G.R. No.

193643 January 29, 2013 Ruling of the Court:

There was no valid justification for the dismissal of
the complaint for cancellation.However, in light of
ANTONIO D. DAYAO COMELEC Resolution dated December 13, 2012,
vs. the presentpetitions ought to be dismissed.1) An
COMELEC opposition to a petition for registration is not a
condition precedent to the filingof a complaint for
Facts: cancellation.Section 6, R.A. No. 7941 lays down
the grounds and procedure for the cancellation
LPGMA is a non-stock, non-profit association of ofparty-list accreditation, viz:Sec. 6. Refusal
consumers and small industry playersin the LPG and/or Cancellation of Registration.The COMELEC
and energy sector. It sought to register as a may, motu propio or upon verified complaint of
party-list organization for theMay 10, 2010 any interested party,refuse or cancel, after due
elections and was approved by the notice and hearing, the registration of any
COMELEC.Petitioners filed a complaint and petition national,regional or sectoral party, organization or
before the COMELEC for the cancellation of coalition on any of the following grounds:(1)
LPGMA’s registration as a party
-list organization, arguing that LPGMA does It is a religious sect or denomination, organization
notrepresent a marginalized sector of the society or association,organized for religious purposes;(2)
because its incorporators, officers andmembers
are not marginalized or underrepresented It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek
citizens.In response, LPGMA countered that its goal;(3)
Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987
Constitutiondoes not require that party-list It is a foreign party or organization;(4)
representatives must be members of the
marginalizedand/or underrepresented sector of It is receiving support from any foreign
the society. It also averred that the ground government, foreign politicalparty, foundation,
citedby the petitioners is not one of organization, whether directly or through any of
those mentioned in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 itsofficers or members or indirectly through third
andthat petitioners are just trying to resurrect parties for partisanelection purposes;(5)
their lost chance to oppose the petition
forregistration.The COMELEC dismissed the It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
complaint for two reasons. First, the ground regulations relating toelections;(6)
forcancellation cited by the petitioners is not
among the exclusive enumeration inSection 6 of It declares untruthful statements in its petition;(7)
R.A. No. 7941. Second, the complaint is actually
It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year;
a belated opposition to
LPGMA’s petition for registration which has long been or(8)
approved with finality
.Petitione It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding
rs’ motions for reconsideration were denied. elections or fails toobtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system
in the two (2) preceding elections for the
Issues: constituency inwhich it has registered.For the
COMELEC to validly exercise its statutory power to
1) Whether or not a belated opposition to a cancel the registration of aparty-list group, the
petition for registration bars the actionof law imposes only two (2) conditions: (1) due
complainants. notice and hearing isafforded to the party-list
2) Whether or not the Constitution and the group concerned; and (2) any of the enumerated
Party-List System Act (RA 7941) groundsfor disqualification in Section 6 exists.2)
requirethat incorporators, officers and In Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v.
members of a party-list must be COMELEC,
marginalized orunderrepresented citizens. 36
the Court explained that the"laws, rules or
regulations relating to elections" referred to in
paragraph 5 includeSection 2 of R.A. No. 7941,
37
 which declares the underlying policy for the law
thatmarginalized and underrepresented Filipino Several months prior to its proclamation as one of
citizens become members of the Houseof the winning party-list organizations, or on 9 June
Representatives. A party or an organization, 2010, Ating Koop issued Central Committee
therefore, that does not comply withthis policy Resolution 2010-01, which incorporated a term-
must be disqualified.The party-list system of sharing agreement signed by its nominees.8 Under
the agreement, petitioner Lico was to serve as
representation was crafted for the marginalized
Party-list Representative for the first year of the
andunderrepresented and their alleviation is the
three-year term.
ultimate policy of the law. In fact, there is no need
to categorically mention that "those who are On 5 December 2011, or almost one year after
not marginalized andunderrepresented are petitioner Lico had assumed office, the Interim
disqualified."All told, the COMELEC committed Central Committee expelled him from Ating Koop
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the for disloyalty.14 Apart from allegations of
malversation and graft and corruption, the
complaint for cancellation of LPGMA’s party Committee cited petitioner Lico's refusal to honor
-list accreditation. In the ordinary courseof the term-sharing agreement as factual basis for
procedure, the herein complaint should be disloyalty and as cause for his expulsion under
remanded to the COMELEC. However,on August 2, Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-laws.
2012, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9513
which subjected tosummary evidentiary hearings ISSUE:
all existing and registered party-list groups,
includingLPGMA, to assess their continuing Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction to
compliance with the requirements of R.A. No. expel Congressman Lico from the House of
7941and the guidelines set in Ang Bagong Bayani. Representatives
The Resolution stated, among others,that the
registration of all non-compliant groups shall be HELD:
cancelled. LPGMA submittedto a factual and The COMELEC notably characterized the Petition
evidentiary hearing before the COMELEC and was for expulsion of petitioner Lico from the House of
deemed to havecomplied with all requirements for Representatives and for the succession of the
registration. second nominee as party-list representative as a
disqualification case. For this reason, the
COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of
LICO VS COMELEC jurisdiction, insofar as it relates to the question of
unseating petitioner Lico from the House of
FACTS: Representatives.

Ating Koop is a multi-sectoral party-list Section 17, Article VI of the 1987

organization which was registered on 16 Constitution34 endows the HRET with jurisdiction
November 2009 under Republic Act (R.A.) No. to resolve questions on the qualifications of
7941, also known as the Party-List System Act members of Congress. In the case of party-list
(Party-List Law). representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction
over a disqualification case upon proclamation of
On Nov. 30, 2009, Ating Koop filed its manifestation of intent the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee,
to participate in theparty-list system of representation for the and assumption of office as member of the House
May 10, 2010 elections with petitioner Lico asfirst nominee of Representatives.35 In this case, the COMELEC
and Roberto Mascariña as second nominee. Ating Koop then proclaimed Ating Koop as a winning party-list
earned aseat in the House of Representatives and Atty. Lico group; petitioner Lico took his oath; and he
then took his oath of office andassumed office.
assumed office in the House of Representatives.
On 8 December 2010, COMELEC proclaimed Ating Thus, it is the HRET, and not the COMELEC, that
Koop as one of the winning party-list has jurisdiction over the disqualification case.
groups.5 Based on the procedure provided
in BANAT Party-List v. COMELEC,6 Ating Koop Consequently, the COMELEC failed to recognize
earned a seat in the House of Representatives. that the issue on the validity of petitioner Lico's
Petitioner Lico subsequently took his oath of office expulsion from Ating Koop is integral to the issue
on 9 December 2010 before the Secretary-General of his qualifications to sit in Congress. This is not
of the House of Representatives,7 and thereafter merely an error of law but an error of jurisdiction
assumed office.
correctible by a writ of certiorari;42 the COMELEC representatives to Congress is not electioneering. The
should not have encroached into the expulsion crime electioneering is clearly defined under Section 79 (b)
issue, as it was outside its authority to do so. of the Omnibus Election Code but Robles did not commit
any act defined thereunder.
Anent the issue that Robles’ term as president of BUHAY
Dr. Hans Christian Señeres vs Commission already expired when he made the nominations hence the
on Elections nominations are void, the Supreme Court ruled that the
585 SCRA 557 – Political Law – Leadership Disputes nominations are valid. This is because of the “Hold-Over”
Within a Party List – Electioneering doctrine under corporation law. As a general rule, officers
and directors of a corporation hold over after the expiration
Mercantile Law – Corporation Law – Hold-Over Principle of their terms until such time as their successors are
FACTS: elected or appointed. The holdover doctrine has, to be
sure, a purpose which is at once legal as it is practical. It
In 1999, Melquiades Robles was elected president and accords validity to what would otherwise be deemed as
chairperson of BUHAY, a party-list group duly registered dubious corporate acts and gives continuity to a corporate
with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The enterprise in its relation to outsiders.
constitution of BUHAY provides for a three-year term for all
its party officers, without re-election. BUHAY participated
in the 2001 and 2004 elections, with Robles as its ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC
president. All the required Manifestations of Desire to
Participate in the said electoral exercises, including the
Certificates of Nomination of representatives, carried the Facts:
signature of Robles as president of BUHAY. On January
26, 2007, in connection with the May 2007 elections, Petitioner is a national organization which represents the
BUHAY again filed a Manifestation of its Desire to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders. It filed a
Participate in the Party-List System of Representation. As petition for accreditation as a party-list organization to
in the past two elections, the manifestation to participate public respondent. However, due to moral grounds, the
bore the signature of Robles as BUHAY president. latter denied the said petition. To buttress their denial,
COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in
Dr. Hans Christian Señeres, on the other hand, filed with their decision. It also stated that since their ways are
the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due Course to immoral and contrary to public policy, they are
Certificates. In it, Señeres alleged that he was the acting considered nuissance. In fact, their acts are even
president and secretary-general of BUHAY, having punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its Article
assumed that position since August 17, 2004 when Robles 201.
vacated the position. Señeres also claim that the
nominations made by Robles (nominations pertaining as to
who should represent BUHAY in Congress) were, for lack A motion for reconsideration being denied, Petitioner
of authority, void owing to the expiration of the latter’s term filed this instant Petition on Certiorari under Rule 65 of
as party president. Furthermore, Señeres asserted that the ROC.
Robles was, under the Constitution, disqualified from being Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation,
an officer of any political party, the latter being the Acting insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious
Administrator of the Light Railway Transport Authority dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the
(LRTA), a government-controlled corporation. Robles, so establishment of religion. Petitioner also claimed that the
Señeres would charge, was into a partisan political activity Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights
which civil service members, like the former, were enjoined to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal
from engaging in. protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of the
Philippines’ international obligations against
On July 9 and July 18, 2007, respectively, the COMELEC discrimination based on sexual orientation.
issued two resolutions proclaiming BUHAY as a winning
party-list organization for the May 2007 elections entitled
to three (3) House seats and it also declared Robles as the In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner
duly authorized representative of BUHAY. does not have a concrete and genuine national political
agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was
ISSUE: Whether or not Robles should be disqualified as validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for the
president of BUHAY. first time that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors
HELD: No, Robles is not disqualified as the president of enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941, and that
BUHAY. His being the chairman of LRTA and the president petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition
of BUHAY, a party-list group, is not compatible. There is when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual
no law prohibiting that the LRTA chair cannot be a verification reports by COMELEC’s field personnel.
president of a party-list group. Further, Robles is not guilty
of electioneering. Robles’ act of nominating BUHAY
Issue: institution of civil or criminal proceedings and a judicial
determination of liability or culpability.
WON Respondent violated the Non-establishment clause
of the Constitution;
WON Respondent erred in denying Petitioners As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is
application on moral and legal grounds. not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion
of homosexuals from participation in the party-list
Held: system. The denial of Ang Ladlad’s registration on purely
moral grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike
Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang and disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to
Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only those further any substantial public interest.
sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to
said sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v.
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
Commission on Elections [G.R. No. 190529. April
women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
29, 2010]
professionals) may be registered under the party-list
system. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, “the 03OCT
enumeration of marginalized and under-represented
sectors is not exclusive”. The crucial element is not
whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS
particular organization complies with the requirements of
BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI)
the Constitution and RA 7941.
represented by its Secretary General
George “FGBF George”
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that Duldulao, petitioner,
“[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of
vs.
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At
bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is COMMISSION ON
“government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, ELECTIONS, respondent.
“governmental reliance on religious justification is
inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.” We thus find
that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause [G.R. No. 190529. April 29, 2010]
for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to
justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Be it noted that
government action must have a secular purpose. FACTS:
Respondent delisted petitioner, a party list organization,
from the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral
Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are
sought to be prevented, or why special protection is parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list
required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC system through its resolution, denying also the latter’s
condescended to justify its position that petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration, in accordance with Section 6(8)
admission into the party-list system would be so harmful
as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society. of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as
the Party-List System Act, which provides:
We also find the COMELEC’s reference to purported Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. –
violations of our penal and civil laws flimsy, at best; The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified
disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after
defines a nuisance as “any act, omission, establishment,
condition of property, or anything else which shocks, due notice and hearing, the registration of any national,
defies, or disregards decency or morality,” the remedies regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any
for which are a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code of the following grounds:
or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement
without judicial proceedings. A violation of Article 201 of x x x x
the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, requires proof
beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal (8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding
conviction. It hardly needs to be emphasized that mere
elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of
allegation of violation of laws is not proof, and a mere
blanket invocation of public morals cannot replace the the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2)
preceding elections for the constituency in which it has explain their side of the controversy at hand. What is
registered.[Emphasis supplied.] frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and
Petitioner was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the hearing x x x. [It is] obvious [that] under the attendant
votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate in the 2007 circumstances that PGBI was not denied due process.
elections. Petitioner filed its opposition to the resolution Civil Law (Statutory Construction)
citing among others the misapplication in the ruling (1) No. This case is an exception to the application of the
of MINERO v. COMELEC, but was denied for lack of merit. principle of stare decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis et
Petitioner elevated the matter to SC showing the excerpts non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to
from the records of Senate Bill No. 1913 before it became unsettle things which are established) is embodied in
the law in question. Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which
ISSUES: provides, thus:
Political Law ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws
(1) Whether or not there is legal basis in the delisting of or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of
PGBI. the Philippines.

(2) Whether or not PGBI’s right to due process was The doctrine enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It
violated. requires courts in a country to follow the rule
established in a decision of its Supreme Court. That
Civil Law (Statutory Construction) decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in
(1) Whether or not the doctrine of judicial precedent subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine
applies in this case. of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a
question of law has been examined and decided, it should
RULINGS: be deemed settled and closed to further argument.
Political Law The doctrine though is not cast in stone for upon a showing
(1) No. The MINERO ruling is an erroneous application of that circumstances attendant in a particular case override
Section 6(8) of RA 7941; hence, it cannot sustain PGBI’s the great benefits derived by [SC’s] judicial system from
delisting from the roster of registered national, regional or the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the it aside. MINERO did unnecessary violence to the
party-list system. First, the law is in the plain, clear and language of the law, the intent of the legislature, and to the
unmistakable language of the law which provides for two rule of law in general. Clearly, [SC] cannot allow PGBI to
(2) separate reasons for delisting. Second, MINERO is be prejudiced by the continuing validity of an erroneous
diametrically opposed to the legislative intent of Section ruling. Thus, [SC] now abandons MINERO and strike it
6(8) of RA 7941, as PGBI’s cited congressional out from [the] ruling case law.
deliberations clearly show. MINERO therefore simply
cannot stand.
(2) No. On the due process issue, petitioner’s right to due
process was not violated for [it] was given an opportunity
to seek, as it did seek, a 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 one’s 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