coalition of SC vs comelec

escra case
of 40
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  11/7/2014 CentralBooks:Reader 1/40 G.R. Nos. 206844-45.   July 23, 2013.* COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENSIN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. [SENIOR CITIZENSPARTY-LIST], represented herein by its Chairperson andFirst Nominee, FRANCISCO G. DATOL, Jr., petitioner, vs .COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. 206982.   July 23, 2013.* COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENSIN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR CITIZENS),represented by its President and IncumbentRepresentative in the House of Representatives, ATTY.GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA, petitioner, vs . COMMISSIONON ELECTIONS, respondent. Election Law; Notice and Hearing; The twin requirements of due notice and hearing are indispensable before the COMELEC may properly order the cancellation of the registration andaccreditation of a party-list organization.  —Unquestionably, thetwin requirements of due notice and hearing are indispensablebefore the COMELEC may properly order the cancellation of theregistration and accreditation of a party-list organization. Inconnection with this, the Court lengthily discussed in Mendoza v.Commission on Elections  the concept of due process as applied tothe COMELEC. Same; Term-Sharing Agreements; When the term-sharing agreement was executed in 2010, the same was not yet expressly proscribed by any law or resolution .—The Datol Group arguesthat the public policy prohibiting term-sharing was provided forunder Section 7, Rule 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366, whichwas promulgated only on February 21, 2012. Hence, theresolution should not be made to apply retroactively to the case of SENIOR CITIZENS as nothing therein provides for its retroactiveeffect. When the term-sharing agreement was executed in 2010,the same was not yet expressly proscribed by any law orresolution.  11/7/2014 CentralBooks:Reader 2/40  _______________ * EN BANC. 787  VOL. 701, JULY 23, 2013787 Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines Inc.[Senior Citizens Party-List] vs. Commission on Elections Civil Law; Prospectivity of Laws; Article 4 of the Civil Codestates that laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contraryis provided.  —Article 4 of the Civil Code states that “[l]aws shallhave no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.” Asheld in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Reyes , 480 SCRA 382(2006), “[t]he general rule is that statutes are prospective.However, statutes that are remedial, or that do not create new ortake away vested rights, do not fall under the general rule againstthe retroactive operation of statutes.” We also reiterated in Lintag and Arrastia v. National Power Corporation , 528 SCRA 287(2007), that: It is a well-entrenched principle that statutes,including administrative rules and regulations, operateprospectively unless the legislative intent to the contrary ismanifest by express terms or by necessary implication becausethe retroactive application of a law usually divests rights thathave already become vested. This is based on the Latin maxim: Lex prospicit non respicit  (the law looks forward, not backward). SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.Certiorari. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.  Hernan G. Nicdao, Amado D. Valdez and Salvador B. Britanico  for petitioner in G.R. No. 206982.  Romeo C. Manalo  for petitioner in G.R. Nos. 206844-45.LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,   J. :The present petitions were filed by the two rival factionswithin the same party-list organization, the Coalition of  Associations of Senior Citizens in the Phil., Inc. (SENIORCITIZENS) that are now praying for essentially the samereliefs from this Court.One group is headed by Godofredo V. Arquiza (Rep.  11/7/2014 CentralBooks:Reader 3/40  Arquiza), the organization’s incumbent representative inthe House of Representatives. This group shall behereinafter referred to as the Arquiza Group. The othergroup is led by Francisco G. Datol, Jr., the organization’serstwhile third nominee. This group shall be hereinafterreferred to as the Datol Group. 788 788SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines Inc. [Senior Citizens Party-List] vs.Commission on Elections G.R. Nos. 206844-45  is the Extremely Very UrgentPetition for Certiorari (With Prayer for the ForthwithIssuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction andTemporary Restraining Order [TRO] and/or Status Quo Ante  Order [SQAO]) 1  filed in the name of SENIORCITIZENS by Francisco G. Datol, Jr. For brevity, we shallrefer to this petition as the Datol Group’s petition. G.R. No. 206982  is the Very Urgent Petition for Certiorari  (With Application for a Temporary RestrainingOrder and Writ of Preliminary Injunction) 2  filed on behalf of SENIOR CITIZENS by Rep. Arquiza. We shall refer tothis as the Arquiza Group’s petition.The above petitions were filed pursuant to Rule 64 3  inrelation to Rule 65 4  of the Rules of Court, both assailingthe Omnibus Resolution 5  dated May 10, 2013 of theCommission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc  in SPP No.12-157 (PLM) and SPP No. 12-191 (PLM). Said Resolutiondisqualified SENIOR CITIZENS from participating in theMay 13, 2013 elections and ordered the cancellation of itsregistration and accreditation as a party-list organization. The Antecedents On March 16, 2007, the COMELEC En Banc accreditedSENIOR CITIZENS as a party-list organization in aResolution 6  issued on even date in SPP No. 06-026 (PL).  _______________ 1  Rollo  (G.R. Nos. 206844-45), pp. 3-47.2  Rollo  (G.R. No. 206982), pp. 3-23.3 Rule 64 of the Rules of Court provides for the Review of Judgments  11/7/2014 CentralBooks:Reader 4/40 and Final Orders or Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and theCommission on Audit.4 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court deals with the special civil actions of  Certiorari , Prohibition and Mandamus .5  Rollo  (G.R. Nos. 206844-45), pp. 48-60.6  Rollo  (G.R. No. 206982), pp. 38-43. 789  VOL. 701, JULY 23, 2013789 Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines Inc. [Senior Citizens Party-List] vs.Commission on Elections SENIOR CITIZENS participated in the May 14, 2007elections. However, the organization failed to get therequired two percent (2%) of the total votes cast. 7 Thereafter, SENIOR CITIZENS was granted leave tointervene in the case of  Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commissionon Elections . 8  In accordance with the procedure set forth inBANAT for the allocation of additional seats under theparty-list system, SENIOR CITIZENS was allocated oneseat in Congress. Rep. Arquiza, then the organization’sfirst nominee, served as a member of the House of Representatives.Subsequently, SENIOR CITIZENS was allowed toparticipate in the May 10, 2010 elections.On May 5, 2010, the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENSsigned an agreement, entitled Irrevocable Covenant, therelevant terms of which we quote: IRREVOCABLE COVENANTKNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT We, in representation of our respective personal capacity,hereby covenant and agree as follows:  ARTICLE IPARTIES AND PERSONS 1.    ATTY. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA  , of legal age, married,Filipino, and residing at 1881 C.M. Recto Avenue, Sampaloc,Manila, and representing the Senior Citizens Party-list in mycapacity as President with our General Headquarters at Room 404West Trade Center, 132 West Avenue, hereinafter referred to as
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks