ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO, RAFAEL A. PUENTESPINA, PROCULO T. SARMEN, AMELITO L. REVUELTA, WILLIAM C. YBANEZ, SILVERIO J. SANCHEZ, GLORIA G. FUTALAN, HILARIO DE GUZMAN, EUGENE M. PABU…

Lico versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, brought by Atty. Isidro Lico and the members of his faction against the Commission on Elections, to annul two resolutions of the Commission En Banc in an expulsion matter concerning the party-list organization Adhikaing Tinataguyod ng Kooperatiba, known as Ating Koop. Two rival factions claim to be the party — the Lico Group, which holds the seat in the House of Representatives, and the Rimas Group, which expelled him. The case matters because it draws the boundary between the powers of the Commission on Elections and the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, and because it tells us when a party-list organization's amended Constitution and By-laws take effect, and who holds over as its legitimate officers when no valid election has been held.

Procedural History

The Rimas Group filed a petition with the Commission on Elections, docketed as E.M. Number 12-039, praying that Congressman Lico be ordered to vacate his seat and that the second nominee, Roberto Mascarina, succeed him. The Rimas Group later filed an amended petition impleading the entire Lico Group and praying that the Cebu meeting be nullified and the Parañaque convention recognized. The Second Division of the Commission, in a resolution dated 18 July 2012, upheld the expulsion of Congressman Lico from Ating Koop and declared Mascarina the duly qualified nominee. The Lico Group moved for reconsideration.

The Commission En Banc denied the motion on 31 January 2013. It dismissed the petition to expel Congressman Lico from the House of Representatives for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal had jurisdiction; but it upheld his expulsion from Ating Koop, upheld the Rimas Group as the legitimate party-list group, and recognized the Parañaque convention. The Lico Group then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, and the Court granted the petition.

Facts

Ating Koop was registered as a multi-sectoral party-list organization in November 2009 under the Party-List System Act. Its highest policymaking body is the National Convention, but the Central Committee takes over when the Convention is not in session. For the 2010 elections, it filed its list of nominees with Congressman Lico as first nominee and Roberto Mascarina as second. In June 2010, the Central Committee issued a resolution incorporating a term-sharing agreement signed by the nominees, under which Congressman Lico would serve as party-list representative for the first year of the three-year term. Ating Koop was proclaimed a winning party-list group in December 2010, and Congressman Lico took his oath and assumed office.

In May 2011, Ating Koop held its Second National Convention, which introduced amendments to its Constitution and By-laws. The amendments changed the composition of the Central Committee to five members each from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, and mandated the election of Central Committee members within six months. In effect, the amendments cut short the term of the incumbent members, the Interim Central Committee, which was dominated by the Rimas Group. In December 2011, the Interim Central Committee expelled Congressman Lico from Ating Koop for disloyalty, citing his refusal to honor the term-sharing agreement, along with allegations of malversation and graft and corruption. His motion for reconsideration was denied.

While that motion was pending, the Lico Group held a special meeting in Cebu City in December 2011 and elected a new Central Committee and new officers, purportedly to implement the equal representation amendment. In January 2012, the Rimas Group held a Special National Convention in Parañaque City, at which its members won and occupied all the seats. The Rimas Group then filed the petition before the Commission on Elections that gave rise to this case.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections had jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the expulsion of Congressman Lico from Ating Koop, he being an incumbent member of the House of Representatives at the time.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the Rimas Group the legitimate set of officers of Ating Koop.
• Whether or not, neither group having established its legitimacy, the Interim Central Committee remains the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop in a hold-over capacity.

Applicable Provisions

Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:

The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.

This provision is the basis for the ruling that the Electoral Tribunal, and not the Commission on Elections, has exclusive jurisdiction over the qualifications of a party-list representative, including the continuing requirement of bona fide membership in the party-list group.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission correctly dismissed the petition to expel Congressman Lico from the House of Representatives, but gravely erred in proceeding to rule on the validity of his expulsion from Ating Koop. The Electoral Tribunal acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives. All three were satisfied here. The Court stressed that bona fide membership in the party-list group is a continuing qualification, so the expulsion issue is integral to the question of his qualifications to sit in Congress. The Commission's reliance on its power over intra-party matters was misplaced, because that power is circumscribed by Section 17, Article VI. The Court distinguished the Reyes case, where the representative had not yet assumed office and the disqualification resolution had already become final and executory; here, the question of Congressman Lico's membership was a subsisting issue.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the Rimas Group the legitimate leadership. Both groups anchored their elections on the amendments introduced at the Second National Convention, but there was no showing that those amendments were filed with and approved by the Commission. A party-list organization owes its existence to the State acting through the Commission, so an amendment to its Constitution and By-laws takes effect only upon the approval of the Commission. Since neither election was conducted under valid amendments, neither group could claim legitimacy. Even assuming the amendments were effective, the evidence of both groups was evenly balanced: the Cebu meeting suffered from deficient notices and insufficient proof of quorum, and the Parañaque convention suffered from the same infirmity. Under the equipoise doctrine, the party with the burden of proof — here the Rimas Group, as petitioner — fails, and the petition must be dismissed.

On the third issue, the Court held that the legitimate leadership is the Interim Central Committee, whose members remain in a hold-over capacity. Applying by analogy the corporation law rule that officers hold over after the expiration of their terms until successors are elected or appointed, and finding nothing in Ating Koop's Constitution and By-laws forbidding its application, the Court declared the Interim Central Committee and its set of officers as the legitimate representatives of Ating Koop.

Doctrine

First, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over questions affecting the qualifications of a party-list representative, including the validity of his expulsion from the party-list organization, once proclamation, oath of office, and assumption of office have occurred. The Commission on Elections cannot rule on such expulsion as an incident of its power over intra-party matters.

Second, bona fide membership in a party-list group is a continuing qualification that must be possessed during the officer's entire tenure.

Third, an amendment to the Constitution and By-laws of a party-list organization takes effect only upon filing with and approval by the Commission on Elections; elections conducted pursuant to unapproved amendments are invalid.

Fourth, under the equipoise doctrine, when the evidence of both parties on an issue of fact is evenly balanced, the party having the burden of proof fails, and the petition is dismissed.

Fifth, the hold-over rule in corporation law applies by analogy to party-list organizations: incumbent officers remain in a hold-over capacity until valid successors are elected, absent a provision in the Constitution and By-laws prohibiting it.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Commission's resolutions were annulled and set aside insofar as they upheld the expulsion of Congressman Lico from Ating Koop and recognized the Rimas Group as the legitimate party-list group, and a new judgment declared the Interim Central Committee and its set of officers as the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop.

Remember This

Memorize this line: once a party-list nominee is proclaimed, takes his oath, and assumes office, the validity of his expulsion from the party is for the Electoral Tribunal alone, not the Commission on Elections. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between the Commission's power over intra-party matters and the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, and to test the requirement that amendments to a party-list organization's Constitution and By-laws must be approved by the Commission before they can be given effect.