Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc vs COMELEC

FACTS:
The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) files a petition
for review and a motion for reconsideration to nullify Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13,2009 insofar as
it relates to PGBI and the Resolution dated December 9, 2009. These
resolutions delistedPGBI from the roster of registered national, regional or
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list system.
According to Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941, known as PartyList System Act,
COMELEC, upon verified complaint of any interested party, may remove or
cancel, after due notice and hearing, theregistration of any national, regional
or sectoral party, organization or coalition if: (1) it fails to participatein the
last two preceding elections or (2)fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%)
of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two preceding elections
for the constituency in which it has registered.For May 2010 Elections, the
COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 8679 deleting several partylistgroups or organizations from the list of registered national, regional or
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions. Among the party-list
organizations affected was PGBI; it was delisted because it failed to get 2%
of thevotes cast in 2004 and it did not participate in the 2007 elections.PGBI
filed its opposition to Resolution No. 8679 and likewise, sought for
accreditation as a party-listorganization. One of the arguments cited is that
the Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No. 177548 MINERO(Philippine Mines
Safety Environment Association) vs COMELEC cannot apply in the instant
controversy.One of the reasons is because the factual milieu of the cited case
is removed from PGBI's.
Additionally,
therequirement
of Section 6(8) has
been relaxed by the
Court's ruling
in G.R. No.
179271 -BANAT(Barangay
Association
for
Advancement and National Transparency) vs COMELEC. COMELEC denied the
motion and in response, pointed out that the MINERO ruling is squarely in
point, asMINERO failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and did not participate
at all in the 2004 elections.
ISSUE: Whether the MINERO ruling can be use as a legal basis in delisting
PGBI.
HELD: According to the Court, the MINERO ruling is an erroneous application
of Section 6(8) of RA 7941; hence,it cannot sustain PGBI's delisting from
the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral parties,organizations or
coalitions under the party-list system.First the law is clear in that the word
"or" is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independenceof one
thing from the other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in
the sense in which itordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word. Thus, the plain,

clear and unmistakable language of the law provides for two separate
reasons for delisting. Second, MINERO is diametrically opposed to the
legislative intent of Section 6(8) of RA 7941 andtherefore, simply cannot
stand. Its basic defect lies in its characterization of the non-participation of
a party-list organization in an election as similar to a failure to garner the 2%
threshold party-list vote. What MINERO effectively holds is that a party list
organization that does not participate in an electionnecessarily gets, by
default, less than 2% of the party-list votes. To be sure, this is a confused
interpretationof the law, given the law's clear and categorical language and
the legislative intent to treat the two scenariosdifferently. A delisting based
on a mixture or fusion of these two different and separate grounds
for delisting is therefore a strained application of the law - in jurisdictional
terms, it is an interpretation notwithin the contemplation of the framers of
the law and hence is a gravely abusive interpretation of the law.
Instead, what should be taken into account is the ruling in BANAT vs
COMELEC where the 2% party-listvote requirement provided in RA 7941
is partly invalidated.The Court rules that, in computing the allocation of
additional seats, the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section
11(b)of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional; it finds that the two percent
threshold makes it mathematicallyimpossible to achieve the maximum
number of available party list seats when the number of available partylist
seats exceeds 50.The continued operation of the two percent threshold in
the distribution of theadditional seats frustrates the attainment of the
permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives
shall consist of party-list representatives.To reiterate, Section 6(8) of RA
7941 provides
for
two
separate
grounds
for
delisting;
these
grounds cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting; and the
disqualification for failure to garner 2% party-list votesin two preceding
elections should now be understood, in light of the BANAT ruling, to mean
failure toqualify for a party-list seat in two preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered. This ishow Section 6(8) of RA 7941
should be understood and applied under the authority of the Supreme
Courtto state what the law is and as an exception to the application of the
principle of stare decisis (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things
which are established).The most compelling reason to abandon MINERO and
strike it out from ruling case law is that it wasclearly an erroneous application
of the law - an application that the principle of stability or predictability
of decisions alone cannot sustain. MINERO did unnecessary violence to the
language of the law, the intent of the legislature and to the rule of law in
general.Therefore, the Supreme Court grants PGBIs petition and accordingly,
annul COMELEC Resolution No.8679 dated October 13, 2009 insofar as the
petitioner PGBI is concerned and the Resolution datedDecember 9, 2009
which denied PGBI's motion for reconsideration. PGBI is qualified to be voted
upon asa party-list group or organization in the May 2010 elections