The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the 2023 ruling of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that nullified the registration of An Waray as a Party-List organization.
In a full court decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC dismissed the petition filed by An Waray Party-List through Florencio Gabriel “Bem” Noel and Victoria Isabel Noel.
Case records show that Danilo T. Pornias Jr. and Jude A. Acidre filed a case with the Comelec seeking the cancellation of An Waray’s registration for violation of Republic Act No. 7941, the Party-List System Act.
The Comelec ruled that An Waray violated Section 6 (5) of RA 7941 when it arrogated unto itself the authority to have its second nominee, Victoria Isabel Noel, take her oath and assume office in the House of Representatives (HoR) although the party-list was entitled to only one seat in the 2013 national and local elections.
An Waray elevated the case to the SC and pointed out that it is the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) that has jurisdiction over cases involving the qualification of its members.
Dismissing the petition, the SC ruled that under the Constitution and the Party-List System act, it is the Comelec that has exclusive jurisdiction on the cases involving cancellation of party-list registrations.
The SC pointed out that the jurisdiction of the HRET is limited only to contests pertaining to the election, returns, and qualifications of incumbent HoR members.
To determine whether HRET must assume jurisdiction over a case, the SC laid down a two-tiered test: first, whether the nature of the case is one of a contest relating to the election, returns and qualifications of respondent, and second, whether the respondent is a "Member" of the HoR.
Applying the test, the SC said the nature of the petition to cancel An Waray's party-list registration is not one which falls under the cases cognizable by the HRET.
It also pointed that that although it is An Waray which is voted for in the ballots during elections, it does not become a “Member” of the HoR.
Rather, it is its nominee who assumes as HoR Member, and who must have the qualifications and none of the disqualifications, the SC stressed.
Thus, it said, the Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion in cancelling An Waray’s registration.
The SC also said:
“In sum, the petition for cancellation of An Waray's registration is within Comelec's sole and exclusive jurisdiction under the Constitution and Republic Act No. 7941.
“It is not a case that falls under the HRET's jurisdiction; thus, even as An Waray had an incumbent nominee in the HoR when the petition against it was filed, and which nominee was at risk of being removed as a consequence of said petition, Comelec nonetheless retained jurisdiction.
“Moreover, when Comelec exercised its jurisdiction and cancelled the registration of An Waray for violating or failing to comply with election laws, it did so without grave abuse of its discretion. An Waray knowingly and deliberately allowed, and consciously aided, the assumption of Victoria (Noel) as its second nominee in the HoR, despite its knowledge that Victoria lacked a CoP (certificate of proclamation) from Comelec. Thus, Comelec was correct in cancelling An Waray's registration.
“Anent the issue of the violation of An Waray's right to speedy disposition of cases, this does not arise since the present case is merely administrative in nature, and not criminal. Based on jurisprudence and the language of the Constitution, the rules for determining a violation of this right by the State in criminal proceedings, which are meant to protect the rights of the accused, cannot apply in a purely administrative case such as the one at hand.
“Applying stricter parameters in the determination of the right's violation in the present case, the Court finds that there is no such violation committed by Comelec.
“Finally, there can be no prescription of the action to cancel the registration of An Waray, as the same is akin to a legislative franchise which never gains finality or conclusiveness because the granting authority can always review and revoke the same.”