PARTY-LIST v. COMELEC

FACTS:

ABANG LINGKOD Party-List (ABANG LINGKOD), a peasant farmers and fisherfolks' organization registered under the party-list system, filed a petition for certiorari against the Resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) which upheld the cancellation of its registration. In 2012, ABANG LINGKOD expressed its intent to participate in the 2013 elections and submitted the necessary documents for compliance with Republic Act No. 7941. However, the COMELEC cancelled its registration without conducting a summary evidentiary hearing, citing the proximity of the elections and the group's failure to consistently participate and advocate for the sector it represents. ABANG LINGKOD submitted photos as evidence of their participation, but the COMELEC found them to be manipulated. ABANG LINGKOD initially filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC but later withdrew it and filed a petition with the Supreme Court. The issues raised are whether ABANG LINGKOD was denied due process and whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling the registration. The Supreme Court later remanded the case to the COMELEC to reevaluate ABANG LINGKOD's qualification under new parameters set by the Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether ABANG LINGKOD was denied due process in the cancellation of its registration under the party-list system.

  2. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD's registration.

  3. Whether groups intending to register under the party-list system are required to submit proof of their track record.

  4. Whether sectoral parties or organizations are required to present a track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

  5. Whether sectoral organizations should be required to submit a track record in order to register under the party-list system.

  6. Whether ABANG LINGKOD should be disqualified as a party-list group based on its deceit in submitting digitally altered photographs.

  7. Whether ABANG LINGKOD's submission of digitally altered photographs constitute grounds for the refusal or cancellation of its registration under the party-list system.

  8. Whether a misrepresentation of a non-material fact in a petition for registration can be used as a ground for the refusal or cancellation of registration.

  9. Whether digitally altered photographs of activities submitted by ABANG LINGKOD can be used as a ground to cancel its registration under the party-list system.

  10. Whether the failure of ABANG LINGKOD to present a track record of its nominees justifies the cancellation of its registration as a party-list group.

  11. Whether or not the petition should be dismissed due to the supervening fact that the May 13, 2013 elections have already taken place.

  12. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the number of seats it may be entitled to based on the total number of votes it garnered during the said elections.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that ABANG LINGKOD was not denied due process in the cancellation of its registration. The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard or to explain one's side, and a formal trial-type hearing is not always necessary. ABANG LINGKOD was given sufficient opportunity to present evidence and was notified of the review of its registration. The Court also held that there was no necessity for further summary evidentiary hearing, as ABANG LINGKOD's evidence of qualification was already with the COMELEC. The Court further noted that ABANG LINGKOD was able to file a motion for reconsideration, thus it was given a chance to be heard.

  2. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD's registration. The COMELEC based its decision on the ground that ABANG LINGKOD submitted digitally altered photographs to show its track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented. However, the Court found that the COMELEC's requirement for groups to present evidence of track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented was flawed. The law only requires an organized group to file a petition expressing its desire to participate in the party-list system, without explicitly requiring a track record. The Court emphasized that track record should pertain to actual activities undertaken by groups, and it cannot be imposed as a rigid requirement for registration.

  3. Groups intending to register under the party-list system are not required to submit proof of their track record. The requirement of track record was imposed in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani and only applies to national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations seeking registration under the party-list system who must prove that they truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented. The submission of constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers, coalition agreement, and other relevant information is only intended to establish that the group exists and is a going concern.

  4. Sectoral parties or organizations are not required to present a track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector. The requirement of a track record only applies to nominees of sectoral parties or organizations who represent the marginalized and underrepresented but do not factually belong to the sector they represent.

  5. Sectoral organizations should not be required to submit a track record in order to register under the party-list system. The submission of a group's constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers, coalition agreement, and other relevant information required by the COMELEC is not synonymous with the track record requirement. There is no logic in treating sectoral organizations differently from national and regional parties or organizations. Imposing an additional burden on sectoral organizations deters the marginalized and underrepresented sectors from organizing themselves under the party-list system. Groups seeking registration under the party-list system are no longer required to submit evidence showing their track record.

  6. ABANG LINGKOD should not be disqualified as a party-list group based on its deceit in submitting digitally altered photographs. The cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration was solely based on the lack of its track record, not on the legitimacy of ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list group or the genuineness of its representation. ABANG LINGKOD had previously been registered as a party-list group and obtained a sufficient number of votes in the elections, which indicates its legitimacy as a party-list group.

  7. The Court acknowledges that ABANG LINGKOD committed deceit and resort to chicanery in submitting digitally altered photographs to establish its track record. However, considering that track record is no longer a requirement, the misrepresentation as to its track record cannot be used as a ground to deny or cancel its registration under the party-list system.

  8. A declaration of an untruthful statement in a petition for registration, such as a misrepresentation of a non-material fact, cannot be used as a ground for the refusal or cancellation of registration under Section 6(6) of R.A. No. 7941. The provision is akin to material misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, which only pertains to misrepresentation of qualifications for elective office.

  9. The digitally altered photographs of activities submitted by ABANG LINGKOD, which only pertain to its track record, cannot be used as a ground to cancel its registration under the party-list system. These photographs do not affect the qualification of ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list group and, therefore, cannot be used to cancel its registration.

  10. The failure of ABANG LINGKOD to present a track record of its nominees does not justify the cancellation of its registration as a party-list group. The nominees of a party-list group may either belong to their respective sectors or have a track record showing advocacy for their respective sectors. In this case, three of ABANG LINGKOD's five nominees are farmers and, therefore, do not need to present a track record. The disqualification of some nominees should not result in the disqualification of the entire group.

  11. The Court held that the petition should not be dismissed even if the May 13, 2013 elections have already taken place. The issues involved are of transcendental importance, and the case presents exceptional circumstances that justify the invocation of the Court's jurisdiction.

  12. The Court ruled that the petitioner is not entitled to the number of seats it may be entitled to based on the total number of votes it garnered during the said elections. The Court explained that the petitioner is a party-list organization and its entitlement to seats is determined based on the formula provided by law, not solely on the number of votes it received.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Due process requires an opportunity to be heard or explain one's side, and a formal trial-type hearing is not always necessary.

  • Notice and hearing requirements are satisfied when parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy.

  • There is no necessity for further summary evidentiary hearings when the evidence of qualification is already with the administrative body.

  • Deprivation of due process cannot be invoked when a party was given a chance to be heard on a motion for reconsideration.

  • Track record, as imposed by the COMELEC, refers to actual activities undertaken by groups to uplift the cause of the sector/s they represent.

  • The political party, sector, organization, or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. They must show through their constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government, and track record that they represent and seek to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

  • Track record is not the same as the submission or presentation of documentary evidence intended to establish the existence and functioning of the group. Track record refers to evidence of activities undertaken to further the cause of the sector represented.

  • National or regional parties or organizations do not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector for registration under the party-list system. Representation of the marginalized and underrepresented is only required for sectoral organizations that represent the economically marginalized and underrepresented sectors mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941.

  • For sectoral parties or organizations, it is sufficient for their principal advocacy to pertain to the special interests and concerns of their sector. The ideals represented by sectoral organizations must be geared towards the cause of the sector they represent.

  • The varying track record requirement for registration under the party-list system results in an unjust situation and deters marginalized and underrepresented sectors from organizing themselves.

  • Submission of a group's constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers, and coalition agreement is not synonymous with the track record requirement.

  • There is no logical basis for treating sectoral organizations differently from national and regional parties or organizations in terms of registration requirements.

  • Groups seeking registration under the party-list system are no longer required to submit evidence showing their track record.

  • Disqualification of a party-list group should not be based on issues other than those specifically raised in the proceedings before the COMELEC.

  • Previous registration and participation in party-list elections, as well as obtaining a sufficient number of votes, indicate the legitimacy of a party-list group.

  • Misrepresentation of a non-material fact is not a ground to deny or cancel registration under the party-list system.

  • Material misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy refers to a qualification for elective office that affects a candidate's eligibility.

  • A false representation in a certificate of candidacy or petition for registration must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact that would render the candidate ineligible.

  • Declarations of untruthful statements in a petition for registration or certificate of candidacy are subject to due notice and hearing before the refusal or cancellation of registration can take place.

  • In order for a petition for registration under the party-list system to be grounds for refusal or cancellation of registration, it must pertain to the qualification of the party, organization, or coalition under the party-list system.

  • The lack of a track record of the nominees of a party-list group does not affect the registration of the group as long as it satisfies the qualifications of the law.

  • Disqualification of some nominees should not automatically result in the disqualification of the entire party-list group.

  • Misrepresentation by a party-list group must relate to their qualification as a party-list group in order to merit denial or cancellation of registration.

  • Upholding the cancellation of a party-list group's registration, despite obtaining sufficient votes, would undermine the will of the electorate who voted for the group.

  • Transcendental Importance - The Court may still entertain a petition despite a supervening fact, such as the completion of the election process, if the issues involved are of transcendental importance and exceptional circumstances justify the invocation of its jurisdiction.

  • Party-List Entitlement - The entitlement of a party-list organization to seats is determined by the formula provided by law, which takes into account factors such as the number of votes received and the number of available seats.