Abayon

vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) | G.R. No. 189466 |

Feb. 11, 2010

Nature of the case: Special civil action for certiorari assailing HRET’s assumption of
jurisdiction over the petitioner
Discussed: Authority of HRET to pass upon the eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list
groups that won seats in the lower house of Congress

• SUMMARY OF THE COURT’S RULING:
o First, the court qualified and confirmed that party-list representatives are
considered members of the House of Representatives, and then applied
Section 17 of Article VI of the Constitution.
o “What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution
provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to,
among other things, the qualifications of the members of the House of
Representatives. Since, as pointed out above, party-list nominees are
"elected members" of the House of Representatives no less than the district
representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their
qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the
party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the
nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of
Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating
to his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.”

FACTS:
• Petitioner Daryl Grace J. Abayon – 1st nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-list
o Said party list won a seat in the House of Representatives in 2007
• Respondent Perfecto Lucaban, Ronyl Dela Cruz and Agustin Doroga (voters
standing), filed a petition for Quo Warranto with HRET
o Contending that the party-list was not eligible since it did not represent the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors
o Also assailed the eligibility of Abayon, contending that she does not belong
to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, being the wife of an
incumbent congressional district representative
§ She also ran and lost as nominee of a different party-list (An Waray)
in 2004
• Petitioner Abayon countered that the COMELEC had already confirmed the status of
Aangat Tayo as a national multi-sectoral party-list organization representing the
workers, women, youth, urban poor, and elderly and that she belonged to the
women sector.
o Abayon also claimed that although she was the second nominee of An Waray
party-list organization during the 2004 elections, she could not be regarded
as having lost a bid for an elective office.
o Pointed out that HRET had no jurisdiction over the petition for quo
warranto since respondent Lucaban and the others with him collaterally
attacked the registration of Aangat Tayo as a party-list organization, a
matter that fell within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
§ It was Aangat Tayo that was taking a seat in the House of
Representatives, and not Abayon who was just its nominee. All
 questions involving her eligibility as first nominee, said Abayon,
were internal concerns of Aangat Tayo.
• On July 16, 2009 – HRET issued an order dismissing the petition as against
Aangat Tayo but held its jurisdiction over the qualifications of Abayon.
• Not important (just in case it is asked) - the case was consolidated with Palparan vs.
HRET since the two cases raise the common issue

ISSUES + RULING
WON HRET has jurisdiction over the qualifications of the petitioner as a nominee of
Aangat Tayo, which won and took a seat in the House of Representatives (HOR) in the 2007
elections? YES.

• Petitioner’s theory: Republic Act (R.A.) 7941, the Party-List System Act, vests in
the COMELEC the authority to determine which parties or organizations have the
qualifications to seek party-list seats in the House of Representatives during the
elections.
o HRET dismissed the petitions for quo warranto filed with it insofar as they
sought the disqualifications of Aangat Tayo and Bantay. Since petitioner
Abayon was not elected into office but were chosen by their respective
organizations under their internal rules, the HRET has no jurisdiction to
inquire into and adjudicate their qualifications as nominees.
o If at all, says petitioner Abayon, such authority belongs to the COMELEC,
which already upheld her qualification as nominee of Aangat Tayo for the
women sector.

• COURT:
o Although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is
not the organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of
Representatives. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, identifies who the
"members" of that House are:
§ Sec. 5. (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more
than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who
shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces,
cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of
their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-
list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
o 2 kinds of HOR members:
1) Representatives from legislative districts
2) Representatives elected thru the party-list system
Ø It is the party-list representatives who are "elected" into office,
not their parties or organizations.
o These representatives are elected, however, through that
peculiar party-list system that the Constitution
authorized and that Congress by law established where
the voters cast their votes for the organizations or parties
to which such party-list representatives belong.
The Party-List System Act itself recognizes party-list nominees as
"members of the House of Representatives”, thus:
 o Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall promote proportional
representation in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional
and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will
enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-
defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives.
Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and
open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation
of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by
enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature,
and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.

Jurisprudence: In Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 v. Commission on Elections
A party-list representative is in every sense "an elected member of the House of
Representatives." Although the vote cast in a party-list election is a vote for a party, such
vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would
eventually sit in the House of Representatives.

“What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the
qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. Since, as pointed out
above, party-list nominees are "elected members" of the House of Representatives no
less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon
their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the party or
organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his
oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own
jurisdiction begins.”


DISPOSITION: PETITION DISMISSED

NO SEPARATE, CONCURRING OR DISSENTING OPINION