View full case

ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO v. COMELEC EN BANC

FACTS:

This case involves a dispute between two factions of the party-list organization Ating Koop, the Lico Group and the Rimas Group. The Lico Group, represented by petitioner Atty. Isidro Q. Lico, is the recognized representative of Ating Koop in the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the Rimas Group, led by Amparo T. Rimas, claims to represent Ating Koop. The Rimas Group filed a Petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to expel petitioner Lico from Ating Koop and install Roberto Mascarina, the second nominee, as the representative. The Rimas Group alleged that Lico was expelled for disloyalty and acts against the organization. The COMELEC Second Division upheld Lico's expulsion and declared Mascarina as the qualified nominee. The Lico Group filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, but it was denied. The COMELEC stated that it had no jurisdiction over Lico's expulsion from the House and recognized the Rimas Group as the legitimate representative of Ating Koop. The Lico Group now seeks a review of the COMELEC Resolutions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the expulsion of a Member of the House of Representatives from his party-list organization.

  2. Whether the COMELEC can rule upon the validity of petitioner's expulsion from Ating Koop despite its own ruling that the HRET has jurisdiction over the disqualification issue.

  3. Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction to decide which group represents Ating Koop.

  4. Whether the amendments to the Constitution and By-laws of Ating Koop were valid.

  5. Whether the elections held by both the Lico Group and the Rimas Group were valid.

  6. Whether the equipoise doctrine should be applied in determining the legitimate set of officers for Ating Koop.

  7. Whether the Rimas Group or the Lico Group is the legitimate group representing Ating Koop.

  8. Whether the COMELEC's conclusion that the Paranaque convention appeared to be in conformity with Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-Laws was substantiated.

RULING:

  1. The COMELEC does not have jurisdiction over the expulsion of a Member of the House of Representatives from his party-list organization. Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution grants the HRET with jurisdiction to resolve questions on the qualifications of members of Congress. The HRET acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case involving party-list representatives upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of office as a member of the House of Representatives.

  2. The COMELEC cannot rule upon the validity of petitioner's expulsion from Ating Koop. Although the COMELEC justified its resolution on the merits of the expulsion by claiming jurisdiction over intra-party matters, this case involves an incumbent member of Congress. The fact that petitioner was a member of Congress at the time of his expulsion removes the matter from the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. The COMELEC should not have encroached into the expulsion issue as it was outside its authority to do so.

  3. The COMELEC has jurisdiction to decide which group represents Ating Koop. The power to rule upon questions of party identity and leadership is exercised by the COMELEC as an incident of its enforcement powers.

  4. The amendments to the Constitution and By-laws of Ating Koop were not valid as they were not registered with the COMELEC. Any amendment to the by-laws of a party-list organization should become effective only upon approval by the COMELEC.

  5. The elections held by both the Lico Group and the Rimas Group were not valid. Without proof that the amendments to the by-laws were filed with and approved by the COMELEC, any election conducted pursuant to those amendments cannot be considered valid.

  6. The equipoise doctrine should be applied in this case. As neither group can sufficiently lay claim to legitimacy and the evidence presented by both groups are evenly balanced, neither side can prevail. The consequence is the dismissal of the controversy.

  7. The Rimas Group failed to prove that it is the legitimate group representing Ating Koop. The COMELEC should have dismissed the petition of the Rimas Group seeking to be declared the legitimate group representing Ating Koop.

  8. The COMELEC's conclusion that the Paranaque convention appeared to be in conformity with Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-Laws was not substantiated. The COMELEC's evaluation of the evidence in deciding which group legitimately represents Ating Koop was grossly unreasonable, amounting to a jurisdictional error.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The jurisdiction of the HRET over disqualification cases of party-list representatives is exclusive.

  • Bona fide membership in a party-list organization is a continuing qualification for a party-list nominee.

  • Qualifications for public office, including party-list nominees, must be possessed not only at the time of election or assumption of office but throughout the officer's entire tenure.

  • The HRET is the sole judge of all contests when it comes to qualifications of members of the House of Representatives.

  • The COMELEC's jurisdiction is limited to the proclamation of winning party-list groups and the qualification of nominees, but not to the expulsion of incumbent members from their party-list organizations.

  • The COMELEC has jurisdiction to decide questions of party identity and leadership.

  • Amendments to the by-laws of a party-list organization must be filed with and approved by the COMELEC for them to be valid.

  • Elections conducted pursuant to unregistered and unapproved amendments to the by-laws are not valid.

  • The equipoise doctrine applies when the evidence in an issue of fact is evenly balanced, resulting in the dismissal of the controversy.

  • When the COMELEC's assessment of the evidence is grossly unreasonable and turns into an error of jurisdiction, the court is compelled to intervene and correct the error.

  • In the absence of a provision in the constitution or by-laws of a party-list organization prohibiting its application, the hold-over principle in corporation law applies, allowing officers and directors to hold over after the expiration of their terms until their successors are elected or appointed.