ABC (Alliance for Barangay Concerns) Party List vs. Commission on Elections

The COMELEC retains jurisdiction over petitions for the cancellation of a party-list organization's registration even after the organization has been proclaimed a winner, as such jurisdiction pertains to the organization itself, whereas the HRET's jurisdiction over the qualifications of the elected nominee attaches only upon proclamation and assumption of office.

Private respondent Melanio Mauricio, Jr. filed a petition to cancel the registration of ABC Party-List, alleging it was a front for the religious group Ang Dating Daan, thus violating Sec. 6(1) of R.A. 7941. The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition on procedural (defective verification) and substantive (ABC is not a religious sect) grounds. Mauricio moved for reconsideration, submitting supplemental evidence. The COMELEC en banc partially granted the motion, finding substantial compliance with notarial rules and ordering a hearing to afford due process. ABC then filed a certiorari petition arguing the COMELEC lost jurisdiction upon ABC's proclamation.

• The Petition for Cancellation: On May 25, 2010, private respondent filed a petition to cancel ABC Party-List's registration, claiming it was a front for Ang Dating Daan, a religious sect, in violation of R.A. 7941. He alleged the real first nominee was a top official of the sect, the sect organized and financed ABC, and its membership comprised sect members. He also alleged untruthful statements in the accreditation petition and foreign support.
• ABC's Defense: ABC denied the allegations, citing its accreditation, participation in the 2007 elections, and founding by the National President of the Association of Barangay Chairmen. It claimed no identification with any religious entity.
• Second Division Dismissal: The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition on procedural grounds (verification not duly notarized per 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) and substantive grounds (ABC is not a religious sect).
• Reconsideration and Reinstatement: Mauricio moved for reconsideration, attaching ID photocopies to the verification and submitting supplemental evidence. The COMELEC en banc found substantial compliance with notarial rules and noted the Second Division dismissed without a hearing, violating due process. It reinstated the petition and scheduled a hearing.
• Proclamation and Jurisdictional Challenge: ABC argued that because it was proclaimed a winner on May 31, 2010, and its nominees invited to a House orientation, the COMELEC lost jurisdiction to the HRET.

• Loss of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC lost jurisdiction upon ABC's proclamation; the HRET has sole jurisdiction over contests relating to the qualifications of House members under Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution.
• Due Process Not Violated: Petitioner maintained that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in setting the petition for hearing because Mauricio already had the opportunity to present evidence via his Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
• Procedural Defects: Petitioner contended that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in recognizing the petition despite its facial unmeritorious nature and procedural defects regarding notarization.
• Selective Treatment: Petitioner asserted that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion by singling out ABC for a hearing while summarily dismissing similar cases (citing BANAT v. CIBAC, BANAT v. 1-CARE/APEC).

• Verification Compliance: Private respondent countered that the petition was not defective due to attached IDs, and he should be given the opportunity to present evidence under Sec. 6 of R.A. 7941.
• COMELEC Jurisdiction: Private respondent argued that ABC was not validly proclaimed; thus, the COMELEC still has jurisdiction.
• Due Process: The COMELEC en banc found that the Second Division's dismissal without a hearing deprived Mauricio of due process, and that Sec. 6 of R.A. 7941 requires notice and hearing.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the COMELEC retains jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a party-list organization's registration after the organization has been proclaimed a winner in the elections.
• Due Process / Hearing: Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a hearing on the petition despite the private respondent's prior opportunity to submit evidence.
• Verification: Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in finding substantial compliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice regarding the petition's verification.
• Selective Justice: Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion by setting the case for hearing while summarily dismissing other similar cases.

• Jurisdiction: The COMELEC retains jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of a party-list organization's registration even after proclamation. Jurisdiction over the organization's registration is derived from Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-C of the Constitution, distinct from the HRET's jurisdiction over the qualifications of the elected party-list nominee/representative derived from Sec. 17, Art. VI. While the party-list organization is voted for, it is the nominee who sits as a member of the House of Representatives. Thus, the HRET's jurisdiction over the nominee's qualifications attaches upon proclamation and assumption of office, but the COMELEC's authority over the organization's registration persists.
• Due Process / Hearing: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. The COMELEC has the constitutional mandate and prerogative to cancel registrations on legal grounds, which necessitates a hearing to resolve the petition on its merits and respect due process, as required by Sec. 6 of R.A. 7941.
• Verification: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. The COMELEC en banc correctly found substantial compliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because the community tax certificate and two IDs were attached to the verification page. The COMELEC has the discretion to liberally construe procedural rules for a just and speedy resolution.
• Selective Justice: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. The cited cases (BANAT v. CIBAC, BANAT v. 1-CARE/APEC) were dismissed because the eligibility of those party-list groups had already been settled affirmatively by the Supreme Court, unlike ABC's case.

• Distinction between COMELEC jurisdiction over party-list organizations and HRET jurisdiction over party-list nominees — The COMELEC's power to register and cancel the registration of political parties/organizations is derived from Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-C of the Constitution. The HRET's jurisdiction over the qualifications of elected members of the House of Representatives, including party-list nominees, is derived from Sec. 17, Art. VI. Proclamation of the party-list group and assumption of office by the nominee transfers jurisdiction over the nominee's qualifications to the HRET, but does not divest the COMELEC of jurisdiction over the organization's registration.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

• "Since the representative of the elected party-list organization becomes a member of the House of Representatives, contests relating to the qualifications of the said party-list representative is within the jurisdiction of the HRET..."
• "Therefore, the jurisdiction of the HRET over contests relating to the qualifications of a party-list nominee or representative is derived from Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, while the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over petitions for cancellation of registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition is derived from Section 2 (5), Article IX-C of the Constitution."

• Sandoval v. Commission on Elections, 380 Phil. 375 (2000) — Cited for the proposition that procedural due process demands notice and hearing.
• Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 189466, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 375 — Controlling precedent establishing that party-list nominees are "elected members" of the House of Representatives and that the HRET has jurisdiction over their qualifications upon proclamation and assumption of office.
• Batul v. Bayron, 468 Phil. 130 (2004) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion.
• Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, 452 Phil. 899 (2003) — Cited as the basis for the COMELEC's dismissal of a similar petition in BANAT v. 1-CARE/APEC, where the Court had already affirmatively settled the registration and qualification of the party-list group.

• Section 2(5), Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Grants the COMELEC the authority to register political parties, organizations, or coalitions and to cancel their registration on legal grounds (e.g., receiving foreign contributions). Applied to establish that COMELEC retains jurisdiction over the registration of the party-list organization itself.
• Section 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the Electoral Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Applied to establish that HRET has jurisdiction over the qualifications of the elected party-list nominee, not the party-list organization's registration.
• Section 5(1), Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Defines the composition of the House of Representatives to include those elected through the party-list system. Applied to show that party-list nominees are members of the House.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) — Enumerates the grounds for refusal and/or cancellation of registration of a party-list group, including being a religious sect, and requires "due notice and hearing." Applied to justify the COMELEC's directive to schedule a hearing and its continuing jurisdiction over the organization's registration.
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 7941 — Declaration of Policy recognizing that citizens belonging to marginalized sectors can "become members of the House of Representatives." Applied to support the distinction between the organization and the elected representative.
• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Sections 1 and 6, Rule II — Require that a person appearing before a notary public must be known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied to determine substantial compliance where IDs were attached to the verification page.

Renato C. Corona (CJ), Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.