INDUSTRIALIST Jose Concepcion suffered a setback after the Supreme Court dismissed his petition assailing the Commission on Elections (Comelec) ruling that ordered his removal as chairman of the National Citizen’s Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel).

The removal Concepcion was recommended as precondition for the election watchdog’s accreditation as its citizen’s arm in the May 14, 2007 polls.

For updates from around the country, follow Sun.Star on Twitter

Concepcion is assailing the Comelec en banc’s resolution dated April 2, 2007 and order dated May 8, 2007 prohibiting the appointment of barangay officials, employees, and tanods (watchmen) from being members of the citizen’s arm of the Comelec, pursuant to Executive Order 94, signed by then President Corazon Aquino.

He was then the chairman of Barangay Forbes Park in Makati City and was one of the signatories of the Namfrel petition seeking its accreditation to conduct a quick count of votes in the 2007 polls.

Namfrel’s accreditation was granted by the election body subject to the conditions that it would reorganize itself and disqualifying Concepcion to be part of the poll watchdog.

It submitted a manifestation that it has accepted and complied with the provisions and conditions set by the Comelec, and that it is understood that the accreditation shall be deemed automatically revoked in case Namfrel violates any of these. 

The Supreme Court (SC), in an en banc decision, affirmed the Comelec’s en banc Resolution 7798 which banned Namfrel from appointing barangay officials, including Concepcion, as member of the Board of Election Inspectors or as official watcher of any candidate, duly registered major political party or similar organization in the 2004 polls.

It noted two fatal defects in Concepcion’s petition, for his legal standing in filing the case and “for blatant misuse of Rules 65 of the Rules of Court” which set the guidelines for filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

It said Concepcion was not a party to Namfrel’s manifestation and request for examination filed before the Comelec in response to its April 2007 resolution.

“To be sure, a Comelec adjudicatory action can be challenged on the basis of the invalidity of the law or regulation that underlies the action. But to do this, a valid challenge to the adjudicatory action must exist; at the very least, the petitioner must have the requisite personality to mount the legal challenge to the Comelec adjudicatory action,” the SC ruled.

The High Court said the requirement of personality is sanctioned by Section 7, Article 9 of the Constitution, which provides that “a decision, order or ruling of a constitutional commission may be brought to this Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.”

According to the SC, this requirement was repeated in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides that “a person aggrieved by any act of a tribunal, board or officer exercising quasi-judicial functions… may file a petition for certiorari.”

It further explained that under Section 1 Rule 65, an aggrieved party is one who was a party to the original proceedings.

The SC also said Concepcion should have challenged the Comelec’s resolution through a petition for declaratory relief with the appropriate Regional Trial Court under the terms of Rules 63 of the Rules of Court or through a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 to prevent the implementation of the resolution.

It said the Comelec’s denial of Namfrel’s request to examine its interpretation of the April 2, 2007 resolution may be properly ventilated before the regular courts and not at the SC, which is not a trier of facts.

“It would have been another matter had Namfrel filed the present petition with the petitioner as intervenor because of his personal interest in the Comelec ruling. He (Concepcion) could have intervened, too, before the Comelec, as an affected party in Namfrel’s manifestation and request for examination,” the SC said.

“Thus, the present petition is clearly the petitioner’s own initiative, and Namfrel, the direct party in the Comelec’s April 2, 2007 Resolution, has absolutely no participation,” it added. (ECV/Sunnex)