Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > April 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 191113 : April 13, 2010] ALYANSA NG MGA NAULILA NG LYIGA TAGAPAGTANGGOL NG BAYAN, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CHARLEMAGNE ALEJANDRINO, PETITIONER -VERSUS- COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. :

G.R. No. 191113 - ALYANSA NG MGA NAULILA NG lYIGA TAGAPAGTANGGOL NG BAYAN, INC., herein represented by its President, CHARLEMAGNE ALEJANDRINO, petitioner -versus- COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.


R E S O L U T I O N


In our Resolution of February 23, 2010, we resolved to dismiss ALNA's petition for certiorari for its failure to sufficiently show that respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed any grave abuse of discretion in rendering the challenged resolutions. We found the challenged resolutions to be in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.

The Motion for Reconsideration

ALNA now moves to reconsider the Court's February 23, 2010 Resolution. It argues that the Court erred when it dismissed the petition because it failed to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. ALNA points out that it filed the present petition under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court (Rule 64), which Rule, unlike a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rule 65), does not require an allegation of grave abuse of discretion. ALNA further theorizes that the Rules contemplate that modes of review of the judgments, orders or resolutions of the COMELEC before the Court can be either through a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65 or a verified petition for review-under Rule 64.

Alternatively, ALNA also, argues that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying its petition for accreditation. ALNA reiterates its contention in its petition that the COMELEC exceeded its rule-making authority as nothing in Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941) as well as in the Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Pary v. COMELEC^[1] requires that a party-list applicant for accreditation should exist at least one (1) year at the time the petition is filed. ALNA points to evidence of inconsistent application by the COMELEC of the one (1) year period requirement when the COMELEC allowed the accreditation of other party list organizations (such as Organizations of Regional Advocates for Good Governance Onward Nation Building [ORAGON], Pwersa ng Bayaning Athleta Inc., Alliance for People's Organization [APO] and BAYANI) despite the fact that they were registered with the SEC less than one (1) year before their application for registration.

Finally, ALNA also reiterates its previous contention that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that ALNA has no track record in representing its marginalized and underrepresented constituencies. It points out that ALNA is a merger of three cooperatives so that ALNA can claim the track record or past achievements of all three component cooperatives. ALNA adds that it also has a track record as shown in its Addendum to the Petition which shows that it has been organizing events and outreach programs as far back as 1995.


THE COURT'S RULING



We find no merit in ALNA's submissions.

Other than the issue of the propriety of the dismissal of its petition under Rule 65 standards, ALNA raises no new matters that would merit a reconsideration of the Court's February 23, 2010 Resolution.

First, we find no merit in ALNA's contention that the Court erred when it dismissed the petition on the ground that it failed to show grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of the Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit may be brought to the Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. For this reason, the Rules of Court provide for a separate rule (Rule 64) specifically applicable only to decisions of the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. This Rule expressly refers to the application of Rule 65 in the filing of a petition for certiorari, subject only to the exception clause - "except as hereinafter provided."^[2]

In Aratuc v. Commission on Elections^[3] and Dario v. Mison,^[4] the Court construed the above-cited constitutional provision as relating to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 (although with a different period for filing of the petition) and not to an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.   Thus, Section 2 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court now clearly specifies that the mode of review is the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, except as therein otherwise provided. Furthermore, in Ocate v. Commission on Elections^[5] we held that:

The purpose of a petition for certiorari is to determine whether the challenged tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Thus, any resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to the resolution of jurisdictional issues. [Emphasis supplied.]

As a matter of law, therefore, our ruling of February 23, 2010 to dismiss the petition under the standards of a petition for certiorari under the standards of Rule 65 of the Rules Court - particularly, ALNA's failure to show that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion - cannot but be correct. While we agree with ALNA that Rule 64 cannot be simply equated with Rule 65 because it is a Rule specifically applicable to COMELEC rulings,^[6] the Constitution, the Rules of Court and jurisprudence expressly refer to the application of the standards of Rule 65 as a mode of review to judgments, final orders or resolutions of the COMELEC. Thus, any resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is limited to the resolution of whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Second, ALNA's contention that the COMELEC exceeded its rule-making powers when it provided in Section 6(r) of Resolution No. 6320 that the petition shall state the applicant's period of existence (which shall be at least one (1) year at the time the petition is -filed) deserves scant consideration. Section 6 of RA 7941 specifically requires that "any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition" must not have "ceased to exist for at least one (1) year.^[7] This implies that the law mandates a minimum requirement that a national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition seeking registration should have a period of existence of at least one (1) year at the time of the filing of the petition. The COMELEC has the power to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to enforce and administer election laws.^[8] This power includes the determination, within the parameters fixed by law, of the minimum requirements a party-list applicant must meet in order to register. The one-year requirement is reasonably within the terms of RA 7941; thus, Section 6(r) of Resolution No. 6320 cannot be considered ultra vires or tainted with grave abuse of discretion. That the COMELEC may have erred in other cases in the application of Section 6(r) is not a justification to disregard Section 6(r) or for a conclusion that grave abuse of discretion intervened, in the absence of any showing that ALNA has been singled out for the application of the one (1) year minimum requirement.

Third, we find no compelling reason to depart from the factual findings of the COMELEC that ALNA has no track record to speak of in representing its marginalized and underrepresented constituencies. Under its certiorari jurisdiction, the Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the COMELEC - a constitutional body with particular expertise on elections - are binding and conclusive upon this Court when supported by substantial evidence.[9] We consider as suostantial the facts the COMELEC pointed out and relied upon in rendering its ruling on ALNA's alleged track record; ALNA has not existed for more than a year as an organization and cannot thus claim any record beyond the period of its existence. That it should be credited with the accomplishments of its individual officers or supporting organizations is not simply supported by sufficient justification and evidence.

WHEREFORE, we DENY ALNA's motion for reconsideration with FINALITY for lack of merit."

Carpio Morales, J., on leave.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001, 359 SCRA 698.

^[2] Nilo T. Pntes v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 184915, June 30, 2009.   Section 2 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a] judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to die Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided."

^[3] G.R. No. L-49705-09, L-49717-21, February 8, 1979, 88 SCRA 251 (1979).

^[4] G.R. No. 81954, August 8, 1989, 176 SCRA 84.

^[5] G.R. No. 170522, November 20,2006.

^[6] See supra note 1. In Pates, we held:

Rule 64, however, cannot simply be equated to Rule 65 even if it expressly refers to the latter rule. They exist as separate rules for substantive reasons as discussed below. Procedurally, the most patent difference between die two - i.e., the exception that Section 2, Rule 64 refers to - is Section 3 which provides for a special period for tiie filing of petitions for certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC en banc. The period is 30 days from notice of the decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that Rule 65 provides), with the intervening period used for ihe filing of any motion for reconsideration deductible from the originally-granted 30 days (instead of the fresh period of 60 days that Rule 65 provides).

^[7] Section 6 of RA 7941 provides:

Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The COMELEC may, motu propio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, reiiise or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
 
x  x x  x
 
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or

 
^[8] Ibid.