February 2004 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
LDP v. Comelec : 161265 : February 24, 2004 : J. Vitug : En Banc : Separate Opinion
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J. :
The instant petition fundamentally calls on the Court to determine who between Senator Edgardo J. Angara, the Chairman, and Representative Agapito A. Aquino, the Secretary General, of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), has the power and the authority under the LDP Constitution to nominate official candidates of the party and to correspondingly sign and endorse the certificate of nomination. The contending parties have performed acts which they, respectively, claim to be within the mandate of the LDP Constitution.
Petitioner Angara asserts that long-standing LDP practice, as well as the provision of Section 5.5, Article VI, of the LDP Constitution,1 empowers him as the party Chairman to nominate the official candidates of the LDP for president and vice-president in the event that its LDP National Congress does not, or fails to, convene. He states that the National Executive Council has met on 22 December 2003, where thirty-six (36) out of forty (40) members of the Council attended, during which 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 likewise all other acts and decisions of Chairman Angara, 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, and support to, the continued efforts of Chairman Angara to unite the political opposition, has been adopted.
Respondent Aquino assails the resolution of the National Executive Council in that, allegedly, no proper notices have been sent for the holding of the meeting held on 22 December 2003 and that, on the basis of LDP records, only thirteen (13) members of the council have signed and approved the resolution. He claims that Senator Angara has deliberately refused to call a National Congress of the party. Representative Aquino relies on his authority in past elections to sign certificates of nomination of official candidates of LDP which, according to him, has not been revoked or recalled by the National Congress of the LDP. He also asseverates that on 04 December 2003, during the national meeting at Club Filipino attended by hundreds of members of the LDP, Senator Panfilo Lacson has been nominated unanimously as the partys candidate for president in the national elections scheduled on 10 May 2001, and that it has become ministerial for him, being the authorized signatory of the party, to issue the certificate of nomination in favor of Senator Lacson.
It does appear to me that the matter involved in this controversy is an internal matter that the political party itself should resolve. More importantly, the petition is replete with factual problems which this Court cannot take on. The conflicting claims of the parties, such as the alleged intentional inaction of Senator Angara to convene the National Congress of the party, the disputed membership of the national Executive Council which passed the resolution supporting the questioned actions of petitioner Angara, the determination of an extraordinary and emergency situation that would entitle the party chairman to act, the validity of the actions taken at the behest of respondent Aquino in the National Congress on 04 December 2003, are but a few of the factual issues which need to be first established before any decision can conclusively be arrived at. The absence of factual determination by the COMELEC on the matters now being disputed by the parties hardly makes it feasible for this Court to rightly and decisively rule on the case.
Once again, I submit, the Supreme Court is being tasked to exercise the judicial power on something where it should not as yet be asked.
To the above extent, I, therefore, take exceptions from the ruling of the majority.
Endnotes:
1 To act on such extraordinary or emergency matters, especially those not envisioned or foreseen by this Constitution, which cannot await the call and holding of a meeting of the national Congress or the national Executive Council, upon consultation, whenever practicable with other Party leaders; Provided, that he shall thereafter report any such action taken by him to the Congress or the Council, whichever meets first.
