MELCHOR DILIZO LAGASCA, PETITIONER, VS. VICENTE DE VERA, FRANCISCO ENAGE AND LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, RESPONDENTS.

In communications addressed to the Commission on Elections, Reverend Melchor
Dilizo Lagasca, herein petitioner, signed himself as President of the Goodwill
Party, asking that the latter be recognized as a duly organized political party,
that its party ticket be printed on the official ballots for national officers,
and that it be granted the right to propose election inspectors in connection
with the elections to be held on November 11, 1947.

In a decision rendered on August 27, 1947, the Commission on Elections denied
petitioner’s prayers upon the conclusion that the so-called Goodwill Party is
not a political party as contemplated in the Election Code. The Commission
invoked the decisions of the Supreme Court in Moncado vs. Commission on
Elections, G. R. No. 48607, and Tigbatas Party vs. Commission on
Elections, G. R. No. 48594, and section 76 of the Election Code, section 3 of
Commonwealth Act No. 666, and sections 80 and 124 of the Revised Election
Code.

The facts in this case as found by the Commission on Elections appear in the
appealed decision as follows:

“In the papers submitted by Mr. Lagasca, it is made to appear that the
Goodwill Party is formerly the National Welfare Services Party. However when
asked about the nature of the Goodwill Party, he stated that the Goodwill Party
is only one of the twelve departments of the National Welfare Services, Inc., an
organization, according to him, dedicated to the lofty object of promoting
brotherhood among mankind, the Goodwill Party being the political department. He
could not produce any evidence to show that the Goodwill Party is composed of or
supported by a more or less known group of people pursuing the same political
ideals. Mr. Lagasca limited himself to presenting to this Commission unsigned
mimeograph copies of the “creed and platform” of the Goodwill Party without
stating how, when and by whom said “creed and platform” was adopted and
ratified. Our records further show that the Goodwill Party or the National
Welfare Services, Inc., does not have a fixed address where this Commission may
send its communications. Mr. Lagasca simply appeared in this Commission from
time to time to file his various petitions and when asked to furnish the address
of his party or its headquarters, the general address of Manila is given. In the
Certificate of Candidacy for said party signed by Mr. Lagasca, as President and
one Amada C. Capinpin, as Acting Secretary, the following names were listed as
its official candidates for Senators.

1. Jose P. Laurel	Manila
2. Melchor Dilizo Lagasca	Manila
3. Pedro C. Mendiola	Manila
4. Claro M. Recto	Manila
5. Hilario Moncado	Quezon City
6. Santiago Fonacier	Rizal City
7. Ricardo Gonzales	Manila
8. Alauya Alonto	Cotabato, Cotabato

“The Certificate of Candidacy states that the above named persons were never
consulted at all; that they all belong to the Liberal Party with the exception
of Melchor Dilizo Lagasca who belongs to the Goodwill Party and Bishop Santiago
Fonacier who belongs to the Nationalista Party.”

Petitioner seeks review of the decision. He alleges that the Commission on
Elections abused its discretion in not recognizing the Goodwill Party as a
political party as defined by section 80 of the Revised Election Code, which
reads as follows:

“Definition of political party.—Political Party or, simply party, when
used in this Code, means an organized group of persons pursuing the same
political ideals in a Government and includes its branches and
divisions.”

Petitioners alleges that the Goodwill Party is a political party composed of
approximately 453,989 members. He also alleges that the Goodwill Party is
formerly the National Welfare Services Party, the role and functions of which it
assumed since May 8, 1946. It is also alleged that the National Welfare Services
Party was recognized as a political party on March 14, 1946.

The petition accompanied by Annex A, a petition dated August 1, 1947,
addressed by petitioner to the Commission on Elections, alleging that the
Goodwill Party is entitled to have its candidates’ names printed in the official
ballots and alleging that it has now 453,989 voters as against 396,224 voters in
1946; Annex B, a certificate of candidacy of twelve candidates for senator, none
of them having been consulted as to whether they are agreeable to their
candidacy or not, signed by petitioner as President and Amada C. Capinpin as
Acting Secretary of the Goodwill Party, Annex C, the platform of the Goodwill
Party signed by Reverend Gregorio Rumbawa as Assistant Secretary; Annex C-1, the
proposed candidate’s creed and platform to be signed by all the candidates of
the party; Annex D, a copy of the decision of the Commission on Elections, dated
August 27, 1947; Annex E, a resolution of the Commission on Elections dated
March 1, 1946, to the effect that the National Welfare Services Party does not
come within the purview of a political party as defined in section 76 of the
Election Code and as contemplated by section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 725 and
that it has no right to file a certificate of candidacy; Annex F, a resolution
of the Commission on Elections dated March 14, 1946, giving due course to the
certificates of candidacy of Francisco Zandueta and Paul Versoza as candidates
of the National Welfare Services Party. It also includes as supplement the
two-year plan and program for the National Welfare Services, Incorporated, by
Melchor Dilizo Lagasca, President and general manager dated November 14,
1946.

Respondents answered alleging that petitioner did not have a permanent
address whatsoever; that the so-called Goodwill Party is neither organized nor
is it composed of a group of persons pursuing the same political ideals in a
government, it having no other members than petitioner himself and possibly
another, Amada C. Capinpin, who signed as acting secretary; that petitioner has
not presented any other proof of membership or organizations aside from his
gratuitous and unsubstantiated claim; that all its candidates do not belong to
the Goodwill Party, except the petitioner himeslf; that one of petitioner’s
candidate, Claro M. Recto, has declined to become a candidate of the so-called
Goodwill Party.

The whole issue in this case hinges on the question whether the Goodwill
Party is a political party under the purview of the Election Code. As described
by the Code, a political party is “an organized group of persons pursuing the
same political ideals in a government.” There cannot be any quarrel that the
platform of the Goodwill Party, Annex C, embodies many ideals of a political
character. But nowhere appears the existence of “an organized group of persons”
pursuing said ideals. Petitioner’s claim of a membership of 453,989 individuals
is not enough. It is necessary that there should be “an organized group.” There
is absolutely no evidence on record as to the existence of an organized group of
persons that composed the so-called Goodwill Party. In order that a group of
persons be organized, it is necessary that all of them be joined in a corporate
body, articulate, with the attributes of a social personality. A constitution,
by-laws, rules, or some kind of charter is needed so as to give existence to the
organization. Some kind of agreement, written or unwritten, must exist on how
the group is to function, to be presided over, and how it is to express its
collective will. Nothing of that sort has been shown in regard to the Goodwill
Party. By half a century of experience in democracy, our people have been used
to identify political parties by the existence of their leaders and directors,
boards, committees, and other organizations. These external manifestations of
the existence of a political party were not shown by petitioner with regard to
his Goodwill Party. The alleged membership of 453,989 persons has not been
proved by anything to be relied upon. No list of them has been shown although
petitioner was asked about said list. This Court cannot decide a question of
fact by merely relying on an allegation of petitioner which is denied by
respondent.

Petitioner’s allegation as to the existence of the Goodwill Party as a
political party is squarely challenged in respondents’ answer. Petitioner cannot
overcome the latter’s denials without presenting competent evidence to show the
truth of his allegations. At the hearing of this case, members of this Court had
suggested the need that petitioner should offer evidence to substantiate his
allegation as to the existence of the Goodwill Party, but petitioner chose not
to offer any evidence at all. When there is a controversy on a fact, the
controversy can only be decided with the evidence in view. Who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving it. Mere allegation is not an evidence. Much as we may
value petitioner’s allegations, the law imposes on us the duty of not accepting
them if they are challenged by respondents unless proved by competent
evidence.

We are constrained to conclude that, upon the facts found by the Commission
on Elections in its decision of August 27, 1947, which were not disproved by
petitioner, the so-called Goodwill Party is not a political party.

The petition is dismissed.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Hilado,
Bengzon, Briones, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.