Abang-Lingkod vs. Comelec,
G.R. No. 2096952, October 22, 2013
En Banc [REYES, J.]
Facts:
ABANG LINGKOD is a sectoral organization that represents the interests of peasant fanners and fisher-folks, and was registered under the party-list system on December 22, 2009. It participated in the May 2010 elections, but failed to obtain the number of votes needed for a seat in the House of Representatives.
ABANG LINGKOD manifested before the COMELEC its intent to participate in the May 2013 elections. On August 2, 2012, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9513, which, inter alia required previously registered party-list groups that have filed their respective Manifestations of Intent to undergo summary evidentiary hearing for purposes of determining their continuing compliance with the requirements under R.A. No. 7941 and the guidelines set forth in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC.
Accordingly, on August 9 2012, the COMELEC issued a Resolution, which set the summary evidentiary hearing of previously registered party-list groups. The COMELEC scheduled three (3) dates -August 17, 31 and September 3, 2012 -for the summary hearing of ABANG LINGKOD's Manifestation of Intent to enable it to show proof of its continuing qualification under the party-list system.
After due proceedings, the COMELEC En Banc in a Resolution dated November 7 2012, cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's registration as a party-list group. The COMELEC En Banc 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. The COMELEC En Banc 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.
On April 2, 2013, the Court, in Atong Paglaum Inc. v. Commission on Elections, laid down new parameters to be observed by the COMELEC in screening parties, organizations or associations seeking registration and/or accreditation under the party-list system:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are marginalized and underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political constituencies" include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of the sectoral parties or organizations that represent the ''marginalized and underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" or that represent those who lack "well-defined political constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record or advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.
Thus, the Court remanded to the COMELEC the cases of previously registered party-list groups, including that of ABANG LINGKOD, to determine whether they are qualified under the party-list system pursuant to the new parameters laid down by the Court and, in the affirmative, be allowed to participate in the May 2013 party-list elections.
In maintaining the cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration, the COMELEC held that: The Commission maintains its position in the previous en banc ruling cancelling the registration of ABANG LINGKOD. To reiterate, it is not enough that the party-list organization claim representation of the marginalized and underrepresented because representation is easy to claim and to feign. It is but reasonable to require from groups and organizations consistent participation and advocacy in the sector it seeks to represent, and not just seasonal and sporadic programs which are unrelated to its sector.
ABANG LINGKOD submitted pictures showing a seminar held on 10 July 2010, Medical Mission on 11 November 2010, Disaster Management Training on 21 October 2011, Book-giving on 28 June 2011, and Medical Mission on 1 December 2011. And as if to insult the Commission, the photographs submitted appear to have been edited to show in the banners that ABANG LINGKOD participated in the activities. ABANG LINGKOD's name and logo was superimposed on some banners to feign participation in the activities (Joint Medical Mission, Book-giving).
Under the party-list System Act, a group’s registration may be cancelled for declaring unlawful statements in its petition. Photoshopping images to establish a fact that did not occur is tantamount to declaring unlawful statements. It is on this ground that the Commission cancels ABANG LINGKOD s registration.
Issue 1:
Whether ABANG LINGKOD was denied due process when the COMELEC affirmed the cancellation of its registration under the party-list system sans any summary evidentiary hearing.
Held:
No; the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or as applied to administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek 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 requirements are satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is the absolute lack of notice or hearing.
There was no necessity for the COMELEC to conduct further summary evidentiary hearing to assess the qualification of ABANG LINGKOD pursuant to Atong Paglaum. ABANG LINGKOD’s Manifestation of Intent and all the evidence adduced by it to establish its qualification as a party-list group are already in the possession of the COMELEC. Thus, conducting further summary evidentiary hearing for the sole purpose of determining ABANG LINGKOD s qualification under the party-list system pursuant to Atong Paglaum would just be a superfluity.
Contrary to ABANG LINGKOD’s claim, the Court, in Atong Paglaum, did not categorically require the COMELEC to conduct a summary evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the qualifications of the petitioners therein pursuant to the new parameters for screening party-list groups.
The records also disclose that ABANG LINGKOD was able to file with the COMELEC a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 10, 2013, negating its claim that it was denied due process. As it has been held, deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given a chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.
Issue 2:
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD’s registration under the party-list system.
Held:
Yes; the COMELEC affirmed the cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration on the ground that it declared untruthful statement in its bid for accreditation as a party-list group in the May 2013 elections, pointing out that it deliberately submitted digitally altered photographs of activities to make it appear that it had a track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented. Essentially, ABANG LINGKOD's registration was cancelled on the ground that it failed to adduce evidence showing its track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented.
The flaw in the COMELEC's disposition lies in the fact that it insists on requiring party-list groups to present evidence showing that they have a track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented. Track record is a record of past performance often taken as an indicator of likely future performance. As a requirement imposed by Ang Bagong Bayani for groups intending to participate in the party-list elections, track record pertains to the actual activities undertaken by groups to uplift the cause of the sector/s, which they represent.
R.A. No. 7941 did not require groups intending to register under the party-list system to submit proof of their track record as a group. The track record requirement was only imposed in Ang Bagong Bayani where the Court held that national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations seeking registration under the party-list system must prove through their, inter alia track record that they truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented.
This is not merely a matter of semantics; the delineation of what constitutes a track record has certain consequences in a group's bid for registration under the party-list system. Under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941, groups intending to register under the party-list system are not required to submit evidence of their track record; they are merely required to attach to their verified petitions their "constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers, coalition agreement, and other relevant information as may be required by the COMELEC."
In Atong Paglaum the Court has modified to a great extent the jurisprudential doctrines on who may register under the party-list system and the representation of the marginalized and underrepresented. For purposes of registration under the party-list system, national or regional parties or organizations need not represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector; that representation of the marginalized and underrepresented is only required of sectoral organizations that represent the sectors stated under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 that are, by their nature, economically marginalized and underrepresented.
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.
However, submission of a group's constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers, coalition agreement, and other relevant information required by the COMELEC, as explained earlier, is not synonymous with the track record requirement. In such case, only sectoral organizations would be required to present a track record (actual activities conducted by them to further the cause of the marginalized and underrepresented); while national and regional organizations need not present their track record as they are only required to submit documentary evidence showing that they are bona fide organizations.
In the case of sectoral organizations, although they are still required to represent the marginalized and underrepresented, they are likewise not required to show a track record since there would be no reason for them to feign representation of the marginalized and underrepresented as they can just register as a national or regional party or organization. Thus, the Court, in Atong Paglaum stated that, for purposes of registration under the party-list system, it is enough that the principal advocacy of sectoral organizations pertains to the sector/s they represent.
It must be stressed that the COMELEC cancelled ABANG LINGKOD s registration solely on the ground of the lack of its track record -that it falsely represented, by submitting digitally altered photographs of its supposed activities, that it had a track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented. The existence of ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list group per se and the genuineness of its representation of the farmers and fisherfolks were never raised in the proceedings before the COMELEC. It would thus be the height of injustice in the Court, in this certiorari action, would scrutinize the legitimacy of ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list group and the genuineness of its representation of the farmers and fisherfolk, and affirm the cancellation of its registration, when the issue is limited only to the track record of ABANG LINGKOD.
Moreover, ABANG LINGKOD had been previously registered as a party-list group, as in fact it participated in the May 2010 party-list elections, and it was able to obtain a sufficient number of votes in the May 2013 party-list elections to obtain a seat in the House of Representatives. These are circumstances, which clearly indicate that ABANG LINGKOD is indeed a legitimate party-list group.
ABANG LINGKOD, notwithstanding the cancellation of its registration three days prior to the May 13, 2013 elections, was able to obtain a total of 260 215 votes out of the 26 722 131 votes that were cast for the party-list, thus entitling it to a seat in the House of Representatives. This is indicative of the fact that a considerable portion of the electorate considers ABANG LINGKOD as truly representative of peasant farmers and fisherfolk.
Lest it be misunderstood, the Court does not condone the deceit perpetrated by ABANG LINGKOD in connection with its bid for continued registration under the party-list system. That ABANG LINGKOD, to establish its track record, submitted photographs that were edited to make it appear that it conducted activities aimed at ameliorating the plight of the sectors it represents is a factual finding by the COMELEC, which the Court, considering that it is supported by substantial evidence, will not disturb. The Court does not tolerate ABANG LINGKOD s resort to chicanery and its shabby treatment of the requirements for registration under the party-list system.
Nevertheless, considering that track record is no longer a requirement, a group’s misrepresentation as to its track record cannot be used as a ground to deny or cancel its registration -it is no longer material to its qualification under the party-list system. In this case, ABANG LINGKOD s submission of digitally altered photographs cannot be considered material to its qualification as a party-list group.
Declaration of an untruthful statement in a petition for registration, or in any other document pertinent to the registration and/or accreditation under the party-list system, as a ground for the refusal or cancellation of registration under Section 6(6) of R.A. No. 7941, is akin to material misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy filed by an individual candidate under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Both provisions disallow prospective candidates from participating in an election for declaring false statements in their eligibility requirements.
Elucidating on what constitutes material misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, the Court, in Lluz v. Commission on Elections, explained that: From these two cases several conclusions follow. First a misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy is material when it refers to a qualification for elective office and affects the candidate s eligibility. x x x Third a misrepresentation of a non-material fact, or a non-material misrepresentation, is not a ground to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78. In other words, for a candidate s certificate of candidacy to be denied due course or canceled by the COMELEC, the fact misrepresented must pertain to a qualification for the office sought by the candidate.
In Velasco v. Commission on Elections, the Court further clarified that a false representation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, in order to be a ground to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy, must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.
The false representation that [Sections 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code] mention must necessarily pertain to a material fact, not to a mere innocuous mistake.
No comments:
Post a Comment