ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 147589.April 10, 2002]
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW, vs. COMELEC
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 10 2002.
G.R. No. 147589(Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party (under the Acronym OFW), represented herein by its Secretary General, Mohamad Omar Fajardo vs. Commission on Elections, et al.)
G.R. No. 147613 (Bayan Muna vs. Commission on Elections, et al.)
In its Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) determined that the following party-list participants, despite their having obtained at least 2% of the total votes cast, have failed to meet the 8-point guidelines set forth in our Decision:Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD), Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), Veterans Federation Party (VFP), Abag Promdi (PROMDI), Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC), Lakas NUCD-UMDP, and Citizen's Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC).
Subsequently, however, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), acting on behalf of the Comelec, in its Consolidated Reply dated October 15, 2001 and in a Manifestation dated December 5, 2001, modified its position and recommended, for the reasons therein cited, that APEC and CIBAC be declared as having complied with the 8-point guidelines.
Acting on this modification, this Court issued a Resolution on January 29, 2002 accepting Comelec's recommendation and lifting its Temporary Restraining Order to enable the Commission to proclaim APEC and CIBAC as winners.
In its aforesaid Compliance Report, Comelec explained why the following party-list participants did not meet the guidelines and thus should not be proclaimed winners in the last party-list election:
1.MAD - MAD does not represent the marginalized and underrepresented.Rather, it is a multi-sectoral movement campaigning for a drug-free environment.Moreover, it is an entity that is either funded or assisted by the government.In fact, MAD was originally conceptualized by Police Director Jewel Canson as a mere campaign vehicle in the government's drug awareness program.
2.VFP - VFP is an adjunct of the government, as it is merely an incarnation of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines.Comelec buttressed its finding by the following:a) the VFP is registered and uses the same logo and address as the Veterans Federation of the Philippines; b) the liabilities and net worth of the VFP are incorporated in those of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines; c) both entities occupy the same building as their office; (d) the President of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines was authorized by the Executive Board to file a petition with the Comelec to register the Veterans Federation of the Philippines as a participant in the party-list system as a national organization; and (e) the first batch of officers of the VFP were also the officers of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines.
3.PROMDI - PROMDI is a major regional political party and has a well-defined national constituency; however, PROMDI and its nominees do not represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society.
4.NPC - NPC is a political party that is essentially a conglomeration of various groups of differing political persuasions and interests.While the NPC platform speaks of decentralization and deregulation of government, it does not actually claim to represent the marginalized.And despite its posture that it includes groups that represent the marginalized sectors among its ranks, it has actually failed to prove his claim.Lastly, its nominees clearly do not come from the marginalized.Neither do they have any track record whatsoever of representing their needs and interests.
5.LAKAS-NUCD - LAKAS is a political party that has a well-defined constituency.It, however, does not represent or claim to represent mainly the marginalized and underrepresented sectors even though it may have undertaken activities that benefit them.Moreover, the party's objectives clearly do not show a clear priority for the interests of the marginalized.Also, its nominees do not belong to any marginalized sector and have no track record of representing them.
In response to the above findings, the above-listed party-list participants explained as follows:
1.MAD, in its Comment dated August 10, 2001, argued that Comelec did not uniformly apply the 8-point guidelines, as it favored certain parties like AMIN and BAYAN MUNA, which in essence were parties similar to MAD.It also cited its mass base and track record to bolster its claim that it represented a well-defined sector which was composed of persons afflicted with drug dependency, their families and the community.It also denied that it was just a vehicle of the government.Quite the contrary, it claimed to be composed of civic-minded citizens who cooperated with the government.In its Motion to Proclaim dated January 25, 2002, MAD argued that the 8-point guidelines set forth by this Court should be applied prospectively.
2.VFP, on the other hand, alleged in its Comment dated August 9, 2001, that Comelec disqualified it without basis, as it was already deemed qualified when it was registered.It likewise denied emphatically that it was merely an adjunct of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines.Although it held office in the same compound as the latter, it was not in the same building as reported by Comelec.And, in its Motion for Leave to File and Admit the Hereto Attached VFP's Rejoinder to the Consolidated Reply dated October 26, 2001 and its October 26, 2001 Rejoinder to Consolidated Reply, VFP pointed out that it was the party-list of veterans and that it was composed of individual members, unlike the Veterans Federations of the Philippines which was composed of affiliated organizations.Reiterating that it was a separate and distinct entity from the Veterans Federation of the Philippines, it averred that its members belonged to both the VFP and the Veterans Federations of the Philippines because they were either veterans, wives, children or sympathizers of veterans.It also averred that it even participated in the 1998 elections wherein it had one representative, and that to retroactively apply to it the qualifications set by the Court would result in the impairment of its right which it acquired after registration.In a Motion to Declare VFP Duly Elected, VFP prayed that the October 31, 2001 Comelec Manifestation be favorably considered in order that it be declared as duly elected.Lastly, in a Motion to Resolve dated February 13, 2002, VFP claimed that it was practically in the same footing as APEC and CIBAC which Comelec had qualified as proper parties.
3.PROMDI, in its Manifestation dated January 10, 2002, contended that contrary to the Comelec's findings, it had a well-defined constituency and that it represented the marginalized sectors of society.It also added that the 8-point guidelines should be applied prospectively and that parties already registered should be deemed exempt from the coverage of the said guidelines.
4.The NPC, in its Comment dated July 12, 2001 said that it was a political party which existed for and represented the marginalized and underrepresented groups.In its Comment with Omnibus Motion dated August 9, 2001, NPC stated that it was already qualified when it was registered and that no opposition was filed against it.Claiming that COMELEC erred in disqualifying it, NPC, however, did not specify what particular marginalized group it represented.It added that it was also unfair to disqualify its nominees based on their professions alone.In fact, based on its platform, by-laws and guidelines, the party and its nominees should be deemed proper representatives of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society.In its Motion to Proclaim dated November 23, 2001, it prayed that its nominee be proclaimed and allowed to sit in Congress because it was a qualified party under Sections 2, 6 and 9 of RA 7941.
5.LAKAS-NUCD, in its July 12, 2001 Position Paper, stated that it had a national constituency and an excellent track record of serving the people.It asserted that its nominees were not otherwise disqualified.This stance was reiterated in its August 10, 2001 Comment/Opposition.In its November 22, 2001 Manifestation and Motion, LAKAS-NUCD claimed that the so-called judicial guidelines were made long after the elections were already over, and that its qualifications were already proven when it was registered as a party-list participant.Thus, such additional prescriptions should be applied prospectively because elections involve public interest, and laws governing elections must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people regarding their choice of public official may not be defeated by technical considerations.
The above points and arguments raised by Respondents MAD, VFP, PROMDI, NPC and LAKAS-NUCD are mainly factual in nature and were already studied, deliberated and passed upon by Comelec.
As early as 1938, the Court held in Morrero v. Bocar [1] cralaw that:
"x x x.The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the Members of the National Assembly.'The language of this provision is clear.It vests in the Electoral Commission exclusive jurisdiction to pass upon the qualifications of a member of the National Assembly.The judgment rendered by the commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference, except, in any event, 'upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will constitute a denial of due process of law.'" [2] cralaw
In 1970, Lucman v. Dimaporo [3] cralaw ruled that findings of fact of the Comelec would not be disturbed by courts of justice except when there was absolutely no evidence or substantial evidence in support of such findings.We said:
"x x x[P]ursuant to our Administrative Law, the findings of fact of administrative organs created by ordinary legislation will not be disturbed by courts of justice, except when there is absolutely no evidence or no substantial evidence in support of such findings, and there is no reason to believe that the framers of our Constitution intended to place the Commission on Elections - created and explicitly made 'independent' by the Constitution itself - on a lower level that said statutory administrative organs; and (4) the aforementioned provision of the Election Law is presumed to be valid until otherwise declared by competent court." [4] cralaw
In Santos v. Commission on Elections, [5] cralaw we upheld the determination by Comelec that the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) was a distinct and separate political party from the Nacionalista Party (NP) for the following reasons:
"The COMELEC's determination of whether the KBL was a political party from the inception of its existence, distinct and separate from the NP is undoubtedly an exercise of its constitutional power of administering the laws relative to the conduct of elections.This power is exclusive.Unless its exercise is tainted with error correctible by certiorari which usually takes the form of lack or excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion.We should not disturb the orders, resolutions or other acts of the COMELEC.As was said in the early case of Morrero v. Bocar, et al., 66 Phil. 429, the decision of the COMELEC is beyond judicial interference except upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of its power as will constitute denial of due process of law." [6] cralaw
This ruling was again applied by the Court in Pangarungan v. Commission on Elections, [7] cralaw which we reproduce in part as follows:
"These are findings on a factual issue which this Court accords the highest respect.We have said, through then Chief Justice Concepcion in Lucman vs. Dimaporo, that this Court cannot review rulings or findings of fact of the Commission on Elections as there is no reason to believe that the framers of the Constitution intended to place the Commission, created and explicitly made independent by the Constitution itself, on a lower level than ordinary administrative organs, the findings of which are not even disturbed by courts of justice except when there is absolutely no evidence or no substantial evidence to support the same.These exceptions, just as any other in respect to the rule on conclusiveness of findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which may equally apply to the findings of fact of the COMELEC, are not present in this case." [8] cralaw
Indeed, absent patent error or serious inconsistencies, factual findings of the Comelec are conclusive upon this Court.Recently, in Malonzo v. Commission on Elections, the Court explained: [9] cralaw
"x x x.In the absence of patent error, or serious inconsistencies in the findings, the Court should not disturb the same.The factual findings of the COMELEC, based on its own assessments and duly supported by gathered evidence, are conclusive upon the court, more so, in the absence of a substantiated attack on the validity of the same."
Upon this doctrinal bedrock recognizing Comelec's power and duty to discover and assess facts that this Court authorized the Commission to determine whether the aforesaid party-list candidates have fulfilled or satisfied our 8-point guidelines.Movants have not shown cogent reasons why we should set aside Comelec's Compliance Report.The arguments that they raised merely refute, without adequate proof, the findings made by Respondent Commission.Hence, its recommendations stand.
Finally, their contention that our 8-point guidelines should be given only prospective application has already been rejected by this Court in its January 29, 2002 Resolution where we stated:
"x x x it is now too late in the day to argue, via these Final Position Papers, Manifestations or other pleadings, that the parties qualified to run in the elections prior to 2001 should be deemed to have acquired a vested right.Be it remembered that our June 26, 2001 Decision has already become final and may no longer be altered.Second motions for reconsiderations are prohibited by the Rules of Court.Besides, the 8-point guidelines contained in said Decision were made only for purposes of clarifying the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions on the matter.They are not new creations or post facto legal incantations."
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the findings of Comelec that MAD, VFP, PROMDI, NPC and LAKAS-NUCD have failed to pass the 8-point guidelines set forth in our June 26, 2001 Decision.Hence, they cannot be proclaimed winners in the last party-list election.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw 66 Phil. 429, 431-432, October 31, 1938.
[2] cralaw Ibid., pp. 431-432, per Abad Santos, J. (later CJ).
[3] cralaw 33 SCRA 387, May 29, 1970.
[4] cralaw Ibid., p. 401, per Concepcion, CJ.
[5] cralaw 103 SCRA 628, March 31, 1981.
[6] cralaw Ibid., p. 635, per De Castro, J.
[7] cralaw 216 SCRA 522, December 11, 1992.
[8] cralaw Ibid., p. 538, per Davide Jr., J (now CJ).
[9] cralaw 269 SCRA 380, 388-389, March 11, 1997, Torres Jr., J.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
