Phil Guardian Brotherhood Inc.

vs COMELEC
Phil Guardian Brotherhood Inc run for a Partylist sit on 2004 election and they did
not make it on the 2% cut off, on 2007 Elections the petitioners did not run;
thereafter, on 2010 presidential elections, theyrun again as a partylist.
Unfortunately the Comelec said that they are not eligible for running the same
position. Resolution No. 8679 nullify the PGBI to run for 2 consecutive terms and not
achieving the 2 % threshold, now the point of PGBI is that they did not run for 2007
and the constitution did not provide for such rules (res .no. 8679).
Issue: WON the the Resolution No. 8679 is Constitutional.
Rulling
The Supreme Court rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the
continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the
additional seats as found in the Res. No. 8679 is unconstitutional. This Court finds
that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the
maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party
list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the
distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive
ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of
party-list representatives.
Decision: The Comelec Res. No. 8679 is unconstitutional.

G.R. No. 190529. April 29, 2010.*

PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI), represented by its SecretaryGeneral GEORGE FGBF GEORGE DULDULAO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent.
Election Law; Party-List System; The Commission on Elections (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.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
if it: (a) fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections; or (b) 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. 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.
Civil Procedure; Judgments; Stare Decisis; The doctrine of stare decisis is based on
the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should
be deemed settled and closed to further argument.The doctrine of stare decisis et
non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which are
established) is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which
provides, thus: ART.8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. The doctrine
enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the
rule established in a decision of its Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial
precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine
of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been
examined and decided,
_______________

* EN BANC.
586

586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections

it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. The doctrine is
grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability of judicial decisions.
Same; Same; Same; The most compelling reason to abandon the Minero ruling
exists; it was clearly an erroneous application of the lawan application that the
principle of stability or predictability of decisions alone cannot sustain.The most
compelling reason to abandon Minero exists; it was clearly an erroneous application
of the lawan application that the principle of stability or predictability of decisions
alone cannot sustain. 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. Thus,
we now abandon Minero and strike it out from our ruling case law.
Constitutional Law; Due Process; The essence of due process is simply the
opportunity to be heard; as applied to administrative proceedings, due process is
the opportunity to explain ones side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of.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 ones side or the opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type
hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The requirement is satisfied
where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side
of the controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and
hearing x x x.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
George Erwin M. Garcia for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
587

VOL. 619, APRIL 29, 2010

587
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections
RESOLUTION
BRION,J.:

The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) seeks in this petition for
certiorari1 and in the motion for reconsideration it subsequently filed to nullify
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009
insofar as it relates to PGBI, and the Resolution dated December 9, 2009 denying
PGBIs motion for reconsideration in SPP No. 09-004 (MP). Via these resolutions, the
COMELEC delisted PGBI from the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral
parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list system.
Background

Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party-List
System Act, provides:
Section6.Removal 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:
xxxx
(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. [Emphasis
supplied.]
The COMELEC replicated this provision in COMELEC Resolution No. 2847the Rules
and Regulations Governing the Election of the Party-List Representatives through
the Party-List Systemwhich it promulgated on June 25, 1996.
_______________

1 Filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

588

588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections

For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC en banc issued on October 13,
2009 Resolution No. 8679 deleting several party-list groups or organizations from
the list of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or
coalitions. Among the party-list organizations affected was PGBI; it was delisted
because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate in the
2007 elections. Nevertheless, the COMELEC stated in this Resolution that any
national, regional sectoral party or organizations or coalitions adversely affected
can personally or through its authorized representative file a verified opposition on
October 26, 2009.
PGBI filed its Opposition to Resolution No. 8679, but likewise sought, through its
pleading, the admission ad cautelam of its petition for accreditation as a party-list
organization under the Party-List System Act. Among other arguments, PGBI
asserted that:
(1)The assailed resolution negates the right of movant and those similarly
situated to invoke Section 4 of R.A. No. 7941, which allows any party, organization
and coalition already registered with the Commission to no longer register anew;
the party though is required to file with the Commission, not later than ninety (90)
days before the election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list
system; since PGBI filed a Request/Manifestation seeking a deferment of its
participation in the 2007 elections within the required period prior to the 2007
elections, it has the option to choose whether or not to participate in the next
succeeding election under the same conditions as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed;
(2)The Supreme Courts ruling in G.R. No. 177548Philippine Mines Safety
Environment Association, also known as MINERO v. Commission on Elections
cannot apply in the instant controversy for two reasons: (a) the factual milieu of the
cited case is removed from PGBIs; (b) MINERO, prior to delisting, was afforded the
opportunity to be heard, while PGBI and the 25 others similarly affected by
Resolution No. 8679 were not. Additionally, the requirement of Section 6(8) has
been relaxed by the Courts ruling in G.R. No. 179271 (Banat v. COMELEC) and the
exclusion of PGBI and the 25 other party-list is a denial of the equal protection of
the laws;
(3)The implementation of the challenged resolution should be suspended and/or
aborted to prevent a miscarriage of justice in view of the failure to notify the parties
in accordance with the same Section 6(8) or R.A. No. 7941.2
The COMELEC denied PGBIs motion/opposition for lack of merit.
First, the COMELEC observed that PGBI clearly misunderstood the import of Section
4 of R.A. 7941.3 The provision simply means that without the required manifestation
or if a party or organization does not participate, the exemption from registration
does not arise and the party, organization or coalition must go through the process

again and apply for requalification; a request for deferment would not exempt PGBI
from registering anew.
Second, the MINERO ruling is squarely in point, as MINERO failed to get 2% of the
votes in 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections.
Third, PGBI was given an opportunity to be heard or to seek the reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained ofthe essence of due process; this is clear from
Resolution No. 8679 which expressly gave the adversely affected parties the
opportunity to file their opposition.
_______________

2 Rollo, pp. 42-48.

3Sec.4.Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List System.Any party,
organization or coalition already registered with the Commission need not register
anew. However, such party, organization or coalition shall file with the Commission,
not later than ninety (90) days before the election, a manifestation of its desire to
participate in the party-list system.
As regards the alternative relief of application for accreditation, the COMELEC found
the motion to have been filed out of time, as August 17, 2009 was the deadline for
accreditation provided in Resolution 8646. The motion was obviously filed months
after the deadline.
PGBI came to us in its petition for certiorari, arguing the same positions it raised
with the COMELEC when it moved to reconsider its delisting.
We initially dismissed the petition in light of our ruling in Philippine Mines Safety
Environment Association, also known as MINERO v. Commission on Elections
(Minero);4 we said that no grave abuse of discretion exists in a ruling that correctly
applies the prevailing law and jurisprudence. Applying Section 6(8) of RA 7941, the
Court disqualified MINERO under the following reasoning:
Since petitioner by its own admission failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and did
not participate at all in the 2004 elections, it necessarily failed to get at least two
per centum (2%) of the votes cast in the two preceding elections. COMELEC,
therefore, is not duty bound to certify it.
PGBI subsequently moved to reconsider the dismissal of its petition. Among other
arguments, PGBI claimed that the dismissal of the petition was contrary to law, the
evidence and existing jurisprudence. Essentially, PGBI asserts that Section 6(8) of
RA 7941 does not apply if one is to follow the tenor and import of the deliberations

inclusive of the interpellations in Senate Bill No. 1913 on October 19, 1994. It cited
the following excerpts from the Records of the Senate:
Senator Gonzales: On the other hand, Mr. President, under ground no. (7), Section
5there are actually two grounds it states: Failure to participate in the last two (2)
preceding elections or its failure to obtain at least ten percent (10%) of the votes
cast
_______________

4 G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007, see Rollo of G.R. No. 177548, pp. 46-48.
591

VOL. 619, APRIL 29, 2010

591
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections
under the party-list system in either of the last two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered
In short, the first ground is that, it failed to participate in the last two (2) preceding
elections. The second is, failure to obtain at least 10 percent of the votes cast under
the party-list system in either of the last two preceding elections, Mr. President,
Senator Tolentino:Actually, these are two separate grounds.
Senator Gonzales:There are actually two grounds, Mr. President.
Senator Tolentino:Yes, Mr. President.5 [Underscoring supplied.]
PGBI thus asserts that Section 6(8) does not apply to its situation, as it is obvious
that it failed to participate in one (1) but not in the two (2) preceding elections.
Implied in this is that it also failed to secure the required percentage in one (1) but
not in the two (2) preceding elections.
Considering PGBIs arguments, we granted the motion and reinstated the petition in
the courts docket.
The Issues

We are called upon to resolve: (a) whether there is legal basis for delisting PGBI;
and (b) whether PGBIs right to due process was violated.
Our Ruling

We find the petition partly impressed with merit.

a.The Minero Ruling
Our Minero ruling is an erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941; hence, it
cannot sustain PGBIs delisting from the roster of registered national, regional or
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list system.
First, the law is clearthe 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 if it:
(a) fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections; or (b) 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.6 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.7 Thus, the plain, clear and
unmistakable language of the law provides for two (2) separate reasons for
delisting.
Second, Minero is diametrically opposed to the legislative intent of Section 6(8) of
RA 7941, as PGBIs cited congressional deliberations clearly show.
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. What Minero effectively holds is that a
party list organization that does not participate in an election necessarily gets, by
default, less than 2% of the party-list votes. To be sure, this is a confused
interpretation of the law, given the laws clear and categorical language and the
legislative intent to treat the two scenarios differently. A delisting based on a
mixture or fusion of these two different and separate grounds for delisting is
therefore a
6 Numbering supplied.
7Agpalo, Statutory Construction, p. 204 (2003); see also The Heirs of George Poe v.
Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 152.

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.8
What we say here should of course take into account our ruling in Barangay
Association for Advancement and National Transparency v. COMELEC9 (Banat)
where we partly invalidated the 2% party-list vote requirement provided in RA 7941
as follows:
We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued
operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as
found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This
Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to
achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when the number of
available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent
threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the
permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall
consist of party-list representatives.
The disqualification for failure to get 2% party-list votes in two (2) preceding
elections should therefore be understood in light of the Banat ruling that party-list
groups or organizations garnering less than 2% of the party-list votes may yet
qualify for a seat in the allocation of additional seats.
We need not extensively discuss Banats significance, except to state that a partylist group or organization which qualified in the second round of seat allocation
cannot now validly be delisted for the reason alone that it garnered less than 2% in
the last two elections. In other words, the applica_______________

8 See Varias v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189078, February 11, 2010, 612
SCRA 386, where we held that the use of wrong considerations is an act not in
contemplation of lawa jurisdictional error for this is one way of gravely abusing
ones discretion.
9 G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 210.
tion of this disqualification should henceforth be contingent on the percentage of
party-list votes garnered by the last party-list organization that qualified for a seat
in the House of Representatives, a percentage that is less than the 2% threshold
invalidated in Banat. The disqualification should now necessarily be read to apply to
party-list groups or organizations that did not qualify for a seat in the two preceding
elections for the constituency in which it registered.

To reiterate, (a) Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate grounds for
delisting; these grounds cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting; and (b)
the disqualification for failure to garner 2% party-list votes in two preceding
elections should now be understood, in light of the Banat ruling, to mean failure to
qualify for a party-list seat in two preceding elections for the constituency in which it
has registered. This, we declare, is how Section 6(8) of RA 7941 should be
understood and applied. We do so under our authority to state what the law is,10
and as an exception to the application of the principle of stare decisis.
The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not
to unsettle things which are established) is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines which provides, thus:
ART.8.Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall
form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.
The doctrine enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country
to follow the rule established in a decision of its Supreme Court. That decision
becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the
land. The doctrine of stare decisis is
_______________

10 Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch [5 US] 137, 2 L ed 60 [1803]) holds that it is

emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law
is.
595

VOL. 619, APRIL 29, 2010

595
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections
based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided,
it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.11 The doctrine is
grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability of judicial decisions,
thus:
Time and again, the court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial
practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain
state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which
the facts are substantially the same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by

the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the
sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that
follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be
different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful
countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the
same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties
similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court,
the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.12
The doctrine though 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.13
As our discussion above shows, the most compelling reason to abandon Minero
exists; it was clearly an erroneous application of the lawan application that the
principle of stability or predictability of decisions alone cannot sustain. Minero did
_______________

11 See Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 285, citing
Fermin v. People, G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 132.
12 Id., citing Chinese Young Mens Christian Association of the Philippine Islands v.
Remington Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 159422, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 180.
13 Ibid.
596

596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections
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. Thus, we now abandon Minero and strike
it out from our ruling case law.
We are aware that PGBIs situationa party list group or organization that failed to
garner 2% in a prior election and immediately thereafter did not participate in the
preceding electionis something that is not covered by Section 6(8) of RA 7941.
From this perspective, it may be an unintended gap in the law and as such is a

matter for Congress to address. We cannot and do not address matters over which
full discretionary authority is given by the Constitution to the legislature; to do so
will offend the principle of separation of powers. If a gap indeed exists, then the
present case should bring this concern to the legislatures notice.
b.The Issue of Due Process
On the due process issue, we agree with the COMELEC that PGBIs right to due
process was not violated for PGBI was given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a
reconsideration of Resolution No. 8679. 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 ones side or the opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type
hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The requirement is satisfied
where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side
of the controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and
hearing x x x.14 We find it obvious under the attendant circumstances that PGBI
was not denied due pro_______________

14 Bautista v. Comelec, 460 Phil. 459, 478; 414 SCRA 299, 313 (2003).
597

VOL. 619, APRIL 29, 2010

597
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections
cess. In any case, given the result of this Resolution, PGBI has no longer any cause
for complaint on due process grounds.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petition and accordingly ANNUL
COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 insofar as the petitioner
PGBI is concerned, and the Resolution dated December 9, 2009 which denied PGBIs
motion for reconsideration in SPP No. 09-004 (MP). PGBI is qualified to be voted
upon as a party-list group or organization in the coming May 2010 elections.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Perez and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Puno (C.J.), I join the Dissent of J. Abad.

Velasco, Jr., J., I join J. Abads dissent.
Peralta, J., In the Result.
Abad, J., See Dissenting Opinion.
Villarama, Jr., J., In the Result.
DISSENTING OPINION

ABAD,J.:
This case stems from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc resolution
removing petitioner Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) from the roster of
registered party-list organizations because of its failure to obtain at least 2% partylist votes in the May 2004 election and to participate in the May 2007 election.
I agree with the view of Justice Arturo D. Brion that Republic Act (R.A.) 7941
provides for two separate grounds for delisting a party-list organization, namely: a)
failure to participate in the last two preceding elections; or b) failure to
598

598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections
garner at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two preceding
elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
I also agree that because of the Courts decision in BANAT,1 the needed minimum
2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections should now be understood to
mean the actual percentage of the votes garnered by the last party-list organization
that qualified for a seat in the House of Representatives. But this could not apply to
PGBI because BANAT took effect only in the preceding May 2007 elections and PGBI
did not run in the same. It ran in the preceding May 2004 elections, when the BANAT
ruling did not yet exist, but failed to get at least 2% of the votes cast in those
elections. I must disagree with the ponencias view that the Court should reverse
the Minero ruling2 that invoked Section 6(8) of R.A. 7941, which provides:

Section6.Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration.The COMELEC may, motu

proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse 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:
xxxx
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections 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.
_______________

1 Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission

on Elections, G.R. No. 179295, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 210.
2Philippine Mine Safety & Environment Association, also known as MINERO v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007.
599

VOL. 619, APRIL 29, 2010

599
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections
Since by its own admission, Minero failed to get at least 2% of the votes in the 2001
elections and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections, the Court held that it
necessarily failed to get at least 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections.
The COMELEC was thus justified in canceling its registration.
The ponencia would allow PGBI to remain in the register of party-list organizations
and avert disqualifications because, according to it, PGBI cannot be said to have
failed to get at least 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections because it
only ran in one of those two elections. It cannot also be said to have failed to take
part in the two preceding elections because it ran in one of them. What is needed,
the ponencia claims, are two strikes for the same ground in the two preceding
elections.
But it is evident from Section 6(8) above that the legislature intended the two
separate testsfailure to take part in the last two preceding elections or failure to
garner at least 2% of the votes cast in such electionsto be complimentary. Their
purpose is to put every party-list organization, which won the right to be registered,

to a two-election wringer, a voters preference test, for lack of a better term to

describe it.
This means that, to remain in the party-list register and enjoy the right to take part
in the party-list election, a party must prove by the results of the preceding two
elections that it retains the required level of voters preference. Failing in this, such
party shall be dropped by the COMELEC, without prejudice to its applying for new
registration after a mandatory one-term rest.
If the ponencias views were to be followed, petitioner PGBI would be able to
circumvent the voters preference test that it needs to pass to remain in the register
of party-list organizations. It would succeed in putting one over the parties that
exerted efforts to get the required level of voters preference. The following
example should illustrate the unfair result:
600

600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections

Election Year Party-List X Party-List Y PGBI Party

May 2004

Deficient votes

Did not run Deficient votes

May 2007

Deficient votes

Did not run Did not run

May 2010

Cancelled

Cancelled

Not cancelled

The register of party-list organizations cannot be allowed to grow infinitely. The

system cannot tolerate sectoral parties with low-levels of voters preference to
remain on the ballot. For this reason, the legislature established a mechanism for
attrition, the enforcement of which is an important responsibility of the COMELEC.
The Court must not abandon Minero. I vote to deny PGBIs motion for
reconsideration.
Petition granted, Comelec Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 annulled.
Notes.In determining the number of additional seats for each party-list that has
met the 2% threshold, proportional representation is the touchtone to ascertain
entitlement to extra seats. (Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) vs.
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), 521 SCRA 254 [2007]).

Where the right of the nominees as party-list representatives had been recognized
and declared by a Resolution of the COMELEC and the nominees had taken their
oath and already assumed their offices in the House of Representatives, the proper
recourse would have been to file a petition for quo warranto before the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) within ten (10) days from receipt of the
Resolution and not a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. (Seeres vs.
Commission on Elections, 585 SCRA 557 [2009]) [Philippine Guardians Brotherhood,
Inc. (PGBI) vs. Commission on Elections, 619 SCRA 585(2010)]