BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – The Supreme Court has nullified the Commission on Elections (Comelec) resolution that approved the post-election substitution of nominees for the Komunidad ng Pamilya, Pasyente at Persons with Disabilities (P3PWD) Party-List in the 2022 elections.
The substitute nominees included Negrense lawyer Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon.
In a decision authored by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the tribunal directed P3PWD to submit new nominees for the 19th Congress but explicitly prohibited the renomination of those whose substitutions were invalidated.
Essentially, the decision emphasizes the high court’s stance on ensuring adherence to electoral laws, particularly regarding party-list nominee substitutions, and requires the P3PWD Party-List to comply with directives to submit new nominees for the 19th Congress.
The tribunal stressed ruled that the decision is immediately executory, reinforcing its urgency.
The P3PWD Party-List was included in the final list of party-list candidates for the 2022 elections, which was published by COMELEC on Dec. 29, 2021.
On election day, May 9, 2022, P3PWD garnered 391,174 votes, equivalent to 1.0629 percent of the total votes cast for party-list organizations, securing one seat in the House of Representatives (HOR) for the 19th Congress.
Subsequently, on May 26, 2022, the Comelec proclaimed Grace S. Yeneza as P3PWD’s representative in the HOR, and she took her oath of office.
However, Yeneza, along with the remaining four P3PWD nominees, later resigned, citing various personal reasons.
On June 14, 2022, the P3PWD Party-List submitted a request to the Comelec to withdraw all five of its original nominees and proposed the following substitutes: Guanzon, Rosalie J. Garcia, Cherrie B. Belmonte-Lim, Donnabel C. Tenorio, and Rodolfo B. Villar Jr.
The following day, the Comelec issued Minute Resolution No. 22-0774, approving the withdrawal and substitution of nominees.
In response, the Duty to Energize the Republic Through the Enlightenment of the Youth (Duterte Youth) Party-List filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to annul the resolution.
They also requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) to (1) prevent the Comelec from proclaiming Guanzon as a P3PWD representative and (2) prohibit the House of Representatives from allowing her to assume office.
Despite the pending petition, Comelec proclaimed Guanzon as the qualified nominee of the P3PWD Party-List to represent the group in the House of Representatives.
Guanzon subsequently took her oath of office and submitted it to the House on June 27, 2022.
However, on June 29, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a TRO, barring the Comelec from implementing Minute Resolution No. 22-0774, which had approved the substitution of nominees.
This halted the full recognition of Guanzon’s assumption as the party-list representative in the House.
In addressing the petition filed by the Duterte Youth Party-List, the Court first clarified the applicable provision of the Party-List System Act (Republic Act No. 7941).
Both the Duterte Youth and Guanzon argued that Section 16 of the Act was the relevant provision in this case.
Section 16 allows for the submission of additional nominees when the original list of nominees has been exhausted due to vacancies in the seats reserved for party-list representatives.
This provision became central to the dispute, as the high court had to determine whether the process undertaken by P3PWD Party-List in withdrawing and substituting nominees adhered to this legal standard.
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 16 of the Party-List System Act applies solely to vacancies in a party-list representative’s seat in Congress, not to the list of nominees.
This section can only be invoked when a seat in Congress is legally occupied, starting at noon on June 30 and continuing throughout the representative’s term.
In the case of P3PWD, the tribunal found that there was no vacancy in the party-list’s seat before the resignation of all its nominees, meaning there was no legal vacancy to fill under Section 16.
Instead, the Court held that Section 8 of the Act was the applicable provision.
This section prohibits changes to the names or order of nominees once the list has been submitted to the Comelec, with exceptions for situations such as the death, withdrawal, or incapacitation of a nominee. These changes must also adhere to substitution deadlines set by the Comelec.
The SC ruled that the deadlines for party-list nominee substitutions set by the Comelec remain in effect even after the elections.
By allowing substitutions beyond this deadline, the Comelec violated the constitutional right of the people to be informed.
The tribunal emphasized that the timing of nominee substitutions is crucial, as it ensures voters can make informed choices by knowing the identities of party-list nominees before election ay.
Given that the substitution of nominees was invalid, P3PWD must now submit additional nominees.
However, the high court clarified that since the party-list could not legally substitute Guanzon and the others before the start of P3PWD’s term in Congress, it is prohibited from renominating them for the 19th Congress.
In addition, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt charge against Guanzon for allegedly violating the sub judice rule when she discussed the tribunal’s TRO in public.
The sub judice rule limits public comments and disclosures about ongoing judicial proceedings to prevent prejudging the matter and influencing the court’s decision.
The court held that Guanzon’s public remarks did not threaten its independence, but reminded her to adhere to Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
This canon requires lawyers to conduct themselves properly in all professional and personal interactions while upholding the dignity of the legal profession.
Specifically, Section 19 of Canon II prohibits lawyers from publicly discussing ongoing court cases, as such comments could influence public perception and impact court decisions.
The high court also dismissed a separate contempt charge against Guanzon for allegedly violating the TRO when she assumed her position in the House of Representatives, filed a bill, and referred to herself as “Cong” or “Congresswoman” on social media.
The court clarified that the TRO was directed at the Comelec and the House of Representatives, not at Guanzon, and therefore, she could not have violated it.
However, the court reminded her that lawyers are prohibited from knowingly or maliciously spreading false information, as per Canon II of the CPRA./PN
