Bello v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 191998; December 7, 2010)
FACTS: Ang Galing Pinoy Party-List (AGPP) filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) its Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the May 10, 2010 elections. Subsequently, on March 23, 2010, AGPP filed its Certificate of Nomination together with the Certificates of Acceptance of its nominees.
The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8807 which prescribed the rules of procedure applicable to petitions to disqualify a party-list nominee for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections.
Section 6 of the Resolution provides that the party-list group and the nominees must submit documentary evidence 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. 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.
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.
Petitioner Bayan Muna Party-List, represented by Neri Colmenares, filed with the COMELEC another petition for disqualification against Arroyo. 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.
The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petitions for disqualification against Arroyo. 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."
On appeal, the COMELEC en banc affirmed the decision. The COMELEC en banc also held that Section 6 of Resolution No. 8807 is ultra vires, since the requirement that a nominee belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector he seeks to represent is not found in RA 7941. Thus, it concluded that Arroyo possessed all the requirements mandated by Section 9 of RA 7941.
In the interim, AGPP obtained in the May 10, 2010 elections the required percentage of votes sufficient to secure a single seat. This entitled Arroyo, as AGPPs first nominee, to sit in the House of Representatives. COMELEC, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed Arroyo as AGPPs duly-elected party-list representative in the House of Representatives. Two (2) separate petitions for quo warranto were filed with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) questioning Arroyos eligibility as AGPPs representative in the House of Representatives.
In the mandamus petitions, petitioners 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 AGPPs nominee.
ISSUE #1:
Should the petitions be granted?
HELD: 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, any interested party may file with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification against a party-list nominee. Furthermore, under Section 6 of RA 7941, any interested party may file a verified complaint for cancellation of registration of a party-list organization.
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.
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. While this is not an ironclad rule as it admits of exceptions, 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.
As to the prohibition aspect of G.R. No. 191998 i.e., to prevent the COMELEC from canvassing AGPPs 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.
ISSUE #2:
Should jurisdiction over Arroyos qualifications as AGPP nominee now properly be with the HRET since Arroyo has been proclaimed and has assumed office as Member of the House of Representatives?
HELD: 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 the present case, it is not disputed that Arroyo, AGPPs 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 Arroyos 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.
DISMISSED
