Lico v.

Commission on Elections En Banc

FACTS:
 November 16, 2009: Ating Koop (AK) was registered under RA 7941 (Party-List System Act)
o Under AK’s Constitution and by-laws – highest policy-making body is the National Convention,
but when the NC is not in session, the Central Committee takes over
 November 30, 2009: AK filed its Manifestation of Intent to participate in the Party-List System of
representation for the May 2010 elections
o March 6, 2010: filed list of nominees to COMELEC, with petitioner LICO as first nominee and
MASCARIÑA as second nominee
 December 8, 2010: COMELEC proclaimed AK as one of the winning party-list groups – giving them a seat
in the House of Representatives
o Petitioner Lico, being their first nominee, took his oath of office before the Secretary General of the
HOR and thereafter assumed office
 May 14, 2011: AK held National Convention and introduced amendments to its Constitution and Bylaws
o Changes included: (1) composition of Central Committee which would be 15 representatives with
5 (each) coming from Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, (2) cut short the 3-year term of the incumbent
members (referred to hereafter as the Interim Central Committee) – the Interim Central Committee
(ICC) was dominated by members of the Rimas Group
 December 5, 2011: ICC expelled Lico from AK for disloyalty, malversation, graft and corruption. The
Committee also cited Lico’s refusal to honor the term-sharing agreement under AK’s Amended Constitution
and Bylaws
o Congressman Lico filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the ICC but was denied
o December 2011: While the motion was pending, the Lico Group had a special meeting in Cebu, and
they elected a new set of officers. This election was held to implement the 5-5-5 rule of the
amendment made earlier on
o January 2012: The Rimas Group also held a Special National Convention in Parañaque City where
new set of officers were constituted.
 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMELEC SECOND DIVISION:
o Rimas Group representing AK filed a petition against Lico.
 Prayed for Lico to be ordered to vacate office of AK in HOR and for the succession of 2 nd
nominee Mascariña as AK representative in the house  The Rimas Group stated that AK
had expelled Lico for violating the basic principles of AK
 Impleaded Lico and entire Lico Group, praying for the COMELEC to nullify the election
held in Cebu City and to recognize the Parañaque Convention  The Rimas group stated
that the Cebu meeting held by the Lico Group violated notice and quorum requirements
 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMELEC EN BANC
o Licio filed a Motion for Reconsideration from the 2 nd Division’s Resolution.
 The COMELEC En Banc DISMISSED the petition to expel respondent Lico from his
position in the house for lack of jurisdiction  seeing as AK alleges that Lico was expelled,
COMELEC stated that qualifications of members of the HOR are only within the
jurisdiction of the HRET
 UPHELD expulsion of Lico from AK and UPHELD the AK Party-List as duly represented
by Rimas as its president  COMELEC stated that they were not in a position to substitute
its judgment for that of AK with respect to the cause of the expulsion of Lico
 COMELEC En Banc recognized the Rimas Group as the legitimate representative of AK
considering the ff.:
1. No records showing Lico Group made a valid call for sepecial election as required
under the amended Constitution and By-Laws
2. No record indicating that a minimum of 100 attended Cebu meeting
3. Parañaque convention was in accordance with the AK constitution and by-laws
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. W/N COMELEC had jurisdiction over the expulsion of Lico as a Member of the HOR from his party-list
organization – NO
o COMELEC was correct in dismissing the petition to expel Lico from the HOR, but their ruling on
the validity of his expulsion from AK is a matter beyond its purview
 COMELEC justified its resolution on the merits that it can decide intra-party matters
because of its constitutionally granted powers and functions
 Cited Lokin v COMELEC but Lokin involved nominees and not incumbent members of
Congress
 The jurisdiction of the HRET on members of Congress is EXCLUSIVE
o Sec. 17 Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution gives HRET jurisdiction to resolve questions on
qualifications of members of Congress – HRET automatically acquires jurisdiction over
disqualification cases upon (1) proclamation of the winning party-list group, (2) oath of nominee,
(3) assumption of office as member of house
o Needless to say, bona fide membership in the party-list group is a continuing qualification – from
time of appointment or election, assumption of office and during entire tenure
o In Abayon v HRET petitioners did not belong to the marginalized as they should represent, as such
they weren’t considered bona fide members of their respective party-list organizations
o COMELEC should not have encroached into the expulsion issue, as it was outside its authority to
do so
o This case is different from Reyes v. COMELEC – in Reyes COMELEC upheld the disqualification
of petitioner even if she was already proclaimed as winner. Because she hadn’t assumed office, she
wasn’t a member of the HOR yet. COMELEC had jurisdiction in this case.
2. W/N the Lico Group legitimately represents Ating Koop – NO
o The court rejected Lico Group’s argument that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction to decide which
group should be recognized. As an incident of its enforcement powers, COMELEC has the
jurisdiction to settle the struggle for leadership within party-lists
o Having said this, COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the Rimas Group as
the legitimate set of AK officers because the amended Constitution and by-laws were not registered
with the COMELEC
 Neither of the elections held by the Lico Group and Rimas Group were valid
o A party-list organization owes its existence to the State and latters approval must be obtained
through the COMELEC acting as the state’s agent
o In addition, under the Corporation Code, an amendment to a bylaw must be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC)
o Without such requisite proof, neither the Lico Group nor the Rimas Group can claim to be the
legitimate set of officers
1. Cebu Meeting: not enough members to qualify as quorum, deficient and no sufficient proof
of quorum
2. Parañaque Convention: only had minutes of the meeting as proof and fails to establish due
notice and a quorum
o “Equipoise doctrine” comes into play – when respective sets of evidence of both parties are evenly
balanced, the party having the burden of proof fails in that issue.  the Rimas Group being the
petitioner had the burden of proving that they are the legitimate group
o Because of the equipoise doctrine, the courts are left with no option but to dismiss the
complaint/petition. The court finds such legitimate leadership to be in the Interim Central
Committee, whose members remain as such in a holdover capacity  the by-laws of AK do not
expressly or impliedly forbid the application of the holdover rule.

Ruling:
“WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The COMELEC En Banc Resolution and the
COMELC Second Division Resolution are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE insofar as it declares valid the
expulsion of Congressmen Lico from Ating Koop and it upholds the ATING KOOP Party-List Group represented by
its President, Amparo Rimas, as the legitimate Party-List Group. A new one is entered DECLARING that the
legitimate Central Committee and set of officers legitimately representing Ating Koop are the Interim Central
Committee and set of officers prior to the split of Ating Koop.”