Topic Party-list System

Case No. GR No. 190529, Apr 29, 2010, Mar 22, 2011
Case Name PGBI vs. COMELEC
Ponente Brion, j.

DOCTRINES

There are two grounds for delisting a party-list from the roster of registered party-lists. Both should be
satisfied before delisting.

The doctrine of stare decisis is not cast in stone. Court can abandon a previous ruling if it sees that a law
was erroneously applied in the case.

SUMMARY
PGBI complained to COMELEC because it was removed from the roster of registered party-list because
of its failure to get 2% of votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate in the 2007 elections. COMELEC
denied complaint using Minero as basis. Court overturned Minero ruling, sided with PGBI.

RELEVANT FACTS

Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, provides:

Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The COMELEC may motu

proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due
notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition
xxxx
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per
centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for
the constituency in which it has registered.

For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC en banc issued on October 13, 2009 Resolution No.
8679 deleting several party-list groups or organizations from the list of registered national, regional or
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions. Among the party-list organizations affected was PGBI; it
was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate in the 2007
elections. Nevertheless, the COMELEC stated in this Resolution that any national, regional sectoral party
or organizations or coalitions adversely affected can personally or through its authorized representative
file a verified opposition on October 26, 2009.
PGBI filed its Opposition to the COMELEC resolution, citing among others the misapplication in the ruling
of MINERO v. COMELEC, which the COMELEC denied.
Minero ruling states that since petitioner by its own admission failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and
did not participate at all in the 2004 elections, it necessarily failed to get at least two per centum (2%) of
the votes cast in the two preceding elections. COMELEC, therefore, is not duty bound to certify it.
COMELEC was relying on this jurisprudence.
PGBI participated in the 2004 elections but failed to garner the required number of votes. It, however,
did not take part in the 2007 elections so it alleged that it must be allowed to be listed in the 2010
 elections because the first ground for delisting states that a party-list fails to participate in the last two
preceding elections. It only failed to participate in one.

ISSUE

1. whether there is legal basis for delisting PGBI

2. whether PGBIs right to due process was violated.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W there is legal basis for NO.
delisting PGBI The court overturned the Minero ruling. It is an erroneous application of
Section 6(8) of RA 7941; hence, it cannot sustain PGBIs delisting from the
roster of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or
coalitions under the party-list system. First, the law is in the plain, clear and
unmistakable language of the law which provides for two (2) separate
reasons for delisting. Second, MINERO is diametrically opposed to the
legislative intent of Section 6(8) of RA 7941, as PGBIs cited congressional
deliberations clearly show. MINERO therefore simply cannot stand. COMELEC
cannot remove PGBI from the list of those party lists intending to be voted for
in the 2010 elections.

2. Whether or not PGBIs (2) No. On the due process issue, petitioners right to due process was not
right to due process was violated for [it] was given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a
violated. reconsideration of [COMELEC resolution]. The essence of due process,
consistently held, is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to
administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain ones
side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all
instances essential. The requirement is satisfied where the parties are
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and
hearing x x x. [It is] obvious [that] under the attendant circumstances that
PGBI was not denied due process

RULING

NOTES
 In the March 2011 ruling on the case, COMELEC did not apply what the SC instructed in the disposition
because according to COMELEC it would be very difficult to incorporate the name of PGBI in the latest
election activities.
PGBI filed a case of contempt of court against COMELEC for its disobedience of court instructions. Court
found Comelec guilty of indirect contempt of court. The penalty of which is severe reprimand, with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.
PGBI intended to participate in the May 10, 2010 elections but it was not able to do so because the
Comelec did not - contrary to our express directive - include it in the list of party-list organizations to be
voted upon in the May 10, 2010 elections. As it was the Comelec itself which prevented PGBI from
participating in the May 10, 2010 party-list elections when it deleted PGBI, with grave abuse of
discretion, from the list of accredited party-list groups or organizations and, thereafter, refused to
return it to the list despite our directive, PGBI should, at the very least, be deemed to have participated
in the May 10, 2010 elections, and cannot be disqualified for non-participation or for failure to garner
the votes required under Section 6(8) of R.A. No. 7941.

Ruling on the March 2011 case:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Comelec Chair and Members are hereby found GUILTY of CONTEMPT of
the Supreme Court for their disobedience to our lawful directive, specifically the Status Quo Order dated
February 2, 2010. They are accordingly SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for this disobedience. They are
further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely in the future.

The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. shall be deemed not to have transgressed the participation and level
of votes requirements under Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 with respect to the May 10, 2010 elections.

SO ORDERED.