COCOFED vs. COMELEC

The submission of a list of not less than five nominees under Section 8 of RA No. 7941 is a mandatory statutory requirement for party-list registration and continuing compliance, and a party-list group's failure to comply warrants cancellation of its registration under Section 6(5) of the same law.

COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. is an organization and sectoral party whose membership comes from the peasant sector, particularly coconut farmers and producers. It was previously registered with the COMELEC as a party-list organization. Under the Party-List System Act (RA No. 7941), a registered party-list group need not register anew for every subsequent election but only needs to file a manifestation of intent to participate, accompanied by a list of at least five nominees. The COMELEC, through Resolution No. 9359 (promulgated February 8, 2012) and Resolution No. 9366 (promulgated February 21, 2012), had apprised all registered party-list groups of this requirement well in advance of the May 13, 2013 party-list elections. In Atong Paglaum, Inc., etc., et al. vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013), the Court had remanded all party-list petitions to the COMELEC for determination of compliance with new parameters and guidelines, including the sixth parameter that a party shall not be disqualified if some nominees are disqualified, provided at least one nominee remains qualified.

COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. is an organization and sectoral party whose membership comes from the peasant sector, particularly coconut farmers and producers. On May 29, 2012, COCOFED manifested with the COMELEC its intent to participate in the party-list elections of May 13, 2013, submitting the names of only two nominees — Atty. Emerito S. Calderon as first nominee and Atty. Domingo P. Espina as second nominee. On August 23, 2012, the COMELEC conducted a summary hearing pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 9513 to determine whether COCOFED, among several party-list groups, had continuously complied with the legal requirements. During this hearing, the COMELEC pointed out to COCOFED that it had only two nominees.

On November 7, 2012, the COMELEC cancelled COCOFED's registration and accreditation on several grounds, including that the party was affiliated with government-owned or controlled coconut agencies and thus not marginalized, that it received government assistance, and that its two nominees did not belong to the sector sought to be represented. Commissioner Christian Lim's concurring opinion additionally cited COCOFED's failure to comply with Section 8 of RA No. 7941, which requires submission of a list of not less than five nominees. On December 4, 2012, COCOFED submitted the names of Charles R. Avila, in substitution of Atty. Espina as second nominee, and Efren V. Villaseñor as third nominee.

COCOFED, among several others, questioned the COMELEC's cancellation before the Supreme Court, praying for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. By reason of a status quo ante order issued by the Court, COCOFED's name was included in the printing of official ballots for the May 13, 2013 elections. On April 2, 2013, the Court rendered its Decision in Atong Paglaum, remanding all petitions to the COMELEC to determine compliance with new parameters and guidelines. The sixth parameter provided that national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

On May 10, 2013, the COMELEC issued its assailed omnibus resolution, maintaining its earlier ruling cancelling COCOFED's registration and accreditation for failure to comply with Section 8 of RA No. 7941. The COMELEC noted that all existing party-list groups were on notice as early as February 8, 2012 that submission of a manifestation of intent to participate also required submission of a list of five nominees. COCOFED moved for reconsideration but later withdrew the motion. Instead, on May 20, 2013, COCOFED filed a Manifestation with Urgent Request to Admit Additional Nominees, naming Felino M. Gutierrez and Rodolfo T. de Asis. On May 24, 2013, the COMELEC issued a resolution declaring the cancellation of COCOFED's accreditation final and executory. The official results showed that COCOFED received 80,397 votes, or 0.36% of the total votes cast for the party-list elections.

• Due Process: COCOFED argued that the COMELEC's issuance of the assailed resolution violated its right to due process because the COMELEC did not conduct a summary hearing, as ordered by the Court in Atong Paglaum, to give it an opportunity to explain and comply with the requirement. COCOFED submitted that the requirement of submitting at least five nominees should not be strictly applied "in light of the nature of party-list representation" which "looks to the party, and not to the nominees per se."
• Good Faith: COCOFED maintained that its failure to submit the required number of nominees was based on a good faith belief that its submission was sufficient for purposes of the elections and that it could still be remedied by simply submitting the names of its additional two nominees. It added that the number of nominees becomes significant only "when a party-list organization is able to attain a sufficient number of votes which would qualify it for a seat in the House of Representatives."
• Equal Protection: COCOFED argued that the COMELEC violated its right to equal protection of the laws since at least two other party-list groups (ACT-CIS and MTM Phils.) which failed to submit five nominees were included in the official list of party-list groups.

• Mootness: The COMELEC countered that the petition was already moot and academic because, despite the assailed resolution, COCOFED remained in the ballot and its votes were counted and tallied. With the reliefs prayed for already performed, nothing more remained for COCOFED to ask.
• Mandatory Requirement: The COMELEC argued that it did not abuse, much less gravely abuse, its discretion; it merely applied the clear requirement of Section 8, in relation to Section 6, of RA No. 7941. The submission of a complete list is mandatory, and based on this list the COMELEC checks compliance with other legal requirements, namely that a person is nominated in only one list and that the list does not include any candidate for any elective office or a person who lost a bid in the immediately preceding election.
• Voters' Right to Information: The COMELEC maintained that the submission of a complete list goes into the right of voters to know and make an intelligent and informed choice, citing Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections.
• No Mandatory Summary Hearing: The COMELEC argued that it is not mandatory for the COMELEC to conduct summary evidentiary hearings under the ruling in Atong Paglaum.

• Mootness: Whether the petition is moot and academic in light of the conclusion of the May 13, 2013 elections and the counting of COCOFED's votes.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Mandatory Five Nominees: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling COCOFED's registration for failure to submit a list of not less than five nominees as required by Section 8 of RA No. 7941.
• Due Process — Summary Hearing: Whether the COMELEC's failure to conduct a summary hearing before issuing the assailed resolution violated COCOFED's right to due process.
• Equal Protection: Whether the COMELEC violated COCOFED's right to equal protection by treating it differently from other party-list groups that also failed to submit five nominees.

• Mootness: No. The petition is not moot. The validity of the COMELEC's resolution cancelling COCOFED's registration remains a live issue not dependent on the outcome of the elections, as a finding of grave abuse of discretion would entitle COCOFED to participate in subsequent elections without re-registration.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Mandatory Five Nominees: No. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. Section 8 of RA No. 7941 mandates submission of a list of not less than five nominees, and failure to comply is a violation imputable to the party under Section 6(5), warranting cancellation of registration.
• Due Process — Summary Hearing: No. The registration and continuing compliance proceeding is administrative in nature, not strictly quasi-judicial, and does not require the same exacting due process as a judicial proceeding. COCOFED was given ample notice and opportunity to comply.
• Equal Protection: N/A. The decision does not separately address the equal protection argument with a distinct ruling.

• Mootness: A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. While the COMELEC counted and tallied COCOFED's votes and COCOFED failed to obtain sufficient votes, participation in the 2013 elections was merely one of the reliefs prayed for. Under Section 4 of RA No. 7941, a registered party-list group need not register anew for subsequent elections but only needs to file a manifestation of intent to participate. Registration and participation are distinct acts. A finding that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling COCOFED's registration would entitle it, if so minded, to participate in subsequent elections without undergoing registration proceedings anew. The validity of the cancellation thus remains a live issue.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Mandatory Five Nominees: Section 8 of RA No. 7941 uses the mandatory term "shall" in conjunction with the negatively couched quantity requirement "not less than five," plainly indicating legislative intent to make the requirement mandatory. The date and manner of submission having been determined by law and reiterated by COMELEC resolutions issued more or less a year before the 2013 elections, COCOFED cannot claim good faith or dictate its own terms of compliance. The requirement is part of a registered party's continuing compliance with the law to maintain its registration; previous registration confers no vested right to maintenance thereof. COCOFED's failure to submit a complete list, despite ample opportunity before the elections, is a violation imputable to the party itself under Section 6(5) of RA No. 7941, since all grounds for cancellation under Section 6 pertain to the party. The fact that a party-list group is entitled to no more than three seats does not render Section 8 permissive, because the additional two nominees address contingencies during the term of party-list representatives under Section 16 (vacancy provision). The required publication of the list of nominees satisfies the people's constitutional right to information on matters of public concern; a post-election completion of the list defeats this constitutional purpose. Allowing COCOFED to complete its list beyond the deadline would permit the party to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, since Section 8 prohibits the party from changing names or altering the order of nominees after submission. The sixth parameter in Atong Paglaum — that disqualification of some nominees shall not disqualify the party if at least one remains qualified — addressed nominee disqualification, not a party's inexcusable failure to comply with the clear letter of the law on submission of at least five nominees.

• Due Process — Summary Hearing: Section 6 of RA No. 7941 requires the COMELEC to afford "due notice and hearing" before cancelling registration. While exacting compliance would be demanded if the proceeding were strictly judicial or quasi-judicial, the Court has ruled that registration of party-list groups involves the exercise of the COMELEC's administrative power to enforce and administer election laws. COCOFED could have complied after the elections, as it in fact did, but it should have at least submitted an explanation justifying its inability to comply prior to the elections. COCOFED simply chose to ignore the law, constituting a plain disregard of the administrative requirement warranting cancellation. Moreover, COCOFED's belated submission of additional nominees several days after the elections betrays the emptiness of its formalistic plea for prior notice.

• Equal Protection: The decision does not separately analyze or resolve the equal protection claim. The Court's reasoning focuses on the mandatory nature of the five-nominee requirement and the absence of grave abuse of discretion, without addressing whether differential treatment of party-list groups that also failed to submit five nominees constituted an equal protection violation.

• Mootness Doctrine — A case is moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy due to supervening events, rendering any declaration of no practical use or value. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the petition was not moot because the validity of the COMELEC's cancellation of COCOFED's registration remained a live issue independent of the election results, as it would determine whether COCOFED could participate in future elections without re-registration.
• Mandatory Statutory Construction — "Shall" with Negative Quantity — When a statute uses the mandatory term "shall" in conjunction with a negatively couched quantity requirement (e.g., "not less than five"), the legislative intent is to make the requirement mandatory. The Court applied this principle to Section 8 of RA No. 7941, concluding that submission of at least five nominees is mandatory, not permissive.
• Continuing Compliance Doctrine for Party-List Registration — A party-list group's previous registration with the COMELEC confers no vested right to maintenance of its registration. To maintain continuing compliance status, the party must prove not only continued possession of requisite qualifications but also compliance with the basic requirements of the law, including the submission of a complete list of nominees.
• Administrative Nature of Party-List Registration Proceedings — The registration of party-list groups involves the exercise of the COMELEC's administrative power to enforce and administer election laws, not its quasi-judicial function. While due notice and hearing are required under Section 6 of RA No. 7941, the exacting due process standards applicable to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings do not fully apply.
• Statutory Construction — Law Read as a Whole — The provisions of a law must not be read in isolation but as a whole; its provisions must be considered in relation to the entire law and every part thereof to produce a harmonious whole. The Court applied this by reading Section 8 (nominee submission) together with Section 16 (vacancy filling) of RA No. 7941 to conclude that the five-nominee requirement addresses contingencies during the term of party-list representatives.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. The Court found none in the COMELEC's cancellation of COCOFED's registration.

• "The language of Section 8 of RA No. 7941 does not only use the word 'shall' in connection with the requirement of submitting a list of nominees; it uses this mandatory term in conjunction with the number of names to be submitted that is couched negatively, i.e., 'not less than five.' The use of these terms together is a plain indication of legislative intent to make the statutory requirement mandatory for the party to undertake." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the mandatory nature of the five-nominee requirement, establishing the textual basis for the Court's holding.
• "A party-list group's previous registration with the COMELEC confers no vested right to the maintenance of its registration. In order to maintain a party in a continuing compliance status, the party must prove not only its continued possession of the requisite qualifications but, equally, must show its compliance with the basic requirements of the law." — This defines the continuing compliance doctrine for party-list registration, a principle significant for future party-list accreditation disputes.
• "The need for submission of the complete list required by law becomes all the more important in a party-list election to apprise the electorate of the individuals behind the party they are voting for. If only to give meaning to the right of the people to elect their representatives on the basis of an informed judgment, then the party-list group must submit a complete list of five nominees because the identity of these five nominees carries critical bearing on the electorate's choice." — This connects the five-nominee requirement to the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern, providing the constitutional rationale for the mandatory rule.
• "If the party cannot even come up with a complete list of five names out of a purported more than one million members, then it is highly doubtful that COCOFED will meet this expectation to contribute to the formulation and enactment of legislation that is beneficial for the nation as a whole; and if it cannot even name at least three more people who belongs to, or with sufficient advocacy for, the sector sought to be represented then as a sectoral party or organization, it has already forsaken what it seeks to represent." — This quotation, adopted from the COMELEC's observation, reflects the theoretical underpinning of the party-list system and the practical significance of the five-nominee requirement as an indicator of a party's organizational capacity and sectoral representativeness.

• Atong Paglaum, Inc., etc., et al. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013 — Controlling precedent. The Court remanded all party-list petitions to the COMELEC with new parameters and guidelines, including the sixth parameter that a party shall not be disqualified if some nominees are disqualified, provided at least one remains qualified. The Court distinguished this parameter as addressing nominee disqualification, not a party's failure to submit the required number of nominees.
• Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 179431-32 and 180443, June 22, 2010, 621 SCRA 385 — Followed. The Court cited this case for the proposition that submission of a complete list of nominees goes into the right of voters to know and make an intelligent and informed choice, and that Section 8 prevents a party from changing nominees or altering the order after submission.
• Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 210 — Cited for the rule that a party-list group is entitled to no more than three seats in Congress regardless of votes garnered, which the Court held does not render Section 8 permissive.
• Baytan vs. COMELEC, 444 Phil. 812 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that registration of party-list groups involves the exercise of the COMELEC's administrative power.
• Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 651 — Cited alongside Baytan for the administrative nature of party-list registration proceedings.
• Deutsche Bank AG vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 193065, February 27, 2012, 667 SCRA 82 — Cited for the definition of a moot and academic case.

• Section 8, Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) — Requires each registered party, organization, or coalition to submit to the COMELEC not later than 45 days before the election a list of names, not less than five, from which party-list representatives shall be chosen. The Court held this provision mandatory based on the use of "shall" with the negatively couched quantity "not less than five."
• Section 6(5), Republic Act No. 7941 — Provides that violation of or failure to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to elections is a ground for cancellation of registration. The Court held that COCOFED's failure to submit five nominees is a violation imputable to the party itself under this provision.
• Section 4, Republic Act No. 7941 — Provides that a registered party-list group need not register anew for subsequent elections but only needs to file a manifestation of intent to participate. The Court relied on this to distinguish registration from participation and to hold that the petition was not moot.
• Section 16, Republic Act No. 7941 — Governs vacancies in party-list seats, providing that vacancies are automatically filled by the next representative from the list of nominees in the order submitted. The Court cited this to show that the five-nominee requirement addresses contingencies during the term of party-list representatives.
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 7941 — States the policy of the law to enhance the chances of party-list groups to compete for and win seats in the legislature. The Court referenced this to show that allowing a party to refuse to submit five nominees collides with the statutory policy.
• Article III, Section 7, 1987 Constitution — Recognizes the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. The Court held that the required publication of the list of nominees satisfies this constitutional right.
• Article VI, Section 5(1), 1987 Constitution — Provides for the composition of the House of Representatives, including members elected through the party-list system. Cited as the constitutional basis for the party-list system.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 9359 — Promulgated February 8, 2012, informing registered parties that they shall file a manifestation of intent to participate together with a list of at least five nominees no later than May 31, 2012. The Court relied on this to show that COCOFED was on notice of the requirement.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 — Promulgated February 21, 2012, setting rules and regulations governing the filing of manifestations of intent, submission of nominees, and related matters. The Court cited Section 4 of Rule 3 (requiring list of at least five nominees) and Section 9 of Rule 5 (requiring publication of the list of nominees).

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted in the text.