G.R. No. 147589, November 20, 2003
Ang Bagong Bayani, OFW, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. / Bayan Muna vs. Commission on Elections

FACTS

This case involves consolidated motions arising from the implementation of the party-list system. Petitioner Bayan Muna filed motions to set aside two COMELEC Resolutions (dated November 6 and 22, 2002) which allocated additional seats to other party-list groups like APEC, BUTIL, CIBAC, and AKBAYAN. Bayan Muna argued these allocations violated the formula established in Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC and the three-seat limit per party under RA 7941. It also sought a declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 11 of RA 7941 to allow it more than three seats. Separately, BUHAY filed motions seeking the proclamation of its additional nominee.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Supreme Court, in these compliance proceedings, can grant the reliefs sought by Bayan Muna and BUHAY, specifically to unseat proclaimed party-list representatives and declare a law unconstitutional.

RULING

Justice Panganiban, in his separate opinion, voted to deny both sets of motions. Regarding Bayan Muna, he concurred with the denial but on different grounds. He emphasized that the assailed COMELEC Resolutions had already been unanimously declared void for being issued without authority and in contempt of the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order. However, this nullity does not automatically empower the Court in these proceedings to unseat the proclaimed nominees who have already assumed office. Unseating a sitting member of Congress partakes of an extraordinary writ like quo warranto, which must be pursued through a proper special civil action with all its formal requirements, not via a mere unverified motion in these incidental compliance proceedings. Furthermore, jurisdiction over the qualifications of sitting House members lies with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), not the Supreme Court in this context. Bayan Muna’s prayer to declare Section 11 of RA 7941 unconstitutional is also impermissible as it seeks to reopen the Court’s final and executory Decision of June 26, 2001.
Concerning BUHAY’s motions, Justice Panganiban respectfully dissented from the majority’s grant. He argued that the formula for computing party-list seats was definitively settled in Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC. The COMELEC was previously held in contempt for discarding this formula. The Court’s Resolution of June 25, 2003, in this very case, clearly outlined the procedure based on Veterans for determining winners. Since the computation method is not an issue in these consolidated cases and is already final, there is no legal basis to proclaim BUHAY’s additional nominee in violation of the established formula.