ENBANC

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution

dated NOVEMBER 23, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 257381 (Sagip Bayan, Kalingang Pinoy

['SABAKPINOY'J vs. Soccoro Inting, Presiding Commissioner, and
Antonio T. Kho, Commissioner of Commission on Elections). - Assailed
in this petition for certiorari, 1 under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, is the
June 25, 2021 Order,2 issued by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), Second Division, in SPP No. 21-040 (PL), dismissing the
Petition 3 for registration filed by petitioner Sagip Bayan, Kalingang Pinoy
(SABAKPINOY).

SABAKPINOY alleges to be a multi-sectoral organization composed

of the urban poor, working class, businessmen and professionals who are
qualified voters and bound together by similar physical attributes or
characteristics, or by employment, interests or concerns. 4 On March 24,
2021, SABAKPINOY filed a verified Petition, 5 seeking its registration as a
duly accredited party-list organization for the purpose of participating in the
May 9, 2022 elections.

On June 25, 2021, the Second Division of the COMELEC issued the
now assailed order, dismissing the petition on the ground that the
Manifestation of Intent to Participate6 (MIP) attached to SABAKPINOY' s
petition does not contain the required information and was not in the form
prescribed by the COMELEC. Pertinent portions of the assailed order
states:

Specifically, the Petitioner has submitted a Manifestation of Intent

to Participate (MIP) not in the form prescribed by the Commission. Upon
scrutiny of the MIP, the following were not stated therein:

a. place of organization;

1
Rollo, pp. 3-17.
2
Signed by Presiding Commissioner Socorro B. Inting and Commission Antonio T. Kho, Jr., id. at 19-21.
3
Id. at 22-26.
4
ld.at5.
5
Id. at 22-26.
6
Id. at 60-61.
Notice of Resolution - ,2 - G.R. No. 257381 .
November 23, 2021

b. its founders;
c. its officers;
d. principal and post headquarters;
e. its constituents; and
f. its period of existence.

It bears emphasis that the first sentence of Section 7 of COMELEC

Resolution No. 9366 used the word 'shall.' The term 'shall' is a word of
command and one which has always or which must be given a compulsory
meaning and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It therefore
underscores the mandatory character of Sections 6 and 7 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 9366. Settled is the rule that failure to comply with
mandatory requirements warrants the dismissal of the Petition.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission (Second Division) hereby

RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant Petition.

SO ORDERED. 7

Without filing a motion for reconsideration, SABAKPINOY filed the

instant petition under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court on July 27, 2021
alleging that respondent COMELEC (Second Division) committed grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing its petition for registration.

To begin with, We note the following defects in the petition,

warranting its outright dismissal:

1) failure to submit soft copies of the petition and their annexes either
by email to the Court's e-mail address or by compact disc (CD), 8 as
required by the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M No. 11-9-4-SC
dated November 13, 2012); 9

2) failure to provide complete details on the evidence of identity of

the affiant on the affidavit of service and verification/certification
on non-forum shopping, 10 as required by Section 2 (b) (1) and (2),
Rule IV of the Notarial Rules;

3) failure to file the required number of plain copies of the petition 11

as required by Section 5 (1 st paragraph), Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court 12 and
'
7
Id. at 19-20.
8
Id. at 3.
9
Section 5. Copies to be Filed. -x xx x
Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further required, on voluntary basis for the first six
months following the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily afterwards unless the period is extended,
to submit, simultaneously with their court-bound papers, soft copies of the same and their annexes (the
latter in PDF format) either by email to the Court's e-mail address or by compact disc (CD). x x
x (Efficient Use of Paper Rule, A.M No. 11-9-4-SC (Resolution), [November 13, 2012])
10
Rollo, pp. 14 and 16.
11
Id. at 3.
12
Section 5. Form and contents of petition. -The petition shall be verified and filed in eighteen (18)
legible copies. x x x.
Notice of Resolution - 3, - G.R. No. 257381
November 23, 2021

4) failure to accompany the petition with a clearly legible duplicate

original or a certified true copy of the COMELEC's June 25, 2021
Order 13 as required by Section 5 (2 nd paragraph), Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court. 14

As explicitly stated in Section 5 (last paragraph) of Rule 64 of the

Rules of Court, petitioner's failure to comply with the required forms and
contents of the petition shall be sufficient ground for its dismissal. 15

The petition is also premature as no motion for reconsideration was

filed by petitioner with the COMELEC En Banc, and there are no sufficient
allegations to bring the case within the recognized exceptions. As a rule, a
decision, order, or resolution of a COMELEC Division must first be
reviewed by the COMELEC En Banc via a motion for reconsideration
before it may be elevated to the Supreme Court through the special civil
action of certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. 16

The 1987 Constitution provides the rule on the filing of motions for
reconsiderations of decisions or final orders in election cases decided by
COMELEC Divisions, thus:

Article IX-C, SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections may sit

en bane or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in
order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall
be decided by the Commission en bane. (Emphasis supplied)

Upon the other hand, Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution

prescribes the power of the Supreme Court to review decisions of the
COMELEC, as follows:

Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all

its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from
the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is
deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission
or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by
this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by

13
Rollo, pp. 19-21.
14
Section 5. Form and contents of petition. -x xx x
The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the
judgment, final order or resolution subject thereof, together with certified true copies of such material
portions of the record as are referred to therein and other documents relevant and pertinent thereto. The
requisite number of copies of the petition shall contain plain copies of all documents attached to the
original copy of said petition.
15
Section 5. Forms and contents ofpetition. -x xx x
The failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for
the dismissal of the petition.
16
Ambit, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 398 Phil. 257, 275 (2000).
Notice of Resolution -4- G.R. No. 257381
November 23, 2021

the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
(Emphasis supplied)

Explaining these provisions of the Constitution and the importance

of filing a motion for reconsideration from decisions or orders of a
division of the COMELEC vis a vis the power of this Court to review
said decisions and orders, We have, in Cayetano v. Commission on
Elections 17 and Soriano, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 18 exhaustively
reviewed well-settled jurisprudence on the matter, thus:

In the 2004 case of Repol v. Commission on Elections, the Court

cited Ambil and held that this Court has no power to review via
certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a division
of the COMELEC. However, the Court held that an exception to this
rule applies where the commission of grave abuse of discretion is
apparent on its face. In Repol, what was assailed was a status quo
ante Order without any time limit, and more than 20 days had lapsed
since its issuance without the COMELEC First Division issuing a writ of
preliminary injunction. The Court held that the status quo ante Order of
the COMELEC First Division was actually a temporary restraining order
because it ordered Repol to cease and desist from assuming the position
of municipal mayor of Pagsanghan, Samar and directed Ceracas to
assume the post in the meantime. Since the status quo ante Order,
which was qualified by the phrase "until further orders from this
Commission," had a lifespan of more than 20 days, this Order clearly
violates the rule that a temporary restraining order has an effective
period of only 20 days and automatically expires upon the COMELEC's
denial of preliminary injunction. The Court held:
Only final orders of the COMELEC in Division may be raised
before the COMELEC en bane. Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution mandates that only motions for reconsideration ofjinal
decisions shall be decided by the COMELEC en bane, thus:
SEC. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en bane or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite
disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
Division, provided that motions.for reconsideration of decisions shall be
decided by the Commission en bane. (Emphasis supplied.)
Under this constitutional provision, the COMELEC en bane shall
decide motions for reconsideration only of "decisions" of a Division,
meanirig those acts having a final character. Clearly, the assailed status
quo ante Order, being interlocutory, should first be resolved by the
COMELEC First Division via a motion for reconsideration.
Furthermore, the present controversy does not fall under any of
the instances over which the COMELEC en bane can take cognizance of
the case. Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure
provides:

17
663 Phil. 694 (2011).
18
548 Phil. 639-655-657 (2007).
Notice of Resolution -5- G.R. No. 257381
November 23, 2021

SEC. ·2. The Commission En Banc. - The Commission shall

sit en bane in cases hereinafter specifically provided, or in pre-
proclamation cases upon a vote of a majority of the members of the
Commission, or in all other cases where a division is not authorized to
act, or where, upon a unanimous vote of all the Members of a Division,
an interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action or proceeding before
it is decided to be referred to the Commission en bane.
The present case is not one of the cases specifically provided
under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure in which the COMELEC may
sit en bane. Neither is this case one where a division is not authorized to
act nor a case where the members of the First Division unanimously
voted to refer the issue to the COMELEC en bane. Thus, the
COMELEC en bane is not even the proper forum where Repol may
bring the assailed interlocutory Order for resolution.
We held inAmbil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections that-
Under the existing Constitutional scheme, a party to an election
case within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in division [cannot]
dispense with the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a decision,
resolution or final order of the Division of the Commission on Elections
because the case would not reach the Comelec en bane without such
motion for reconsideration having been filed . x x x
Repol went directly to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory
order of the COMELEC First Division. Section 7, Article IX of the 1987
Constitution prescribes the power of the Supreme Court to review
decisions of the COMELEC, as follows:
Section 7. Each commission shall decide by a majority vote of all
its members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from
the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is
deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the commission
or by the commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each commission
may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within thiliy days from receipt of a copy thereof.
We have interpreted this constitutional provision to mean final
orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise
of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The decision must be a
final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en bane. The
Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an
interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the
COMELEC. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement
constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis
supplied.)
However, this rule is not ironclad. In ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation v. COMELEC, we stated -
This Court, however, has ruled in the past that this procedural
requirement [of filing a motion for reconsideration] may be glossed over
to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the principle
of social justice or the protection of labor, when the decision or
resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief
Notice of Resolution -6- G.R. No. 257381
November 23, 2021

is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy

remedy available.
The Court further pointed out in ABS-CBN that an exception was
warranted under the peculiar circumstances of the case since there was
hardly enough opportunity to move for a reconsideration and to obtain a
swift resolution in time for the 11 May 1998 elections. The same can be
said in Repol's case. We rule that direct resort to this Court through a
special civil action for certiorari is justified under the circumstances
obtaining in the present case. (Emphasis supplied)
XXX XXX XXX

The general rule is that a decision or an order of a COMELEC

Division cannot be elevated directly to this Court through a special civil
action for certiorari. Furthermore, a motion to reconsider a decision,
resolution, order, or ruling of a COMELEC Division shall be elevated to
the COMELEC En Banc. However, a motion to reconsider an
interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division shall be resolved by the
division which issued the interlocutory order, except when all the
members of the division decide to refer the matter to the COMELEC En
Banc.
Thus, in general, interlocutory orders of a COMELEC
Division are not appealable, nor can they be proper subject of a
petition for certiorari. To rule otherwise would not only delay the
disposition of cases but would also unnecessarily clog the Court docket
and unduly burden the Court. This does not mean that the aggrieved
party is without recourse if a COMELEC Division denies the motion
for reconsideration. The aggrieved party can still assign as error the
interlocutory order if in the course of the proceedings he decides to
appeal the main case to the COMELEC En Banc. The exception
enunciated in Kho and Repol is when the interlocutory order of a
COMELEC Division is a patent nullity because of absence of
jurisdiction to issue the interlocutory order, as where a COMELEC
Division issued a temporary restraining order without a time limit, which
is the Repol case, or where a COMELEC Division admitted an answer
with counter-protest which was filed beyond the reglementary period,
which is the Kho case.
This Court has already ruled in Reyes v. RTC of Oriental
Mindoro, that "it is the decision, order or ruling of the
COMELEC En Banc that, in accordance with Section 7, Art. IX-A
of the Constitution, may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari." The exception provided in Kho and Repol is unavailing
in this case because unlike in Kho and Repol, the assailed interlocutory
orders of the COMELEC First Division in this case are not a patent
nullity. The assailed orders in this case involve the interpretation of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Neither will the Rosal case apply
because in that case the petition for certiorari questioning the
interlocutory orders of the COMELEC Second Division and the petition
for certiorari and prohibition assailing the Resolution of the
COMELEC En Banc on the main case were already consolidated. 19

19
Supra note 17 at 699-703, citing Soriano, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 548 Phil. 639, 653-656
(2007) [per J. Carpio], in turn citing Repol v. Commission on Elections, 472 Phil. 335, 351-352 (2004)
[per J. Carpio], Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 398 Phil. 257,276 (2000) [per J. Pardo]; ABS-
 Notice of Resolution - 7- G.R. No. 257381
November 23, 2021

From the foregoing, it is clear that the proper recourse of petitioner

from the assailed June 25, 2021 order of the COMELEC should have been a
motion for reconsideration filed with the COMELEC En Banc. The present
petition is improper for being premature and is, thus, not within the power of
this Court to take cognizance of.

As We have categorically stated in the above cases, a decision, order

or resolution of a division of the Comelec must be reviewed by
the Comelec En Banc via a motion for reconsideration before the final en
bane decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. The pre-requisite filing of a motion for
reconsideration is mandatory as it is the decision, order or ruling of the
COMELEC En Banc that, in accordance with Section 7, Art. IX-A of the
Constitution, may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
Consequently, the Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an
interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a division of the COMELEC.
Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for
dismissal of the petition. 20

The exception enunciated m Kho v. Commission on

21 22
Elections and Repol v. Commission on Elections cases, as when the
interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division is a patent nullity because of
absence of jurisdiction to issue the interlocutory order, is apparently not
applicable to the case at bar. The same may be said of the exceptions stated
in the ABS-CBN Corporation case where the procedural requirement of
filing a motion for reconsideration was glossed over as the need for relief
was extremely urgent and certiorari was the only adequate and speedy
remedy available to petitioner ABS-CBN. That case involved a Resolution
issued by the COMELEC En Banc on April 21, 1998, only twenty (20) days
before the May 11, 1998 elections. Moreover, the petitioner in that case got
hold of a copy thereof only on May 4, 1998 or seven (7) days before the
election itself. Under the circumstances, We held that there was hardly
enough opportunity for petitioner to move for a reconsideration and to obtain
a swift resolution in time for the May 11, 1998 elections. In contrast,
petitioner in the instant case had enough opportunity to move for a
reconsideration of the assailed June 25, 2021 Order of the COMELEC, copy
of which was received by petitioner on June 27, 2021, 23 i.e., months before
the May 9, 2022 elections.

CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections, 380 Phil. 780-804 (2000) [per J.
Panganiban], in tum citing Kho v. Commission on Elections, 344 Phil. 878, 886-888 (1997) [per J.
Torres, Jr.], and Reyes v. RTC of Oriental Mindoro, 313 Phil. 727, 732-735 (1995) [per J. Mendoza].
20
Reyes v. RTC of Oriental Mindoro, ibid at 732.
21 Khov. Commission on Elections, id.
22
Repol v. Commission on Elections, id.
23
Rollo, p. 4.
Notice of Resolution - ,8 - G.R. No. 257381
November 23, 2021

Contrary to petitioner's statement that resort to a motion for

reconsideration was dilatory, We reiterate Our previous ruling in Bernardo
v. Abalos, Sr. 24 that the purpose of said motion is to give the COMELEC an
opportunity to correct the error imputed to it. If the error is immediately
corrected by way of a motion for reconsideration, then it could have been the
most expeditious and inexpensive recourse. Indeed, petitioner could have
easily filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching to it its MIP in the
required form.

In any event, even if resolved on the merits, We find that the Second
Division of the COMELEC did not commit abuse, much less grave abuse, of
discretion in dismissing SABAKPINOY's pet1t10n for registration.
Petitioner itself admits, that its MIP lacked the required information, 25
although with an attempt to present a cure to such omission by arguing that
the required information can, at any rate, be found in the petition for
registration itself to which the MIP was attached.

A perusal of the said petition, however, shows the contrary. Nowhere

therein, for example, can be found any information on petitioner's place of
organization and its founders. These details, as well as the other information
as the place of the party-list's organization, its officers, its principal and
postal headquarters, its constituencies and the period of its existence, are
among the information required to be indicated in the official MIP form
prescribed by the COMELEC. Contrary to petitioner's assertion that there is
no rule or law which justifies the COMELEC's requirement of the said
information to be stated in the MIP form prescribed by the COMELEC,
Batas Pambansa Elg. 881 (B.P. 881), otherwise known as the Omnibus
Election Code, states:

Sec. 61. Registration. - Any organized group of persons seeking

registration as a national or regional political party may file with
the Commission a verified petition attaching thereto its constitution and
by-laws, platforms or program of government and such other relevant
information as may be required by the Commission.
The Commission shall after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition
within ten days from the date it is submitted for decision. No religious sect
shall be registered as a political party and no political party which seeks to
achieve its goal through violence shall be entitled to accreditation.
(Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the COMELEC may require such other relevant information

in the documents submitted in support of a petition for registration as a
national or regional political party, in the same way that it may require such
other relevant information in connection with a party-list's application for
registration. There was therefore no grave abuse of discretion on the part of

24
422 Phil. 807-814 (2001).
25
Rollo, p. 8.
l'

Notice of Resolution -9- G.R. No. 257381

November 23, 2021

the COMELEC in reqmnng the abovementioned information m the

prescribed MIP form.

WHEREFORE, the petition, is DISMISSED." Inting, J., no part.

Hernando, J., on official leave. (10)

By authority of the Court:

Clerk of Court
 Notice of Resolution - 10 - G.R. No. 257381
November 23, 2021

ATTY. MARLON R. DULNUAN (reg) THE SECOND DIVISION - COMELEC (x)

No. 11 Don Juan Street lntramuros, Manila
Don Antonio Heights, Quezon City
marlon05 dulnuan@yahoo.com THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg)
Office of the Solicitor General
JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE (x) 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
~~,9-GMENT DIVISION (x) Makati City
~~UC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)
LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
Supreme Court
[For uploading pursuantto A.M. No. 12-7-1-SC]

G.R. No. 257381

sarah 112321 (URes10) 122121