Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
____Division
Manila
 

1NETWORK MOVEMENT, INC.                         SC-GR. NO.________

Represented by it’s President,

eduardo de vera cadawan

petitioner

--versus-                                                              --for—

commission on elections

Represented by it’s Chairman

JOSE A.R. MELO                                                   

CERTIORARI                                              respondent

X------------------------------------------X

                                         

      PETITION

          COMES NOW, petitioner 1network Movement, Inc. duly

represented by Eduardo De Vera Cadawan through the undersigned
counsel in the above-entitled case, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states and alleges:
I.                   NATURE OF THE PETITION.

1.     This is a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the resolution of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC for brevity)
Second Division dated October 13, 2009 which is
referred as Annex “B” hereof pertaining to the petition
for accreditation of 1network Movement, Inc. before the
COMELEC in the Party List System in the Philippines;

              Wherefore, premises considered, this petition is

hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

SGD. NICODEMO T. FERRER

Presiding Commissioner

SGD. LUCENITO N. TAGLE               SGD. ELIAS R. YUSOPH

     Commissioner                                      Commissioner

2.     That petitioner was able to timely file the Motion For
Reconsideration of such resolution of the Comelec
Division. Unfortunately, the COMELEC EN BANC denied
said motion on it’s resolution dated November 17, 2009;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for

reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

                                                                  

                                                                   SGD.
ELIAS R. YUSOPH

                                                                            
 Commissioner

We Concur:

                                      SGD. JOSE A.R. MELO

                                                Chairman

SGD. RENE V. SARMIENTO                             SGD.

NICODEMO T. FERRER

          Commissioner                                               

Commissioner

                  

     SGD. LUCENITO N. TAGLE                    SGD. ARMANDO

C. VELASCO

              Commissioner                                              
Commissioner

                                           SGD. GREGORIO Y.

LARRAZABAL

                                                     Commissioner

3.     That prior of petitioner’s knowledge of said resolution

denying the motion for reconsideration, 1network
Movement had decided to file and was able to caused
the filing of MANIFESTATION OF INTENT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM OF
REPRESENTATION IN THE MAY 10, 2010 ELECTIONS 
by way of filing a motion to admit such manifestation
which are referred as annex “E” and “D” respectively;

4.     That petitioner is now assailing the propriety of the

resolutions of the COMELEC in dismissing the petition
and hereby raises pure question of laws and considering
 that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy
available due to urgency in as much as the campaign
period and printing of Ballots is about to start for the
May 10, 2010 Elections, , hence, this petition;

II.                TIMELINESS OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION.

1.     That petitioner through it’s president had received by his

househelper the assailed COMELEC ENBANC resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration on November
25, 2009. However, during that time he was still in
Region 9 convening the Board of 1network movement
and it’s constituents for possible action on the pending
resolution of the COMELEC EN BANC, the same was able
to knew and read said resolution on the night of
November 26, 2009 when he went home. Anyway, this
petition is timely filed because it is still within the time
frame allowed by law.

III.              ATTACHMENTS

1.     Annex “A” “A1-A36” - Petition dated July 22, 2009.

2.     Annex “B” “B1-B4” - Comelec Second Division Resolution

dated October 13, 2009.

3.     Annex “C” “C1-“C4”- Motion For Reconsideration Dated

October 24, 2009.

4.     Annex “D” “D1-D2” - Motion To Admit Manifestation Of

Intent To Participate In The Party-List System Of
Representation In The May 10, 2010 Elections.

5.     Annex “E” “E1-“E2”- Manifestation Of Intent To

Participate In The Party-List System Of Representation
In The May 10, 2010 Elections.

6.     Annex “F” “F1-F6” - Comelec En Banc Resolution dated

 November 17, 2009.

IV.              THE PARTIES

2.     That petitioner as a sectoral organization is duly

organized and registered under the laws of the
Philippines represented by it’s President EDUARDO DE
VERA CADAWAN of legal age, Filipino, married with
residence address at Block 70, Lot 31, Yuan St., North
Fairview Subdivision, Quezon City, where he may serve
summons and other processes of this Honorable Court;

3.     That respondent COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

(COMELEC) is a constitutional body tasked to
administer, manage, facilitate and/or accredit political
parties to include sectoral organization like petitioner
and perform other elections duties and responsibilities
pursuant to law duly represented of by it’s CHAIRMAN
JOSE A. R. MELO, of legal age, Filipino with postal
address at COMELEC OFFICE, Intramuros, Manila,
where he may serve summons and other processes of
this Honorable Court.

V.                  

VI.               

VII.           STATEMENT OF MATTERS INVOLVED AND FACTS OF

THE CASE

1.      

2.     Toi di lang thang lan trong bong toi buot gia, ve dau
khi da mat em roi? Ve dau khi bao nhieu mo mong
gio da vo tan... Ve dau toi biet di ve dau? 
http://nhattruongquang.0catch.com   

3.      

4.     That on July 27, 2009, 1network Movement, Inc.

 (1network for brevity) filed a petition for
registration as a sectoral organization to be
accredited by the COMELEC bound together with
common interest and the primordial concern is the
advancement and protection of the interest of the
cellular phone users and internet subscribers, small
scale sellers/retailers electronic load/cards and
accessories for both, a certified true copy of the
Petition  including the annexes is hereto attached
marked as annex “A-A36” made as integral part
hereof;

5.     That petitioner was able to prove and comply the

jurisdictional requirements of the petition to include
it’s existence and other factual issues;

6.     That on October 19, 2009 petitioner received a

resolution of the COMELEC second division
dismissing the petition that in gist for two reasons,
a certified true copy of which is hereto attached
marked as annex “B” made as integral part hereof;

a.      Petitioner is not underrepresented sector

under the law because almost everybody
owns a cellular phone or users of internet.
In fact Congressmen and Senators are
themselves cellular phone users and
internet subscribers. Besides, there are
agencies in the government tasked to
monitor and protect the same, like DOTC
and DTI.

b.      Some of petitioner incorporators are

businessman, lawyer and/or member of
elite group/organization like jaycees and
lions hence, far from marginalized.

7.     That on October 28, 2009 petitioner was able to

timely file the Motion for Reconsideration of the
assailed resolution, a copy of which is hereto
attached marked as annex “C-C4”  made as integral
part hereof, which in sum simply argued;
 

a.      That the word underrepresented should

not be literally interpreted as always a
small group of society; to consider, it is
not by determination of number nor by
plurality but on the context that it deprives
representation or to borrow the word from
Supreme Court “proportional
representation and lack of well defined
constituency” (Ang Bagong Bayani vs.
Comelec 359 SCRA 699). The best
example, is the youth sector who shared a
considerable number in our society but still
they are part of the party list system;

b.     That, while it is true, that our legislators

are users of cellular phone or  internet
subscribers but their interest are not
similar to herein petitioner because they
focus on their concern and/or interest on
their respective districts or constituents
where they represent. Not to mention,
that most, if not all of these legislators are
post paid subscribers of cellular phone and
internet connections much more that they
are not small scale retailers of prepaid
cards or electronic loads;

c.      That simply put, petitioner seeks to classify

cellular phone and internet users from
post paid and prepaid or the electronic
load on which the latter had been always
the subject of controversy or abused to
which this Honorable Commission may
take judicial notice. Perhaps the Honorable
Commissioners and their respective drivers
are themselves cellular Phone and internet
users but the former as postpaid users
may have different interest/concern
compared to their drivers because for
instance the latter may from time to time
will check the remaining load of their units
and maybe some of them do not know
how to operate an internet. In sum, most
 of the prepaid and electronic load users
are in fact belongs to the marginalized and
underrepresented as mentioned in section
5, of RA 7941; namely; labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped,
women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals. Like CIBAC
and APEC partylist, maybe some of
petitioner’s members are professionals or
businessman (but not the same as those
living in Forbes Park) but still the advocacy
and the majority of members of the
organization are address to the
marginalized and underrepresented
sector(Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec
404 SCRA 719). While these people may
have a good number nationwide to include
the small scale retailers of prepaid cards or
electronic loads but no one dared to come
out and represent them because of lack of
well defined constituencies;

d.     That while there are agencies tasked to

monitor/protect these individuals like
DOTC and DTI but these agencies belong
to executive department and there is a
need a counterpart in the legislative
department that could contribute policy
formulations and enforcement of
appropriate legislation in the halls of
congress that could benefit the whole
nation. Like the youth sector; despite the
presence of the Office National Youth
Commission, Office of the Presidential
Advisers on Youth Affairs, DSWD and
other agencies for the youth and in fact
there is a National Movement Young
Legislators (NMYL) but still the youth
sector had been recognized in the party
list system act in order to contribute
valuable legislation for the youth;

 
 8.     That when the said motion was pending and
considering that the filing for Manifestation Of
Intent To Participate In The Party-List System Of
Representation In The May 10, 2010 Elections had
begun, the Board of 1network had decided to file
also such manifestation by way of filing a motion
for leave before the Comelec, a copy such motion
including the manifestation are hereto attached
marked as annex “D-D1” and “E-E1” respectively;

9.     That unfortunately, right after the filing said motion

for leave and the manifestation when the president
went home in Quezon City he was informed by his
househelper that there was a letter of the Comelec
and when he opened and read the same, it is a
COMELEC EN BANC resolution denying the motion
for reconsideration of the petitioner, a copy of said
resolution is hereto attached marked as annex “F-
F6” hereof;

10. That considering the proximity of the days to start

the campaign period and most of all, the deadline
set by COMELEC to finalize their list of candidates
for printing in ballots use in the May 10, 2010,
Petitioner believe that there is no other plain and
speedy remedy available at hand due to urgency
but only to raise these issues directly before this
Honorable Court. After all, issue/s remains to be
resolved and lodge before this Honorable Court are
pure questions of laws.

VII. REASONS/ARGUMENTS RELIED ON FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE

INSTANT PETITION.

1.     The COMELEC erred and gravely abuse it’s

discretion in a capricious, whimsical arbitrary or
despotic manner in the exercise of their jurisdiction
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing
and/or denying the petition for registration as
 accredited sectoral organization of 1network
pursuant to R.A.7941 in relation to the decided case
of Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec et al.

2.     The COMELEC acted without or excess of it’s or

their jurisdiction when they overstep their authority
in not appreciating the ground relied upon in the
arguments of the petition and the Motion For
Reconsideration of 1network.

VIII    ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

1.     WHETHER OR NOT 1NETWOK MOVEMENT, INC. IS

QUALIFIED AS SECTORAL ORGANIZATION AS
PROVIDED IN THE R.A. 7941 IN RELATION TO THE
DECIDED CASE OF ANG BAGONG BAYANI VS.
COMELEC, ET AL.

2.     WHETHER OR NOT THE PENDENCY OF THE

PETITION FOR REGISTRATION, PETITIONER MAY
FILE A MANIFESTATION TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH
ELECTION AND THE SAME IS VALID AND
SUBSISTING FOR PURPOSES OF MAY 10, 2010
ELECTIONS.

IX       ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

ISSUE 1.

1.     That with all due respect, respondent COMELEC had

wrongly interpreted the provisions of law governing
the party-list system in our country. They simply
argued that petitioner organization is not among
the sectors listed in section 5 of R.A. 7941;

2.     That respondent failed to consider that petitioner is

a sectoral organization whose primordial concern is
the advancement and protection of the interest of
 the cellular phone users and internet subscribers,
small scale sellers/retailers electronic load/cards
and accessories which clearly shows that the group
had share a similar interest or concern not to
mention that all the sectors enumerated in that law
are also a potential members of the petitioner being
a subscriber of cellular phone or internet or
sellers/retailers electronic loads or cards thereof;

3.     That while it is true that in the by-laws of the

organization the primary consideration in extending
membership is limited to mobile phone users or
internet subscribers but it does not follow that
petitioner is no longer qualified in the party-list
system act. More so, that membership of the
organization is not automatic but rather subject to
the approval of the board. The fact that the
petitioner had filed a registration for accreditation
before the COMELEC for party-list system then it
follows that it would adhere or bound to comply the
guidelines set forth specifically that members
thereof should belong to marginalized, then it
wrong to assume or conclude that it is not
marginalized group;

4.     It is worthy to note, that in the decided case of Ang

Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec et al, the Supreme
Court even mentioned that verily, majority of its
membership should belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented. Hence, it admittedly that not
necessary all of organization members belongs to
marginalized and underrepresented. In fact,  the
COMELEC never disqualify the party-list of
KASANGGA of Honorable Arroyo the sister in law of
the President GMA, the likes of Palparan,
Villanueva, Tieng and other notable personalities
who have party-list organizations e.g APEC, CIBAC,
or BUHAY;

 
 5.     That petitioner simply assailed the apparent abuse
of discretion made by respondent by making a
judgment by conjectures or speculation without
legal and factual basis and thereby creating a
special class of Party-list organization through their
discretion;

6.     That as clearly discuss in the motion for

reconsideration being a member or officer of the
jaycees or lions does not mean or automatic that
such person belongs to an elite class. Those
assumptions does not have legal and factual basis.
To reiterate our position;

 petitioner would like to emphasize that being a member

of Jaycees or lions does not mean that it belongs an
elite class, these are just civic and leadership
organization therefore, the same is just pure
speculation. The records will show in these organization
that many of its members are belong or just ordinary
employees of government or in the private sectors who
are also relying the prepaid cards for their cellular
phone and internet connections. Hence, the
incorporators of the petitioner do not belong to an elite
class;

7.     That the businessman mentioned in that resolution

is just an ordinary person selling/retailing electronic
or cellcards and accessories far from the notable
personalities mentioned earlier which the
respondent had become deaf and blind on which
such act is a  clear violation of constitutional
provision of equal protection clause;

8.     That while it is true that a rich man may opt to

choose a prepaid or electronic load for cellular
phone and internet connection but the respondent
failed to consider that it is still a fact that most of
 all prepaid holders belongs to marginalized. It is
also safe to conclude that most of the cellular
phone holders belongs to marginalized because as
stated before the same is no longer a luxury but a
necessity. Therefore the classification between a
post paid and prepaid cards holders are clear
indications of disparity of the living conditions of
the people;

9.     That with the advent of modern technology it is just

deem proper that an organization (modesty aside)
like herein petitioner will be accredited and be part
of the party list system of the Philippines so that it
can help contribute policies and measures that
would benefit the nation. The petitioner would help
safeguard the community from abuses not only
from the providers but even the users. For all we
know that this modern technology can help or
destroy our society as it is already part of our daily
life, like the activities in the different accounts in the
internet which is called social media that clearly
affects the life of the people, and this is one of the
advocacies of herein petitioner.

ISSUE 2.

1.     That considering the petitioner was able to file

Manifestation Of Intent To Participate In The Party-
List System Of Representation In The May 10, 2010
Elections during the filing period set by the
COMELEC the same shall become valid and
subsisting unless the denial for petition for
registration of the petitioner shall become final and
executory;

2.     That taken into consideration that deadline for

purposes of printing

 of the Ballots still on Last week of December 2009 it is

the hope and prayer of the petitioner that the above-
 entitled case will be given due course so that 1network
movement will be included in the list of candidates for
party list system in the Philippines;

3.    That lastly, the approval of the petitioner

accreditation before the COMELEC is not an
assurance or guarantee that this organization will
be part of the next congress as still await the will of
the people through political exercise. Why deprive
such right to be a part of the system and let the will
of the electorate decide the fate of the group.

 
 
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner respectfully
prays that an order be issued reversing the COMELEC
resolution dismissing/denying the registration for
accreditation of 1network and instead giving the due course
thereon and thereby allowing and/or admitting the motion
for leave filed by 1network paving the way of accepting the
Manifestation Of Intent To Participate In The Party-List
System Of Representation In The May 10, 2010 Elections.

     

Respectfully submitted this __ day of  December, 2009 at Ipil, (for Manila

City), Zamboanga Sibugay, Philippines.

                                                         

                                                                        ATTY. MARLO C.

BANCORO

                                                                        Counsel for Petitioner

                                                                        PTR no. 1532749-1-5-09

                                                                        IBP No. 04796 (lifetime)

                                                                        ROA No. 46753

                                                                        MCLE Compliance No.II-

0006141

                                                                        Purok Dahlia, Lower

Taway

                                                                        Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay

EXPLANATION

( Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rule of the Civil Procedure)

The foregoing pleading is being served through registered mail

except for the filing of the petition because personal delivery is impractical
due to distance.                                           

                            

                                                                   ATTY. MARLO C.

BANCORO

Copy furnished:

              JOSE A. R. MELO

              Chairman

Commission on Elections

Intramuros, Manila
  

The Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village

Makati City

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Pagadian . . . . . . . . ) S.S.

X-----------------------------X

CERTIFICATION / VERIFICATION

          I, EDUARDO DE VERA CADAWAN, of legal age, Filipino citizen,

married, with office address  at 1network Movement, Inc. Purok Dahlia,
Lower Taway, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, Philippines after having been duly
sworn to an oath in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
 That I am the President of 1network Movement, Inc. with office
address at Purok Dahlia, Lower Taway, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay,
Philippines;

          That I have been tasked and authorized by 1network Movement,

Inc. through it’s Board Resolution to caused to prepare and file the
petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court the assailed resolution of
COMELEC EN BANC re: accreditation as Party List;

          That in compliance thereof, I prepared and/or caused the

foregoing petition; I have read it’s contents and the same are true and
correct based on my personal knowledge and of the authentic records;

                   That I hereby certify that there is no other action or

proceeding involving the same subject matter, issues, and parties pending
in any other court or tribunal; and in case, if I learned of any action or
proceeding involving the same subject matter, issues and parties pending
in any other court or tribunal, I hereby undertake to report the same to
this Honorable Court within Five (5) days from date of knowledge thereof;

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature this 4 th

day of December, 2009 at Pagadian City, Philippines.

                                                                   EDUARDO DE VERA

CADAWAN                                                                      
Affiant/Petitioner

                                                                   LTO ID No. N27-02-

006784

                                                                  
 

          SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th day of December,

2009 at Pagadian City, Philippines.