PGBI vs. COMELEC

Section 6(8) of the Party-List System Act (RA 7941) establishes two separate and independent grounds for the delisting of a party-list organization: (1) failure to participate in the last two preceding elections, or (2) failure to obtain at least two percentum of the votes cast in the two preceding elections; these grounds are disjunctive and cannot be combined to justify delisting, and the Court abandoned the ruling in MINERO v. COMELEC which erroneously treated non-participation as equivalent to failure to obtain 2% of votes.

The case involves the interpretation of the delisting provisions under the Party-List System Act (RA 7941), specifically Section 6(8), which provides grounds for the removal or cancellation of registration of party-list organizations. The COMELEC had been implementing this provision by delisting organizations that either failed to participate in elections or failed to meet the 2% vote threshold, relying on the precedent set in MINERO v. COMELEC which treated non-participation as tantamount to receiving less than 2% of votes. This case presented the question of whether these grounds were cumulative or separate, and whether the Court should abandon the MINERO doctrine in light of legislative intent and subsequent jurisprudence in Banat v. COMELEC.

• PGBI was a registered party-list organization under the Party-List System Act (RA 7941).
• For the May 2010 elections, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8679 on October 13, 2009 delisting several party-list groups including PGBI.
• The delisting was based on Section 6(8) of RA 7941 because PGBI failed to get 2% of the votes cast in the 2004 elections and did not participate in the 2007 elections.
• Resolution No. 8679 allowed adversely affected parties to file verified oppositions on October 26, 2009.
• PGBI filed its Opposition and also sought admission ad cautelam of its petition for accreditation, arguing that Section 4 of RA 7941 allowed registered parties to participate by filing a manifestation 90 days before the election.
• PGBI argued that its request for deferment of participation in the 2007 elections was filed within the required period, giving it the option to participate in the next election.
• PGBI claimed that MINERO v. COMELEC should not apply because MINERO was afforded prior notice while PGBI was not, and that the 2% requirement had been relaxed by Banat v. COMELEC.
• COMELEC denied the motion, finding that PGBI misunderstood Section 4 of RA 7941, that MINERO was squarely applicable, and that the application for accreditation was filed out of time (deadline was August 17, 2009).
• The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition citing MINERO, which held that failure to participate and failure to get 2% in one election equates to failure to get 2% in two elections.
• PGBI moved for reconsideration, citing Senate deliberations on SB No. 1913 showing that Section 6(8) provides two separate grounds, not cumulative.

• Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate and distinct grounds for delisting, not cumulative grounds, as shown by the legislative deliberations where Senators Gonzales and Tolentino confirmed there are "actually two grounds" and "two separate grounds."
• PGBI failed to participate in only one (not two) preceding election (2007) and failed to secure the required percentage in only one (not two) preceding election (2004), thus Section 6(8) does not apply to its situation.
• The MINERO ruling is inapplicable because MINERO was afforded prior notice before delisting while PGBI and 25 others were not, violating due process.
• The MINERO ruling erroneously interprets Section 6(8) by treating non-participation as equivalent to receiving less than 2% of votes.
• The 2% threshold requirement has been relaxed by the Court's ruling in Banat v. COMELEC, and exclusion of PGBI constitutes denial of equal protection.
• Section 4 of RA 7941 allows registered parties to participate by filing a manifestation, and PGBI's request for deferment in 2007 should be considered compliance.
• Implementation of Resolution No. 8679 should be suspended to prevent miscarriage of justice due to failure to notify parties in accordance with Section 6(8).

• Section 4 of RA 7941 merely exempts registered parties from new registration but requires a manifestation of intent to participate; without such manifestation, the exemption does not arise and the party must reapply.
• A request for deferment does not exempt PGBI from registering anew for the 2010 elections.
• The MINERO ruling is squarely applicable as it involved identical facts (failed to get 2% in one election and did not participate in the next).
• PGBI was afforded due process through the opportunity to file an opposition and seek reconsideration of Resolution No. 8679, satisfying the essence of administrative due process.
• The application for accreditation was filed out of time as the deadline was August 17, 2009 under Resolution 8646.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether PGBI was denied due process when it was delisted by COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 without prior notice and hearing.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate grounds or one cumulative ground for delisting party-list organizations.
  • Whether the Supreme Court should abandon its ruling in MINERO v. COMELEC.
  • Whether PGBI is subject to delisting under the correct interpretation of Section 6(8) given that it failed to obtain 2% in 2004 and failed to participate in 2007.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that PGBI's right to due process was not violated because the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, which was afforded when COMELEC allowed adversely affected parties to file oppositions and when PGBI was given the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the resolution.
  • A formal or trial-type hearing is not essential in administrative proceedings; fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side is sufficient.
• Substantive:
  • The Court abandoned the MINERO ruling, declaring it an erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941 that did violence to the language of the law and legislative intent.
  • Section 6(8) provides two separate and independent grounds for delisting: (a) failure to participate in the last two preceding elections, or (b) failure to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections.
  • The word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from the other; the grounds cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting.
  • MINERO erred in characterizing non-participation as similar to failure to garner 2% threshold votes; non-participation is distinct from receiving less than 2% of votes.
  • In light of Banat v. COMELEC, the 2% threshold for delisting should now be understood as failure to qualify for a party-list seat in two preceding elections (referring to the percentage garnered by the last qualifying party-list organization, which may be less than 2%).
  • PGBI cannot be delisted because it failed different grounds in different elections (failed 2% in 2004, failed to participate in 2007), not the same ground in two elections.
  • The Court declared that MINERO is struck out from ruling case law as an exception to stare decisis because it was clearly erroneous and circumstances override the benefits of stability.

• Stare Decisis et non quieta movere — The doctrine enjoining adherence to judicial precedents and requiring courts to follow established Supreme Court decisions; however, it is not absolute and may be set aside when circumstances show that a previous ruling was clearly erroneous and causes prejudice, as when the ruling did violence to the language of the law and legislative intent.
• Disjunctive Conjunction "Or" — In statutory construction, the word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from other things enumerated, and should be construed in its ordinary sense as a disjunctive word.
• Due Process in Administrative Proceedings — The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of; a formal trial-type hearing is not always essential, and the requirement is satisfied where parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side.
• Voters' Preference Test (Dissent) — The concept that party-list organizations must prove over two consecutive elections that they retain the required level of voters' preference to remain in the register, functioning as a mechanism for attrition (rejected by the majority).

• "The word 'or' is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from the other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word."
• "MINERO therefore simply cannot stand. Its basic defect lies in its characterization of the non-participation of a party-list organization in an election as similar to a failure to garner the 2% threshold party-list vote."
• "A delisting based on a mixture or fusion of these two different and separate grounds for delisting is therefore a strained application of the law - in jurisdictional terms, it is an interpretation not within the contemplation of the framers of the law and hence is a gravely abusive interpretation of the law."
• "The doctrine [of stare decisis] is not cast in stone for upon a showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the great benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting it aside."
• "MINERO did unnecessary violence to the language of the law, the intent of the legislature, and to the rule of law in general. Clearly, we cannot allow PGBI to be prejudiced by the continuing validity of an erroneous ruling."
• "The essence of due process, we have consistently held, is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."
• "What is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and hearing."

• Philippine Mines Safety Environment Association (MINERO) v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007 — Controlling precedent that was abandoned; the Court held that MINERO was erroneously decided because it treated non-participation as equivalent to failure to obtain 2% of votes, thereby mixing two separate grounds for delisting.
• Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009 — Cited for the ruling that the 2% threshold in the distribution of additional seats is unconstitutional; used to interpret that the 2% requirement for delisting should now mean failure to qualify for a seat (garnering votes equal to or greater than the last qualifying party-list organization).
• Varias v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189078, February 11, 2010 — Cited for the principle that the use of wrong considerations is an act not in contemplation of law—a jurisdictional error constituting grave abuse of discretion.
• Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5 US) 137, 2 L ed 60 (1803) — Cited for the principle that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
• Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009 — Cited regarding the doctrine of stare decisis.
• Fermin v. People, G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008 — Cited regarding stare decisis.
• Chinese Young Men's Christian Association of the Philippine Islands v. Remington Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 159422, March 28, 2008 — Cited regarding stare decisis.
• Bautista v. COMELEC, 460 Phil. 459 (2003) — Cited for the principle that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard.
• The Heirs of George Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009 — Cited regarding statutory construction of disjunctive terms.

• Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) — Provides the grounds for removal/cancellation of registration: failure to participate in the last two preceding elections OR failure to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections; the Court interpreted this as providing two separate grounds.
• Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7941 — Provides that registered parties need not register anew but must file a manifestation of intent to participate 90 days before the election; interpreted by COMELEC to mean that failure to manifest requires requalification.
• Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines — Embodies the doctrine of stare decisis providing that judicial decisions applying or interpreting laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Basis for the petition for certiorari filed by PGBI.

• Justice Abad — Argued that while Section 6(8) provides two separate grounds, the legislature intended these to be complementary as part of a "voters' preference test" over two elections to ensure only parties with sustained voter support remain registered; maintained that MINERO should not be abandoned and that PGBI should be delisted because it failed to prove sustained voters' preference over the two preceding elections regardless of which specific ground applied to each election; warned that the majority's view would allow circumvention of the attrition mechanism and permit parties with low-level support to remain on the ballot indefinitely.