EN BANC
[G.R. No. 221760. March 8, 2016.]
VIEVA FARMERS COALITION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT/CHAIRPERSON, LILIA M. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedMARCH 8, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221760 (Vieva Farmers Coalition, represented by its President/Chairperson, Lilia M. Cruz vs. Commission on Elections). — Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus with Prayer for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, under Rule 65, assailing the Resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated October 13, 2015 in SPP No. 15-111 (PL) and SPP No. 15-162 (PLM), which denied petitioner's petition for registration as a sectoral organization for the Party List System for the purpose of participating in the 2016 National and Local Elections.
Petitioner Vieva Farmers Coalition alleges that it is a coalition of two non-stock, non-profit associations, namely, the Vegetable Importers, Exporters and Vendors Association of the Philippines (Vieva Phils., Inc.) and Pambansang Ugnayan ng Magsasaka, Mangingisda at Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc. (PUM3P). 1 Vieva Phils., Inc. allegedly organized in 1998 with the aim "to counter-balance the influence of big and influential vegetable trading firms," 2 while PUM3P was incorporated in 2013, being composed of small farmers, fishermen and other farm workers. On May 1, 2015, the two groups, with authority from their respective boards of trustees, coalesced and formed the petitioner, Vieva Farmers Coalition. 3
On May 8, 2015, Vieva Farmers Coalition filed a Petition for Registration with the COMELEC praying that it be issued a Certificate of Registration as a sectoral party/organization with a Manifestation of Intention to join the party-list elections. 4 The petition was heard by the COMELEC and, on October 13, 2015, the poll body issued a Resolution 5 denying the petition for registration of Vieva Farmers Coalition.
The COMELEC denied the petition on the ground that Vieva Farmers Coalition did not comply with the requirement that majority of its members belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" vegetable vendors and vegetable farmers. It found that the list of members that Vieva Farmers Coalition submitted does not specifically indicate who actually are the vegetable vendors and vegetable farmers. Instead, it found the petitioner's criteria of membership as too broad and cover any person involved in "agricultural work." 6 The COMELEC cited the guidelines laid down in the Supreme Court case of Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC7 in determining which sectoral parties or organizations qualify for participation in party-list elections, which guidelines require, among other things, that "a majority of the members of the sectoral parties or organizations must belong to the 'marginalized and underrepresented' sector they seek to represent." 8
Hence, Vieva Farmers Coalition filed this Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus with Prayer for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.
Petitioner claims that it was able to prove that its members are vegetable farmers, vegetable farmworkers and vegetable vendors, allegedly by submitting its Constitution and By-Laws, which both require that only "vegetable vendors, farmers, farm workers, feeds and fertilizer providers, seedling cultivators and other agricultural workers may become members," subject to other qualifications. 9 Allegedly, since the founding documents make such requirements, it follows that all of the coalition's members are members of the sector that it seeks to represent in the party-list system. 10
Similarly, petitioner argues that since its component units, i.e., Vieva Phils., Inc. and PUM3P, were organized by vegetable vendors in 1998 and small farmers, fishermen and other farm workers in 2015, respectively, then, it follows that all of the said units' members are such vegetable vendors, small farmers, fishermen and other farm workers. 11 It also adds that its members are also members of farmers' associations and cooperatives in Regions I, III, IVB and XII. 12
Petitioner also assails the COMELEC's description of its membership as "too broad" in comprising any person engaged in "agricultural work." To address the same, it quotes its Constitution and By-Laws which describes its membership as "open to . . . any person engaged in agricultural work, such as but not limited to vegetable vendors, farmers, farm workers, feeds and fertilizer providers, seedling cultivators and similar works," with the latter phrase allegedly defining what "agricultural work" is. 13 In addition, petitioner quotes the 1987 Constitution which states that "the State shall 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 . . . ." 14
Petitioner Vieva Farmers Coalition prays for a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to stop the COMELEC from removing its name from the slot of party-list groups in the ballots for the 2016 elections, or a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to reinstate and include its name in the ballots should it had been already removed. 15
Without ruling on the prayer for a TRO/Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the Court required the public respondent to file a comment.
In its Comment on the petition and prayer for TRO/writ of preliminary injunction/writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, the COMELEC alleged that it was the petitioner who had the burden to prove that the majority of its members belong to the marginalized sector which it seeks to represent. 16 It stated that the quantum of evidence required was substantial evidence, and such was not met by petitioner. 17 Further, the COMELEC raises the fact that petitioner's membership is too broad, as it is open to any person who engages in agricultural work, which may "include even feeds and fertilizer providers, seedling cultivators and the like," which makes the term too broad and fails to help petitioner prove that it is composed of members from the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. 18
In addition, the petitioner allegedly failed to meet the twin requirements of submitting a list of all its officers and members and indicating that a majority of such officers and members belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s it seeks to represent. 19 The list submitted did not specifically indicate who among the members are actually vegetable farmers, vegetable farm workers or vegetable vendors. 20 A mere certification submitted by petitioner's President/Chairperson that the membership is in fact made up of vegetable farmers, vegetable farm workers or vegetable vendors is not enough to comply with Section 7 (c) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366. 21
Upon examining the above arguments, the Court finds that public respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the application of petitioner. Indeed, petitioner's definition of its membership is too broad, as the petition itself states that petitioner's membership is "open to . . . any person engaged in agricultural work, such as but not limited to vegetable vendors, farmers, farm workers, feeds and fertilizer providers, seedling cultivators and similar works." 22 Also, the COMELEC correctly found that the list of members and officers petitioner had submitted did not indicate who among them are actual vegetable farmers, vegetable farm workers or vegetable vendors; thus, it violates the requirement that its members and officers come from the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that the organization seeks to represent. The same amounts to failure to comply with the guidelines set in Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC and COMELEC Resolution No. 9366.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is DENIED, there being no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion committed by public respondent Commission on Elections in its assailed Resolution dated October 13, 2015 in SPP No. 15-111 (PL) and SPP No. 15-162 (PLM). Brion, J., on leave. (adv53)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, Vol. I, p. 6.
2. Id. at 7.
3. Id. at 8.
4. Id. at 7.
5. Id. at 25-35.
6. Id. at 33-34.
7. G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013, 694 SCRA 477.
8. Id. 31-33.
9. Id. at 11-13.
10. Id. at 13.
11. Id. at 13-14.
12. Id. at 14.
13. Id. at 15-16.
14. Id. at 17.
15. Id. at 18-19.
16. Rollo, Vol. 2, p. 973.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 974-975.
19. Id. at 975-976.
20. Id. at 976.
21. Id. at 976-977.
22. Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 15-16.