Atienza v COMELEC

G.R. No. 188920. February 16, 2010

Facts:

Drilon, the former president of the Liberal Party (LP) announced that his party withdrew support for the administration of former Pres. Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo. However, Atienza, LPChairman, alleged that Drilon made the announcement without consulting first the party.

            Atienza hosted a party conference which resulted to the election of new officers, with Atienza as LP president. Drilon immediately filed a petition with the COMELEC to nullify the said election claiming that it was illegal considering that the party’s electing bodies, NECO and NAPOLCO, were not properly convened. Moreover, Drilon claimed that under the LP Constitution, there is a three-year term. Meaning, his term has not yet ended.

However, Atienza contested that the election of new officers could be likened to people power removing Drilon as president by direct action. Also, Atienza alleged that the amendment to the LP Constitution providing the three-term had not been properly ratified. The COMELEC held that the election of Atienza and others was invalid since the electing assembly did not convene in accordance with the LP Constitution.

The COMELEC ruled that since the said Constitution was not ratified, Drilon was only sitting in a hold-overcapacity since his term has been ended already. Subsequently, the LP held a NECO meeting to elect new party leaders before respondent Drilon’s term expired which resulted to the election of Roxas as the new LP president. Atienza et al. sought to enjoin Roxas from assuming the presidency of the LP questioning the validity of the quorum. The COMELEC issued resolution denying petitioners Atienza et al’s petition.

As for the validity of petitioners Atienza, et al’s expulsion as LP members, the COMELEC observed that this was a membership issue that related to disciplinary action within the political party. The COMELEC treated it as an internal party matter that was beyond its jurisdiction to resolve. 

Issue:

WoN the COMELEC has jurisdiction over intra-party dispute.

Held:

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 Court ruled in Kalaw v. Commission on Elections 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.”  Moreover, 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 COMELEC did not err when it upheld Roxas’s election but refused to rule on the validity of Atienza’s expulsion.