EN BANC
|
BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT OR BA-RA 7941, represented by
MR. AMEURFINO E. CINCO, Chairman, AND URBAN POOR FOR LEGAL REFORMS (UP-LR),
represented by MRS. MYRNA P. PORCARE, Secretary-General,
Petitioners, - versus - COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, BIYAHENG PINOY, KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKAKULONG NA WALANG SALA
(KAKUSA), BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY
(BANAT), AHON PINOY, AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ALLIANCE OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
(AGAP), PUWERSA NG BAYANING ATLETA (PBA), ALYANSA NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG
AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA MAMAMAYAN, INC. (AGHAM), BABAE PARA SA KAUNLARAN
(BABAE KA), AKSYON SAMBAYANAN (AKSA), ALAY SA BAYAN NG MALAYANG PROPESYUNAL
AT REPORMANG KALAKAL (ABAY-PARAK), AGBIAG TIMPUYOG ILOCANO, INC. (AGBIAG!),
ABANTE ILONGGO, INC. (ABA ILONGGO), AANGAT TAYO (AT), AANGAT ANG KABUHAYAN
(ANAK), BAGO NATIONAL CULTURAL SOCIETY OF THE PHILIPPINES (BAGO), ANGAT
ANTAS-KABUHAYAN PILIPINO MOVEMENT (AANGAT KA PILIPINO), ARTS BUSINESS AND
SCIENCE PROFESSIONAL (ABS), ASSOSASYON NG MGA MALILIIT NA NEGOSYANTENG
GUMAGANAP INC. (AMANG), SULONG BARANGAY MOVEMENT, KASOSYO PRODUCERS CONSUMER
EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION, INC. (KASOSYO), UNITED MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS
(UNI-MAD), PARENTS ENABLING PARENTS (PEP), ALLIANCE OF NEO-CONSERVATIVES
(ANC), FILIPINOS FOR PEACE, JUSTICE AND PROGRESS MOVEMENT (FPJPM), BIGKIS
PINOY MOVEMENT (BIGKIS), 1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UNTAK), ALLIANCE FOR
BARANGAY CONCERNS (ABC), BIYAYANG BUKID, INC., ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND
DEMOCRACY (ANAD), AKBAY PINOY OFW-NATIONAL INC., (APOI), ALLIANCE TRANSPORT
SECTOR (ATS), KALAHI SECTORAL PARTY (ADVOCATES FOR OVERSEAS FILIPINO) AND
ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATORS, PROFESSIONALS AND SENIORS (AAPS), Respondents. |
G.R. No. 177271
Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, *AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, * CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ.
Promulgated: May 4, 2007 |
x--------------------------------------------------x
|
REP. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION, BANTAY KATARUNGAN FOUNDATION,
Petitioners, - versus - THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 177314 |
X -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Before
the Court are these two consolidated petitions for certiorari and mandamus to nullify and set aside certain
issuances of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) respecting party-list groups
which have manifested their intention to participate in the party-list elections on
In
the first petition, docketed as G.R.
No. 177271, petitioners Bantay
Republic Act (BA-RA 7941, for short) and the Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR, for short)
assail the various Comelec resolutions accrediting private respondents Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the forthcoming party-list elections on May 14, 2007 without simultaneously determining whether or not their
respective nominees possess the requisite qualifications defined in Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7941, or the “Party-List System Act” and belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector each seeks to represent.
In the second, docketed as G.R.
No. 177314, petitioners Loreta Ann P.
Rosales, Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution 07-0724 dated April 3, 2007 effectively denying their
request for the release or disclosure of the names of the nominees of the fourteen (14) accredited participating party-list
groups mentioned in petitioner Rosales’ previous letter-request.
While
both petitions commonly
seek to compel the Comelec
to disclose or publish the names of the nominees of the various party-list
groups named in the petitions,[1] the petitioners in G.R. No. 177271 have the
following additional prayers: 1) that the 33 private
respondents named therein be “declare[d] as unqualified to
participate in the party-list elections as sectoral organizations,
parties or coalition for failure to comply with
the guidelines prescribed by the [Court] in [Ang Bagong Bayani v. Comelec[2]]” and, 2) correspondingly, that the Comelec be enjoined from allowing respondent
groups from participating in the May
2007 elections.
In separate resolutions both dated
The
facts:
On
Subsequent events saw BA-RA
7941 and UP-LR filing with the Comelec an Urgent Petition to Disqualify,
thereunder seeking to disqualify the nominees of certain party-list
organizations. Both petitioners appear not to have the names of the nominees sought to be
disqualified since they still asked for a copy of the list
of nominees. Docketed
in the Comelec as SPA Case No 07-026, this urgent petition has
yet to be resolved.
Meanwhile,
reacting to the emerging public perception that the individuals behind the
aforementioned 14 party-list groups do not, as they should, actually represent
the poor and marginalized sectors, petitioner Rosales,
in G.R.
No. 177314, addressed a letter[5] dated
Neither
the Comelec Proper nor its Law Department officially responded to petitioner
Rosales’ requests. The
On April 16, 2007, Atty. Emilio Capulong, Jr. and ex-Senator Jovito R.
Salonga, in their own behalves
and as counsels of petitioner Rosales, forwarded a letter[8] to the
Comelec formally requesting action and definitive decision on Rosales’ earlier plea for information regarding the names of several party-list
nominees. Invoking their
constitutionally-guaranteed right to information, Messrs. Capulong and Salonga at the same time drew attention to the banner
headline adverted to earlier, with a request for the Comelec, “collectively or individually, to issue a formal
clarification, either confirming or denying … the banner headline and the alleged
statement of Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr. xxx” Evidently unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was the issuance of Comelec en banc Resolution 07-0724[9] under date April 3, 2007 virtually declaring the
nominees’ names confidential and in net effect denying petitioner
Rosales’ basic disclosure request. In its relevant part, Resolution 07-0724 reads as follows:
RESOLVED, moreover, that the Commission will disclose/publicize the names of party-list nominees in connection
with the
Let
the Law Department implement this resolution and reply to all letters addressed
to the Commission inquiring on the party-list nominees. (Emphasis added.)
According
to petitioner Rosales,
she was able to obtain a copy of
the
The
herein consolidated petitions are cast against the
foregoing factual setting,
albeit petitioners BA-RA
7941 and UP-LR appear not to be aware,
when they filed their petition on April 18, 2007, of the April 3, 2007 Comelec Resolution 07-0724.
To start
off, petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR would have the Court cancel the
accreditation accorded by the Comelec to the respondent party-list groups named
in their petition on the ground that these groups and their respective nominees do not appear to be
qualified. In the words of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR, Comelec -
xxx committed
grave abuse of discretion … when it granted
the assailed accreditations even without simultaneously determining whether the nominees of herein
private respondents are qualified or not, or whether or not the nominees are
likewise belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they claim
to represent in Congress, in accordance with No.
7 of the eight-point guidelines prescribed by the Honorable Supreme in the Ang Bagong Bayani[11] case which states that, “not only the candidate party or organization
must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its
nominees.” In the case of private respondents, public
respondent Comelec granted accreditations without the required simultaneous
determination of the qualification of the nominees as part of the accreditation
process of the party-list organization itself.
(Words in bracket added; italization in the
original)[12]
The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of
petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of accreditation on the
grounds thus advanced
in their petition. For, such course of action would entail going
over and evaluating the qualities
of the sectoral groups or parties in question, particularly
whether or not they indeed represent marginalized/underrepresented groups. The
exercise would require the Court to make a factual determination, a matter which is
outside the office of judicial review by way of special civil action for certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, the Court is not called upon to decide
factual issues and the case must be decided on the undisputed facts on record.[13]
The sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not include a review of the
tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence.[14]
Not lost on the Court of course is the pendency
before the Comelec of SPA Case No. 07-026
in which petitioners BA-RA 7941 and
UP-LR themselves seek to disqualify
the nominees of the respondent party-list groups named in their
petition.
Petitioners BA-RA 7941’s and UP-LR’s posture that
the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted the assailed
accreditations without simultaneously determining the qualifications of their
nominees is without basis. Nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is there a requirement that
the qualification of a party-list nominee be determined simultaneously with the
accreditation of an organization. And as aptly pointed out by private
respondent Babae Para sa Kaunlaran (Babae Ka), Section 4 of R.A. No. 7941
requires a petition for registration of a party-list organization to be filed
with the Comelec “not later than ninety
(90) days before the election” whereas the succeeding Section 8 requires
the submission “not later than forty-five
(45) days before the election” of
the list of names whence party-list representatives shall be chosen.
Now to the
other but core issues of the case.
The petition in G.R. No. 177314 formulates
and captures the main issues tendered by the petitioners in these consolidated
cases and they may be summarized as follows:
1.
Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal
the names of the nominees of the various party-list groups, has
violated the right to information and free
access to documents as guaranteed
by the
Constitution; and
2.
Whether respondent Comelec is
mandated by the Constitution to disclose to the public the names of
said nominees.
While the
Comelec did not explicitly say so, it based its refusal to disclose the names
of the nominees of subject party-list groups on Section 7 of R.A. 7941. This
provision, while commanding the publication and the posting in polling places
of a certified list of party-list system participating groups, nonetheless tells the Comelec not to show or
include the names of the party-list nominees in said certified list. Thus:
SEC. 7.
Certified
List of Registered Parties.-
The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare
a certified list of national, regional, or sectoral
parties, organizations or coalitions which have applied or who have manifested
their desire to participate under the party-list system and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for
posting in the polling places on election day. The
names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list. (Emphasis added.)
And
doubtless part of Comelec’s reason for keeping the names of the party list
nominees away from the public is deducible from the following excerpts of the news
report appearing in the adverted
The Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) firmed up yesterday its decision not to release the names of nominees
of sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions accredited to participate in
the party-list election which will be held simultaneously with the May 14
mid-term polls.
COMELEC Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. …
said he and [the other five COMELEC] Commissioners --- believe that the party list elections must
not be personality oriented.
Abalos said under [R.A.]
7941 …, the people
are to vote
for sectoral parties,
organizations,
or coalitions, not for their nominees.
He said there is nothing in
R.A. 7941 that requires the Comelec to disclose the names of nominees. xxx (Words in brackets and emphasis added)
Insofar as
the disclosure issue is concerned, the petitions are impressed with merit.
Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of
the Comelec and the given rationale therefor is the right to information
enshrined in the self-executory[15]
Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, viz:
Sec.7. The right of the people
to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well to government research data used as basis
for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
Complementing and going hand in hand with the right to information is another
constitutional provision enunciating the policy of full disclosure and
transparency in Government. We refer to Section 28,
Article II of the Constitution reading:
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable
conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full
public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
The
right to information is a public right where the real parties in interest
are the public, or the citizens to be precise.
And for every right of the people recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part of
those who govern to respect and protect that right. This is the essence of the Bill of Rights in a
constitutional regime.[16] Without
a government’s acceptance of the limitations upon it by the Constitution in
order to uphold individual liberties, without an acknowledgment on its part of
those duties exacted by the rights pertaining to the citizens, the Bill of Rights becomes a sophistry.
By weight of jurisprudence, any citizen can
challenge any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his right to information and
may seek its enforcement by mandamus.[17] And since every citizen by the simple fact of his
citizenship possesses the right to be informed, objections on ground of locus standi are ordinarily unavailing.[18]
Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information and its companion right of access to official
records are not absolute. As articulated in Legaspi, supra, the people’s right to know is limited to “matters of public concern” and is further subject to such limitation as may
be provided by law. Similarly, the
policy of full disclosure is confined to transactions involving “public interest” and is subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law. Too, there is also the need of preserving a measure of
confidentiality on some matters, such as military, trade, banking and
diplomatic secrets or those affecting national security.[19]
The terms “public concerns” and “public interest” have eluded precise definition. But both terms
embrace, to borrow from Legaspi, a broad spectrum of subjects which the public
may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply
because such matters naturally whet the interest of an ordinary citizen. At the
end of the day, it is for the courts to determine, on a case to case basis,
whether or not at issue is of interest or importance to the public.
If, as in Legaspi, it
was the legitimate concern of a
citizen to know if certain persons employed as sanitarians of a health department of a city
are civil service eligibles, surely
the identity of candidates for a lofty elective public office should be a matter of highest public concern and interest.
As may be noted, no national security or like concerns is involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the
party-list groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing the
legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the nominees of the
party-list groups subject of their respective
petitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies.
The last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. 7941
reading: “[T]he
names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list” is certainly not a justifying card for the Comelec to deny the requested disclosure. To us, the prohibition imposed on the Comelec
under said Section 7 is limited in scope and duration, meaning,
that it extends only to the certified list which the same provision requires to be posted in
the polling places on election day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition to
the absolute is to read into the law something that is not intended. As it
were, there is absolutely nothing in R.A. No. 7941 that prohibits the
Comelec from disclosing or even publishing through mediums other than the “Certified
List” the names of the
party-list nominees. The
Comelec obviously misread the limited non-disclosure aspect of the provision as
an absolute bar to public disclosure before the May 2007 elections.
The interpretation thus given by the Comelec virtually tacks an
unconstitutional dimension on the last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941.
The Comelec’s reasoning that a party-list election is not an
election of personalities is valid to a point. It cannot be taken, however, to
justify its assailed non-disclosure stance which comes, as it were, with a
weighty presumption of invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a fundamental
right to information.[20]
While the vote cast in a party-list
elections is a
vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a
vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House of Representatives.
In all, we agree with the petitioners that
respondent Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the names
of the nominees of the party-list groups named in the herein petitions.
WHEREFORE, the
petition in G.R. No. 177271 is partly
DENIED insofar as it seeks to
nullify the accreditation of the respondents named therein. However, insofar as
it seeks to compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the names of the nominees
of party-list groups, sectors or organizations accredited to participate in the
This
Decision is declared immediately executory upon its receipt by the Comelec.
No
pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate
Justice
|
|
(ON LEAVE) MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice
|
(ON LEAVE) RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate
Justice
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* On Leave.
* On Leave.
[1] At least nine (9) party-list groups subject of the second petition are respondents in the first petition.
[2] G. R. No. 147589,
[3] ABS, Babae Ka, PEP, ANC, FPJPM, AAPS, AANGAT ka Pilipino and KALAHI.
[4] AKSA.
[5] Annex “E,” of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.
[6] Annex “F,” of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.
[7] Petition (G.R. 177314), p. 8.
[8] Annex “G,” of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.
[9] Annex “ B,” of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.
[10] Petition in G.R. SP. No.177314, p. 3.
[11] Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Part v. Commission on
Elections,
Supra note 2.
[12] Page 5 of the petition in G. R. No. 177271.
[13] Pobre v. Gonong, G. R. No. L-60575,
[14] Sea
Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 138270, June 28,
2001, 360 SCRA 173; Oro
v. Diaz, G.R. No. 140974, July 11, 2001, 361 SCRA 108.
[15] Gonzales v. Narvasa, G.R.
No. 140835,
[16] Legaspi v. Civil Service
Commission, G. R. No. L-72119,
[17] Tanada v. Tuvera, G. R. No. L-63915,
[18] Bernas, The
Constitution of the
[19] Chavez
v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716,
[20] Ayer
Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong, G.R. No.
[21] G.
R. No. L-8921,
[22] Rodriquez v. Commission on Elections, G.
R. No. L-61545,