ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 147589.October 8, 2002]
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY vs. COMELEC, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 OCT 2002.
G.R. No. 147589 (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party (under the Acronym OFW), represented herein by its Secretary General, Mohamad Omar Fajardo v. Commission on Elections, et al.)
G.R. No. 147613(Bayan Muna v. Commission on Elections, et al.)
In its 47-page Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) recommended, inter alia, that the following party-list participants, despite having obtained at least 2% of the total votes cast, have failed to meet the 8-point guidelines set forth in our June 26, 2001 Decision:Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), LAKAS-NUCD UMDP, Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC), Abag Promdi (PROMDI) and Veterans Federation Party (VFP). This Court unanimously affirmed this recommendation.
Before us now are separate Motions for Reconsideration filed by LDP, LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP, NPC, PROMDI and VFP, asking this Court to reverse its affirmation of the aforecited Comelec recommendation and to authorize the Commission to proclaim them winners in the last party-list elections.
All the foregoing movants, except VFP, base their Motions on a post facto 6-page "Resolution" of the Comelec promulgated on April 9, 2002 which, "decrees" that the four movants "are bonafide party-list candidates QUALIFIED both under Republic Act 7941 and the eight-point guidelines issued by the Supreme Court."
The Motions are devoid of merit.First, after submitting its Compliance Reports as required by our June 26, 2001 Decision, the Comelec had no more jurisdiction to conduct on its own volition any more hearings for the purpose of again passing upon the matter remanded to it by this Court.Much less did it have authority to "decree" the qualifications of the four movants after they had been disqualified by a formal Resolution of this Court upon the recommendation of the poll body itself. The Comelec did not even have the courtesy of notifying this Court that it was conducting further evaluation of the matter.Such indiscretion borders on contempt of this Court.It is elementary that "a lower court [or quasi judicial agency like Comelec] cannot reexamine and reverse a decision of the Supreme Court x x x." [1] cralaw
We repeat that our June 26, 2001 Decision has "already become final and may no longer be altered."The case was remanded to the Comelec with the limited direction to immediately conduct summary proceedings on the qualifications of the 154 parties and organizations in the light of the 8-point guidelines we had set forth.After submitting its two Compliance Reports dated July 27, 2001 and August 28, 2001, it no longer had any authority to entertain the Motions filed by the aforesaid political parties.Decidedly, its power during the remand was limited and its delegated mandate expired upon the submission to and acceptance by this Court of the said Reports."When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the Commission on Elections, violates or ignores the Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down by this Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion." [2] cralaw "Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasi-judicial instrumentalities is to apply the law as they find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it." [3] cralaw
Second. In any event, the Comelec Resolution has not demonstrated any cogent reason or substantial evidence to show that the four beneficiaries are indeed qualified to have party-list seats.The principal evidence the Comelec relied on to justify its volte face are the respective constitutions and by-laws of the four political parties.However, these documents had already been available to the Comelec when it rendered its Compliance Reports and thus could not have been the source of new grounds.Besides, these documents were clearly insufficient to satisfy our 8-point guidelines enunciated in our June 26, 2001 Decision.
Third. This errant and imprudent flip-flopping of the Comelec is totally uncalled for.It merely destabilizes settled decisions, wastes the precious time of this Court, and unduly raises the expectations of the litigants Several times in the past, we have cautioned the elections body of the undesirable practice of reversing itself without adequate authority or bases.Once again, we remind it:
"x x x.Inconsistent actions tend to denigrate public trust in [Comelec's] objectivity and dependability as the constitutional body mandated to supervise elections which are the very essence and life-blood of popular sovereignty.We note that this is not the first instance that the Comelec has flip-flopped in its actions, thereby triggering needless resort to this Court to correct simple matters like this. We take this occasion to remind the Commission to be more judicious in its actions and decisions and avoid imprudent volte face moves that undermine the public's faith and confidence in. it." [4] cralaw (Citations omitted)
On the other hand, VFP's Motion for Reconsideration does not even refer to the aforecited Resolution as its basis. It merely rehashes and reiterates arguments already debunked in the July 27, 2001 Comelec Compliance Report which, to repeat, has been affirmed by this Court. It presents no cogent or compelling reasons why we should reverse or modify our unanimous Resolution affirming the exhaustive Comelec Reports. Its argument that it has been deprived of due process deserves scant consideration, because it has been given the opportunity by both the Comelec and this Court to present its side. Basic is the rule that due process merely requires the opportunity to be heard, even in a motion for reconsideration. [5] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration of LDP, LAKAS-NUCD, NPC, PROMDI and VFP are DENIED for lack of merit.This denial is FINAL.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Santiago, Carpio and Martinez, JJ., are on leave.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217, June 5, 1990.
[2] cralaw Bayan Muna v. Comelec, GR No. 147613, June 26, 2001; Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997; See also Santiago v. Guingona, 298 SCRA 756, November 18, 1998; Miranda v. Aguirre, 314 SCRA 603, September 16, 1999; Garcia v. HRET , 213 SCRA 353, August 12, 1999.
[3] cralaw Bayan Muna v. Comelec, supra; Veterans Federation Party, et al. v. Comelec, 342 SCRA 244, October 6, 2000.
[4] cralaw Cabagnot v. Commission on Elections, 260 SCRA 503, 511-512, August 9, 1996.
[5] cralaw De los Santos v. NLRC, GR No. 121327, December 20, 2001; Ramoran v. Jardine CMG Life Insurance Company Inc., 326 SCRA 208, February 22, 2000; Provident International Resources Corp. v. CA, 259 SCRA 510, July 26, 1996; BA Finance v. GA, 258 SCRA 102, July 5, 1996; Gutierrez v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 413, March 25, 1997.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
