357 SCRA 496, May 05, 2001

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 523 file:///D:/My Documents/Law School Ebooks/Constitutional Law 2/Bant...
G.R. No. 177271. May 4, 2007.*
BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT OR BA-RA 7941, represented by

MR. AMEURFINO E. CINCO, Chairman, AND URBAN
POOR FOR LEGAL REFORMS (UP-LR), represented by
MRS. MYRNA P. PORCARE, Secretary-General,
petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
BIYAHENG PINOY, KAPATIRAN NG MGA
NAKAKULONG NA WALANG SALA (KAKUSA),
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL
ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT),
AHON PINOY, AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ALLIANCE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (AGAP), PUWERSA NG
BAYANING ATLETA (PBA), ALYANSA NG MGA
GRUPONG HALIGI NG AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA
PARA SA MAMAMAYAN,
_______________
*
EN BANC.
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. Commission on
Elections
INC. (AGHAM), BABAE PARA SA KAUNLARAN (BABAE

KA), AKSYON SAMBAYANAN (AKSA), ALAY SA BAYAN
NG MALAYANG PROPESYUNAL AT REPORMANG
KALAKAL (ABAY-PARAK), AGBIAG TIMPUYOG
ILOCANO, INC. (AGBIAG!), ABANTE ILONGGO, INC.
(ABA ILONGGO), AANGAT TAYO (AT), AANGAT ANG
KABUHAYAN (ANAK), BAGO NATIONAL CULTURAL
SOCIETY OF THE PHILIPPINES (BAGO), ANGAT
ANTASKABUHAYAN PILIPINO MOVEMENT (AANGAT
KA PILIPINO), ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE
PROFESSIONAL (ABS), ASSOSASYON NG MGA
MALILIIT NA NEGOSYANTENG GUMAGANAP INC.
(AMANG), SULONG BARANGAY MOVEMENT,
KASOSYO PRODUCERS CONSUMER EXCHANGE
ASSOCIATION, INC. (KASOSYO), UNITED MOVEMENT
AGAINST DRUGS (UNI-MAD), PARENTS ENABLING
PARENTS (PEP), ALLIANCE OF NEO-CONSERVATIVES
(ANC), FILIPINOS FOR PEACE, JUSTICE AND
PROGRESS MOVEMENT (FPJPM), BIGKIS PINOY
MOVEMENT (BIGKIS), 1-UNITED TRANSPORT
KOALISYON (1-UNTAK), ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY
CONCERNS (ABC), BIYAYANG BUKID, INC.,
ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY
(ANAD), AKBAY PINOY OFW-NATIONAL INC., (APOI),
1 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
ALLIANCE TRANSPORT SECTOR (ATS), KALAHI

SECTORAL PARTY (ADVOCATES FOR OVERSEAS
FILIPINO) AND ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATORS,
PROFESSIONALS AND SENIORS (AAPS), respondents.
G.R. No. 177314. May 4, 2007.*
REP. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, KILOSBAYAN

FOUNDATION, BANTAY KATARUNGAN
FOUNDATION, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent.
Election Law; Political Parties; Certificates of Candidacy;

Court is unable to grant the desired plea of petitioners Bantay
Republic Act
VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 3
Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. Commission on Elections
(BA-RA 7941) and Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR) for
cancellation of accreditation on the grounds thus advanced in their
petition; In certiorari proceedings, the Court is not called upon to
decide factual issues and the case must be decided on the
undisputed facts on record.—The Court is unable to grant the
desired plea of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for
cancellation of accreditation on the grounds thus advanced in
their petition. For, such course of action would entail going over
and evaluating the qualities of the sectoral groups or parties in
question, particularly whether or not they indeed represent
marginalized/underrepresented groups. The exercise would
require the Court to make a factual determination, a matter
which is outside the office of judicial review by way of special civil
action for certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, the Court is not
called upon to decide factual issues and the case must be decided
on the undisputed facts on record. The sole function of a writ of
certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion and does not include a review of the tribunal’s
evaluation of the evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Nowhere in Republic Act No. 7941 is there

a requirement that the qualification of a party-list nominee be
determined simultaneously with the accreditation of an
organization.— Petitioners BA-RA 7941’s and UP-LR’s posture
that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it
granted the assailed accreditations without simultaneously
determining the qualifications of their nominees is without basis.
Nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is there a requirement that the
qualification of a party-list nominee be determined
simultaneously with the accreditation of an organization. And as
aptly pointed out by private respondent Babae Para sa Kaunlaran
(Babae Ka), Section 4 of R.A. No. 7941 requires a petition for
registration of a party-list organization to be filed with the
Comelec “not later than ninety (90) days before the election”
whereas the succeeding Section 8 requires the submission “not
later than fortyfive (45) days before the election” of the list of
names whence partylist representatives shall be chosen.
2 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
Same; Same; Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the

Comelec and the given rationale therefor is the right to
information.—Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the
information enshrined in the self-executory Section 7, Article III
of the Constitution, viz.: Sec.
7. The right of the people to information on matters of public

concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. Complementing and going
hand in hand with the right to information is another
constitutional provision enunciating the policy of full disclosure
and transparency in Government. We refer to Section 28, Article
II of the Constitution reading: Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable
conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a
policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest.
Same; Same; By weight of jurisprudence, any citizen can

challenge any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his right to
information and may seek its enforcement by mandamus.—The
right to information is a public right where the real parties in
interest are the public, or the citizens to be precise. And for every
right of the people recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding
duty on the part of those who govern to respect and protect that
right. This is the essence of the Bill of Rights in a constitutional
regime. Without a government’s acceptance of the limitations
upon it by the Constitution in order to uphold individual liberties,
without an acknowledgment on its part of those duties exacted by
the rights pertaining to the citizens, the Bill of Rights becomes a
sophistry. By weight of jurisprudence, any citizen can challenge
any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his right to information
and may seek its enforcement by mandamus. And since every
citizen by the simple fact of his citizenship possesses the right to
be informed, objections on ground of locus standi are ordinarily
unavailing.
Same; Same; Like all constitutional guarantees, the right to

information and its companion right of access to official records
are not absolute.—Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the
right to information and its companion right of access to official
records are not absolute. As articulated in Legaspi, supra, the
people’s right to know is limited to “matters of public concern” and
is further subject to such limitation as may be provided by law.
Similarly, the policy of full disclosure is confined to transactions
involving “public interest” and is subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law. Too, there is also the need of preserving a
measure of confidentiality on some
3 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 5
matters, such as military, trade, banking and diplomatic secrets

or those affecting national security.
Same; Same; Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of

discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for
a list of the nominees of the party-list groups subject of their
respective petitions, mandamus, therefore, lies.—If, as in Legaspi,
it was the legitimate concern of a citizen to know if certain
persons employed as sanitarians of a health department of a city
are civil service eligi-bles, surely the identity of candidates for a
lofty elective public office should be a matter of highest public
concern and interest. As may be noted, no national security or like
concerns is involved in the disclosure of the names of the
nominees of the party-list groups in question. Doubtless, the
Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing the
legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the nominees of
the party-list groups subject of their respective petitions.
Mandamus, therefore, lies.
Same; Same; As it were, there is absolutely nothing in R.A.

No. 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even
publishing through mediums other than the “Certified List” the
names of the party-list nominees.—The last sentence of Section 7
of R.A. 7941 reading: “[T]he names of the party-list nominees shall
not be shown on the certified list” is certainly not a justifying card
for the Comelec to deny the requested disclosure. To us, the
prohibition imposed on the Comelec under said Section 7 is
limited in scope and duration, meaning, that it extends only to the
certified list which the same provision requires to be posted in the
polling places on election day. To stretch the coverage of the
prohibition to the absolute is to read into the law something that
is not intended. As it were, there is absolutely nothing in R.A. No.
7941 that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even
publishing through mediums other than the “Cer-tified List” the
names of the party-list nominees. The Comelec obviously misread
the limited non-disclosure aspect of the provision as an absolute
bar to public disclosure before the May 2007 elections. The
interpretation thus given by the Comelec virtually tacks an
unconstitutional dimension on the last sentence of Section 7 of
R.A. No. 7941.
Same; Same; While the vote cast in a party-list elections is a

vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nomi-
nees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House

of Representatives.—The Comelec’s reasoning that a party-list
election is not an election of personalities is valid to a point. It
cannot be taken, however, to justify its assailed non-disclosure
stance which comes, as it were, with a weighty presumption of
4 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a fundamental right to

information. While the vote cast in a party-list elections 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.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari and Mandamus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Saguisag and Associates for petitioner.
Escudero, Marasigan, Vallente and E.H. Villareal for
Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement.
Mario E. Ongkiko for respondent.
Virgelio T. Nibungco collaborating counsel for
respondent PEP Coalition Party List.
Soller, Peig, Escat and Peig Law Offices for private
respondent Babae Para sa Kaunlaran (Babae Ka).
Eugene Michael B. De Vera for respondent ABS.
Divinagracia Singson Roa for private respondent
Association of Administrators, Professionals and Seniors
(AAPS).
Rodolfo P. Ortico for AANGAT KA PILIPINO.
GARCIA, J.:
Before the Court are these two consolidated petitions for

certiorari and mandamus to nullify and set aside certain
issuances of the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
respecting
7
VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 7

Elections
party-list groups which have manifested their intention to

participate in the party-list elections on May 14, 2007.
In the first petition, docketed as G.R. No. 177271,
petitioners Bantay Republic Act (BA-RA 7941, for short)
and the Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR, for short)
assail the various Comelec resolutions accrediting private
respondents Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the
forthcoming party-list elections on May 14, 2007 without
simultaneously determining whether or not their respective
nominees possess the requisite qualifications defined in
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, or the “Party-List System Act”
and belong to the marginalized and underrepresented
sector each seeks to represent. In the second, docketed as
G.R. No. 177314, petitioners Loreta Ann P. Rosales,
Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan
Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution 07-0724 dated
April 3, 2007 effectively denying their request for the
release or disclosure of the names of the nominees of the
fourteen (14) accredited participating party-list groups
mentioned in petitioner Rosales’ previous letter-request.
While both petitions commonly seek to compel the
Comelec to disclose or publish the names of the nominees of
the various party-list groups named in the petitions,1 the
petitioners in G.R. No. 177271 have the following
additional prayers: 1) that the 33 private respondents
named therein be “declare[d] as unqualified to participate
5 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
in the party-list elections as sectoral organizations, parties

or coalition for failure to comply with the guidelines
prescribed by the [Court] in [Ang Bagong Bayani v.
Comelec2]” and, 2) correspondingly, that the Comelec be
enjoined from allowing respondent groups from
participating in the May 2007 elections.
In separate resolutions both dated April 24, 2007, the
Court en banc required the public and private respondents
to
_______________
1
At least nine (9) party-list groups subject of the second petition are
respondents in the first petition.
2
G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001, 359 SCRA 698.

Elections
file their respective comments on the petitions within a

nonextendible period of five (5) days from notice. Apart
from respondent Comelec, seven (7) private respondents in
3
G.R. No. 177271 and one party-list group4 mentioned in

G.R. No. 177314 submitted their separate comments. In the
main, the separate comments of the private respondents
focused on the untenability and prematurity of the plea of
petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR to nullify their
accreditation as party-list groups and thus disqualify them
and their respective nominees from participating in the
May 14, 2007 party-list elections.
The facts:
On January 12, 2007, the Comelec issued Resolution No.
7804 prescribing rules and regulations to govern the filing
of manifestation of intent to participate and submission of
names of nominees under the party-list system of
representation in connection with the May 14, 2007
elections. Pursuant thereto, a number of organized groups
filed the necessary manifestations. Among these—and
ostensibly subsequently accredited by the Comelec to
participate in the 2007 elections—are 14 party-list groups,
namely: (1) BABAE KA; (2) ANG KASANGGA; (3) AKBAY
PINOY; (4) AKSA; (5) KAKUSA; (6) AHON PINOY; (7)
OFW PARTY; (8) BIYAHENG PINOY; (9) ANAD; (10)
AANGAT ANG KABUHAYAN; (11) AGBIAG; (12) BANAT;
(13) BANTAY LIPAD; (14) AGING PINOY. Petitioners BA-
RA 7941 and UP-LR presented a longer, albeit an
overlapping, list.
Subsequent events saw BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR filing
with the Comelec an Urgent Petition to Disqualify,
thereunder seeking to disqualify the nominees of certain
party-list organizations. Both petitioners appear not to
have the names of the nominees sought to be disqualified
since they still asked
_______________
3
ABS, Babae Ka, PEP, ANC, FPJPM, AAPS, AANGAT ka Pilipino and
KALAHI.
6 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
4
AKSA.
9 VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007

Elections
for a copy of the list of nominees. Docketed in the Comelec

as SPA Case No 07-026, this urgent petition has yet to be
resolved.
Meanwhile, reacting to the emerging public perception
that the individuals behind the aforementioned 14 party-
list groups do not, as they should, actually represent the
poor and marginalized sectors, petitioner Rosales, in G.R.
No. 177314, addressed a letter5 dated March 29, 2007 to
Director Alioden Dalaig of the Comelec’s Law Department
requesting a list of that groups’ nominees. Another letter6 of
the same tenor dated March 31, 2007 followed, this time
petitioner Rosales impressing upon Atty. Dalaig the
particular urgency of the subject request.
Neither the Comelec Proper nor its Law Department
officially responded to petitioner Rosales’ requests. The
April 13, 2007 issue of the Manila Bulletin, however,
carried the frontpage banner headline “COMELEC WON’T
BARE PARTYLIST NOMINEES,”7 with the following sub-
heading: “Abalos says party-list polls not personality
oriented.”
On April 16, 2007, Atty. Emilio Capulong, Jr. and ex-
Senator Jovito R. Salonga, in their own behalves and as
counsels of petitioner Rosales, forwarded a letter8 to the
Comelec formally requesting action and definitive decision
on Rosales’ earlier plea for information regarding the
names of several party-list nominees. Invoking their
constitutionally-guaranteed right to information, Messrs.
Capulong and Salonga at the same time drew attention to
the banner headline adverted to earlier, with a request for
the Comelec, “collectively or individually, to issue a formal
clarification, either confirming or denying . . . the banner
headline and the alleged statement of Chairman Benjamin
Abalos, Sr. x x x” Evidently
_______________
5
Annex “E,” of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.
6
Annex “F,” of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.
7
Petition (G.R. 177314), p. 8.
8
Annex “G,” of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.
10

Elections
unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was the issuance

of Comelec en banc Resolution 07-07249 under date April 3,
2007 virtually declaring the nominees’ names confidential
and in net effect denying petitioner Rosales’ basic
disclosure request. In its relevant part, Resolution 07-0724
reads as follows:
7 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
“RESOLVED, moreover, that the Commission will

disclose/publicize the names of party-list nominees in
connection with the May 14, 2007 Elections only after 3:00 p.m.
on election day.
Let the Law Department implement this resolution and reply
to all letters addressed to the Commission inquiring on the party-
list nominees.” (Emphasis added.)
According to petitioner Rosales, she was able to obtain a

copy of the April 3, 2007 Resolution only on April 21, 2007.
She would later state the observation that the last part of
the “Order empowering the Law Department to ‘implement
this resolution and reply to all letters . . . inquiring on the
party-list nominees’ is apparently a fool-proof bureaucratic
way to distort and mangle the truth and give the impression
that the antedated Resolution of April 3, 2007 . . . is the
final answer to the two formal requests . . . of Petitioners.”10
The herein consolidated petitions are cast against the
foregoing factual setting, albeit petitioners BA-RA 7941
and UPLR appear not to be aware, when they filed their
petition on April 18, 2007, of the April 3, 2007 Comelec
Resolution 07-0724.
To start off, petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR would
have the Court cancel the accreditation accorded by the
Comelec to the respondent party-list groups named in their
petition on the ground that these groups and their
respective nominees do not appear to be qualified. In the
words of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR, Comelec—
_______________
9
Annex “B,” of Petition in G.R. No. 177314.
10
Petition in G.R. SP. No. 177314, p. 3.
11
VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 11

Elections
“x x x committed grave abuse of discretion . . . when it granted the

assailed accreditations even without simultaneously determining
whether the nominees of herein private respondents are qualified
or not, or whether or not the nominees are likewise belonging to
the marginalized and underrepresented sector they claim to
represent in Congress, in accordance with No. 7 of the eight-point
guidelines prescribed by the Honorable Supreme in the Ang
11
Bagong Bayani case which states that, “not only the candidate
party or organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees.” In the case
of private respondents, public respondent Comelec granted
accreditations without the required simultaneous determination
of the qualification of the nominees as part of the accreditation
process of the party-list organization itself.” (Words in bracket
12
added; italization in the original)
The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of petitioners

BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of accreditation on
the grounds thus advanced in their petition. For, such
course of action would entail going over and evaluating the
qualities of the sectoral groups or parties in question,
particularly whether or not they indeed represent
8 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
marginalized/under-represented groups. The exercise

would require the Court to make a factual determination, a
matter which is outside the office of judicial review by way
of special civil action for certiorari. In certiorari
proceedings, the Court is not called upon to decide factual
issues and the case must be decided on the undisputed
facts on record.13 The sole function of a writ of certiorari is
to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion and does not include a review of the tribunal’s
evaluation of the evidence.14
_______________
11
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Part v. Commission on Elections,
supra note 2.
12
Page 5 of the petition in G. R. No. 177271.
13
Pobre v. Gonong, G. R. No. L-60575, March 16, 1987, 148 SCRA 553.
14
Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
138270, June 28, 2001, 360 SCRA 173; Oro v. Diaz, G.R. No. 140974, July
11, 2001, 361 SCRA 108.
12

Elections
Not lost on the Court of course is the pendency before the

Comelec of SPA Case No. 07-026 in which petitioners BA-
RA 7941 and UP-LR themselves seek to disqualify the
nominees of the respondent party-list groups named in
their petition.
Petitioners BA-RA 7941’s and UP-LR’s posture that the
Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it
granted the assailed accreditations without
simultaneously determining the qualifications of their
nominees is without basis. Nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is
there a requirement that the qualification of a party-list
nominee be determined simultaneously with the
accreditation of an organization. And as aptly pointed out
by private respondent Babae Para sa Kaunlaran (Babae
Ka), Section 4 of R.A. No. 7941 requires a petition for
registration of a party-list organization to be filed with the
Comelec “not later than ninety (90) days before the election”
whereas the succeeding Section 8 requires the submission
“not later than forty-five (45) days before the election” of the
list of names whence party-list representatives shall be
chosen.
Now to the other but core issues of the case. The petition
in G.R. No. 177314 formulates and captures the main
issues tendered by the petitioners in these consolidated
cases and they may be summarized as follows:
1. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal

the names of the nominees of the various party-list
groups, has violated the right to information and
free access to documents as guaranteed by the
Constitution; and
2. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated by the
Constitution to disclose to the public the names of
said nominees.
9 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
While the Comelec did not explicitly say so, it based its
refusal to disclose the names of the nominees of subject
party-list groups on Section 7 of R.A. 7941. This provision,
while commanding the publication and the posting in
polling places of a certified list of party-list system
participating groups,
13
VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 13

Elections
nonetheless tells the Comelec not to show or include the

names of the party-list nominees in said certified list.
Thus:
“SEC. 7. Certified List of Registered Parties.—The COMELEC

shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a
certified list of national, regional, or sectoral parties,
organizations or coalitions which have applied or who have
manifested their desire to participate under the party-list system
and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for posting in the
polling places on election day. The names of the party-list
nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.”
(Emphasis added.)
And doubtless part of Comelec’s reason for keeping the

names of the party list nominees away from the public is
deducible from the following excerpts of the news report
appearing in the adverted April 13, 2007 issue of the
Manila Bulletin:
“The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) firmed up yesterday

its decision not to release the names of nominees of sectoral
parties, organizations, or coalitions accredited to participate in
the party-list election which will be held simultaneously with the
May 14 mid-term polls.
COMELEC Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. . . . said he and
[the other five COMELEC] Commissioners—believe that the
party list elections must not be personality oriented.
Abalos said under [R.A.] 7941 . . . , the people are to vote for
sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions, not for their
nominees.
He said there is nothing in R.A. 7941 that requires the Comelec
to disclose the names of nominees. x x x” (Words in brackets and
emphasis added)
Insofar as the disclosure issue is concerned, the petitions

are impressed with merit.
Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the
information
14

Elections
enshrined in the self-executory15 Section 7, Article III of the

Constitution, viz.:
10 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
“Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public

concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.”
Complementing and going hand in hand with the right to

information is another constitutional provision enunciating
the policy of full disclosure and transparency in
Government. We refer to Section 28, Article II of the
Constitution reading:
“Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the

State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of
all its transactions involving public interest.”
The right to information is a public right where the real

parties in interest are the public, or the citizens to be
precise. And for every right of the people recognized as
fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part of those
who govern to respect and protect that right. This is the
essence of the Bill of Rights in a constitutional regime.16
Without a government’s acceptance of the limitations upon
it by the Constitution in order to uphold individual
liberties, without an acknowledgment on its part of those
duties exacted by the rights pertaining to the citizens, the
Bill of Rights becomes a sophistry.
By weight of jurisprudence, any citizen can challenge
any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his right to
information
_______________
15
Gonzales v. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835, August 14, 2000, 337 SCRA
733.
16
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. L-72119, May 19,
1987, 150 SCRA 530, citing Cooley.
15
VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 15

Elections
and may seek its enforcement by mandamus.17 And since

every citizen by the simple fact of his citizenship possesses
the right to be informed, objections on ground of locus
standi are ordinarily unavailing.18
Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to
information and its companion right of access to official
records are not absolute. As articulated in Legaspi, supra,
the people’s right to know is limited to “matters of public
concern” and is further subject to such limitation as may be
provided by law. Similarly, the policy of full disclosure is
confined to transactions involving “public interest” and is
subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. Too,
there is also the need of preserving a measure of
confidentiality on some matters, such as military, trade,
banking and diplomatic secrets or those affecting national
security.19
The terms “public concerns” and “public interest” have
11 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
eluded precise definition. But both terms embrace, to

borrow from Legaspi, a broad spectrum of subjects which
the public may want to know, either because these directly
affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally
whet the interest of an ordinary citizen. At the end of the
day, it is for the courts to determine, on a case to case
basis, whether or not at issue is of interest or importance to
the public.
If, as in Legaspi, it was the legitimate concern of a
citizen to know if certain persons employed as sanitarians
of a health department of a city are civil service eligibles,
surely the identity of candidates for a lofty elective public
office should be a matter of highest public concern and
interest.
_______________
17
Tañada v. Tuvera, G. R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27.
18
Bernas, The Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed.,
p. 334.
19
Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No.
130716, December 9, 1998, 299 SCRA 744.
16

Elections
As may be noted, no national security or like concerns is

involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of
the party-list groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec
committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing the
legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the
nominees of the party-list groups subject of their respective
petitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies.
The last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. 7941 reading:
“[T]he names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown
on the certified list” is certainly not a justifying card for the
Comelec to deny the requested disclosure. To us, the
prohibition imposed on the Comelec under said Section 7 is
limited in scope and duration, meaning, that it extends
only to the certified list which the same provision requires
to be posted in the polling places on election day. To stretch
the coverage of the prohibition to the absolute is to read
into the law something that is not intended. As it were,
there is absolutely nothing in R.A. No. 7941 that prohibits
the Comelec from disclosing or even publishing through
mediums other than the “Certified List” the names of the
party-list nominees. The Comelec obviously misread the
limited non-disclosure aspect of the provision as an
absolute bar to public disclosure before the May 2007
elections. The interpretation thus given by the Comelec
virtually tacks an unconstitutional dimension on the last
sentence of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941.
The Comelec’s reasoning that a party-list election is not
an election of personalities is valid to a point. It cannot be
taken, however, to justify its assailed non-disclosure stance
which comes, as it were, with a weighty presumption of
invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a fundamental right to
information.20 While the vote cast in a party-list elections is
12 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for
its nominees,
_______________
20
Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong, G.R. No. L-82380, April 29,
1988, 160 SCRA 861.
17
VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 17

Elections
who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the

House of Representatives.
The Court is very much aware of newspaper reports
detailing the purported reasons behind the Comelec’s
disinclination to release the names of party-list nominees.
It is to be stressed, however, that the Court is in the
business of dispensing justice on the basis of hard facts and
applicable statutory and decisional laws. And lest it be
overlooked, the Court always assumes, at the first instance,
the presumptive validity and regularity of official acts of
government officials and offices.
It has been repeatedly said in various contexts that the
people have the right to elect their representatives on the
basis of an informed judgment. Hence the need for voters to
be informed about matters that have a bearing on their
choice. The ideal cannot be achieved in a system of blind
voting, as veritably advocated in the assailed resolution of
the Comelec. The Court, since the 1914 case of Gardiner v.
Romulo,21 has consistently made it clear that it frowns upon
any interpretation of the law or rules that would hinder in
any way the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an
election.22 So it must be here for still other reasons
articulated earlier.
In all, we agree with the petitioners that respondent
Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose and release
the names of the nominees of the party-list groups named
in the herein petitions.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 177271 is partly
DENIED insofar as it seeks to nullify the accreditation of
the respondents named therein. However, insofar as it
seeks to compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the
names of the
_______________
21
G.R. No. L-8921, January 9, 1914, 26 Phil. 521.
22
Rodriquez v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-61545, December
27, 1982, 119 SCRA 465.
18

Elections
nominees of party-list groups, sectors or organizations

accredited to participate in the May 14, 2007 elections, the
13 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM
same petition and the petition in G.R. No. 177314 are

GRANTED. Accordingly, the Comelec is hereby ORDERED
to immediately disclose and release the names of the
nominees of the party-list groups, sectors or organizations
accredited to participate in the May 14, 2007 party-list
elections. The Comelec is further DIRECTED to submit to
the Court its compliance herewith within five (5) days from
notice hereof.
This Decision is declared immediately executory upon its
receipt by the Comelec.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario,
Velasco, Jr. and Nachura, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez and Corona, JJ., On Leave.
Carpio-Morales, J. I certify that J. Morales voted in
favor of the Decision.—Puno, C.J.
Petition in G.R. No. 177271 partly denied and partly

granted, while petition in G.R. No. 177314 granted.
Note.—Corollary to the right of a political party to

identify the people who constitute the association and to
select a standard bearer who best represents the party’s
ideologies and preference is the right to exclude persons in
its association and to lend its name and prestige to those
which it deems undeserving to represent its ideas. (Laban
ng Demokratikong Pilipino vs. Commission on Elections,
423 SCRA 665 [2004])
——o0o——
19
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
14 of 14 4/2/2019, 10:46 AM

357 SCRA 496, May 05, 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

357 SCRA 496, May 05, 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

357 SCRA 496, May 05, 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 523 file:///D:/My Documents/Law School Ebooks/Constitutional Law 2/Bant...

G.R. No. 177271. May 4, 2007.*

BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT OR BA-RA 7941, represented by

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

INC. (AGHAM), BABAE PARA SA KAUNLARAN (BABAE

ALLIANCE TRANSPORT SECTOR (ATS), KALAHI

G.R. No. 177314. May 4, 2007.*

REP. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, KILOSBAYAN

Election Law; Political Parties; Certificates of Candidacy;

VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 3

Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. Commission on Elections

Same; Same; Same; Nowhere in Republic Act No. 7941 is there

Same; Same; Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. Commission on Elections

7. The right of the people to information on matters of public

Same; Same; By weight of jurisprudence, any citizen can

Same; Same; Like all constitutional guarantees, the right to

VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 5

Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. Commission on Elections

matters, such as military, trade, banking and diplomatic secrets

Same; Same; Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of

Same; Same; As it were, there is absolutely nothing in R.A.

Same; Same; While the vote cast in a party-list elections is a

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. Commission on Elections

nees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House

invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a fundamental right to

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.

Before the Court are these two consolidated petitions for

VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 7

party-list groups which have manifested their intention to

in the party-list elections as sectoral organizations, parties

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

file their respective comments on the petitions within a

G.R. No. 177271 and one party-list group4 mentioned in

9 VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007

for a copy of the list of nominees. Docketed in the Comelec

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was the issuance

“RESOLVED, moreover, that the Commission will

According to petitioner Rosales, she was able to obtain a

VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 11

“x x x committed grave abuse of discretion . . . when it granted the

The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of petitioners

marginalized/under-represented groups. The exercise

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Not lost on the Court of course is the pendency before the

1. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal

VOL. 523, MAY 4, 2007 13

nonetheless tells the Comelec not to show or include the

“SEC. 7. Certified List of Registered Parties.—The COMELEC

And doubtless part of Comelec’s reason for keeping the

“The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) firmed up yesterday

Insofar as the disclosure issue is concerned, the petitions

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

enshrined in the self-executory15 Section 7, Article III of the

“Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public

Complementing and going hand in hand with the right to