By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
The warring factions of the PDP-Laban should read this case. But first I want to disclose that, as a congressman and an LDPl stalwart of at that time, I was involved here. Our faction wanted to support the 2004 presidential candidacy of a party member, Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson. The other side wanted to support an outsider, a non-party member, Fernando Poe, Jr. Does it sound familiar? Well…
This is the case of LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO, represented by its Chairman EDGARDO J. ANGARA v. THE COMMISION ON ELECTIONS and AGAPITO A. AQUINO, decided by the Supreme Court en banc as G. R. No. 161265 on Feb. 24, 2004. The decision was penned by Justice Tinga.
On Dec. 8, 2003, the General Counsel of the LDP, informed COMELEC “that only the Party Chairman, Senator Edgardo J. Angara, or his authorized representative may endorse the certificate of candidacy of the party’s official candidates.”
On Sept. 25, 2003, the LDP National Executive Council “unanimously passed a resolution granting full authority to Party Chairman Edgardo J. Angara to enter, negotiate and conclude a coalition agreement with other like-minded opposition parties, x x x with the sole purpose of uniting the political opposition and fielding a unity ticket for the May 10, 2004 elections.” OncDec. 3, 2003, “the LDP, together with the Puwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) and the Partido Demokratiko ng Pilipinas – LABAN (PDP-LABAN) forged a coalition to form the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP); x x x (and) subsequently adopted its resolution entitled: Resolution Choosing Mr. Fernando Poe, Jr. as the Standard Bearer of the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) for President of the Republic of the Philippines in the May 10, 2004 National Elections; x x x.”cxhanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
As LDP Secretary-General, Rep. Butz Aquino opposed the political maneuverings to back the candidacy of a non-party member. On Dec. 30, 2003, he filed his Answer to the Petition. The COMELEC heard the parties on oral arguments on the same day, after which the case was submitted for resolution. Meantime, as LDP Secretary-General, he issued a Certificate of Nomination (CONA) in favor of Sen. Panfilo Lacson as LDP candidate for President, which was then filed with the COMELEC.
On Jan. 6, 2004, the COMELEC rendered a decision,
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED with LEGAL EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor. The candidates for President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan Kagawad nominated and endorsed by LDP Chairman Edgardo J. Angara are recognized by the Commission as official candidates of LDP Angara Wing. The candidates from President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan Kagawad as nominated and endorsed by LDP Secretary General Agapito Butz Aquino are recognized as official candidates of LDP Aquino Wing. x x x. The two LDP Wings are further entitled to and be accorded the rights and privileges with corresponding legal obligations under Election Laws.”
Aggrieved, Sen. Angara filed the present petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
At the outset, the Supreme Court stated that “(t)he law accords special treatment to political parties. x x x. It is, therefore, in the interest of every political party not to allow persons it had not chosen to hold themselves out as representatives of the party. x x x. A certificate of candidacy makes known to the COMELEC that the person therein mentioned has been nominated by a duly authorized political group empowered to act and that it reflects accurately the sentiment of the nominating body. x x x. To prevent this occurrence, the COMELEC has the power and the duty to step in and enforce the law not only to protect the party but, more importantly, the electorate, in line with the Commissions broad constitutional mandate to ensure orderly elections.”
The Court then said “(t)he only issue in this case, as defined by the COMELEC itself, is who as between the Party Chairman and the Secretary General has the authority to sign certificates of candidacy of the official candidates of the party.“
“To resolve this simple issue,” the Court said, “the COMELEC need only to turn to the Party Constitution.”
The Court examined the LDP Constitution and said that it “has a set of national officers composed of, among others, the Party Chairman and the Secretary General. The Party Chairman is the Chief Executive Officer of the Party, whose powers and functions include:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
(1) To represent the Party in all external affairs and concerns, sign documents for and on its behalf, and call the meetings and be the presiding officer of the National Congress and the National Executive Council.”ςrνll
Then, the Court said that the “(t)he Secretary General, on the other hand, assists the Party Chairman in overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Party. Among his powers and functions is:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
(1) When empowered by the Party Chairman, to sign documents for and on behalf of the Party.”ςrνll
The Court concluded that the “(t)he Secretary General’s authority to sign documents, therefore, is only a delegated power, which originally pertains to the Party Chairman.”
“Neither does the Party Secretary General have the power to nominate the official candidates of the LDP,” the Court said, which power “resides in the governing bodies of the Party. In particular, the National Congress, which is the highest policy-making and governing body of the Party, has the power
(6) To nominate the official candidates of the Party for President, Vice President, and Senators, and, whenever the corresponding conventions fail to meet or to make the requisite nominations, to nominate the official candidates for municipal city, congressional district, provincial and regional elective offices.”ςrνll
It said that COMELEC “misapplied equity in the present case. For all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. Equity is described as justice without legality, which simply means that it cannot supplant, although it may, as often happens, supplement the law. The COMELEC should have decided the case on the basis of the party constitution and election laws. x x x. Worse, the COMELEC divided the LDP into wings, each of which may nominate candidates for every elective position.Both wings are also entitled to representatives in the election committees that the Commission may create.”
νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
“As if to rationalize its folly,” the Court said, “the COMELEC invokes the constitutional policy towards a free and open party system. This policy, however, envisions a system that shall evolve according to the free choice of the people, not one molded and whittled by the COMELEC. When the Constitution speaks of a multi-party system, it does not contemplate the COMELEC splitting parties into two. For doing just that, this pretender to the throne of King Solomon acted whimsically and capriciously. Certiorari lies against it, indeed.”
The Supreme Court annuled questioned COMELEC Resolution and granted it in part. It ordered the COMELEC “to recognize as official candidates of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino only those whose Certificates of Candidacy are signed by LDP Party Chairman Senator Edgardo J. Angara or his duly authorized representative/s.”
The decison of Justice Tinga has this interesting opening lines:
“The Bible tells the story of how two women came to King Solomon to decide whoamong them is the babys true mother. King Solomon, in his legendary wisdom, awarded the baby to the woman who gave up her claim after he threatened to split the baby into two.
It is fortunate that the two women did not ask the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to decide the babys fate; otherwise, it would have cut the baby in half. For that is what the COMELEC exactly did in this case.”
