Navigating Party-List Accreditation: Understanding Religious Disqualifications and Election Tribunal Jurisdiction

ABC (ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS) PARTY LIST, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRMAN, JAMES MARTY LIM, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MELANIO MAURICIO, JR., RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 193256, March 22, 2011

Imagine a political party gaining momentum, only to face allegations of being a front for a religious organization. This scenario highlights the complexities of the party-list system in the Philippines, where ensuring genuine representation is paramount. This case delves into the critical question of whether a party-list organization can be disqualified for alleged religious affiliations and clarifies the jurisdiction between the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) in election-related disputes.

In this case, the ABC (Alliance for Barangay Concerns) Party-List faced a petition for cancellation of its registration based on claims that it was a front for a religious organization, specifically Ang Dating Daan. The COMELEC initially dismissed the petition, but later reinstated it, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework for Party-List Registration and Disqualification

The legal foundation for party-list registration and disqualification is rooted in the Philippine Constitution and Republic Act No. 7941, also known as the Party-List System Act. Section 2(5), Article IX-C of the Constitution empowers the COMELEC to register political parties, organizations, or coalitions. However, it explicitly states that “Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered.” This provision aims to maintain the separation of church and state and prevent religious groups from unduly influencing the political process.

R.A. No. 7941 further elaborates on the grounds for refusal or cancellation of registration. Section 6(1) specifically states that the COMELEC may cancel the registration of any party-list organization if “It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes.”

To illustrate, consider a hypothetical scenario: a group primarily composed of church leaders and members forms a political party explicitly advocating for the implementation of religious doctrines into law. Such a party could be deemed ineligible for registration under the Party-List System Act due to its inherent religious purpose.

It is important to note that the Constitution and the Party-List System Act also establish the HRET with jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. This includes party-list representatives once they have been proclaimed and have taken their oath of office.

The Case of ABC Party-List: A Detailed Examination

The dispute began when Melanio Mauricio, Jr. filed a petition with the COMELEC seeking to cancel the registration and accreditation of the ABC Party-List. Mauricio alleged that ABC was a front for Ang Dating Daan, citing several factors:

• Arnulfo “Noel” Molero, a known official of Ang Dating Daan, was the real number one nominee, despite James Marty Lim being publicly presented as such.
• ABC was allegedly organized and run by Ang Dating Daan for religious purposes, not for genuine political representation.
• The resources of Ang Dating Daan were purportedly used to finance ABC’s campaign.
• ABC’s membership was allegedly composed of members of Ang Dating Daan.

The COMELEC’s Second Division initially dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, citing a lack of proper verification. However, the COMELEC en banc reversed this decision, reinstating the petition and ordering a hearing. The COMELEC en banc emphasized the need for a hearing to ensure due process for both parties, referencing the case of Sandoval v. Commission on Elections, which underscored that procedural due process demands notice and hearing.

The ABC Party-List then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC had lost jurisdiction after the party-list was proclaimed a winner and its nominees had taken their oath. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the distinct jurisdictions of the COMELEC and the HRET.

The Supreme Court quoted Section 2 (5), Article IX-C of the Constitution, which grants COMELEC the authority to register political parties and to cancel the registration of the same on legal grounds. The Court also quoted Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941. The Court stated:

“Based on the provision above, the Constitution grants the COMELEC the authority to register political parties, organizations or coalitions, and the authority to cancel the registration of the same on legal grounds. The said authority of the COMELEC is reflected in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941…”

The Court further clarified that while the HRET has jurisdiction over contests relating to the qualifications of party-list representatives once they are proclaimed, the COMELEC retains jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of registration of party-list organizations based on legal grounds, such as being a religious sect.

Practical Implications for Party-List Organizations

This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and compliance with the requirements of the Party-List System Act. Party-list organizations must ensure that they are not perceived as fronts for religious organizations or any other disqualified entities. They should maintain clear records of their membership, funding sources, and organizational structure to demonstrate their compliance with the law.

The case also highlights the COMELEC’s authority to conduct hearings and investigate allegations of disqualification, even after a party-list organization has been proclaimed a winner. This emphasizes the need for party-list organizations to be prepared to defend their registration and accreditation against any challenges.

Key Lessons

• Ensure that your party-list organization is not directly affiliated with or controlled by any religious organization.
• Maintain transparent records of your membership, funding sources, and organizational structure.
• Be prepared to defend your registration and accreditation against any challenges before the COMELEC.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can a party-list organization with religious members be disqualified?

A: Not necessarily. The disqualification applies if the organization itself is a religious sect or is organized for religious purposes. Membership alone does not automatically lead to disqualification.

Q: What is the difference between the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and the HRET in party-list cases?

A: The COMELEC has jurisdiction over the registration and disqualification of party-list organizations. The HRET has jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of party-list representatives after they have been proclaimed and have taken their oath.

Q: What evidence is needed to prove that a party-list organization is a front for a religious organization?

A: Evidence may include the organization’s constitution and by-laws, membership lists, funding sources, public statements, and activities that demonstrate a primary religious purpose.

Q: What happens if a party-list organization is disqualified after its representative has already assumed office?

A: The COMELEC’s disqualification of the party-list organization does not automatically remove the representative from office. The HRET would need to determine the qualifications of the representative separately.

Q: What can a party-list organization do to avoid allegations of being a front for a religious organization?

A: The organization should maintain a clear separation from any religious entity, ensure that its activities are primarily political in nature, and demonstrate a broad base of support beyond religious affiliations.

Q: What constitutes grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC?

A: Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or an arbitrary and despotic exercise of power due to passion or personal hostility. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

ASG Law specializes in election law and party-list representation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.