An Waray party-list has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in relation to the decision of the Second Division to cancel the party's registration.
In its 35-page MR submitted on June 5, An Waray said that the Comelec's decision should be reversed and set aside “for insufficiency of evidence to justify the decision and for being contrary to law.”
It can be recalled that the Comelec Second Division, in its 16-page ruling on June 2, granted the petition to cancel the registration of An Waray Party-list after its failure to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to elections.
It said that An Waray was found to have violated the laws and the rules for allowing its second nominee, Atty. Victoria Isabel Noel, to sit as Representative in the House of Representatives in the 16th Congress, knowing "fully well" that Comelc has not issued a Certificate of Proclamation entitling her to do so.
In its motion, the respondents argued that in the party-list system, the candidate is the party-list organization, stating that what is being proclaimed is the party and not its nominee/s.
"In granting the Petition, the assailed Resolution heavily relied on Comelec's non-issuance of a separate Certificate of Proclamation in favor of respondent Victoria. Effectively, the assailed Resolution stated that since no separate Certificate of Proclamation was issued to Victoria, she was not validly proclaimed as Member of the House of Representatives. Hence her assumption to office was allegedly unlawful," the motion read.
However, the respondents stated that they "disagree" and submit that a separate proclamation of a specific nominee is "not material" nor required for the said nominee to take an oath and assume office as a Member of the HOR. They even cited the case of Erwin Tulfo wherein the Second Division, in its resolution, "confirmed" that a separate proclamation of nominees (after the party has been proclaimed) is "not material" nor required.
On the other hand, the respondents also mentioned that the poll body has no jurisdiction over the legality of Victoria's proclamation and assumption as a Member of the HOR, saying the HOR Electoral Tribunal (HRET) is the sole judge of all contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of the HOR members.
"We submit that since the resolution of the instant petition is dependent on the validity of Victoria's proclamation as Member of the House, it is covered in the word 'returns' in the phrase 'election, returns, and qualifications' over all contests relating, to which HRET is the sole judge," the respondents said.
"Thus, the Honorable Commission should have outrightly dismissed the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction," they added.
Respondents also argued that the assailed resolution violated the respondents' constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
They mentioned that the poll body decided the case after four years from the time it was submitted for resolution. However, the case was submitted for resolution as early as June 2019 with the parties filing their respective memoranda on July 18, 2019 for the respondents and July 30, 2019, for the petitioner.
"That is in violation of Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that Constitutional Commission should decide on any case within 60 days from the time they were submitted for resolution," the petitioners stated.
"What is more oppressive for respondents is the violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases guaranteed under Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution," they added.
For this case, the respondents said that the alleged unlawful assumption of Victoria in relation to the 2013 elections also took place in 2013. Due to this, they stated that the Commission should have also dismissed this case for inordinate delay or violation of the respondents' right to speedy disposition of cases.