Partido Federal ng Pilipinas vs. Commission on Elections

The COMELEC may resolve intra-party leadership disputes as an incident of its power to register political parties, and its factual findings in such disputes, if supported by substantial evidence, are final and non-reviewable in a Rule 64 petition absent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Partido Federal ng Pilipinas (PFP) is a political party registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Petitioner Leandro B. Verceles, Jr. and Antonio C. Rodriguez, Jr. claimed to be its National President and Secretary-General, while respondents Reynaldo S. Tamayo, Jr., Thompson C. Lantion, and George S. Briones were the incumbent President, Secretary General, and General Counsel recognized by the COMELEC. The dispute concerns the COMELEC's constitutional and administrative authority under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987 Constitution to register political parties and, as an incident thereof, to ascertain the party's legitimate officers in an intra-party leadership dispute. The case also implicates Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, which limits review of COMELEC acts to jurisdictional errors and grave abuse of discretion.

Partido Federal ng Pilipinas (PFP) was registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on October 5, 2018. On March 6, 2024, Leandro B. Verceles, Jr. and Antonio C. Rodriguez, Jr. filed an Omnibus Petition with the COMELEC En Banc, Case No. EM 24-002, as the purported National President and Secretary-General of the PFP. They invoked Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987 Constitution and Article XVII, Section 2 of the 2018 PFP Constitution and By-Laws, which provides a two-year term for National Officers. They alleged that the terms of Reynaldo S. Tamayo, Jr., Thompson C. Lantion, and George S. Briones as President, Secretary General, and General Counsel, respectively, expired on September 18, 2023; that the failure to hold elections created a governance vacuum and constitutional crisis; that regional members convened and elected Verceles and Rodriguez as National President and Secretary General on December 14, 2023 at the Linden Suites, Ortigas Center, Pasig City; that Lantion unlawfully submitted a Sworn Information Update Statement (SIUS) on October 4, 2023 after his authority expired; and that their own SIUS dated December 20, 2023 should be recognized.

Tamayo, et al. filed their Comment on May 24, 2024. They alleged that petitioners' December 20, 2023 SIUS had no COMELEC stamp mark, while their own SIUS dated September 29, 2023 was stamped received on October 3, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.; that the attestation in petitioners' SIUS was falsified and Rodriguez was not authorized to submit it; and that the PFP Constitution actually provides a three-year term for National Officers. They attached a certified true copy of the PFP Constitution and By-Laws submitted to the COMELEC on April 11, 2022, as part of PFP's April 7, 2022 petition for accreditation as one of the ten major political parties for the May 9, 2022 elections, which was approved. They noted that petitioners' copy was unsigned and missing page 26. They further alleged that President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. took his oath as a PFP member on October 5, 2021 before Tamayo, assumed the vacant Chairmanship after the September 18, 2021 National Convention in Tupi, South Cotabato, and had a three-year term until September 18, 2024; that Tamayo, Lantion, and Briones likewise had three-year terms until September 18, 2024.

On June 10, 2022, the PFP National Directorate issued a Resolution giving Tamayo blanket authority to reorganize the party to make it the Dominant Majority Party during President Marcos's administration, including accepting new members and uniting the party behind Tamayo's leadership. On November 11, 2022, the PFP expelled former Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez; Anton F. Lagdameo, Jr. was appointed Executive Vice President. On September 29, 2023, Tamayo, on the strength of the June 10, 2022 Resolution, made changes in the party leadership and submitted an updated SIUS to the COMELEC. On December 14, 2023, Verceles and Rodriguez conducted a meeting at Linden Suites, without notice and without quorum, unseated the respondents, and proclaimed a new set of National Officers. They did not notify President Marcos as Chairman, Tamayo as President, Lagdameo as EVP, Lantion as Secretary General, or Briones as General Counsel. During the January 12, 2024 National Directorate and Executive Committee meeting at Malacañang Palace, no attendee reported receiving notice of the December 14, 2023 meeting. The respondents identified only nine attendees as PFP members; quorum required at least 40% of the voting membership. Article XVIII, Section 4, which provides that a defect in notice does not invalidate proceedings if a quorum is present, was inapplicable because there was no notice and no quorum. There was also no valid reason for the election because the prevailing Constitution provided a three-year term ending in 2024.

On December 18, 2023, more than 97% of the Regional, Provincial, and Municipal Officers of the PFP signed a Manifesto of Support for Tamayo's leadership. On December 20, 2023, petitioners submitted their SIUS, which the COMELEC did not receive. On January 12, 2024, the PFP National Directorate and Executive Committee affirmed the leadership of Tamayo as President, Lantion as Secretary General, and Briones as General Counsel, and called for a National Convention in September 2024 to elect National Officers and proclaim candidates for the May 12, 2025 elections. The same meeting deemed Verceles, Rodriguez, and several others expelled from the party for insubordination, disloyalty, and acts inimical to the party's best interest. On April 17, 2024, Lagdameo, as EVP, issued a Memorandum recognizing Tamayo as President, Briones as General Counsel, and Lantion as Secretary General.

At the June 4, 2024 hearing, both parties agreed that the COMELEC En Banc had jurisdiction over the case as an intra-party dispute under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the Constitution. They stipulated the issues of which between the 2018 and 2022 Constitutions and By-Laws controlled and which set of officers had valid authority. The COMELEC later found that the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws, providing for a three-year term, were the controlling documents; that the December 14, 2023 election was not called by the proper authority and lacked the required notice and quorum; and that Tamayo, et al.'s SIUS was electronically filed on September 29, 2023 within the September 30, 2023 deadline, while petitioners' SIUS was electronically filed only on December 20, 2023 and by courier on December 23, 2023, beyond the deadline.

• Applicable Term of Office: Petitioners argued that Tamayo, et al. lost their positions after the expiration of their two-year term of office on September 18, 2023 under the 2018 PFP Constitution and By-Laws, without holdover authority.
• Validity of SIUS: Petitioners maintained that the September 29, 2023 SIUS filed by Tamayo, et al. was executed without authority and should be set aside, while their December 20, 2023 SIUS was executed with authority following their December 14, 2023 election and should be recognized.
• Scope of Stipulated Issue / Grave Abuse: Petitioners contended that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it delved into the issues of notice, quorum, and holdover authority because the parties stipulated that the only issue to be resolved was the valid term of office—two years or three years.
• Relief: Petitioners prayed that Verceles be recognized as National President and all National Officers listed in their December 20, 2023 SIUS, and that Tamayo, et al. be declared illegitimate holders of their positions because their two-year term expired on September 18, 2023.

• Controlling Constitution: Tamayo, et al. countered that the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws, providing a three-year term, were the controlling documents, having been certified and submitted to the COMELEC on April 11, 2022 in connection with PFP's accreditation as one of the ten major political parties for the May 9, 2022 elections.
• No Expired Term / No Vacuum: They argued that their terms as President, Secretary General, and General Counsel ran for three years until September 18, 2024, so there was no governance vacuum or constitutional crisis.
• Invalid December 14, 2023 Election: They maintained that the December 14, 2023 meeting was a "moro moro" meeting held without notice, without quorum, and without authority, and that key party members, including President Marcos as Chairman, Tamayo, Lagdameo, Lantion, and Briones, were not notified.
• SIUS and Authority: They asserted that Tamayo, et al.'s September 29, 2023 SIUS was validly submitted and received, while petitioners' December 20, 2023 SIUS was falsified, lacked COMELEC receipt, and was submitted by Rodriguez without authority.
• Party Recognition: They cited the December 18, 2023 Manifesto of Support by more than 97% of regional, provincial, and municipal officers, the January 12, 2024 National Directorate and Executive Committee affirmation, and the April 17, 2024 memorandum of EVP Lagdameo recognizing Tamayo, Briones, and Lantion.

• Validity of the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in holding that the 2022 Constitution and By-laws of the PFP, providing for a three-year term for its National Officers, are the valid authoritative documents governing the party.
• Incumbency of Tamayo, et al.: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that Tamayo, et al. validly occupy the positions of President, Secretary General, and General Counsel of the PFP.
• Recognition of SIUS: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in recognizing the SIUS filed by Tamayo, et al. on September 29, 2023, and refusing to acknowledge Verceles and Rodriguez' SIUS filed on December 20, 2023.

• Validity of the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws: No. The COMELEC's finding that the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws, with a three-year term under Article XVII, Section 2, were the controlling documents was supported by substantial evidence; Rule 64 bars factual review absent grave abuse.
• Incumbency of Tamayo, et al.: No. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in ruling that Tamayo, et al. validly occupied their positions because their three-year terms expired in 2024, and the December 14, 2023 election was invalid for lack of notice, quorum, and authority.
• Recognition of SIUS: No. The COMELEC correctly recognized Tamayo, et al.'s September 29, 2023 SIUS as timely and refused Verceles and Rodriguez' December 20, 2023 SIUS as late and unauthorized.

• Validity of the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws: The COMELEC had jurisdiction over the intra-party dispute as an incident of its power to register political parties under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987 Constitution; Atienza vs. Commission on Elections, Kalaw vs. Commission on Elections, and Palmares vs. Commission on Elections recognize its authority to ascertain a political party's legitimate officers. On the merits, the petition raised questions of fact not proper for Rule 64. The validity of the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws, the December 14, 2023 elections, and the SIUS were factual matters. Under Rule 64, Section 5, COMELEC findings supported by substantial evidence are final and non-reviewable, and grave abuse of discretion requires capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The COMELEC's finding that the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws were the most recent and officially recorded governing documents, submitted April 11, 2022 and recognized for the 2022 elections, was supported by substantial evidence. Petitioners, then incumbent officers, did not object to their submission or dispute Tamayo, et al.'s authority to file them. Verceles himself acknowledged at the June 4, 2024 hearing that Tamayo, et al. had authority at the time of the April 7, 2022 submission. The presumption of regularity applied. Thus, Article XVII, Section 2 of the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws, providing a three-year term, controlled.
• Incumbency of Tamayo, et al.: Because the 2022 Constitution and By-Laws provided a three-year term, Tamayo, et al., elected in 2021, had terms expiring in 2024, not September 18, 2023. The December 14, 2023 election was invalid: it was not called by the incumbent Secretary General, lacked proper notice to key party members, and lacked the required 40% quorum. Article XVIII, Section 4, which cures defective notice when a quorum exists, did not apply because there was no notice and no quorum. The COMELEC's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including the Dysico affidavit and the January 12, 2024 Malacañang meeting. No grave abuse of discretion attended the COMELEC's inquiry into holdover, notice, and quorum, as these were necessary to resolve the intra-party dispute and were not waived; the COMELEC directed the parties to address them.
• Recognition of SIUS: The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in recognizing Tamayo, et al.'s September 29, 2023 SIUS. Under COMELEC Resolution No. 10673, Section 4, the date of email is the date of filing; Tamayo, et al. filed electronically on September 29, 2023, within the September 30, 2023 deadline under COMELEC Resolution No. 10943. Verceles and Rodriguez filed electronically only on December 20, 2023 and by courier on December 23, 2023, beyond the deadline, and without authority. The COMELEC's refusal to acknowledge their SIUS was proper.

• COMELEC jurisdiction over intra-party disputes — As an incident of its power to register political parties under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC may ascertain the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts. It may resolve an intra-party leadership dispute in a proper case brought before it. Applied: the COMELEC En Banc heard and decided Case No. EM 24-002 at first instance, with both parties agreeing to its jurisdiction.
• Rule 64 review limited to grave abuse of discretion; factual findings of COMELEC final if supported by substantial evidence — In a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, questions of fact are improper absent grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse means capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Rule 64, Section 5 makes COMELEC findings of fact supported by substantial evidence final and non-reviewable. Applied: the Court refused to review the COMELEC's factual findings on which Constitution controlled, election validity, and SIUS timeliness.
• Substantial evidence — That degree of evidence a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. Applied: the COMELEC's findings on the 2022 Constitution, the invalid December 14, 2023 election, and the SIUS were supported by substantial evidence.
• Presumption of regularity in agency official functions — In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption of regularity in the conduct of an agency's official functions applies. Applied: COMELEC records reflecting the 2022 Constitution as the most recent officially recorded governing document were presumed regular.
• Holdover capacity — If no prohibition exists in the party constitution, officers may serve in a holdover capacity. Applied: the COMELEC observed, as an aside, that even assuming the 2018 Constitution with a two-year term applied, holdover may apply because the 2018 PFP Constitution does not express any prohibition; the Supreme Court found no grave abuse in the COMELEC's resolution.
• Quorum and notice in party elections — Any action taken during a meeting without a quorum is null and void; the provision that a defect in notice does not invalidate proceedings if a quorum is present presupposes a notice and quorum. Applied: the December 14, 2023 election was invalid because there was no proper notice and no quorum.
• Electronic filing date — Under COMELEC Resolution No. 10673, Section 4, the date of email is considered the date of filing. Applied: Tamayo, et al.'s SIUS was timely filed electronically on September 29, 2023.

• "include the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts." — This passage, quoted in the Court's discussion of Atienza vs. Commission on Elections, states the jurisdictional basis for the COMELEC's resolution of intra-party leadership disputes as an incident of its power to register political parties.
• "The office of a petition for certiorari is not to correct simple errors of judgment, but is limited to the resolution of jurisdictional issues." — This passage states the limited scope of Rule 64 review and supports the Court's refusal to entertain the factual questions raised by petitioners.
• "Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility." — This passage supplies the canonical definition of grave abuse of discretion applied to the COMELEC's acts.
• "Substantial evidence is that degree of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion." — This passage defines the evidentiary threshold that made the COMELEC's factual findings final and non-reviewable under Rule 64.

• Atienza vs. Commission on Elections, 626 Phil. 654 (2010) — Cited for the rule that the COMELEC's powers and functions under Article IX-C, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution include ascertaining the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts.
• Kalaw vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 80218, Minute Resolution, dated November 5, 1987 — Cited in Atienza for the same principle on the COMELEC's authority over political party identity and legitimate officers.
• Palmares vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 86177-78, Minute Resolution, dated August 31, 1989 — Cited for the rule that the COMELEC's power to register political parties necessarily involves the determination of the persons who must act on the party's behalf.
• Reyna vs. Commission on Audit, 657 Phil. 209 (2011) — Cited for the rule that the office of a petition for certiorari is not to correct simple errors of judgment but is limited to the resolution of jurisdictional issues.
• Delos Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 594 Phil. 361, 374 (2008) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion as capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Suliguin vs. Commission on Elections, 520 Phil. 92, 107 (2006) — Cited for the rule that mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave.
• Varias vs. Commission on Elections, 631 Phil. 213, 240 (2010) — Cited for the definition of substantial evidence and the rule that the Court does not ordinarily review the COMELEC's appreciation and evaluation of evidence absent grossly unreasonable discretion.
• Guanzon vs. Arradaza, 539 Phil. 367, 375 (2006) — Cited for the presumption of regularity in the conduct of an agency's official functions.

• Article IX-C, Section 2(5), 1987 Constitution — Grants the COMELEC the power to register political parties. The Court held that this power includes the authority to ascertain the party's legitimate officers and to resolve an intra-party leadership dispute as an incident thereof.
• Rule 64, Section 5, Rules of Court — Provides that findings of fact of the COMELEC supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable. Applied to bar review of the COMELEC's factual findings on the controlling Constitution, election validity, and SIUS timeliness.
• Article XVII, Section 2, 2022 PFP Constitution and By-Laws — Provides that all National Officers shall have a term of office of three years. The Court held this provision controlled, so Tamayo, et al.'s terms expired in 2024, not September 2023.
• Article XVII, Section 2, 2018 PFP Constitution and By-Laws — Provides that all National Officers shall have a term of office of two years. Petitioners invoked this provision, but the Court held it was not the controlling document.
• Article XXII, Section 7, PFP Constitution — Mandates that a quorum requires the presence of at least 40% of the voting membership. Applied: the December 14, 2023 meeting did not meet this requirement.
• Article XVIII, Section 4, PFP Constitution — Provides that any defect in complying with the notice requirement shall not invalidate the proceedings if a quorum was present. Held inapplicable because there was no notice and no quorum.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 10673, Section 4 — States that the date of email shall be considered as the date of filing. Applied: Tamayo, et al.'s electronic filing on September 29, 2023 was timely.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 10943 — Set the September 30, 2023 deadline for the SIUS. Applied: Tamayo, et al.'s September 29, 2023 electronic filing was within the deadline, while petitioners' December 20, 2023 filing was late.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur. Hernando, J., on official leave.