Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > May 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 177200 : May 11, 2007] ITINERANT VENDORS ALLIANCE OF THE PHILIPPINES (IVAP) REPRESENTED BY IBRAHIM MACACUA, PRESIDENT, AND ALIBASIR SOMAGUMBA, SECRETARY VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated May 11, 2007

G.R. No. 177200 - Itinerant Vendors Alliance of the Philippines (IVAP) represented by Ibrahim Macacua, President, and Alibasir Somagumba, Secretary vs. The Commission on Elections.

In this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Itinerant Vendors Alliance of the Philippines (IVAP, for brevity), through its President, Ibrahim Macacua, and Secretary, Alibasir Somagumba, seeks the reversal and setting aside of the Resolution dated February 26, 2007 of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc in SPP 06-108 (PL) denying petitioner's urgent motion for reconsideration of an earlier Resolution of the Comelec's First Division which disapproved IVAP's petition for registration as a sectoral party-list organization in connection with the forthcoming May 14, 2007 elections.

We DISMISS.

As it is, the petition questions the factual basis of the Comelec in disapproving IVAP's petition for registration as a party-list organization, stating thus:

The Commission relied only on the reports of its field officers in ruling that petitioner does not exist in majority of the localities in which it claims presence. Apparently, the Commission did not bother to verify whether or not its field officers had performed their assignment assiduously.

Respondent Comelec, in its comment, countered by invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official tasks, which, as argued, IVAP failed to rebut.

It is at once clear that to grant petitioner's plea would require the Court to calibrate factual issues which is outside the office of judicial review by way of a special civil action for certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, the Court is not called upon to decide factual issues and the case must be decided on the undisputed facts on record. The sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not include a review of the tribunal's evaluation of the evidence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

No costs.