DAYAO vs. LPGMA facts

DAYAO V. LPGMA Antonio D. Dayao, Rolando P. Ramirez, Adelio R. Capco (GR 193643), and Federation of Philippine Industries, Inc. (FPII) (GR 193704), PETITIONERS, Versus COMELEC and LPGMA, RESPONDENTS. FACTS: -

-

-

-

-

-

-

LPGMA (LPG Marketers Association, Inc.) filed a petition for registration as a party list organization for the purpose of participating in the May 10, 2010 elections. (Party-List System Act, RA 7941) COMELEC approved LPGMA’s petition on January 15, 2010. Petitioners filed a complaint with COMELEC to cancel LPGMA’s registration on grounds that LPGMA does not represent a marginalized sector of the society because its incorporators, officers and members are not marginalized or underrepresented citizens since they are actually marketers and independent refillers of LPG that control 45% of the national LPG market and have significant ownership interests in various LPG refilling plants. LPGMA countered that (1) Sec. 5(2), Art. VI of the 1987 constitution does not require that party-list representatives must be members of the marginalized and/or underrepresented sector of the society; (2) that the grounds cited are not mentioned in Sec. 6 of RA 7941; and (3) petitioners are just trying to resurrect their lost chance to oppose the petition for registration. COMELEC dismissed the complaint on August 5, 2010 for two reasons: (1) ground for cancellation cited by petitioners is not found in Sec. 6 of RA 7941; and (2) complaint is a belated opposition to LPGMA’s registration which was approved with finality on January 5, 2010. Subsequent Motion for reconsideration for the complaint on September 6, 2010 was also dismissed. Petitioners implored the Court to determine the correctness of COMELEC’s resolutions. On March 17, 2011, the court received from the Office of the Solicitor General a Manifestation and Motion to remand since the COMELEC failed to resolve the factual issue on the qualifications of LPGMA as a registered party-list organization and have committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for cancellation of LPGMA’s accreditation. COMELEC’s reasons, as stated above, if not incorrect are contestable: (1) ground for cancellation cited by petitioners are valid as per Par. 5 of Sec. 6 of 7941 includes Sec. 2 of RA 7941 “the party-list system seeks to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized, and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties to become members of the House of Representatives.”; and (2) There was no valid justification for the dismissal of the complaint for cancellation. “An opposition to a petition for registration is not a condition precedent to the filing of a complaint for cancellation.” On a resolution dated December 13, 2012, COMELEC conducted an automatic review for the qualifications of party-list groups. LPGMA was found compliant with the guidelines set by law and jurisprudence and its accreditation retained for purposes of the 2013 party-list elections. Petitions were dismissed as the issues and all other relevant questions regarding LPGMA’s qualifications are passed upon by the COMELEC in its resolution dated December 13, 2012.