An Waray Party-List vs. Commission on Elections

COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to cancel a party-list’s registration, and the HRET’s jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives does not extend to such cancellation even if it may remove the party-list’s sitting nominee. Cancellation under Section 6(5) of Republic Act No. 7941 may be grounded on the party-list’s violation of or failure to comply with election laws, rules, or regulations, such as its defiance of a final NBOC resolution fixing its seat allocation.

An Waray is a registered multi-sectoral party-list organization that participated in the 2013 National and Local Elections and later party-list elections. Private respondents Danilo T. Pornias, Jr., a registered voter and taxpayer, and Jude A. Acidre, a former An Waray nominee and later a sitting nominee of Tingog Sinirangan Party-List, are the parties who initiated the cancellation proceeding. The governing statutes are Republic Act No. 7941, the Party-List System Act, which vests registration and cancellation powers in COMELEC, and Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, which vests the HRET with jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives. The seat-allocation dispute is set against the BANAT formula and the final NBOC resolution issued after Abang Lingkod.

An Waray is a duly registered multi-sectoral party-list organization that participated in the 2013 National and Local Elections. Its nominees for that election were Neil Benedict A. Montejo, Jude A. Acidre, and Victoria Isabel Noel. An Waray obtained 541,205 votes, or 1.96% of the total votes cast for party-lists, and emerged as one of the winners of seats in the House of Representatives. On May 24, 2013, COMELEC sitting as the National Board of Canvassers issued Resolution No. 0006-13, proclaiming An Waray as one of 14 party-list groups as initial winners, each guaranteed one seat. On May 28, 2013, the NBOC issued Resolution No. 0008-13, cancelling the registration of some party-list groups and adjusting seat allocations; as a result, An Waray’s number of seats was increased to two, but the resolution stated that this was “without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations or coalitions which may later on be established to be entitled to one guaranteed seat and/or additional seat.”

On May 29, 2013, Acidre, An Waray’s second nominee, resigned from the party, citing pressing personal reasons. Victoria consequently succeeded as An Waray’s second nominee. On June 5, 2013, the NBOC issued a Certificate of Proclamation to An Waray as one of the winning party-lists, entitling its first nominee, Montejo, to sit in the House of Representatives. Montejo took his oath of office on June 26, 2013 before then Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. Premised on the tally in NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13, Victoria took her oath of office separately on July 13, 2013 before Senator Francis Joseph “Chiz” Escudero. An Waray’s counsel sent a letter to the NBOC requesting a Certificate of Proclamation in favor of Victoria; in Resolution No. 0018-13 dated July 17, 2013, the NBOC merely noted the letter-request. On July 16, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc accepted Acidre’s resignation through Minute Resolution No. 13-0085.

In a Decision dated October 22, 2013, the Supreme Court in Abang Lingkod Party-List vs. COMELEC reversed COMELEC’s cancellation of Abang Lingkod’s party-list registration and ordered COMELEC to proclaim Abang Lingkod as one of the winning party-list groups in the 2013 National and Local Elections. On August 20, 2014, COMELEC issued NBOC Resolution No. 13-030 (PL)/0004-14, declaring the final distribution of seats for party-list groups in accordance with the Court’s computation in BANAT vs. COMELEC. In that resolution, An Waray was listed as entitled to only one guaranteed seat. In the years following the 2013 National and Local Elections, An Waray continued to participate in party-list elections and secured one seat in the House of Representatives in 2016, another in 2019, and another in 2022.

On May 10, 2019, Danilo T. Pornias, Jr., invoking his standing as a registered voter and taxpayer, and Acidre, then a sitting second nominee of Tingog Sinirangan Party-List in the House of Representatives, filed with COMELEC a petition for cancellation of An Waray’s registration pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7941. They asserted that Victoria, with the knowledge and consent of An Waray, deliberately took her oath of office as a Member of the 16th Congress without having been validly proclaimed by the NBOC and when An Waray was finally adjudged to have been legally entitled to one seat only. They submitted a Memorandum dated November 29, 2018 issued by the COMELEC Regional Election Director for Region VIII, certifying that no Certificate of Proclamation was issued to Victoria. They posited that these acts constituted a violation of election laws by An Waray and Victoria, justifying cancellation under Section 6(5) of Republic Act No. 7941.

In their Joint Verified Answer, An Waray, represented by its then sitting Representative Florencio Gabriel “Bem” Noel, and Victoria countered that from the time An Waray assumed its second seat through Victoria in 2013, no one ever questioned the same. Victoria was able to discharge her official duties as representative of An Waray without interruption in accordance with NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13, which had not been revoked, amended, or vacated by COMELEC. They averred that the petition failed to present any legal basis for its conclusion that An Waray or Victoria committed any violation of election laws.

The COMELEC Second Division later found that NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13 was without prejudice and was effectively superseded by NBOC Resolution No. 13-030 (PL)/0004-14 following Abang Lingkod; that An Waray secured only one seat; and that, having known this, An Waray arrogated unto itself the authority to have Victoria take her oath and assume office. The COMELEC En Banc likewise found substantial evidence that An Waray committed a serious infraction by allowing Victoria to assume office when Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7941 requires prior proclamation by COMELEC.

• HRET Jurisdiction: Petitioners argued that since the resolution of the petition against them depended on the validity of Victoria’s proclamation as a Member of the House of Representatives, the matter fell under “returns” in the HRET’s exclusive jurisdiction over contests involving the election, returns, and qualifications of House Members.
• Excessive Penalty: Petitioners maintained that, assuming COMELEC had jurisdiction and Victoria’s assumption violated election laws, cancellation of An Waray’s registration was too harsh a penalty, considering the lack of evidence that An Waray itself participated in the alleged scheme.
• Speedy Disposition: Petitioners argued that COMELEC should have dismissed the petition after failing to decide it within 60 days as mandated by Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution, violating their right to speedy disposition of cases under Article III, Section 16.
• Equal Protection: Petitioners contended that COMELEC violated their right to equal protection by failing to dismiss the petition despite the speedy-disposition violation, although it had motu proprio dismissed several election offense cases from the 2010, 2013, and 2016 National and Local Elections on the same ground.
• Harshness and Delay: Petitioners asserted that An Waray was being stripped of its membership in the House of Representatives for an alleged offense committed over 10 years ago in 2013.
• Prescription: Petitioners argued that the alleged violation of election law had already prescribed because under Section 267 of the Omnibus Election Code, election offenses prescribe after five years from the date of commission.
• Injunctive Relief: Petitioners prayed for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, and/or Status Quo Ante Order against execution of the assailed Resolutions, which would cause irreparable injury to An Waray as a duly elected and registered party-list for many years.

• COMELEC — Jurisdiction: COMELEC contended that the issue was not Victoria’s continued membership in Congress, since she had already ceased discharging official duties, but An Waray’s entitlement to participate in party-list elections, over which COMELEC was vested with jurisdiction.
• COMELEC — Proclamation: COMELEC argued that while NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13 named An Waray as an initial winner garnering two seats, this did not equate to COMELEC’s proclamation of Victoria as required under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7941 for party-list representatives.
• COMELEC — Speedy Disposition: COMELEC asserted that petitioners should be deemed to have waived their right to speedy disposition due to their failure to timely invoke it until an unfavorable resolution was issued against them.
• COMELEC — Prescription: COMELEC maintained that the claim of prescription was untenable because the case was not an election offense case.
• COMELEC — Injunctive Relief: COMELEC opposed injunctive relief, arguing that petitioners had no clear legal right to participate in party-list elections, which is a mere privilege granted to those compliant with Republic Act No. 7941, and that there was no urgency because the subsequent party-list elections were slated for 2025.
• Private Respondents — Jurisdiction: Private respondents alleged that their petition sought cancellation of An Waray’s registration as a party-list organization, a matter within COMELEC’s exclusive jurisdiction; it was neither a case to disqualify Victoria nor a petition for quo warranto against her.
• Private Respondents — Jurisdiction over Victoria: Private respondents argued that as Victoria was not a validly proclaimed Member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC retained jurisdiction over contests relating to her election, returns, and qualifications.
• Private Respondents — Prescription: Private respondents contended that there was no prescription because An Waray’s acts were unconstitutional and thus could not prescribe.
• Private Respondents — Speedy Disposition: Private respondents maintained that An Waray failed to raise violation of the right to speedy disposition before COMELEC and therefore effectively waived the same.
• Private Respondents — Finality: Private respondents emphasized that under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the assailed Resolutions had become final and executory, with an entry of judgment made on September 19, 2023.
• Private Respondents — Supplemental: Private respondents additionally averred that since Acidre was originally the second nominee and resigned only on May 29, 2013, which COMELEC accepted only on July 16, 2013, Victoria was not yet the second nominee entitled to the additional seat when she took her oath on July 13, 2013.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Cancellation: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it cancelled An Waray’s registration as a party-list organization.
• Jurisdiction — COMELEC vs. HRET: Whether the HRET, not COMELEC, has jurisdiction to cancel An Waray’s registration as a party-list whose nominees became a Member of the House of Representatives.
• Speedy Disposition: Whether An Waray’s constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated by COMELEC.
• Prescription: Whether the petition to cancel the registration of An Waray as a party-list has already prescribed.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Cancellation: No. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion; although it erred in relying on Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7941, cancellation was warranted under Section 6(5) for An Waray’s violation of or failure to comply with NBOC Resolution No. 13-030 (PL)/0004-14.
• Jurisdiction — COMELEC vs. HRET: COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction. The HRET’s jurisdiction is limited to contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives; a party-list is not such a Member, and the action was not a contest against a sitting Member.
• Speedy Disposition: No violation. The case was administrative, not criminal; An Waray failed to prove actual prejudice and failed to timely invoke the right, amounting to waiver or acquiescence.
• Prescription: No. Section 267 of the Omnibus Election Code applies only to election offenses; cancellation of party-list registration is not an election offense, and no prescriptive period is fixed by Republic Act No. 7941 or the COMELEC Rules.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Cancellation: The cancellation was based on Section 6(5) of Republic Act No. 7941, which allows cancellation for violation of or failure to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to elections. COMELEC found that An Waray aided or allowed Victoria to assume a second seat in the 16th Congress despite knowing that An Waray was entitled to only one seat and that Victoria had not been proclaimed by COMELEC. COMELEC cited Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7941, but the Court found this erroneous: Section 13 is a directive to COMELEC itself to proclaim winning party-list representatives according to their rankings, so An Waray could not violate that provision. Nevertheless, An Waray did violate NBOC Resolution No. 13-030 (PL)/0004-14, which applied BANAT and unequivocally declared that An Waray was entitled to only one seat. Despite notice, An Waray continued to occupy a second seat through Victoria until the end of her term, a clear defiance of the NBOC Resolution in relation to Section 6(5). Other factors showed lack of penitence: NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13 was expressly without prejudice; An Waray knew Victoria lacked a Certificate of Proclamation and even wrote a letter-request for one, yet allowed her to take her oath and assume office and finish her term. Thus, COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction and did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
• Jurisdiction — COMELEC vs. HRET: Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the nature or subject matter of the action, not by its effects. The Constitution, Article IX-C, Section 2(5), and Republic Act No. 7941, Sections 3, 5, and 6, vest COMELEC with the power to register party-list organizations and to cancel their registration. Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution and Rule 15 of the HRET Rules limit the HRET’s jurisdiction to contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives. A party-list is not a Member of the House; it is the nominee who sits as Member. The requisites of membership are a valid proclamation, a proper oath of office, and assumption of office. In this case, the main petition sought cancellation of An Waray’s registration, not a contest against a sitting Member. An Waray was not a Member; Victoria was not the respondent and was no longer an incumbent; Bem was not the respondent. The fact that cancellation might remove a sitting nominee did not trigger HRET jurisdiction. Javier vs. COMELEC defined “election, returns, and qualifications”; ABC vs. COMELEC and Abayon vs. HRET distinguished COMELEC’s jurisdiction over party-list registration from HRET’s jurisdiction over nominees’ qualifications; COCOFED held that cancellation grounds pertain to the party itself. If effects determined jurisdiction, criminal or administrative cases carrying disqualification would improperly fall under the HRET, contrary to Jalosjos vs. COMELEC and Ty-Delgado vs. HRET. Thus, COMELEC properly retained jurisdiction.
• Speedy Disposition: Under the COMELEC Rules, a division has 10 days to resolve a case and the En Banc has 30 days to resolve a motion for reconsideration. The petition was filed in May 2019; the Division resolved it in June 2023; the En Banc affirmed in August 2023, a delay of almost four years. Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan distinguished the right to speedy trial from the right to speedy disposition and applied the latter to quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings that are adversarial and may result in criminal liability. Abella vs. Commission on Audit Proper, a purely administrative case, required an actual, specific, and real injury with conclusive and factual basis, and timely invocation. The cancellation proceeding was administrative, not criminal; no accused’s rights were at stake. An Waray failed to show prejudice; during the pendency it participated in and won seats in 2019 and 2022. Its failure to invoke the right during the four-year delay amounted to waiver or acquiescence. No violation.
• Prescription: Section 267 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that election offenses prescribe after five years from commission. Sections 261 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code specify election offenses, and a petition to cancel party-list registration is not among them. Under expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the petition did not prescribe under Section 267. Republic Act No. 7941 and the COMELEC Rules are silent on the period to file a cancellation petition. Article 1149 of the New Civil Code, which fixes a five-year period for actions not otherwise covered, is inapplicable because it refers to prescription of ordinary actions in court, and a cancellation petition is not such an action. Dayao vs. COMELEC likened party-list accreditation or registration to a legislative franchise, a mere privilege that can be reviewed and revoked at will and never becomes final or irrevocable. Since Republic Act No. 7941 does not limit COMELEC’s power to cancel to a specific period, the action does not prescribe.

• COMELEC’s exclusive jurisdiction over party-list registration and cancellation — The Constitution, Article IX-C, Section 2(5), and Republic Act No. 7941, particularly Section 6, vest in COMELEC the power to register party-list organizations and to cancel their registration. This jurisdiction covers the party-list organization itself and is not transferred to the HRET merely because the party-list has a nominee sitting in the House of Representatives.
• HRET jurisdiction and requisites of House membership — The HRET is the sole judge of contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives. Membership requires (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath of office, and (3) assumption of office. The HRET’s jurisdiction is limited to contests against Members; it does not extend to party-list registration cancellation, even if cancellation may result in the removal of a sitting nominee.
• Subject matter jurisdiction over effects — Jurisdiction is determined by the nature or subject matter of the action, not by its effects. The possibility that a case may remove a sitting Member of the House does not by itself vest jurisdiction in the HRET; otherwise, criminal or administrative cases carrying disqualification would improperly fall under the HRET.
• Grounds for cancellation under Section 6(5), RA 7941 — A party-list registration may be cancelled for violation of or failure to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to elections. The violation must be primarily imputable to the party itself, not chiefly to an individual member or nominee. In this case, An Waray itself allowed and aided Victoria to assume a second seat despite the final NBOC resolution allocating only one seat.
• Section 13, RA 7941, as a COMELEC duty — Section 13 directs COMELEC to proclaim party-list representatives based on the list and ranking submitted by the party-list. It does not impose a duty on the party-list to obtain the proclamation; hence, a party-list cannot be said to have violated Section 13 for failure to secure a certificate of proclamation.
• Right to speedy disposition of cases in administrative cases — The right to speedy disposition applies before judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies, but in purely administrative cases the claimant must prove actual, specific, and real injury caused by the delay, with conclusive and factual basis, and must timely invoke the right. Failure to do so amounts to waiver or acquiescence. This is stricter than the standard for criminal cases, where the oppressive nature of criminal prosecution may itself suffice.
• Non-prescription of party-list registration cancellation — Section 267 of the Omnibus Election Code applies only to election offenses, and cancellation of party-list registration is not an election offense. Republic Act No. 7941 and the COMELEC Rules do not fix a prescriptive period. Article 1149 of the New Civil Code is inapplicable because it governs ordinary actions in court. A party-list registration is akin to a legislative franchise, a mere privilege that may be reviewed and revoked at will and never attains finality, so the cancellation action does not prescribe.
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — The express mention of election offenses in Sections 261 and 262 of the Omnibus Election Code excludes other matters, such as party-list registration cancellation, from the five-year prescription in Section 267. This supported the ruling that the cancellation action had not prescribed.

• “The HRET does not have jurisdiction over petitions to cancel the registration of party-lists, including those whose nominees are incumbent Members of the HoR.” — This states the core jurisdictional ruling: COMELEC, not the HRET, has authority over party-list registration cancellation even when a nominee sits in the House of Representatives.
• “Jurisdiction is conferred by law on the basis of a case’s subject matter. A simple reading of the HRET’s jurisdiction under the Constitution shows that it is not concerned with the effects of a case, but rather with its subject matter or nature—that is, again, the case must be a contest relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of a Member of the HoR.” — This rejects the dissent’s effects-based approach and anchors jurisdiction in the nature of the action.
• “The same, however, cannot be said for administrative cases—thus, for a claimant to successfully hurdle a claim of violation of this right, it is imperative to prove actual injury caused by the purported delay as elucidated in Abella.” — This sets the stricter standard for speedy-disposition claims in purely administrative cases, requiring proof of actual injury.
• “Indeed, Republic Act No. 7941 expressly recognizes COMELEC’s power to review and cancel registrations it already extended to party-list groups. That it does not limit the exercise of this power to a specific period means that, consistent with the rationale in Dayao, it can exercise the same at any time. In short, it does not prescribe.” — This is the ratio on non-prescription of party-list registration cancellation.

• Abang Lingkod Party-List vs. COMELEC, 720 Phil. 120 (2013) — Reversed COMELEC’s cancellation of Abang Lingkod’s registration and ordered its proclamation; cited in the factual backdrop and for the rule that an untruthful statement under Section 6(6) of RA 7941 must pertain to the qualification of the party, organization, or coalition.
• Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) vs. COMELEC, 604 Phil. 131 (2009) — The Court’s seat-allocation computation applied by the NBOC in the final distribution of party-list seats; the resolution applying BANAT declared An Waray entitled to only one seat.
• Javier vs. COMELEC, 228 Phil. 193 (1986) — Defined “election,” “returns,” and “qualifications” for purposes of the HRET’s jurisdiction; used to show that the cancellation petition was not a contest relating to election, returns, or qualifications.
• ABC (Alliance for Barangay Concerns) Party List vs. COMELEC, 661 Phil. 452 (2011) — Held that COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions to cancel party-list registration, while the HRET has jurisdiction over contests relating to the qualifications of party-list nominees/representatives; the nominee, not the party-list, sits as a Member of the House.
• Vinzons-Chato vs. COMELEC, 548 Phil. 712 (2007) — Held that once a winning candidate is proclaimed, takes oath, and assumes office, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications ends and the HRET’s begins; distinguished because only such contests are transferred, not all cases involving the Member.
• COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. vs. COMELEC, 716 Phil. 19 (2013) — Held that the grounds for cancellation under Section 6 of RA 7941 pertain to the party itself, and the violation must be primarily imputable to the party, not chiefly to an individual member or nominee.
• Abayon vs. HRET, 626 Phil. 346 (2010) — Reiterated that in the case of party-list nominees/representatives, the HRET has jurisdiction over contests relating to their qualifications, although the party-list organization is voted for in elections.
• Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, 711 Phil. 414 (2013) — Held that COMELEC had the duty to cancel the certificate of candidacy of a person convicted by final judgment of statutory rape with accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification; used to illustrate that cases with disqualification effects do not necessarily fall under the HRET.
• Ty-Delgado vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 779 Phil. 268 (2016) — Held that libel is a crime involving moral turpitude and disqualifies a convict from holding public office; used to show that regular courts, not the HRET, adjudicate criminal cases that may carry disqualification.
• Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, Quezon City, 837 Phil. 815 (2018) — Distinguished the right to speedy trial from the right to speedy disposition and laid down guidelines for determining inordinate delay; applied by the Court to the administrative cancellation proceeding.
• Abella vs. Commission on Audit Proper, G.R. No. 238940, April 19, 2022 — Held that in a purely administrative case, a claim of violation of the right to speedy disposition requires actual, specific, and real injury with conclusive and factual basis, and timely invocation; applied to reject An Waray’s claim.
• Corpuz vs. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 899 (2004) — Explained that the right to speedy trial and speedy disposition is designed to prevent oppressive delays in criminal prosecutions; cited to contrast criminal cases with administrative cases.
• Spouses Edralin vs. Philippine Veterans Bank, 660 Phil. 368 (2011) — Held that Article 1149 of the New Civil Code refers to prescription of actions, which are ordinary suits in court; cited to show Article 1149 did not apply to the cancellation petition.
• Dayao vs. COMELEC, 702 Phil. 348 (2013) — Likened COMELEC accreditation or registration of a party-list organization to a legislative franchise, a mere privilege that may be reviewed and revoked at will and never becomes final or irrevocable; basis for holding that cancellation does not prescribe.

• Article IX-C, Section 2(5), 1987 Constitution — Vests COMELEC with the power to register political parties, organizations, or coalitions and to refuse registration on specified grounds; cited to support COMELEC’s authority over party-list registration and cancellation.
• Article VI, Section 17, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the Senate and House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members; construed to limit HRET jurisdiction and exclude party-list registration cancellation.
• Article IX-A, Section 7, 1987 Constitution — Requires each Commission to decide by majority vote any case or matter brought before it within 60 days from submission for decision or resolution; invoked by petitioners on speedy disposition but not found violated.
• Article III, Section 16, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right to a speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies; applied to the administrative cancellation proceeding and found not violated.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 7941 — Authorizes COMELEC to refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any party-list organization on enumerated grounds; Section 6(5) covers violation of or failure to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to elections and served as the basis for cancellation.
• Section 13, Republic Act No. 7941 — Provides that party-list representatives shall be proclaimed by COMELEC based on the list of names submitted by the party-list according to ranking; held to impose a duty on COMELEC, not on the party-list, so An Waray could not be found to have violated it.
• Sections 3 and 5, Republic Act No. 7941 — Define the party-list system and provide for registration with COMELEC; cited to show COMELEC’s authority over participation in the party-list system.
• Section 267, Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) — Provides that election offenses prescribe after five years from commission; held inapplicable because cancellation of party-list registration is not an election offense.
• Sections 261 and 262, Omnibus Election Code — Specify acts constituting election offenses; their enumeration does not include cancellation of party-list registration, supporting the expressio unius est exclusio alterius ruling.
• Article 1149, New Civil Code — Provides that all other actions whose periods are not fixed in the Code or other laws must be brought within five years from accrual; held inapplicable because it refers to ordinary actions in court, not a party-list cancellation petition.
• Rule 15, 2015 Revised Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal — Defines HRET jurisdiction and states that a Member of the House must have a valid proclamation, proper oath, and assumption of office; used to distinguish party-list registration cancellation from HRET contests.
• COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Set periods for resolution by a division and the En Banc; cited in the speedy-disposition analysis, though the delay was not found to violate the right.
• Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, Rules of Court — Govern the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners; the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Gesmundo, C.J.; Hernando; Inting; Zalameda; M. Lopez; Gaerlan; Rosario; J. Lopez; Dimaampao; Marquez; Kho, Jr.; and Singh, JJ., concurred. Leonen, SAJ., concurred and filed a separate opinion; the supplied text does not reproduce its reasoning.

• Lazaro-Javier, J. — Dissented on the jurisdictional issue. She manifested support for the position that COMELEC cannot be given carte blanche jurisdiction over the registration and cancellation of party-list organizations. According to her, although the original cause is cancellation of the party-list’s registration, the result is the removal of a sitting Member of the House of Representatives; hence, the HRET should have exclusive jurisdiction over the petition. The text notes that she was on official business but left a vote.