Christian Action Party of Puerto Rico v. Veray Torregrosa

90 P.R. 66
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedFebruary 19, 1964
DocketNo. AP-63-33
StatusPublished

This text of 90 P.R. 66 (Christian Action Party of Puerto Rico v. Veray Torregrosa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Christian Action Party of Puerto Rico v. Veray Torregrosa, 90 P.R. 66 (prsupreme 1964).

Opinions

Mr. Justice Pérez Pimentel

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The political group known as “Christian Action Party” is in process of registration to participate as a party by petition in the 1964 general elections. In view of the existing [68]*68conflict of criteria between the directors of that group and the public officers as to which is the applicable law and governing the registration of new political parties, the former filed in the Superior Court a petition for a declaratory judgment against above-entitled appellees. Their complaint was dismissed and they allege before this Court that the trial court committed the following errors:

“(A) FIRST ERROR
“The Superior Court erred in holding that in order to acquire the category of party by petition for the 1964 elections, the Christian Action Party must register candidates by petition in and for three-fourths or more of the electoral precincts of the Commonwealth and to file petitions for nomination of candidates equivalent to ten percent or more of the total votes cast for all the candidates for the office of Governor in the 1960 elections.
“(B) SECOND ERROR
“The Superior Court erred in holding that Act No. 140 of June 30, 1961 does not increase the minimum requirements for the registration of new parties by the Act in force when the Constitution took effect; that Act No. 140 of 1961 is in full force and effect; that Veray Torregrosa acted within the law in refusing to administer oaths to the petitioners; and that the General Supervisor of Elections is the custodian of the petitions for registration of candidates.
“(C) THIRD ERROR
“The Superior Court erred in holding that plaintiffs have no standing to obtain the remedy of declaratory judgment because they have not registered as yet in one-half of the electoral precincts of the Island, nor filed petitions in a number equivalent to five percent of all the votes cast for Governor, assuming that such requirements are the necessary ones.”

CAP maintains that by virtue of § 6 of art. IX of the Transitory Provisions of our Constitution, the law which governs and establishes at present the minimum require[69]*69ments for the registration of new parties is Act No. 6 of September 27, 1951 (Sp. Sess. Laws, p. 106), which amended § 14 of the Election Law, rather than Act No. 140 of June 30, 1961 (Sess. Laws, p. 304), which amended § 37 of the Election Law.

In our judgment, appellants stand on an erroneous premise and accordingly reach an erroneous conclusion. The constitutional provision invoked by petitioners-appellants reads as follows:

“Section 6. — Political parties shall continue to enjoy all rights recognized by the election law, provided that on the effective date of this Constitution they fulfill the minimum requirements for the registration of new parties contained in said law. Five years after this Constitution shall have taken effect the Legislative Assembly may change these requirements, but any law increasing them shall not go into effect until after the general election next following its enactment.” (Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution.)

The clear purpose of these provisions is to guarantee the subsistence of the political parties with all the rights recognized to them by the Election Law. In order to continue that subsistence it was sufficient for the political parties to fulfill the minimum requirements for the registration of new parties provided by the law in force when the Constitution went into effect. These requirements were less than those required by the Election Law in order to retain the category of principal party after the elections were held. The Legislative Assembly could not change those requirements during the first five years after the Constitution went into effect, and any law enacted after five years increasing those requirements would not have effect until after the general elections next following its enactment. Thus, the political parties which participated in the 1948 general elections as principal parties or parties by petition subsisted as principal parties if they fulfilled the minimum requirements for the registration of [70]*70new parties provided by the law in force on July 25, 1952. The parties which participated in the 1952 and 1956 elections enjoyed the same protection. For the purposes of the subsistence or retention of the status as political party, the Legislature could change the minimum requirements provided by the Election Law five years after the Constitution took effect, although the law increasing those requirements would not go into effect until after the general elections next following its enactment.

What we wish to stress is that the purpose of that constitutional provision is to protect the subsistence of the political parties rather than the registration of new parties, which is, in our opinion, the error committed by appellants. How does a party lose its category of principal party or of party by petition? When the candidate of that party for Governor of Puerto Rico fails to obtain in the preceding general elections a number of votes equivalent to ten percent of the total votes cast at the last immediately preceding general elections by all the parties for all the candidates for Governor of Puerto Rico. It is so provided by § 14 of the Election Law. However, the Constitution changed the requirements for the subsistence of political parties as such at least during a period which some delegates to the Constituent Assembly called a “freezing” period, by providing that “they shall continue to enjoy all rights recognized by the Election Law, provided that on the effective date of this Constitution they fulfill the minimum requirements for the registration of new parties contained in said law.”

And the act which established the minimum requirements for the registration of new parties at the time the Constitution took effect was § 14 of the Election Law, as amended by Act No. 6 of September 27, 1951. That section provides:

“Section 14. — Political parties shall be the principal parties and the parties by petition. Principal party shall be any political party whose candidate for Governor of Puerto Rico received at [71]*71the last immediately preceding general election a number of votes equivalent to ten (10) per cent or more of the total vote cast in said last immediately preceding general election by all parties for all candidates to the office of Governor of Puerto Rico.
“Principal majority party shall be the principal party whose candidate for Governor of Puerto Rico received at the last immediately preceding general election the largest number of votes cast in said last immediately preceding general election for all candidates to the office of Governor of Puerto Rico.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gray v. Sanders
372 U.S. 368 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Feinglass v. Reinecke
48 F. Supp. 438 (N.D. Illinois, 1942)
Cooper v. Cartwright
1948 OK 172 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1948)
State ex rel. Mills v. Stewart
210 P. 465 (Montana Supreme Court, 1922)
State ex rel. Ekern v. Dammann
254 N.W. 759 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 P.R. 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christian-action-party-of-puerto-rico-v-veray-torregrosa-prsupreme-1964.