1 | HDDISOMANGCOP
LICO v COMELEC
GR Number/ Case Date: GR 205505 / September 29, 2015
Ponente: Sereno, CJ.
Petitioners: Aty. Isidro Q. Lico, et. al
Respondents: COMELEC, et. al
Subject: Consti 1
Topic: Electoral Tribunals
Rule of Law:
● Article VI, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution. The Senate and the House of Representatives
shall each have an electoral tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. Each
electoral tribunal shall be composed of nine members, three of whom shall be
Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the
remaining six shall be members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the
case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from
the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list
system represented therein. The senior Justice in the electoral tribunal shall be its
chairman.
Doctrine: The equipoise doctrine provides that when the evidence in an issue of fact is in
equipoise, that is, when the respective sets of evidence of both parties are evenly
balanced, the party having the burden of proof fails in that issue.
Facts:
● The instant case involves two rival factions of the same party-list organization,
the Adhikaing Tinataguyod ng Kooperatiba (Ating Koop). One group is headed by
petitioner Atty. Isidro Q. Lico (the Lico Group), who represents th organization in
the House of Representatives, and the other group by Amparo T. RImas
(respondents herein, or the RImas Group).
● Ating Koop is a multi-sectoral party-list organization which was registered on
November 16, 2009 under RA No 7941 (Party-List System Act).
● 03/10/2010. Ating Koop filed with the COMELEC the list of its nominees, with
Lico as the first nominee, and Mascariña as the second nominee.
● 06/09/2010. Ating Koop issued Central Committee Resolution 2010-01, which
incorporated a term-sharing agreement signed by its nominees, wherein Lico
was to serve as Party-List Representative for the first year of the three-year
term.
● 12/09/2010. Lico took his oath of office and thereafter assumed office, as Ating
Koop won in the elections.
● 05/14/2011. Ating Koop held its Second National Convention during which it
introduced amendments to its Constitution and By-laws.Among the salient
changes was the composition of the Central Committee, which would still be
composed of 15 representatives but with five each coming from Luzon, Visayas
and Mindanao (5-5-5 equal representation). The amendments likewise
mandated the holding of an election of Central Committee members within six
months after the Second National Convention. In effect, the amendments cut
short the three-year term of the incumbent members (referred to hereafter as
the Interim Central Committee) of the Central Committee.13 The Interim
Central Committee was dominated by members of the Rimas Group.
● 12/05/2011. Lico was expelled from Ating Koop on the grounds of malversation,
graft and corruption, and disloyalty. Lico’s refusal to honor the term-agreement
was the factual basis for disloyalty.
● 12/19/2011. The Lico Group held a special meeting in Cebu City where new
members of the Central Committee, as well as new set of officers, were elected.
● 01/21/2012. The Rimas Group held a Special National Convention in Parañaque
City, at which a new Central Committee and a new set of officers were
constituted. Members of the Rimas Group won the election and occupied all the
corresponding seats.

● 03/16/2012. The Rimas Group filed with COMELEC a petition praying that Lico
be ordered to vacate the office of Ating Koop in the House of Representatives,
and for the succession of Mascariña as Ating Koop’s representative.
● 04/14/2012. The Rimas Group filed an Amended Petition impleading the entire
Lico Group, and praying that the COMELEC nullify the Cebu meeting and
recognize the Parañaque convention.
● 07/18/2012. The COMELEC Second Division upheld the expulsion of petitioner
Lico from Ating Koop and declared Mascariña as the duly qualified nominee of
the party-list group. The Second Division characterized the issue of the validity
of the expulsion of petitioner Lico from Ating Koop as an intra-party leadership
dispute, which it could resolve as an incident of its power to register political
parties.
● 01/31/2013. COMELEC en banc denied Lico’s subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration, holding that his expulsion from Ating Koop affected his
qualifications as member of the House, and therefore it was the HRET that had
jurisdiction over the petition.
● At the same time, COMELEC upheld the validity of Lico’s expulsion from the
party-list, explaining that when the Interim Central Committee ousted him, the
said Committee’s members remained in hold-over capacity even after their
terms had expired, and that the COMELEC was not in a position to substitute its
judgment for that of Ating Koop with respect to the cause of the expulsion.
● The COMELEC En Banc recognized the Rimas Group as the legitimate
representative of Ating Koop considering that: 1) it found nothing in the records
to show that the Lico Group made a valid call for the special election of Central
Committee members as required under the Amended Constitution and By-
Laws;2) there is nothing on record indicating that a minimum of 100 attended
the Cebu meeting; and 3) the Parañaque convention was in accordance with
Ating Koop' s Amended Constitution and By-Laws.
2 | HDDISOMANGCOP
Issues and Holding:
1) Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction over the expulsion of a Member of the House of
Representatives from his party-list organization?
No, COMELEC does not have jurisdiction. HRET has the sole jurisdiction on cases
regarding the qualifications of its bona fide members.
In the case of party-list representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over a
disqualification case upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of he
nominee, and assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives. In this
case, COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as a winning party-list group; Lico took his oath
and assumed office. Thus, it is the HRET that has jurisdiction over the disqualification
case.
2) Which group is the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop?
The legitimate leadership lies in the Interim Central Commitee.
The COMELEC’s jurisdiction to settle the struggle for leadership within the party is well-
established, as it is incident to its enforcement powers.
Neither of the elections held in Cebu and Parañaque was valid, as the amendments to
the constitution was not registered with the COMELEC. Moreover, both meetings failed
to establish due notice and a quorom.
Since both groups failed to establish their cases (doctrine of equipoise), the legitimate
leadership is the Interim Central Committee, whose members remain as such in a hold-
over capacity.
The existing Interim Central Committee is still a legitimate entity with full authority to
bind the party-list and to carry out powers despite the lapse of the term of its members
 3 | HDDISOMANGCOP

on November 14, 2011, since no successors had been validly elected at the time, or
since.

Ruling: Petition is GRANTED. The COMELEC en banc resolution and COMELEC Second
Division Resolution are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. A new one is entered DECLARING that
the legitimate Central Committee and set of officers legitimately representing Ating Koop
are the Interim Central Committee and set of officers prior to the split of Ating Koop.