G.R. NO. 188920 Case Digest

G.R. NO. 188920, February 16, 2010

Jose Atienza, Jr., etc., petitioners

vs COMELEC

Ponente: Abad

Facts:

July 5, 2005, Drilon, the president of LP announced his party's withdrawal of support for the administration of PGMA but Atienza, LP Chairman, and a number of party members denounced Drilon's move claiming that he made the announcement without consulting the party.

March 2, 2006, Atienza hosted a party conference to discuss local autonomy and party matters, when convened, the party proceeded to declare all positions in the party vacant and elected new officers, making Atienza as the new president of LP. Drilon immediately filed a petition with the COMELEC to nullify the elections. Drilon is claiming that the election was illegal because the party was not properly convened. Drilon also claims that the officers of LP were elected to a fixed 3 year term that was yet to end on November 2007.

Atienza claimed that the majority of LP attended the assembly and that the amendments of LP's constitution were not properly ratified thus the term of Drilon and other officers already ended on July 2006.

COMELEC ruled in favor of Drilon, Hence, this petition,

Issues: (1) Whether or not the LP, which was not impleaded in the case, is an indispensable party; (2) Whether or not petitioners Atienza, et al., as ousted LP members, have the requisite legal standing to question Roxas’ election. (3) Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it upheld the NECO membership that elected respondent Roxas as LP president; (4) Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it resolved the issue concerning the validity of the NECO meeting without first resolving the issue concerning the expulsion of Atienza, et al. from the party; (5) Whether or not respondents Roxas, et al. violated petitioners Atienza, et al.’s constitutional right to due process by the latter’s expulsion from the party.

Held:

(1) Respondents Roxas, et al. assert that the Court should dismiss the petition for failure of petitioners Atienza, et al. to implead the LP as an indispensable party.  Roxas, et al. point out that, since the petition seeks the issuance of a writ of mandatory injunction against the NECO, the controversy could not be adjudicated with finality without making the LP a party to the case.

(2) Respondents Roxas, et al. also claim that petitioners Atienza, et al. have no legal standing to question the election of Roxas as LP president because they are no longer LP members, having been validly expelled from the party or having joined other political parties. As non-members, they have no stake in the outcome of the action.

(3) .  In assailing respondent Roxas’ election as LP president, petitioners Atienza, et al. claim that the NECO members allowed to take part in that election should have been limited to those in the list of NECO members appearing in the party’s 60th Anniversary Souvenir Program. Atienza, et al. allege that respondent Drilon, as holdover LP president, adopted that list in the earlier cases before the COMELEC and it should thus bind respondents Roxas, et al.  The Court’s decision in the earlier cases, said Atienza, et al., anointed that list for the next party election.  Thus, Roxas, et al. in effect defied the Court’s ruling when they removed Atienza as party chairman and changed the NECO’s composition.

(4) Petitioners Atienza, et al. lament that the COMELEC selectively exercised its jurisdiction when it ruled on the composition of the NECO but refused to delve into the legality of their expulsion from the party.  The two issues, they said, weigh heavily on the leadership controversy involved in the case.  The previous rulings of the Court, they claim, categorically upheld the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over intra-party leadership disputes.

(5) Petitioners Atienza, et al. argue that their expulsion from the party is not a simple issue of party membership or discipline; it involves a violation of their constitutionally-protected right to due process of law.  They claim that the NAPOLCO and the NECO should have first summoned them to a hearing before summarily expelling them from the party.  According to Atienza, et al., proceedings on party discipline are the equivalent of administrative proceedings and are, therefore, covered by the due process requirements laid down in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations.