Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino vs. The Commission on Elections and Agapito A. Aquino

The COMELEC has jurisdiction to ascertain the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers as an incident to its constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections, and when such question is properly raised, the COMELEC must resolve it based on the party constitution and election laws, not by applying equity to divide the party into factions. The COMELEC's authority to determine party leadership is derived from Article IX-C, Section 2 of the Constitution, which vests upon it the power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, and this power includes the ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts.

The Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) is a registered political party with a set of national officers including the Party Chairman and the Secretary General. Under the LDP Constitution, the Party Chairman is the Chief Executive Officer of the Party with power to represent the Party in all external affairs and concerns, sign documents for and on its behalf, and call meetings of the National Congress and the National Executive Council. The Secretary General assists the Party Chairman in overseeing day-to-day operations and has the power to sign documents for and on behalf of the Party, but this authority is only a delegated power that originally pertains to the Party Chairman. The National Congress, as the highest policy-making and governing body of the Party, has the power to nominate the official candidates of the Party for President, Vice President, and Senators. The case arose in the context of the May 10, 2004 national elections, when the LDP entered into a coalition agreement with other opposition parties to form the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP).

The Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), a registered political party, was preparing for the May 10, 2004 national elections. On December 8, 2003, the LDP General Counsel informed the COMELEC by way of Manifestation that only the Party Chairman, Senator Edgardo J. Angara, or his authorized representative may endorse the certificate of candidacy of the party's official candidates. The Manifestation stated that Sen. Angara had placed the LDP Secretary General, Representative Agapito A. Aquino, on "indefinite forced leave" and that Ambassador Enrique A. Zaldivar was designated Acting Secretary General. The Manifestation prayed that the COMELEC recognize only those Certificates of Candidacy with Certificates of Nomination executed by Party Chairman Angara or his authorized representatives, declare as nullity all Certificates of Candidacy not endorsed by him, and recognize the designation of Zaldivar as Acting Secretary General.

On December 16, 2003, Rep. Aquino filed his Comment, contending that the Party Chairman does not have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General. The parties agreed to file a joint manifestation, but on December 22, 2003, only the LDP General Counsel filed an Urgent Manifestation reiterating the contents of the December 8 Manifestation. The COMELEC also received a Letter from Rep. Aquino stating that the parties were unable to arrive at a joint manifestation. On December 26, 2003, the COMELEC issued an Order requiring the parties to file a verified petition, and it turned out that Sen. Angara had submitted a verified Petition two days before, reiterating the contents of its previous Manifestations. Attached to the Petition was a Resolution adopted by the LDP National Executive Council ratifying and confirming the Covenant of National Unity, the Declaration of Unity entered into by Party Chairman Angara, and all acts and decisions taken by him to enforce and implement the same.

Rep. Aquino filed his Answer to the Petition on December 30, 2003, and the COMELEC heard the parties on oral arguments on the same day. Pending resolution, a Certificate of Nomination of Sen. Panfilo Lacson as LDP candidate for President was filed with the COMELEC, signed by Rep. Aquino as LDP Secretary General. On January 6, 2004, the COMELEC issued its Resolution identifying the sole issue as "who among the [LDP] officers [are] authorized to authenticate before the Commission that the person filing the certificate of candidacy as party nominee for a certain position is the official candidate of the party chosen in accordance with its Constitution." The COMELEC recognized its authority to ascertain the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers but held that "internal party matters and wranglings are purely for the party members to settle among themselves." The COMELEC then disposed of the Petition by granting it "with LEGAL EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor," recognizing the candidates nominated by both the "Angara Wing" and the "Aquino Wing" as official LDP candidates, entitling each faction to a representative to election committees, and dividing copies of election returns between the two wings by odd and even precinct numbers.

The COMELEC found that during the May 14, 2001 elections, Rep. Aquino, as LDP Secretary General, was authorized by the LDP to sign the Certificates of Nomination of the LDP Senatorial Candidates, including the Certificate of Nomination for Senatorial Candidate Edgardo J. Angara, and that this authority "has not been revoked or recalled by the National Congress of the LDP." The COMELEC also noted that on November 28, 2003, Representative Rolex Suplico, LDP Region VI Regional Chairman, filed a complaint with Rep. Aquino against Party Chairman Sen. Angara for disloyalty to the Party, gross violation of the Party Constitution, and other divisive acts. Rep. Aquino, as Secretary General, created a committee composed of three members of the LDP National Executive Council to investigate the complaint, and on December 12, 2003, the investigating committee issued a resolution placing Sen. Angara under preventive suspension effective immediately.

• Authority of the Party Chairman: Petitioner Angara argued that under the LDP Constitution, only the Party Chairman or his authorized representative has the authority to endorse and sign party nominations, to the exclusion of the Secretary General.
• Revocation of Delegated Authority: Petitioner maintained that assuming Rep. Aquino previously had authority to sign certificates of nomination, such authority was revoked by the totality of Sen. Angara's Manifestations and Petition before the COMELEC, through which he informed the Commission that Rep. Aquino had been placed on indefinite forced leave.
• COMELEC's Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC Resolution was issued with grave abuse of discretion because it failed to resolve the issue of who had authority to sign certificates of candidacy and instead applied equity to divide the party into two wings.
• Invalidity of Preventive Suspension: Petitioner contended that Rep. Aquino had no power to enforce Party discipline or create an investigating committee without the Party Chairman's concurrence under Section 9(4), Article VI of the LDP Constitution, and that the investigating committee so created had no power to place the Party Chairman under preventive suspension since its authority stemmed from a nullity.

• Lack of Authority of Party Chairman to Impose Discipline: Respondent Aquino contended that the Party Chairman does not have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General, and that the Manifestation filed by the LDP General Counsel had no basis and should be disregarded.
• Prior Authorization to Sign Certificates: Respondent Aquino claimed that he was authorized to sign the party candidates' certificates of candidacy in previous elections, including the May 14, 2001 elections, and that this authority had not been revoked or recalled by the National Congress of the LDP.
• Invalidity of the National Executive Council Resolution: Respondent Aquino assailed the Resolution of the National Executive Council allegedly adopted on December 22, 2003, claiming that no proper notices had been sent for the holding of the meeting and that only 13 members of the Council had signed and approved the resolution, not a majority of those present.
• Preventive Suspension of the Party Chairman: Respondent Aquino claimed authority as Secretary General under the LDP Constitution and By-Laws to create an investigating committee that placed Sen. Angara under preventive suspension.
• Basis in COMELEC Resolution No. 6453: Both respondents cited Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6453 as basis for the Party Secretary General's authority to sign certificates of candidacy, which allows the certificate of nomination to be signed by the "party president, chairman, secretary-general or any other duly authorized officer."

• Jurisdiction of the COMELEC: Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to determine questions of party identity and leadership as an incident to its power to enforce and administer election laws.
• Authority to Sign Certificates of Nomination: Whether the Party Chairman or the Secretary General of the LDP has the authority to sign and endorse certificates of nomination of the party's official candidates.
• Validity of the Preventive Suspension: Whether the investigating committee created by Rep. Aquino had the authority to place Sen. Angara under preventive suspension as Party Chairman.
• Application of Equity by the COMELEC: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in applying equity to divide the LDP into two "wings" and recognize both factions' candidates.
• Effect on Certificates of Candidacy Signed by Unauthorized Officer: Whether certificates of candidacy signed by Rep. Aquino without authority should be denied due course or cancelled.

• Jurisdiction of the COMELEC: Yes. The COMELEC has jurisdiction to ascertain the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers as an incident to its constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections under Article IX-C, Section 2 of the Constitution.
• Authority to Sign Certificates of Nomination: The Party Chairman has the authority. Under the LDP Constitution, the Party Chairman is the Chief Executive Officer with power to sign documents for and on behalf of the Party, while the Secretary General's authority to sign documents is only a delegated power that originally pertains to the Party Chairman and may be revoked at the Chairman's discretion.
• Validity of the Preventive Suspension: No. Rep. Aquino had no power to enforce Party discipline or create an investigating committee without the Party Chairman's concurrence under Section 9(4), Article VI of the LDP Constitution, and the investigating committee so created had no power to place the Party Chairman under preventive suspension since its authority stemmed from a nullity.
• Application of Equity by the COMELEC: No. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in applying equity to divide the LDP into two wings, as equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement, and the COMELEC should have decided the case on the basis of the party constitution and election laws.
• Effect on Certificates of Candidacy Signed by Unauthorized Officer: The certificates of candidacy signed by Rep. Aquino should not be denied due course or cancelled, as the exclusive ground for denial of due course or cancellation is that any material representation contained therein as required by law is false; instead, the candidates are simply deemed as not nominated by the LDP and are considered independent candidates pursuant to Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6453.

• Jurisdiction of the COMELEC: The Court held that the COMELEC's authority to determine questions of party identity and leadership is derived from the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections. The Court cited Kalaw vs. Commission on Elections, which held that the COMELEC's powers include the determination of conflicting claims that are likely to cause confusion among the electorate if not resolved, and Palmares vs. Commission on Elections, which ruled that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the issue of leadership in a political party as an incident to its power to register political parties. The Court distinguished Sinaca vs. Mula, noting that unlike that case, the present case involves the question of party identity or leadership, which has to be resolved if the COMELEC is to ascertain whether the candidates are legitimate party standard bearers. The Court emphasized that the law grants a registered political party certain rights and privileges, including the right to a copy of election returns, the right to nominate principal watchers, and the right to spend more per voter, and it is in the interest of every political party not to allow persons it had not chosen to hold themselves out as representatives of the party.

• Authority to Sign Certificates of Nomination: The Court held that to resolve the issue of who has authority to sign certificates of candidacy, the COMELEC need only turn to the Party Constitution. Under the LDP Constitution, the Party Chairman is the Chief Executive Officer of the Party, whose powers and functions include the power to represent the Party in all external affairs and concerns, sign documents for and on its behalf, and call meetings of the National Congress and the National Executive Council. The Secretary General's authority to sign documents is only a delegated power, which originally pertains to the Party Chairman. The Court rejected the COMELEC's finding that Rep. Aquino's authority had not been revoked or recalled, holding that no revocation of such authority can be more explicit than the totality of Sen. Angara's Manifestations and Petition before the COMELEC. The Court also rejected the citation of Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6453, holding that the provision presupposes that the party officer has been "duly authorized" by the party to sign the certificate of candidacy, and that COMELEC Resolution No. 6453 cannot grant a party official greater authority than what the party itself grants, lest such Resolution amount to a violation of the party's freedom of association.

• Validity of the Preventive Suspension: The Court held that the authority to create the investigating committee supposedly rests on Section 9(4), Article VI of the LDP Constitution, which requires the concurrence of the Party Chairman to enforce Party discipline. The Court reasoned that just as Rep. Aquino has no power to sign and nominate candidates in behalf of the LDP, neither does he have the power to enforce Party discipline or, as an incident thereto, to create an investigating committee, without the Party Chairman's concurrence. The Court concluded that the investigating committee so created had no power to place the Party Chairman under preventive suspension since its authority stems from a nullity, stating, "Simply put, the spring has no source."

• Application of Equity by the COMELEC: The Court held that the COMELEC misapplied equity in the present case, as equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. The Court stated that the COMELEC should have decided the case on the basis of the party constitution and election laws, and that its Resolution was "indecision in the guise of equity." The Court further held that by creating the two wings, the COMELEC effectively diffused the LDP's strength and emasculated its chance of obtaining the Commission's nod as the dominant minority party, planted the seeds of confusion among the electorate, eroded the significance of political parties, and fractured both wings by splitting copies of the election returns. The Court cited Recabo, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, which declared that the electoral process envisions one candidate from a political party for each position, and Peralta vs. Commission on Elections, which emphasized that political parties constitute a basic element of the democratic institutional apparatus.

• Effect on Certificates of Candidacy Signed by Unauthorized Officer: The Court held that the lack of Rep. Aquino's authority to sign documents or to nominate candidates for the LDP would not result in the denial of due course to or the cancellation of the certificates of candidacy he may have signed on behalf of the LDP, as the exclusive ground for the denial of due course to or the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy for any elective office is that any material representation contained therein as required by law is false. Since the signature of Rep. Aquino was affixed either prior to, or on the basis of, the challenged Resolution recognizing his authority to sign on behalf of the LDP, the same would not constitute material representation that is false. The Court adopted the suggestion of COMELEC Commissioner Sadain in his Dissenting Opinion that all other party members representing themselves to be candidates of the party shall not be deprived of their right to file their respective certificates of candidacy and run for office, if so qualified, but that they shall not be accorded the rights and privileges reserved by election laws for official nominees of registered political parties, and instead shall be treated as independent candidates pursuant to Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6453.

• COMELEC's Jurisdiction over Party Leadership Disputes — The COMELEC has jurisdiction to ascertain the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers as an incident to its constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections under Article IX-C, Section 2 of the Constitution. This power includes the determination of conflicting claims that are likely to cause confusion among the electorate if not resolved, and the resolution of controversies where one party appears to be divided into two wings under separate leaders each claiming to be the president of the entire party. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the COMELEC had jurisdiction to determine who between the Party Chairman and the Secretary General had authority to sign certificates of nomination, and that it should have exercised this jurisdiction rather than declining to resolve the issue.

• Judicial Restraint in Political Party Internal Affairs — Political parties are generally free to conduct their internal affairs free from judicial supervision; this common-law principle of judicial restraint, rooted in the constitutionally protected right of free association, serves the public interest by allowing the political processes to operate without undue interference. However, where there is a controlling statute or clear legal right involved, the court will assume jurisdiction to determine factional controversies within a political party. The Court applied this doctrine in distinguishing Sinaca vs. Mula, holding that the present case involves more than one law and a number of clear legal rights at stake, including the rights of political parties to copies of election returns, to nominate watchers, and to spend more per voter.

• Delegated Authority of the Secretary General — Under the LDP Constitution, the Secretary General's authority to sign documents for and on behalf of the Party is only a delegated power, which originally pertains to the Party Chairman. As the prerogative to empower the Secretary General to sign documents devolves upon the Party Chairman, so he may choose, at his discretion, to withhold or revoke such power. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that Sen. Angara's Manifestations and Petition before the COMELEC constituted an explicit revocation of any authority Rep. Aquino previously had to sign certificates of nomination.

• Equity Cannot Supplant the Law — Equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. Equity is described as justice without legality, which simply means that it cannot supplant, although it may, as often happens, supplement the law. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the COMELEC misapplied equity in dividing the LDP into two wings, as the COMELEC should have decided the case on the basis of the party constitution and election laws.

• Grounds for Denial of Due Course to Certificate of Candidacy — The exclusive ground for the denial of due course to or the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy for any elective office is that any material representation contained therein as required by law is false. A candidate who has not been nominated by a registered political party or its duly authorized representative, or whose nomination has not been submitted by a registered political party, shall be considered as an independent candidate. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that certificates of candidacy signed by Rep. Aquino without authority should not be denied due course or cancelled, but the candidates should be treated as independent candidates.

• "The Bible tells the story of how two women came to King Solomon to decide who among them is the baby's true mother. King Solomon, in his legendary wisdom, awarded the baby to the woman who gave up her claim after he threatened to split the baby into two. It is fortunate that the two women did not ask the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to decide the baby's fate; otherwise, it would have cut the baby in half. For that is what the COMELEC exactly did in this case." — This opening passage frames the Court's central criticism of the COMELEC Resolution, which divided the LDP into two "wings" instead of resolving the leadership dispute, and is frequently cited for its memorable analogy.

• "The COMELEC correctly stated that 'the ascertainment of the identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers' is a matter that is well within its authority. The source of this authority is no other than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election." — This passage articulates the constitutional basis of the COMELEC's jurisdiction over party identity and leadership disputes, which is the ratio decidendi of the case.

• "Equity is described as justice without legality, which simply means that it cannot supplant, although it may, as often happens, supplement the law. The COMELEC should have decided the case on the basis of the party constitution and election laws. It chose not to because of its irrational fear of treading, as respondent Aquino put it, on 'unchartered' territories. But, as shown above, these territories have long been charted by jurisprudence and, in any case, the COMELEC need not have sailed far from the shore to arrive at the correct conclusion. In truth, the COMELEC Resolution is indecision in the guise of equity." — This passage defines the doctrine that equity cannot supplant the law and criticizes the COMELEC's application of equity in lieu of resolving the legal issue presented.

• "Simply put, the spring has no source." — This concise passage encapsulates the Court's reasoning that the investigating committee created by Rep. Aquino had no power to place the Party Chairman under preventive suspension, since the committee's authority stemmed from a nullity — Rep. Aquino's lack of power to enforce Party discipline without the Party Chairman's concurrence.

• Kalaw vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 80218, November 5, 1987 — Controlling precedent establishing that the COMELEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide questions affecting the leadership of a political party in view of its powers under Article IX-C, Section 2 of the Constitution to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, decide all questions affecting elections, register and regulate political parties, and insure orderly elections.

• Palmares vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 86177-78, August 31, 1989 — Followed, holding that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the issue of leadership in a political party as an incident to its power to register political parties, and that in the exercise of the power to register political parties, the COMELEC must determine who the officers of the party are.

• Sinaca vs. Mula, 373 Phil. 896 (1999) — Distinguished, holding that the determination of disputes as to party nominations rests with the party in the absence of statutes giving the courts jurisdiction, but the Court noted that Sinaca did not involve the question of party identity or leadership, and that where a controlling statute or clear legal right is involved, the Court will assume jurisdiction.

• Sumulong vs. Commission on Elections, 70 Phil. 703 (1940) — Cited as support for the COMELEC's power to determine claims to party leadership, where the Court resolved the issue as to who between the factions of a political party was entitled to nominate election inspectors.

• Sotto vs. Commission on Elections, 76 Phil. 516 (1946) — Cited as support for the COMELEC's power to determine claims to party leadership, where the Court necessarily settled claims to the party's leadership in resolving factional disputes.

• Recabo, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 134293, June 21, 1999 — Cited for the proposition that the electoral process envisions one candidate from a political party for each position, and disunity and discord amongst members of a political party should not be allowed to create a mockery thereof.

• Peralta vs. Commission on Elections, L-47771, March 11, 1978 — Cited for the proposition that political parties constitute a basic element of the democratic institutional apparatus, and that the assailed COMELEC Resolution does not advance, but subverts, the philosophy behind political parties.

• Tankiko vs. Cezar, G.R. No. 131277, 362 Phil. 184 (1999) — Cited for the doctrine that equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement.

• Alialy vs. Commission on Elections, L-16165, July 31, 1961 — Cited for the proposition that a certificate of candidacy makes known to the COMELEC that the person therein mentioned has been nominated by a duly authorized political group empowered to act and that it reflects accurately the sentiment of the nominating body.

• Article IX-C, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, decide all questions affecting elections, register and regulate political parties, and insure orderly elections. The Court held that this provision is the source of the COMELEC's authority to ascertain the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers.

• Article IX-C, Section 6, 1987 Constitution — Provides for the constitutional policy towards a free and open party system that shall evolve according to the free choice of the people. The Court held that this policy does not contemplate the COMELEC splitting parties into two, and that when the Constitution speaks of a multi-party system, it does not contemplate the COMELEC dividing a party into factions.

• Section 6, COMELEC Resolution No. 6453 — Provides that the certificate of nomination of registered political parties of their official candidates shall be filed duly signed and attested under oath by the party president, chairman, secretary-general or any other duly authorized officer. The Court held that this provision presupposes that the party officer has been "duly authorized" by the party to sign the certificate of candidacy, and that the Resolution cannot grant a party official greater authority than what the party itself grants.

• Section 7, COMELEC Resolution No. 6453 — Provides that a candidate who has not been nominated by a registered political party or its duly authorized representative, or whose nomination has not been submitted by a registered political party, shall be considered as an independent candidate. The Court applied this provision in holding that candidates whose certificates of candidacy were signed by Rep. Aquino without authority should be treated as independent candidates.

• Section 78, Omnibus Election Code — Provides that the exclusive ground for the denial of due course to or the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy for any elective office is that any material representation contained therein as required by law is false. The Court applied this provision in holding that the certificates of candidacy signed by Rep. Aquino should not be denied due course or cancelled.

• Section 60, Omnibus Election Code — Grants registered political parties certain rights and privileges, which redound to the benefit of their candidates. The Court cited this provision to emphasize the significant dimension of the question of party identity and leadership.

• Section 27, Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 8173 — Entitles the dominant majority party and the dominant minority party as determined by the COMELEC to a copy of the election returns. The Court cited this provision to illustrate the rights and privileges granted to registered political parties.

• Section 26, Republic Act No. 7166 — Allows the six accredited major political parties to nominate the principal watchers to be designated by the Commission. The Court cited this provision to illustrate the rights and privileges granted to registered political parties.

• Section 12, Republic Act No. 6646 — Provides that the two principal watchers representing the ruling coalition and the dominant opposition coalition in a precinct shall, if available, affix their signatures and thumbmarks on the election returns for that precinct. The Court cited this provision to illustrate the rights and privileges granted to registered political parties.

• Section 29, Republic Act No. 7166 — Entitles three of the six accredited major political parties to receive copies of the certificate of canvass. The Court cited this provision to illustrate the rights and privileges granted to registered political parties.

• Section 8, Republic Act No. 6646 — Provides that registered political parties whose candidates obtained at least ten percent of the total votes cast in the next preceding senatorial election shall each have a watcher and/or representative in the procurement and watermarking of papers to be used in the printing of election returns and official ballots. The Court cited this provision to illustrate the rights and privileges granted to registered political parties.

• Section 13, Republic Act No. 7166 — Authorizes a candidate and his political party to spend more per voter than a candidate without a political party. The Court cited this provision to illustrate the rights and privileges granted to registered political parties.

• Section 4, Republic Act No. 6646 — Provides that a candidate's political party affiliation is printed followed by his or her name in the certified list of candidates. The Court cited this provision to illustrate the importance of preventing candidates from misrepresenting themselves as party candidates.

• Sections 233 and 235, Omnibus Election Code — Provide for resort to copies of election returns when the election returns are delayed, lost, or destroyed, or when they appear to be tampered or falsified. The Court cited these provisions to illustrate the practical purpose of furnishing a party with a copy of the election returns as a guard against fraud.

• LDP Constitution, Article VI, Section 5 — Enumerates the powers and functions of the Party Chairman, including the power to represent the Party in all external affairs and concerns, sign documents for and on its behalf, and call meetings of the National Congress and the National Executive Council. The Court applied this provision in holding that the Party Chairman has the authority to sign certificates of nomination.

• LDP Constitution, Article VI, Section 9 — Enumerates the powers and functions of the Secretary General, including the power to sign documents for and on behalf of the Party, and Section 9(4) requires the concurrence of the Party Chairman to enforce Party discipline. The Court applied this provision in holding that the Secretary General's authority is only delegated and that he cannot enforce Party discipline without the Party Chairman's concurrence.

• LDP Constitution, Article V, Section 1 — Provides that the National Congress, as the highest policy-making and governing body of the Party, has the power to nominate the official candidates of the Party for President, Vice President, and Senators. The Court applied this provision in holding that neither the Party Chairman nor the Secretary General has the power to nominate the official candidates of the LDP.

Justices Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna concurred. Chief Justice Davide, Jr. concurred in the result. Justice Vitug filed a separate opinion taking exceptions from the ruling of the majority to the extent that the Court was being tasked to exercise judicial power on an internal party matter that the political party itself should resolve, and that the petition was replete with factual problems which the Court could not take on.

• Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez — Dissented, voting to dismiss the petition on the ground that the issue of who between the petitioner and respondent shall nominate the LDP's official candidates is a purely internal party concern, the determination of which rests solely within the party itself in the absence of statutes giving the courts jurisdiction over the same. Citing Sinaca vs. Mula, the dissent argued that the Court should not assume jurisdiction over the petition since the issue is purely an internal party matter not cognizable by the Court. Justice Corona joined the dissenting opinion of Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez.