EN BANC

[G.R. No. 190529. April 29, 2010.]

PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI), represented

by its Secretary-General GEORGE "FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO ,
petitioner, vs . COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS , respondent.

RESOLUTION

BRION , J : p

The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) seeks in this petition for
certiorari 1 and in the motion for reconsideration it subsequently led 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 denying
PGBI's motion for reconsideration in SPP No. 09-004 (MP). Via these resolutions, the
COMELEC delisted PGBI from the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral
parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list system.
BACKGROUND
Section 6 (8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party-
List System Act, provides:
Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The COMELEC
may motu proprio or upon veri ed complaint of any interested party, remove or
cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or
sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to
obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system
in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
[Emphasis supplied.] HCATEa

The COMELEC replicated this provision in COMELEC Resolution No. 2847 the Rules
and Regulations Governing the Election of the Party-List Representatives through the
Party-List System which it promulgated on June 25, 1996.
For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC en banc issued on October
13, 2009 Resolution No. 8679 deleting several party-list groups 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 the votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate
in the 2007 elections. Nevertheless, the COMELEC stated in this Resolution that any
national, regional sectoral party or organizations or coalitions adversely affected can
personally or through its authorized representative le a veri ed opposition on October
26, 2009.
PGBI led its Opposition to Resolution No. 8679, but likewise sought, through its
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 pleading, the admission ad cautelam of its petition for accreditation as a party-list
organization under the Party-List System Act. Among other arguments, PGBI asserted
that:
(1) The assailed resolution negates the right of movant and those similarly
situated to invoke Section 4 of R.A. No. 7941, which allows any party,
organization and coalition already registered with the Commission to no
longer register anew; the party though is required to le with the
Commission, not later than ninety (90) days before the election, a
manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system; since PGBI
led a Request/Manifestation seeking a deferment of its participation in
the 2007 elections within the required period prior to the 2007 elections, it
has the option to choose whether or not to participate in the next
succeeding election under the same conditions as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed;

(2) The Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No. 177548 Philippine Mines Safety
Environment Association, also known as "MINERO" v. Commission on
Elections cannot apply in the instant controversy for two reasons: (a) the
factual milieu of the cited case is removed from PGBI's; (b) MINERO, prior
to delisting, was afforded the opportunity to be heard, while PGBI and the
25 others similarly affected by Resolution No. 8679 were not. Additionally,
the requirement of Section 6(8) has been relaxed by the Court's ruling in
G.R. No. 179271 (Banat v. COMELEC) and the exclusion of PGBI and the
25 other party-list is a denial of the equal protection of the laws;

(3) The implementation of the challenged resolution should be suspended

and/or aborted to prevent a miscarriage of justice in view of the failure to
notify the parties in accordance with the same Section 6(8) or R.A. No.
7941. 2

The COMELEC denied PGBI's motion/opposition for lack of merit.

First, the COMELEC observed that PGBI clearly misunderstood the import of
Section 4 of R.A. 7941. 3 The provision simply means that without the required
manifestation or if a party or organization does not participate, the exemption from
registration does not arise and the party, organization or coalition must go through the
process again and apply for requali cation; a request for deferment would not exempt
PGBI from registering anew. aCSDIc

Second, the MINERO ruling is squarely in point, as MINERO failed to get 2% of the
votes in 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections.
Third, PGBI was given an opportunity to be heard or to seek the reconsideration
of the action or ruling complained of the essence of due process; this is clear from
Resolution No. 8679 which expressly gave the adversely affected parties the
opportunity to file their opposition.
As regards the alternative relief of application for accreditation, the COMELEC
found the motion to have been led out of time, as August 17, 2009 was the deadline
for accreditation provided in Resolution 8646. The motion was obviously led months
after the deadline.
PGBI came to us in its petition for certiorari, arguing the same positions it raised
with the COMELEC when it moved to reconsider its delisting.
We initially dismissed the petition in light of our ruling in Philippine Mines Safety
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Environment Association, also known as "MINERO" v. Commission on Elections
(Minero); 4 we said that no grave abuse of discretion exists in a ruling that correctly
applies the prevailing law and jurisprudence. Applying Section 6 (8) of RA 7941, the
Court disqualified MINERO under the following reasoning:
Since petitioner by its own admission failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and
did not participate at all in the 2004 elections, it necessarily failed to get at least
two per centum (2%) of the votes cast in the two preceding elections. COMELEC,
therefore, is riot duty bound to certify it.

PGBI subsequently moved to reconsider the dismissal of its petition. Among

other arguments, PGBI claimed that the dismissal of the petition was contrary to law,
the evidence and existing jurisprudence. Essentially, PGBI asserts that Section 6 (8) of
RA 7941 does not apply if one is to follow the tenor and import of the deliberations
inclusive of the interpellations in Senate Bill No. 1913 on October 19, 1994. It cited the
following excerpts from the Records of the Senate:
Senator Gonzales:
On the other hand, Mr. President, under ground no. (7), Section 5 there are
actually two grounds it states: "Failure to participate in the last two (2)
preceding elections or its failure to obtain at least ten percent (10%) of the
votes case under the party-list system in either of the last two (2) preceding
elections for the constituency in which it has registered"

In short, the rst ground is that, it failed to participate in the last two (2) preceding
elections. The second is, failure to obtain at least 10 percent of the votes
cast under the party-list system in either of the last two preceding elections,
Mr. President,

Senator Tolentino:

Actually, these are two separate grounds.

Senator Gonzales:

There are actually two grounds , Mr. President.

Senator Tolentino:

Yes, Mr. President. 5 [Underscoring supplied.]

PGBI thus asserts that Section 6 (8) does not apply to its situation, as it is obvious that
it failed to participate in one (1) but not in the two (2) preceding elections. Implied in
this is that it also failed to secure the required percentage in one (1) but not in the two
(2) preceding elections.
Considering PGBI's arguments, we granted the motion and reinstated the
petition in the court's docket. ISaTCD

THE ISSUES
We are called upon to resolve: (a) whether there is legal basis for delisting PGBI;
and (b) whether PGBI's right to due process was violated.
OUR RULING
We find the petition partly impressed with merit.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 a. The Minero Ruling
Our 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 the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon veri ed
complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition if it: (a)
fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections; or (b) fails to obtain at least
two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2)
preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. 6 The word "or" is a
disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from the
other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it
ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word . 7 Thus, the plain, clear and unmistakable
language of the law provides for two (2) separate reasons for delisting.
Second, Minero is diametrically opposed to the legislative intent of Section 6 (8)
of RA 7941, as PGBI's cited congressional deliberations clearly show.
Minero therefore 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 election necessarily gets, by default,
less than 2% of the party-list votes. To be sure, this is a confused interpretation of the
law, given the law's clear and categorical language and the legislative intent to treat the
two scenarios differently. 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 not within the contemplation of the
framers of the law and hence is a gravely abusive interpretation of the law. 8
What we say here should of course take into account our ruling in Barangay
Association for Advancement and National Transparency v. COMELEC 9 (Banat) where
we partly invalidated the 2% party-list vote requirement provided in RA 7941 as
follows:
We rule 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. This Court nds that the two percent threshold makes it
mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party
list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued
operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats
frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the
House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.
DSHcTC

The disquali cation for failure to get 2% party-list votes in two (2) preceding elections
should therefore be understood in light of the Banat ruling that party-list groups or
organizations garnering less than 2% of the party-list votes may yet qualify for a seat in
the allocation of additional seats.
We need not extensively discuss Banat's signi cance, except to state that a
party-list group or organization which quali ed in the second round of seat allocation
cannot now validly be delisted for the reason alone that it garnered less than 2% in the
last two elections. In other words, the application of this disquali cation should
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 henceforth be contingent on the percentage of party-list votes garnered by the last
party-list organization that quali ed for a seat in the House of Representatives, a
percentage that is less than the 2% threshold invalidated in Banat. The disquali cation
should now necessarily be read to apply to party-list groups or organizations that did
not qualify for a seat in the two preceding elections for the constituency in which it
registered.
To reiterate, (a) Section 6 (8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate grounds for
delisting; these grounds cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting; and (b) the
disquali cation for failure to garner 2% party-list votes in two preceding elections
should now be understood, in light of the Banat ruling, to mean failure to qualify for a
party-list seat in two preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
This, we declare, is how Section 6 (8) of RA 7941 should be understood and applied.
We do so under our authority to state what the law is, 1 0 and as an exception to the
application of the principle of stare decisis.
The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and
not to unsettle things which are established) is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines which provides, thus:
ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.

The doctrine enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a

country to follow the rule established in a decision of its Supreme Court . That
decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts
in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question
of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to
further argument. 1 1 The doctrine is grounded on the necessity for securing certainty
and stability of judicial decisions, thus:
Time and again, the court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary
judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as
applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to
all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. Stare decisis et non
quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare
decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached
in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are
substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds
from the rst principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing
considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike . Thus, where the same
questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties
similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent
court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the
same issue. 1 2

The doctrine though is not cast in stone for upon a showing that circumstances
attendant in a particular case override the great bene ts derived by our judicial system
from the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting it aside. 1 3
As our discussion above shows, the most compelling reason to abandon Minero
exists; it was clearly 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. Clearly, we cannot allow PGBI to be prejudiced by the continuing
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 validity of an erroneous ruling. Thus, we now abandon Minero and strike it out from our
ruling case law.
We are aware that PGBI's situation a party list group or organization that failed
to garner 2% in a prior election and immediately thereafter did not participate in the
preceding election is something that is not covered by Section 6 (8) of RA 7941.
From this perspective, it may be an unintended gap in the law and as such is a matter
for Congress to address. We cannot and do not address matters over which full
discretionary authority is given by the Constitution to the legislature; to do so will
offend the principle of separation of powers. If a gap indeed exists, then the present
case should bring this concern to the legislature's notice. ITDHSE

b. The Issue of Due Process

On the due process issue, we agree with the COMELEC that PGBI's right to due
process was not violated for PGBI was given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a
reconsideration of Resolution No. 8679. The essence of due process, we have
consistently held, is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to administrative
proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to
seek a 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 requirement is satis ed
where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of
the controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and hearing . . .
. 1 4 We nd it obvious under the attendant circumstances that PGBI was not denied due
process. In any case, given the result of this Resolution, PGBI has no longer any cause
for complaint on due process grounds.
WHE RE FO RE , premises considered, we G RA N T the petition and accordingly
A N N U L COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 insofar as the
petitioner PGBI is concerned, and the Resolution dated December 9, 2009 which denied
PGBI's motion for reconsideration in SPP No. 09-004 (MP). PGBI is quali ed to be
voted upon as a party-list group or organization in the coming May 2010 elections.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, Corona, Carpio Morales, Nachura, Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Perez and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Puno, C.J. and Velasco, Jr., J., join J. Abad's dissent.
Peralta and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur in the result.
Abad, J., see dissenting opinion.

Separate Opinions
ABAD , J., dissenting :

This case stems from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc

resolution removing petitioner Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) from the
roster of registered party-list organizations because of its failure to obtain at least 2%
party-list votes in the May 2004 election and to participate in the May 2007 election.
I agree with the view of Justice Arturo D. Brion that Republic Act (R.A.) 7941
provides for two separate grounds for delisting a party-list organization, namely: a)
failure to participate in the last two preceding elections; or b) failure to garner at least
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered. SaHIEA

I also agree that because of the Court's decision in BANAT, 1 the needed
minimum 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections should now be
understood to mean the actual percentage of the votes garnered by the last party-list
organization that quali ed for a seat in the House of Representatives. But this could not
apply to PGBI because BANAT took effect only in the preceding May 2007 elections
and PGBI did not run in the same. It ran in the preceding May 2004 elections, when the
BANAT ruling did not yet exist, but failed to get at least 2% of the votes cast in those
elections.
I must disagree with the ponencia's view that the Court should reverse the
Minero ruling 2 that invoked Section 6 (8) of R.A. 7941, which provides:
Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration . The
COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon veri ed complaint of any
interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional, or sectoral party, organization or
coalition on any of the following grounds:

xxx xxx xxx

(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections fails
to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-
list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in
which it has registered.

Since by its own admission, Minero failed to get at least 2% of the votes in the
2001 elections and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections, the Court held that it
necessarily failed to get at least 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections.
The COMELEC was thus justified in canceling its registration.
The ponencia would allow PGBI to remain in the register of party-list
organizations and avert disquali cations because, according to it, PGBI cannot be said
to have failed to get at least 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections
because it only ran in one of those two elections. It cannot also be said to have failed to
take part in the two preceding elections because it ran in one of them. What is needed,
the ponencia claims, are two strikes for the same ground in the two preceding
elections.
But it is evident from Section 6 (8) above that the legislature intended the two
separate tests failure to take part in the last two preceding elections or failure to
garner at least 2% of the votes cast in such elections to be complimentary. Their
purpose is to put every party-list organization, which won the right to be registered, to a
two-election wringer, a voters' preference test, for lack of a better term to describe
it.
This means that, to remain in the party-list register and enjoy the right to take
part in the party-list election, a party must prove by the results of the preceding two
elections that it retains the required level of voters' preference. Failing in this, such party
shall be dropped by the COMELEC, without prejudice to its applying for new
registration after a mandatory one-term rest.
If the ponencia's views were to be followed, petitioner PGBI would be able to
circumvent the voters' preference test that it needs to pass to remain in the register of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 party-list organizations. It would succeed in putting one over the parties that exerted
efforts to get the required level of voters' preference. The following example should
illustrate the unfair result:
E lectio n YearParty-List XParty-List YPGBI Party

May 2004Deficient vo tesDid no t runDeficient vo tes

May 2007Deficient vo tesDid no t runDid no t run
May 2010CancelledCancelled No t cancelled
The register of party-list organizations cannot be allowed to grow in nitely. The
system cannot tolerate sectoral parties with low-levels of voters' preference to remain
on the ballot. For this reason, the legislature established a mechanism for attrition, the
enforcement of which is an important responsibility of the COMELEC. HCETDS

The Court must not abandon Minero. I vote to deny PGBI's motion for
reconsideration.

Footnotes

1.Filed under Rule 65 of the RULES OF COURT.

2.Rollo, pp. 42-48.
3.Sec. 4. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List System. Any party, organization or
coalition already registered with the Commission need not register anew. However, such
party, organization or coalition shall le with the Commission, not later than ninety (90)
days before the election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list
system.
4.G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007; see rollo of G.R. No. 177548, pp. 46-48.
5.Rollo, pp. 74-75.

6.Numbering supplied.
7.Agpalo, Statutory Construction, p. 204 (2003); see also The Heirs of George Poe v. Malayan
Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009.
8.See Varias v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189078, February 11, 2010 where we held
that the use of wrong considerations is an act not in contemplation of law a
jurisdictional error for this is one way of gravely abusing one's discretion.

9.G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009.

10.Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch [5 US] 137, 2 L ed 60 [1803]) holds that "it is emphatically
the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. "

11.See Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009, citing Fermin v. People, G.R. No.
157643, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 132.

12.Id., citing Chinese Young Men's Christian Association of the Philippine Islands v. Remington
Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 159422, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 180.
13.Ibid.
14.Bautista v. Comelec, 460 Phil. 459, 478 (2003).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 ABAD, J., dissenting:
1.Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 179295, April 21, 2009.
2.Philippine Mine Safety & Environment Association, also known as "MINERO" v. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com