JOSE L. ATIENZA v. COMELEC, GR No.

188920, 2010-02-16
Facts:
Franklin M. Drilon (Drilon), as erstwhile president of the Liberal Party (LP), announced his
party's withdrawal of support for the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
petitioner Jose L. Atienza, Jr. (Atienza), LP Chairman, and a... number of party members
denounced Drilon's move, claiming that he made the announcement without consulting his
party.
petitioner Atienza hosted a party conference to supposedly discuss local autonomy and
party matters but, when convened, the assembly proceeded to declare all positions in the
LP's ruling body vacant and elected new officers, with Atienza as LP president.
Respondent Drilon immediately filed a petition[1] with the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to nullify the elections.
party's electing bodies, the National Executive Council (NECO) and the National
Political Council (NAPOLCO), were not properly convened. Drilon also claimed that under
the amended LP Constitution,[2] party officers were elected to a fixed three-year term that
was yet to end on November 30, 2007.
petitioner Atienza claimed that the majority of the LP's NECO and NAPOLCO attended the
March 2, 2006 assembly. The election of new officers on that occasion could be likened to
"people power," wherein the LP majority removed respondent Drilon as president by... direct
action.
COMELEC issued a resolution,[4] partially granting respondent Drilon's petition. It annulled
the March 2, 2006 elections and ordered the holding of a new election under COMELEC
supervision.
But, since the amendments to the Salonga Constitution had not been properly ratified,
Drilon's term may be deemed to have ended. Thus, he held the... position of LP president in
a holdover capacity until new officers were elected.
Court issued a resolution,[5] granting respondent Drilon's petition and denying that of
petitioner Atienza.
Subsequently, the LP held a NECO meeting to elect new party leaders before respondent
Drilon's term expired. Fifty-nine NECO members out of the 87 who were supposedly
qualified to vote attended.
Eventually, that meeting installed respondent Manuel A. Roxas II (Roxas) as the new LP
president.
petitioners... filed a petition for mandatory and prohibitory... injunction[6] before the
COMELEC against respondents Roxas, Drilon and J.R. Nereus O. Acosta, the party
secretary general.
sought to enjoin Roxas from assuming the presidency of the LP, claiming that the NECO
assembly which elected... him was invalidly convened.
espondents Roxas, et al. claimed that Roxas' election as LP president faithfully complied
with the provisions of the amended LP Constitution
COMELEC issued the assailed resolution denying petitioners Atienza, et al.'s petition. It
noted that the May 2007 elections necessarily changed the composition of the NECO since
the amended LP Constitution explicitly made incumbent senators, members... of the House
of Representatives, governors and mayors members of that body.
Without filing a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution, petitioners Atienza,
et al. filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Issues:
1.Whether or not the LP, which was not impleaded in the case, is an indispensable party;
and
2.Whether or not petitioners Atienza, et al., as ousted LP members, have the requisite legal
standing to question Roxas' election.
Petitioners Atienza, et al., on the other hand, raise the following issues:
3.Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it upheld the NECO
membership that elected respondent Roxas as LP president;
4.Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it resolved the issue
concerning the validity of the NECO meeting without first resolving the issue concerning the
expulsion of Atienza, et al. from the party; and
5.Whether or not respondents Roxas, et al. violated petitioners Atienza, et al.'s
constitutional right to due process by the latter's expulsion from the party.
Ruling:
The COMELEC's jurisdiction over intra-party disputes is limited. It does not have blanket
authority to resolve any and all controversies involving political parties. Political parties are
generally free to conduct their activities without interference from the state. The
COMELEC... may intervene in disputes internal to a party only when necessary to the
discharge of its constitutional functions.
The COMELEC's jurisdiction over intra-party leadership disputes has already been settled
by the Court. The Court ruled in Kalaw v. Commission on Elections[16] that the
COMELEC's powers and functions under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution,...
"include the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers
responsible for its acts." The Court also declared in another case[17] that the COMELEC's
power to register political parties necessarily involved the... determination of the persons
who must act on its behalf. Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intra-party leadership
dispute, in a proper case brought before it, as an incident of its power to register political
parties.
The validity of respondent Roxas' election as LP president is a leadership issue that the
COMELEC had to settle.
the requirements of administrative due process do not apply to the internal affairs of political
parties.
n administrative agency or instrumentality "contemplates an authority to which the state
delegates governmental power for the performance of a state function."[22] The
constitutional limitations that generally apply to the exercise of the... state's powers thus,
apply too, to administrative bodies.
Although political parties play an important role in our democratic set-up as an intermediary
between the state and its citizens, it is still a private organization, not a state instrument.
The discipline of members by a political party does not involve the right to life,... liberty or
property within the meaning of the due process clause. An individual has no vested right, as
against the state, to be accepted or to prevent his removal by a political party.
But even when recourse to courts of law may be made, courts will ordinarily not interfere in
membership and disciplinary matters within a political party. A political party is free to
conduct its internal affairs, pursuant to its constitutionally-protected right to free...
association.
To conclude, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it upheld Roxas'
election as LP president but refused to rule on the validity of Atienza, et al.'s expulsion from
the party. While the question of party leadership has implications on the COMELEC's...
performance of its functions under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the same
cannot be said of the issue pertaining to Atienza, et al.'s expulsion from the LP. Such
expulsion is for the moment an issue of party membership and discipline, in which the
COMELEC... cannot intervene, given the limited scope of its power over political parties