i-site’s 2007 Election Files

UPHOLDING the constitutional right to information, the Supreme Court last week ordered the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to reveal the names of all the nominees of the 91 accredited party-list groups.

In a 15-page ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the Comelec “committed grave abuse of discretion” in refusing to bare the list of the nominees.

The nominees vying for the 55 seats allocated for party-list groups in the House of Representatives include: retired Major General Jovito Palparan of the True Marcos Loyalist Association Inc.; charter change advocate Raul Lambino of the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency; Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos’s brother, Arsenio, of Biyaheng Pinoy; and AA-Kasosyo’s Felix Brawner Jr., brother of poll commissioner Romeo Brawner.

See the entire list of the party-list nominees on i-site’s 2007 Election Files.

Akbayan Party-list Representative Loretta Ann Rosales in April filed the petition before the Supreme Court, seeking the Court to compel the Comelec to disclose the names of 14 party-list groups. Rosales claimed that the nominees have dubious backgrounds, “several of whom we consider to be suspected Palace fronts and agents.”

The Comelec earlier issued Resolution no. 07-0724 declaring the nominees’ names confidential. Abalos explained in an interview that there is nothing in Section 7 of RA 7941 or the Party-list System Act that requires the Comelec to disclose the names of nominees.

But the High Court said the Comelec “obviously misread the limited nondisclosure aspect of the provision.” Section 7 merely states that “the names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list,” copies of which will be posted in polling places on election day.

“There is absolutely nothing in RA 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even publishing through mediums other than the certified lists the names of the party-list nominees,” the Supreme Court said.

The High Court also struck down the Comelec’s argument that revealing such a list would “only confuse voters,” stressing its belief that party-list elections must not be personality-oriented.

While the Comelec’s argument is valid, the Court said “it cannot be taken, however, to justify its assailed nondisclosure stance which comes with a weighty presumption of invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a fundamental right to information.”

The Court listed two constitutional provisions on the right to information: Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, which upholds the right of the people to information on matters of public concern; and Section 28 of Article II which states that the State must adopt a policy of full disclosure of transactions that are of public interest.

Further, the Supreme Court stressed that the people have the right to elect representatives on the basis of an informed judgment. “While the vote cast in a party-list elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House of Representatives.”

“The Court has consistently made it clear that it frowns upon any interpretation of the law or rules that would hinder in any way the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election,” it added.

See related post: “Palace ‘special operations‘ for party-list elections bared”