The Commission on Elections has a constitutional duty to disclose to the public the names of party-list nominees, as this is a matter of public concern falling under the people's right to information; Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941, which states that "The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list," only prohibits the inclusion of such names on the certified list posted in polling places on election day and does not constitute an absolute bar to their disclosure through other means before the election.

The case arose from the upcoming May 14, 2007 party-list elections. Various groups filed manifestations of intent to participate, and some were accredited by the COMELEC. Public perception grew that some individuals behind these accredited party-list groups did not genuinely represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Petitioners, concerned about the qualifications and sectoral representation of these nominees, sought the disclosure of their names from the COMELEC, which the latter refused, leading to these petitions.

• The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7804 governing the filing of manifestations of intent and submission of nominee names for the May 14, 2007 party-list elections.
• Numerous party-list groups, including the private respondents, filed manifestations and were subsequently accredited by COMELEC.
• Petitioners in G.R. No. 177271 (BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR) sought the disqualification of 33 named party-list groups and their nominees, arguing COMELEC accredited them without simultaneously determining if their nominees possessed the requisite qualifications and belonged to the marginalized sectors they claim to represent.
• Petitioners in G.R. No. 177314 (Rosales et al.) requested COMELEC to release the names of nominees of 14 accredited party-list groups due to public perception that these nominees did not represent the poor and marginalized.
• COMELEC did not officially respond to Rosales' requests but issued Resolution 07-0724 on April 3, 2007, stating that the names of party-list nominees would only be disclosed/publicized after 3:00 p.m. on election day.
• Rosales obtained a copy of Resolution 07-0724 on April 21, 2007.
• BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR had also filed an "Urgent Petition to Disqualify" (SPA Case No 07-026) before the COMELEC, which was still pending.
• COMELEC's rationale for non-disclosure, as reported, was that party-list elections are not personality-oriented and that R.A. No. 7941 does not require disclosure of nominee names prior to the certified list on election day.

• COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by accrediting party-list groups without simultaneously determining if their nominees are qualified and belong to the marginalized sector they represent, contrary to the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani v. Comelec.
• COMELEC violated the constitutional right to information and free access to documents by refusing to reveal the names of party-list nominees.
• COMELEC is mandated by the Constitution to disclose the names of said nominees to the public.
• COMELEC Resolution 07-0724, effectively denying disclosure of nominees' names until after 3:00 p.m. on election day, is an unconstitutional restriction on the right to information.
• The non-disclosure policy prevents voters from making an informed choice and scrutinizing the qualifications of those who might represent them.

• (COMELEC) Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941 states that "The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list," implying non-disclosure before election day.
• (COMELEC) Party-list elections are not personality-oriented; people vote for sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions, not for their nominees.
• (COMELEC) There is nothing in R.A. No. 7941 that requires COMELEC to disclose the names of nominees prior to the certified list.
• (Private Respondents) The plea to nullify their accreditation is untenable and premature, as it involves factual determination not suitable for a certiorari petition and there is a pending disqualification case before the COMELEC.
• (Private Respondents) There is no requirement in R.A. No. 7941 that the qualification of a party-list nominee be determined simultaneously with the accreditation of an organization.

• Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in accrediting the respondent party-list groups without simultaneously determining the qualifications of their respective nominees.
• Whether the COMELEC, by refusing to reveal the names of the nominees of various party-list groups, violated the right to information and free access to documents as guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Whether the COMELEC is mandated by the Constitution to disclose to the public the names of said party-list nominees.

• The Court partly DENIED the petition in G.R. No. 177271 insofar as it sought to nullify the accreditation of the respondent party-list groups, stating that such action would require factual determination outside the scope of certiorari review and noting the pendency of SPA Case No. 07-026 before the COMELEC. The Court found no basis for the claim that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by not simultaneously determining nominee qualifications with party-list accreditation, as R.A. No. 7941 provides different timelines for these processes.
• The Court GRANTED the petitions (G.R. No. 177271 and G.R. No. 177314) insofar as they sought to compel COMELEC to disclose the names of the party-list nominees. The Court held that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing disclosure.
• The Court ruled that the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern (Art. III, Sec. 7) and the policy of full public disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28) mandate the release of the nominees' names, as their identity is a matter of high public interest.
• The prohibition in Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941 ("The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list") is limited to the certified list posted in polling places on election day and does not bar prior disclosure through other means. Interpreting it as an absolute bar to disclosure renders the provision unconstitutional.
• The COMELEC was ordered to immediately disclose and release the names of the nominees of the accredited party-list groups for the May 14, 2007 elections and to submit compliance within five days.

• Right to Information on Matters of Public Concern (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 7) — This self-executory provision guarantees the people's right to information on matters of public concern and access to official records, subject to limitations provided by law. The Court applied this by holding that the identity of party-list nominees is a matter of public concern, and citizens have the right to know who these individuals are, thus mandating COMELEC's disclosure.
• Policy of Full Public Disclosure (Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 28) — This provision declares that the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest, subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. The Court used this to reinforce the duty of COMELEC to be transparent and disclose the names of party-list nominees, as this involves public interest.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — This refers to such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The Court found COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to disclose the nominees' names by misinterpreting R.A. No. 7941 and violating the constitutional right to information.
• Locus Standi in Right to Information Cases — The legal standing to sue. The Court reiterated that any citizen can challenge attempts to obstruct the exercise of the right to information, and objections on the ground of locus standi are ordinarily unavailing because the right is a public right. This allowed the petitioners to bring the suit.
• Certiorari (Rule 65) — A special civil action to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that certiorari does not involve a review of factual findings or the tribunal's evaluation of evidence, which was a basis for denying the plea to cancel party-list accreditations.
• Presumption of Validity and Regularity of Official Acts — Official acts of government officials and offices are presumed to be valid and regularly performed. The Court mentioned this general principle but found COMELEC's non-disclosure stance to be an exception due to its impingement on a fundamental right.
• Informed Electorate — The principle that voters have the right to elect their representatives based on an informed judgment, necessitating access to information relevant to their choices. The Court applied this by stating that non-disclosure of nominee names leads to blind voting and hinders the free and intelligent casting of votes.

• "The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list." (Quoting R.A. No. 7941, Sec. 7, to highlight COMELEC's misinterpretation).
• "The right to information is a public right where the real parties in interest are the public, or the citizens to be precise. And for every right of the people recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part of those who govern to respect and protect that right."
• "To stretch the coverage of the prohibition [in Sec. 7, R.A. 7941] to the absolute is to read into the law something that is not intended."
• "The Comelec obviously misread the limited non-disclosure aspect of the provision as an absolute bar to public disclosure before the May 2007 elections. The interpretation thus given by the Comelec virtually tacks an unconstitutional dimension on the last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941."
• "While the vote cast in a party-list elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House of Representatives."
• "The ideal cannot be achieved in a system of blind voting, as veritably advocated in the assailed resolution of the Comelec."

• Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001, 359 SCRA 698) — Referenced by petitioners for the eight-point guidelines on party-list accreditation, specifically that nominees must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. The Court, however, did not delve into applying these guidelines for disqualification due to the factual nature of the inquiry.
• Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. L-72119, May 19, 1987, 150 SCRA 530) — Cited for establishing that the right to information is limited to "matters of public concern" and that the term embraces a broad spectrum of subjects. Also cited for the principle that any citizen can seek enforcement of this right by mandamus.
• Tanada v. Tuvera (G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27) — Cited to support that any citizen can challenge attempts to obstruct the exercise of the right to information and may seek its enforcement by mandamus.
• Chavez v. PCGG (G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998, 299 SCRA 744) — Referenced for the limitations on the right to information, such as matters involving national security, trade, banking, and diplomatic secrets, which were found not applicable in this case.
• Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong (G.R. No. L-82380, April 29, 1988, 160 SCRA 861) — Cited for the principle that an act (like COMELEC's non-disclosure) impinging on a fundamental right comes with a weighty presumption of invalidity.
• Gardiner v. Romulo (G.R. No. L-8921, January 9, 1914, 26 Phil. 521) — Cited as long-standing jurisprudence frowning upon any interpretation of law or rules that would hinder the free and intelligent casting of votes in an election.
• Pobre v. Gonong (G.R. No. L-60575, March 16, 1987, 148 SCRA 553) — Cited to support the principle that in certiorari proceedings, the Court does not decide factual issues and must decide based on undisputed facts.
• Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. CA (G.R. No. 138270, June 28, 2001, 360 SCRA 173) / Oro v. Diaz (G.R. No. 140974, July 11, 2001, 361 SCRA 108) — Cited to explain that the sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not to review the tribunal's evaluation of evidence.
• Gonzales v. Narvasa (G.R. No. 140835, August 14, 2000, 337 SCRA 733) — Cited for the self-executory nature of Section 7, Article III of the Constitution (right to information).
• Rodriquez v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. L-61545, December 27, 1982, 119 SCRA 465) — Cited in conjunction with Gardiner v. Romulo to emphasize the Court's stance against hindering the free and intelligent casting of votes.

• Constitution, Article III, Section 7 (Right to Information) — This provision was central to the ruling, establishing the people's right to know the names of party-list nominees as a matter of public concern.
• Constitution, Article II, Section 28 (Policy of Full Public Disclosure) — This provision was invoked to support the argument that the State, including COMELEC, must ensure transparency in transactions involving public interest, such as the identity of potential public officials.
• Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act), Section 4 (Registration) — Referenced to show the timeline for filing a petition for registration of a party-list organization (not later than 90 days before the election), distinguishing it from the timeline for submitting nominee lists.
• Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act), Section 7 (Certified List of Registered Parties) — This section was the crux of COMELEC's defense for non-disclosure. The Court interpreted its last sentence ("The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.") narrowly, limiting it only to the list posted on election day, not as a general prohibition on disclosure.
• Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act), Section 8 (List of Nominees) — Referenced for the timeline for submitting the list of nominees (not later than 45 days before the election), further showing a distinct process from party accreditation.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 7804 — Mentioned as the regulation governing the filing of manifestations of intent and submission of nominee names for the 2007 party-list elections.
• COMELEC Resolution 07-0724 — This resolution, which stated that nominee names would only be disclosed after 3:00 p.m. on election day, was effectively invalidated by the Supreme Court's decision regarding the disclosure issue.