G.R. No.

205505, September 29, 2015 On 30 November 2009, Ating Koop filed its Manifestation of Intent to
Participate in the Party-List System of Representation for the 10 May 2010
ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO, RAFAEL A. PUENTESPINA, PROCULO T. Elections.4 On 6 March 2010, it filed with the COMELEC the list of its
SARMEN, AMELITO L. REVUELTA, WILLIAM C. YBANEZ, SILVERIO J. nominees, with petitioner Lico as first nominee and Roberto Mascarina as
SANCHEZ, GLORIA G. FUTALAN, HILARIO DE GUZMAN, EUGENE M. second nominee.
PABUALAN, RODOLFO E. PEREZ, HIPOLITO R. QUILLAN, MARIO
ARENAS, TIRSO C. BUENAVENTURA, LYDIA B. TUBELLA, REYNALDO On 8 December 2010, COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as one of the
C. GOLO& JONATHAN DEQUINA IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, winning party-list groups.5 Based on the procedure provided in BANAT Party-
AND AS LEGITIMATE MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF ADHIKAING List v. COMELEC,6 Ating Koop earned a seat in the House of
TINATAGUYOD NG KOOPERATIBA (ATING KOOP PARTY Representatives. Petitioner Lico subsequently took his oath of office on 9
LIST), Petitioners, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC AND December 2010 before the Secretary-General of the House of
THE SELF-STYLED SHAM ATING KOOP PARTYLIST REPRESENTED Representatives,7 and thereafter assumed office.
BY AMPARO T. RIMAS, Respondents.
Several months prior to its proclamation as one of the winning party-list
DECISION organizations, or on 9 June 2010, Ating Koop issued Central Committee
Resolution 2010-01, which incorporated a term-sharing agreement signed by
its nominees.8 Under the agreement, petitioner Lico was to serve as Party-list
SERENO, C.J.: Representative for the first year of the three-year term.9

The pivotal and interrelated issues before Us in this case involve the On 14 May 2011, Ating Koop held its Second National Convention, during
seemingly elementary matter of the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) which it introduced amendments to its Constitution and By-laws. Among the
jurisdiction over the expulsion of a sitting party-list representative: from the salient changes was the composition of the Central Committee,10 which
House of Representatives, on the one hand; and from his party-list would still be composed of 15 representatives but with five each coming from
organization, on the other. Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao (5-5-5 equal representation).11 The
amendments likewise mandated the holding of an election of Central
The instant case involves two rival factions of the same party-list Committee members within six months after the Second National
organization, the Adhikaing Tinataguyod ng Kooperatiba (Ating Koop). One Convention.12
group is headed by petitioner Atty. Isidro Q. Lico (the Lico Group), who
represents the organization in the House of Representatives, and the other In effect, the amendments cut short the three-year term of the incumbent
group by Amparo T. Rimas (respondents herein, or the Rimas Group). members (referred to hereafter as the Interim Central Committee) of the
Central Committee.13 The Interim Central Committee was dominated by
THE CASE members of the Rimas Group.

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 641 in relation to Rule On 5 December 2011, or almost one year after petitioner Lico had assumed
65,2 seeking to annul the Resolutions in E.M. No. 12-039 dated 18 July 2012 office, the Interim Central Committee expelled him from Ating Koop for
and 31 January 2013 of the COMELEC. disloyalty.14 Apart from allegations of malversation and graft and corruption,
the Committee cited petitioner Lico's refusal to honor the term-sharing
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS agreement as factual basis for disloyalty and as cause for his expulsion
under Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-laws.15
Ating Koop is a multi-sectoral party-list organization which was registered on
16 November 2009 under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, also known as the On 8 December 2011, Congressman Lico filed a Motion for Reconsideration
Party-List System Act (Party-List Law). with the Interim Central Committee,16 which subsequently denied the same in
a Resolution dated 29 December 2011.17
Under Ating Koop's Constitution and By-Laws, its highest policymaking body
is the National Convention. The Central Committee, however, takes over While petitioner Lico's Motion for Reconsideration was pending, the Lico
when the National Convention is not in session.3 Group held a special meeting in Cebu City (the Cebu meeting) on 19
December 2011. At the said meeting, new members of the Central Second Division's Resolution, which the COMELEC En Banc denied on 31
Committee, as well as a new set of officers, were elected.18 The election was January 2013. The dispositive portion of its Resolution reads:cralawlawlibrary
purportedly held for the purpose of implementing the 5-5-5 equal
representation amendment made during the Second National Convention.19 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (En
Banc) RESOLVES, as it hereby RESOLVED, to:
On 21 January 2012, the Rimas Group held a Special National Convention in a. DISMISS the instant Petition to Expel Respondent Atty. Isidro Q. Lico in
Parañaque City20 (the Parañaque convention), at which a new Central the House of Representatives and to Sanction the Immediate Succession of
Committee and a new set of officers were constituted.21Members of the the Second Nominee of ATING KOOP Party List, Mr. Roberto C. Mascarina
Rimas Group won the election and occupied all the corresponding seats. as its Party Representative, for lack of
jurisdiction;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMELEC
SECOND DIVISION b. UPHOLD the Expulsion of Respondent Atty. Isidro Lico from ATING
KOOP Party-list Group; [and]
On 16 March 2012, the Rimas Group, claiming to represent Ating Koop, filed
with COMELEC a Petition against petitioner Lico docketed as E.M. No. 12- c. UPHOLD the ATING KOOP Party-list Group represented by its President,
039.22 The said Petition, which was subsequently raffled to the Second Amparo T. Rimas, as the legitimate Party-list Group accredited by the
Division, prayed that petitioner Lico be ordered to vacate the office of Ating Commission on Elections, to the exclusion of respondents Atty. Isidro Q.
Koop in the House of Representatives, and for the succession of the second Lico, Rafael A. Puentespina, Proculo T. Sarmen, Amelito L. Revuelta,
nominee, Roberto Mascarina as Ating Koop's representative in the House. William C. Ybanez, Silverio J. Sanchez, Gloria G. Futalan, Hilario De
Guzman, Eugene M. Pabualan, Rodolfo E. Perez, Hipolito R. Quillan, Mario
The Rimas Group thereafter filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC Arenas, Tirso C. Buenaventura, Lydia B. Tubella, and Jonathan Dequina.28
on 14 May 2012, this time impleading not only petitioner Lico but the entire chanrobleslaw
Lico Group. The Amended Petition also prayed that the COMELEC nullify the
election conducted at the Cebu meeting and recognize the Paranaque
convention. In arriving at its Resolution, the COMELEC En Banc held that it had no
jurisdiction to expel Congressman Lico from the House of Representatives,
In both the Petition and the Amended Petition, the Rimas Group alleged that considering that his expulsion from Ating Koop affected his qualifications as
Ating Koop had expelled Congressman Lico for acts inimical to the party-list member of the House, and therefore it was the House of Representatives
group, such as malversation, graft and corruption, and that he had "boldly Electoral Tribunal (HRET) that had jurisdiction over the Petition.
displayed his recalcitrance to honor party commitment to be upright and
consistently honest, thus violating basic principles of the Ating Koop."23 The At the same time, the COMELEC upheld the validity of petitioner Lico's
Amended Petition stated further that the Cebu meeting held by the Lico expulsion from Ating Koop, explaining that when the Interim Central
Group violated notice and quorum requirements.24 Committee ousted him from Ating Koop, the said Committee's members
remained in hold-over capacity even after their terms had expired;29 and that
In a Resolution dated 18 July 2012,25 the COMELEC Second Division upheld the COMELEC was not in a position to substitute its judgment for that of
the expulsion of petitioner Lico from Ating Koop and declared Mascarina as Ating Koop with respect to the cause of the expulsion.30
the duly qualified nominee of the party-list group.26 The Second Division
characterized the issue of the validity of the expulsion of petitioner Lico from Finally, the COMELEC En Banc recognized the Rimas Group as the
Ating Koop as an intra-party leadership dispute, which it could resolve as an legitimate representative of Ating Koop considering that: 1) it found nothing in
incident of its power to register political parties.27chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary the records to show that the Lico Group made a valid call for the special
election of Central Committee members as required under the Amended
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMELEC Constitution and By-Laws;31 2) there is nothing on record indicating that a
EN BANC minimum of 100 attended the Cebu meeting;32and 3) the Parañaque
convention was in accordance with Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and
Consequently, the Lico Group filed a Motion for Reconsideration from the By-Laws.33
Hence, this Petition: the Lico Group now comes before Us, praying for a over the intra-party matter.36 The Lokin case, however, involved nominees
review of the COMELEC Resolutions. and not incumbent members of Congress. In the present case, the fact that
petitioner Lico was a member of Congress at the time of his expulsion from
The Court's Ruling Ating Koop removes the matter from the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.

The rules on intra-party matters and on the jurisdiction of the HRET are not
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction over parallel concepts that do not intersect. Rather, the operation of the rule on
the expulsion of a Member of the House intra-party matters is circumscribed by Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987
of Representatives from his party-list Constitution and jurisprudence on the jurisdiction of electoral tribunals. The
organization jurisdiction of the HRET is exclusive. It is given full authority to hear and
decide the cases on any matter touching on the validity of the title of the
We find that while the COMELEC correctly dismissed the Petition to expel proclaimed winner.37
petitioner Lico from the House of Representatives for being beyond its
jurisdiction, it nevertheless proceeded to rule upon the validity of his In the present case, the Petition for petitioner Lico's expulsion from the
expulsion from Ating Koop - a matter beyond its purview. House of Representatives is anchored on his expulsion from Ating Koop,
which necessarily affects his title as member of Congress. A party-list
The COMELEC notably characterized the Petition for expulsion of petitioner nominee must have been, among others, a bona fide member of the party or
Lico from the House of Representatives and for the succession of the second organization for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election.
nominee as party-list representative as a disqualification case. For this Needless to say, bona fide membership in the party-list group is
reason, the COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, insofar a continuing qualification. We have ruled that qualifications for public office,
as it relates to the question of unseating petitioner Lico from the House of whether elective or not, are continuing requirements. They must be
Representatives. possessed not only at the time of appointment or election, or of assumption
of office, but during the officer's entire tenure.39
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution34 endows the HRET with
jurisdiction to resolve questions on the qualifications of members of This is not the first time that this Court has passed upon the issue of HRET
Congress. In the case of party-list representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over the requirements for bona fide membership in a party-list
jurisdiction over a disqualification case upon proclamation of the winning organization. In Abayon v. HRET,40 it was argued that the petitioners did not
party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of office as member of belong to the marginalized and under-represented sectors that they should
the House of Representatives.35 In this case, the COMELEC proclaimed represent; as such, they could not be properly considered bona
Ating Koop as a winning party-list group; petitioner Lico took his oath; and he fide members of their respective party-list organizations. The Court held that
assumed office in the House of Representatives. Thus, it is the HRET, and it was for the HRET to interpret the meaning of the requirement of bona
not the COMELEC, that has jurisdiction over the disqualification case. fide membership in a party-list organization. It reasoned that under Section
17, Article VI of the Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all contests
What We find to be without legal basis, however, is the action of the when it comes to qualifications of the members of the House of
COMELEC in upholding the validity of the expulsion of petitioner Lico from Representatives.41
Ating Koop, despite its own ruling that the HRET has jurisdiction over the
disqualification issue. These findings already touch upon the qualification Consequently, the COMELEC failed to recognize that the issue on the
requiring a party-list nominee to be a bona fide member of the party-list validity of petitioner Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop is integral to the issue
group sought to be represented. of his qualifications to sit in Congress. This is not merely an error of law but
an error of jurisdiction correctible by a writ of certiorari;42 the COMELEC
The COMELEC justified its Resolution on the merits of the expulsion, by should not have encroached into the expulsion issue, as it was outside its
relying on the rule that it can decide intra-party matters as an incident of its authority to do so.
constitutionally granted powers and functions. It cited Lokin v. COMELEC,
where We held that when the resolution of an intra-party controversy is Distinguished from Reyes v. COMELEC
necessary or incidental to the performance of the constitutionally-granted
functions of the COMELEC, the latter can step in and exercise jurisdiction Our ruling here must be distinguished from Regina Ongsiako Reyes v.
Commission on Elections.43 In that case, We upheld the disqualification by no jurisdiction to decide which of the feuding groups is to be recognized, and
the COMELEC of petitioner Reyes, even as she was already proclaimed that it is the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over intra-corporate
winner in the elections at the time she filed her petition with the High Court. controversies. Indeed, the COMELECs jurisdiction to settle the struggle for
In doing so, We rejected the argument that the case fell within the exclusive leadership within the party is well established. This power to rule upon
jurisdiction of the HRET. questions of party identity and leadership is exercised by the COMELEC as
an incident of its enforcement powers.46
In Reyes, the petitioner was proclaimed winner of the 13 May 2013 Elections,
and took her oath of office before the Speaker of the House of That being said, We find the COMELEC to have committed grave abuse of
Representatives. However, the Court ruled on her qualifications since she discretion in declaring the Rimas Group as the legitimate set of Ating Koop
was not yet a member of the House of Representatives: petitioner Reyes officers for the simple reason that the amendments to the Constitution and
had yet to assume office, the term of which would officially start at noon of 30 By-laws of Ating Koop were not registered with the COMELEC. Hence,
June 2013, when she filed a Petition for Certiorariwith Prayer for Temporary neither of the elections held during the Cebu meeting and the Paranaque
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Ante conference pursuant to the said amendments, were valid.
Order dated 7 June 2013 assailing the Resolutions ordering the cancellation
of her Certificate of Candidacy. In the present case, all three requirements of Both the Lico Group and the Rimas Group indeed assert that their respective
proclamation, oath of office, and assumption of office were satisfied. elections were conducted pursuant to the amendment introduced in the
Second National Convention held on 14 May 2011. In particular, Section 1 of
Moreover, in Reyes, the COMELEC En Banc Resolution disqualifying Article VI of Ating Koop's By-laws called for the conduct of an election of
petitioner on grounds of lack of Filipino citizenship and residency had Central Committee members within six months after the Second National
become final and executory when petitioner elevated it to this Court. 44 It Convention.47
should be mentioned that when petitioner Reyes filed her petition with the
Court, the COMELEC En Banc had, as early as 5 June 2013, already issued There is no showing, however, that the amendments were actually filed with
a Certificate of Finality over its 14 May 2013 Resolution disqualifying her. the COMELEC.
Therefore, there was no longer any pending case on the qualifications of
petitioner Reyes to speak of. Here, the question of whether petitioner Lico A party-list organization owes its existence to the State and the latter's
remains a member of the House of Representatives in view of his expulsion approval must be obtained through its agent, the COMELEC. In the 2013
from Ating Koop is a subsisting issue. case of Dayao v. COMELEC,48 We declared that it is the State, acting
through the COMELEC, that breathes life to a party-list organization. The
Finally, in Reyes, We found the question of jurisdiction of the HRET to be a implication, therefore, is that the State, through the COMELEC, is a party to
non-issue, since the recourse of the petitioner to the Court appeared to be a the principal contracts entered into by the party-list organization and its
mere attempt to prevent the COMELEC from implementing a final and members - the Constitution and By-laws - such that any amendment to these
executory judgment. We said that the petitioner therein took an inconsistent, contracts would constitute a novation requiring the consent of all the parties
if not confusing, stance, considering that she sought remedy before the involved. An amendment to the bylaws of a party-list organization should
Court, and yet asserted that it is the HRET which had jurisdiction over the become effective only upon approval by the COMELEC.
case.45 In this case, the question on the validity of petitioner Lico's expulsion
from Ating Koop is a genuine issue that falls within the jurisdiction of the Such a prerequisite is analogous to the requirement of filing of the amended
HRET, as it unmistakably affects his qualifications as party-list by-laws and subsequent conformity thereto of the Securities and Exchange
representative. Commission (SEC) under corporation law. Under the Corporation Code, an
amendment to a by-law provision must be filed with the SEC. The
On which group legitimately represents amendment shall be effective only upon the issuance by the SEC of a
Ating Koop certification that it is not inconsistent with the Corporation Code.49

We now pass upon the question of which, between the two contending There being no showing that the amendments on the by-laws of Ating Koop
groups, is the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop. were filed with and subsequently approved by the COMELEC, any election
conducted pursuant thereto may not be considered valid. Without such
At the outset, We reject the Lico Group's argument that the COMELEC has requisite proof, neither the Lico Group nor the Rimas Group can claim to be
the legitimate set of officers of Ating Koop. two groups is the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop, then who is?

Even assuming arguendo that the amendment calling for a special election We find such legitimate leadership to be the Interim Central Committee,
were effective, this Court still cannot declare any of the feuding groups as the whose members remain as such in a hold-over capacity.
legitimate set of officers considering that the respective sets of evidence
presented were evenly balanced. With respect to the Lico Group's Cebu In Seneres v. COMELEC,56 the validity of the Certificate of Nomination filed
meeting, the COMELEC correctly found - and the records bear out - that the by Buhay Party-List through its President, Roger Robles, was questioned on
notices sent were deficient and that there was no sufficient proof of quorum. the ground that his term had expired at the time it was filed. The Court
Hence, the Cebu meeting was held to be invalid. On the other hand, the applied by analogy the default rule in corporation law to the effect that
COMELEC failed to appreciate the fact that the Paranaque convention officers and directors of a corporation hold over after the expiration of their
suffered from the same infirmity, the records of the said convention, terms until such time as their successors are elected or
consisting merely of the Minutes thereof, likewise fail to establish due notice appointed.57Señeres ruled that the hold-over principle applies in the absence
and a quorum.50 of a provision in the constitution or by-laws of the party-list organization
prohibiting its application.
Accordingly, as neither group can sufficiently lay claim to legitimacy, the
equipoise doctrine comes into play. This rule provides that when the In the present case, We have gone through the Constitution and Bylaws of
evidence in an issue of fact is in equipoise, that is, when the respective sets Ating Koop and We do not see any provision forbidding, either expressly or
of evidence of both parties are evenly balanced, the party having the burden impliedly, the application of the hold-over rule. Thus, in accordance with
of proof fails in that issue. Since neither party succeeds in making out a case, corporation law, the existing Interim Central Committee is still a legitimate
neither side prevails. The courts are left with no other option but to leave entity with full authority to bind the corporation and to carry out powers
them as they are. The consequence, therefore, is the dismissal of the despite the lapse of the term of its members on 14 November 2011, since no
complaint/petition.51 successors had been validly elected at the time, or since.

The Rimas Group, being the petitioner before the COMELEC, had the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The
burden of proving that it is the petitioner, and not the Lico Group, that is the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 31 January 2013 and the COMELEC
legitimate group. As the evidence of both parties are in equipoise, the Rimas Second Division Resolution dated 18 July 2012 in E.M. No. 12-039 are
Group failed to discharge its burden. The COMELEC should have dismissed hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE insofar as it declares valid the
the petition of the Rimas Group insofar as it sought to be declared the expulsion of Congressman Lico from Ating Koop and it upholds the ATING
legitimate group representing Ating Koop. KOOP Party-list Group represented by its President, Amparo T. Rimas, as
the legitimate Party-list Group.
Yet, the COMELEC held that the Paranaque convention "appeared to be in
conformity" with Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-Laws.52 It should A new one is entered DECLARING that the legitimate Central Committee
be stressed that the COMELEC did not even substantiate this conclusion.53 and set of officers legitimately representing Ating Koop are the Interim
Central Committee and set of officers prior to the split of Ating Koop.
The Court ordinarily refrains from reviewing the COMELEC s appreciation
and evaluation of the evidence.54 But when the COMELECs assessment of SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
the evidence is so grossly unreasonable that it turns into an error of
jurisdiction, the Court is compelled to intervene and correct the error.55

As seen in the above discussions, neither of the parties was able to establish
its legitimacy. The evaluation of the evidence by the COMELEC in deciding
the issue of which group legitimately represents Ating Koop was therefore
grossly unreasonable, which amounts to a jurisdictional error that may be
remedied by certiorari under Rule 65.

The final, and most important question to be addressed is: if neither of the