Due Process in Elections: COMELEC's Duty to Hear Conflicting Candidacy Claims

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) holds broad constitutional authority to enforce and administer election laws, including the power to accredit political parties. But this power is not absolute—it must be exercised within constitutional bounds and existing statutes. In Liberal Party v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 247645, July 26, 2022), the Supreme Court En Banc clarified the scope of COMELEC's discretion in determining the dominant minority party, while underscoring that courts will not interfere unless the Commission commits grave abuse of discretion.

The Case: A Dispute Over Party Accreditation

Before the May 13, 2019 national and local elections, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 10514, which set the criteria for accrediting the dominant majority party, dominant minority party, and major national parties. The criteria included a party's established record in past elections, number of incumbent elective officials, organized chapters, ability to fill a complete slate of candidates, and—newly added—the number of women candidates fielded.

The Liberal Party filed its petition for accreditation as the dominant minority party. 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 major political parties. The Liberal Party challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that COMELEC ignored the Omnibus Election Code's definition of a "dominant opposition party"—one opposed to the majority party.

The Issues: Mootness and Advisory Opinions

The Court identified two issues: whether the petition was moot because the 2019 elections had concluded, and whether the Liberal Party's prayer for guidelines amounted to a request for an advisory opinion.

The Court answered both in the affirmative. Accreditation privileges—such as entitlement to official watchers and copies of election returns—are tied to a specific electoral cycle. Since the elections had already been held, any ruling on Resolution No. 10538 would produce no practical legal effect. The Court cannot retroactively grant privileges that have already been exercised.

The Ruling: COMELEC's Discretion is Broad but Bounded

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed Resolution No. 10538. It held that the criteria in Resolution No. 10514 were consistent with Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, which enumerates the circumstances COMELEC must consider in accrediting parties.

The Court noted that the Liberal Party had actively participated in the accreditation process for years, benefiting from it when it became the dominant majority or minority party in prior elections. It only questioned the criteria when it failed to secure the desired designation. This undermined its claim of grave abuse of discretion.

Importantly, the Court declined the Liberal Party's request to establish guidelines for future accreditation. This would amount to an advisory opinion and, more critically, an encroachment on COMELEC's constitutional rule-making power. The Court cited Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators v. COMELEC, which recognized that COMELEC's power to promulgate rules is enshrined in Article IX-C, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Limits on COMELEC's Power

The Court was careful to note that COMELEC's rule-making power is not unlimited. As stated in Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC, the exercise of these powers must always be read in conjunction with, not in isolation from, the Constitution and the laws from which it draws the power. COMELEC cannot issue rules that diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

In this case, however, the Court found that COMELEC did not exceed its authority. The weighted point system it used to rank parties was a permissible method of implementing the statutory criteria. Even Commissioner Guia's memorandum—which argued that the dominant minority should come from the opposition—did not object to the criteria themselves, but merely recommended an additional process. This was properly treated as a recommendation for future rule-making, not grounds for invalidating the accreditation.

Practical Takeaways

• COMELEC's accreditation decisions are entitled to deference. Courts will not overturn them absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or violation of the Constitution and laws.
• Timing matters in election cases. Parties must promptly contest accreditation rules before elections conclude. Once the electoral cycle ends, challenges become moot, and courts will not grant relief that can no longer produce practical effects.
• The "dominant minority" need not be an opposition party. COMELEC's criteria, consistent with RA 7166 as amended, focus on objective factors like electoral performance, incumbents, and organizational strength—not political alignment with or against the majority.
• COMELEC's rule-making power is broad but bounded. The Commission may adopt reasonable methods—like weighted point systems—to implement statutory criteria, but its rules must always align with the Constitution and existing laws.
• Courts do not issue advisory opinions. A party cannot ask the Supreme Court to formulate guidelines for future elections when no actual case or controversy remains.

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