The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) authority to determine the dominant political parties for electoral purposes. The Court emphasized it will not interfere with COMELEC’s rule-making power unless those rules contravene the Constitution or existing laws. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, finding it moot because the election in question had already passed and declining to issue an advisory opinion on future accreditation guidelines.

Beyond Majority Rule: Can Courts Redefine Election Guidelines?

At the heart of this case, Liberal Party vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 247645, July 26, 2022, lies a fundamental question: How far can courts go in dictating the internal processes of an independent body like the COMELEC, especially when it comes to determining which political parties get preferential treatment during elections? The Liberal Party sought to challenge the COMELEC’s designation of the Nacionalista Party as the dominant minority party, arguing that the COMELEC’s criteria were flawed and failed to align with the spirit of the Omnibus Election Code.

The seeds of this legal battle were sown when the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 10514, laying out the rules for accrediting dominant parties. These rules considered factors like past electoral performance, the number of incumbent officials, organizational strength, and the ability to field a full slate of candidates. The Liberal Party, believing itself to be the rightful dominant minority party, filed a petition for accreditation. However, the COMELEC ultimately sided with the Nacionalista Party, prompting the Liberal Party to seek recourse in the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The core of their argument rested on the idea that the Nacionalista Party, as part of the ruling coalition, could not be considered an opposition party, and therefore, was ineligible for the designation of dominant minority party.

The Supreme Court, however, declined to intervene, primarily on the grounds of mootness. As the Court pointed out, the 2019 elections had long concluded, rendering any decision on the matter inconsequential to that particular electoral cycle. The privileges and benefits associated with being a dominant party, such as the right to paid watchers and access to election returns, were no longer applicable. This position is consistent with established jurisprudence, which requires an actual case or controversy for courts to exercise their adjudicatory functions. According to Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections:

It is well-established in this jurisdiction that “x x x for a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy — one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. x x x [C]ourts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging.”

Building on the principle of mootness, the Court also highlighted that the Liberal Party’s petition essentially sought an advisory opinion on how the COMELEC should determine dominant parties in future elections. Courts in the Philippines, as in many other jurisdictions, generally refrain from issuing advisory opinions, as they lack the concrete factual context necessary for sound legal reasoning. Furthermore, the Court recognized the COMELEC’s constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws, including the power to promulgate rules and regulations. Interfering with this rule-making power, the Court reasoned, would be an unwarranted encroachment on the COMELEC’s autonomy. As stated in Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators v. Commission on Elections:

The COMELEC is constitutionally mandated to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, a plebiscite, an initiative, a referendum, and a recall. In addition to the powers and functions conferred upon it by the Constitution, the COMELEC is also charged to promulgate IRRs implementing the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code or other laws that the COMELEC enforces and administers.

The Court also emphasized that the criteria used by the COMELEC in Resolution No. 10514 were consistent with the guidelines established in Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended. This law outlines several factors to consider when determining dominant parties, including past electoral performance, the number of incumbent officials, organizational strength, and the ability to field a complete slate of candidates. The COMELEC’s resolution merely operationalized these statutory criteria, and the Court found no evidence that the COMELEC had exceeded its authority. It’s important to note that this case does not prevent future challenges to COMELEC regulations if those regulations can be shown to contravene the Constitution or existing laws, but it does underscore the high bar for judicial intervention in matters of electoral administration.

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Caguioa, concurred with the dismissal of the petition on the sole ground of mootness, cautioning against expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, specifically on the correctness of the criteria applied by the COMELEC. Justice Caguioa stresses that the majority opinion regarding the COMELEC’s guidelines and powers is an obiter dictum, and should not be treated as a binding precedent in future cases with actual controversies. This is a very important reminder that the decision serves as a reminder of the limits of judicial review in the realm of electoral administration. While the courts play a vital role in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process, they must also respect the constitutional mandate of the COMELEC to manage and oversee elections. The ruling underscores the importance of raising legal challenges promptly, before an election has rendered the issue moot.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in accrediting the Nacionalista Party as the dominant minority party for the 2019 elections, allegedly ignoring the definition of “dominant opposition party” in the Omnibus Election Code.
Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the petition?	The Court dismissed the petition primarily because the 2019 elections had already concluded, making the issue moot. Additionally, the Court found that the petition sought an advisory opinion on future accreditation guidelines, which the Court typically avoids.
What is the significance of the term “mootness” in this case?	Mootness means that the case no longer presents a live controversy because the events have already transpired. Since the elections were over, any ruling on the accreditation would have no practical effect on the 2019 elections.
Does this ruling mean the COMELEC has unlimited power in determining dominant parties?	No, the Court emphasized that the COMELEC’s power is not absolute and is limited by the Constitution and existing laws. The Court also suggested that its criteria should be scrutinized.
What factors does the COMELEC consider when accrediting dominant parties?	The COMELEC considers factors like past electoral performance, the number of incumbent officials, organizational strength, the ability to field a full slate of candidates, and the number of women candidates fielded by the political parties.
Can future COMELEC accreditation decisions be challenged in court?	Yes, future accreditation decisions can be challenged if it can be shown that the COMELEC’s regulations contravene the Constitution or existing laws. However, the burden of proof rests on the party challenging the decision.
What was Commissioner Guia’s position on the dominant minority party?	Commissioner Guia argued that the dominant minority party should be a party that stands in opposition to the majority party, aligning with the definition in the Omnibus Election Code.
What is an advisory opinion, and why did the Court decline to issue one?	An advisory opinion is a court’s opinion on a hypothetical legal question, without an actual case or controversy. The Court declined to issue one because it lacks the concrete factual context necessary for sound legal reasoning and does not want to interfere the rule-making power of the COMELEC.

In conclusion, this case reaffirms the COMELEC’s authority in administering election laws, including the accreditation of political parties. While the judiciary retains the power to review COMELEC decisions, it exercises that power with restraint, mindful of the COMELEC’s constitutional mandate and the need for finality in electoral matters.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Liberal Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 247645, July 26, 2022