Binhi-Partido ng mga Magsasaka Para sa mga Magsasaka v. Commission on Elections

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 206988. February 18, 2014.]

BINHI-PARTIDO NG MGA MAGSASAKA PARA SA MGA MAGSASAKA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS [COMELEC] EN BANC, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 18, 2014, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 206988 (BINHI-Partido ng mga Magsasaka para sa mga Magsasaka vs. Commission on Elections [COMELEC] En Banc). — Before us is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This petition assails the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) cancellation of petitioner BINHI-Partido ng mga Magsasaka para sa mga Magsasaka's (BINHI) registration and accreditation as a party-list group permitted to participate in the May 13, 2013 elections. Specifically, this petition seeks to nullify and set aside the May 10, 2013 resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc formally disallowing BINHI's participation in the May 13, 2013 elections. aTcSID

On August 7, 2009, petitioner BINHI filed with the COMELEC its petition for registration and accreditation as a party representing "peasants, farmers and farm tillers especially those who are landless and in need of capital for farming." 1 In a resolution dated November 18, 2009 in SPP No. 09-243 (PL), 2 the COMELEC Second Division granted BINHI's petition for registration and accreditation. The dispositive portion of this resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the registration of CABANATUAN CITY SEED GROWERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE under the partylist name BINHI: Partido ng mga Magsasaka para sa mga Magsasaka as a sectoral organization under the partylist system representation [sic] is hereby APPROVED. 3

Thereafter, BINHI participated in the May 10, 2010 elections. However, it was unsuccessful in its bid. 4

On May 30, 2012, BINHI filed with the COMELEC its manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list elections set on May 13, 2013. 5

On August 9, 2012, the COMELEC issued an order setting, on various dates, the summary evidentiary hearings of existing accredited party-list groups which have manifested their intent to participate in the May 13, 2013 elections. The COMELEC required these groups to submit relevant documentary proof to establish continuing compliance with the requirements for participation in the party-list system. 6

Conformably, summary evidentiary hearings were conducted. On August 18, 2012, BINHI pre-marked its exhibits. On August 23, 2012, BINHI appeared in the summary evidentiary hearing through its Secretary General, Florentino Pangilinan. On August 30, 2012, BINHI "formally offered its evidence." 7

On November 28, 2012, respondent COMELEC En Banc promulgated a resolution 8 cancelling BINHI's registration/accreditation, thereby disallowing it from participating in the May 13, 2013 elections.

The COMELEC En Banc noted that BINHI was merely the party-list name of Cabanatuan City Seed Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CCSGMPC), a cooperative duly registered with the Cooperative Development Authority pursuant to Republic Act No. 6938 or the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. 9 The COMELEC En Banc underscored that as a duly registered cooperative, "the needs of CCSGMPC or BINHI is [sic] well-attended to and there is no need for its members to be represented in Congress." 10 The COMELEC En Banc added that BINHI/CCSGMPC was among the seed growers cooperatives which were beneficiaries of the Department of Agriculture's GMA Rice Seed Subsidy Program in Region III. BINHI/CCSGMPC was, thus, a recipient of (financial) assistance from the government; that is, it was funded or assisted by the government. Accordingly, per the fifth guideline 11 in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 12 BINHI was barred from participating in the party-list system. DCESaI

On December 3, 2012, BINHI filed with this court a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the November 28, 2012 resolution of the COMELEC En Banc. This petition was consolidated with similar petitions filed by more than fifty (50) other party-list groups.

The petitions of these party-list groups were resolved in this court's April 2, 2013 decision in Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC. 13In the same decision, we remanded the petitions to the COMELEC, for it to determine if the party-list groups involved were qualified for registration under the following parameters:

1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.

2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector.

3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented" include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political constituencies" include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.

5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or that represent those who lack "well-defined political constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona fide members of such parties or organizations.

6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified. 14

On May 10, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc issued the assailed resolution, 15 affirming the cancellation of BINHI's registration/accreditation under the party-list system. The COMELEC issued the resolution without any summary evidentiary hearing. It explained its decision, as follows:

The registration of BINHI was cancelled since it receives funding for its projects from the government through the Department of Agriculture, and for failure to prove that it represents the marginalized and underrepresented.

The records submitted by BINHI reveal that it is just the party-list name of Cabanatuan City Seed Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, a duly-registered cooperative with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), under Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code of the Philippines). The government, through the Department of Agriculture, granted the "GMA Rice Seed Subsidy Program in Region III" to BINHI. In other words, its main project — seed distribution — is funded by the government. Other than that particular project, the group did not indicate how it generates its own funds.

Resolution No. 9366 is clear: COMELEC may remove or cancel the registration of a group that is an adjunct of, or a project or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. The provision does not even require that the group be entirely funded by the government; mere assistance from the government would warrant the cancellation of the group's registration. The purpose of this provision is to avoid any groups [sic] that would be beholden to the government in exchange for the assistance received. 16

Aggrieved, BINHI filed the present petition. 17 BINHI alleges that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in cancelling its registration without conducting a summary evidentiary hearing as supposedly required in Atong Paglaum as well as in finding that: (1) "BINHI" is just another name for the Cabanatuan City Seed Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative; and (2) it receives funding for its projects from the government through the Department of Agriculture and thereby concluding that it does not represent the marginalized (i.e., peasants/farmers, farm tillers).

BINHI insists that it is not one and the same as CCSGMPC since BINHI's membership is supposedly not confined to the City of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija. 18 It adds "[t]hat [there] was never a subsidy from the government and BINHI was never the one subsidized." 19 In support of this, it attached to its petition a correspondence dated September 23, 2009, 20 signed by Department of Agriculture, Regional Field Unit No. 3, Regional Director Redentor S. Gatus, Ph.D., listing the seed growers cooperatives "which are partners of DA RFU III in implementing GMA Rice Seed Subsidy Program [sic] in Region III." 21 Neither the name "BINHI" nor "BINHI-Partido ng mga Magsasaka para sa mga Magsasaka" is among the entries in this correspondence.

In a resolution dated June 5, 2013, the COMELEC, as respondent, was required to comment on the petition and the prayer for preliminary injunctive relief.

On June 20, 2013, the COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its comment. 22 It argued that the holding of a summary evidentiary hearing was not mandatory. It emphasized that the basis for cancelling BINHI's registration was the fact of its having been assisted by government, as provided by Rule 2, Section 2, paragraph (c) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366, promulgated on February 21, 2012. 23 As this ground has nothing to do with the six (6) parameters articulated in Atong Paglaum, there was no need for a separate summary evidentiary hearing and the presentation of additional evidence. The COMELEC also underscored that it was well within its competence to review BINHI's registration as its prior accreditation did not place upon it a vested right to participate in the party-list system.

In a resolution dated July 2, 2013, BINHI was required to file a reply. BINHI failed to comply. As such, this court dispensed with the filing and admission of BINHI's reply.

For resolution are the following issues:

1. Whether the COMELEC En Banc was obliged to conduct a summary evidentiary hearing

2. Whether BINHI may validly participate in the party-list system/party-list elections per the standards set forth in the Constitution, the Party-List Law, jurisprudence, and other relevant regulations governing the party-list system

The petition is moot

As reflected in the COMELEC's official website, 24 BINHI obtained 154,079 votes, representing 0.68% of the total votes cast. A separate news report, 25 citing the COMELEC's 10th Canvass Report, noted that BINHI obtained 185,537 votes representing 0.65% of the total votes cast. On the basis of these, it has clearly become impossible for BINHI to satisfy the minimum two-percent (2%) threshold to win a seat in the House of Representatives. As such, the ultimate relief sought by the petition (i.e., participation in the party-list elections so as to be elected into the House of Representatives) has been rendered moot. STHDAc

As explained in Pormento v. Estrada: 26

As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies. The Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. In other words, when a case is moot, it becomes non-justiciable.

An action is considered "moot" when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties. There is nothing for the court to resolve as the determination thereof has been overtaken by subsequent events. 27

Indeed, the present petition has been overtaken by the glaring reality that no matter how this court dispenses with the present controversy, BINHI cannot avail itself of the ultimate relief that it seeks. To the extent that there is no realistic chance that BINHI can ever be elected into the House of Representatives, there remains no relief for this court to dispense. Any discussion on the merits of the case would, thus, be nothing more than an elaboration on matters that are, at most, of theoretical interest, i.e., academic.

The Commission on

The text of the dispositive portion of Atong Paglaum is very clear:

WHEREFORE, all the present 54 petitions are GRANTED. The 13 petitions, which have been granted Status Quo Ante Orders but without mandatory injunction to include the names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are remanded to the Commission on Elections only for determination whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-list system under the parameters prescribed in this Decision but they shall not participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections. The 41 petitions, which have been granted mandatory injunctions to include the names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are remanded to the Commission on Elections for determination whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-list system and to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the parameters prescribed in this Decision. The Commission on Elections may conduct summary evidentiary hearings for this purpose. This Decision is immediately executory. 28 (Emphasis supplied)

It is elementary that the use of the word "may," in relation to an instruction, connotes a permissible, rather than a mandatory, character. Thus, our decision in Atong Paglaum did not place upon the COMELEC an immutable obligation to conduct summary evidentiary hearings. From this, it follows that where there were reasonable grounds for foregoing the holding of summary evidentiary hearings, the COMELEC could not have committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not conducting a summary evidentiary hearing.

While Atong Paglaum entails a shift from the guidelines articulated in Ang Bagong Bayani, its six (6) parameters do not, in and of themselves, nullify existing rules which are not inconsistent with them. Atong Paglaum and its six (6) parameters do not claim to be an exhaustive and exclusive recital of the rules governing the party-list system and participation in it.

In this case, the disallowance of BINHI relates to its alleged receipt of government funds or otherwise being assisted by government. A plain reading of the six (6) parameters outlined in Atong Paglaum will reveal that benefitting from government assistance has nothing to do with these six (6) parameters. Moreover, from the proceedings conducted in August 2012, evidence had already been submitted to the COMELEC. On the basis of this evidence, the COMELEC had settled on findings relating to the factual matter of BINHI's receipt of funds and/or assistance from the government. A subsequent summary evidentiary hearing would, thus, have been a superfluity. It would have been nothing more than a rehash of the exercise made in August 2012.

BINHI is one and the

No less than the instrument which initially permitted BINHI to participate in the party-list system acknowledged that BINHI and CCSGMPC are one and the same. To recall, the dispositive portion of the November 18, 2009 resolution of the COMELEC Second Division which granted BINHI's petition for registration and accreditation reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the registration of CABANATUAN CITY SEED GROWERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE under the partylist name BINHI: Partido ng mga Magsasaka para sa mga Magsasaka as a sectoral organization under the partylist system representation [sic] is hereby APPROVED. 29

It is evident that BINHI is merely the name by which CCSGMPC intended to be known as a participant in the party-list system. aTEACS

BINHI/CCSGMPC

As an annex to its petition (i.e., Annex "D"), BINHI attached a correspondence dated September 23, 2009, signed by Department of Agriculture, Regional Field Unit No. 3, Regional Director Redentor S. Gatus, Ph.D., listing the seed growers cooperatives "which are partners of DA RFU III in implementing [the] GMA Rice Seed Subsidy Program in Region III." 30

The entirety of this September 23, 2009 correspondence reads:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

23 September 2009

MR. ANGEL G. IMPERIAL JR.

Dear Director Imperial,

Submitting herewith are the Seed Growers Cooperative [sic] which are partners of DA RFU III in implementing GMA [sic] Rice Seed Subsidy Program in Region III.

Aurora	Aurora Seed Growers Producers Coop.
Bataan	Bataan Seed Growers MPC
Bulacan	Bulacan Seed Growers MPC
Nueva Ecija	Nueva Ecija Seed Growers MPC
	South Nueva Ecija Seed Growers MPC
	Cabanatuan City Seed Growers PMKB
	(Emphasis supplied)
Pampanga	Pampanga Seed Growers MPC
Tarlac	Tarlac Provincial Seed Growers PMPC
	Tarlac City Seed Producers MPC
	Amucao Seed Growers Agro-Industrial Coop.
Zambales	Botolan Big Brothers Seed Growers Association, Inc.
	Zambales Seed Growers MPC

For your information and reference.

Very truly yours,

REDENTOR S. GATUS, Ph.D. (sgd.)

It will be observed that neither the name "BINHI" nor "BINHI-Partido ng mga Magsasaka para sa mga Magsasaka" is among the entries in this correspondence. However, "Cabanatuan City Seed Growers" is listed as among the "Seed Growers Cooperative [sic] which are partners of DA RFU III in implementing GMA [sic] Rice Seed Subsidy Program" in the Province of Nueva Ecija.

As such, it is established, through a document which BINHI itself adduced, that BINHI (albeit under its alternate name) is a recipient of (or otherwise benefitted from) government assistance.

To reiterate, while Atong Paglaum entails a shift from the guidelines articulated in Ang Bagong Bayani, its six (6) guidelines do not, in and of themselves, nullify existing rules which are not inconsistent with them. Atong Paglaum itself explains the context in which its parameters were articulated:

The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections those that did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral groups or organizations must represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. Petitioners may have been disqualified by the COMELEC because as political or regional parties they are not organized along sectoral lines and do not represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." Also, petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the sectors they represent may have been disqualified, although they may have a track record of advocacy for their sectors. Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties may have been disqualified because they do not belong to any sector. Moreover, a party may have been disqualified because one or more of its nominees failed to qualify, even if the party has at least one remaining qualified nominee. As discussed above, the disqualification of petitioners, and their nominees, under such circumstances is contrary to the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.31 (Emphasis supplied)

As stated by the COMELEC: "[t]he purpose of this provision [disallowing the participation in the party-list system of an adjunct of, or a project or an entity funded or assisted by, the government] is to avoid any groups [sic] that would be beholden to the government in exchange for the assistance received." 32 Notwithstanding the six (6) parameters outlined in Atong Paglaum, the rationale for this disallowance remains valid and compelling. IEcDCa

As such, the proscription against the participation in the party-list system of an "adjunct of, or a project or an entity funded or assisted by, the government," as articulated in Rule 2, Section 2, paragraph (c) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 stands. As "Cabanatuan City Seed Growers," otherwise known as BINHI, was a beneficiary of the GMA Rice Seed Subsidy Program, it is in clear violation of Rule 2, Section 2, paragraph (c) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366. Thus, the COMELEC had ample ground to disallow BINHI from participating in the May 13, 2013 party-list elections. In so doing, the COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic and for lack of merit. The May 10, 2013 resolution of the COMELEC En Banc formally disallowing BINHI's participation in the May 13, 2013 elections is AFFIRMED." Velasco, Jr., J., no part. Brion, J., on leave. (adv24)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 28-29.

2. Id. at 28-33.

3. Id. at 32.

4. Id. at 36.

5. Id.

6. Id. at 59.

7. Id. at 60.

8. Id. at 35-40.

9. Id. at 36.

10. Id. at 37.

11. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. By the very nature of the party-list system, the party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It must be independent of the government. The participation of the government or its officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal and unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations to be elected into the House of Representatives. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 412 Phil. 308, 344 (2001).

12. 412 Phil. 308 (2001).

13. Atong Paglaum v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013, 694 SCRA 477.

14. Id. at 571-572.

15. Rollo, pp. 41-47.

16. Id. at 46.

17. Id. at 3-21.

18. Id. at 17.

19. Id. at 15.

20. Id. at 48. This correspondence was attached as Annex "D" to the petition.

21. Id.

22. Id. at 58-73.

23. Rule 2, sec. 2. Grounds for opposition to a petition for registration. The Commission may deny due course to the petition motu proprio or upon verified opposition of any interested party, after due notice and hearing, on any of the following grounds:

xxx xxx xxx

   c. That it is adjunct of, or a project or an entity funded or assisted by, the government;

xxx xxx xxx

24. See 2013 election results <http://2013electionresults.comelec.gov.ph/> accessed on Dec. 11, 2013; Seealso party-list partial unofficial tally as of May 24, 2013 representing 76.33% of the nationwide election returns <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/eleksyon2013/results/partylist> accessed on Dec. 11, 2013.

25. See 'Official tally of votes for the 2013 party-list race' <http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections-2013/features/rich-media/29634-official-election-results-2013-party-list-race> accessed on Dec. 13, 2013.

26. G.R. No. 191988, August 31, 2010, 629 SCRA 530.

27. Id. at 533-534, citing Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) and Santiago v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 792 (1998).

28. Atong Paglaum v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013, 694 SCRA 477, 573.

29. Rollo, p. 32.

30. Id. at 48.

31. Atong Paglaum v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013, 694 SCRA 477, 572-573.

32. Rollo, p. 46.