Accreditation of Political Parties: COMELEC's Authority and the Limits of Judicial Review

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) holds broad constitutional authority to determine which political parties qualify as dominant majority, dominant minority, and major parties in Philippine elections. In Liberal Party v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 247645, July 26, 2022), the Court En Banc dismissed the Liberal Party's petition challenging COMELEC's accreditation of the Nacionalista Party as the dominant minority party for the May 13, 2019 national and local elections. The ruling clarifies the boundaries of judicial review over COMELEC's rule-making powers and the doctrine of mootness in election cases.

Background of the Case

On March 25, 2019, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 10514, which established the criteria for determining the dominant majority party, dominant minority party, ten major national parties, and two major local parties for the 2019 elections. The resolution was issued pursuant to Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, which enumerates the circumstances COMELEC should consider in making these determinations.

The criteria included: (a) the established record of the parties and their showing in past elections; (b) the number of incumbent elective officials belonging to them; (c) their identifiable political organizations and strengths as evidenced by organized chapters; (d) the ability to fill a complete slate of candidates; and (e) other analogous circumstances. Resolution No. 10514 added a sixth criterion: the number of women candidates fielded, consistent with Section 11(e) of Republic Act No. 9710.

The Liberal Party filed its petition for accreditation as the dominant minority party on April 10, 2019. On May 8, 2019, COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 10538, declaring the Nacionalista Party as the dominant minority party and the Liberal Party as one of the eight major political parties.

The Issues Presented

The Liberal Party raised two principal issues before the Supreme Court. First, whether its petition for certiorari had been rendered moot by the conclusion of the 2019 elections. Second, whether its prayer for the Court to establish guidelines for future accreditation amounted to a request for an advisory opinion.

The Liberal Party argued that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by ignoring the statutory definition of the dominant opposition party under the Omnibus Election Code, which requires that the party be opposed to the majority party. The petitioner contended that the Nacionalista Party was part of the ruling coalition and could not properly be considered an opposition party.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that both prayers for relief must be denied.

On mootness. The Court explained that accreditation "relates to the privileged participation that our election laws grant to qualified registered parties." These privileges—such as entitlement to official watchers, copies of election returns, and other electoral benefits—are tied to a specific electoral cycle. Since the May 2019 elections had concluded more than a month before the Liberal Party filed its petition, any ruling on Resolution No. 10538 would produce no legal effect. Even if the Court revoked the Nacionalista Party's accreditation, it could not undo the distribution of election returns or restore the watchers' privileges already exercised.

On the request for guidelines. The Court likewise rejected the Liberal Party's prayer for the establishment of guidelines for future elections. This request, the Court held, amounted to a demand for an advisory opinion—something courts do not issue. While the Court may assume jurisdiction over moot cases under exceptional circumstances, such as grave constitutional violations or paramount public interest, the Court found no such circumstances here.

COMELEC's Rule-Making Power

The Court emphasized that COMELEC's constitutional power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election" under Article IX-C, Section 2 of the Constitution includes the power to promulgate rules and regulations on accreditation. This power is not absolute—it is limited by the Constitution and existing laws—but courts will not encroach upon it absent a showing that COMELEC contravened the Constitution or statutes.

Significantly, the Court noted that the criteria system used in Resolution No. 10514 was not new. Similar criteria had been used in the 2010, 2013, and 2016 elections, and the Liberal Party had actively participated in and benefited from this accreditation process in prior cycles without objection. The Court found it "disingenuous" for the party to challenge the criteria only after being designated as a major party rather than the dominant minority party.

The Court also observed that the criteria in Resolution No. 10514 were consistent with the statutory standards in Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166. COMELEC did not exceed its rule-making authority when it used a weighted average system and point assignments to implement those statutory criteria.

Practical Takeaways

• COMELEC enjoys wide discretion in accreditation matters. Courts will respect COMELEC's rule-making authority over political party accreditation unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or violation of the Constitution and laws.

• Election cases can become moot quickly. Parties challenging accreditation rulings must act promptly. Once the election for which accreditation was made has concluded, courts will generally dismiss the case as moot since no effective relief can be granted.

• The statutory definition of "dominant opposition party" has limited application. The Omnibus Election Code contains a definition requiring the dominant minority party to be opposed to the majority party, but COMELEC did not apply this definition in recent elections. The Court did not require COMELEC to adopt this definition, deferring instead to COMELEC's criteria-based approach. Note that the exact provision number of this definition is not specified in the decision's cited materials available in the library.

• Courts do not issue advisory opinions. Parties cannot use election cases to obtain prospective guidelines from the Court when no actual controversy remains. Such requests are properly directed to COMELEC's rule-making process.

• Timely objections are essential. A party that participates in and benefits from an accreditation process over multiple election cycles cannot later challenge the same criteria when the outcome is unfavorable.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.