G.R. No. 178624 June 30, 2009
JOSE CONCEPCION, JR., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

FACTS

On January 5, 2007, the National Citizen’s Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL), with petitioner Jose Concepcion, Jr. (its National Chairman and incumbent Punong Barangay of Forbes Park, Makati City) as a signatory, filed a Petition for Accreditation to Conduct the Operation Quick Count with the COMELEC. On the same date, COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 7798, which prohibited, among others, the appointment of barangay officials as members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) or as official watchers, and extended this prohibition to barangay officials who are members of accredited citizens’ arms. It also barred barangay officials from staying inside any polling place except to vote. On April 2, 2007, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution conditionally granting NAMFREL’s petition for accreditation as a citizens’ arm, subject to the condition that Mr. Jose S. Concepcion, Jr. must first be removed both as a member and overall Chairman of NAMFREL, citing COMELEC Resolution No. 7798. NAMFREL subsequently reorganized, with Concepcion stepping down, and filed a Manifestation and Request for Re-Examination, objecting to the legality of Resolution 7798 as it affected Concepcion’s membership. The COMELEC denied this request in its Order dated May 8, 2007. NAMFREL did not question this ruling. Instead, Jose Concepcion, Jr. filed the present petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the COMELEC’s April 2, 2007 Resolution and May 8, 2007 Order, but primarily raising issues against the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 7798 itself.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing Resolution No. 7798 and in applying it to prohibit petitioner Jose Concepcion, Jr. from being a member and Chairman of NAMFREL, a citizens’ arm.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition.
The Court held that the petitioner, Jose Concepcion, Jr., lacked the legal standing or personality to file the petition. The assailed COMELEC Resolutions were directed at NAMFREL, not at Concepcion in his personal capacity. The conditional accreditation was an act directed at NAMFREL as an entity, and the condition for Concepcion’s removal was imposed on NAMFREL. NAMFREL, the real party-in-interest, accepted the condition, reorganized, and did not appeal the COMELEC’s decision. Therefore, Concepcion could not substitute for NAMFREL in challenging the ruling. An individual member of an organization does not have standing to assert the rights of the organization when the organization itself has chosen not to assert them.
Furthermore, the Court found that the petition was essentially a challenge to COMELEC Resolution No. 7798, which is a rule of general application (a legislative action). A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an improper remedy to assail such a rule or regulation. The proper remedy is a petition for declaratory relief or a petition for prohibition, not a special civil action for certiorari. Certiorari is meant to correct judicial or quasi-judicial actions, not legislative or rule-making functions.
Given the dismissal on the grounds of lack of standing and improper remedy, the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary to rule on the substantive validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 7798.