PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD v COMELEC

GR. No. 190529 (2010)

DOCTRINE

 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 of hearing is not all times essential.
The requirement is satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain their side of the controversy at hand.
 SC cited the Doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to
unsettle things which are established). It requires courts in a country to follow the rule
established in a decision of its supreme court.

FACTS

Sec. 6 of RA 7941 (Party list system act) provides that the Comelec may motu proprio or upon verified
complaint of any party, remove or cancel the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party on
the ground that if it fails to participate in the last 2 elections or fails to obtain at least 2% of votes cast
under the party-list system in the 2 preceding elections. COMELEC then issued Resolution No. 2847
which replicates the said provision in the election of the party list representatives.

In the 2010 elections, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8679 deleting several party-list groups from the
list of registered parties. Among the party-list was PGBI because it failed to get 2% of votes cast in 2004
and did not participate in the 2007 elections. PGBI filed an opposition to the Resolution stating that Sec.
4 of RA 7941 which a party who is already registered is no longer to register anew and has the option to
choose whether or not to participate in the next succeeding election. Also PGBI asserted that Minero v
COMELEC cannot be applied to the case at hand and the challenged resolution should be suspended to
prevent mis carriage of justice

COMELEC denied PGBI’s motion for lack of merit namely; PGBI misunderstoon the import of Sec. 4 of RA
7941because the provision means that without the required manifestation or does not participate the
exemption from registration does not arise and the party must go through the process and apply for
requalification. Next, Minero ruling is on point to the case at hand because MINERO failed to get 2% of
votes and did not participate in the next elections. And Lastly PGBI is given an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action complained.

PGBI then filed for certiorari but dismissed the petition because being the same and applied RA 7941 in
the case of MINERO. PGBI moved to reconsider the dismissal and claimed that contrary to law, the
evidence and existing jurisprudence and asserts that RA 7941 does not apply due to the deliberations
inclusive in Senate Bill No. 1913 stating that they are two grounds and not two separate grounds for
removal. PGBI asserts that it does not apply to them because as it fails to participate in 1 but not 2
preceding elections

ISSUE

W/N there is legal basis for delisting PGBI

W/N PGBI’s right to due process was violated
RULING

SC GRANTED THE PETITION AND ANNUL COMELEC RESOLUTION 8679

SC on Minero Ruling; Law is clear because stated there is “(a) fails to participate 2 preceding elections
OR (b) fails to obtain 2% of votes…” The word “OR” signifies disassociation and independence of one
thing and other things enumerated and should be construed as a disjunctive word. Second, Minero
ruling cant stand because its defect lies in its characterization of non-participation of party-list
organization as similar to failure to garner 2% of votes. It held that if a party-list does not participate it
will be by default failure to garner 2% of votes. And in light of BANAT ruling we interpreted Sec 6 of RA
7941 ground “failure to garner 2% of party list votes in two preceding elections” should be understood
as “failure to qualify for a party-list seat in two preceedinging elections for the constituency in which it
has registered.”

SC cited the Doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to
unsettle things which are established). It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a
decision of its supreme court. Minero was clearly an erroneous application of the law and SC cannot
allow PGBI to be prejudiced by its validity thus striking it out from our ruling case law.

SC on the issue of due process; SC agrees with the COMELEC that PGBI’s right to due process was not
violated for it was given an opportunity to seek reconsideration of Resolution No. 8679. 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 of hearing is not all times essential. The requirement is
satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy at hand.

DISSENTING OPINION

DISAGREE WITH REVERSING MINERO RULING because legislature intended the two separate grounds to
be complementary because its purpose is to put the party-list org, a voter’s preference test. It means
that a party must prove by the results of the preceding 2 elections that it retains the required level of
voters preference. PGBI would be able to circumvent the voter’s preference test that it needs to pass to
remain registered and it would succeed in putting one over the parties exerted efforts to get the
required level of voter’s preference.