Bello vs. COMELEC

After a party-list nominee has been proclaimed, has taken the oath of office, and has assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives, the HRET has exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the nominee's qualifications, and the COMELEC's jurisdiction over such matters ends.

The case involves three consolidated petitions challenging the qualification of Juan Miguel "Mikey" Arroyo as the first nominee of Ang Galing Pinoy Party-List (AGPP), a party-list organization claiming to represent tricycle drivers and security guards. Arroyo was at the time an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the House Energy Committee, and a member of the First Family. The petitions were filed under the framework of Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act) and COMELEC Resolution No. 8807, which prescribed rules for disqualification cases against party-list nominees participating in the May 10, 2010 elections. The dispute centered on whether Arroyo, given his political stature and positions, could qualify as a nominee representing marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

On November 29, 2009, Ang Galing Pinoy Party-List (AGPP) filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) its Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the May 10, 2010 elections. Subsequently, on March 23, 2010, AGPP filed its Certificate of Nomination together with the Certificates of Acceptance of its nominees, listing Juan Miguel "Mikey" Arroyo as its first nominee. AGPP claimed to represent the sectors of tricycle drivers and security guards.

On March 25, 2010, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8807, which prescribed the rules of procedure applicable to petitions to disqualify a party-list nominee for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections. Section 6 of the Resolution required party-list groups and nominees to submit documentary evidence to prove that the nominees truly belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors and to the sectoral party, organization, or coalition they seek to represent. Section 10 authorized the COMELEC to motu proprio effect the disqualification of party-list nominees who violate the limitations mentioned in Section 7. Pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8646, the deadline for submitting the requirements under Section 6 was March 29, 2010.

On the same day that Resolution No. 8807 was issued, petitioners Liza L. Maza, Saturnino C. Ocampo, and Bayan Muna Party-List, represented by Teodoro Casiño (the certiorari petitioners), filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification against Arroyo. They argued that under Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC, not only must the party-list organization factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented, but the nominee must as well be a Filipino citizen belonging to those sectors. They contended that Arroyo could not be considered a member of the marginalized and underrepresented sector—particularly tricycle drivers and security guards—because he was a member of the First Family, an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the House Energy Committee, and a member of key committees including Natural Resources, Justice, National Defense and Security, Public Works and Highways, Transportation, and Ways and Means. Arroyo countered in his Answer that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over issues involving the qualifications of party-list nominees, and that Section 9 of RA 7941 merely requires the nominee to be a bona fide member of the party or organization for at least ninety (90) days preceding the election.

On March 30, 2010, Bayan Muna Party-List, represented by Neri Colmenares, filed another petition for disqualification against Arroyo, alleging that he does not represent or belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector, has not been a bona fide AGPP member for at least ninety days, is a member of the House of Representatives, and that AGPP is not a legitimate party-list group. Arroyo reiterated his jurisdictional objection and maintained his bona fide membership in AGPP.

Meanwhile, on April 6, 2010, petitioners Walden F. Bello and Loretta Ann P. Rosales (the mandamus petitioners) wrote the COMELEC Law Department requesting a copy of the documentary evidence submitted by AGPP in compliance with Section 6 of Resolution No. 8807. The COMELEC Law Department replied that as of that date, AGPP had not yet submitted any documentary evidence. Through letters dated April 7 and April 20, 2010, the mandamus petitioners requested the COMELEC to act under Section 10 of Resolution No. 8807 and declare the disqualification of AGPP's nominees for failure to comply with Section 6. The COMELEC failed to respond to both letters.

The COMELEC Second Division, in its May 7, 2010 Joint Resolution, dismissed the petitions for disqualification against Arroyo. It found that Section 9 of RA 7941 merely requires the nominee to be a bona fide member of the party for at least ninety days preceding the election, and that Arroyo became a member on November 20, 2009, actively participated in AGPP's undertakings, and adhered to its advocacies. The COMELEC en banc, in its July 19, 2010 consolidated resolution, refused to reconsider, holding that a party-list nominee need only be a bona fide member for at least ninety days and at least twenty-five years of age on election day, and that Section 6 of Resolution No. 8807 was ultra vires because the requirement that a nominee belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector is not found in RA 7941.

In the interim, AGPP obtained in the May 10, 2010 elections the required percentage of votes sufficient to secure a single seat, entitling Arroyo, as AGPP's first nominee, to sit in the House of Representatives. On July 21, 2010, the COMELEC, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed Arroyo as AGPP's duly-elected party-list representative. Arroyo took his oath of office the same day before Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, and his name was entered in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives. On July 28 and 29, 2010, two separate petitions for quo warranto were filed with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) questioning Arroyo's eligibility. On September 7, 2010, the HRET took cognizance of the petitions by issuing a Summons directing Arroyo to file his Answer.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion (Mandamus Petitioners): The mandamus petitioners argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to order the motu proprio disqualification of AGPP nominees despite their failure to comply with the mandatory requirements under Section 6 of Resolution No. 8807, and in giving due course to AGPP's participation in the May 10, 2010 elections.
• Disqualification Grounds (Certiorari Petitioners): The certiorari petitioners contended that the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion in failing to disqualify Arroyo because: (1) he does not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector he claims to represent; (2) he is not a bona fide AGPP member for at least ninety (90) days preceding the May 10, 2010 elections; (3) he would not be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation for the sector he seeks to represent; and (4) his nomination and acceptance violate AGPP's continuing undertaking upon which its registration and accreditation were based.
• Review of COMELEC Decisions (Bayan Muna): Bayan Muna prayed that the Court direct the COMELEC en banc to review all its decisions in disqualification and cancellation cases filed in the May 10, 2010 elections in line with the eight-point guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani, and that certain COMELEC Commissioners be ordered to explain why they should not be cited in contempt for defying the Court's decisions in Ang Bagong Bayani and Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency vs. COMELEC.

• HRET Jurisdiction (Arroyo): Arroyo counter-argued that the petitions should be dismissed because upon his proclamation, oath-taking, and assumption to office as a duly elected member of the House of Representatives, jurisdiction over issues relating to his qualifications now lies exclusively with the HRET as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House.
• Lack of Jurisdiction (COMELEC/OSG): The COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, prayed for dismissal of the certiorari petitions for lack of jurisdiction in view of Arroyo's proclamation and assumption to office as a member of the House of Representatives.

• Availability of Mandamus: Whether mandamus lies to compel the COMELEC to disqualify AGPP's nominees motu proprio or to cancel AGPP's registration.
• Propriety of Prohibition: Whether the COMELEC can be enjoined from giving due course to AGPP's participation in the May 10, 2010 elections, the canvassing of AGPP's votes, and proclaiming it a winner.
• HRET Jurisdiction: Whether the HRET has jurisdiction over the question of Arroyo's qualifications as AGPP's nominee after his proclamation and assumption to office as a member of the House of Representatives.

• Availability of Mandamus: No. Mandamus does not lie because the petitioners failed to satisfy the requirement under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court that there be no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; the available remedies under COMELEC Resolution No. 8807 and RA 7941 were not exhausted, rendering the petition premature.
• Propriety of Prohibition: Mooted. The prohibition aspect was rendered moot by the supervening participation, election, and proclamation of AGPP after it secured the required percentage of votes in the May 10, 2010 elections, as there was nothing left to prohibit.
• HRET Jurisdiction: Yes. The HRET has exclusive original jurisdiction over Arroyo's qualifications as a member of the House of Representatives after his proclamation, oath-taking, and assumption to office, pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution.

• Availability of Mandamus: For a writ of mandamus to issue under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner must show that the respondent unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, and that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The mandamus petitioners failed to satisfy this condition. Under Section 2, in relation to Section 4, of COMELEC Resolution No. 8807, any interested party may file with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification against a party-list nominee, with the petition under Section 2(b) to be filed any day not later than the date of proclamation. Under Section 6 of RA 7941, any interested party may likewise file a verified complaint for cancellation of registration of a party-list organization. These provisions effectively provide the "plain, speedy and adequate remedy" that the mandamus petitioners should have pursued. Instead of filing the proper formal petitions, the mandamus petitioners confined themselves to writing letters to the COMELEC, which cannot be considered formal petitions for disqualification. The filing of the mandamus petition was therefore premature, violating the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, which requires a party to exhaust all administrative remedies to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts. The petitioners failed to show that any exception to the exhaustion rule applied. Mandamus, as an extraordinary remedy, may be used only in cases of extreme necessity where ordinary forms of procedure are powerless to afford relief.

• Propriety of Prohibition: The prohibition aspect—seeking to prevent the COMELEC from canvassing AGPP's votes and proclaiming it a winner—was rendered moot by supervening events. AGPP had already participated in the May 10, 2010 elections, secured the required percentage of votes, and been proclaimed a winner. A moot case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon can no longer be done. Under the circumstances, the Court recognized the futility of the petition and dismissed it on the ground of mootness, as no substantial relief could be provided to the mandamus petitioners.

• HRET Jurisdiction: The consistent judicial holding is that the HRET has jurisdiction to pass upon the qualifications of party-list nominees after their proclamation and assumption of office. Party-list nominees are, for all intents and purposes, "elected members" of the House of Representatives, although the entity directly voted upon was their party. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution identifies two kinds of members of the House: those elected from legislative districts and those elected through the party-list system. From the Constitution's perspective, it is the party-list representatives who are "elected" into office, not their parties or organizations, although the voters cast their votes for the organizations or parties. Once elected, both district and party-list representatives are treated in like manner, with the same deliberative rights, salaries, emoluments, and term limitations. RA 7941 itself recognizes party-list nominees as "members of the House of Representatives." Following Abayon vs. HRET and Perez vs. COMELEC, once the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken the oath and assumed office, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to qualifications ends and the HRET's jurisdiction begins. Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, and the use of the word "sole" emphasizes the exclusive character of this jurisdiction. In the present case, Arroyo had already been proclaimed, had taken his oath of office, and had assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives. Two quo warranto petitions had been filed against him before the HRET, which had already taken cognizance by issuing a Summons. Accordingly, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction over the petitions and that the HRET had exclusive original jurisdiction.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — A party must exhaust all administrative remedies to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide and thus prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts. While the rule admits of exceptions (violation of due process, purely legal questions, patently illegal administrative action, estoppel, irreparable injury, etc.), the party invoking an exception must demonstrate its applicability. In this case, the mandamus petitioners failed to show that any exception applied, rendering their direct resort to the Supreme Court premature.

• HRET Exclusive Jurisdiction over Qualifications of House Members — Under Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. The word "sole" emphasizes the exclusive character of the jurisdiction conferred. Party-list nominees, once proclaimed, sworn in, and having assumed office, are "elected members" of the House no less than district representatives, and accordingly the HRET has exclusive original jurisdiction over questions regarding their qualifications. The COMELEC's jurisdiction over such matters ends upon proclamation and assumption to office.

• Mootness Doctrine — A case becomes moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon can no longer be done. In this case, the prohibition aspect of the mandamus petition was rendered moot because AGPP had already participated, won, and been proclaimed in the elections, leaving nothing to prohibit.

• Party-List Nominees as Elected Members — Although the vote cast in a party-list election is a vote for a party, such vote is ultimately a vote for its nominees, who would eventually sit in the House of Representatives. Party-list representatives are "elected members" of the House under Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, and are treated in like manner as district representatives in terms of deliberative rights, salaries, emoluments, and term limitations.

• "the consistent judicial holding is that the HRET has jurisdiction to pass upon the qualifications of party-list nominees after their proclamation and assumption of office; they are, for all intents and purposes, 'elected members' of the House of Representatives although the entity directly voted upon was their party." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the jurisdictional issue, establishing that party-list nominees are elected members of the House and that the HRET has jurisdiction over their qualifications after proclamation and assumption to office.

• "By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins." — This passage defines the jurisdictional boundary between the COMELEC and the HRET with respect to party-list nominees, marking the point at which jurisdiction transfers.

• "The use of the word 'sole' emphasizes the exclusive character of the jurisdiction conferred." — This passage underscores the exclusivity of the HRET's jurisdiction over qualifications of House members, drawing from the constitutional text of Section 17, Article VI.

• "a petition for mandamus is not the correct remedy under the circumstances as the immediately applicable remedy is a petition for disqualification or for cancellation filed with the COMELEC, as pointed out above." — This passage establishes that the availability of administrative remedies before the COMELEC precludes resort to mandamus, applying the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine.

• Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 147589 and 147613, June 26, 2001 — Cited by the certiorari petitioners for the proposition that not only must the party-list organization represent the marginalized and underrepresented, but the nominee must also belong to those sectors. The Court referenced this case's eight-point guidelines but ultimately did not rule on the substantive qualifications issue due to jurisdictional dismissal.

• Abayon vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189466, February 11, 2010 — Controlling precedent followed. The Court relied on this case to establish that party-list nominees are "elected members" of the House of Representatives and that the HRET has jurisdiction to pass upon their qualifications after proclamation and assumption to office.

• Perez vs. Commission on Elections, 375 Phil. 1106 (1999) — Followed. The Court cited this case for the proposition that once a candidate has been proclaimed and has assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives, neither the COMELEC en banc nor the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over questions of eligibility; jurisdiction transfers exclusively to the HRET.

• Lazatin vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal — Followed. Cited for the principle that the word "sole" in the constitutional grant of jurisdiction to the HRET emphasizes the exclusive character of that jurisdiction, described as "full, clear and complete."

• Bantay Republic Act No. 7941 vs. Commission on Elections — Followed. Cited for the proposition that a party-list representative is in every sense "an elected member of the House of Representatives," and that although the vote is cast for a party, it is ultimately a vote for its nominees.

• Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179295, April 21, 2009 — Referenced by the certiorari petitioners in their prayer for contempt against certain COMELEC Commissioners for alleged defiance of the Court's rulings.

• Section 3, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for mandamus, requiring that there be no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court applied this provision to hold that the mandamus petitioners had available remedies under COMELEC rules and RA 7941, rendering their mandamus petition premature.

• Section 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Applied to establish that the HRET has exclusive jurisdiction over Arroyo's qualifications after his proclamation and assumption to office.

• Section 5, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Identifies the two kinds of members of the House of Representatives: those elected from legislative districts and those elected through the party-list system. Applied to establish that party-list nominees are "elected members" of the House.

• Section 2, Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) — Declaration of policy recognizing that Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors may "become members of the House of Representatives." Cited to support the conclusion that party-list nominees are members of the House.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 7941 — Authorizes the COMELEC, motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, to cancel the registration of a party-list organization on specified grounds. Identified as an available administrative remedy that the mandamus petitioners should have pursued.

• Section 9, Republic Act No. 7941 — Requires that a party-list nominee be a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election. The COMELEC found that Arroyo satisfied this requirement.

• Sections 2 and 4, COMELEC Resolution No. 8807 — Provide the grounds for disqualification of party-list nominees and the period for filing petitions for disqualification (any day not later than the date of proclamation). Identified as the "plain, speedy and adequate remedy" available to the mandamus petitioners.

• Section 6, COMELEC Resolution No. 8807 — Required party-list groups and nominees to submit documentary evidence proving that nominees belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. The COMELEC en banc held this provision ultra vires because the requirement is not found in RA 7941.

• Section 10, COMELEC Resolution No. 8807 — Authorized the COMELEC to motu proprio effect the disqualification of party-list nominees who violate the limitations in Section 7. The mandamus petitioners sought to compel the COMELEC to act under this provision.

• Section 8, Rule 32, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Authorizes the COMELEC to motu proprio cancel the registration of any party for failure to comply with applicable laws, rules, or regulations. Identified as another available administrative remedy.

Corona, C.J., Carpio, Carpio Morales, Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, and Sereno, JJ., concur. Velasco, Jr., J., was on official leave.