G.R. Nos. 206844-45, July 23, 2013, LEONARDO DE-CASTRO. J.
If the term-sharing agreement was not actually implemented by the parties thereto, it appears that SENIOR CITIZENS, as a party-list organization, had been unfairly and arbitrarily penalized by the Comelec En Banc. There can be no disobedience on the part of SENIOR CITIZENS when its nominees, in fact, desisted from carrying out their agreement.
Facts:
In May 2010, the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS signed an agreement, entitled Irrevocable Covenant, which contains the list of their candidates and terms on sharing of their powers. It contained an agreement on who among the candidates will serve the terms according to the power sharing agreement. By virtue of the term-sharing agreement, the term of Kho as member of the HR was cut short to 1 yr and 6 mos. In line with this, Kho tendered his resignation to be effective on December 31, 2011. In the interim, Comelec Resolution was promulgated on February 21, 2012.
Pertinently, Section 7 of Rule 4 thereof provided that filing of vacancy as a result of term sharing agreement among nominees of winning party-list groups/organizations shall not be allowed. On March 12, 2012, the Board of Trustees of SENIOR CITIZENS issued recalled the resignation of Kho and allowed him to continue to represent the party-list. Despite of the recall of resignation, Comelec found the term-sharing agreement contrary to public policy and hence resolved to CANCEL the registration of SENIOR CITIZENS under the Party-List System of Representation.
Issue:
Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it disqualified and cancelled the registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS solely on account of its purported violation of the prohibition against term-sharing.
Ruling:
Yes. There was no indication that the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS still tried to implement, much less succeeded in implementing, the term-sharing agreement. Before this Court, the Arquiza Group and the Datol Group insist on this fact of non-implementation of the agreement. Thus, for all intents and purposes, Rep. Kho continued to hold his seat and served his term as a member of the House of Representatives.
Indubitably, if the term-sharing agreement was not actually implemented by the parties thereto, it appears that SENIOR CITIZENS, as a party-list organization, had been unfairly and arbitrarily penalized by the
Comelec En Banc. Verily, how can there be disobedience on the part of SENIOR CITIZENS when its nominees, in fact, desisted from carrying out their agreement? Hence, there was no violation of an election law, rule, or regulation to speak of. Clearly then, the disqualification of SENIOR CITIZENS and the cancellation of its registration and accreditation have no legal leg to stand on.
ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC AND THE SELF-STYLED SHAM ATING KOOP PARTYLIST
G.R. No. 205505 September 29, 2015 SERENO, J.
In the case of party-list representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives.
Facts:
After Comelec proclaimed Ating Koop as one of the winning party-list groups, Isidro Lico who was the first nominee, subsequently took his oath of office. Several months prior to its proclamation as one of the winning party-list organisations, Ating Koop issued a Resolution which incorporated a term-sharing agreement signed by its nominees. Under the agreement, petitioner Lico was to serve as Party-list Representative for the first year of the three-year term. Then when held its Second National Convention, it introduced amendments which would short the three-year term of the incumbent members then was replaced by the Rimas group. Almost one year after petitioner Lico had assumed office, a petition was filed expelling him from Ating Koop for disloyalty. Apart from allegations of malversation and graft and corruption, the Committee cited petitioner Lico's refusal to honor the term-sharing agreement as factual basis for disloyalty and as cause for his expulsion under Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-laws. Comelec Second Division upheld the expulsion of petitioner while Comelec en banc dismissed the petition holding that it had no jurisdiction to expel Congressman Lico from the House of Representatives, considering that his expulsion from Ating Koop affected his qualifications as member of the House, and therefore it was the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) that had jurisdiction over the petition. However, it upheld the validity of his expulsion.
Issue:
Whether or not Comelec has jurisdiction over the expulsion of a Member of the House of Representatives from his party-list organization.
Ruling:
No. Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution endows the HRET with jurisdiction to resolve questions on the qualifications of members of
Congress. In the case of party-list representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives. In this case, the Comelec proclaimed Ating Koop as a winning party-list group; petitioner Lico took his oath; and he assumed office in the House of Representatives. Thus, it is the HRET, and not the Comelec, that has jurisdiction over the disqualification case.
ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 206952, October 22, 2013, REYES, J.
Sectoral parties or organizations, such as ABANG LINGKOD, are no longer required to adduce evidence showing their track record. It is sufficient that the ideals represented by the sectoral organizations are geared towards the cause of the sector/s, which they represent.
Facts:
Comelec cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's registration as a party-list group.
It pointed out that ABANG LINGKOD failed to establish its track record in uplifting the cause of the marginalized and underrepresented; that it merely offered photographs of some alleged activities it conducted after the May 2010 elections. It further opined that ABANG LINGKOD failed to show that its nominees are themselves marginalized and underrepresented or that they have been involved in activities aimed at improving the plight of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors it claims to represent.
Issue:
Whether or not Comelec gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD’s registration under the party-list system for the latter’s failure to prove its track record.
Ruling:
Yes. Contrary to the Comelec's claim, sectoral parties or organizations, such as ABANG LINGKOD, are no longer required to adduce evidence showing their track record, i.e. proof of activities that they have undertaken to further the cause of the sector they represent. Indeed, it is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. Otherwise stated, it is sufficient that the ideals represented by the sectoral organizations are geared towards the cause of the sector/s, which they represent.
There is thus no basis in law and established jurisprudence to insist that groups seeking registration under the party-list system still comply with the track record requirement. Indeed, nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is it mandated that groups seeking registration thereunder must submit evidence to show their track record as a group.
DARYL GRACE J. ABAYON v. THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
G.R. No. 189466 February 11, 2010 ABAD, J.
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.
Facts:
In G.R. 189466, petitioner Daryl Grace J. Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-list organization that won a seat in the House of Representatives during the 2007 elections. Respondents filed a petition for quo warranto with respondent HRET against petitioner Abayon. They claimed that Aangat Tayo was not eligible for a party-list seat in the House of Representatives, since it did not represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors since she did not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, she being the wife of an incumbent congressional district representative. It was Aangat Tayo that was taking a seat in the House of Representatives, and not Abayon who was just its nominee. All questions involving her eligibility as first nominee, said Abayon, were internal concerns of Aangat Tayo.
In G.R. 189506, petitioner Jovito S. Palparan, Jr. is the first nominee of the Bantay party-list group that won a seat in the 2007 elections for the members of the House of Representatives. Lesaca and the others alleged that Palparan was ineligible to sit in the House of Representatives as party-list nominee because he did not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that Bantay represented, namely, the victims of communist rebels, Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGUs), former rebels, and security guards. Petitioner Palparan countered that the HRET had no jurisdiction over his person since it was actually the party-list Bantay, not he, that was elected to and assumed membership in the House of Representatives. Palparan claimed that he was just Bantay’s nominee.
Consequently, any question involving his eligibility as first nominee was an internal concern of Bantay. Such question must be brought, he said, before that party-list group, not before the HRET.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent HRET has jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan.
Ruling:
Yes. 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. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, identifies who the “members” of that House are representatives of districts and party list.
Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. Since a party-list nominees are “elected members” of the House of Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the Comelec’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins
LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS DANTE V. LIBAN, et al. v. RICHARD J. GORDON
G.R. No. 175352, July 15, 2009, CARPIO, J.
The office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a GOCC for purposes of the prohibition in Sec. 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Facts:
Petitioners Liban, et al. were officers of the Board of Directors of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter, they filed with the Supreme Court what they styled as “Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate” against respondent Gordon, who was elected Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors during his incumbency as Senator. Petitioners alleged that by accepting the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, respondent Gordon ceased to be a member of the Senate pursuant to Sec. 13, Article VI of the Constitution.
Formerly, in its Decision in 2009, the Court held that the office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a GOCC for purposes of the prohibition in Sec. 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not Gordon ceased to be a member of the Senate.
Ruling:
No. The office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a GOCC for purposes of the prohibition in Sec. 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. A government-owned or controlled corporation must be owned by the government, and in the case of a stock corporation, at least a majority of its capital stock must be owned by the government. In the case of a non-stock corporation, by analogy at least a majority of the members must be government officials holding such membership by appointment or designation by the government. Under this criterion, the government does not own or control PNRC.