[G.R. No. 147589. December 17, 2002]
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR
PARTY vs. COMELEC, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 DEC 2002.
G.R. No. 147589 (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party (under
the Acronym OFW), represented herein by its Secretary General, Mohamad Omar
Fajardo vs. Commission on Elections, et al.)
G.R. No. 147613 (Bayan Muna vs. Commission on Elections,
et al.)
Prior to the holding of the May 14,
2001 elections, the Court issued on May 9, 2001 a Resolution in which it “DIRECTED
[Comelec] to refrain from proclaiming any winner” in the party-list
elections until further orders. In its
June 26, 2001 Decision, the Court remanded the case to Comelec with the limited
authority “to immediately conduct summary evidentiary hearings on the
qualifications of the party-list participants in the light of the [eight]
guidelines enunciated in this Decision.”
Comelec, after submitting two (2) partial and one (1) final Compliance
Reports[1]
to this Court, manifested that it fully complied with “Court’s directive of
June 26, 2001.”
This notwithstanding, the poll body – without the knowledge and prior approval of this Court – promulgated Resolution No. NBC-02-001 on November 6, 2002, in which Comelec “grant[ed]:
“APEC – three (3) seats: one (1) qualifying and two (2) additional
seats;
“AKBAYAN – two (2) seats: one (1) qualifying and one (1) additional
seat;
“BUTIL – two (2) seats: one (1) qualifying and one (1) additional
seat;
“CIBAC – two (2) seats: one (1) qualifying and one (1) additional
seat;
“BUHAY - two (2) seats: one (1) qualifying and one (1) additional
seat;
“AMIN – [o]ne (1) qualifying seat
only[;]
“ABA – [o]ne (1) qualifying seat
only[;]
“COCOFED – [o]ne (1) qualifying
seat only[;]
“NCIA – [o]ne (1) qualifying seat
only[;]
“PM – [o]ne (1) qualifying seat
only[;]
“SANLAKAS – [o]ne (1) qualifying
seat only.”
It based such grant on the votes allegedly garnered by the aforesaid party-list participants, as follows:
RANK |
PARTY-LIST |
Votes |
PERCENTAGE |
1 |
BAYAN-MUNA |
1,708,253 |
24.95 |
2 |
APEC |
802,060 |
11.71 |
3 |
AKBAYAN |
377,852 |
5.52 |
4 |
BUTIL
|
330,282 |
4.82 |
5 |
CIBAC |
323,810 |
4.73 |
6 |
BUHAY |
290,760 |
4.25 |
7 |
AMIN |
252,051 |
3.68 |
8 |
ABA |
242,199 |
3.54 |
9 |
COCOFED |
229,165 |
3.35 |
10 |
NCIA |
223,996 |
3.27 |
11 |
PM |
216,823 |
3.17 |
12 |
SANLAKAS |
151,017 |
2.21 |
This prompted APEC, AKBAYAN, BUTIL and CIBAC to file a “Joint Motion for Early Resolution” before Comelec.
Acting on this Joint Motion, Comelec
issued, motu proprio and again without prior consultation or approval of
this Court, an Order dated November 22, 2002, granting the said Joint Motion
and ordered the immediate proclamation of additional nominees of APEC,
BUTIL, CIBAC and AKBAYAN. Pursuant to
such Order, the Commission – acting as the National Board of Canvassers –
promulgated on November 26, 2002 Resolution No. NBC No. 02-002 which proclaimed
the following nominees as winners in the May 14, 2001 party-list elections:
APEC: |
1. Edgar L. Valdez |
|
2. Sunny Rose A. Madamba |
BUTIL: |
1. Leonila Chavez |
CIBAC: |
1. Ma. Blanca Kim Bernardo-Lokin |
AKBAYAN: |
1. Mario J. Aguja |
The Commission issued the Resolution
despite the aforesaid TRO, Decision and October 8, 2002 Resolution of this
Court wherein the latter had already WARNED the Comelec that its flip-flopping
was inexcusable and constituted discourtesy and disobedience to this
Court. This Resolution said in part:
“x x x,
after submitting its Compliance Reports as required by our June 26, 2001
Decision, the Comelec had no more jurisdiction to conduct on its own volition
any more hearings for the purpose of again passing upon the matter remanded to
it by this Court. Much less did it have
authority to ‘decree’ the qualifications of the four movants after they had
been disqualified by a formal Resolution of this Court upon the recommendation
of the poll body itself. The Comelec
did not even have the courtesy of notifying this Court that it was conducting
further evaluation of the matter. Such
indiscretion borders on contempt of this Court. It is elementary that ‘a lower court [or quasi judicial agency
like Comelec] cannot reexamine and reverse a decision of the Supreme Court.
“We repeat
that our June 26, 2001 Decision has ‘already become final and may no longer be
altered.’ The case was remanded to
the Comelec with the limited direction to immediately conduct summary proceedings
on the qualifications of the 154 parties and organizations in the light of the
8-point guidelines we had set forth.
After submitting its x x x Compliance Reports x x x, it no longer had
any authority to entertain the Motions filed by the aforesaid political
parties. Decidedly, its power during
the remand was limited and its delegated mandate expired upon the submission to
and acceptance by this Court of the said Reports. ‘When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the
Commission on Elections, violates or ignores the Constitution or the law, its
action can be struck down by this Court on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion.’ ‘Indeed, the function of
all judicial and quasi-judicial instrumentalities is to apply the law as they
find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it.”
WHEREFORE, Comelec, as well
as its chairman and members, are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within 10
days from receipt of this Resolution why:
(1) they should not be held in contempt for issuing Comelec Resolution
No. NBC-02-001 dated November 6, 2002, Comelec Order dated November 22, 2002,
and Comelec Resolution No. NBC No. 02-002 dated November 26, 2002 which enabled
the above-stated nominees to be proclaimed winners in the May 14, 2001
party-list elections in contravention of this Court’s standing orders,
especially the May 9, 2001 TRO which “DIRECTED [Comelec] to refrain from
proclaiming any winner” in the party-list elections without the express
authority of this Court; and, (2) to explain why they cavalierly disregarded
the formula for computing the winners among the qualified party-list
participants, which the Court painstakingly devised in Veterans Federation
Party v. COMELEC, GR No. 136781, October 6, 2000), again without the
express authority and approval of this Court.
The Court further Resolved to:
(a)
DENY WITH FINALITY the
Motion for Reconsideration of the resolution of 12 November 2002, dated 5
December 2002 filed by respondent AKLAT, there being no substantial arguments
presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned resolution;
(b)
NOTE the Comment dated
9 December 2002 filed by counsel for SANLAKAS and PM, praying that the pending
motion to lift TRO be granted;
(c)
NOTE the Manifestation
dated 25 November 2002 filed by counsel for petitioner Bayan Muna pursuant to
the 19 November 2002 resolution, stating that it is adopting its
comment/opposition to the motion to lift TRO of COCOFED and BUHAY as its
comment/opposition to the motion to lift TRO of SANLAKAS and PM;
(d)
GRANT the Motion for
Leave of Court to Admit and Consider Supplemental Motion to Set Aside COMELEC
Resolution No. NBC 02-001 promulgated on 22 November 2002, filed by counsel for
petitioner BAYAN MUNA;
(e)
NOTE aforesaid
Supplemental Motion to Set Aside COMELEC Resolution No. NBC 02-001, dated 11
December 2002;
(f)
GRANT the Motion dated
9 December 2002 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General for respondents
for an extension of five (5) days from the original period or until 14 December
2002 within which to file comment;
(g)
GRANT the Motion to
Admit Comment on the comment/opposition of BAYAN MUNA, dated 11 December 2002
filed by counsel for BUHAY;
(h)
NOTE aforesaid Comment
dated 8 December 2002 filed in compliance with the resolution of 3 December
2002;
(i)
NOTE the Reply to the
comment/opposition of BAYAN MUNA, dated 8 December 2002 filed by counsel for
movant NCIA; and
(j)
NOTE, TREAT as a second
motion for reconsideration and DENY for being a prohibited pleading, the Letter
dated 11 December 2002 of B/Gen. Ernesto Gidaya (ret.), President of the
Veterans Federation Party.
Very
truly yours,
Clerk of
Court
(Sgd.)
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst.
Clerk of Court