Igorot Warriors International, Inc. v. Commission on Elections

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 258181. March 1, 2022.]

IGOROT WARRIORS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (IWI), REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, JERSON Q. BANTAG AND ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL, PHILIP S. MIGUEL, petitioners, vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedMARCH 1, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 258181 (Igorot Warriors International, Inc. (IWI), represented herein by its Chairperson, Jerson Q. Bantag and its Secretary-General, Philip S. Miguel v. Commission on Elections). — In construing election laws and regulations, it has been consistently held that they be construed liberally to give effect to the popular will, without resort to technicalities. 1

Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari2 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Order 3 dated September 22, 2021 of the First Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in SPP No. 21-137 (PL) and Resolution No. 10375 4 dated December 1, 2021 of the COMELEC En Banc.

Igorot Warriors International, Inc. (IWI) was organized sometime in August 15, 2017, and is duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 5 Section 2 of its Constitution and By-Laws states that IWI is a '[s]ectoral [o]rganization without a well-defined political constituency. It represents mainly Cordillerans (Igorots), members from sectoral groups who are Igorots by heart, and other Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs), whether employed, self-employed, or jobless.' 6 As an organization, it seeks to create a venue for continuous dialogue, analysis, and action on issues affecting Igorots and other ICCs. 7 DaIAcC

Since its inception, IWI has engaged in several charitable and cause-oriented activities, such as cash and blood donations, tree-planting events, and other similar projects. To further achieve its initiative of promoting and enriching the culture of the Igorots and other ICCs, IWI manifested its desire to participate in the 2022 elections by filing a Petition for Registration for Party-List Elections 8 dated March 29, 2021 before the COMELEC.

In an Order 9 dated September 22, 2021, the First Division of the COMELEC denied the petition for failure of IWI to satisfy the requirements imposed by Resolution No. 9366. 10 More particularly, the petition was riddled with the following defects, to wit: (1) IWI failed to allege that it is not a religious sect, or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; (2) it failed to submit proof to enable a determination that all its members were made aware of the petition and had given their consent thereto; and finally (3) the list of members submitted by IWI failed to demonstrate that the majority of the persons enumerated therein belonged to the sectors that it sock to represent. 11

Aggrieved, IWI moved for reconsideration. 12 In the main, it asserted that it is riot a religious sect or denomination; on the contrary, it is a sectoral organization seeking to represent Filipinos belonging to the Igorot ethnicity. While it failed to allege the same in its petition, the omission was only inadvertently and unintentionally made. IWI, likewise, asserted that under paragraph 24 of its petition, it specifically alleged that all of its officers and members were made aware of the petition and had even given their consent thereto. Finally, IWI claimed that it attached to its petition the membership forms of all its members, which would easily show that a majority belonged to the Igorots, the sector that IWI seeks to represent.

On December 1, 2021, the COMELEC En Banc promulgated Resolution No. 10735, 13 excluding IWI from the raffle for party-lists, which would determine the order of their listing in the official ballot, as it was among the party-lists whose motion for reconsideration of the denial of their petition for registration, has been denied. 14

On December 10, 2021, IWI filed the instant Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Status Quo Ante Order, 15 assailing the COMELEC's Order and Resolution.

In this petition, IWI insists that it is a sectoral organization formed to 'strengthen the unity of its members who are collectively known as Igorot people.' 16 In fact, the purposes for which it was organized does not, in any way, relate to any religion or religious sect, or denomination, organization, or association organized for religious purposes. It reiterates that it had complied with the requirement of submitting proof that its members were made aware of the petition and had given their consent thereto, as explicitly stipulated under paragraph 24 of the petition, which was made under oath. 17 Towards this end, IWI alleges that a special meeting was conducted by its Board of Trustees to secure the approval and consent of the members in filing their petition to register as a party-list. 18 Lastly, IWI imputes error on the part of the COMELEC for failure to conduct a hearing for it to prove that a majority of its members were Igorots, or the sector that it seeks to represent. 19 TAacHE

For its pall, the COMELEC maintains that it did not show any capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment or arbitrariness in denying the Petition for Registration for Party-List Elections by IWI, for the simple reason that it laded to comply with the mandatory requirements for registration imposed upon participants ill the party-list elections. 20 Pursuant to Section 6 (5) 21 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, the COMELEC is endowed to refuse or cancel the registration of any regional or sectoral party, organization, or coalition for violation or for failure to comply with election laws, rules and regulations. Consequently, for its non-observance of Sections 6 and 7, Rule 1 of Resolution No. 9366, the petition for registration filed by IWI should be denied. Moreover, it argues that IWI was never denied due process, having been given the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration. In fact, IWI was able to seek further recourse by elevating its case to the COMELEC En Banc. 22 Given all these, it urges the Court to treat the petition instituted by IWI to be without valid and legal basis.

On December 16, 2021, the Court granted the Status Quo Ante Order, enjoining the COMELEC from enforcing the assailed Order and Resolution insofar as IWI was concerned. 23

The Court grants the instant petition.

To begin with, the party-list method of representation is an innovation introduced by no less than the 1987 Constitution, the pertinent provisions of which provide:

Article VI

xxx xxx xx

Section 5. (1) The house of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.

Article IX

xxx xxx xxx

C. The Commission on Elections

xxx xxx xxx

Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.

Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.

In Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, 24 this Court recognized that the party-list system is 'intended to democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives.' 25 Simply, the purpose of the party-list provision was to 'give genuine power to our people in Congress' 26 and provide an expansive opportunity to maximize electoral participation.

Breathing life into this principle, the legislature enacted R.A. No. 7941, 27 otherwise known as the 'Party-List System Act,' implementing the party-list system as prescribed by the Constitution. More relevantly, the law seeks to ensure that members of marginalized and under-represented sectors, organizations, and parties, could still contribute to the nation as members of Congress through the 'formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.' 28

Nonetheless, to ensure that the party-list system is not abused and the electoral system is not put into mockery, Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides the grounds for which the registration of party-list organizations may be denied, thus:

Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. — The COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon verified 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: HcDSaT

(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes;

(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

(3) It is a foreign party or organization;

(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;

(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;

(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;

(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or

(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.

Moreover, to effectively discharge its role under R.A. No. 7941, and as the primary body mandated to ensure the realization of the Constitution to 'give genuine power to those who have less in life by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves,' 29 the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9366, which laid down the requirements applicable to party-list groups expecting to participate in the 2013 elections and subsequent elections thereafter. Pertinent to this case are Sections 6 and 7, Rule 1 of the said Resolution, which stipulates the contents of the petition, as well as documentary attachments in support thereto, to wit:

SEC. 6. Petition for Registration, Contents. — The petition for registration shall be verified and shall state the following: a) name and acronym of the petitioner, with the acronym not exceeding twenty (20) characters; b) nature of the organization: whether it is a sectoral party, sectoral organization, political party or coalition; c) the sector or sectors which it seeks to represent; d) the name and address of its President/Chairman or, in his absence, the Secretary-General, who will represent the party in the petition; e) petitioner's principal headquarters and postal office address; f) names, positions, and addresses of its elected officers; g) petitioner's intention or desire to participate in the party-list election; h) names and addresses of its chapter offices; i) that all of its officers and members are made aware of the petition and have given their consent thereto; j) the list of documents attached to the petition; k) names, addresses and representatives of sectoral parties or organizations affiliated with the petitioner, which affiliates need not be registered with the Commission, but have given their consent thereto; l) that it is not a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; m) that it shall not advocate violence or unlawful means to achieve its goals; n) that it is not an adjunct or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by the government; o) that it is not a foreign party or organization; p) that it does not receive support for partisan political purposes from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or indirectly, or through its officers or members, or indirectly through third parties; q) the period of existence of petitioner, which shall be at least one (1) year at the time the petition is filed; and r) that it commits to comply with the laws, rules and regulations relating to elections.

The President/Chairman or, in his absence, the Secretary-General representing the party shall affix his signature on the verification portion of the petition stating under oath that he is one of the officers of the petitioner duly authorized to verify the petition; that he has caused the preparation and filing of the petition; and that he read and understood the contents of the petition and acknowledge the same to be true and correct based on his personal knowledge.

SEC. 7. Documents to support petition for registration. — The following documents shall support petitions for registration:

a) Constitution and by-laws as an organization seeking registration under the party-list system of representation;

b) Platform or program of government;

c) List of all its officers and members (national, regional, provincial, city/municipal) particularly showing that the majority of its membership and officers belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s it seeks to represent;

d) Manifestation of intent to participate in the next immediately succeeding national and local elections, and list of at least five (5) nominees;

e) Articles of Incorporation, by-laws and Certificate of Registration issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), if registered therewith;

f) Track record sum nary showing that it represents and seeks to uplift the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s it seeks to represent;

g) Coalition agreement, if any, and the detailed list of affiliates comprising the coalition, including the signed coalition agreement;

h) Sworn proof/s of existence in the areas where the organization is claiming representation; and

i) Other information required by the Commission.

A filing fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), and a legal research fee of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) shall be charged for each petition. 30 DTCSHA

In this case, the only question for resolution is whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the Petition for Registration for Party-List Elections filed by IWI. 31

For a petition for certiorari to prosper, there must be an apparent showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion. 32Beluso v. COMELEC33 teaches that 'grave abuse of discretion,' under Rule 65, has attained specific meaning; it is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility, or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross. 34

This Court finds that the assailed Order and Resolution were issued with grave abuse of discretion, as will be discussed hereunder.

To recall, the COMELEC denied the petition for registration filed by IWI on the ground of its failure to comply with certain laws, rules and regulations relating to elections, or in this case, Sections 6 and 7, Rule 1 of Resolution No. 9366.

It must be stressed that on July 30, 2021, prior to the issuance of the Order by the First Division of the COMELEC denying the petition on September 22, 2021, IWI filed a Joint Affidavit 35 whereby it represented that 'it was not a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes.' 36

At any rate, aside from the good faith attempt on the part of IWI to present a cure to its inadvertence, the required information needed by the COMELEC can be found in the petition for registration itself, including its submitted attachments. While this Court does not denigrate the mandatory requirements for party-list registration, the COMELEC may 'liberally construe or even suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice, including obtaining a speedy disposition of all matters pending before the COMELEC.' 37

It is ineluctably clear under paragraph 3 thereof that IWI is a '[s]ectoral [o]rganization composed of qualified voters bound together by culture, employment, similar interests or concerns in pursuing a common aspiration of bringing about genuine reforms in society thru formulation of policies[.]' 38 In its Constitution and By-Laws, 39 which were attached to its petition, Sections 2 and 3 provide a more definite picture of IWI:

SECTION 2. Description. — IGOROT WARRIORS INTERNATIONAL, INC. is a Sectoral Organization without a well-defined political constituency. It represents mainly Cordillerans (Igorots), members from sectoral groups who are Igorots by heart and other Indigenous Cultural Communities, whether employed, self-employed. 40

SECTION 3. Objectives. — The Organization seeks to achieve the following objectives:

3.1 create and maintain a venue for developing leadership thru continuous dialogue, analysis and concerted action on issues affecting Igorots and other Indigenous Cultural Communities and the state of the nation;

3.2 articulate the concerns of Igorots and ICC's influence policy development affecting their rights and culture and propose best practices and standards for the improvement in the community;

3.3 seek or introduce reforms in society where discrimination and pre-conception are eliminated and opportunities are open on the basis of equality; CScTED

3.4 initiate measures, programs, and activities that foster growth and development of Igorots and other Indigenous Cultural Communities in the Philippines in partnership with private individuals, government agencies and non-government organizations. 41

From the confluence of assertions above, it is easily discernible that IWI is a sectoral organization. This Court thus finds credence to IWI's insistence that the purpose/s for which it was organized 'does not, in any way, relate to any religion, religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purpose.' 42 Further, it is plainly observable that there is 'no common religion to speak of that relates to or associates, in any way, to petitioner [IWI] and even as to the members of the petitioner [IWI].' 43 Notably, under Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941, a party may be denied registration for the party-list system if it is a religious organization, or organized for religious purposes. Being a ground for disqualification that the law explicitly provides, there must first be a determination and a positive finding that indeed the party to be disqualified is a religious organization. This must be so, especially where the Constitution and By-Laws of an applicant party could easily be examined to determine whether it is organized for a religious purpose. In IWI's case, there is nothing from the documents it submitted before the COMELEC which would show that it is a religious organization, or organized for a religious purpose. Hence, it could not be disqualified on such ground.

This Court, likewise, finds that IWI sufficiently stated in its petition for registration, more specifically under paragraphs 23 and 24 thereof, that all of its officers and members were made aware of the petition and have given their consent thereto, thus:

23. The officers and members of the Sectoral Organization realize that for meaningful and long-term reforms to be instituted and in the interest of the members of the organization, there is an imperative need for proper representation in the halls of Congress, particularly in the House of [R]epresentatives.

24. As such, all of the officers and members were made [aware] of this Petition and have given their consent thereto. 44

This Court also hastens to add that the COMELEC was in grave error for denying the petition on the ground of IWI's failure to 'submit proof to enable determination that all its members are made aware of the petition and have given their consent thereto.' 45 Contrary to its position, the wording of Section 6, Rule 1 of Resolution No. 9366 is crystal clear: that in order to comply with its requirements, party-list groups need only stipulate that 'all of its officers and members are made aware of the petition and have given their consent thereto.' 46 Markedly, no proof is required by Resolution No. 9366 for the COMELEC to make any determination of such representation. Section 7 of Resolution No. 9366 requires the submission of a party's list of all its officers and members to determine whether the majority of its membership and officers belong to the sector it seeks to represent, not to determine whether consent was given. The statement in its petition for registration that consent was given by all the officers and members would thus suffice. Be that as it may, IWI attached to its motion for reconsideration the consent forms 47 of all its officers and members signifying their knowledge of such petition and their consent for its consequent filing and eventual participation in the elections.

Finally, by virtue of the list 48 of IWI officers and members, which it has attached in its petition for registration, indicating the corresponding tribes to which the respective officers and members belong to, this Court is persuaded that IWI had, in fact, satisfied the requirement to show that the majority of its membership and officers are bona fide, members of the sector it seeks to represent, in this case, not merely Igorots but also other ICCs. cDCEIA

All told, there exists grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC En Banc. Ostensibly, its actions were not in harmony with the statutory policy to develop and guarantee a 'full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.' 49

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Order dated September 22, 2021 of the First Division of the Commission on Elections in SPP No. 21-137 (PL) and Resolution No. 10375 dated December 1, 2021 of the Commission on Elections En Banc are REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as Igorot Warriors International, Inc. is concerned.'' Inting and Kho, JJ., no part.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Cumigad v. COMELEC, 547 Phil. 447, 461 (2007).

2.Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 3-14.

3. Signed by Presiding Commissioner Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Marion S. Casquejo, and Aimee P. Ferolino; id. at 18-20.

4. Signed by Chairperson Sheriff M. Abas, and Commissioners Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a member of this Court), and Aimee P. Ferolino; rollo, vol. 3, pp. 1091-1107.

5. Joint Affidavit, Sworn Proof of Existence, rollo, vol. 1, pp. 34-39.

6.Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 21.

7.Id.

8.Rollo, Vol. 3, pp. 1069-1079.

9.Id. at 18-20.

10. Entitled, "Rules and Regulations Governing the: 1) Filing of Petitions for Registration; 2) Filing of Manifestation of Intent to Participate; 3) Submission of Names of Nominees; and 4) Filing of Disqualification Cases Against Nominees of Party-List Groups or Organizations Participating under the Party-List System of Representation in Connection with the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections, and Subsequent Elections Thereafter, promulgated on February 21, 2012.

11.Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 19.

12. Motion for Reconsideration dated September 27, 2021; rollo, vol. 3, pp. 1080-1087.

13.Rollo, Vol. 3, pp. 1091-1107.

14.Id. at 1103.

15.Rollo Vol. 1, pp. 3-14.

16.Id. at 6.

17.Id. at 8.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 9.

20. Comment dated January 10, 2022; rollo, vol. 3, pp. 1116-1120.

21. Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. — The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interest 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

5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections.

xxx xxx xxx

22. Comment dated January 10, 2022; rollo, vol. 3, pp. 1122-1124.

23. Resolution dated December 16, 2021; id. at 1108-1110.

24. 707 Phil. 454 (2013).

25.Id. at 528, citing II Record, Constitutional Commission 566-567 (August 1, 1986).

26.Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, 412 Phil. 308, 332 (2001).

27. Entitled, "An Act providing for the Election of Party-List Representatives Through the Party-List System, and Appropriating Funds Therefor," approved on March 3, 1995.

28.Id., Sec. 2.

29.Dayao v. Commission on Elections, 702 Phil. 348, 373, (2013).

30. Emphases supplied.

31.Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 5.

32.Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) v. Commission on Elections, 717 Phil. 525, 530 (2013).

33. 635 Phil. 436 (2010).

34.Id. at 443.

35.Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 34-38.

36.Id. at 37.

37.Quintos v. Commission on Elections, 440 Phil. 1045, 1062-1063 (2002). (Citations omitted)

38.Rollo, Vol. 3, p. 1070.

39.Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 21-33.

40.Id. at 21.

41.Id. at 21-22.

42.Id. at 6.

43.Id.

44.Rollo, Vol. 3, p. 1075.

45.Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 19. (Italics supplied)

46. Resolution No. 9366, Rule 1, Sec. 6 (i).

47.Rollo, Vols. 1-2, pp. 49-548.

48.Rollo, Vol. 3, pp. 1049-1068.

49. Republic Act No. 7941, Sec. 2.