THE Supreme Court (SC) en banc junked the petition filed by party-list group Organization of Regional Advocates for Good Governance Onward Nation-Building (Oragon).

In a two-page resolution of the High Court—dated December 4, 2012 but released to the media only on Friday—signed and promulgated by lawyer Enriqueta Vidal, clerk of court of the High Court en banc, the petition of Oragon was dismissed after the Commission on Elections (Comelec) denied its accreditation as a party-list group.

The poll body has ruled that Oragon cannot be considered as a party-list group.

This caused the group to elevate their case before the High Court seeking an injunction order and to rule in favor with them on the merits of the case.

The 15-man tribunal stressed that the petition of Oragon failed to comply with the requirements mandated by the Rules of Court and because of the late filing of the petition.

The petition failed to comply with Rule 64 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, which could be a ground for the immediate dismissal of a petition before the High Court.
The SC pointed out that Oragon failed to accompany their petition with duplicate original copies of the assailed ruling of the Comelec.

“The court resolved to dismiss the instant petition for certiorari for non compliance therewith, particularly for [a] late filing; and [b] failure to accompany the petition with a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed judgment in violation of Section 5, Rule 64.”

On the substance of the case, the High Tribunal has also ruled that the Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in its ruling against the group.

It argued that the poll body ruling is in consonance with existing laws and jurisprudence. “In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Commission on Elections in rendering the challenged resolution which, on the contrary, appears to be in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.”