section_path: History/Origins
section_name: Origins
paragraph_text: Origins
  
  After the Hello Garci scandal, the party was split into two main factions in 2006, one led by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and another by former president Fidel V. Ramos, who had initially supported Arroyo despite the scandal but later called for her resignation.
  
  On January 16, 2008, Lakas spokesman and legal counsel Raul Lambino released a list of potential Lakas senatorial bets for 2010. Except for Parañaque Representative Eduardo Zialcita, they were not yet identified.
  
  Former House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. resigned his post as president of Lakas–CMD on March 10, 2008; he rejected the proposition of former president Fidel Ramos to give him the title Chairman-emeritus. The then current House Speaker Prospero Nograles was sworn in as the new president of Lakas–CMD party and Feliciano Belmonte Jr. as vice president for Metro Manila affairs on the same day.
  
  On June 18, 2008, President Arroyo confirmed the merger of the original Lakas–Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas–CMD) and the Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (KAMPI) parties. Both parties adopted the "equity of the incumbent" principle, as the merger would account for almost 200 national and 8,000 local officials, amid Arroyo's prediction of 2010 elections victory. The party's president, Prospero Nograles, and KAMPI chairperson, Ronaldo Puno, signed the covenant at the Davao City regional caucus. Ramos announced on February 6, 2008, that the Lakas–CMD name would be retained even after the merger, and asserted that de Venecia will remain as the party's president.
  
  On August 9, 2009, de Venecia and Ramos led fifty members from Lakas in objecting to its merger with KAMPI on May 28, 2009. The faction retained de Venecia its president with Ramos as the Chairman Emeritus. Ramos refused the offer to become the Chairman Emeritus of the new party after being named in the interim party organization. De Venecia filed a resolution at the Commission on Elections to declare the merger null and void. However, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the legality of the merger, citing the failure of de Venecia "to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Commission on Elections in rendering the challenged resolution."