Republic of the
Supreme Court
WALDEN F.
BELLO and LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES,
Petitioners, -
versus - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. x------------------------------------------x LIZA L.
MAZA and SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, Petitioners, -
versus - COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS and JUAN MIGUEL “MIKEY” ARROYO, Respondents. x-----------------------------------------x BAYAN MUNA
PARTY-LIST, represented by TEODORO CASIÑO, Petitioner, -
versus - |
G.R.
No. 191998
G.R. No. 192769 G.R. No. 192832 Present:
CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, |
|
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JUAN MIGUEL “MIKEY”
ARROYO of Ang Galing Pinoy Party-List, Respondents.
|
*velasco, JR.,
NACHURA,
leonardo-de castro,
brion, PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., perez, mendoza, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: December 7, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
R E S O L U T I O N
|
|
BRION, J.:
We
resolve the three (3) consolidated[1]
special civil actions for certiorari,
mandamus
and prohibition that commonly aim to disqualify respondent Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo as the nominee of the
Ang Galing Pinoy Party-List (AGPP) in the May 10, 2010 elections.
The Factual Antecedents
The common factual antecedents,
gathered from the pleadings, are briefly summarized below.
On
On
Section 6 of the Resolution provides
that the party-list group and the nominees must submit documentary evidence[5]
to duly prove that the nominees truly belong to the marginalized and underrepresented
sector/s, and to the sectoral party, organization, political party or coalition
they seek to represent. It likewise provides that the COMELEC Law Department shall
require party-list groups and nominees to make the required documentary submissions,
if not already complied with prior to the effectivity of the Resolution, not
later than three (3) days from the last day of filing of the list of nominees.[6]
Under
Section 10 of the same Resolution, the COMELEC may motu proprio effect the disqualification of party-list nominees who
violate any of the limitations mentioned in Section 7 of the Resolution.[7]
Section 8 of Rule 32 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure also states that the COMELEC may cancel motu proprio the registration of any party registered under the
party-list system for failure to comply with applicable laws, rules or
regulations of the Commission. Pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8646,[8]
in relation to Section 6 of Resolution No. 8807, the deadline for submitting
the requirements mentioned in Section 6 of the latter Resolution was on
On
The certiorari petitioners argued that not only must the party-list
organization factually and truly represent the marginalized and the
underrepresented; the nominee must as well be a Filipino citizen belonging to
the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties,
citing in this regard the case of Ang
Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC.[14] On this basis, the certiorari petitioners concluded that Arroyo cannot be considered a
member of the marginalized and underrepresented sector, particularly, the
sector which the AGPP represents – tricycle drivers and security guards –
because he is not only a member of the First Family, but is also (a) an
incumbent member of the House of Representatives; (b) the Chairman of the
House’s Energy Committee; and, (c) a member of key committees in the House,
namely: Natural Resources, Aquaculture, Fisheries Resources, Ethics and
Privileges, Justice, National Defense and Security, Public Works and Highways,
Transportation and Ways and Means.[15]
In his Answer, Arroyo counter-argued that
the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over issues involving the qualifications of
party-list nominees; Section 9 of RA 7941 merely requires that the party-list
nominee must be a bona fide member of
the party or organization which he seeks to represent at least ninety (90) days
preceding the day of the election.[16]
When the COMELEC published on March
26, 2010 its initial “List of Political Parties/Sectoral
Organizations/Coalitions Participating in the May 10, 2010 elections with their
respective Nominees,” Arroyo was listed as AGPP’s first nominee.
On March 30, 2010, the petitioner
Bayan Muna Party-List, represented by Neri Colmenares, filed with the COMELEC
another petition for disqualification against Arroyo.[17] It alleged that Arroyo is not qualified to be
a party-list nominee because he (a) does not represent or belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented sector; (b) has not been a bona fide member of AGPP ninety (90) days
prior to the May 10, 2010 elections; (c)
is a member of the House of Representatives; and that (d) AGPP is not a
legitimate and qualified party-list group and has no authority to nominate him.[18]
In his Answer, Arroyo reiterated that
the COMELEC does not have jurisdiction over cases involving the qualifications
of party-list nominees. He stated as
well that he is a bona fide member of
AGPP at least ninety (90) days prior to the elections.[19]
Meanwhile, on April 6, 2010, petitioners
Walden F. Bello and Loretta Ann P. Rosales (mandamus
petitioners) wrote the COMELEC Law Department a letter requesting for a
copy of the documentary evidence submitted by AGPP, in compliance with Section
6 of Resolution No. 8807. On the same
day, the COMELEC Law Department replied that as of that date, the AGPP had not
yet submitted any documentary evidence required by Resolution No. 8807.[20]
Through
a letter dated April 7, 2010, the mandamus
petitioners requested the COMELEC and its Law Department to act, consistently
with Section 10 of Resolution No. 8807, and declare the disqualification of the
nominees of AGPP for their failure to comply with the requirements of Section 6
of Resolution No. 8807.[21] They also wrote the COMELEC on
The COMELEC Second Division Ruling
In its May 7, 2010 Joint Resolution,
the COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petitions for disqualification
against Arroyo.[23] It
noted that Section 9 of RA 7941 merely requires the nominee to be “a bona fide member [of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent for] at least ninety (90) days preceding
the day of the elections.”[24]
It found that Arroyo (a) became a member of the party on November 20, 2009; (b)
actively participated in the undertakings of AGPP and adhered to its advocacies;
and, (c) actively supported and advanced the projects and programs of the AGPP
by regularly attending its meetings, livelihood and skills program, and
farmers’ day activities.[25]
The COMELEC en banc Ruling
The
COMELEC en banc refused to reconsider
the Second Division’s ruling in its
On
On July 23 and 29, 2010, the certiorari petitioners elevated their
case to this Court via two (2) separate petitions for certiorari,[32] docketed as G.R. Nos. 192769[33]
and 192832,[34]
to annul the COMELEC Second Division’s May 7, 2010 joint resolution and the
COMELEC en banc’s July 19, 2010
consolidated resolution that dismissed their petitions for disqualification against
Arroyo as AGPP’s nominee.
In the interim, AGPP obtained in the
On
On July 28 and 29, 2010, two (2) separate
petitions for quo warranto[39] were filed with the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) questioning
Arroyo’s eligibility as AGPP’s representative in the House of Representatives.
On
The Petitions
The mandamus petitioners in G.R.
No. 191998 argue
that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion (a) in failing to
order the motu proprio disqualification
of AGPP despite its failure to comply with the mandatory requirements under Section
6 of Resolution No. 8807; and, (b) in giving due course to the participation of
AGPP and its nominees in the May 10, 2010 elections.
On the other hand, the certiorari petitioners in G.R. Nos. 192769 and 192832 contend in common that the COMELEC
en banc gravely abused its discretion
in failing to disqualify Arroyo as AGPP’s nominee since: (1) he does not belong
to the marginalized and underrepresented sector he claims to represent; (2) he is
not a bona fide AGPP member for at
least ninety (90) days preceding the May 10, 2010 elections; (3) in light of
these preceding reasons, he would not be able to contribute to the formulation
and enactment of appropriate legislations for the sector he seeks to represent;
and (4) his nomination and acceptance of nomination as AGPP’s nominee violate AGPP’s
continuing undertaking upon which its petition for registration and
accreditation was based and granted.
In G.R. No. 192832,
the petitioner Bayan Muna Party-List also prays that the Court: (a) direct the
COMELEC en banc to review all its decisions
in cases for disqualification of nominees and cancellation of registration of
party-list groups filed in the May 10, 2010 elections, as well as those which
have not been resolved, in line with the eight-point guidelines set forth in Ang Bagong Bayani;[41] and (b) order Commissioners Nicodemo T.
Ferrer, Lucenito N. Tagle, Armando C. Velasco and Elias R. Yusoph to explain
why they should not be cited in contempt for their open defiance of the Court’s
Decisions in Ang Bagong Bayani[42]
and Barangay Association for National Advancement
and Transparency v. COMELEC.[43]
The Case for the Respondents
In G.R. Nos. 192769 and 192832, Arroyo counter-argues that the
petitions should be dismissed outright because upon his proclamation, oath and
assumption to office as a duly elected member of the House of Representatives,
the jurisdiction over issues relating to his qualifications now lies with the HRET
as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives.
Similarly, the COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), prays for the dismissal of the
petitions in G.R. Nos. 192769 and 192832 for lack of jurisdiction in view
of Arroyo’s proclamation and assumption to office as a Member of the House of
Representatives.
Despite notice, the OSG failed to comment on the
G.R. No. 191998 petition.
We deemed the case ready for resolution on the
basis of the parties’ submissions.
Issues
The core issues boil down to (1) whether
mandamus lies to compel the COMELEC to
disqualify AGPP’s nominees motu proprio
or to cancel AGPP’s registration; (2) whether the COMELEC can be enjoined from
giving due course to AGPP’s participation in the May 10, 2010 elections, the canvassing
of AGPP’s votes, and proclaiming it a winner; and (3) whether the HRET has
jurisdiction over the question of Arroyo’s qualifications as AGPP’s nominee
after his proclamation and assumption to office as a member of the House of Representatives.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the petitions.
For
a writ of mandamus to issue (in G.R. No. 191998), the mandamus petitioners must comply with
Section 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.
In
the present case, the mandamus petitioners
failed to comply with the condition that there be “no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
Under Section 2, in relation with
Section 4, of COMELEC Resolution No. 8807 (quoted below), any interested party
may file with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification against a party-list
nominee:
Section 2. Grounds for Disqualification. –
Any nominee (a) who does not possess all the qualifications of a nominee as
provided for by the Constitution, existing laws or (b) who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for
disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a nominee.
Section 4. When to file Petition. –
The petition under item (a) of Section 2 shall be filed five (5) days after the last day for filing of the list of nominees,
while under item (b) thereof shall be filed any day not later than the date of proclamation.
Furthermore, under Section 6 of RA
7941, any interested party may file a verified complaint for cancellation of
registration of a party-list organization:
SEC. 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of
Registration. – The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified
complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and
hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
(1)
It is a religious sect or
denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes;
(2)
It advocates violence or
unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3)
It is a foreign party or
organization;
(4)
It is receiving support from
any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization,
whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly
through third parties for partisan election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply
with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
(6)
It declares untruthful
statements in its petition;
(7)
It has ceased to exist for at
least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2)
preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the
votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for
the constituency in which it has registered.
These provisions effectively
provide the “plain, speedy and adequate remedy” that the mandamus petitioners should have taken. Specifically, they should have filed the
proper petition for disqualification, pursuant to Section 2(b) of Resolution
No. 8807, any day not later than the date of proclamation.
As
to the remedy of filing a complaint for cancellation of registration, we note
that neither Section 6 of RA 7941 nor Section 8, Rule 32 of the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure specifies the period within which a complaint for cancellation of
registration should be filed. Whether or
not the mandamus petitioners can
still file a petition for cancellation of AGPP’s registration at this point in
time, however, is a question we are not prepared to rule upon; in fact, we need not resolve this question since it is not raised here and has
not been argued by the parties.
We
note that in lieu of filing the above formal petition that Resolution No. 8807
and RA 7941 provide, the mandamus
petitioners opted to confine themselves to writing letters to ask the COMELEC
to act in accordance with Section 10 of Resolution No. 8807. While these moves
are technically objections to Arroyo and to the AGPP’s registration, they cannot
in any way be considered formal petitions for disqualification, unlike the
present petition which is a formal petition (whose clear intent is similarly to
disqualify Arroyo). Unfortunately for
the mandamus petitioners, a petition for mandamus is not the correct remedy under the circumstances as the
immediately applicable remedy is a petition for disqualification or for
cancellation filed with the COMELEC, as pointed out above.
In
filing the present petition, the mandamus petitioners also violated the
rule on the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies provides that a party must exhaust all administrative
remedies to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide and thus
prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts.[44]
While this is not an ironclad rule as it admits of exceptions,[45]
the mandamus petitioners failed to
show that any of the exceptions apply. The filing of a petition for mandamus with this Court, therefore, was
premature. It bears stressing that mandamus,
as an extraordinary remedy, may be used only in cases of extreme necessity
where the ordinary forms of procedure are powerless to afford relief.[46]
Thus,
we find the mandamus aspect of G.R. No. 191998 improperly filed under
the standards of Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Even
the substantive merits of the mandamus
petition in G.R. No. 191998, i.e., its patent intent to disqualify Arroyo, fail to persuade for the
reasons more fully discussed below, in relation with the certiorari petitions in G.R.
Nos. 192769 and 192832.
As
to the prohibition aspect of G.R. No. 191998 – i.e., to prevent the COMELEC from canvassing AGPP’s votes, and from
proclaiming it a winner – we find that this has been mooted by the supervening
participation, election and proclamation of AGPP after it secured the required
percentage of votes in the May 10, 2010 elections. The prohibition issue has been rendered moot
since there is nothing now to prohibit in light of the supervening events. A moot case is one that ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration
thereon (in this case, the prevention of the specified acts) can no longer be
done. Under the circumstances, we have
to recognize the futility of the petition and to dismiss it on the ground of
mootness since we cannot provide the mandamus
petitioners any substantial relief.[47]
We move on to the principal issue
raised by the certiorari petitions in
G.R. Nos. 192769
and 192832 – whether jurisdiction over Arroyo’s
qualifications as AGPP nominee should now properly be with the HRET since
Arroyo has been proclaimed and has assumed office as Member of the House of
Representatives.
This
issue is far from novel and is an issue previously ruled upon by this Court. The
consistent judicial holding is that the HRET has jurisdiction to pass upon the
qualifications of party-list nominees after their proclamation and assumption
of office; they are, for all intents and purposes, “elected members” of the
House of Representatives although the entity directly voted upon was their
party. In Abayon v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal,[48]
the Court said:
But, although it
is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not
the organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of Representatives. Section
5, Article VI of the Constitution, identifies who the “members” of that
House are:
Sec.
5. (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of
not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed
by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform
and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall
be elected through a party‑list system of registered national, regional,
and sectoral parties or organizations. (Underscoring supplied)
Clearly, the members of the House of
Representatives are of two kinds: “members x x x who
shall be elected from legislative districts” and “those who x x x shall
be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and
sectoral parties or organizations.” This means that, from the
Constitution’s point of view, it is the party-list representatives who are
“elected” into office, not their parties or organizations. These
representatives are elected, however, through that peculiar party-list system
that the Constitution authorized and that Congress by law established where the
voters cast their votes for the organizations or parties to which such
party-list representatives belong.
Once elected, both the district representatives
and the party-list representatives are treated in like manner. They
have the same deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments. They can
participate in the making of laws that will directly benefit their legislative
districts or sectors. They are also subject to the same term
limitation of three years for a maximum of three consecutive terms.
It may not be amiss to point out that the
Party-List System Act itself recognizes party-list nominees as “members of the
House of Representatives,” thus:
Sec. 2.
Declaration of Policy. – The State shall promote proportional representation in
the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a
party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino
citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political
constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become
members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the
State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order
to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group
interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete
for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme
possible. (Underscoring
supplied)
As this Court also held in Bantay
Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 v. Commission on Elections, a party-list
representative is in every sense “an elected member of the House of
Representatives.” Although the vote cast in a party-list election 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.
The Court also held in the
same case that:
In the cases before the Court, those who
challenged the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan claim that the
two do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that they ought
to represent. The Party-List System Act provides that a nominee must
be a “bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks
to represent.”
It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of
this particular qualification of a nominee – the need for him or her to be a bona
fide member or a representative of his party-list organization—in the
context of the facts that characterize petitioners Abayon and Palparan’s
relation to Aangat Tayo and Bantay, respectively,
and the marginalized and underrepresented interests that they presumably
embody.
x x x x
What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article
VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the members
of the House of Representatives. Since, as pointed out above,
party-list nominees are “elected members” of the House of
Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET has
jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy
with the cases of district representatives, once the party or organization of
the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath
and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction
over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own
jurisdiction begins.
Similarly
applicable is our ruling in Perez v.
Commission on Elections[49]
where we acknowledged that the Court does not have jurisdiction to pass upon
the eligibility of the private respondent who was already a member of the House
of Representatives. We said:
As
already stated, the petition for disqualification against private respondent
was decided by the First Division of the COMELEC on
The use of the word “sole” emphasizes the
exclusive character of the jurisdiction conferred. The exercise of the power by the Electoral
Commission under the 1935 Constitution has been described as “intended to be as
complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature.”
Earlier, this grant of power to the legislature was characterized by Justice
Malcolm “as full, clear and complete.” Under the amended 1935 Constitution, the
power was unqualifiedly reposed upon the Electoral Tribunal and it remained as
full, clear and complete as that previously granted the legislature and the
Electoral Commission. The same may be
said with regard to the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals under the 1987
Constitution.[50]
In the present case, it is not
disputed that Arroyo, AGPP’s first nominee, has already been proclaimed and
taken his oath of office as a Member of the House of Representatives. We take judicial notice, too, of the filing
of two (2) petitions for quo warranto
against Arroyo, now pending before the HRET. Thus, following the lead of Abayon and Perez, we hold that the Court has no jurisdiction over the present
petitions and that the HRET now has the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear
and rule upon Arroyo’s qualifications as a Member of the House of
Representatives.
In light of these conclusions, we see
no need to further discuss the other issues raised in the certiorari petitions.
WHEREFORE, we RESOLVE to DISMISS the petition in G.R.
No. 191998 for prematurity and mootness.
The petitions in G.R. Nos. 192769
and 192832 are likewise DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction. No pronouncement
as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice |
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice (on official leave)
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice JOSE
Associate
Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice MARIANO C. Associate Justice MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
MARIA
LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* On official leave, per Special Order No. 916 dated November 24, 2010.
[1] Per our October 12, 2010 Resolution.
[2] Rollo (G.R. No. 192769), p. 106.
[3] Rules on Disqualification Cases Against Nominees of Party-List Groups/Organizations Participating in the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections.
[4] Rollo (G.R. No. 192769), p. 107.
[5] Which may
include but not limited to the following:
a. Track record of the party-list group/organization showing active
participation of the nominee/s in the undertakings of the party-list
group/organization for the advancement of the marginalized and underrepresented
sector/s, the sectoral party, organization, political party or coalition they
seek to represent;
b. Proofs that the nominee/s truly adheres to the advocacies of the
party-list group/organizations (prior declarations, speeches, written articles,
and such other positive actions on the part of the nominee/s showing his/her
adherence to the advocacies of the party-list group/organizations);
c. Certification that the nominee/s is/are a bona fide member of
the party-list group/ organization for at least ninety (90) days prior
to the election; and
d.In case of a party-list group/organization seeking representation of the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s, proof that the nominee/s is not only an advocate of the party-list/organization but is/are also a bona fide member/s of said marginalized and underrepresented sector.
[6] COMELEC Resolution No. 8646 provides that
[7] Section 7. Limitations to party-list nominations. – The following are the limitations to the list of nominees filed by a registered party.
1. A person may be nominated by one (1) party in one (1) list only;
2. Only persons who have given
their consent in writing and under oath may be named in the list;
3. The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office in
the same election, or has lost his bid for an elective office in the
immediately-preceding election; and
4. No change of name or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the list has been submitted to the Commission, except in valid substitution.
[8] Calendar of Activities and Periods of Prohibited Acts in Connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections.
[9] Supra note 6.
[10] Docketed as SPA No. 10-001 (DCN).
[11] Rules on Disqualification Cases Filed in Connection with the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections, promulgated on November 11, 2009.
[12] Entitled “An Act Providing for the Election of Party-List Representatives through the Party-List System, and Appropriating Funds Therefor.”
[13] Rollo (G.R. No.192769), p. 38.
[14]
G.R. Nos. 147589 and 147613,
[15] Rollo (G.R. No. 192769), p. 38.
[16] Id. at 39.
[17] Docketed as SPA No. 10-003 (DCN).
[18]
Rollo (G.R. No. 192832), pp. 55-56.
[19] Id. at 56.
[20] Rollo (G.R. No. 191998), p. 6.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Id. at 6-7.
[23]
Rollo (G.R. No. 192769), pp.
37-43.
[24] Id. at 41-42.
[25] Id. at 42-43.
[26]
Id.
at 60-88. The Consolidated Resolution was penned by Commissioner Nicodemo Ferrer;
and concurred in by Commissioners Elias R. Yusoph, Lucenito N. Tagle and
Armando C. Velasco; while Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento and Gregorio Y.
Larrazabal dissented. Chairman Jose A.R.
Melo, on the other hand, abstained from voting.
[27] Id. at 71.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Id. at 72.
[30] Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[31] Rollo (G.R. No. 191998), pp. 3-15.
[32] Under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
[33] Rollo (G.R. No. 192769), pp. 3-34.
[34] Rollo (G.R. No. 192832), pp. 3-50.
[35] Rollo (G.R.
No. 192769), p. 125. Proclamation dated
[36] On May 31, 2010, the COMELEC issued NBC Resolution No. 10-009, proclaiming AGPP as one of the winning party-list organizations in the May 10, 2010 elections, having obtained 269,009 votes and entitled to one (1) seat in the House of Representatives. See http://comelec.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/nbc_res_10-009.pdf (last visited November 19, 2010).
[37] Id.
at 126. Oath of Office dated
[38] Id.
at 127. Certification dated
[39] Id. at 108. HRET Case No. 10-060, entitled “Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Petitioner v. Juan Miguel ‘Mikey’ Arroyo, Respondent,” and HRET Case No. 10-061, entitled “Danilo Antipasado, Petitioner v. Juan ‘Mikey’ Arroyo and Ang Galing Pinoy, Respondents.”
[40] Ibid.
[41] Supra note 14.
[42] Ibid.
[43]
G.R. No. 179295,
[44] Republic of the Phils. v. Express Telecommunication Co., Inc., 424 Phil. 372, 399 (2002).
[45] These exceptions are:
1. when there is a violation of due process;
2. when the issue involved is purely a legal
question;
3. when the administrative action is patently
illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
4. when there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency concerned;
5. when there is irreparable injury;
6. when the respondent is a department
secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and
assumed approval of the latter;
7. when to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be unreasonable;
8. when it would amount to a nullification of
a claim;
9. when the subject matter is a private land
in land case proceedings;
10. when the rule does not provide a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy; and
11. when there are circumstances indicating the
urgency of judicial intervention. (Buston-Arendain
v. Gil, G.R. No. 172585,
[46] ACWS, Ltd. v. Dumlao, 440 Phil. 787, 803 (2002).
[47]
Quizon v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 177927,
[48]
G.R. No. 189466,
[49] 375 Phil. 1106 (1999).
[50] Id. at 1115-1116.