CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

54. MAGDALO v. COMELEC established its compliance with the jurisdictional requirements; (b)
G.R. No. 190793 presented Acedillo as its witness; and (c) marked its documentary
June 19, 2012 evidence in support of its Petition for Registration. The following day,
MAGDALO filed its Formal Offer of Evidence.
BY: Titular COMELEC-2ND Division issued its Resolution denying the Petition for
Registration filed by MAGDALO. It ruled that because of the Oakwood
TOPIC:
Mutiny, “this and the fact that they were in full battle gear at the
time of the mutiny clearly show their purpose in employing violence
QUICK SUMMARY and using unlawful means to achieve their goals in the process
defying the laws of organized societies.”
MAGDALO filed petition for registration before the COMELEC to participate Magdalo filed an MR and a Manifestation of Intent to Participate in
in the 2010 National Elections. COMELEC-2nd Division and En Banc denied the Party-List System of Representation of the May 2010 National
its petition because of the violence its members employed during the Elections.
Oakwood Mutiny. MAGDALO alleged that COMELEC committed grave MAGDALO filed a Manifestation and Motion for Early Resolution dated
23 December 2009, in which it clarified its intention to participate in
abuse of discretion when it took judicial notice of the facts surrounding the
the National Elections.
said Mutiny i.e. those were pure conjectures and not evidence on record. COMELEC En Banc denied its MR.
MAGDALO filed this Petition for Certiorari to the SC praying that it will MAGDALO: maintains that although it concedes that the COMELEC
grants its registration and participation in the national elections and the has the authority to assess whether parties applying for registration
subsequent ones to come. SC ruled in favor of COMELEC insofar as it did possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under
not commit grave abuse of discretion but in view of the amnesty granted the applicable law, the latter nevertheless committed grave abuse of
in favor MAGDALO, the events that transpired during the Oakwood discretion in basing its determination on pure conjectures instead of
on the evidence on record.
incident can no longer be interpreted as acts of violence in the context of
COMELEC: It had the power to ascertain the eligibility of MAGDALO for
the disqualifications from party registration. registration and accreditation as a political party. It contends that this
determination, as well as that of assessing whether MAGDALO
FACTS: advocates the use of force, would entail the evaluation of evidence,
which cannot be reviewed by this Court in a petition for certiorari.
FACTS: MAGDALO prays for this Court to: (a) reverse and set aside the
Petitioner Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago (MAGDALO) filed its Petition COMELEC Resolutions; (b) grant its Petition for Registration; and (c)
for Registration with the COMELEC, seeking its registration and/or direct the COMELEC to issue a Certificate of Registration. The Petition
accreditation as a regional political party based in the NCR for likewise includes a prayer for the issuance of a TRO, PI to direct the
participation in the 2010 National and Local Elections. COMELEC to allow it to participate in the National Elections.
COMELEC-2nd Division directed MAGDALO to cause the publication of SC denied its TRO.
the Petition for Registration and the said Order in three daily Before it went to ruled on the substantial issues, the SC discussed
newspapers of general circulation. Petitioner complied. On 3 whether this case has been rendered moot and academic by the
September 2009, a hearing was conducted in which MAGDALO (a) conduct of the 10 May 2010 National and Local Elections. Although
the subject Petition for Registration filed by MAGDALO was intended
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

for the elections on even date, it specifically asked for accreditation as Administrative Code, specifically empowers administrative agencies to
a regional political party for purposes of subsequent elections admit and give probative value to evidence commonly acceptable by
This case comes under the exceptions on mootness that it is reasonably prudent men, and to take notice of judicially cognizable
“exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public facts.
interest is involved; and the case is capable of repetition yet evading
review. The instant action brings to the fore matters of public In a string of cases, SC has already taken judicial notice of the factual
concern, as it challenges the very notion of the use of violence or circumstances surrounding the Oakwood standoff. Thus, the COMELEC
unlawful means as a ground for disqualification from party did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it treated these facts as
registration. Moreover, considering the expressed intention of public knowledge, and took cognizance thereof without requiring the
MAGDALO to join subsequent elections, as well as the occurrence of introduction and reception of evidence thereon.
supervening events pertinent to the case at bar, it remains prudent to
examine the issues raised and resolve the arising legal questions once The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding that
and for all. MAGDALO uses violence or unlawful means to achieve its goals.
Under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987 Constitution, parties,
ISSUE: organizations and coalitions that “seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means” shall be denied registration. This
Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it disqualification is reiterated in Section 61 of B.P. 881, which provides
denied the Petition for Registration filed by MAGDALO on the ground that that “no political party which seeks to achieve its goal through violence
the latter seeks to achieve its goals through violent or unlawful means. shall be entitled to accreditation.”

In the present case, the Oakwood incident was one that was attended
HELD:
with violence. To achieve its goals in the Oakwood Mutiny, MAGDALO
opted to seize a hotel occupied by civilians, march in the premises in full
No, COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the battle gear with ammunitions, and plant explosives in the building.
Petition for Registration filed by MAGDALO. However, in view of the These brash methods by which MAGDALO opted to ventilate the
subsequent amnesty granted in favor of the members of MAGDALO, the grievances of its members and withdraw its support from the
events that transpired during the Oakwood incident can no longer be government constituted clear acts of violence.
interpreted as acts of violence in the context of the disqualifications from
The deliberate brandishing of military power, which included the show
party registration.
of force, use of full battle gear, display of ammunitions, and use of
explosive devices, engendered an alarming security risk to the public.
The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
taking judicial At the very least, the totality of these brazen acts fomented a threat of
notice of the
 Oakwood incident. violence that preyed on the vulnerability of civilians.

Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may be taken of matters that The finding that MAGDALO seeks to achieve its goals through violence or
are of “public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable unlawful means did not operate as a prejudgment of Criminal Case
demonstration.” Further, E.O. No. 292, otherwise known as the Revised The power vested by Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the Constitution and
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

Section 61 of BP 881 in the COMELEC to register political parties and In People v. Patriarca, Amnesty commonly denotes a general pardon to
ascertain the eligibility of groups to participate in the elections is purely rebels for their treason or other high political offenses, or the
administrative in character. In exercising this authority, the COMELEC forgiveness which one sovereign grants to the subjects of another, who
only has to assess whether the party or organization seeking have offended, by some breach, the law of nations. Amnesty looks
registration or accreditation pursues its goals by employing acts backward, and abolishes and puts into oblivion, the offense itself; it
considered as violent or unlawful, and not necessarily criminal in so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged, that
nature. Although this process does not entail any determination of the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as
administrative liability, as it is only limited to the evaluation of though he had committed no offense.
qualifications for registration, the ruling of this Court in Quarto v.
Marcelo is nonetheless analogously applicable: Nevertheless, this Court is not unmindful of the apprehensions of the
“An administrative case is altogether different from a criminal case, COMELEC as regards the use of violence. Thus, should MAGDALO decide to
such that the disposition in the former does not necessarily result in
file another Petition for Registration, its officers must individually execute
the same disposition for the latter, although both may arise from
affidavits renouncing the use of violence or other harmful means to achieve
the same set of facts. They are standards entirely different from
those applicable in administrative proceedings.“ the objectives of their organization. Further, it must also be underscored
that the membership of MAGDALO cannot include military officers and/or
Further, there is a well-established distinction between the quantum of enlisted personnel in active service, as this act would run counter to the
proof required for administrative proceedings and that for criminal express provisions of the Constitution
actions. In and Administrative Proceeding, the lowest standard of
substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion, applies.

In finding that MAGDALO resorts to violence or unlawful acts to fulfill

its organizational objectives, the COMELEC did not render an
assessment as to whether the members of petitioner committed
crimes, as respondent was not required to make that determination in
the first place. In arriving at its assailed ruling, the COMELEC only had
to assess whether there was substantial evidence adequate to support
this conclusion.

On the other hand, MAGDALO’s Criminal Case is a criminal action

charging members of MAGDALO with coup d’etat following the events
that took place during the Oakwood siege. As it is a criminal case, proof
beyond reasonable doubt is necessary.

On the Subsequent Grant of Amnesty to the Military Personnel involved in

the Oakwood standoff
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

G.R. No. 190793 June 19, 2012 requirements; (b) presented Acedillo as its witness; and (c)
marked its documentary evidence in support of its Petition for
MAGDALO PARA SA PAGBABAGO, Petitioner, Registration. The following day, MAGDALO filed its Formal Offer
vs. of Evidence.8
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
On 26 October 2009, the COMELEC–Second Division issued its
DECISION Resolution denying the Petition for Registration filed by
MAGDALO.9 The relevant portions of the assailed Resolution
SERENO, J.: read:

Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari pursuant to Rule 37, Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago should be refused registration in
Section 1 of the Commission of Elections (COMELEC) Rules of accordance with Art. IX-C, Section 2(5) of the Constitution. It is
Procedure,1 in relation to Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court, common knowledge that the party’s organizer and Chairman,
assailing the Resolutions dated 26 October 2009 and 4 January Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV, and some members participated
2010 issued by the COMELEC in SPP Case No. 09-073 (PP).2 in the take-over of the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Ayala
Center, Makati City on July 27, 2003, wherein several innocent
civilian personnel were held hostage. This and the fact that they
On 2 July 2009, Petitioner Magdalo sa Pagbabago (MAGDALO)
were in full battle gear at the time of the mutiny clearly show their
filed its Petition for Registration with the COMELEC, seeking its
purpose in employing violence and using unlawful means to
registration and/or accreditation as a regional political party based
achieve their goals in the process defying the laws of organized
in the National Capital Region (NCR) for participation in the 10
societies. x x x
May 2010 National and Local Elections.3 In the Petition,
MAGDALO was represented by its Chairperson, Senator Antonio
F. Trillanes IV, and its Secretary General, Francisco Ashley L. xxx xxx xxx
Acedillo (Acedillo).4 The Petition was docketed as SPP No. 09-
073 (PP) and raffled to the Second Division of the COMELEC WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition is hereby
(COMELEC–Second Division).5 DENIED.

In its Order dated 24 August 2009, the COMELEC–Second SO ORDERED.10 (Emphasis supplied.)
Division directed MAGDALO to cause the publication of the
Petition for Registration and the said Order in three daily On 3 November 2009, MAGDALO filed a Motion for
newspapers of general circulation, and set the hearing thereof on Reconsideration, which was elevated to the COMELEC En Banc
3 September 2009.6 In compliance therewith, MAGDALO caused for resolution.11
the publication of both documents in HATAW! No. 1 sa Balita,
Saksi sa Balita and BOMBA BALITA (Saksi sa Katotohanan).7 Meanwhile, on 27 November 2009, MAGDALO filed a
Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the Party-List System of
On 3 September 2009, a hearing was conducted in which Representation in the 10 May 2010 Elections (Manifestation of
MAGDALO (a) established its compliance with the jurisdictional Intent), in which it stated that its membership includes "[f]ormer
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Anti- this Court to: (a) reverse and set aside the 26 October 2009 and
Corruption Advocates, Reform-minded citizens."12 Thereafter, on 4 January 2010 COMELEC Resolutions; (b) grant its Petition for
30 November 2009, it filed its Amended Manifestation, which bore Registration; and (c) direct the COMELEC to issue a Certificate of
the following footnote: 13 Registration.16 The Petition likewise includes a prayer for the
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Writ of
With all due respect to the Honorable Commission, the Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and/or Injunctive Relief to direct
MAGDALO PARA SA PAGBABAGO ("MAGDALO") manifests the COMELEC to allow MAGDALO to participate in the 10 May
that the instant MANIFESTATION is being filed ex 2010 National and Local Elections.17 However, this Court denied
abutanti (sic) cautelam (out of the abundance of caution) only and the issuance of a TRO in its Resolution dated 2 February 2010.18
subject to the outcome of the resolution of the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Magdalo in SPP No. 09-073 (PP) from To support the grant of reliefs prayed for, MAGDALO puts
the Resolution dated 26 October 2009 of the Second Division of forward the following arguments:
the Honorable Commission denying its Petition for
Registration/Accreditation as a Political Party based in the The findings of the assailed resolutions on the basis of which the
National Capital Region [NCR], which motion is still pending the Petition was denied are based on pure speculation. The
(sic) Honorable Commission En Banc. It is not in any way Resolutions speculated as to the alleged motives and/or
intended to preempt the ruling of the Honorable Commission but intentions of the founders of petitioner Magdalo, which claims are
merely to preserve the possibility of pursuing the Party’s not based on evidence but on mere conjecture and pure baseless
participation in the Party-List System of Representation in the presuppositions;
eventuality that their Petition is approved.
The assailed Resolutions effectively preempted the court trying
Thereafter, MAGDALO filed a Manifestation and Motion for Early the case. The subject Resolutions unfairly jumped to the
Resolution dated 23 December 2009, in which it clarified its conclusion that the founders of the Magdalo "committed mutiny",
intention to participate in the 10 May 2010 National and Local "held innocent civilian personnel as hostage", "employed
Elections as a party-list group.14 violence" and "use[d] unlawful means" and "in the process defied
the laws of organized society" purportedly during the Oakwood
In its assailed Resolution dated 4 January 2010, the COMELEC incident when even the court trying their case, [Regional Trial
En Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Makati City], Branch 148,
MAGDALO.15 has not yet decided the case against them;

In the instant Petition, MAGDALO argues that (a) the COMELEC – and –
Resolutions were not based on the record or evidence presented;
(b) the Resolutions preempted the decision of the trial court in The Resolution violates the constitutional presumption of
Criminal Case No. 03-2784, in which several members of the innocence in favor of founders of the Magdalo and their basic
military are being tried for their involvement in the siege of the right of to [sic] due process of law.19
Oakwood Premier Apartments (Oakwood); and (c) it has
expressly renounced the use of force, violence and other forms of
unlawful means to achieve its goals. Thus, MAGDALO prays for
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

On the other hand, the COMELEC asserts that it had the power The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that
to ascertain the eligibility of MAGDALO for registration and can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts
accreditation as a political party.20 It contends that this will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is
determination, as well as that of assessing whether MAGDALO a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional
advocates the use of force, would entail the evaluation of character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
evidence, which cannot be reviewed by this Court in a petition for involved; third, when [the] constitutional issue raised requires
certiorari.21 formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar,
and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet
However, MAGDALO maintains that although it concedes that the evading review.25 (Emphasis supplied.)
COMELEC has the authority to assess whether parties applying
for registration possess all the qualifications and none of the The second and fourth exceptions are clearly present in the case
disqualifications under the applicable law, the latter nevertheless at bar. The instant action brings to the fore matters of public
committed grave abuse of discretion in basing its determination concern, as it challenges the very notion of the use of violence or
on pure conjectures instead of on the evidence on record.22 unlawful means as a ground for disqualification from party
registration. Moreover, considering the expressed intention of
Preliminary to the examination of the substantive issues, it must MAGDALO to join subsequent elections, as well as the
be discussed whether this case has been rendered moot and occurrence of supervening events pertinent to the case at bar, it
academic by the conduct of the 10 May 2010 National and Local remains prudent to examine the issues raised and resolve the
Elections. Although the subject Petition for Registration filed by arising legal questions once and for all.
MAGDALO was intended for the elections on even date, it
specifically asked for accreditation as a regional political party for Having established that this Court can exercise its power of
purposes of subsequent elections.23 judicial review, the issue for resolution is whether the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion when it denied the Petition for
Moreover, even assuming that the registration was only for the 10 Registration filed by MAGDALO on the ground that the latter
May 2010 National and Local Elections, this case nevertheless seeks to achieve its goals through violent or unlawful means. This
comes under the exceptions to the rules on mootness, as Court rules in the negative, but without prejudice to MAGDALO’s
explained in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo:24 filing anew of a Petition for Registration.

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a The COMELEC has a constitutional and statutory mandate to
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a ascertain the eligibility of parties and organizations to participate
declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. in electoral contests. The relevant portions of the 1987
Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it Constitution read:
on ground of mootness.
ARTICLE VI – LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed Sec. 60. Political party. – "Political party" or "party," when used in
of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless this Act, means an organized group of persons pursuing the
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative same ideology, political ideals or platforms of government and
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the includes its branches and divisions. To acquire juridical
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their personality, qualify it for subsequent accreditation, and to
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and entitle it to the rights and privileges herein granted to
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be political parties, a political party shall first be duly registered
elected through a party-list system of registered national, with the Commission. Any registered political party that, singly
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. or in coalition with others, fails to obtain at least ten percent of the
votes cast in the constituency in which it nominated and
xxx xxx xxx supported a candidate or candidates in the election next following
its registration shall, after notice and hearing, be deemed to have
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS forfeited such status as a registered political party in such
constituency.
C. The Commission on Elections
Sec. 61. Registration. – Any organized group of persons seeking
registration as a national or regional political party may file with
xxx xxx xxx
the Commission a verified petition attaching thereto its
constitution and by-laws, platforms or program of government and
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the such other relevant information as may be required by the
following powers and functions: Commission. The Commission shall after due notice and hearing,
resolve the petition within ten days from the date it is submitted
xxx xxx xxx for decision. No religious sect shall be registered as a political
party and no political party which seeks to achieve its goal
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, through violence shall be entitled to accreditation. (Emphasis
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other supplied.)
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on On the other hand, Republic Act No. 7941, otherwise known as
Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be the Party-List System Act, reads in part:
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to Section 2. Declaration of policy. The State shall promote
this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign proportional representation in the election of representatives to
government shall likewise be refused registration. x x x. the House of Representatives through a party-list system of
(Emphasis supplied.) registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations
or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging
Echoing these constitutional provisions, Batas Pambansa Bilang to marginalized and under-represented sectors, organizations
881 (BP 881), otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but
states: who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to seeking registration and accreditation, the pertinent question now
become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this is whether its exercise of this discretion was so capricious or
end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open whimsical as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. In view of the facts
party system in order to attain the broadcast possible available to the COMELEC at the time it issued its assailed
representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Resolutions, this Court rules that respondent did not commit
Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and grave abuse of discretion.
win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest
scheme possible. A. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
taking judicial notice of the Oakwood incident.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a
mechanism of proportional representation in the election of MAGDALO contends that it was grave abuse of discretion for the
representatives to the House of Representatives from national, COMELEC to have denied the Petition for Registration not on the
regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof basis of facts or evidence on record, but on mere speculation and
registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). conjectures.28 This argument cannot be given any merit.
Component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate
independently provided the coalition of which they form part does Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may be taken of matters
not participate in the party-list system. (Emphasis supplied.) that are of "public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration."29 Further, Executive Order No. 292, otherwise
Thus, to join electoral contests, a party or organization must known as the Revised Administrative Code, specifically
undergo the two-step process of registration and accreditation, as empowers administrative agencies to admit and give probative
this Court explained in Liberal Party v. COMELEC:26 value to evidence commonly acceptable by reasonably prudent
men, and to take notice of judicially cognizable facts.30 Thus, in
x x x Registration is the act that bestows juridical personality for Saludo v. American Express,31 this Court explained as follows:
purposes of our election laws; accreditation, on the other hand,
relates to the privileged participation that our election laws grant The concept of "facts of common knowledge" in the context of
to qualified registered parties. judicial notice has been explained as those facts that are "so
commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to
xxx xxx xxx require proof, and so certainly known x x x as to make it
indisputable among reasonable men."32
x x x Accreditation can only be granted to a registered political
party, organization or coalition; stated otherwise, a registration This Court has, in a string of cases, already taken judicial notice
must first take place before a request for accreditation can be of the factual circumstances surrounding the Oakwood
made. Once registration has been carried out, accreditation is the standoff. 33 The incident involved over 300 heavily armed military
next natural step to follow.27 (Emphasis supplied.) officers and enlisted men – led by the founding members of
MAGDALO – who surreptitiously took over Oakwood in the wee
Considering the constitutional and statutory authority of the hours of 27 July 2003. They disarmed the security guards and
COMELEC to ascertain the eligibility of parties or organizations planted explosive devices around the building and within its
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

vicinity. They aired their grievances against the administration of denotes physical force unlawfully exercised; abuse of force; that
former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (former President force which is employed against common right, against the laws,
Arroyo), withdrew their support from the government, and called and against public liberty.38 On the other hand, an unlawful act is
for her resignation, as well as that of her cabinet members and of one that is contrary to law and need not be a crime, considering
the top officials of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the that the latter must still unite with evil intent for it to exist. 39
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). After the ensuing
negotiations for these military agents to lay down their weapons, In the present case, the Oakwood incident was one that was
defuse the explosives and return to the barracks, the debacle attended with violence. As publicly announced by the leaders of
came to a close at 11:00 p.m. on the same day.34 That the MAGDALO during the siege, their objectives were to express
Oakwood incident was widely known and extensively covered by their dissatisfaction with the administration of former President
the media made it a proper subject of judicial notice. Thus, the Arroyo, and to divulge the alleged corruption in the military and
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it the supposed sale of arms to enemies of the state.40 Ultimately,
treated these facts as public knowledge,35 and took cognizance they wanted the President, her cabinet members, and the top
thereof without requiring the introduction and reception of officials of the AFP and the PNP to resign.41 To achieve these
evidence thereon. goals, MAGDALO opted to seize a hotel occupied by civilians,
march in the premises in full battle gear with ammunitions, and
B. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in plant explosives in the building. These brash methods by which
finding that MAGDALO uses violence or unlawful means to MAGDALO opted to ventilate the grievances of its members and
achieve its goals. withdraw its support from the government constituted clear acts of
violence.
In the instant Petition, MAGDALO claims that it did not resort to
violence when it took over Oakwood because (a) no one, either The assertions of MAGDALO that no one was held hostage or
civilian or military, was held hostage; (b) its members immediately that no shot was fired42 do not mask its use of impelling force to
evacuated the guests and staff of the hotel; and (c) not a single take over and sustain the occupation of Oakwood. Neither does
shot was fired during the incident.36 These arguments present a its express renunciation of the use of force, violence and other
very narrow interpretation of the concepts of violence and unlawful means in its Petition for Registration and Program of
unlawful means, and downplays the threat of violence displayed Government43 obscure the actual circumstances surrounding the
by the soldiers during the takeover. encounter. The deliberate brandishing of military power, which
included the show of force, use of full battle gear, display of
Under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987 Constitution, parties, ammunitions, and use of explosive devices, engendered an
organizations and coalitions that "seek to achieve their goals alarming security risk to the public. At the very least, the totality of
through violence or unlawful means" shall be denied registration. these brazen acts fomented a threat of violence that preyed on
This disqualification is reiterated in Section 61 of B.P. 881, which the vulnerability of civilians. The COMELEC did not, therefore,
provides that "no political party which seeks to achieve its goal commit grave abuse of discretion when it treated the Oakwood
through violence shall be entitled to accreditation." standoff as a manifestation of the predilection of MAGDALO for
resorting to violence or threats thereof in order to achieve its
Violence is the unjust or unwarranted exercise of force, usually objectives.
with the accompaniment of vehemence, outrage or fury.37 It also
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

C. The finding that MAGDALO seeks to achieve its goals through Further, there is a well-established distinction between the
violence or unlawful means did not operate as a prejudgment of quantum of proof required for administrative proceedings and that
Criminal Case No. 03-2784. for criminal actions, to wit:

MAGDALO contends that the finding of the COMELEC that the As an administrative proceeding, the evidentiary bar against
former pursues its goals through violence or unlawful means was which the evidence at hand is measured is not the highest
tantamount to an unwarranted verdict of guilt for several crimes, quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt, requiring moral
which in effect, preempted the proceedings in Criminal Case No. certainty to support affirmative findings. Instead, the lowest
03-2784 and violated the right to presumption of innocence.44 This standard of substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence
argument cannot be sustained. as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, applies.48 (Emphasis omitted.)
The power vested by Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the Constitution
and Section 61 of BP 881 in the COMELEC to register political In the case at bar, the challenged COMELEC Resolutions were
parties and ascertain the eligibility of groups to participate in the issued pursuant to its administrative power to evaluate the
elections is purely administrative in character.45 In exercising this eligibility of groups to join the elections as political parties, for
authority, the COMELEC only has to assess whether the party or which the evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence is
organization seeking registration or accreditation pursues its applicable. In finding that MAGDALO resorts to violence or
goals by employing acts considered as violent or unlawful, and unlawful acts to fulfil its organizational objectives, the COMELEC
not necessarily criminal in nature. Although this process does not did not render an assessment as to whether the members of
entail any determination of administrative liability, as it is only petitioner committed crimes, as respondent was not required to
limited to the evaluation of qualifications for registration, the ruling make that determination in the first place. Its evaluation was
of this Court in Quarto v. Marcelo46 is nonetheless analogously limited only to examining whether MAGDALO possessed all the
applicable: necessary qualifications and none of disqualifications for
registration as a political party. In arriving at its assailed ruling,
An administrative case is altogether different from a criminal the COMELEC only had to assess whether there was substantial
case, such that the disposition in the former does not necessarily evidence adequate to support this conclusion.
result in the same disposition for the latter, although both may
arise from the same set of facts. The most that we can read from On the other hand, Criminal Case No. 03-2784 is a criminal
the finding of liability is that the respondents have been found to action charging members of MAGDALO with coup d’état following
be administratively guilty by substantial evidence – the quantum the events that took place during the Oakwood siege. As it is a
of proof required in an administrative proceeding. The criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary.
requirement of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure…that the Therefore, although the registration case before the COMELEC
proposed witness should not appear to be the "most guilty" is and the criminal case before the trial court may find bases in the
obviously in line with the character and purpose of a criminal same factual circumstances, they nevertheless involve entirely
proceeding, and the much stricter standards observed in these separate and distinct issues requiring different evidentiary
cases. They are standards entirely different from those applicable thresholds. The COMELEC correctly ruled thus:
in administrative proceedings.47 (Emphasis supplied.)
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

It is at once apparent that that [sic] the proceedings in and the This Court, in People v. Patriarca,50 explained the concept of
consequent findings of the Commission (Second Division) in the amnesty, to wit:
subject resolution did not pre-empt the trial and decision of the
court hearing the cases of the Magdalo members. These are two Amnesty commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels for their
different processes. The proceedings in the Commission is [sic] a treason or other high political offenses, or the forgiveness which
petition for registration of Magdalo as a political party and the one sovereign grants to the subjects of another, who have
Commission is empowered to ascertain facts and circumstances offended, by some breach, the law of nations. Amnesty looks
relative to this case. It is not criminal in nature unlike the court backward, and abolishes and puts into oblivion, the offense itself;
case of the Magdalo founders. Thus, the Second Division did not it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is
violate the right of the Magdalo founders to be presumed innocent charged, that the person released by amnesty stands before the
until proven guilty when it promulgated the questioned resolution. law precisely as though he had committed no offense.
There is likewise no violation of due process. Accreditation as a
political party is not a right but only a privilege given to groups xxx xxx xxx
who have qualified and met the requirements provided by law.49
In the case of People vs. Casido, the difference between pardon
It is unmistakable from the above reasons that the ruling of the and amnesty is given:
COMELEC denying the Petition for Registration filed by
MAGDALO has not, as respondent could not have, preempted
"Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a
Criminal Case No. 03-2784 or violated the right of petitioner’s
private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person
members to a presumption of innocence.
pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while
amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the
Subsequent Grant of Amnesty to the Military Personnel involved concurrence of Congress, is a public act of which the courts
in the Oakwood standoff should take judicial notice. x x x"51 (Emphasis supplied.)

It must be clarified that the foregoing discussion finding the Pursuant to Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution,52 President
absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Benigno S. Aquino III issued on 24 November 2010 Proclamation
COMELEC is based on the facts available to it at the time it No. 75,53 which reads in part:
issued the assailed 26 October 2009 and 4 January 2010
Resolutions. It is crucial to make this qualification, as this Court
GRANTING AMNESTY TO ACTIVE AND FORMER
recognizes the occurrence of supervening events that could have
PERSONNEL OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
altered the COMELEC’s evaluation of the Petition for Registration
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE AND THEIR SUPPORTERS
filed by MAGDALO. The assessment of the COMELEC could
WHO MAY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES PUNISHABLE UNDER
have changed, had these incidents taken place before the
THE REVISED PENAL CODE, THE ARTICLES OF WAR AND
opportunity to deny the Petition arose. In the same manner that
OTHER LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE OAKWOOD
this Court takes cognizance of the facts surrounding the
MUTINY, THE MARINES STAND-OFF AND THE PENINSULA
Oakwood incident, it also takes judicial notice of the grant of
MANILA HOTEL INCIDENT
amnesty in favor of the soldiers who figured in this standoff.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

WHEREAS, it is recognized that certain active and former xxx xxx xxx
personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the
Philippine National Police (PNP) and their supporters have or SECTION 4. Effects. – (a) Amnesty pursuant to this proclamation
may have committed crimes punishable under the Revised Penal shall extinguish any criminal liability for acts committed in
Code, the Articles of War and other laws in connection with, in connection, incident or related to the July 27, 2003 Oakwood
relation or incident to the July 27, 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the Mutiny, the February 2006 Marines Stand-Off and the November
February 2006 Marines Stand-Off and the November 29, 2007 29, 2007 Peninsula Manila Hotel Incident without prejudice to the
Manila Pen Incident; grantee’s civil liability for injuries or damages caused to private
persons.
WHEREAS, there is a clamor from certain sectors of society
urging the President to extend amnesty to said AFP personnel (b) Except as provided below, the grant of amnesty shall
and their supporters; effect the restoration of civil and political rights or
entitlement of grantees that may have been suspended,
WHEREAS, Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution expressly lost or adversely affected by virtue of any executive,
vests the President the power to grant amnesty; administrative or criminal action or proceedings against
the grantee in connection with the subject incidents,
WHEREAS, the grant of amnesty in favor of the said active and including criminal conviction or (sic) any form, if any.
former personnel of the AFP and PNP and their supporters will
promote an atmosphere conducive to the attainment of a just, (c) All enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the
comprehensive and enduring peace and is in line with the Philippines with the rank of up to Technical Sergeant and
Government’s peace and reconciliation initiatives; personnel of the PNP with the rank of up to Senior Police
Officer 3, whose applications for amnesty would be
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of approved shall be entitled to reintegration or
the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by Section reinstatement, subject to existing laws and regulations.
19, Article VII of the Philippine Constitution, do However, they shall not be entitled to back pay during the
hereby DECLARE and PROCLAIM: time they have been discharged or suspended from
service or unable to perform their military or police duties.
SECTION 1. Grant of Amnesty. – Amnesty is hereby granted to
all active and former personnel of the AFP and PNP as well as (d) Commissioned and Non-commissioned officers of the
their supporters who have or may have committed crimes AFP with the rank of Master Sergeant and personnel of
punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the Articles of War or the PNP with the rank of at least Senior Police Officer 4
other laws in connection with, in relation or incident to the July 27, whose application for amnesty will be approved shall not
2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the February 2006 Marines Stand-Off and be entitled to remain in the service, reintegration or
the November 29, 2007 Manila Peninsula Incident who shall reinstatement into the service nor back pay.
apply therefor; Provided that amnesty shall not cover rape, acts of
torture, crimes against chastity and other crimes committed for (e) All AFP and PNP personnel granted amnesty who are
personal ends. not reintegrated or reinstated shall be entitled to
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

retirement and separation benefits, if qualified under WHEREAS, it is the sense of both House of Congress that it is
existing laws and regulation, as of the time [of] imperative that an amnesty partaking the nature proclaimed by
separation, unless they have forfeited such retirement His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, is necessary for
benefits for reasons other than the acts covered by this the general interest of the Philippines; xxx (Emphasis supplied.)
Proclamation. Those reintegrated or reinstated shall be
entitled to their retirement and separation benefit[s] upon In light of the foregoing, to still sustain the finding, based on the
their actual retirement. (Emphasis supplied.) participation of its members in the Oakwood incident, that
MAGDALO employs violence or other harmful means would be
Thereafter, the House of Representatives and the Senate inconsistent with the legal effects of amnesty. Likewise, it would
adopted Concurrent Resolution No. 4 on 13 and 14 December not be in accord with the express intention of both the Executive
2010, respectively.54 Relevant portions of the Resolution partly and the Legislative branches, in granting the said amnesty, to
read: promote an atmosphere conducive to attaining peace in line with
the government’s peace and reconciliation initiatives.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH
PROCLAMATION NO. 75 OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE Nevertheless, this Court is not unmindful of the apprehensions of
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DATED 24 NOVEMBER 2010 the COMELEC as regards the use of violence. Thus, should
1awp+ +i1

ENTITLED "GRANTING AMNESTY TO ACTIVE AND FORMER MAGDALO decide to file another Petition for Registration, its
PERSONNEL OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, officers must individually execute affidavits renouncing the use of
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE AND THEIR SUPPORTERS violence or other harmful means to achieve the objectives of their
WHO MAY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES PUNISHABLE UNDER organization. Further, it must also be underscored that the
THE REVISED PENAL CODE, THE ARTICLES OF WAR AND membership of MAGDALO cannot include military officers and/or
OTHER LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE OAKWOOD enlisted personnel in active service, as this act would run counter
MUTINY, THE MARINES STAND-OFF AND THE PENINSULA to the express provisions of the Constitution:
MANILA HOTEL INCIDENT
ARTICLE XVI – GENERAL PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution provides
that the President shall have the power to grant amnesty with the Section 5. (1) All members of the armed forces shall take an oath
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress; or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

WHEREAS, both Houses of Congress share the view of the (3) Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate
President that in order to promote an atmosphere conducive to remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime
the attainment of a just, comprehensive and enduing peace and concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated from
in line with the Government’s peace and reconciliation initiatives, partisan politics.
there is a need to declare amnesty in favor of the said active and
former personnel of the AFP and PNP and their supporters;
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in

any partisan political activity, except to vote.
1âwphi1

(4) No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at

any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian
position in the Government including government-owned or
controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries. (Emphasis
supplied.)

This Court finds that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in denying the Petition for Registration filed by
MAGDALO. However, in view of the subsequent amnesty granted
in favor of the members of MAGDALO, the events that transpired
during the Oakwood incident can no longer be interpreted as acts
of violence in the context of the disqualifications from party
registration.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DISMISSED. The 26

October 2009 and 4 January 2010 Resolutions of the
Commission on Elections are hereby AFFIRMED, without
prejudice to the filing anew of a Petition for Registration by
MAGDALO.

SO ORDERED.