[11] COALIATION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE registration was proper.
registration was proper. The 2 issues before the present case are first, if the right of
PHILIPPINES, INC. v COMELEC
G.R. No. 206844-45; 206982| July 23, 2013 | Justice Leonardo-De Castro
Digest Maker: Freya Patron
G.R. Nos. 206844-45
PETITIONER: Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc.
(Senior Citizens Party List), represented herein by its Chairperson and First Nominee,
Francisco G. Datol, Jr.
RESPONDENTS: Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 206982
PETITIONER: Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc.
(Senior Citizens Party List), represented herein by its President and Incumbent
Representative in the House of Representatives, Atty. Godofredo V. Arquiza
RESPONDENTS: Commission on Elections
TOPIC: Legislature
CASE SUMMARY: In March 2007, COMELEC accredited SENIOR CITIZENS as a
party-list organization. SENIOR CITIZENS participated in the May 2007 elections but
failed to get the 2% total votes cast. In accordance with the procedure set forth in the
Banat v COMELEC for the allocation of additional seats under the party-list system,
SENIOR CITIZENS was given one seat. Subsequently, SENIOR CITIZENS was
allowed to participate in the May 2010 elections. They ranked second among all
party-list candidates and was allocated 2 seats in the House of Representatives. The
first seat was occupied by its first nominee, Rep. Arquiza, while the second was given
to its second nominee, Rep. Kho. Later, Rep. Kho tendered his resignation as
representative which was followed by a Board Resolution of SENIOR CITIZENS
accepting such resignation in accordance with the term-sharing agreement made
between the nominees of the party-list. However, COMELEC did not recognize the
resignation saying that it is against public policy. The term of public officials cannot
be made subject to any agreement of private parties for public office is not a
commodity that can be shared, apportioned or be made subject to any private
agreement. COMELEC resolved to cancel the registration of the SENIOR CITIZENS
party-list. The SC initially issued status quo ante orders of SENIOR CITIENS and
directed COMELEC to include the name of Senior Citizens in the printing of official
ballots for the May 2013 elections. Later, the SC ruled that the cancellation of
SENIOR CITIZENS to due process was violated, and second, if the cancellation of
their registration was proper.
The Court held that there was a violation of SENIOR CITIZENS’ due process because
they were not apprised of the fact that the term-sharing agreement entered into by the
nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS in 2010 would be a material consideration in the
evaluation of the organization’s qualifications as a party-list group for the May 2013
elections. On the second issue, the Court held that the term-sharing agreement could
not have been the reason for the cancellation of their registration because it was not
even implemented. This fact was manifested during the hearing conducted by the
COMELEC En Banc. If the term –sharing agreement was not actually implemented by
the parties, it appears that SENIOR CITIZENS as a party-list organization, had been
unfairly and arbitrarily penalized by the COMELEC En Banc. There can be no
disobedience on the part of SENIOR CITIZENS when its nominees desisted from
carrying out their agreement. There was no violation of any law. The disqualification
had no legal leg to stand on.
DOCTRINE: the COMELEC is duty-bound to review the grant of registration to
parties, organizations, or coalitions already registered in order to ensure the latter’s
continuous adherence to the requirements prescribed by law and the relevant
rulings of this Court relative to their qualifications and eligibility to participate in
party-list elections.
FACTS:
 March 16, 2007 - The COMELEC En Banc accredited SENIOR CITIZENS as a
party-list organization in a Resolution. SENIOR CITIZENS participated in the
May 14, 2007 elections, but it failed to get the required 2% of the total votes cast.
Thereafter, SENIOR CITIZENS was granted leave to intervene in the case of
BANAT v COMELEC.
o In accordance with the procedure in BANAT for the allocation of additional
seats under the party-list system, SENIOR CITIZENS was allocated one seat
in Congress.
o Rep. Alquiza, then first nominee of the organization, served as member of
the House of Representatives.
o SENIOR CITIZENS was allowed to participate in the May 10, 2010 elections.
 May 5, 2010 – nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS signed an agreement called
Irrevocable Covenant, containing the names of the parties and persons involved,
 the list of candidates, sharing of power and provisions on election results,
sharing of rights, and benefits and privileges.
 After the May 10, 2010 elections, SENIOR CITIZENS ranked 2 nd among all party-
list candidates and was allocated 2 seats in the House of Representatives The first
seat was occupied by its first nominee Rep. Arquiza, while the second was given
to second nominee Rep. Kho.
 The split among the ranks of SENIOR CITIZENS came about not long after.
According to the Datol Group’s petition, the members of SENIOR CITIZENS
held a national convention to address “the unfulfilled commitment of Rep.
Arquiza to his constituents.”
o A new set of officers and members of the Board of Trustees of the
organization were allegedly elected during the convention.
o Third nominee Datol was supposedly elected as Chairman.
 After the convention, in an opposite turn of events, Datol was expelled from
SENIOR CITIZENS by the Board of Trustees that were allied with Rep. Arquiza.
After that, 2 factions of SENIOR CITIZENS had been engaged in a bitter rivalry
since both groups with their own sets of officers claimed leadership of the
organization.
 Dec. 14, 2011 – Rep. Arquiza informed the office of COMELEC Chairman
Brillantes in a letter that second nominee Rep. Kho tendered his resignation
effective Dec. 31, 2011. The fourth nominee, Remedios Arquiza was to assume
the vacant position since third nominee Datol was expelled.
o This letter was also accompanied by a petition to the COMELEC in the
name of SENIOR CITIZENS. The petition prayed that the “confirmation
and approval of the replacement of Congressman Kho, in the person of the
fourth nominee Remedios Arquiza, due to the expulsion of the third
nominee, Datol, be issued immediately in order to pave the way of her
assumption into the office.”
o Attached to the petition was the resignation of Rep. Kho addressed to the
Speaker of the House.
o According to the Datol Group, Rep. Kho submitted to them a letter
notifying them of his resignation.
 During the pendency of the petition, COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 was
promulgated on Feb. 21, 2012. Sec. 7 stated: “Filing of vacancy as a result of term
sharing agreement among nominees of winning party-list groups shall not be
allowed.”
 March 12, 2012 – The Board of Trustees of SENIOR CITIZENS allied with Rep.
Arquiza issued a Board Resolution recalling the acceptance of the Board in an
earlier Resolution of the resignation of Congressman Kho and allowing him to
continue representing the SENIOR CITIZENS party-list in the House of
Representatives, allowing him to continue his term and imposing certain
conditions on him to be performed with the coalition.
 Thereafter, the COMELEC En Banc conducted a hearing on SENIOR CITIZENS’
petition. Counsel for the Arquiza Group admitted that Rep. Kho’s tender of
resignation was made pursuant to the agreement entered into by the
organization’s nominees. But it was also stated that the Board of Trustees
reconsidered the acceptance of Rep. Kho’s resignation and the latter was to
complete his term. From the transcript of the hearing, it appears that the Arquiza
group previously manifested that it was withdrawing its petition, but it was
opposed by the Datol Group and not acted upon by the COMELEC.
 COMELEC En Banc: Dismissed petition of the Aquiza Group.
o The resignation of Kho pursuant to the party nominees’ term-sharing
agreement cannot be recognized and given effect so as to create a vacancy
in the list and change the order of the nominees.
o The expulsion of Kho even if proven true, has no effect in the list and in the
order of nominees, thus Remedios Arquiza cannot be elevated as 3 rd
nominee.
o Since there is no vacancy in the list of nominees, the petition is dismissed
for lack of merit. The list and order of nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS
remains the same as it was submitted to the COMELEC there being no
legally recognizable ground to cause any changes.
 The Datol Group filed A Very Urgent MR but it was unresolved. Meanwhile, the
Datol Group and Arquiza Group filed their Manifestations of Intent to
Participate in the Party-list System of Representation in the May 13, 2013
Elections under the name of SENIOR CITIZENS.
 Aug. 2, 2012 – COMELEC issued a Resolution setting for summary evidentiary
hearings by the COMELEC En Banc to review the registration of existing party-
list organizations which have filed their Manifestations of Intent to Participate in
the Party-list System of Representation in the May 13, 2013 Elections.
o The 2 factions appeared and submitted evidence which established their
continuing compliance with the requirements of accreditation as party-list
organization.
 COMELEC En Banc: Ordered cancellation of the registration of SENIOR
CITIZENS. By virtue of the term-sharing agreement, the term of Kho as member
of the House of Representatives is cut short to one year and six months which is
merely half of the three-year term. This is totally opposed to the prescription of
 the Constitution on the term of a Member of the House of Representatives.
Hence, when confronted with this issue on term sharing done by SENIOR
CITIZENS, this Commission made a categorical pronouncement that such term-
sharing agreement must be rejected.
o SENIOR CITIZENS failed to comply with Sec. 7, Art. VI of the Constitution
and Sec. 7 Rule 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366. This failure is a
ground for cancellation of registration under R.A. 7941, Sec. 6.
 Both factions filed resolutions before the SC through petitions for certiorari. The
SC initially granted status quo ante orders directing the COMELEC to include
the name SENIOR CITIZENS in the printing of the official ballots for the May
2013 elections. Eventually, both petitions were consolidated with the petition in
Atong Paglaum v COMELEC.
 April 2, 2013 – SC decided Atong Paglaum, orering the remand to the COMELEC
of the petitions that have been granted mandatory injunctions to include the
names of petitioners in the printing of ballots. COMELEC was to determine
whether the 2 factions of SENIOR CITIZENS were qualified to register under the
party-list system and to participate in the May 2013 elections.
 COMELEC En Banc: Denied Manifestations of Intent to Participate and cancelled
the registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS for violating laws, rules,
and regulations relating to elections pursuant to R.A. No. 7941. The term-sharing
agreement between its nominees is contrary to public policy.
 Despite the earlier declaration of its disqualification to participate in the May
2013 elections, SENIOR CITIZENS still obtained 677,642 votes. Both factions
again filed petitions before the SC.
 The SC issued an order directing the COMELEC to refrain from implementing its
Resolution and observe the status quo ante before the issuance of the resolution.
It also ordered COMELEC to reserve the seats intended for SENIOR CITIZENS
in accordance with the number of votes it garnered in the May 2013 elections, but
to hold in abeyance the proclamation insofar as SENIOR CITIZENS is concerned
until the petitions are decided.
ISSUES and RULING:
1. WON the right of SENIOR CITIZENS to due process was violated. (YES)
 The twin requirements of due notice and hearing are indispensable before the
COMELEC may properly order the cancellation of the registration and
accreditation of a party-list organization.
 The review of the registration of SENIOR CITIZENS was made pursuant to
COMELEC Resolution No. 9513 through a summary evidentiary hearing. In this
hearing, both the Arquiza Group and the Datol Group were indeed given the
opportunity to adduce evidence as to their continuing compliance with the
requirements for party-list accreditation. Nevertheless, the due process
violation was committed when they were not apprised of the fact that the term-
sharing agreement entered into by the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS in
2010 would be a material consideration in the evaluation of the organization’s
qualifications as a party-list group for the May 13, 2013 elections. As it were,
both factions of SENIOR CITIZENS were not able to answer this issue squarely.
In other words, they were deprived of the opportunity to adequately explain
their side regarding the term-sharing agreement and/or to adduce evidence,
accordingly, in support of their position.
 Furthermore, after the promulgation of Atong Paglaum, which remanded,
among other cases, the disqualification cases involving SENIOR CITIZENS, said
organization should have still been afforded the opportunity to be heard on the
matter of the term-sharing agreement, either through a hearing or through
written memoranda. This was the proper recourse considering that the
COMELEC was about to arrive at a final determination as to the qualification of
SENIOR CITIZENS. Instead, the COMELEC issued the May 10, 2013 Omnibus
Resolution without conducting any further proceedings thereon after its receipt
of our Decision in Atong Paglaum.
2. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it issued the assailed Resolution, disqualifying and
cancelling the registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS solely on
account of its purported violation of the prohibition against term-sharing. (YES)
 Granting for the sake of argument that the term-sharing agreement was actually
implemented, the Arquiza Group points out that SENIOR CITIZENS still cannot
be held to have violated Section 7 of Resolution No. 9366. The term-sharing
agreement was entered into in 2010 or two years prior to the promulgation of
said resolution on February 21, 2012. Likewise, assuming that the resolution can
be applied retroactively, the Arquiza Group contends that the same cannot affect
SENIOR CITIZENS at it already earned a vested right in 2010 as party-list
organization.
 Article 4 of the Civil Code states that "laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless
the contrary is provided." As held in CIR v. Reyes, "the general rule is that
statutes are prospective. However, statutes that are remedial, or that do not
create new or take away vested rights, do not fall under the general rule against
the retroactive operation of statutes”.
 Statutes, including administrative rules and regulations, operate prospectively regulation to speak of. The disqualification of SENIOR CITIZENS and the
unless the legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms or by cancellation of its registration and accreditation have no legal leg to stand on.
necessary implication because the retroactive application of a law usually divests  The due process violations committed and lack of legal ground to disqualify the
rights that have already become vested. This is based on the Latin maxim: Lex SENIOR CITIZENS equates to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
prospicit non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward). excess of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC En Banc.
 The COMELEC Resolution does not provide that it shall have retroactive effect.
Yet, the Court cannot subscribe to the argument of the Arquiza Group that DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby rules that:
SENIOR CITIZENS already earned a vested right to its registration as a party-list (1) The Extremely Very Urgent Petition for Certiorari (With Prayer for the
organization because public office is not a property right. No one has a vested Forthwith Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
right to any public office. In fulfilling this function, the COMELEC is duty- Order [TRO] and/or Status Quo Ante Order [SQAO]) in G.R. Nos. 206844-45 and
bound to review the grant of registration to parties, organizations, or coalitions the Very Urgent Petition for Certiorari (With Application for a Temporary
already registered in order to ensure the latter’s continuous adherence to the Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction) in G.R. No. 206982 are
requirements prescribed by law and the relevant rulings of this Court relative GRANTED;
to their qualifications and eligibility to participate in party-list elections. (2) The Omnibus Resolution dated May 10, 2013 of the Commission on Elections
 However, even if the COMELEC Resolution expressly provided for its En Banc in SPP No. 12-157 (PLM) and SPP No. 12-191 (PLM) is REVERSED and
retroactive application, the COMELEC En Banc still erred in cancelling the SET ASIDE insofar as Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the
registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS. The ground invoked was Philippines, Inc. is concerned; and
not implemented (term sharing agreement among the nominees). (3) The Commission on Elections En Bane is ORDERED to PROCLAIM the
o This fact was manifested by the Arquiza Group even during the April 18, Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. as one of the
2012 hearing conducted by the COMELEC En Banc wherein the Arquiza winning party-list organizations during the May 13, 20 13 elections with the
Group manifested that it was withdrawing its petition for confirmation and number of seats it may be entitled to based on the total number of votes it garnered
approval of Rep. Kho’s replacement. during the said elections.
o Thereafter, in its subsequent Resolution, the COMELEC En Banc itself
refused to recognize the term-sharing agreement and the tender of
resignation of Rep. Kho. The COMELEC even declared that no vacancy was
created despite the execution of the said agreement.
o There was also no indication that the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS still
tried to implement, much less succeeded in implementing, the term-sharing
agreement. Before the SC, the Arquiza and Datol Group insist on this fact of
non-implementation of the agreement. Thus, for all intents and purposes,
Rep. Kho continued to hold his seat and served his term as a member of the
House of Representatives, in accordance with the COMELEC resolution and
COMELEC En Banc ruling.
 If the term-sharing agreement was not actually implemented by the parties, it
appears that SENIOR CITIZENS, as a party-list organization, had been unfairly
and arbitrarily penalized by the COMELEC En Banc. How can there be
disobedience on the part of SENIOR CITIZENS when its nominees desisted from
carrying out their agreement? There was NO violation of an election law, rule or