V.C. Cadangen vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 177179, June 5, 2009 [Case Digest]

 

V.C. Cadangen vs. Comelec,

G.R. No. 177179,   June 5, 2009

En Banc [NACHURA, J.]

Facts:

            On September 13, 2006, petitioner Alliance of Civil Servants, Inc. (Civil Servants), represented by its then president, Atty. Sherwin R. Lopez, filed a petition for registration as a sectoral organization under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act. It claimed, among others, that it had been in existence since December 2004 and it sought to represent past and present government employees in the party-list system.

            The COMELEC Second Division, on December 11, 2006, issued an Order requiring Civil Servants to file a memorandum that would prove its presence or existence nationwide, track record, financial capability to wage a nationwide campaign, platform of government, officers and membership, and compliance with the provisions of the Party-List System Act and the eight-point guideline laid down by this Court in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections.

            Civil Servants consequently filed the required memorandum attaching thereto the following documents: (1) copies of its letters to the respective election directors/officers/registrars of the Cordillera Administrative Region, Second District of Quezon City, and the cities of Iloilo, Cotabato, Urdaneta and Dagupan, informing them of the names and addresses of its members in the said localities; (2) revised list of its members as of November 30, 2006; (3) list of its incorporators with brief descriptions of their credentials, including their designations/appointments in government offices; (4) printed screen shot of the Internet homepage of its on-line forum; (5) summary of its major activities and accomplishments since its inception; (6) financial statement showing its net asset of ₱399,927.00; (7) platform of government; and (8) list of its current officers with a summary of their credentials.

            COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution denying Civil Servants’ petition for registration.

            Thus, in determining whether or not a party can participate in the party list elections, the Commission (Second Division) is not only bound to verify the veracity of every petition, but also to see to it that members of these organizations belong to the marginalized and the underrepresented. Also put to test here is every petitioner’s capacity to represent and voice out the sentiments and needs of the sector it represents. The eight-point guideline also requires that the party or organization seeking registration should lack a well-defined political constituency but could, nonetheless, contribute to the formulation of appropriate legislation to benefit the nation as a whole. Thus, guided by the provisions of R.A. 7941 and the eight point (sic) guideline enunciated in the Ang Bagong Bayani case, the Commission (Second Division) hereby resolves the following petitions for registration.

            On the issue of petitioner’s constituency which it claims to be nationwide, this cannot be established by mere letters to the Commission’s Election Officers and providing them with a copy of the list of officers and members. To establish the extent of the constituencies of the different parties and organizations as claimed by them, the Commission directed its Election Officers to verify the existence of petitioner’s chapters allegedly present in the NCR and the different regions. The verification report shows that CIVIL SERVANTS exists only in Parañaque City’s (1st and 2nd Districts) and in Quezon City’s (4th District), contrary to petitioner’s claim of national constituency in its memorandum. For having failed to prove its existence nationwide and for having declared an untruthful statement in its memorandum, We resolve to DENY the instant petition.

            COMELEC en banc, in the assailed March 26, 2007 Resolution, denied the motion.

 

Issue:

            Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

 

Held:

            No; incumbent on petitioner is the duty to show that the COMELEC, in denying the petition for registration, gravely abused its discretion. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility. The abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law.  Here, petitioner failed to demonstrate, and neither do we find, that the COMELEC, through the questioned issuances, gravely abused its discretion.

            We note that in the registration of a party, organization, or coalition under R.A. No. 7941, the COMELEC may require the submission of any relevant information; and it may refuse, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition based on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 6 thereof, among which is that the organization has declared untruthful statements in its petition. The COMELEC, after evaluating the documents submitted by petitioner, denied the latter’s plea for registration as a sectoral party, not on the basis of its failure to prove its nationwide presence, but for its failure to show that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Further, the COMELEC found that petitioner made an untruthful statement in the pleadings and documents it submitted.

            The Court emphasizes that the sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and it does not include a review of the tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence.18 The findings of fact made by the COMELEC, or by any other administrative agency exercising expertise in its particular field of competence, are binding on the Court. The Court is not a trier of facts; it is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth of factual allegations. The Court’s function, as mandated by Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, is merely to check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, this Court will have no occasion to exercise its corrective power. It has no authority to inquire into what it thinks is apparent error.

            Thus, in this case, the Court cannot grant the prayer of petitioner for registration as a sectoral party, because to do so will entail an evaluation of the evidence to determine whether indeed petitioner qualifies as a party-list organization and whether it has made untruthful statements in its application for registration.