941.

TheCOMELECdeniedPGBIsmotion/oppositionforlackofmerit.

First, the COMELEC observed that PGBI clearly misunderstood the import of
[3]
Section 4 of R.A. 7941. 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
PGBIfromregisteringanew.

Second,theMINEROrulingissquarelyinpoint,asMINEROfailedtoget2%ofthe
votesin2001anddidnotparticipateatallinthe2004elections.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 3/12
8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

Third,PGBIwasgivenanopportunitytobeheardortoseekthereconsiderationof
theactionorrulingcomplainedoftheessenceofdueprocessthisisclearfromResolution
No.8679whichexpresslygavetheadverselyaffectedpartiestheopportunitytofiletheir
opposition.

Asregardsthealternativereliefofapplicationforaccreditation,theCOMELECfoundthe
motion to have been filed out of time, as August 17, 2009 was the deadline for
accreditationprovidedinResolution8646.The motion was obviously filed months after
thedeadline.

PGBIcametousinitspetitionforcertiorari,arguingthesamepositionsitraisedwiththe
COMELECwhenitmovedtoreconsideritsdelisting.
We initially dismissed the petition in light of our ruling in Philippine Mines Safety
EnvironmentAssociation,alsoknownasMINEROv.CommissiononElections(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
disqualifiedMINEROunderthefollowingreasoning:

Since petitioner by its own admission failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and did not
participateatallinthe2004elections,itnecessarilyfailedtogetatleasttwopercentum
(2%)ofthevotescastinthetwoprecedingelections.COMELEC, therefore, is not duty
boundtocertifyit.

PGBIsubsequentlymovedtoreconsiderthedismissalofitspetition.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
7941doesnotapplyifoneistofollowthetenorandimportofthedeliberationsinclusive
oftheinterpellationsinSenateBillNo.1913onOctober19,1994.Itcitedthefollowing
excerptsfromtheRecordsoftheSenate:

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 partylist system in either of the last two (2) preceding elections for the
constituencyinwhichithasregistered

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 4/12
8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

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
partylistsystemineitherofthelasttwoprecedingelections,Mr.President,

SenatorTolentino:Actually,thesearetwoseparategrounds.

SenatorGonzales:Thereareactuallytwogrounds,Mr.President.

[5]
SenatorTolentino:Yes,Mr.President. [Underscoringsupplied.]

PGBIthusassertsthatSection6(8)doesnotapplytoitssituation,asitisobviousthatit
failedtoparticipateinone(1)butnotinthetwo(2)precedingelections.Impliedinthisis
that it also failed to secure the required percentage in one (1) but not in the two (2)
precedingelections.

Considering PGBIs arguments, we granted the motion and reinstated the petition in the
courtsdocket.





THEISSUES
Wearecalledupontoresolve:(a)whetherthereislegalbasisfordelistingPGBI
and(b)whetherPGBIsrighttodueprocesswasviolated.

OURRULING

Wefindthepetitionpartlyimpressedwithmerit.

a.TheMineroRuling

OurMinerorulingisanerroneousapplicationofSection6(8)ofRA7941hence,itcannot
sustainPGBIsdelistingfromtherosterofregisterednational,regionalorsectoralparties,
organizationsorcoalitionsunderthepartylistsystem.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 5/12
8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

First,thelawiscleartheCOMELECmaymotupropriooruponverifiedcomplaint
ofanyinterestedparty,removeorcancel,afterduenoticeandhearing,theregistrationof
any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition if it: (a) fails to
participateinthelasttwo(2)precedingelectionsor (b) fails to obtain at least two per
centum(2%)ofthevotescastunderthepartylistsysteminthetwo(2)precedingelections
[6]
for the constituency in which it has registered. The word or is a disjunctive term
signifyingdisassociationandindependenceofonethingfromtheotherthingsenumerated
it should, as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a
[7]
disjunctiveword. Thus,theplain,clearandunmistakablelanguageofthelawprovides
fortwo(2)separatereasonsfordelisting.

Second,MineroisdiametricallyopposedtothelegislativeintentofSection6(8)of
RA7941,asPGBIscitedcongressionaldeliberationsclearlyshow.

Minerothereforesimplycannotstand.Itsbasicdefectliesinitscharacterizationof
the nonparticipation of a partylist organization in an election as similar to a failure to
garnerthe2%thresholdpartylistvote.WhatMineroeffectivelyholdsisthatapartylist
organizationthatdoesnotparticipateinanelectionnecessarilygets,bydefault,lessthan
2%ofthepartylistvotes.Tobesure,thisisaconfusedinterpretationofthelaw,giventhe
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
groundsfordelistingisthereforeastrainedapplicationofthelawinjurisdictionalterms,it
isaninterpretationnotwithinthecontemplationoftheframersofthelawandhenceisa
[8]
gravelyabusiveinterpretationofthelaw.

What we say here should of course take into account our ruling in Barangay
[9]
AssociationforAdvancementandNationalTransparencyv.COMELEC (Banat)where
wepartlyinvalidatedthe2%partylistvoterequirementprovidedinRA7941asfollows:

We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued
operationofthetwopercentthresholdforthedistributionoftheadditionalseatsasfound
inthesecondclauseofSection11(b)ofR.A.No.7941isunconstitutional.ThisCourt
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 6/12
8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the
maximumnumberofavailablepartylistseatswhenthenumberofavailablepartylistseats
exceeds50.Thecontinuedoperationofthetwopercentthresholdinthedistributionofthe
additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the
membersoftheHouseofRepresentativesshallconsistofpartylistrepresentatives.
The disqualification for failure to get 2% partylist votes in two (2) preceding elections
should therefore be understood in light of the Banat ruling that partylist groups or
organizationsgarneringlessthan2%ofthepartylistvotesmayyetqualifyforaseatin
theallocationofadditionalseats.

WeneednotextensivelydiscussBanatssignificance,excepttostatethatapartylistgroup
ororganizationwhichqualifiedinthesecondroundofseatallocationcannotnowvalidly
bedelistedforthereasonalonethatitgarneredlessthan2%inthelasttwoelections. In
otherwords,theapplicationofthisdisqualificationshouldhenceforthbecontingentonthe
percentageofpartylistvotesgarneredbythelastpartylistorganizationthatqualifiedfor
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
partylist groups or organizations that did not qualify for a seat in the two preceding
electionsfortheconstituencyinwhichitregistered.

Toreiterate,(a)Section6(8)ofRA7941providesfortwoseparategroundsfordelisting
these grounds cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting and (b) the
disqualificationforfailuretogarner2%partylistvotesintwoprecedingelectionsshould
nowbeunderstood,inlightoftheBanatruling,tomeanfailuretoqualifyforapartylist
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
[10]
underourauthoritytostatewhatthelawis, andasanexceptiontotheapplicationof
theprincipleofstaredecisis.

Thedoctrineofstaredecisisetnonquietamovere(toadheretoprecedentsandnot
tounsettlethingswhichareestablished)isembodiedinArticle8oftheCivilCodeofthe
Philippineswhichprovides,thus:

ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
shallformapartofthelegalsystemofthePhilippines.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 7/12
8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

Thedoctrineenjoinsadherencetojudicialprecedents.Itrequirescourtsinacountryto
followtheruleestablishedinadecisionofitsSupremeCourt.Thatdecisionbecomesa
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
[11]
examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.
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
practicethatwhenacourthaslaiddownaprincipleoflawasapplicabletoacertainstate
offacts,itwilladheretothatprincipleandapplyittoallfuturecasesinwhichthefactsare
substantially the same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and
disturb not what is settled. Staredecisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a
conclusionreachedinonecaseshouldbeappliedtothosethatfollowifthefactsare
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
eventhavebeenputforwardbythepartiessimilarlysituatedasinapreviouscaselitigated
and decided by a competent court, the rule of staredecisis is a bar to any attempt to
[12]
relitigatethesameissue.
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
[13]
fromthedoctrineofstaredecisis,theCourtisjustifiedinsettingitaside.
Asourdiscussionaboveshows,themostcompellingreasontoabandonMineroexists it
wasclearlyanerroneousapplicationofthelawanapplicationthattheprincipleofstability
orpredictabilityofdecisionsalonecannotsustain.Minerodidunnecessaryviolencetothe
languageofthelaw,theintentofthelegislature,andtotheruleoflawingeneral.Clearly,
wecannotallowPGBItobeprejudicedbythecontinuingvalidityofanerroneousruling.
Thus,wenowabandonMineroandstrikeitoutfromourrulingcaselaw.

WeareawarethatPGBIssituationapartylistgroupororganizationthatfailedtogarner
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,itmaybeanunintendedgapinthelawandassuchisamatterforCongressto
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 8/12
8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

address.Wecannotanddonotaddressmattersoverwhichfulldiscretionaryauthorityis
givenbytheConstitutiontothelegislaturetodosowilloffendtheprincipleofseparation
of powers. If a gap indeed exists, then the present case should bring this concern to the
legislaturesnotice.
b.TheIssueofDueProcess
Onthedueprocessissue,weagreewiththeCOMELECthatPGBIsrighttodueprocess
was not violated for PGBI was given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a
reconsiderationofResolutionNo.8679.Theessenceofdueprocess,wehaveconsistently
held,issimplytheopportunitytobeheardasappliedtoadministrativeproceedings,due
processistheopportunitytoexplainonessideortheopportunitytoseekareconsideration
oftheactionorrulingcomplainedof.Aformalortrialtypehearingisnotatalltimesand
inallinstancesessential.Therequirementissatisfiedwherethepartiesareaffordedfair
and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. What is
[14]
frowneduponisabsolutelackofnoticeandhearingxxx. Wefinditobviousunder
theattendantcircumstancesthatPGBIwasnotdenieddueprocess.Inanycase,giventhe
result of this Resolution, PGBI has no longer any cause for complaint on due process
grounds.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weGRANTthepetitionandaccordinglyANNUL
COMELECResolutionNo.8679datedOctober13,2009insofarasthepetitionerPGBIis
concerned, and the Resolution dated December 9, 2009 which denied PGBIs motion for
reconsiderationinSPPNo.09004(MP).PGBIisqualifiedtobevoteduponasapartylist
groupororganizationinthecomingMay2010elections.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 9/12
 8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

RENATOC.CORONA
ANTONIOT.CARPIO AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice




PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice



TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA AssociateJustice
ciateJustice




LUCASP.BERSAMIN
SDADOM.PERALTA AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice



ROBERTOA.ABAD
RIANOC.DELCASTILLO AssociateJustice
ciateJustice




RTINS.VILLARAMA,JR. JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 10/12
 8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529

ciateJustice AssociateJustice




JOSEC
JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthatthe
conclusionsintheaboveResolutionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
FiledunderRule65oftheRULESOFCOURT.
[2]
Rollo,pp.4248.
[3]
Sec.4.ManifestationtoParticipateinthePartyListSystem.Anyparty,organizationorcoalitionalreadyregisteredwith
theCommissionneednotregisteranew.However,suchparty,organizationorcoalitionshallfilewiththeCommission,not
laterthanninety(90)daysbeforetheelection,amanifestationofitsdesiretoparticipateinthepartylistsystem.
[4]
G.R.No.177548,May10,2007seerolloofG.R.No.177548,pp.4648.
[5]
Rollo,pp.7475.
[6]
Numberingsupplied.
[7]
Agpalo, Statutory Construction, p. 204 (2003) see also The Heirs of George Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc.
G.R.No.156302,April7,2009.

[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,April21,2009.
[10]
Marburyv.Madison(1Cranch[5US]137,2Led60[1803])holdsthatitisemphaticallytheprovinceanddutyofthe
judicialdepartmenttosaywhatthelawis.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 11/12
8/24/2015 G.R. No. 190529
[11]
SeeLazatinv.Desierto,G.R.No.147097,June5,2009,citingFerminv.People,G.R.No.157643,March28,2008,550
SCRA132.
[12]
Id.,citingChineseYoungMen'sChristianAssociationofthePhilippineIslandsv.RemingtonSteelCorporation,G.R.No.
159422,March28,2008,550SCRA180.
[13]
Ibid.
[14]
Bautistav.Comelec,460Phil,459,478(2003).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190529.htm 12/12