February 2004 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
LDP v. Comelec : 161265 : February 24, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : En Banc : Dissenting Opinion
DISSENTING OPINION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. :
The instant case arose from an internal squabble between two (2) factions of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), a registered national political party, which put up their respective presidential candidates in the May 2004 national elections.
I find it necessary to state the following important antecedent facts culled from the parties pleadings, some of which were not mentioned in the ponencia of Justice Dante O. Tinga.
On November 28, 2003, Representative Rolex Suplico (5th District Iloilo), LDP Region VI Chairman, filed with the Office of Representative Agapito A. Aquino, LDP Secretary General, herein respondent, a complaint1 against Senator Edgardo J. Angara, LDP Chairman, herein petitioner. The complaint charges petitioner with acts of disloyalty to the party, culpable violation of the LDP Constitution and By-Laws, disregard of duly approved Resolution of the LDP Executive Council, and other divisive acts inimical to the interest of the party.
On December 4, 2003, a National Consultative Meeting of the LDP was held at the Club Filipino, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila wherein Senator Panfilo Lacson was unanimously nominated as the partys official candidate for president in the May 10, 2004 national elections.2 cralawred
On December 8, 2003, LDP General Counsel Demaree J.B. Raval filed wit the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a Manifestation3 stating that only its Party Chairman (petitioner Sen. Edgardo J. Angara) and only those whomsoever he may authorize in writing x x x are authorized to endorse, by way of a Certificate of Nomination, the Certificate of Candidacy of an LDP candidate. The Manifestation prays that the COMELEC: (a) recognize only those Certificates of Candidacy endorsed by petitioner Angara or his authorized representative; (b) deny due course all Certificates of Candidacy not endorsed by petitioner Angara or his representative; and (c) note the designation of Ambassador Enrique A. Zaldivar as LDP Acting Secretary General, in place of Rep. Agapito A. Aquino who was placed on indefinite forced leave as LDP Secretary General effective December 6, 2003 by virtue of an Advisory 4 dated December 7, 2003 issued by petitioner.
Going back to the Suplico complaint, respondent Aquino, claiming to have authority as Secretary General under the LDP Constitution and By-Laws, issued an Order5 dated December 10, 2003, creating a committee composed of three (3) members of the National Executive Council (the LDP governing body) to investigate and recommend appropriate action thereon. He likewise sent petitioner Angara a letter6 of even dated informing him of the complaint and requesting him to respond thereto within five (5) days from receipt.
On December 12, 2003, the 3-member Investigating Committee of the National Executive Council issued a Resolution 7 placing petitioner on preventive suspension as party Chairman effective immediately and directing him to refrain from exercising official acts in behalf of the party until and after the Committee finishes its investigation and submits its final recommendation to the National Executive Council and/or National Congress. The Resolution states that such suspension is deemed necessary to forestall further dissention within the party members detrimental to the partys image and interest.
On December 16, 2003, respondent Aquino submitted his Comment8 on the Manifestation, claiming that he was not given prior notice when petitioner Angara unilaterally placed him on indefinite forced leave. Thus, the Advisory, upon which the Manifestation was based, is a total nullity and must be disregarded by the COMELEC.
Subsequently, petitioner Angara converted the Manifestation into a verified petition,9 docketed as E.M. 03-018. The Petition further alleges that on December 22, 2003, the National Executive Council met and, 36 out of its 40 members, adopted a Resolution 10 entitled, A Resolution Ratifying and confirming the Covenant of National Unity, the Declaration of Unity Entered Into by Party Chairman Edgardo J. Angara, and All Acts and Decisions Taken by him to Enforce and Implement the Same; Ratifying and Confirming All His Other Acts and Decisions and Other Governing Bodies to Preserve the Integrity, Credibility, Unity and Solidarity of the Party; and, Further Reiterating the Vote of Confidence of the National Executive Council in Support of the Continued Efforts of Chairman Angara to Unite the Political Opposition.
Among the actions/decision of petitioner Angara which were allegedly ratified and confirmed by the LDP National Executive Council in said Resolution were: (a) the creation of an opposition coalition Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) which later adopted a Resolution entitled, resolution Choosing Mr. Fernando Poe, Jr. as the Standard Bearer of the KNP for President of the Republic of the Philippines in the May 10, 2004 National Elections; (b) the decision to place respondent Aquino on indefinite forced leave; and (c) the filing of the aforementioned LDP Manifestation before the COMELEC.
In his Answer11 to the Petition, respondent Aquino assailed the so-called Resolution of the National Executive Council allegedly adopted during a meeting on December 22, 2003, claiming that it is unauthorized and illegal because no proper notices have been sent for the holding of such meeting.Moreover, based on LDP records, only 13 members of the Council have signed and approved the supposed Resolution. Which means that it wasnot approved by a majority of those present, taking into account petitioner Angaras claim that 36 Council members attended the meeting. Thus, the supposed Resolution is void and cannot ratify/confirm any act of petitioner Angara.
Respondent Aquino further asserted in his Answer that since the 2001 national elections, he, as LDP Secretary General, was the sole officer who endorsed the Certificates of Nomination of the partys national candidates and who delegated such authority to duly authorized representatives.
The COMELEC then heard the parties on oral arguments, after which the case was submitted for resolution.
On January 6, 2004, the COMELEC en banc issued the assailed Resolution,12 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED with LEGAL EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor. The candidates for President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan Kagawad nominated and endorsed by LDP Chairman Edgardo J. Angara are recognized by the Commission as official candidates of LDP Angara Wing. The candidates from President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan Kagawad as nominated and endorsed by the LDP Secretary General Agapito Butz Aquino are recognized as official candidates of LDP Aquino Wing.
Consequently, each faction or wing is entitled to a representative to any election committee to which it may be entitled as created by the Commission for the May 10, 2004 elections.For the copies of the election returns, the Angara Wing will be entitled to the copies corresponding to odd number of precincts, that us Precinct Nos. 1, 3, 5, etc., and for the Aquino Wing to the even number of precincts, that is, Precinct Nos. 2, 4, 6, etc.This is on the assumption that the LDP or as a party within a registered Political Coalition becomes a recognized and denominated as a Dormant Minority Party under the Election Laws.The two LDP Wings are further entitled to and be accorded the rights and privileges with corresponding legal obligations under Election Laws.
SO ORDERED.
Claiming that the Resolution was issued with grave abuse of discretion, petitioner Angara filed the instant Petition for Certiorari.
The contending parties raise the issue as who between the petitioner, as LDP Chairman, and the respondent, as LDP Secretary General, shall nominate its official candidates in the coming national elections.
Undoubtedly, this is to me a purely internal party concern, the determination of which rests solely within the party itself, in the absence of statutes giving the courts jurisdiction over the same. The party has its own machinery to govern such conflict. Consequently, this Court cannot step into such private turf and dictate on the LDP party members who should be their official candidate for president.In Sinaca v. Mula ,13 this Court en banc, through Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., ruled:
We also agree with the contention of EMMANUEL (Sinaca) that the decision as to which member a party shall nominate as its candidate is a party concern which is not cognizable by the courts.
A political party has the right to identify the people who constitute the association and to select a standard bearer who best represents the partys ideologies and preference (see 26 AM Jur 2d, Elections Sec. 255, 67). Political parties are generally free to conduct their internal affairs free from judicial supervision; this common-law principle of judicial restraint, rooted in the constitutionally protected right of free association, serves the public interest by allowing the political processes to operate without undue interference (Nielsen v. Kezer, 232 Conn 65, 652 A2d 1013). Thus, the rule is that the determination of disputes as to party nominations rests with the party, in the absence of statutes giving the courts jurisdiction (Hunt v. Superior Court, 64 Ariz 325, 170 P2d 293. See also Oniel v. OConnell, 300 Ky 707, 189 Sw2d 965, 169 ALR 1271, holding that courts have no power in the absence of a statute conferring jurisdiction to interfere with operations of a political party).
Quintessentially, where there us no controlling statute or clear legal right involved, the court will not assume jurisdiction to determine factional controversies within a political party, but will leave the matter for determination by the proper tribunals of the party itself or by the electors at the polls (25 Am Jur 2d, elections Sec. 205, 982). Similarly, in the absence of specific constitutional or legislative regulations defining how nominations are to be made, or prohibiting nominations from being made in certain ways, political parties may handle party affairs, including nominations, in such manner as party rules may establish (Tucker v. State Board of Alcoholic Control, 240 NC 177, 81 SE 2d 399; Brewster v. Massey [Tex Civ App] 232 SW2d 678). (Underscoring ours)
In fine, we should not assume jurisdiction over the petition, the issue here being purely an internal party matter not cognizable by this Court.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the instant petition.
Endnotes:
1 Annex A of respondent Aquinos Answer (to petitioner Angara) filed with the COMELEC.
2 Paragraph 3 of respondent Aquinos Answer.
3 Annex B of Petition.
4 Annex A of Manifestation.
5 Annex B of respondent Aquinos Answer (to Petition of petitioner Angara) filed with the COMELEC.
6 Annex C, id.
7 Annex D of respondent Aquinos Comment (on the present Petition).
8 Annex C of Petition.
9 Annex G, id.
10 Annex D, id.
11 Annex H, id.
12 Annex A, id.
13 G.R. No. 135691, September 27, 1999, 315 SCRA 266.
