18. G.R. No. 193256:March 22, 2011.

ABC (ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS) PARTY LIST, REPRESENTED BY

ITS CHAIRMAN, JAMES MARTY LIM,Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND MELANIO MAURICIO, JR., Respondents.
FACTS:
On May 25, 2010, private respondent Melanio Mauricio, Jr. filed a petition with the
COMELEC for the cancellation of registration and accreditation of petitioner ABC
Party-Liston the ground that petitioner is a front for a religious organization; hence,
it is disqualified to become a party-list group under Section 6 (1)of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act.
On June 16, 2010, the COMELEC, Second Division issued a Resolution dismissing the
petition. The dismissal on procedural grounds was grounded on the lack of proper
verification of the petition. According to the COMELEC, Second Division,
the Verification with Certification Re: Forum Shopping and Special Power of Attorney
was not duly notarized in accordance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as
amended. Sections 1 and 6, Rule II require that the person appearing before a
notary public must be known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity. In this case, the "Acknowledgment" at the
end of the verification did not contain the name of private respondent who
supposedly appeared before the notary public, and he was not identified by any
competent evidence of identity as required by the rules on notarial practice.
TheCOMELEC, Second Division also dismissed the petition based on substantial
grounds, as it found that ABC is not a religious sect, and is, therefore, not
disqualified from registration.
However, the COMELEC en banc found that the petitions verification page
substantially complied with the 2004Rules on Notarial Practice, and that the records
of the case showed that the Resolution of the Second Division was issued without
any hearing, contrary to RA No. 7941, which deprived Mauricio of the opportunity to
submit evidence in support of his petition.
In filing this petition, Petitioner contends that the COMELEC en banc no longer had
jurisdiction to entertain the petition for cancellation of registration and accreditation
of ABC Party-List after it was already proclaimed as one of the winners in the partylist elections of May 10, 2010. Further, petitioner submits that Section 6 of R.A. No.
7941, which states that 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, is

applicable only to a non-winning party-list group.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Comelec has jurisdiction to hear the case on ABC party
lists cancellation of registration
Whether or not a cancellation case should be summary
HELD:
The petition is denied.
POLITICAL LAW: Jurisdiction and powers of the Comelec to cancel party list
registration.
First issue: Section 2 (5), Article IX-Cof the Constitution grants the COMELEC the
authority to register political parties, organizations or coalitions, and the authority
to cancel the registration of the same on legal grounds. The said authority of the
COMELEC is reflected in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941. In the case of the party-list
nominees/representatives, it is the HRET, in accordance with Section 17, Article VI
of the Constitution, that has jurisdiction over contests relating to their qualifications.
Although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not
the organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of
Representatives, but it is the party-list nominee/representative who sits as a
member of the House of Representatives. Thus, the jurisdiction of the HRET over
contests relates to the qualifications of a party-list nominee or representative, while
the jurisdiction of the COMELEC is over petitions for cancellation of registration of
any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition. In sum, the
COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over the petition for cancellation of the
registration and accreditation of petitioner ABC Party-List for alleged violation of
Section 6 (1) of R.A. No. 7941.
Second issue: Petitioner contends that the COMELEC en banc committed grave
abuse of discretion when it singled out this case and directed that it be set for
hearing when other cases of the same nature were summarily and motu proprio
dismissed by the COMELEC, citing the cases of BANAT v. CIBAC Foundation and
BANAT v. 1-Care and APEC. However, in both cases, the proceedings were summary
because the registration/qualification/cancellation of the party lists had already
been decided in another case.

29. ROMERO V. ESTRADA

G.R. No. 174105 | April 2, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioner Romero II received an invitation from the Committee asking him to go to
the hearing and answer inquiries by the Senate involving the investment of OWWA
funds.
Petitioner Romero II requested to be excused from appearing and testifying before
the Committee at its scheduled hearings of the subject matter and purpose of
Philippine Senate (PS) Resolution Nos. 537 and 543. He predicated his request on
grounds he would later substantially reiterate in this petition for prohibition.
On August 28, 2006, the Committee sent petitioner Romero II a letter
informing him that his request, being unmeritorious, was denied. On the same date,
invitations were sent to each of the other six petitioners, then members of the
Board of Directors of R-II Builders, Inc., requesting them to attend the September 4,
2006 Committee hearing. The following day, Senator Jinggoy Estrada, as
Chairperson of the Committee, caused the service of a subpoena ad
testificandum on petitioner Romero II directing him to appear and testify before the
Committee at its hearing on September 4, 2006 relative to the aforesaid Senate
resolutions. The Committer later issued separate subpoenas to other petitioners,
albeit for a different hearing date.
On August 30, 2006, petitioners filed the instant petition, docketed as G.R. No.
174105, seeking to bar the Committee from continuing with its inquiry and to enjoin
it from compelling petitioners to appear before it pursuant to the invitations thus
issued.
Failing to secure the desired TRO sought in the petition, petitioner Romero II
appeared at the September 4, 2006 Committee investigation.
Two days after, petitioner Romero II filed a Manifestation with Urgent Plea for
a TRO alleging, among others, that: (1) he answered questions concerning the
investments of OWWA funds in the Smokey Mountain project and how much of
OWWAs original investment had already been paid; (2) when Senator Estrada called
on Atty. Francisco I. Chavez, as resource person, the latter spoke of the facts and
issues he raised with the Court in Chavez v. National Housing Authority, none of
which were related to the subject of the inquiry; and (3) when Senator Estrada
adjourned the investigation, he asked petitioners Romero II and Canlas to return at
the resumption of the investigation.

The manifestation was followed by the filing on September 19, 2006 of

another urgent motion for a TRO in which petitioners imputed to the Committee the
intention to harass them as, except for petitioner Romero II, none of them had even
been mentioned in relation to the subject of the investigation.
Meanwhile, respondents, in compliance with our September 5, 2006
Resolution that ordered them to submit a comment on the original plea for a TRO,
interposed an opposition, observing that the Senates motives in calling for an
investigation in aid of legislation were a political question. They also averred that
the pendency of Chavez is not sufficient ground to divest the respondents of their
jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the matters alleged in the petition.
In this petition, petitioners in gist claim that: (1) the subject matter of the
investigation is sub judice owing to the pendency of the Chavez petition; (2) since
the investigation has been intended to ascertain petitioners criminal liability for
plunder, it is not in aid of legislation; (3) the inquiry compelled them to appear and
testify in violation of their rights against self-incrimination; and (4) unless the Court
immediately issues a TRO, some or all of petitioners would be in danger of being
arrested, detained, and forced to give testimony against their will, before the Court
could resolve the issues raised in G.R. No. 164527.
In their Comment dated October 17, 2006, respondents made a distinction
between the issues raised in Chavez and the subject matter of the Senate
resolutions, nixing the notion of sub judice that petitioners raised at every possible
turn. Respondents averred that the subject matter of the investigation focused on
the alleged dissipation of OWWA funds and the purpose of the probe was to aid the
Senate determine the propriety of amending Republic Act No. 8042 or The Migrant
Workers Act of 1995 and enacting laws to protect OWWA funds in the future. They
likewise raised the following main arguments: (1) the proposed resolutions were a
proper subject of legislative inquiry; and (2) petitioners right against selfincrimination was well-protected and could be invoked when incriminating questions
were propounded.
On December 28, 2006, petitioners filed their Reply reiterating the arguments
stated in their petition, first and foremost of which is: Whether or not the subject
matter of the Committees inquiry is sub judice.

Issues:
Whether or not the exercise of legislative inquiry is not unconstitutional
Held and Ratio:

It is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Suffice it to state that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislationprovide that the filing or pendency of any prosecution or administrative
action should not stopor abate any inquiry to carry out a legislative purpose.
A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceedings has different
purposes. On one hand, courts conduct hearings or like adjudicative procedures to
settle, through the application of a law, actual controversies arising between
adverse litigants and involving demandable rights. On the other hand, inquiries in
aid of legislation are, inter alia, undertaken as tools to enable the legislative body to
gather information and, thus, legislate wisely and effectively; and to determine
whether there is a need to improve existing laws or enact new or remedial
legislation, albeit the inquiry need not result in any potential legislation. Ongoing judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of
legislation.