‘Disqualified party-list groups can appeal to SC’

MANILA, Philippines - Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and University of the Philippines law professor Dan Calica Jr. claimed that the disqualified party-list groups could still file their appeal at the Supreme Court (SC), contrary to the opinion of election lawyer Romulo Macalintal as legal experts were divided over the issue.

De Lima and Calica said there is no rule prohibiting the party-list groups from questioning their disqualification by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) before the SC.

“Resort to the Supreme Court via certiorari is always an available remedy,” explained De Lima, a popular election lawyer before she joined the government. She had served as counsel for Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III.

She said the groups could avail of relief from the high court if they would be able to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of Comelec in its decision to disqualify them from next year’s party-list elections.

Calica, an expert in litigation who topped Class 2000 of the UP College of Law, agreed with De Lima.

Contrary to the belief of Macalintal that the disqualified groups may no longer question the jurisdiction of the poll body before the high court since they have already submitted to its processes for revocation of accreditation and registration earlier, Calica said they could still seek relief from the SC.

“As a rule, one can raise issue of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding, as proceedings by tribunal without jurisdiction are null and void,” he explained.

The UP law professor stressed that the estoppel rule, which prohibits a party from asserting a claim that is inconsistent with a position it took earlier, applies only to extreme case.

“A party is estopped when it participated in the proceeding and then raises issue of jurisdiction after a tribunal issued adverse decision. But this happens only in extreme situations,” he said.

Macalintal said last Wednesday that the move of disqualified party-list groups to seek remedy from the high court could be futile.

He believes the disqualified party-list groups are estopped from questioning the authority of the Comelec to review their qualifications.

In this case, the Comelec already directed the party-list groups as early as May to submit documents of proof of their compliance with the requirements provided by election laws, Macalintal said. Even then, they did not question Comelec’s directive, he said.

“All party-list groups, including those disqualified, submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Comelec without raising the issue of whether or not Comelec has authority to review the qualifications of party-list groups, including those that have already been previously accredited and won seats in Congress,” he said.

Therefore, it is already late for the groups to go to the SC, he said.

The SC itself is not a trier of facts, which the Comelec used in disqualifying the party-list groups in the first place, he added.

“Unless Comelec violated the party-list law or abused its discretion, its decision against these party-list groups stand valid and subsisting,” Macalintal added.

Ako Bicol party-list group questioned before the high court on Tuesday the legality of Comelec’s decision that junked their bid in the elections.

“Respondent Comelec has no power to determine the qualifications of party-list representatives” and impose “arbitrary assumption that to be qualified as a party-list, petitioner must represent financially poor and destitute constituents,” Ako Bicol said.

But Ako Bicol cited other grounds in its allegations of grave abuse of discretion against Comelec, violation of its right to due process and disenfranchisement of over 1.5 million votes it garnered in May 2010.