1 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

G.R. No. 191771               May 6, 2010 major national parties, and two major local parties for the May 10, 2010 elections.
Resolution No. 8752 also set the deadline for filing of petitions for accreditation
LIBERAL PARTY, represented by its President Manuel A. Roxas II and on February 12, 2010 and required that accreditation applicants be registered
Secretary General Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, Petitioner, political parties, organizations or coalitions.
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NACIONALISTA PARTY, represented by its On February 12, 2010, the LP filed with the COMELEC its petition for
President Manuel B. Villar and NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION, accreditation as dominant minority party. On the same date, the Nacionalista
allegedly represented by its Chairman Faustino S. Dy, Jr., Respondents. Party (NP) and the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC) filed a petition for
registration as a coalition (NP-NPC) and asked that "it be recognized and
DECISION accredited as the dominant minority party for purposes of the May 10, 2010
elections."4 It was docketed as an SPP (DM) case, indicating – pursuant to
BRION, J.: COMELEC Resolution No. 8752 – that it was an accreditation case.

This case poses to the Court, at this very late stage of our election period, issues On February 23, 2010, the LP filed its Opposition5 to the NP-NPC’s petition on
involving the registration of political coalitions, the grant of accreditation to the the following grounds:
dominant parties under the first time ever automated election system in the
country, and validity of the COMELEC en banc’s (en banc) authority to act on the 1) The NP-NPC’s petition should be denied since it was not a duly
registration of political coalitions. registered coalition of political parties at the time of filing of their petition
for accreditation as dominant minority party;
The challenged ruling is a Per Curiam Resolution of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC)1 dated April 12, 2010 in SPP-10-(DM) granting the application for 2) The COMELEC en banc has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for
registration of the Nacionalista Party–Nationalist People’s Coalition (NP-NPC or registration as a coalition because the petition should have been first
coalition) and deferring the question of the coalition’s dominant minority status to brought before the proper Division;
a future resolution. The challenge comes from the Liberal Party (LP)2 through a
petition for certiorari and prohibition3 with a prayer for the issuance of a 3) The petition for registration as a coalition was filed with the Clerk of the
preliminary injunction or a status quo order. We issued a status quo order Commission instead of the Law Department in violation of the COMELEC
through our Resolution of April 20, 2010. Rules of Procedure;

I. The Background Facts 4) The petition for registration as a coalition was filed beyond the August
17, 2009 deadline set by the COMELEC; and
a. General Background
5) The respective chapters, incumbents and candidates of the NP and
On July 14, 2009, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 8646 setting the NPC separately cannot be taken into account for purposes of
August 17, 2009 as the last day for the filing of petitions for registration of political accreditation as dominant minority party because the NP-NPC as a
parties. On January 21, 2010, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 8752, coalition is an entirely different entity.
providing, among others, for the rules for the filing of petitions for accreditation for
the determination of the dominant majority party, the dominant minority party, ten
2 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

The COMELEC issued an Order dated February 16, 2010 and a Notice of Procedure (COMELEC Rules), the en banc has the discretion to suspend the
Hearing on February 17, 2010 setting for hearing the petitions for accreditation application of the rules in the interest of justice and speedy disposition of
for the purpose of determining the dominant majority party, dominant minority cases;13 in any case, the authority to approve or deny the Law Department’s
party, ten (10) major national parties and two (2) major local parties in connection recommendation on the registration of the coalition rests with the en banc.
with the May 10, 2010 elections. Among the petitions set for hearing were the
LP’s and the NP-NPC’s petitions for accreditation as the dominant minority party.6 On the timeliness of the filing of the petition, the en banc held that no rule exists
setting a deadline for the registration of coalitions. It opined that the registration
On March 9, 2010, the LP presented Rep. Lualhati Antonino (a member of the of a coalition is simply a recognition by the COMELEC of a political reality. It held
NPC’s National Convention) as its witness.7 Rep. Antonino testified, among that if the NP-NPC is genuine, then the approval of its registration by the
others, that the NPC National Convention did not authorize its National Central COMELEC is a mere recognition of an "operative fact."
Committee to enter into a coalition with the NP,8 and that neither the National
Convention nor the general membership was ever consulted about the merger On the merits, the en banc found that both the NP and the NPC have validly
with the NP.9 agreed to join forces for political or election purposes. It held that the NP-NPC
satisfactorily submitted all the documentary requirements to prove the merger’s
On March 10, 2010, the NP-NPC presented former Gov. Faustino Dy, Jr. as its validity. It opined, too, that if the Constitution and By-Laws of either the NP or the
witness to refute Rep. Antonino’s testimony.10 On March 15, 2010, the LP and the NPC was violated by the merger, the representatives or members of either party
NP-NPC filed their respective Memoranda.11 possess the legal standing to question the coalition; the LP, a stranger to the
internal dynamics of both parties, does not have this required standing.
b. The Assailed COMELEC Resolution
The en banc noted that no representative from either the NP or the NPC ever
On April 12, 2010, the en banc granted the NP-NPC’s petition for registration as filed any formal opposition to the NP-NPC petition for registration and
a coalition through the Resolution assailed in the present case. In the same accreditation. It thus concluded that hardly any controversy existed for it to
Resolution, the en banc deferred the resolution of the NP-NPC’s application for resolve. At the same time, it disregarded Rep. Antonino’s testimony, since she
accreditation as dominant minority party. lost her NPC membership when she admitted support for the candidacy of Sen.
Manuel A. Roxas II – the Liberal Party candidate for vice-president – a ground
On the issue of jurisdiction, the en banc citing Baytan v. Comelec 12 held that the provided under the Constitution and By-Laws of the NPC.14
registration of coalitions involves the exercise of its administrative powers and not
its quasi-judicial powers; hence, the en banc can directly act on it. It further held c. The Sarmiento Dissent
that there is no constitutional requirement that a petition for registration of a
coalition should be decided first by a division. In Baytan, the Court held that the Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissented on various grounds.15 First, he ruled
Constitution merely vests the COMELEC’s administrative powers in the that the COMELEC sitting en banc had no jurisdiction over NP-NPC’s petition for
"Commission on Elections," while providing that the COMELEC "may sit en banc registration as a coalition and accreditation as dominant minority party.
or in two divisions." Thus, the en banc can act directly on matters falling within its
administrative powers. Rule 32 of the COMELEC Rules governs the registration of coalitions. Rule 32 is
found under Letter F of the Rules entitled "Special Proceedings." According to
The en banc ruled further that although the NP-NPC’s failure to file the petition Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules, the Commission sitting in two (2) Divisions,
with the Law Department constituted a violation of the COMELEC Rules of shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide cases falling under special
3 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

proceedings, with the exception of the accreditation of citizens’ arms of the election positions – an absurd situation in a coalition, since no alliance for a
COMELEC. The dissent concluded that the present petition is within the common cause can exist if members of the component parties are competing
jurisdiction of the COMELEC sitting in Division and not of the COMELEC against each other for the same positions.
sitting en banc, citing Villarosa v. COMELEC.16
Commissioner Sarmiento pointed out as his last point that the NP-NPC cannot
Commissioner Sarmiento secondly took the position that the relaxation of the seek accreditation as the dominant minority party without the requisite
Rules is inappropriate in the present case. recognition by the COMELEC.

In general, election laws may be divided into three parts for purposes of applying COMELEC Resolution No. 8752 requires that only political parties duly registered
the rules of statutory construction. The first part refers to the provisions for the with the COMELEC may seek accreditation as a dominant party. At the time the
conduct of elections that election officials are required to follow; these provisions NP-NPC filed its petition for accreditation on February 12, 2010, it was still
are merely directory. The second part covers those provisions that candidates for seeking registration as a coalition of political parties. By filing the petition, both
office are required to comply with and are necessarily mandatory. The last part the NP and the NPC admitted that the COMELEC had not extended any
embraces those procedural rules designed to ascertain, in case of dispute, the recognition to their coalition; without the requisite recognition and registration, the
actual winner in the elections; this requires liberal construction. The NP-NPC’s NP-NPC could not seek accreditation as the dominant minority party for the May
petition falls under the second part, so the applicable requirements of law are 10, 2010 elections.
mandatory. The dissent argued that the relaxation of the rules is not applicable to
the present case, because it does not involve the determination of the will of the The dissent also noted that the NP-NPC could no longer seek accreditation since
electorate; thus, the rules governing the registration of coalitions should be the deadline for filing a petition for accreditation had lapsed. Finally, while the NP
construed strictly and not liberally. and NPC are both duly accredited political parties, their recognition cannot
benefit the NP-NPC, since the latter seeks accreditation as an entity separate
Commissioner Sarmiento’s third point is that no valid coalition was formed and distinct from both the NP and the NPC.
between the NP and the NPC.
II. The Petition
He pointed out that the Constitutions and By-Laws of both parties require that the
parties’ respective National Conventions give their approval before their parties The LP now assails the April 12, 2010 COMELEC Resolution for having been
can enter into any coalition agreement with another political party. The dissent issued with grave abuse of discretion, as follows:
found that the records are bereft of any proof that the National Conventions of
both the NP and the NPC authorized their officers to form the NP-NPC. The 1) The COMELEC en banc has no jurisdiction at the first instance to
dissent held that the action of the Executive Committees of the NP and the NPC entertain petitions for registration of political coalitions;
in issuing the Joint Resolution (declaring the NP-NPC merger) was a clear
violation of the parties’ Constitutions and By-Laws and was thus ultra vires and
2) The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the
void.
registration of the purported NP-NPC coalition despite the lapse of the
deadline for registration;
The dissent also branded the NP-NPC as a sham whose sole purpose was to
secure dominant minority party status. The Commissioner noted that members of
the NP and NPC are pitted against each other and are vying for the same
4 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

3) The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the scheduled and held where the COMELEC allowed the petitioner to submit its
registration of the purported NP-NPC coalition despite patent and evidence, both testimonial and documentary.
manifest violations of the NPC Constitution and By-Laws; and
The COMELEC’s comment is practically a reiteration of the rulings in the assailed
4) The purported NP-NPC coalition is a bogus, sham and paper coalition Resolution, heretofore summarized. For this reason, we shall no longer reflect on
that makes a mockery of the electoral process.17 and repeat the COMELEC’s positions in detail.

In support of its petition, the petitioner attached the Sworn Affidavits of two b. The NP-NPC Coalition’s Comment
prominent members of the NPC, namely: Atty. Sixto S. Brillantes (the current
NPC Legal Counsel) and Daniel Laogan (a member of the NPC’s National In their Comment, the respondents argue that the present petition should be
Central Committee) to show that the NP-NPC was entered into without dismissed outright since it is plagued with procedural infirmities.
consultations; much less, the approval of the NPC’s National Convention which
was not even convened.18 First, the respondents contend that the petitioner violated Section 5(2) of Rule 64
of the Rules of Court which requires that the petition be accompanied by certified
a. Comments from the OSG and the COMELEC true copies of such material portions of the record the petition referred to. The
respondents point out that the petitioner failed to attach the required certified true
On April 27, 2010, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a "Manifestation copies of the documents to its petition.
and Motion In Lieu of Comment." The OSG manifested that the duty to appear
and defend on their behalf and on behalf of the COMELEC falls on the Second, the respondents argue that the petitioner unjustifiably failed to implead
respondents, since they are the real parties interested in upholding the assailed the NP-NPC as a party to the present case. The respondents contend that NP-
COMELEC Resolution. The COMELEC, as a mere nominal party, does not need NPC is a real party-in-interest, as well as an indispensable party without the
to file a separate comment. We responded to the OSG’s manifestation by participation of which no final determination of the case can be secured.
requiring the COMELEC to file its own comment, which it did on May 4, 2010.
Third, the respondents argue that the present petition raises mere errors of
On the merits, the OSG argues that the present petition is premature. It notes judgment that are not within the Court’s authority to act upon under its certiorari
that the petition’s real thrust is to foreclose the possibility that respondent NP- jurisdiction, since the present petition merely assails the en banc’s appreciation
NPC would be declared the dominant minority party in the coming May 10, 2010 of facts and evidence.
elections. The OSG emphasizes that the assailed COMELEC Resolution only
affirmatively resolved the registration of the NP-NPC, not its accreditation. Thus, On the merits, the respondents aver that the en banc did not commit grave abuse
the petition’s core issue is not yet ripe for adjudication. As expressly indicated in of discretion in granting the registration of the NP-NPC.
the assailed Resolution, the accreditation has yet to be the subject of a coming
separate resolution.
First, the respondents argue that that the en banc had jurisdiction to entertain
their petition for registration of the NP-NPC. The respondents emphasize that the
The OSG also argues that no violation of due process attended the registration NP-NPC’s registration falls within the ambit of the COMELEC’s administrative
process, since the petitioner was given the opportunity to be heard. The OSG powers; hence, the en banc properly assumed jurisdiction over their petition.
notes that the petitioner filed its Opposition to the NP-NPC’s application for
registration and accreditation before the COMELEC. In addition, hearings were
5 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

The respondents cite Baytan v. COMELEC19 as authority for its position. The party practice that the NPC National Convention decides through a series of
Court held in this cited case that the COMELEC’s administrative powers include small meetings of leaders and members, whether to arrive at a consensus.
the registration of political parties and coalitions under Section 2 (5) of Article IX
of the Constitution. The Court also ruled that since the Constitution merely vests The respondents point out that, to date, no member of the NP or NPC has ever
the COMELEC’s administrative powers in the "Commission on Elections" while expressed his or her objection to the NP-NPC. The respondents emphasize that
providing that the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two Divisions, the en banc the wisdom of entering into a coalition is strictly an internal matter; and no third
can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers. party such as the LP, not even the courts, can interfere. The respondents cite
Sinaca v. Mula20 as authority that political parties are generally free to conduct
Second, the respondents also contend that their petition for registration as a their internal affairs free from judicial supervision.
coalition is not time-barred. They argue that the August 17, 2009 deadline
applied only to "political parties"; and to "parties, organizations and coalitions Fourth, the respondents contend that Commissioner Sarmiento’s thesis that the
under the party-list system." The respondents emphasize that there is no coalition is a sham since they are fielding contending candidates is baseless. As
deadline for petitions for the registration of coalition of parties, since COMELEC explained in the hearings, the NP and NPC agreed on an arbitration procedure to
Resolution No. 8646 has not specifically set a deadline. Thus, they conclude that settle these conflicts, although no arbitration has taken place to date, since the
the August 17, 2009 deadline applies only to the registration of new and registration of the NP-NPC has not attained finality.
unregistered political parties, and not to the registration of coalitions between
previously registered political parties such as the NP and the NPC. Fifth, the respondents contend that the newspaper reports presented by the
petitioner to show that there was no valid NP-NPC is inadmissible and carries no
Third, the respondents point out that the NP-NPC was validly formed, and that probative value for being hearsay. The respondents further argue that the
the requisite approvals were duly obtained. The respondents contend that the en affidavits of Atty. Sixto Brillantes and Daniel Laogan, attached to the present
banc’s factual findings on the formation of the coalition and the submission and petition, are inadmissible as the Court cannot receive evidence or conduct a trial
approval of the requisite documents are supported by substantial evidence, and de novo under its certiorari jurisdiction. In addition, the respondents argue that
thus are final and binding on this Court. The respondents emphasize that the the affidavits are hearsay evidence, since Atty. Brillantes and Daniel Laogan
1993 Revised Rules of the NP does not require the approval of the National were never presented during the hearings before the en banc and were not
Convention for purposes of coalescing with another political party; neither do the subjected to cross-examination. Finally, the respondents point out that the
Rules confer on the National Convention the power to approve a coalition with subject matter of Atty. Brillantes’ affidavit is covered by the attorney-client
another political party. Similarly, the respondents point out that the NPC’s privilege; he was the NPC’s general counsel who represented the NPC in all
Constitution and By-Laws is silent on and does not confer any power to approve legal proceedings.
a coalition with another political party. The respondents emphasize that they
cannot violate a non-existent requirement; Rep. Antonino in fact affirmed that III. THE ISSUES
there is no specific provision in the NPC’s Constitution and By-Laws relating to a
coalition with another party.
The parties’ positions raise the following issues for resolution:
The respondents argue that NPC Chairman Dy’s testimony adequately showed
1. Preliminary Issues:
that the NP-NPC was entered into after meetings and consultations with party
members and the NPC national organization; in fact, 70%-75% of those
consulted supported the coalition. The respondents also aver that it is a common a. Should the petition be dismissed outright for procedural and technical
infirmities?
6 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

b. Is the present petition premature since its object is to foreclose a ruling on the with liberality the technical and procedural threshold issues raised when grave
unsettled NP-NPC issue? public interests are involved. 22 Our liberality has even gone beyond the purely
technical and procedural where Court intervention has become
c. Is the NP-NPC petition before the COMELEC, viewed as a petition for imperative.23 Thus, we have recognized exceptions to the threshold issues of
registration, time-barred? ripeness24 and mootness25 of the petitions before us, as well as questions on
locus standi.26 We have also brushed aside procedural technicalities where the
i. Is the NP-NPC an "operative fact" that the COMELEC simply has to note and issues raised, because of the paramount public interest involved and their
recognize without need of registration? gravity, novelty or weight as precedents deserve the Court’s attention and active
intervention.27
2. Does the en banc have jurisdiction at the first instance to entertain the
petition? We see every reason to be liberal in the present case in view of interests
involved which are indisputably important to the coming electoral exercise now
fast approaching. The registration of political parties, their accreditation as
3. On the merits and assuming that the en banc has jurisdiction, did it gravely
dominant parties, and the benefits these recognitions provide – particularly, the
abuse its discretion when it allowed the registration of the NP-NPC?
on-line real time electronic transmission of election results from the Board of
Election Inspectors (BEI) through the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS)
a. Was due process observed in granting the registration? machines; the immediate access to official election results; the per diems from
the government that watchers of accredited parties enjoy; and the representation
b. Did the coalition take place as required by law: at the printing, storage and distribution of ballots that the dominant-party status
brings – constitute distinct advantages to any party and its candidates, if only in
i. in terms of compliance with internal rules of the NP and the NPC? terms of the ready information enabling them to react faster to developing
situations.28 The value of these advantages exponentially rises in an election
ii. in terms of the consent to or support for, and the lack of objection to, the under an automated system whose effectiveness and reliability, even at this late
coalition? stage, are question marks to some. To the public, the proper registration and the
accreditation of dominant parties are evidence of equitable party representation
IV. THE COURT’S RULING at the scene of electoral action, and translate in no small measure to
transparency and to the election’s credibility.
We find the petition meritorious.
Thus, our focus is on the core issues that confront us and the parties, by-passing
a. Preliminary Considerations the technical and procedural questions raised that do not anyway affect the
integrity of the petition before us or prejudice the parties involved, and
concentrating as well on the issues that would resolve the case soonest so that
1. The technical and procedural questions the parties involved and the COMELEC can move on to their assigned time-
sensitive roles and tasks in the coming elections.
We have indicated many times in the past that a primary factor in considering
technical and procedural objections is the nature of the issues involved. We have We note that while the respondents placed in issue defects in the attachments to
been strict when the issues are solely confined to the parties’ private interests the petition, their objection is a formal one as they do not deny the existence and
and carry no massive ripple effects directly affecting the public,21 but have viewed basic correctness of these attachments. We see no resulting harm or prejudice
7 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

therefore if we overrule the objection raised, given the weight of the xxxx
counterbalancing factors we considered above.29
"Without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority.
We do not likewise find the failure to formally implead the NP-NPC a sufficient There is "excess of jurisdiction" when the court transcends its power or acts
reason to dismiss the petition outright. Without any finally confirmed registration without any statutory authority. "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such
in the coalition’s favor, NP-NPC does not legally exist as a coalition with a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or
personality separate and distinct from the component NP and NPC parties. We excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or
find it sufficient that the NP and the NPC have separately been impleaded; as of despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such
the moment, they are the real parties-in-interest as they are the parties truly exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or
interested in legally establishing the existence of their coalition. Again, we find no to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
resulting harm or prejudice in the omission to implead NP-NPC, as the contemplation of law.
component parties have voiced out the concerns the coalition would have raised
had it been impleaded as a separate and properly existing personality. Between an appeal and a petition for certiorari, there are substantial distinctions
which shall be explained below.
The respondents next argue that the petition’s cited grounds are mere errors of
law and do not constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of
of jurisdiction. This objection can be read as a facial objection to the petition or as jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. In Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC, we
a substantive one that goes into the merits of the petition. We will discuss under explained the simple reason for the rule in this light:
the present topic the facial objection, as it is a threshold issue that determines
whether we shall proceed to consider the case or simply dismiss the petition "When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged
outright. does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is
committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its
A facial objection is meritorious if, expressly and on the face of the petition, what jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot
is evident as cited grounds are erroneous applications of the law rather than be allowed. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule.
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. After due Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of
consideration, we conclude that the petition passes the facial objection test. its jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original civil action of certiorari."

In Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, 30 the Court, The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ
through former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, gave a very succinct of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic
exposition of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction correctness of a judgment of the lower court — on the basis either of the law or
in relation to errors of law. The Court then said: the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision.
Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact — a mistake of
cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the judgment — appeal is the remedy. [Emphasis supplied.]
inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.
8 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

The most obvious ground cited in the petition that, if properly established, would other. Registration is the act that bestows juridical personality for purposes of
constitute grave abuse of discretion is the alleged unwarranted action of the en our election laws;32 accreditation, on the other hand, relates to the privileged
banc in acting on the registration of the NP-NPC when the COMELEC’s own participation that our election laws grant to qualified registered parties.33
Rules of Procedure provides that registration is under the jurisdiction of the
Division at the first instance. This alleged error is more than an error of law. If this Section 2(5), Article IX-C of the Constitution and Rule 32 of the COMELEC Rules
cited ground is correct, then the en banc acted without legal authority and regulate the registration of political parties, organizations or coalitions of political
thereby committed a jurisdictional transgression;31 its action, being ultra vires, parties. Accreditation as a dominant party is governed by COMELEC Resolution
would be a nullity. No. 8752, Section 1 of which states that the petition for accreditation shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Commission who shall docket it as an SPP (DM) case, in the
Another allegation of an ultra vires act is that the COMELEC, by appropriate manner that the NP-NPC petition before the COMELEC was docketed. While the
resolution, ordered that August 17, 2009 be the cut-off date for the registration of registration of political parties is a special proceeding clearly assigned to a
parties, and yet approved the registration of NP-NPC long after this cut-off date Division for handling under the COMELEC Rules,34 no similar clear-cut rule is
had passed without any valid justification or reason for suspending the rule. For available for a petition for accreditation as a dominant party. We thus make no
the en banc to so act was not a mere error of law. The grant of registration was statement on this point, as it is not a matter in issue.
an act outside mandatory legal parameters and was therefore done when the
COMELEC no longer had the authority to act on it. In this sense, it is a proper Under the circumstances of the present case where the registration was handled
allegation of grave abuse of discretion under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. at the en banc, action at the COMELEC ended upon the en banc’s issuance of
the assailed Resolution; under Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the COMELEC Rules, a
In our view, these jurisdictional challenges to the en banc Resolution, if motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling is a prohibited pleading, except in
established, constitute ultra vires acts that would render the Resolution void. election offense cases. Any request for accreditation that may be filed is
conceptually a separate matter for the COMELEC to handle. Thus, after the en
b. Prematurity banc issued the assailed Resolution resolving the NP-NPC’s application for
registration as a coalition, the COMELEC’s part in the registration process was
Is the present petition premature, since its object is to foreclose a ruling on the brought to a close, rendering the Resolution ripe for review by this Court.
unsettled NP-NPC accreditation issue?
The present petition has openly stated its objective of forestalling the
This is another threshold issue, raised this time by the OSG, and we rule that the accreditation of the respondent NP-NPC; the petition expressly and frontally
OSG’s objection has no merit. sought the issuance of a writ of prohibition and restraining order to prevent the
COMELEC from accrediting a coalition that is not registered as a party. The
combination of a petition for certiorari and for prohibition under the circumstances
The root of the present petition is the NP-NPC petition before the COMELEC for
of the present case is fully justified, as the registration and the accreditation that
registration as a coalition and accreditation as the dominant minority party. While
the petition covers are linked with and in fact sequentially follow one another.
the en banc claimed that it had jurisdiction over the registration of coalitions and
Accreditation can only be granted to a registered political party, organization or
in fact decreed the NP-NPC’s registration, it strangely did not rule on the
coalition; stated otherwise, a registration must first take place before a request for
accreditation aspect of the petition.
accreditation can be made. Once registration has been carried out, accreditation
is the next natural step to follow.
The registration of a coalition and the accreditation of a dominant minority party
are two separate matters that are substantively distinct from each
9 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

Where the registration is flawed for having been attended by grave abuse of To rule otherwise is to introduce, through a COMELEC deadline-setting
discretion, as alleged in the petition, the filing of a petition for prohibition with a resolution, a meaning or intent into Section 2(5), Article IX-C, which was not
prayer for a preliminary injunction can only be expected as a logical remedial clearly intended by the Constitution or by the COMELEC Rules; Resolution No.
move; otherwise, accreditation, unless restrained, will follow. Thus, from the point 8646 would effectively differentiate between political parties, on the one hand,
of view of prohibition, there is absolutely no prematurity as its avowed intent is and political organizations and coalitions, on the other.
in fact to forestall an event – the accreditation – that according to the assailed
Resolution shall soon take place. From the point of view of the petition In fact, no substantial distinction exists among these entities germane to the act
for certiorari questioning the registration made, no prematurity issue is involved of registration that would justify creating distinctions among them in terms of
as the nullification of a past and accomplished act is prayed for. From these deadlines. Such distinctions in the deadlines for the registration of political
perspectives, the OSG objection based on prematurity is shown to be organizations and coalitions, if allowed, may even wreak havoc on the procedural
completely groundless. orderliness of elections by allowing these registrations to introduce late and
confusing signals to the electorate, not to mention their possible adverse effects
c. Timeliness on election systems and procedures. This, the en banc very well knows, and their
lack of unanimity on the disputed point of timeliness shows how unusual the
Is the NP-NPC petition before the COMELEC, viewed as a petition for majority’s reading has been.
registration, time-barred?
The en banc’s failure to follow its own rules on deadlines may, at first blush, be a
This issue, raised by the petitioner, strikes at the heart of the petition that the negligible error that does not affect its jurisdiction (assuming for the sake of
assailed COMELEC Resolution passed upon, and that the divided en banc argument that the en banc has the authority to act at the first instance). An
decided in the NP-NPC’s favor. examination of Resolution No. 8646, however, shows that the deadline for
registration cannot but be a firm and mandatory deadline that the COMELEC has
Our short answer to the question posed is: yes, the NP-NPC’s petition for set.
registration as a coalition is time-barred. Thus, the en banc was wrong in
ordering the out-of-time registration of the NP-NPC coalition. We note in this regard that the registration of parties is the first in a list of
election-related activities that peaks in the voting on May 10, 2010. This list takes
Admittedly, Resolution No. 8646 simply states that August 17, 2009 is the "[L]ast into account the close step-by-step procedure the COMELEC has to undertake in
day for filing petitions for registration of political parties," without mentioning implementing the automated election system (AES). We note, too, that a closely
"organizations and coalitions" in the way that the three entities are separately related activity is the holding of political conventions to select and nominate
mentioned under Section 2(5), Article IX-C of the Constitution and Rule 32, official party candidates for all election positions, scheduled on October 21,
Section 1 of the COMELEC Rules. Resolution No. 8646, however, is simply a 2009,35 and November 20, 2009 was the deadline for the filing of the certificates
listing of electoral activities and deadlines for the May 10, 2010 elections; it is not of candidacy for all elective positions – an undertaking that required the
in any way a resolution aimed at establishing distinctions among "political parties, candidates’ manifestation of their official party affiliation. There is also a host of
organizations, and coalitions." In the absence of any note, explanation or reason election activities in which officially registered parties have to participate,
why the deadline only mentions political parties, the term "political parties" should principally: the examination and testing of equipment or devices for the AES and
be understood in its generic sense that covers political organizations and political the opening of source codes for review;36 the nomination of official
coalitions as well. watchers;37 and the printing, storage and distribution of official ballots wherein
accredited political parties may assign watchers.38 Of course, registered political
parties have very significant participation on election day, during the voting and
10 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

thereafter; the COMELEC needs to receive advance information and make 1. The "Operative Fact" Issue
arrangements on which ones are the registered political parties, organizations
and coalitions. Other than the matter of timeliness which is an open-and-shut consideration
under the clear deadline imposed, the more important issue is raised by the
All these are related to show that the COMELEC deadline cannot but be statement in the assailed Resolution that the coalition was an "operative fact" that
mandatory; the whole electoral exercise may fail or at least suffer disruptions, if the en banc could note and thereafter recognize, thereby implying that coalitions
the deadlines are not observed. For this reason, the COMELEC has in the past in of political parties may not need any separate registration if the component
fact rejected applications for registration for having been filed out of time. A case parties are already registered.
in point is the application of the political party Philippine Guardians Brotherhood,
Inc.,39 where the COMELEC denied the plea for registration for having been filed Whether one party would coalesce or work together in partnership, or in close
out of time,40 among other grounds. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood might not collaboration with another party for purposes of an electoral exercise, is a matter
have been the only political party whose application for registration was denied at that the law as a rule does not and cannot regulate. This is a part of the freedom
the COMELEC level for late filing. We are sure that all these other organizations of choice derived from the freedom of individuals constituting the political parties
would now cry foul – and rightly so – because of the denial of their applications to choose their elected leaders,43 as well as from the concepts of democracy and
on the ground of late filing, when the NP-NPC has been made an exception sovereignty enshrined in our Constitution.44 This is a freedom, too, that cannot but
without rhyme or reason. 1avvphi1
be related to individuals’ associational rights under the Bill of Rights.45 We
mention this freedom, as it was apparently the basis for the "operative fact" that
Given the mandatory nature of the deadline, subject only to a systemic change the assailed COMELEC Resolution spoke of. In effect, the assailed Resolution
(as contrasted to an ad hoc change or a suspension of the deadline in favor of a implied that registered political parties are well within their right to coalesce; and
party in the course of application), the en banc acted in excess of its jurisdiction that this coalition, once proven, should already bind the COMELEC, rendering
when it granted the registration of NP-NPC as a coalition beyond the deadline registration a mere recognition of an operative fact, i.e., a mere ministerial
the COMELEC itself had set; the authority to register political parties under formality.
mandatory terms is only up to the deadline. Effectively, the mandatory deadline is
a jurisdictional matter that should have been satisfied and was not. Where We categorically reject this COMELEC position and its implication; the freedom
conditions that authorize the exercise of a general power are wanting, fatal to coalesce or to work together in an election to secure the vote for chosen
excess of jurisdiction results.41 candidates is different from the formal recognition the Constitution requires for a
political party, organization or coalition to be entitled to full and meaningful
Separately from the above consideration, we view the en banc’s position that the participation in the elections and to the benefits that proceed from formal
deadline for registration is only for "political parties" and not for "organizations recognition. Registration and the formal recognition that accompanies it are
and coalitions" to be preposterous, given the importance of the participation of required, as the words of the Constitution themselves show, because of the
political parties in the election process and the rigid schedules that have to be Constitution’s concern about the character of the organizations officially
observed in order to implement automated elections as efficiently and as participating in the elections. Thus, the Constitution specifies religious and
harmoniously as possible. We note that the COMELEC has not even bothered to ideological limitations, and in clear terms bars alien participation and influence in
explain why it imposed a deadline applicable only to political parties, but not to our elections. This constitutional concern, among others, serves as a reason why
political organizations and coalitions. In our view, this kind of ruling was patently registration is not simply a checklist exercise, but one that requires the exercise
unreasonable, made as it was without basis in law, in fact or in reason; and was of profound discretion and quasi-judicial adjudication by the
a grave abuse of discretion that fatally afflicted the assailed COMELEC COMELEC.46 Registration must be undertaken, too, under the strict formalities of
Resolution.42 the law, including the time limits and deadlines set by the proper authorities.
11 |Political Party: Liberal Party vs COMELEC (2)

Explained in these terms, it is easy to discern why the "operative fact" that the We solely rule for now that the en banc gravely abused its discretion when it
assailed Resolution speaks of cannot simply be equated with the formal disregarded its own deadline in ruling on the registration of the NP-NPC as a
requirement of registration, and why this process should be handled in all coalition. In so ruling, we emphasize that the matter of party registration raises
seriousness by the COMELEC. To carry this statement further, the Constitution critical election concerns that should be handled with discretion commensurate
itself has spoken on the matter of registration and the applicable processes and with the importance of elections to our democratic system. The COMELEC
standards; there can be no dispute about the wisdom, propriety, reasonableness should be at its most strict in implementing and complying with the standards and
or advisability of the constitutional provision and the standards and processes it procedures the Constitution and our laws impose. 1avvphi1

imposed. Only the people as a sovereign can dwell on these matters in their
consideration of the Constitution in a properly called political exercise. In this In light of the time constraints facing the COMELEC and the parties as the
sense, the question of whether a coalition of registered parties still needs to be election is no more than a week away, we find it compelling to declare this
registered is a non-issue for being beyond the power of this Court to resolve; this Decision immediately executory.
Court can only rule that the Constitution has set the norms and procedures for
registration, and these have to be followed. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition and,
accordingly, NULLIFY and SET ASIDE the Resolution of the Commission on
To sum up, political coalitions need to register in accordance with the established Elections dated April 12, 2010 in the application for registration of the
norms and procedures, if they are to be recognized as such and be given the Nacionalista Party-Nationalist People’s Coalition as a political coalition, docketed
benefits accorded by law to registered coalitions. Registered political parties as SPP-10-(DM). The Commission on Elections is DECLARED BARRED from
carry a different legal personality from that of the coalition they may wish to granting accreditation to the proposed NP-NPC Coalition in the May 10, 2010
establish with other similarly registered parties. If they want to coalesce with one elections for lack of the requisite registration as a political coalition. This Decision
another without the formal registration of their coalition, they can do so on their is declared immediately executory. No costs.
own in the exercise of their and their members’ democratic freedom of choice,
but they cannot receive official recognition for their coalition. Or they can choose SO ORDERED.
to secure the registration of their coalition in order to be accorded the privileges
accruing to registered coalitions, including the right to be accredited as a
dominant majority or minority party. There are no ifs and buts about these
constitutional terms.

2. The Jurisdictional and Other Questions Raised

Aside from the threshold and timeliness questions we have extensively