Alcantara vs. Commission on Elections

Political parties, including registered party-list groups, are generally free to conduct their internal affairs under their constitution and by-laws pursuant to the right to free association; the COMELEC may resolve party leadership disputes, and its factual findings are binding absent grave abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence.

Abakada Guro Party List is a registered sectoral party-list group that won a seat in the May 2007 elections, with respondent Jonathan de la Cruz as its first nominee and sole representative in Congress. Petitioners Samson S. Alcantara, Romeo R. Robiso, Pedro T. Dabu, Jr., Lope E. Feble, Noel T. Tiampong, and Jose Floro Crisologo were officials and members of ABAKADA, while respondents included Jonathan de la Cruz, Ed Vincent Albano, and Benedict Kato. ABAKADA’s constitution and by-laws required a Supreme Assembly to be convened at least once every three years to elect officers and amend the party’s CBL.

Petitioners Samson S. Alcantara, Romeo R. Robiso, Pedro T. Dabu, Jr., Lope E. Feble, Noel T. Tiampong, and Jose Floro Crisologo were officials and members of Abakada Guro Party List (ABAKADA). Alcantara, Tiampong, and Dabu were the founding President, Vice President for the Visayas, and Secretary, respectively, while Robiso, Feble, and Crisologo had been members of the party since 2007. Sometime between January and April 2003, Alcantara and his fellow law teachers organized a party named Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers. The party had a constitution and by-laws (CBL) and a principal office at the same location as Atty. Alcantara’s law office. On May 14, 2004, the party name was amended and changed to Abakada Guro Party list, and the change was duly approved by the COMELEC. In the May 2007 elections, ABAKADA participated and won a seat, with Jonathan de la Cruz, its first nominee, becoming the party’s sole representative in Congress.

In a May 5, 2009 letter separately addressed to the COMELEC and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, De la Cruz tendered his “irrevocable” resignation effective December 31, 2009. Despite the supposed effectivity of his resignation, De la Cruz refused to vacate his seat, prompting Alcantara and others to file a petition for quo warranto with the Supreme Court. This petition was subsequently dismissed for being moot and academic.

In several occasions between October and December 2009, De la Cruz requested Alcantara in writing to convene the Supreme Assembly. He informed Alcantara of the nationwide party caucuses being held and of the common sentiment among members that a party meeting should be called. Under ABAKADA’s CBL, a Supreme Assembly meeting should be held at least once every three years; since 2004, no Supreme Assembly had been called and held. In his letter-response, Alcantara explained that the Supreme Assembly could not be held as requested because many members resided in the provinces and the party lacked funds to cover the necessary expenses. Instead, Alcantara replied that it would be more “feasible to hold the Supreme Assembly early next year, as may be determined by the National Executive Board.” Alcantara added that approval of applications for membership in Abakada is a party matter, that genuine devotion to the advancement of the welfare of teachers and other school personnel is a basic qualification for membership under the CBL, and that membership identification cards have to be signed by the Secretary and the President of ABAKADA. He also noted that they had filed with the COMELEC their Manifestation to Participate on November 24, 2009.

On December 15, 2009, an All Leaders Assembly was convened. While Alcantara failed to attend the meeting, he sent Noel Tiampong in his stead. The convening of a Supreme Assembly was proposed at the meeting, with the agenda of amending the ABAKADA CBL, the election of new officers, and the discussion of other election-related matters. The proposal was to hold the meeting sometime in February 2010. Accordingly, in a letter dated January 23, 2010, Ed Vincent Albano, acting as the party’s Secretary, notified the party’s chapters and members that the party would hold its first Supreme Assembly on February 6, 2010 “pursuant to the resolution adopted by the party during its First All Leaders Assembly held last December 15, 2009.” As scheduled, the respondents proceeded to hold a Supreme Assembly that resulted in the approval and ratification of the revised ABAKADA CBL; the ouster of Alcantara and his allies from their positions; the expulsion of the petitioners from the party; and the election of De la Cruz and Albano as new President and Secretary-General, respectively.

This prompted the petitioners to file a petition with the COMELEC to declare the meeting held on February 6, 2010 void and to restrain the respondents from falsely representing themselves as the duly elected officers of ABAKADA. In their petition, the petitioners alleged that the sending of notices and the holding of a Supreme Assembly were contrary to the party’s CBL for not having been authorized by the President and by the party’s National Executive Board. They alleged that Albano had no authority to sign and send notices, much less call a Supreme Assembly, since he was not the party’s Secretary. Likewise, the membership status of several meeting participants had neither been approved nor accepted in accordance with the party’s CBL. The respondents defended the validity of the meeting in their comment to the petition. They narrated that between September 2009 and February 2010, De la Cruz made several communications to Alcantara to urge him to call a general membership meeting and to inform him of the consultation meetings and party caucuses being conducted at the respondents’ instance in preparation for the May 2010 elections. The respondents added that since Alcantara’s letter-response merely sought the deferment of the Supreme Assembly to “early next year,” i.e., 2010, an All Leaders Assembly was convened on December 15, 2009, with prior notice to Alcantara, leading to the Supreme Assembly on February 6, 2010.

The COMELEC Second Division found that the holding of an assembly for purposes of electing party officers and amending the party’s CBL had long been overdue; that under the CBL a Supreme Assembly must be convened every three years; and that under Alcantara’s leadership no Supreme Assembly had been convened since ABAKADA’s accreditation in 2004. It found that respondents, as members in good standing, had every right to ask Alcantara to call a Supreme Assembly, and that because of petitioners’ failure or outright refusal to heed the requests, respondents had good cause to initiate the meeting. The COMELEC En Banc found that petitioners failed to prove that the Supreme Assembly delegates were non-members, as their evidence showed membership only as of 2002 or 2003 and did not rule out that more individuals had become members since.

• Grave Abuse in Appreciation of Evidence: Petitioners argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it did not consider Alcantara’s affidavit, the submitted list of party members, and the attached individual applications for membership; since the attendance sheets of the participants in the Supreme Assembly were submitted to the COMELEC, it could have simply compared the submitted lists to determine whether the Supreme Assembly participants were legitimate party members.
• Invalid Assembly Under the CBL: Petitioners maintained that even assuming the participants in the Supreme Assembly were all party members, the meeting was not convened in accordance with the party’s CBL; thus, the COMELEC should have granted their petition to declare the Supreme Assembly meeting void.
• Lack of Authority and Membership Approval: In their COMELEC petition, petitioners alleged that the sending of notices and the holding of a Supreme Assembly were contrary to the party’s CBL for not having been authorized by the President and by the party’s National Executive Board; that Albano had no authority to sign and send notices, much less call a Supreme Assembly, since he was not the party’s Secretary; and that the membership status of several meeting participants had neither been approved nor accepted in accordance with the party’s CBL.

• Initiative by the General Membership: Respondents countered that the general membership is empowered to take the initiative and call for a Supreme Assembly when the duly elected officials unjustifiably refuse to do so; they acted only after sending several letters to petitioner Alcantara and after a consensus was reached in the All Leaders Assembly on December 15, 2009, with prior notices to petitioner Alcantara, and Albano, acting as Secretary General, signed and sent notices to the chapter leaders who are the official representatives of the general membership.
• Petitioners Cannot Invoke the CBL: Respondents argued that petitioners cannot invoke ABAKADA’s CBL in assailing the validity of the Supreme Assembly because their own refusal to abide by the democratic provisions of the CBL, including electing new officers every three years, was the very violation that prompted the conduct of the party proceeding now being assailed.
• Continuing Compliance and Accreditation: Respondents added that during the hearing on the registered party-list groups’ continuing compliance with Republic Act No. 7941 and the 1987 Constitution, only respondent De la Cruz and the present ABAKADA composition participated and submitted the necessary documentary and testimonial evidence proving the party’s continuing existence and accomplishments for the purpose of party-list accreditation.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Membership Evidence: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for nullity of the Supreme Assembly on the ground that petitioners failed to prove that the assembly participants were not legitimate ABAKADA members.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Validity of the Supreme Assembly Under the CBL: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in upholding the validity of the February 6, 2010 Supreme Assembly despite petitioners’ claim that it was not convened in accordance with ABAKADA’s constitution and by-laws.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Membership Evidence: No. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion; petitioners failed to substantiate that the Supreme Assembly participants were not legitimate members, and the COMELEC’s factual findings are generally binding absent a showing that they are unsupported by substantial evidence.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Validity of the Supreme Assembly Under the CBL: No. Political parties, including registered party-list groups, are generally free to conduct their internal affairs under their constitution and by-laws pursuant to the right to free association; the COMELEC correctly refused to let petitioners use procedural objections to perpetuate themselves in power.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Membership Evidence: The COMELEC has jurisdiction to pass upon who, among the legitimate officers of a party-list group, are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges granted to a party-list group under the law; its action may be interfered with only for grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse means capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Petitioners failed to hurdle this standard. They established only the group’s membership as of 2003; they did not account for the group’s actual membership at least as of 2009 or at the time of the February 2010 Supreme Assembly. Their evidence consisted of applications for membership with ABAKADA as of November 3, 2003 and Alcantara’s affidavit denying the membership of most attendees. Under Article IV, Section 3 of ABAKADA’s CBL, applications for membership are approved by the membership council at the municipal, city, provincial, or regional levels, not exclusively by the President or the National Executive Board. Given ABAKADA’s membership structure, Alcantara’s affidavit and the 2003 applications were insufficient. As the party seeking to nullify the conduct of the Supreme Assembly, petitioners had to substantiate who the legitimate members of ABAKADA were at the time the Supreme Assembly was held. The COMELEC’s factual findings are generally binding unless clearly shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence, and petitioners did not demonstrate that their case fell within this narrow exception.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Validity of the Supreme Assembly Under the CBL: Even assuming that all participants in the 2010 Supreme Assembly were legitimate members, petitioners’ claim that the assembly violated the CBL does not warrant nullity. ABAKADA, though registered as a sectoral party, is governed by the general principles applicable to political parties as voluntary associations. Political parties constitute a basic element of the democratic institutional apparatus and are generally free to conduct their internal affairs pursuant to the constitutionally protected right to free association, including the determination of the individuals who shall constitute the association and the officials who shall lead the party. Members may adopt, amend, modify, or altogether scrap their constitution and by-laws. If the validity of the Supreme Assembly depended solely on Alcantara and Dabu as the persons who call the meeting and send notice, they could perpetuate themselves in power in violation of the very constitution they invoke. ABAKADA’s constitution required a Supreme Assembly every three years to elect the National Executive Board, but no Supreme Assembly had been held since ABAKADA came into existence in 2003. Respondents communicated with Alcantara to urge him to call the assembly; the call was reasonable and practical for the coming May 2010 elections. Their communications were ignored. The Court cannot give primacy to matters of procedure over substance in ABAKADA’s CBL, especially after the general membership had spoken. The COMELEC thus acted within its jurisdiction and did not gravely abuse its discretion.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion means the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave, as when exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility, and so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The Court applied this standard to the COMELEC’s resolutions and found no grave abuse.
• COMELEC Jurisdiction Over Party Leadership Disputes — The Constitution empowers the COMELEC to register political parties, and registration of a party-list group under the party-list system confers juridical personality on it for election-related purposes. As a juridical entity, a party-list group can only validly act through its duly authorized representatives, and the COMELEC necessarily possesses the power to pass upon who, among the legitimate officers of the party-list group, are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges granted to a party-list group under the law. This jurisdiction was applied to resolve the dispute over ABAKADA’s leadership.
• Political Parties as Voluntary Associations and the Right to Free Association — Political parties are generally free to conduct their internal affairs pursuant to their constitutionally protected right to free association. This includes determining the individuals who shall constitute the association and the officials who shall lead the party. Through their members, political parties are free to adopt their own constitution and by-laws, including terms on choosing leaders and members, and they may amend, modify, or scrap their constitution. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold ABAKADA’s internal assembly and to reject petitioners’ CBL-based challenge.
• Burden of Proof in Nullifying a Party Assembly — A party seeking to nullify the conduct of a party assembly must first clearly substantiate its allegation on who the legitimate members of the party were at the time the assembly was held. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden because they showed only membership as of 2003 and did not establish the actual membership at the time of the February 2010 Supreme Assembly.
• Finality of COMELEC Factual Findings — The findings of fact of the COMELEC are generally binding on the Court unless the factual conclusions are clearly shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that their case fell within this narrow exception.
• Substance Over Procedure in Internal Party Governance — The Court cannot give primacy to matters of procedure over substance in a party’s CBL, especially after the general membership has spoken. This doctrine supported the dismissal of petitioners’ procedural objections to the Supreme Assembly.

• "By grave abuse of discretion is generally meant the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility. Such abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law." — This states the controlling standard for the Court’s review of the COMELEC’s resolutions and explains why the petition failed.
• "As the party seeking to nullify the conduct of the Supreme Assembly, the petitioners must first clearly substantiate their allegation on who the legitimate members of ABAKADA were at the time Supreme Assembly was held." — This fixes the burden of proof on petitioners and supports the COMELEC’s dismissal for failure to prove that assembly participants were non-members.
• "If the validity of the Supreme Assembly would completely depend on the person who calls the meeting and on the person who sends the notice of the meeting – who are petitioners Alcantara and Dabu themselves – then the petitioners would be able to perpetuate themselves in power in violation of the very constitution whose violation they now cite." — This is the ratio for rejecting petitioners’ CBL-based challenge and upholding the assembly.
• "The COMELEC, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to resolve party leadership disputes, has rendered its ruling. By failing to establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC, this Court can do no less than dismiss this petition and allow ABAKADA as a sectoral party to determine its own affairs under its present leadership." — This summarizes the Court’s disposition and the principle of party autonomy.

• Liberal Party vs. Commission, G.R. No. 191771, May 6, 2010 — Cited for the rule that registration of a party-list group under the party-list system confers juridical personality on it for election-related purposes.
• Cantoria vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 162035, November 26, 2004 — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
• Benito vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 134913, January 19, 2001 — Cited for the rule that findings of fact of the COMELEC are generally binding on the Court unless clearly shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence.
• Valencia vs. Peralta, G.R. No. L-47771, March 11, 1978 — Cited for the principle that political parties constitute a basic element of the democratic institutional apparatus.
• Sinaca vs. Mula, G.R. No. 135691, September 27, 1999 — Cited for the rule that political parties are generally free to conduct their internal affairs under the right to free association, including determining their members and leaders.
• Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161265, February 24, 2004 — Cited for the COMELEC’s authority to turn to the party constitution to resolve questions necessary in the exercise of its enforcement powers.

• Section 2, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Empowers the COMELEC to register political parties; cited to establish the COMELEC’s authority over party registration and related leadership questions.
• Section 5(1), Article VI; Article IX-C, Section 7, 1987 Constitution; Section 5, Republic Act No. 7941 — Cited for the COMELEC’s power to register national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions for the party-list system.
• Section 8, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Cited in relation to the constitutionally protected right to free association, which supports the freedom of political parties to conduct internal affairs.
• Rules 64 and 65, Rules of Court — Govern the petition for certiorari and the standard for judicial interference with COMELEC action, which requires grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• ABAKADA Constitution, Article IV, Section 3 — Provides that applications for membership in ABAKADA shall be in writing and submitted for approval by the membership council in the municipal, city, provincial, or regional levels; cited to reject Alcantara’s claim of exclusive authority to approve members.
• ABAKADA Constitution, Article V, Section 1 and Article VI, Section 1 — Require the convening of the Supreme Assembly once every three years for electing the National Executive Board; cited to show that the assembly was overdue.
• ABAKADA Constitution, Article VI — Provides that each municipal unit is entitled to two delegates to the Supreme Assembly while each provincial or city unit is entitled to five delegates; cited to show ABAKADA’s membership structure.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Disodado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Marvic M. V. F. Leonen.