Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 190529 : January 12, 2010] PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC., (PGBI) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL GEORGE "FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 12, 2010

"G.R. No. 190529 - Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc., (PGBI) Represented by its Secretary-General GEORGE "FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO v. Commission on Elections. -

Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, provides:

"Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. -The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove 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:

xxx xxx xxx

(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.

An exact copy of this provision is reflected in Comelec Resolution No. 2847 - the Rules and Regulations Governing the Election of the Party-List Representatives through the Party-List System - promulgated on June 25, 1996.

Last October 13, 2009, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8679 deleting several party-list organizations from the list of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions. Among the affected party-list organizations was the petitioner PGBI which was delisted for failing to get two percent (2%) of the votes cast in 2004; its second election was in 2007 and it did not participate in this election. In the same Resolution, the COMELEC allowed any national, regional sectoral party or organizations or coalitions adversely affected to file a verified opposition, personally or through an authorized representative, by October 26, 2009.

PGBI filed its Opposition and likewise -sought in this pleading the admission ad cautelam of its petition for accreditation as a party-list organization under the party-list system. Among others, PGBI argued that:

(1) The assailed resolution negates the right of movant and those similarly situated to 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) days before the election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list 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 responsibilities imposed;

(2) This Court's ruling in G.R. No. 177548 - Philippine Mines Safety Environment Association, also known as "MINERO" v. Commission on Elections - cannot apply in the instant controversy for two reasons: (a) the factual milieu of the cited case is removed from PGBI's (b) MINERO, prior to delisting, was afforded the opportunity to be heard, while PGBI and the 25 others similarly affected by Resolution No. 8679 were not.  Additionally, PGBI asserted that the requirement of Section 6(8) has been relaxed by the this Court's ruling in G.R. No. 179271 (Banat v. COMELEC) and the exclusion of PGBI and  the  25  other party-list is  a  denial  of the  equal protection of the laws.

(3) The implementation of the challenged resolution should be suspended and/or aborted to prevent a miscarriage of justice in view of the failure to notify the parties in accordance with the same Section 6(8) or R.A. No. 7941

The COMELEC denied PGBI's motion for lack of merit. First, the COMELEC said that PGBI clearly misunderstood the import of 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 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 PGBI from registering anew. Second, the MINERO ruling is squarely in point, as MINERO failed to get two percent (2%) of the votes in 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections. Third, PGBI was given an opportunity to be heard or to seek the reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. This is the essence of due process and is clear from Resolution No. 8679 which expressly gave the adversely affected parties the opportunity to file their opposition.

On PGBI's alternative relief of applying for accreditation, the COMELEC found that its application was filed out of time, as August 17, 2009 was the deadline provided in Resolution No. 8646.

PGBI now comes before us in this petition, arguing the same positions it raised in its motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC.

We resolve to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit, as PGBI failed to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in rendering its ruling. The COMELEC in fact, and as shown by the above narration, correctly applied the law and the pertinent rules in deciding the issues raised before it. Thus, the COMELEC cannot be faulted for legal error, much less for grave abuse of discretion, when it ruled as it did.

Further, we resolve to NOTE the Extremely Urgent Motion for Special Raffle dated December 22, 2009, filed by counsel for petitioner Philippine Guardian Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI)."