#5 LODA

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT – PARTYLIST SYSTEM

BA-RA 7941 AND UP-LR V. COMELEC, ET AL, GR 177271 (May 4, 2007)

ROSALES V. COMELEC, GR 177314 (May 4, 2007)

TICKLER:

DOCTRINE: Right to information is a public right where the real parties in interest are the public, or the citizens to be precise. By weight
of jurisprudence, any citizen can challenge any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his right to information and may seek its
enforcement by mandamus

FACTS:

BA-RA & UP-LR v. COMELEC

 COMELEC issued Resolution prescribing rules and regulations to govern the filing of manifestation of intent to participate and
submission of names of nominees under the party-list system of representation in connection with the May 14, 2007
elections. 14 organized groups filed and were accredited.
 Petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR presented a longer, albeit an overlapping, list.
 BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR filed with the Comelec an Urgent Petition to Disqualify, thereunder seeking to disqualify the nominees
of certain party-list organizations. Both petitioners appear not to have the names of the nominees sought to be disqualified
since they still asked for a copy of the list of nominees.
 Petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR would have the Court cancel the accreditation accorded by the Comelec to the respondent
party-list groups named in their petition on the ground that these groups and their respective nominees do not appear to be
qualified.

ROSALES v. COMELEC

 Reacting to the emerging public perception that the individuals behind the aforementioned 14 party-list groups do not, as
they should, actually represent the poor and marginalized sectors, petitioner Rosales addressed a letter to Comelec’s Law
Department requesting a list of that groups’ nominees. In a subsequent letter, Rosales impressed the urgency of the subject
request.
 Neither the Comelec Proper nor its Law Department officially responded to petitioner Rosales’ requests. The April 13, 2007
issue of the Manila Bulletin, however, carried the front-page banner headline "COMELEC WON’T BARE PARTY-LIST
NOMINEES",7 with the following sub-heading: "Abalos says party-list polls not personality oriented."
 Unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales and her counsels was the issuance of Comelec en banc Resolution 07-07249 under date
April 3, 2007 virtually declaring the nominees’ names confidential and in net effect denying petitioner Rosales’ basic
disclosure request. The said Resolution state that such disclosure shall only be done at 3PM on election day.

PETITIONER’S POINTS:

BA-RA & UP-LR

a. COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion … when it granted the assailed accreditations even
without simultaneously determining whether the nominees of herein private respondents are qualified or not, or whether or
not the nominees are likewise belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they claim to represent in
Congress, in accordance with No. 7 of the eight-point guidelines prescribed by the Honorable Supreme in the Ang Bagong
Bayani11 case which states that, "not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees." In the case of private respondents, public respondent Comelec granted
accreditations without the required simultaneous determination of the qualification of the nominees as part of the
accreditation process of the party-list organization itself.

ROSALES

a. Invoked right to information

b. Observed that the last part of the "Order [COMELEC Resolution] empowering the Law Department to ‘implement this
resolution and reply to all letters … inquiring on the party-list nominees’ is apparently a fool-proof bureaucratic way to distort
 #5 LODA
and mangle the truth and give the impression that the antedated Resolution of April 3, 2007 … is the final answer to the two
formal requests … of Petitioners".

RESPONDENT’S POINTS:

a. The party list elections must not be personality oriented.

b. Under R.A. 7941 …, the people are to vote for sectoral parties, organizations, or coalitions, not for their nominees.
c. Nothing in R.A. 7941 that requires the Comelec to disclose the names of nominees

ISSUES:

a. Whether or not the Court may cancel accreditations by the COMELEC to the organizations in question
b. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal the names of the nominees of the various party-list groups, has violated
the right to information and free access to documents as guaranteed by the Constitution
c. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated by the Constitution to disclose to the public the names of said nominees.

RULING:

a. NO. Court was unable to grant desired plea of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of accreditation on the
grounds thus advanced in their petition, for such course of action would entail going over and evaluating the qualities of the
sectoral groups or parties in question, particularly whether or not they indeed represent marginalized/underrepresented
group. The exercise would require the Court to make a factual determination, a matter which is outside the office of judicial
review by way of special civil action for certiorari.

b-c. YES. Aside from respondent’s explicitly-stated arguments, COMELEC based its refusal on Sec. 7 of RA 7941, thus providing:

SEC. 7. Certified List of Registered Parties.- The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a
certified list of national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions which have applied or who have
manifested their desire to participate under the party-list system and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for posting
in the polling places on election day. The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.

The last sentence is not a justifying card for COMELEC to deny request disclosure, as the prohibition imposed upon COMELEC
under this provision is limited in scope and duration, meaning, that it extends only to the certified list which the same
provision requires to be posted in the polling places on election day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the
absolute is to read into the law something that is not intended. As it were, there is absolutely nothing in R.A. No. 7941 that
prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even publishing through mediums other than the "Certified List" the names of the
party-list nominees. The Comelec obviously misread the limited non-disclosure aspect of the provision as an absolute bar to
public disclosure before the May 2007 elections. The interpretation thus given by the Comelec virtually tacks an
unconstitutional dimension on the last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941.

Moreover, assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the Comelec and the given rationale therefor is the right to
information enshrined in the self-executory15 Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, complemented by Section 28 of Article
II of the same. The right to information is a public right where the real parties in interest are the public, or the citizens to
be precise. And for every right of the people recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part of those who
govern to respect and protect that right. By weight of jurisprudence, any citizen can challenge any attempt to obstruct the
exercise of his right to information and may seek its enforcement by mandamus. And since every citizen by the simple fact
of his citizenship possesses the right to be informed, objections on ground of locus standi are ordinarily unavailing.

However, people’s right to know is limited to "matters of public concern" and is further subject to such limitation as may be
provided by law. Similarly, the policy of full disclosure is confined to transactions involving "public interest" and is subject
to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. Too, there is also the need of preserving a measure of confidentiality on some
matters, such as military, trade, banking and diplomatic secrets or those affecting national security. The terms "public
concerns" and "public interest" have eluded precise definition. But both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which
the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally whet
 #5 LODA
the interest of an ordinary citizen. At the end of the day, it is for the courts to determine, on a case to case basis, whether
or not at issue is of interest or importance to the public.

Furthermore, while the vote cast in a party-list elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its
nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House of Representatives. It has been repeatedly said in
various contexts that the people have the right to elect their representatives on the basis of an informed judgment.
Hence the need for voters to be informed about matters that have a bearing on their choice. The ideal cannot be achieved
in a system of blind voting, as veritably advocated in the assailed resolution of the Comelec.

NOTES:

 Sec. 7, Art. III, Consti:

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well to government research data used as
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

 Sec. 28, Art. II, Consti:

Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all
its transactions involving public interest.