G.R. No.

190529 April 29, 2010 (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
PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI), represented by its Secretary-
required to file with the Commission, not later than ninety (90) days before the election,
General GEORGE "FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO, Petitioner,
a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system; since PGBI filed a
vs.
Request/Manifestation seeking a deferment of its participation in the 2007 elections
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
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
RESOLUTION as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed;

BRION, J.: (2) The Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 177548 – Philippine 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
The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) seeks in this petition for certiorari 1 and in the
cited case is removed from PGBI’s; (b) MINERO, prior to delisting, was afforded the
motion for reconsideration it subsequently filed to nullify Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
opportunity to be heard, while PGBI and the 25 others similarly affected by Resolution
Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 insofar as it relates to PGBI, and the Resolution dated
No. 8679 were not. Additionally, the requirement of Section 6(8) has been relaxed by the
December 9, 2009 denying PGBI’s motion for reconsideration in SPP No. 09-004 (MP). Via these
Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 179271 (Banat v. COMELEC) and the exclusion of PGBI and
resolutions, the COMELEC delisted PGBI from the roster of registered national, regional or
the 25 other party-list is a denial of the equal protection of the laws;
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list system.

(3) The implementation of the challenged resolution should be suspended and/or

BACKGROUND
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
Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party-List System Act,
provides:
The COMELEC denied PGBI’s motion/opposition for lack of merit.

Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. – The COMELEC may motu proprio or
First, the COMELEC observed that PGBI clearly misunderstood the import of Section 4 of R.A.
upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing,
7941.3 The provision simply means that without the required manifestation or if a party or
the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the
organization does not participate, the exemption from registration does not arise and the party,
following grounds:
organization or coalition must go through the process again and apply for requalification; a
request for deferment would not exempt PGBI from registering anew.
xxxx
Second, the MINERO ruling is squarely in point, as MINERO failed to get 2% of the votes in
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections.
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.]
Third, PGBI was given an opportunity to be heard or to seek the reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of – the essence of due process; this is clear from Resolution No. 8679 which
The COMELEC replicated this provision in COMELEC Resolution No. 2847 – the Rules and expressly gave the adversely affected parties the opportunity to file their opposition.
Regulations Governing the Election of the Party-List Representatives through the Party-List
System – which it promulgated on June 25, 1996.
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
For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC en banc issued on October 13, 2009 Resolution 8646. The motion was obviously filed months after the deadline.
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
PGBI came to us in its petition for certiorari, arguing the same positions it raised with the
organizations affected was PGBI; it was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in
COMELEC when it moved to reconsider its delisting.
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 We initially dismissed the petition in light of our ruling in Philippine Mines Safety Environment
October 26, 2009. 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
PGBI filed its Opposition to Resolution No. 8679, but likewise sought, through its pleading, the
following reasoning:
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
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 5 – there 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 case 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 PGBI’s arguments, we granted the motion and reinstated the petition in the court’s
docket.
THE ISSUES
We are called upon to resolve: (a) whether there is legal basis for delisting PGBI; and (b) whether
PGBI’s 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
PGBI’s delisting from the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or
coalitions under the party-list system.
2
First, the law is clear – 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.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
PGBI’s 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 law’s 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 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 Banat’s significance, except to state that a party-list 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
application 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 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:
On the due process issue, we agree with the COMELEC that PGBI’s 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 one’s
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 process. 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 PGBI’s 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.

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 law – an 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.

We are aware that PGBI’s situation – a party list group or organization that failed to garner 2% in a
prior election and immediately thereafter did not participate in the preceding election – is
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 legislature’s notice.

b. The Issue of Due Process

3
Digest: 7941, as PGBI’s cited congressional deliberations clearly show. MINERO therefore simply cannot
stand.
PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI) represented by its Secretary General
George “FGBF George” Duldulao, petitioner, (2) No. On the due process issue, petitioner’s right to due process was not violated for [it] was
vs. given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a reconsideration of [COMELEC resolution]. The
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. essence of due process, consistently held, is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to
administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity
[G.R. No. 190529. April 29, 2010] 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
FACTS:
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. [It is] obvious [that] under the
Respondent delisted petitioner, a party list organization, from the roster of registered national,
attendant circumstances that PGBI was not denied due process.
regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list system through its
resolution, denying also the latter’s motion for reconsideration, in accordance with Section 6(8) of
Civil Law (Statutory Construction)
Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, which provides:
(1) No. This case is an exception to the application of the principle of stare decisis. The doctrine
Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. – The COMELEC may motu proprio or
of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which are
upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing,
established) is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides, thus:
the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the
following grounds: ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of
the legal system of the Philippines.
x x x x
The doctrine enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per
rule established in a decision of its Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to
centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on
constituency in which it has registered.[Emphasis supplied.]
the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed
settled and closed to further argument.
Petitioner was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate
in the 2007 elections. Petitioner filed its opposition to the resolution citing among others the
The doctrine though is not cast in stone for upon a showing that circumstances attendant in a
misapplication in the ruling of MINERO v. COMELEC, but was denied for lack of merit. Petitioner
particular case override the great benefits derived by [SC’s] judicial system from the doctrine
elevated the matter to SC showing the excerpts from the records of Senate Bill No. 1913 before it
of stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting it aside. MINERO did unnecessary violence to the
became the law in question.
language of the law, the intent of the legislature, and to the rule of law in general. Clearly, [SC]
cannot allow PGBI to be prejudiced by the continuing validity of an erroneous ruling. Thus, [SC]
ISSUES:
now abandons MINERO and strike it out from [the] ruling case law.
Political Law

(1) Whether or not there is legal basis in the delisting of PGBI.

(2) Whether or not PGBI’s right to due process was violated.

Civil Law (Statutory Construction)

(1) Whether or not the doctrine of judicial precedent applies in this case.

RULINGS:

Political Law

(1) No. The MINERO ruling is an erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941; hence, it cannot
sustain PGBI’s delisting from the roster of registered national, regional or sectoral parties,
organizations or coalitions under the party-list system. First, the law is in the plain, clear and
unmistakable language of the law which provides for two (2) separate reasons for
delisting. Second, MINERO is diametrically opposed to the legislative intent of Section 6(8) of RA