View full case

PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) filed a petition for certiorari to nullify COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 which delisted PGBI from the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list system. PGBI argued that the resolution violated its right to invoke Section 4 of RA 7941 and the equal protection of the laws. COMELEC denied PGBI's motion/opposition for lack of merit, stating that PGBI misunderstood the provision of R.A. 7941 and that the MINERO ruling is applicable in PGBI's case. The COMELEC also found that PGBI's motion for accreditation was filed out of time. PGBI filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that Section 6(8) of R.A. 7941 does not apply to its situation based on the deliberations in Senate Bill No. 1913. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition but later granted the motion for reconsideration and reinstated the petition. The issues to be resolved are whether there is a legal basis for delisting PGBI and whether PGBI's right to due process was violated.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Minero ruling, which characterizes the non-participation of a party-list organization in an election as similar to a failure to garner the 2% threshold party-list vote, is a valid interpretation of Section 6(8) of RA 7941.

  2. Whether a party-list group or organization that qualified in the second round of seat allocation can be delisted for the reason of garnering less than 2% in the last two elections.

  3. Whether the doctrine of stare decisis should be applied in this case.

  4. Whether the right to due process of the petitioner was violated.

RULING:

  1. The Minero ruling is an erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941. The law clearly provides for two separate grounds for delisting - failure to participate in the last two elections or failure to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two preceding elections. The Minero ruling incorrectly characterizes non-participation as equivalent to failing to garner the 2% threshold party-list vote. This interpretation goes against the plain language of the law and the legislative intent. Therefore, the Minero ruling cannot sustain the delisting of a party-list organization.

  2. A party-list group or organization that qualified in the second round of seat allocation cannot be delisted solely on the ground of garnering less than 2% in the last two elections. The disqualification for failure to get 2% party-list votes in two preceding elections should be understood in light of the Banat ruling, which declared the two percent threshold for the distribution of additional seats as unconstitutional. Under the Banat ruling, party-list groups or organizations garnering less than 2% of the party-list votes may still qualify for a seat in the allocation of additional seats. Therefore, the delisting should only apply to party-list groups or organizations that did not qualify for a seat in the two preceding elections for the constituency in which it registered.

  3. The court ruled that the doctrine of stare decisis should not be applied in this case. The court concluded that the previous ruling (Minero) was an erroneous application of the law and did violence to the language of the law and the rule of law in general. Therefore, the court abandoned the previous ruling and struck it out from their ruling case law.

  4. The court ruled that the petitioner's right to due process was not violated. The court stated that due process only requires the opportunity to be heard and the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The court found that the petitioner was given the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the resolution in question, and therefore, their right to due process was not denied.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The word "or" in the provision of a law signifies disassociation and independence of the things enumerated. It should be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word.

  • The interpretation of a law should be in accordance with its clear and categorical language and the legislative intent.

  • The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere requires adherence to judicial precedents and the stability and certainty of judicial decisions. However, exceptions may be made if it becomes necessary to state what the law is.

  • Stare decisis - The principle that once a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.

  • Due process - The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard, and in administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary, as long as the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy. Absolute lack of notice and hearing is frowned upon.