VCCadangenvsCOMELEC

For resolution isapetitionfor

certiorariandmandamusfiledunderRules64and65oftheRulesof Courtassailing theMarch26,2007
[1]
Resolution
of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
en banc in SPP Case No. 06040(PL). In the questionedresolution, the
[2]
COMELEC
en banc deniedpetitionersmotionforthe reconsiderationoftheFebruary13,2007 Resolution
oftheCOMELECSecond

Division.

Therelevantantecedentfactsandproceedingsfollow.

On September 13, 2006, petitioner Alliance of Civil Servants,Inc. (CivilServants),representedbyitsthen president,Atty.SherwinR.

[3]
Lopez,filed a petitionfor registration as a sectoralorganizationunderRepublicAct(R.A.)No.7941
orthePartyListSystemAct.It

claimed, among others, that it had been in existence since December 2004 and it sought to representpast and present government
[4]
employeesinthepartylistsystem.

[5]
TheCOMELEC SecondDivision, on December11,2006,issuedan Order
requiringCivilServantstofileamemorandumthatwould

prove its presence orexistence nationwide, track record, financial capability towageanationwidecampaign,platformofgovernment,
officersand membership, and compliance with the provisions of the PartyList SystemAct andtheeightpoint guidelinelaiddownby
thisCourtin
AngBagongBayaniOFWLaborPartyv.CommissiononElections.[6]

CivilServants consequently filed the required memorandum attaching thereto the following documents: (1) copies of itsletterstothe
respective election directors/officers/registrars ofthe Cordillera Administrative Region, Second District ofQuezon City,andthecities
of Iloilo, Cotabato, UrdanetaandDagupan,informing themofthenamesandaddressesofitsmembers inthesaidlocalities(2)revised
list of its members as of November 30, 2006 (3) list of its incorporators withbrief descriptions of theircredentials, including their
designations/appointments in governmentoffices(4)printedscreenshotoftheInternet homepageofitsonlineforum(5) summaryof
its majoractivities and accomplishments since its inception (6) financial statement showing itsnetassetofP399,927.00(7)platform
[7]
ofgovernmentand(8)listofitscurrentofficerswithasummaryoftheircredentials.

[8]
Withits petition for registration pending, Civil Servants also filed on February 8, 2007aManifestation
ofintenttoparticipateinthe

May14,2007NationalandLocalElections.

[9]
On February13,2007,however,the COMELECSecondDivisionissuedaResolution
denyingCivilServantspetitionforregistration.

Wequotetherelevantportionsoftheresolution,thus

Owing its mandate to theConstitution and Republic Act No. 7941, the party list systemofelectionsisanimportant componentofthe
Filipino peoples participation inthe legislativeprocess. Members ofthemarginalizedand underrepresentedsectorsnowhaveachance
to be veritable law makers themselves through their representatives.Given the importance of the role they play in legislation,notall
sectors who claim to be representative of themarginalized and underrepresented canbe granted the opportunity to participate inthe
party list elections. Thus, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections
enunciatingtheeight(8)point(sic)guidelinemustbecompliedwithbythosewhoseektoparticipate,xxx.

xxxx

Likewise,
R.A. 7941 laid down the definitive sectors covered by the system which include thefollowing: labor, peasant, fisher folk,
urbanpoor,indigenousculturalcommunities,elderly,handicapped,women,youth,veterans,overseasworkersandprofessionals.

Thus, in determining whetheror not aparty canparticipate in the party list elections, the Commission (Second Division) is not only
bound toverify the veracityof every petition, but also to see toit that membersoftheseorganizationsbelong tothemarginalizedand
the underrepresented.Also put totesthereiseverypetitionerscapacity torepresentandvoiceoutthesentimentsandneedsofthesector
it represents. The eightpoint guideline also requires that the party or organization seeking registration should lack a welldefined
politicalconstituency but could, nonetheless, contribute to the formulation of appropriate legislation to benefit the nation as a whole.
Thus, guided by the provisions of R.A. 7941 and the eight point (sic) guideline enunciated in the
Ang Bagong Bayani
case, the
Commission(SecondDivision)herebyresolvesthefollowingpetitionsforregistration.

xxxx

CIVIL SERVANTS is an alliance of government employees aimed at advancing the economic and social welfare of government
employees,upholdingthefundamentalrightsofcivilservantsandsafeguardingtheprofessionalinterestofgovernmentworkers,among
others. In its platform of government, CIVIL SERVANTS espouses the principles of efficient civil service, economic and social
welfare,upholdingthefundamentalrightsandtheprofessionaldevelopmentofcivilservants.

CIVIL SERVANTSlikewiseclaimsnational constituencyandthatit hasmembershipthroughoutthedifferentregionsinthecountry.In

support thereof, petitioner presented a picture of theirwebsite where they discuss differentissuesconfrontinggovernmentemployees.
In relation thereto, petitioner asserts that it had divided itself to (sic) different workingcommitteestoaddressseveralissuesthereport
ofwhichistobesubmittedinanannualmeetingtobeheldonMarch2007.

On the issue ofpetitioners constituencywhich itclaimstobenationwide,thiscannotbe establishedbymereletterstotheCommissions

ElectionOfficersandprovidingthemwithacopyofthelistofofficersandmembers.Toestablishtheextent oftheconstituenciesof the
different parties and organizations as claimed by them, the Commission directed its Election Officers to verify the existence of
petitioners chapters allegedly present in the NCR and the different regions. The verification report shows that CIVIL SERVANTS

nd
exists only in Paraaque Citys (
1st
and 2
Districts
) and in Quezon Citys (
4th
District
), contrary to petitioners claim of national

constituency inits memorandum.Forhavingfailedtoprove itsexistencenationwideandforhavingdeclaredanuntruthfulstatementin

[10]
itsmemorandum,WeresolvetoDENYtheinstantpetition.

[11]
Aggrieved, Civil Servants moved for reconsideration,
arguing in the main that the law does not require a sectoral organization to

have a nationwide presence or existence for it to be registered under the partylist system. It posited that the COMELEC Second
Division,inimposingsuchanadditionalrequirement,wentbeyondtheboundsofthelaw.

[12]
Not persuaded by Civil Servants arguments, the COMELEC
enbanc
, intheassailedMarch26,2007Resolution,
deniedthemotion.

It ruled that CivilServantsfailuretoassailtheCOMELECSecondDivisionsorderrequiringproofofexistenceorpresencenationwide,

and the subsequent submissionofitscompliancetherewith, whichwaslater foundtobe insufficient, effectively barred theorganization
[13]
fromsubsequentlyquestioningthelegalityoftheaforementionedorder.
TheCOMELEC
enbanc
furtherratiocinatedthat

Incidentally, the requirementof presence orexistenceinmajority oftheregions, provinces,municipalitiesorcities,asthecasemaybe,

is not based on mere whims orcaprices oftheCommission.Itwas madeanecessityto serveasagaugeinassessingthecapacityofthe
applicant to conduct a campaign and as a proof that itis not justaflybynightorganizationbutonewhichtrulyrepresentsaparticular
marginalized and underrepresented sector. It must be remembered that Republic Act 7941 empowers the Commission to ask the
applicant to provide other information, which it may deem relevant,in deciding anapplicationforregistrationofaparty,organization
or coalitions. It is underthis provision that the Commission hasrequired the petitioner to show its existence intheareasit claimedto
havemembers.

At any rate, theSecondDivisionwascorrectinrejectingtheapplication forregistrationofthehereinpetitioner.Andwithnoadditional

evidence toback the petitioners claim of existenceall overthe country, the CommissionEn Banccannotdootherwise buttolikewise
[14]
rejectthismotionforreconsideration.

Left with no otherrecourse, petitioner filed the instant case praying for the issuanceofawrit of
certioraritonullifytheresolutionsof
[15]
respondent,andawritofmandamustocommandthelattertoregistertheformerasasectoralorganization.

Wedismissthepetition.

Incumbent on petitioner is the duty toshow that the COMELEC, indenyingthepetitionforregistration,gravelyabusedits discretion.
By grave abuseofdiscretionismeantsuchcapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentequivalenttolackofjurisdiction.Mereabuse

of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal
hostility. The abuse mustbe sopatentandsogrossastoamounttoanevasionofapositive duty,toavirtualrefusaltoperformthe duty
[16]
enjoined, or toact at all in contemplationoflaw.
Here,petitionerfailedtodemonstrate,and neither dowefind,thattheCOMELEC,

throughthequestionedissuances,gravelyabuseditsdiscretion.

We note that in the registration of a party, organization,or coalitionunder R.A.No.7941,theCOMELECmayrequirethesubmission

of any relevant information and it may refuse, after due noticeandhearing,theregistrationofanynational,regionalor sectoralparty,
organization or coalition based on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 6 thereof, among which is that the organization has
[17]
declared untruthful statements in its petition.
The COMELEC, after evaluatingthe documentssubmitted bypetitioner, denied the

latters plea for registration as a sectoral party, not on thebasisof itsfailuretoproveitsnationwidepresence,butforits failuretoshow
that it represents andseeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors.Further,the COMELECfoundthatpetitionermadean
untruthfulstatementinthepleadingsanddocumentsitsubmitted.

The Court emphasizes that the sole function of a writ of

certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
[18]
discretion and it doesnotinclude a review ofthetribunalsevaluationoftheevidence.
Thefindingsof fact madebytheCOMELEC,
[19]
or by anyother administrative agency exercising expertise in its particularfieldofcompetence,arebindingontheCourt.
TheCourt
[20]
[21]
is not a trier of facts
it isnotequipped to receive evidenceanddeterminethe truthoffactualallegations.
TheCourtsfunction,as
[22]
mandated by Section 1,
Article VIII of the Constitution, is merely to check whether or not thegovernmental branch or agencyhas

gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has adifferent view. In the absenceofashowing ofgrave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, this Court will have no occasion to exercise its corrective power. It has no
[23]
authoritytoinquireintowhatitthinksisapparenterror.

Thus, in this case, the Court cannot grant theprayer of petitioner for registration as a sectoralparty, because to do so will entail an
evaluation of the evidence to determine whether indeed petitioner qualifies as a partylist organization and whether it has made
untruthfulstatementsinitsapplicationforregistration.

Thedismissalofthispetition,however,shallnotbetakentomeanapreclusiononthepartofthepetitionerfromrefilinganapplication
forregistrationcompliantwiththerequirementsofthelaw.

WHEREFORE
,

premisesconsidered,thepetitionfor
certiorari
andmandamusis
DISMISSED
.