The issue on the case of PHILIPPINE GUARDIAN BROTHERHOOD, INC v.

COMELEC, is hethe! the "etitione! #e $ec%a!e$ to have "a!tici"ate$ in the "a!t&'%ist

e%ection of Ma& (), *)() in the %i+ht of the COMELEC,s fai%u!e to o#e& the -tatus .uo
O!$e! an$ su#se/uent Reso%ution +!antin+ the PGBI to annu% its $e%istin+ f!o0 the !oste!
of acc!e$ite$ "a!t&'%ist +!ou" o! o!+ani1ation. The -tatus .uo O!$e! se!ve$ #& the
-u"!e0e Cou!t on 2e#!ua!& (), *)(), sa0e $ate hich the COMELEC +ave itse%f fo!
co!!ection o! o0ission of na0es of the "a!t&'%ist #efo!e the "!intin+ of #a%%ots. The
COMELEC state$ that thousan$s of PCO- 0achine 0i+ht not #e confi+u!e$ an$
$is"atche$ to the fie%$ on ti0e an$ 0i%%ions of #a%%ots 0i+ht not #e "!inte$ #efo!e the
$ea$%ine that i%% !esu%t fo! "eo"%e not #ein+ a#%e to vote. COMELEC foun$ +ui%t& of
in$i!ect conte0"t of the -u"!e0e Cou!t #ecause of thei! fai%u!e to 0ate!ia%i1e the -tatus
.uo o!$e! of the -u"!e0e Cou!t +iven "!io! ti the $ea$%ine that the COMELEC i0"ose
u"on itse%f. PGBI shou%$, at the ve!& %east, #e $ee0e$ to have "a!tici"ate$ in Ma&, (),
*)() an$ cannot #e $is/ua%ifie$ fo! non'"a!tici"ation fo! fai%u!e to +a!ne! the votes
!e/ui!e$ un$e! sec.3456 of RA 789( #ut the "etitione! cannot #e !eco+ni1e$ to #e a "a!t&'
%ist o!+ani1ation fu%%& /ua%ifie$ to !un un$e! the "a!t&'%ist s&ste0 in the co0in+ *)(:
"a!t&'%ist e%ection. COMELEC as seve!e%& !e"!i0an$e$ fo! $iso#e$ience #& the
-u"!e0e Cou!t an$ has #een that a !e"etition of the sa0e o! si0i%a! acts sha%% #e $ea%t
ith 0o!e seve!e%& in the futu!e.