Party-List Delisting Rules Clarified: Two Separate Grounds Under RA 7941

The Supreme Court has clarified the rules on delisting party-list organizations, ruling that the two grounds for removal under Republic Act No. 7941 are separate and cannot be combined to justify cancellation of registration. In Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010), the Court abandoned its earlier ruling in Minero and reinstated a party-list group that had been delisted for failing to obtain 2% of votes in one election and not participating in the next.

The Case: How PGBI Was Delisted

The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) was a registered party-list organization. In the May 2004 elections, PGBI failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system. In the May 2007 elections, PGBI did not participate at all.

In October 2009, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 8679 delisting PGBI from the roster of registered party-list organizations. The COMELEC reasoned that PGBI failed to get 2% of the votes in 2004 and did not participate in 2007, thereby failing the requirements of Section 6(8) of RA 7941.

PGBI filed an opposition, arguing that it had filed a manifestation seeking deferment of its participation in the 2007 elections and that the delisting violated its right to due process. The COMELEC denied the opposition, and PGBI elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Legal Provision: Section 6(8) of RA 7941

Section 6(8) of the Party-List System Act provides that the COMELEC may remove or cancel the registration of any party-list organization if it:

• Fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections, or
• Fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the word "or" in this provision is a disjunctive term. It signifies disassociation and independence of one thing from the other things enumerated. Thus, the law provides for two separate and distinct grounds for delisting.

The Court's Ruling: Abandoning the Minero Doctrine

The Supreme Court found that its earlier ruling in Philippine Mines Safety Environment Association (MINERO) v. COMELEC was an erroneous application of Section 6(8). The Court noted that Minero involved a party-list organization that failed to get 2% of the votes in one election and did not participate in the next, and the Court in that case held that the organization necessarily failed to get at least 2% of the votes cast in the two preceding elections.

The Court in PGBI's case rejected this reasoning, stating that Minero confused two distinct scenarios: non-participation in an election is not the same as failing to garner the 2% threshold. The Court explained that Minero effectively held that a party-list organization that does not participate in an election necessarily gets, by default, less than 2% of the party-list votes. This was a "confused interpretation of the law" that did violence to the language of the statute and the intent of the legislature.

The Court also considered its ruling in Barangay Association for Advancement and National Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009), which partly invalidated the 2% threshold for the allocation of additional seats. In light of BANAT, the disqualification for failure to get 2% of party-list votes should now be understood to mean failure to qualify for a party-list seat in the two preceding elections.

Due Process Was Not Violated

On the issue of due process, the Court agreed with the COMELEC that PGBI's right was not violated. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is simply the opportunity to be heard — the opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a reconsideration of the action complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not always essential.

Resolution No. 8679 expressly gave adversely affected parties the opportunity to file their opposition, and PGBI availed of this opportunity. The Court found that PGBI was not denied due process.

Practical Takeaways

• Two separate grounds for delisting. Under Section 6(8) of RA 7941, failure to participate in the last two preceding elections and failure to obtain 2% of votes in the two preceding elections are distinct grounds. They cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting.

• The Minero ruling is abandoned. Party-list organizations can no longer be delisted merely because they failed to get 2% of votes in one election and did not participate in another. The Supreme Court explicitly struck down Minero from ruling case law.

• The 2% threshold is read in light of BANAT. The disqualification for failure to get 2% of party-list votes should now be understood as failure to qualify for a party-list seat in the two preceding elections, given that the 2% threshold for additional seats was partly invalidated in BANAT.

• Due process is flexible. In administrative proceedings like COMELEC delisting, due process is satisfied when the party is given an opportunity to be heard or to seek reconsideration. A full trial-type hearing is not always required.

• Legislative gaps are for Congress. If a party-list organization's situation falls outside the grounds in Section 6(8), that is a matter for Congress to address, not the courts.

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