An Waray Party-List v. COMELEC

 

An Waray Party-List v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 268546

August 6, 2024

 

FACTS:

                An Waray is a duly registered multi-sectoral party-list organization which participated in the 2013 National and Local Elections (NLE). It obtained 1.96% of the total votes cast for party-lists, thereby emerging as one of the winners of seats in the House of Representatives (HoR). In a Resolution of COMELEC, An Waray was one of the 14 party-list groups proclaimed as initial winners, guaranteed with one seat each. Its representative, Montejo took his oath of office. The COMELEC accepted Acidre’s (one of the representatives) resignation. On October 22, 2013, in Abang Lingkod Party-List v. COMELEC, the Court reversed COMELEC’s cancellation of Abang Lingkod’s party-list registration. Abang Lingokd was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups. An Waray was listed as entitled to only one guaranteed seat. It continued to participate in the party-list elections and was able to secure one seat in the HoR in 2016, 2019 and 2022. On May 10, 2019, Pornias filed a petition for the cancellation of An Waray’s registration pursuant to Sec. 6 of RA 7941 or the Party-List System Act. They asserted that Victoria, with the knowledge and consent of An Waray, deliberately took her oath of office as a Member of Congress not only without having been validly proclaimed by the NBOC, but also when An Waray was finally adjudged to have been legally entitled to one seat only. The COMELEC cancelled An Waray Party-list’s registration.

ISSUE:

1.       Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it cancelled An Waray’s registration as a party-list organization.

2.       Whether or not the HRET, not COMELEC, has jurisdiction to cancel An Waray’s registration as a party-list whose nominees became a Member of the HoR.

3.       Whether or not An Waray’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated by COMELEC.

4.       Whether or not the petition to cancel the registration of An Waray as a party-list has already prescribed.

HELD:

1.       No. The power of COMELEC to register party-lists is echoed in RA 7941, which confers upon COMELEC the sole and exclusive jurisdiction and to act on petitions for registration of party-lists, after the same is published and after the parties are given due notice and hearing. When it acts on petitions for registration, it includes denying such petitions. Art. IX-C Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

 

SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:

(5)

Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.

 

Clearly, both the Constitution and the statute-Republic Act No. 7941-' categorically vest in COMELEC the power and authority to decide on matters relating to an organization's participation in the party-list system-from the grant or denial of its petition for registration as a party, organization or coalition to participate in the party-list elections, to the cancellation of a previously granted registration.

 

 

2.       The COMELEC has jurisdiction. its authority over the case attaches until final judgment is rendered, the jurisdiction of COMELEC over cases involving the qualifications and eligibilities of candidates for representatives in the HoR transfers to the HRET when such candidates win and thereby assume office before the case filed before COMELEC is finally decided by it. A petition to disqualify can only be filed after the deadline for the filing of a CoC and until the date of proclamation of the winners. A petition to cancel or deny due course to a CoC must be filed within five days from the deadline to file CoCs64 until 25 days from when such assailed CoC was actually filed. This deadline to file CoCs normally falls about three months before the election date.

 

On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the HRET, following jurisprudence, arises after a candidate has been elected, proclaimed, has taken the proper oath of office and then assumed the position of Member of the HoR. Under normal circumstances, such assumption coincides with the start of the term of the office which is on June 30 following the elections.

 

In the present case involving a petition to cancel the party-list registration of An Waray, as An Waray is not a Member of the HoR, the case cannot fall under the HRET’s jurisdiction. COMELEC, thus, retains its jurisdiction over such cases pursuant to RA 7941 and the Constitution. Neither can Victoria’s membership in the HoR trigger the jurisdiction of the HoR. Apart from her not being the respondent in the main petition for cancellation, she is likewise not an incumbent HoR Member, as her term has long ended. Inasmuch as the respondent in an election case must have already been proclaimed as winner in the elections, had taken the proper oath of office, and had assumed as Member of the HoR, he or she must still possess such status, i.e., his or her term has not ended, in order for the HRET to retain jurisdiction over questions on the respondent’s election, returns, and qualification. Here, Victoria had long ceased to be a Member of the HoR thus, any ruling on this specific issue will no longer affect her as such Member, such issue being ripe only insofar as it determines whether An Waray committed a ground to cancel its registration.

 

3.       No. Under the COMELEC Rules, a division of COMELEC has 10 days to resolve a case from the time it is deemed submitted for such resolution, whereas the COMELEC En Banc has 30 days to resolve a motion for reconsideration of such a division’s decision, reckoned also from the time that the case is deemed submitted for decision. Here, the petition to cancel was filed in May of 2019. The COMELEC Division granted the same in June of 2023, and the COMELEC En Banc, later in August 2023, affirmed its Division on motion for reconsideration. Thus, there is no denying that COMELEC did in fact, incur in delay of almost four years in resolving the petition. Despite such, there was no violation of An Waray’s right to speedy disposition of cases.

(1)    An Waray had waived its right to speedy disposition of cases as it failed to raise the same in the four years that the case was pending with the COMELEC;

(2)    The delay caused no actual prejudice to petitioners as even after the petition was filed and remained pending in 2019 and 2022, An Waray was still able to participate, and, in fact, was still able to win seats in the HoR in both election years.

In Cagang case, the Court ruled that the right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law. The right to speedy disposition of cases, however, may be invoked before any tribunal, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. What is important is that the accused may already be prejudiced by the proceeding for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be invoked. It can be applied to administrative cases that can result in criminal indictments.

 

4.       No. The petition to can An Waray’s party-list registration has not prescribed under Section 267 of the OEC because this law applies only to election offenses. “Election offenses shall prescribe after five years from the date of their commission. If the discovery of the offense be made in an election contest proceedings, the period of prescription shall commence on the date on which the judgment in such proceedings becomes final and executory.”

Notably, Sections 261 and 262 of the OEC specify the acts which constitute an election offense. A perusal of the said provisions in the OEC shows that a petition to cancel a party-list's registration is not among the acts considered as an election offense. In statutory construction, the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule is expressed in the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Indubitably, the petition to cancel An Waray's registration has not prescribed under Section 267 of the OEC as it is not an election offense.