Lico vs. COMELEC

The COMELEC has no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of a sitting party-list representative's expulsion from his party-list organization, as bona fide membership is a continuing qualification falling within the HRET's exclusive jurisdiction under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Furthermore, amendments to a party-list organization's Constitution and By-laws must be registered with and approved by the COMELEC before they become effective, such that any election conducted pursuant to unregistered amendments is invalid.

Ating Koop is a multi-sectoral party-list organization registered on 16 November 2009 under R.A. No. 7941, also known as the Party-List System Act. Its Constitution and By-Laws designate the National Convention as the highest policymaking body, with the Central Committee exercising authority when the Convention is not in session. Two rival factions emerged within the organization: the Lico Group, headed by Atty. Isidro Q. Lico, who represented Ating Koop in the House of Representatives, and the Rimas Group, headed by Amparo T. Rimas. The dispute centered on competing claims over the legitimate leadership of the organization and the validity of Lico's expulsion from membership.

Ating Koop was registered as a multi-sectoral party-list organization on 16 November 2009 under R.A. No. 7941. Its Constitution and By-Laws vested highest policymaking authority in the National Convention, with the Central Committee acting when the Convention was not in session. On 30 November 2009, Ating Koop filed its Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the 10 May 2010 Elections, and on 6 March 2010, it submitted its list of nominees with petitioner Lico as first nominee and Roberto Mascarina as second nominee.

Prior to Ating Koop's proclamation, on 9 June 2010, the organization issued Central Committee Resolution 2010-01, incorporating a term-sharing agreement under which Lico would serve as party-list representative for the first year of the three-year term. On 8 December 2010, COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as a winning party-list group, and Lico took his oath of office on 9 December 2010 before the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives and thereafter assumed office.

On 14 May 2011, Ating Koop held its Second National Convention, introducing amendments to its Constitution and By-laws. Among the salient changes was a restructured Central Committee composed of 15 representatives with five each from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao (5-5-5 equal representation). The amendments also mandated the holding of an election of Central Committee members within six months after the Second National Convention, effectively cutting short the three-year term of the incumbent members—referred to as the Interim Central Committee, which was dominated by members of the Rimas Group.

On 5 December 2011, nearly one year after Lico had assumed office, the Interim Central Committee expelled him from Ating Koop for disloyalty. Apart from allegations of malversation and graft and corruption, the Committee cited Lico's refusal to honor the term-sharing agreement as factual basis for disloyalty and as cause for expulsion under the Amended Constitution and By-laws. Lico filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Interim Central Committee on 8 December 2011, which was denied on 29 December 2011.

While Lico's Motion for Reconsideration was pending, the Lico Group held a special meeting in Cebu City on 19 December 2011, at which new Central Committee members and officers were elected, purportedly to implement the 5-5-5 equal representation amendment. On 21 January 2012, the Rimas Group held a Special National Convention in Parañaque City, constituting its own Central Committee and set of officers, with Rimas Group members winning all corresponding seats.

On 16 March 2012, the Rimas Group, claiming to represent Ating Koop, filed a Petition with the COMELEC docketed as E.M. No. 12-039, praying that Lico be ordered to vacate his office and that Mascarina succeed him as Ating Koop's representative. An Amended Petition filed on 14 May 2012 impleaded the entire Lico Group and prayed that the Cebu meeting election be nullified and the Parañaque convention recognized, alleging that the Cebu meeting violated notice and quorum requirements. The COMELEC Second Division, in its Resolution dated 18 July 2012, upheld Lico's expulsion and declared Mascarina as the duly qualified nominee, characterizing the issue as an intra-party leadership dispute. The COMELEC En Banc, in its Resolution dated 31 January 2013, dismissed the petition to expel Lico from the House for lack of jurisdiction but upheld his expulsion from Ating Koop and recognized the Rimas Group as the legitimate representative, finding that the Interim Central Committee members were in hold-over capacity, that the Cebu meeting suffered from notice and quorum deficiencies, and that the Parañaque convention was in accordance with the Amended Constitution and By-laws.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction over Expulsion: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to rule on the validity of his expulsion from Ating Koop, as this affected his qualifications as a sitting member of the House of Representatives and thus fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET.
• RTC Jurisdiction over Leadership Dispute: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction to decide which feuding group was to be recognized as the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop, and that it was the Regional Trial Court which had jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies.

• Validity of Expulsion: Respondent alleged that Ating Koop had expelled Lico for acts inimical to the party-list group, including malversation, graft and corruption, and that he had displayed recalcitrance to honor party commitments, violating basic principles of Ating Koop.
• Invalidity of Cebu Meeting: Respondent alleged that the Cebu meeting held by the Lico Group violated notice and quorum requirements under Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-laws.
• Legitimacy of Parañaque Convention: Respondent sought nullification of the Cebu meeting election and recognition of the Parañaque convention as conducted in accordance with Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-laws.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction over Expulsion: Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of a sitting party-list representative's expulsion from his party-list organization.
• Legitimate Leadership of Ating Koop: Which between the Lico Group and the Rimas Group legitimately represents Ating Koop, and whether the unregistered amendments to the Constitution and By-laws affect the validity of both groups' elections.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction over Expulsion: No. The COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to rule on the validity of Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop, as bona fide membership is a continuing qualification falling within the HRET's exclusive jurisdiction under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
• Legitimate Leadership of Ating Koop: Neither group validly elected officers. The amendments to Ating Koop's Constitution and By-laws were never registered with or approved by the COMELEC, rendering invalid both elections conducted pursuant thereto. The Interim Central Committee, serving in hold-over capacity, was declared the legitimate leadership.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction over Expulsion: The HRET acquires jurisdiction over disqualification cases upon three concurrent events: proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives. All three requirements were satisfied when Lico was proclaimed on 8 December 2010, took his oath on 9 December 2010, and assumed office. Bona fide membership in a party-list organization, required under Section 9 of the Party-List Law, is a continuing qualification that must be maintained throughout the officer's entire tenure, not merely at the time of election or assumption of office. The validity of Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop directly affects this qualification and thus his title as member of Congress. The COMELEC's ruling on the expulsion issue, despite its own acknowledgment that the HRET had jurisdiction over the disqualification question, constituted an error of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari. The case was distinguished from Lokin vs. COMELEC, which involved nominees and not incumbent members of Congress. It was also distinguished from Reyes vs. COMELEC, where the petitioner had not yet assumed office at the time she filed her petition, the COMELEC disqualification resolution had become final and executory, and the jurisdictional question was raised merely to prevent enforcement of a final judgment.

• Legitimate Leadership of Ating Koop: The COMELEC has jurisdiction to settle leadership disputes within political parties as an incident of its enforcement powers, and the Lico Group's argument that the RTC had jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies was rejected. However, the amendments to Ating Koop's Constitution and By-laws introduced during the Second National Convention on 14 May 2011 were never registered with or approved by the COMELEC. Under the principle articulated in Dayao vs. COMELEC, the State, acting through the COMELEC, breathes life into a party-list organization and is a party to the principal contracts between the organization and its members—the Constitution and By-laws—such that any amendment constitutes a novation requiring the consent of all parties, including the COMELEC. This is analogous to the requirement under Section 48 of the Corporation Code that amended by-laws must be filed with and certified by the SEC. Without registered amendments, neither the Cebu meeting nor the Parañaque convention produced valid elections. Even assuming arguendo that the amendments were effective, the evidence was in equipoise: the Cebu meeting suffered from deficient notices and insufficient proof of quorum, while the Parañaque convention's records, consisting merely of the Minutes thereof, likewise failed to establish due notice and quorum. Under the equipoise doctrine, the party bearing the burden of proof—the Rimas Group, as petitioner before the COMELEC—failed to discharge it. The Interim Central Committee was declared the legitimate leadership because the hold-over principle applies in the absence of any provision in Ating Koop's Constitution and By-laws expressly or impliedly prohibiting it, following the analogy to corporation law applied in Señeres vs. COMELEC.

• HRET Exclusive Jurisdiction over Qualifications of Sitting Members of Congress — Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution grants the HRET exclusive jurisdiction as sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. For party-list representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction upon three concurrent events: (1) proclamation of the winning party-list group, (2) oath of the nominee, and (3) assumption of office. Once these conditions are met, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over the representative's qualifications ceases. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the COMELEC erred in ruling on the validity of Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop, as this affected his bona fide membership—a qualification within the HRET's exclusive domain.

• Bona Fide Membership as a Continuing Qualification — Bona fide membership in a party-list organization is a continuing qualification that must be maintained throughout the representative's entire tenure, not merely at the time of election or assumption of office. Qualifications for public office, whether elective or not, are continuing requirements. The Court applied this doctrine to establish that the validity of Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop directly affected his continuing qualification to sit as a party-list representative, thereby placing the matter within HRET jurisdiction.

• Requirement of COMELEC Approval for By-laws Amendments — Amendments to a party-list organization's Constitution and By-laws must be registered with and approved by the COMELEC before they become effective. The State, acting through the COMELEC, is a party to the principal contracts between the party-list organization and its members; any amendment constitutes a novation requiring the consent of all parties, including the COMELEC. This is analogous to the requirement under the Corporation Code that amended by-laws must be filed with and certified by the SEC. The Court applied this doctrine to invalidate both the Cebu meeting and the Parañaque convention elections, as both were conducted pursuant to unregistered amendments.

• Equipoise Doctrine — When the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise—that is, when the respective sets of evidence of both parties are evenly balanced—the party having the burden of proof fails in that issue. Neither side prevails, and the court leaves the parties as they are. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the Rimas Group, as petitioner before the COMELEC bearing the burden of proof, failed to establish its legitimacy as the representative of Ating Koop.

• Hold-over Principle for Party-list Officers — Officers and directors of a party-list organization hold over after the expiration of their terms until their successors are validly elected or appointed, in the absence of a provision in the organization's Constitution and By-laws expressly or impliedly prohibiting the application of the hold-over rule. This principle is derived by analogy from corporation law. The Court applied this doctrine to declare the Interim Central Committee as the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop, its members remaining in hold-over capacity despite the lapse of their terms on 14 November 2011, since no successors had been validly elected.

• "The rules on intra-party matters and on the jurisdiction of the HRET are not parallel concepts that do not intersect. Rather, the operation of the rule on intra-party matters is circumscribed by Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence on the jurisdiction of electoral tribunals." — This passage articulates the relationship between the COMELEC's power over intra-party disputes and the HRET's exclusive jurisdiction over qualifications of sitting members of Congress, establishing that the latter constrains the former.

• "Needless to say, bona fide membership in the party-list group is a continuing qualification. We have ruled that qualifications for public office, whether elective or not, are continuing requirements. They must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election, or of assumption of office, but during the officer's entire tenure." — This defines the continuing nature of the bona fide membership requirement for party-list representatives, forming the basis for the Court's conclusion that the expulsion issue falls within HRET jurisdiction.

• "An amendment to the by-laws of a party-list organization should become effective only upon approval by the COMELEC." — This establishes the requirement of COMELEC approval for by-laws amendments of party-list organizations, a doctrine analogous to the SEC certification requirement under the Corporation Code.

• BANAT Party-List vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177508, 7 August 2009 — Cited for the procedure on allocation of party-list seats in the House of Representatives, pursuant to which Ating Koop earned a seat.

• Lokin vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193808, 26 June 2012 — Distinguished. Held that the COMELEC can resolve intra-party controversies incidental to its constitutionally-granted functions, but the case involved nominees and not incumbent members of Congress. The present case was distinguished because Lico was a sitting member of the House at the time of his expulsion.

• Abayon vs. HRET, G.R. Nos. 189466 and 189506, 11 February 2010 — Followed. Held that the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to qualifications of members of the House, including the interpretation of the bona fide membership requirement in a party-list organization.

• Reyes vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, 25 June 2013 — Distinguished. Upheld the COMELEC's disqualification of a proclaimed winner who had not yet assumed office, where the COMELEC resolution had become final and executory. Distinguished on three grounds: (1) all three jurisdictional events (proclamation, oath, assumption) were satisfied in the present case; (2) the COMELEC resolution in Reyes had become final; and (3) the jurisdictional question in Reyes was a non-issue raised merely to prevent enforcement of a final judgment.

• Dayao vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193643, 29 January 2013 — Followed. Declared that the State, through the COMELEC, breathes life into a party-list organization, establishing the principle that the State is a party to the organization's Constitution and By-laws such that amendments require COMELEC approval.

• Señeres vs. COMELEC, 603 Phil. 532 (2009) — Followed. Applied the hold-over principle from corporation law to party-list organizations, holding that officers hold over after expiration of their terms until successors are elected, absent a contrary provision in the organization's Constitution and By-laws.

• Maquiling vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, 16 April 2013 — Cited for the doctrine that qualifications for public office are continuing requirements that must be possessed during the officer's entire tenure.

• Rivera vs. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 734 (1998) — Cited for the equipoise doctrine, providing that when evidence is evenly balanced, the party bearing the burden of proof fails.

• Section 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Grants the HRET exclusive jurisdiction as sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Applied to establish that the validity of Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop, affecting his bona fide membership and thus his qualifications, falls within HRET jurisdiction and not that of the COMELEC.

• Section 9, R.A. No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) — Requires that a party-list nominee be a bona fide member of the party or organization for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election. Applied as the statutory basis for the continuing bona fide membership qualification that placed the expulsion issue within HRET jurisdiction.

• Section 48, Corporation Code — Requires that amendments to corporate by-laws be filed with the SEC and become effective only upon SEC certification that the amendment is not inconsistent with the Corporation Code. Applied by analogy to require COMELEC approval of party-list by-laws amendments, rendering invalid any election conducted pursuant to unregistered amendments.

Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Del Castillo, Villarama Jr., Perez, and Leonen, JJ., concurred.