ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 147589.January 29, 2002]
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW vs. COMELEC, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 29 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 First Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001, Respondent COMELEC informed the court that the Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC) and the Citizen's Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) failed to meet the 8-point guidelines set forth by this Court. Specifically, COMELEC found that APEC was merely an arm of the Philippine Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (PHILRECA) and that it did not truly represent the marginalized sectors of society. On the other hand, CIBAC was reported to be merely an extension of the Jesus Is Lord (JIL) religious movement and did not represent the interest of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society.
On page four of the same Report, Anak Mindanao (AMIN) was listed as having obtained only 1.6865% of the total votes cast for the party-list system. But, on page 15, it was declared to have garnered 2.26%. 1.6865% was repeated on page 4 of the Second Compliance Report which was submitted to the Court on August 28, 2001.
However, in its Consolidated Reply dated October 15, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), acting on behalf of Respondent COMELEC, made a turnaround and recommended that APEC and CIBAC, as well as two other party-list participants namely BUHAY and COCOFED, " be declared as having complied with the guidelines set forth in the June 26, 2001 Decision" of this Court. APEC and CIBAC were reported to have garnered the following percentages of the total votes cast: APEC - 5.3654% and CIBAC - 2.1317%. BUHAY and COCOFED each received less than two percent of the votes cast.
Because of public respondent's conflicting reports concerning (1) the qualifications of APEC and CIBAC and (2) the disparity in the percentage of votes obtained by AMIN, the Court issued a Resolution on November 13, 2001requiring the above parties, as well as Petitioners OFW and Bayan Muna and Respondent COMELEC to file, within twenty (20) days, their Final Position Papers as to why APEC, CIBAC and AMIN should not be proclaimed winners in the last per-list elections. The other part-list participants were also allowed to file, if they so desired , their own Position Papers concerning the above matter only.
On November 28, 2001, APEC filed its Final Position Paper praying that the TRO against its proclamation as a winning party be lifted and that the OSG'S findings regarding its qualifications be upheld. It added that the reasons given by COMELEC for its disqualification in the First Compliance Report were based on mere presumptions. Moreover, it was not among those parties impleaded in the initial Complaint for disqualification filed by OFW.
On December 6, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna submitted its Final Position Paper stating that COMELEC's initial findings regarding the disqualification of APEC and CIBAC should be upheld considering the COMELEC is the agency specifically tasked by the Constitution to administer party-list elections.
Likewise, on December 6, 2001, the OSG submitted its Manifestation (presumably in lieu of its Final Position Paper) reiterating its findings that APEC and CIBAC are qualified parties and that the percentage of votes they obtained during the last elections entitled them to seats in Congress. As regards Anak Mindanao, the OSG explained that AMIN garnered merely 1.6865% of the votes cast, which is less than the two percent required to qualify for at least one seat. It reiterated that APEC and CIBAC garnered 2.1418% and 5.3050%, respectively, based on COMELEC Party-List Canvass report No. 26.
On December 14, 2001, Petitioner Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW, submitted its Final Position Paper. Like Bayan Muna, it opposed the OSG's recommendation that APEC and CIBAC be deemed as having complied with the qualifications set forth by this Court because: (1) the OSG went against its own client (Comelec) instead of upholding its findings, (2) APEC is merely an arm of PHILRECA and that it does not truly represent the marginalized and underprivileged; and (3) CIBAC is merely an arm of the Jesus Is Lord movement, its objectives show that it does not represent the marginalized, and its nominees have no track record of serving and representing the marginalized and underpriviledged sectors of society.
In its Urgent Manifestation dated December 19, 2001, CIBAC reirarated the OSG's findings that it is a qualified party.
On January 15, 2002, AMIN sudmitted its Final Position Paper stating that COMELEC's finding that AMIN obtained 2.26% of the total votes should take precedence over the findings of the OSG since COMELEC is the trier facts and its findings should be given greater weight. Assuming however that AMIN obtained only 1.6865% of the total votes cast, such percentage should increase with the disqualification of several party-list groups.
We now resolve the immediate matter ant hand - the proclamation of AMIN, APEC and CIBAC.
First, it must be explained that the OSG acts on behalf of COMELEC. Thus, when the OSG recommended that APEC and CIBACbe qualified, it did so on COMELEC's behalf. It is of no moment that COMELEC previously disqualified them. It just meant that COMELEC changed its position based on better findings and determinations made by the Commission.
Second, 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.
Third, we agree with COMELEC that simple mathematical computations show that AMIN did not get more than two percent of the votes cast. The 2.26% figure is obviously an error.
Finally, we accept COMELEC's submission, per the OSG, that APEC and CIBAC have sufficiently met the 8-point guidelines of his Court and have sufficient votes to entitle them to seats in Congress. Since these issues are factual in character, we are inclined to adopt the Commission's findings, absent any patent arbitrariness or abuse or negligence in its action. There is no substantial proof that CIBAC is merely an arm of JIL, or that APEC is an extension of PHILRECA. The OSG explained the these are separate entities with separate memberships. Although APEC's nominees are all professionals, its membership is composed not only of professionals but also of peasants, elderly, youth and women. Equally important, APEC addresses the issues of job creation, poverty alleviation and lack of electricity. Likewise, CIBAC is composed of he underrepresented and marginalized and is concerned with their welfare. CIBAC is particularly interested in the youth and professional sectors.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby RESOLVES to partially lift its May 4, 2001 TRO prohibiting COMELEC form proclaiming any winner in the last part-list elections, only for the purpose of enabling the Commission to proclaim APEC and CIBAC as winners in the said elections. For failing to obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast, AMIN - though it may have passed the 8-point guidelines - cannot be proclaimed winner.
In making its proclamation, COMELEC is reminded to be guided by Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec (GR Nos. 136781, 136786 and 136795, October 6, 2000), especially in the computation and formula to determine the winners.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
