CONCEPCION V.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 178624 June 30, 2009 Brion, J.
Article VIII - Section 5
Petitioners Respondents
Jose Concepcion, Jr. COMELEC

Recit Ready Summary

 This case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner
Concepcion in his personal and individual capacity, seeking to assail COMELEC’s En Banc
Resolution dated April 2, 2007 and Order dated May 8, 2007. NAMFREL had filed for a
Petition for Accreditation w/ the COMELEC, and Concepcion was one of the signatories in
his capacity as the National Chairman of NAMFREL. COMELEC, however, promulgated
Resolution No. 7798 which basically prohibits barangay officials, employees, and tanods
from being appointed as chairman and/or member of the Board of Election Inspectors
(BEIs) or as official watcher in the May 14, 2007 elections. In Resolution dated April 2,
2007, COMELEC then replied to NAMFREL’s petition for accreditation and stated that they
will conditionally grant it – provided that Concepcion be first removed from his position as a
member and the Chairman of NAMFREL since Resolution No. 7798 prohibits it. Petitioner
then comes to the Court seeking for remedy and to assail the Resolution dated April 2,
2007. However, the Court ruled that Concepcion does not have personality or interest to file
the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 because he is not a party in interest in the
original proceedings, which gave rise to the present petition. Only NAMFREL was a direct
party to the original proceedings.
Facts of the Case
 This is a petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Concepcion seeking to set aside respondent
COMELEC’s En Banc Resolution dated April 2, 2007 and Order dated May 8, 2007.
 NAMFREL, the citizen’s arm, had filed a Petition for Accreditation to Conduct the Operation
Quick Count w/ the COMELEC. Petitioner Concepcion was one of the signatories of the
NAMFREL petition in his capacity as the National Chairman of NAMFREL.
 COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 7798, which basically prohibits barangay officials,
employees, and tanods from being appointed as chairman and/or member of the Board of
Election Inspectors (BEIs) or as official watcher in the May 14, 2007 elections.
 COMELEC then conditionally granted NAMFREL’s petition for accreditation thru the
Resolution dated April 2, 2007. The condition that must be fulfilled by NAMFREL before its
accreditation will take legal effect is that petitioner Concepcion must first be removed as a
member and as the National Chairman of NAMFREL for the reason being that he is also the
Barangay Chairman of Brgy. Forbes Park – which is prohibited by Resolution No. 7798,
according to the COMELEC.
 In the present case, petitioner Concepcion filed this petition in his personal individual
capacity to assail the said Resolution dated April 2, 2007 insofar as it required the
petitioner’s resignation from NAMFREL as a pre-condition for its accreditation to take effect.
Issues Ruling
1. W/N petitioner Concepcion has the requirement of personality to file the No.
present petition for certiorari before the Court
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. The SC ruled that petitioner Concepcion has NO personality or interest to file this petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court because he does not fall under the ambit
of an “aggrieved party”. This is a requirement found in Sec. 1 of Rule 65, which
essentially provides that an aggrieved party by any act of a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions rendered w/out or in excess of jurisdiction or w/
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction may file a petition for
certiorari. An aggrieved party under Sec. 1 of Rule 65 is one who was a party to the original
proceedings that gave rise to the original action for certiorari under Rule 65. It’s worth
noting that in the present case, petitioner Concepcion was not a party to the original
proceedings because only NAMFREL was the direct party in the COMELEC’s Resolution
dated April 2, 2007.
2. In Tang v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that “the term ‘person aggrieved’ is not to be
construed to mean that any person who feels injured by the lower court’s order or decision
can question the said court’s disposition via certiorari.” Rather, the person aggrieved being
referred to is one who was a party in the original proceedings before the lower court, and
who can, therefore, avail of an action of certiorari.

Disposition
DISMISSED for its blatant violation of the Rules of Court.

Separate Opinions
N/A