Election Cases Chapter 4 Political Parties

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY G.R. No.
190582
important questions of public policy is a core value protected by our Bill of Rights. Indeed, our
represented herein by its Chair,
DANTON REMOTO, democracy is built on genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity and difference in
Petitioner, Present:
opinion.
PUNO, C. J., Since ancient times, society has grappled with deep disagreements about the
CARPIO,
CORONA, definitions and demands of morality. In many cases, where moral convictions are concerned,
CARPIO MORALES, harmony among those theoretically opposed is an insurmountable goal. Yet herein lies the
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, paradox philosophical justifications about what is moral are indispensable and yet at the same
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
time powerless to create agreement. This Court recognizes, however, that practical solutions are
- versus - BRION,
PERALTA, preferable to ideological stalemates; accommodation is better than intransigence; reason more
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, worthy than rhetoric. This will allow persons of diverse viewpoints to live together, if not
ABAD, harmoniously, then, at least, civilly.
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ. Factual Background
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated:
Respondent. April 8, 2010
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with an
x--------------------------------------------------------x
application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, filed by Ang Ladlad LGBT Party
DECISION
(Ang Ladlad) against the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated
DEL CASTILLO, J.: November 11, 2009[2] (the First Assailed Resolution) and December 16, 2009[3] (the Second
Assailed Resolution) in SPP No. 09-228 (PL) (collectively, the Assailed Resolutions). The case
... [F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That
would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to has its roots in the COMELECs refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization under
differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act.[4]
Justice Robert A. Jackson
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette[1]
Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves
as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs). Incorporated in 2003, Ang
One unavoidable consequence of everyone having the freedom to choose is that others may Ladlad first applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006. The application for
make different choices choices we would not make for ourselves, choices we may disapprove accreditation was denied on the ground that the organization had no substantial membership
of, even choices that may shock or offend or anger us. However, choices are not to be legally base. On August 17, 2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a Petition[5] for registration with the
prohibited merely because they are different, and the right to disagree and debate about COMELEC.
1
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompense of their error which was meet.
Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT community is a
In the Koran, the hereunder verses are pertinent:
marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their
sexual orientation and gender identity; that LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to
women ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond
violence; that because of negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual bounds. (7.81) And we rained down on them a shower
orientation; and that Ang Ladlad complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who
indulged in sin and crime! (7:84) He said: O my Lord!
in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections.[6] Ang Ladlad laid out Help Thou me against people who do mischief (29:30).
its national membership base consisting of individual members and organizational supporters,
As correctly pointed out by the Law Department in its Comment
and outlined its platform of governance.[7] dated October 2, 2008:
The ANG LADLAD apparently advocates sexual

On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioners evidence, the COMELEC immorality as indicated in the Petitions par. 6F:
Consensual partnerships or relationships by gays and
(Second Division) dismissed the Petition on moral grounds, stating that: lesbians who are already of age. It is further indicated
x x x This Petition is dismissible on moral grounds. Petitioner in par. 24 of the Petition which waves for the record: In
defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) 2007, Men Having Sex with Men or MSMs in
Community, thus: the Philippines were estimated as 670,000 (Genesis 19
is the history of Sodom and Gomorrah).
x x x a marginalized and under-represented sector that
is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual Laws are deemed incorporated in every contract,
orientation and gender identity. permit, license, relationship, or accreditation. Hence,
and proceeded to define sexual orientation as that which: pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and the Revised
Penal Code are deemed part of the requirement to be
x x x refers to a persons capacity for profound complied with for accreditation.
emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and
intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a ANG LADLAD collides with Article 695 of the Civil
different gender, of the same gender, or more than one Code which defines nuisance as Any act, omission,
gender. establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which x x x (3) shocks, defies; or
This definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that petitioner disregards decency or morality x x x
tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs. In Romans 1:26, 27,
Paul wrote: It also collides with Article 1306 of the Civil Code: The
contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
For this cause God gave them up into vile affections, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
for even their women did change the natural use into convenient, provided they are not contrary to
that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, law, morals, good customs, public order or public
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their policy. Art 1409 of the Civil Code provides that
lust one toward another; men with men working that Contracts whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to
2
law, morals, good customs, public order or public Furthermore, should this Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our
policy are inexistent and void from the beginning. youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith.
Lehman Strauss, a famous bible teacher and writer in the U.S.A. said in one
Finally to safeguard the morality of the Filipino community, the Revised article that older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth. As an
Penal Code, as amended, penalizes Immoral doctrines, obscene agency of the government, ours too is the States avowed duty under Section
publications and exhibitions and indecent shows as follows: 13, Article II of the Constitution to protect our youth from moral and
spiritual degradation.[8]
Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions, and indecent shows. The penalty of prision
mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve
thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration,[9] three commissioners voted to overturn
shall be imposed upon: the First Assailed Resolution (Commissioners Gregorio Y. Larrazabal, Rene V. Sarmiento, and
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim Armando Velasco), while three commissioners voted to deny Ang Ladlads Motion for
doctrines openly contrary to public morals; Reconsideration (Commissioners Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Lucenito N. Tagle, and Elias R.
2. (a) The authors of obscene literature, published with Yusoph). The COMELEC Chairman, breaking the tie and speaking for the majority in his
their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing Separate Opinion, upheld the First Assailed Resolution, stating that:
such literature; and the owners/operators of the
establishment selling the same;
I. The Spirit of Republic Act No. 7941
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or
any other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays, Ladlad is applying for accreditation as a sectoral party in the party-list
scenes, acts or shows, it being understood that the system. Even assuming that it has properly proven its under-representation
obscene literature or indecent or immoral plays, scenes, and marginalization, it cannot be said that Ladlads expressed sexual
acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are orientations per se would benefit the nation as a whole.
prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which:
(1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no Section 2 of the party-list law unequivocally states that the purpose of the
other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust party-list system of electing congressional representatives is to enable
or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and under-represented sectors,
to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political
contrary to law, public order, morals, good constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment
customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become
and edicts. members of the House of Representatives.
3. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, If entry into the party-list system would depend only on the ability of an
prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are organization to represent its constituencies, then all representative
offensive to morals. organizations would have found themselves into the party-list race. But that
is not the intention of the framers of the law. The party-list system is not a
Petitioner should likewise be denied accreditation not only for advocating tool to advocate tolerance and acceptance of misunderstood persons or
immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful when it said that it or groups of persons. Rather, the party-list system is a tool for the
any of its nominees/party-list representatives have not violated or failed to realization of aspirations of marginalized individuals whose interests
comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the elections. are also the nations only that their interests have not been brought to the
attention of the nation because of their under representation. Until the time
3
comes when Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual and lesbians who are already of age It is further indicated in par. 24 of the
orientations and transgender identities is beneficial to the nation, its Petition which waves for the record: In 2007, Men Having Sex with Men or
application for accreditation under the party-list system will remain MSMs in the Philippines were estimated as 670,000. Moreoever, Article
just that. 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisance as any act, omission x x x or
anything else x x x which shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality
II. No substantial differentiation x x x. These are all unlawful.[10]
In the United States, whose equal protection doctrine pervades Philippine

jurisprudence, courts do not recognize lesbians, gays, homosexuals, and
bisexuals (LGBT) as a special class of individuals. x x xSignificantly, it has On January 4, 2010, Ang Ladlad filed this Petition, praying that the Court annul the
also been held that homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected Assailed Resolutions and direct the COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlads application for
fundamental right, and that nothing in the U.S. Constitution discloses a
comparable intent to protect or promote the social or legal equality of accreditation.Ang Ladlad also sought the issuance ex parte of a preliminary mandatory
homosexual relations, as in the case of race or religion or belief. injunction against the COMELEC, which had previously announced that it would begin
xxxx printing the final ballots for the May 2010 elections by January 25, 2010.
Thus, even if societys understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of LGBTs

is elevated, there can be no denying that Ladlad constituencies are still On January 6, 2010, we ordered the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file its
males and females, and they will remain either male or female protected
Comment on behalf of COMELEC not later than 12:00 noon of January 11, 2010.[11] Instead of
by the same Bill of Rights that applies to all citizens alike.
filing a Comment, however, the OSG filed a Motion for Extension, requesting that it be given
xxxx
until January 16, 2010 to Comment.[12] Somewhat surprisingly, the OSG later filed a Comment
IV. Public Morals in support of petitioners application.[13] Thus, in order to give COMELEC the opportunity to
x x x There is no question about not imposing on Ladlad Christian or fully ventilate its position, we required it to file its own comment.[14] The COMELEC, through
Muslim religious practices. Neither is there any attempt to any particular its Law Department, filed its Comment on February 2, 2010.[15]
religious groups moral rules on Ladlad. Rather, what are being adopted as
moral parameters and precepts are generally accepted public morals. They
are possibly religious-based, but as a society, the Philippines cannot
In the meantime, due to the urgency of the petition, we issued a temporary restraining
ignore its more than 500 years of Muslim and Christian upbringing,
such that some moral precepts espoused by said religions have sipped order on January 12, 2010, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this
[sic] into society and these are not publicly accepted moral norms.
Court, directing the COMELEC to cease and desist from implementing the Assailed
V. Legal Provisions Resolutions.[16]
But above morality and social norms, they have become part of the law of
the land. Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty Also, on January 13, 2010, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) filed a Motion
of prision mayor upon Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim
doctrines openly contrary to public morals. It penalizes immoral doctrines, to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus Curiae, attaching thereto its Comment-in-
obscene publications and exhibition and indecent shows. Ang
Intervention.[17]The CHR opined that the denial of Ang Ladlads petition on moral grounds
Ladlad apparently falls under these legal provisions. This is clear from its
Petitions paragraph 6F: Consensual partnerships or relationships by gays violated the standards and principles of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human
4
Rights (UDHR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification
(ICCPR). On January 19, 2010, we granted the CHRs motion to intervene. reports by COMELECs field personnel.
On January 26, 2010, Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr. filed his Motion to Intervene[18] which Our Ruling
motion was granted on February 2, 2010.[19]
We grant the petition.
The Parties Arguments
Compliance with the
Requirements of the Constitution
Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion and Republic Act No. 7941
by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of
religion. Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional The COMELEC denied Ang Ladlads application for registration on the ground that
rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as the LGBT sector is neither enumerated in the Constitution and RA 7941, nor is it associated
constituted violations of the Philippines international obligations against discrimination based with or related to any of the sectors in the enumeration.
on sexual orientation.
Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the
The OSG concurred with Ang Ladlads petition and argued that the COMELEC erred in proposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors
denying petitioners application for registration since there was no basis for COMELECs (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
allegations of immorality. It also opined that LGBTs have their own special interests and women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be registered under the
concerns which should have been recognized by the COMELEC as a separate party-list system. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v.
classification. However, insofar as the purported violations of petitioners freedom of speech, Commission on Elections,[20] the enumeration of marginalized and under-represented sectors is
expression, and assembly were concerned, the OSG maintained that there had been no not exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but
restrictions on these rights. whether a particular organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA
7941.
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not have a concrete Respondent also argues that Ang Ladlad made untruthful statements in its petition
and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was validly when it alleged that it had nationwide existence through its members and affiliate organizations.
dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for the first time that the LGBT sector is not among The COMELEC claims that upon verification by its field personnel, it was shown that save for
the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941, and that petitioner made untruthful a few isolated places in the country, petitioner does not exist in almost all provinces in the
country.[21]
5
Gay Mens Support Group (GMSG) Metro Manila
This argument that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged Gay United for Peace and Solidarity (GUPS) Lanao del
its national existence is a new one; previously, the COMELEC claimed that petitioner was not Norte
Iloilo City Gay Association Iloilo City
being truthful when it said that it or any of its nominees/party-list representatives have not Kabulig Writers Group Camarines Sur
violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the elections. Nowhere Lesbian Advocates Philippines, Inc. (LEAP)
LUMINA Baguio City
was this ground for denial of petitioners accreditation mentioned or even alluded to in the Marikina Gay Association Metro Manila
Assailed Resolutions. This, in itself, is quite curious, considering that the reports of petitioners Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) Metro Manila
Naga City Gay Association Naga City
alleged non-existence were already available to the COMELEC prior to the issuance of the First ONE BACARDI
Order of St. Aelred (OSAe) Metro Manila
Assailed Resolution. At best, this is irregular procedure; at worst, a belated afterthought, a
PUP LAKAN
change in respondents theory, and a serious violation of petitioners right to procedural due RADAR PRIDEWEAR
Rainbow Rights Project (R-Rights), Inc. Metro Manila
process. San Jose del Monte Gay Association Bulacan
Sining Kayumanggi Royal Family Rizal
Society of Transexual Women of the Philippines (STRAP)
Nonetheless, we find that there has been no misrepresentation. A cursory perusal Metro Manila
of Ang Ladlads initial petition shows that it never claimed to exist in each province of Soul Jive Antipolo, Rizal
The Link Davao City
the Philippines. Rather, petitioner alleged that the LGBT community in the Philippines was Tayabas Gay Association Quezon
Womens Bisexual Network Metro Manila
estimated to constitute at least 670,000 persons; that it had 16,100 affiliates and members around
Zamboanga Gay Association Zamboanga City[23]
the country, and 4,044 members in its electronic discussion group.[22] Ang Ladlad also
represented itself to be a national LGBT umbrella organization with affiliates around
Since the COMELEC only searched for the names ANG LADLAD LGBT
the Philippines composed of the following LGBT networks:
or LADLAD LGBT, it is no surprise that they found that petitioner had no presence in any of
Abra Gay Association these regions. In fact, if COMELECs findings are to be believed, petitioner does not even exist
Aklan Butterfly Brigade (ABB) Aklan
in Quezon City, which is registered as Ang Ladlads principal place of business.
Albay Gay Association
Arts Center of Cabanatuan City Nueva Ecija
Boys Legion Metro Manila
Cagayan de Oro People Like Us (CDO PLUS) Against this backdrop, we find that Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its
Cant Live in the Closet, Inc. (CLIC) Metro Manila compliance with the legal requirements for accreditation. Indeed, aside from COMELECs
Cebu Pride Cebu City
Circle of Friends moral objection and the belated allegation of non-existence, nowhere in the records has the
Dipolog Gay Association Zamboanga del Norte respondent ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to register as a party-list
Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Youth Association
(GABAY) organization under any of the requisites under RA 7941 or the guidelines in Ang Bagong
Gay and Lesbian Activists Network for Gender Equality
Bayani. The difference, COMELEC claims, lies in Ang Ladlads morality, or lack thereof.
(GALANG) Metro Manila
6
(or dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend the existence and
progress of human society" and not because the conduct is proscribed by
Religion as the Basis for Refusal the beliefs of one religion or the other. Although admittedly, moral
to Accept Ang Ladlads Petition judgments based on religion might have a compelling influence on those
for Registration engaged in public deliberations over what actions would be considered a
moral disapprobation punishable by law. After all, they might also be
adherents of a religion and thus have religious opinions and moral codes
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that [n]o law shall be made with a compelling influence on them; the human mind endeavors to
regulate the temporal and spiritual institutions of society in a uniform
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At bottom, what manner, harmonizing earth with heaven. Succinctly put, a law could be
our non-establishment clause calls for is government neutrality in religious religious or Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its deepest roots, but it must
have an articulable and discernible secular purpose and justification to pass
matters.[24] Clearly, governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this scrutiny of the religion clauses. x x x Recognizing the religious nature of the
policy of neutrality.[25] We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause Filipinos and the elevating influence of religion in society, however, the
Philippine constitution's religion clauses prescribe not a strict but a
for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. benevolent neutrality. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government
must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strive to
uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is
secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality
should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests.[27]
rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act
for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects. As we held in Estrada v. Public Morals as a Ground to
Escritor:[26] Deny Ang Ladlads Petition for
Registration
x x x The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular,
not religious as the dissent of Mr. Justice Carpio holds. "Religious teachings
as expressed in public debate may influence the civil public order but public Respondent suggests that although the moral condemnation of homosexuality and
moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable in secular
terms." Otherwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs in homosexual conduct may be religion-based, it has long been transplanted into generally
formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals accepted public morals. The COMELEC argues:
would require conformity to what some might regard as religious programs
or agenda. The non-believers would therefore be compelled to conform to
a standard of conduct buttressed by a religious belief, i.e., to a "compelled Petitioners accreditation was denied not necessarily because their group
religion," anathema to religious freedom. Likewise, if government based its consists of LGBTs but because of the danger it poses to the people
actions upon religious beliefs, it would tacitly approve or endorse that belief especially the youth. Once it is recognized by the government, a sector
and thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary religious or non-religious views which believes that there is nothing wrong in having sexual relations with
that would not support the policy. As a result, government will not provide individuals of the same gender is a bad example. It will bring down the
full religious freedom for all its citizens, or even make it appear that those standard of morals we cherish in our civilized society. Any society without
whose beliefs are disapproved are second-class citizens. a set of moral precepts is in danger of losing its own existence.[28]
In other words, government action, including its proscription of immorality
as expressed in criminal law like concubinage, must have a secular purpose.
That is, the government proscribes this conduct because it is "detrimental
7
We are not blind to the fact that, through the years, homosexual conduct, and perhaps
homosexuals themselves, have borne the brunt of societal disapproval. It is not difficult to We also find the COMELECs reference to purported violations of our penal and civil
imagine the reasons behind this censure religious beliefs, convictions about the preservation of laws flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as
marriage, family, and procreation, even dislike or distrust of homosexuals themselves and their any act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else which shocks, defies,
perceived lifestyle. Nonetheless, we recall that the Philippines has not seen fit to criminalize or disregards decency or morality, the remedies for which are a prosecution under the Revised
homosexual conduct. Evidently, therefore, these generally accepted public morals have not Penal Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial
been convincingly transplanted into the realm of law.[29] proceedings.[32] A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal conviction. It hardly needs to be
The Assailed Resolutions have not identified any specific overt immoral act performed by Ang emphasized that mere allegation of violation of laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invocation
Ladlad. Even the OSG agrees that there should have been a finding by the COMELEC that the of public morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings and a judicial
groups members have committed or are committing immoral acts.[30] The OSG argues: determination of liability or culpability.
As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient
x x x A person may be sexually attracted to a person of the same gender, of
a different gender, or more than one gender, but mere attraction does not governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list
translate to immoral acts. There is a great divide between thought and system. The denial of Ang Ladlads registration on purely moral grounds amounts more to a
action. Reduction ad absurdum. If immoral thoughts could be penalized,
COMELEC would have its hands full of disqualification cases against both statement of dislike and disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial
the straights and the gays. Certainly this is not the intendment of the law.[31] public interest.Respondents blanket justifications give rise to the inevitable conclusion that the
COMELEC targets homosexuals themselves as a class, not because of any particular morally
Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented, or why reprehensible act.It is this selective targeting that implicates our equal protection clause.
special protection is required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify
its position that petitioners admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to Equal Protection
irreparably damage the moral fabric of society. We, of course, do not suggest that the state is
wholly without authority to regulate matters concerning morality, sexuality, and sexual Despite the absolutism of Article III, Section 1 of our Constitution, which
relations, and we recognize that the government will and should continue to restrict behavior provides nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws, courts have never
considered detrimental to society. Nonetheless, we cannot countenance advocates who, interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on classification. Equality, said Aristotle,
undoubtedly with the loftiest of intentions, situate morality on one end of an argument or consists in the same treatment of similar persons.[33] The equal protection clause guarantees that
another, without bothering to go through the rigors of legal reasoning and explanation. In this, no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed
the notion of morality is robbed of all value. Clearly then, the bare invocation of morality will by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.[34]
not remove an issue from our scrutiny.

8
Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets It bears stressing that our finding that COMELECs act of differentiating LGBTs from
a suspect class, we will uphold the classification as long as it bears a rational relationship to heterosexuals insofar as the party-list system is concerned does not imply that any other law
some legitimate government end.[35] In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Banko distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals under different circumstances would
Sentral ng Pilipinas,[36] we declared that [i]n our jurisdiction, the standard of analysis of equal similarly fail. We disagree with the OSGs position that homosexuals are a class in themselves
protection challenges x x x have followed the rational basis test, coupled with a deferential for the purposes of the equal protection clause.[38] We are not prepared to single out homosexuals
attitude to legislative classifications and a reluctance to invalidate a law unless there is a showing as a separate class meriting special or differentiated treatment. We have not received sufficient
of a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.[37] evidence to this effect, and it is simply unnecessary to make such a ruling today. Petitioner itself
has merely demanded that it be recognized under the same basis as all other groups similarly
The COMELEC posits that the majority of the Philippine population considers situated, and that the COMELEC made an unwarranted and impermissible classification not
homosexual conduct as immoral and unacceptable, and this constitutes sufficient reason to justified by the circumstances of the case.
disqualify the petitioner. Unfortunately for the respondent, the Philippine electorate has
Freedom of Expression and
expressed no such belief. No law exists to criminalize homosexual behavior or expressions or
Association
parties about homosexual behavior. Indeed, even if we were to assume that public opinion is as
the COMELEC describes it, the asserted state interest here that is, moral disapproval of an
Under our system of laws, every group has the right to promote its agenda and attempt
unpopular minority is not a legitimate state interest that is sufficient to satisfy rational basis
to persuade society of the validity of its position through normal democratic means.[39] It is in
review under the equal protection clause. The COMELECs differentiation, and its
the public square that deeply held convictions and differing opinions should be distilled and
unsubstantiated claim that Ang Ladlad cannot contribute to the formulation of legislation that
deliberated upon. As we held in Estrada v. Escritor:[40]
would benefit the nation, furthers no legitimate state interest other than disapproval of or dislike
for a disfavored group. In a democracy, this common agreement on political and moral ideas is
distilled in the public square. Where citizens are free, every opinion, every
prejudice, every aspiration, and every moral discernment has access to the
From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and public square where people deliberate the order of their life together.
Citizens are the bearers of opinion, including opinion shaped by, or
transgender have the same interest in participating in the party-list system on the same basis as espousing religious belief, and these citizens have equal access to the public
other political parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this case is equally square. In this representative democracy, the state is prohibited from
determining which convictions and moral judgments may be proposed for
burdensome. Hence, laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and public deliberation. Through a constitutionally designed process, the people
deliberate and decide. Majority rule is a necessary principle in this
they deserve to participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and
democratic governance. Thus, when public deliberation on moral
under-represented sectors. judgments is finally crystallized into law, the laws will largely reflect the
beliefs and preferences of the majority, i.e., the mainstream or median
groups. Nevertheless, in the very act of adopting and accepting a
constitution and the limits it specifies including protection of religious
freedom "not only for a minority, however small not only for a majority,
9
however large but for each of us" the majority imposes upon itself a self-
denying ordinance. It promises not to do what it otherwise could do: to ride
roughshod over the dissenting minorities. With respect to freedom of association for the advancement of ideas and beliefs, in
Europe, with its vibrant human rights tradition, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic has repeatedly stated that a political party may campaign for a change in the law or the
society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those constitutional structures of a state if it uses legal and democratic means and the changes it
that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to proposes are consistent with democratic principles. The ECHR has emphasized that political
the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or ideas that challenge the existing order and whose realization is advocated by peaceful means
this Court to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly must be afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the exercise of the right of
not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or association, even if such ideas may seem shocking or unacceptable to the authorities or the
discouraging a disfavored one. majority of the population.[44]A political group should not be hindered solely because it seeks to
publicly debate controversial political issues in order to find solutions capable of satisfying
This position gains even more force if one considers that homosexual conduct is not everyone concerned.[45] Only if a political party incites violence or puts forward policies that are
illegal in this country. It follows that both expressions concerning ones homosexuality and the incompatible with democracy does it fall outside the protection of the freedom of association
activity of forming a political association that supports LGBT individuals are protected as well. guarantee.[46]
Other jurisdictions have gone so far as to categorically rule that even overwhelming
public perception that homosexual conduct violates public morality does not justify We do not doubt that a number of our citizens may believe that homosexual conduct
criminalizing same-sex conduct.[41] European and United Nations judicial decisions have ruled is distasteful, offensive, or even defiant. They are entitled to hold and express that view. On the
in favor of gay rights claimants on both privacy and equality grounds, citing general privacy and other hand, LGBTs and their supporters, in all likelihood, believe with equal fervor that
equal protection provisions in foreign and international texts.[42] To the extent that there is much relationships between individuals of the same sex are morally equivalent to heterosexual
to learn from other jurisdictions that have reflected on the issues we face here, such relationships. They, too, are entitled to hold and express that view. However, as far as this Court
jurisprudence is certainly illuminating. These foreign authorities, while not formally binding on is concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the
Philippine courts, may nevertheless have persuasive influence on the Courts analysis. community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community.
In the area of freedom of expression, for instance, United States courts have ruled that Of course, none of this suggests the impending arrival of a golden age for gay rights litigants. It
existing free speech doctrines protect gay and lesbian rights to expressive conduct. In order to well may be that this Decision will only serve to highlight the discrepancy between the rigid
justify the prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, public institutions must show that constitutional analysis of this Court and the more complex moral sentiments of Filipinos. We
their actions were caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and do not suggest that public opinion, even at its most liberal, reflect a clear-cut strong consensus
unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.[43]

10
favorable to gay rights claims and we neither attempt nor expect to affect individual perceptions
Non-Discrimination and
of homosexuality through this Decision.
International Law
The OSG argues that since there has been neither prior restraint nor subsequent punishment
In an age that has seen international law evolve geometrically in scope and promise,
imposed on Ang Ladlad, and its members have not been deprived of their right to voluntarily
international human rights law, in particular, has grown dynamically in its attempt to bring about
associate, then there has been no restriction on their freedom of expression or association. The
a more just and humane world order. For individuals and groups struggling with inadequate
OSG argues that:
structural and governmental support, international human rights norms are particularly
There was no utterance restricted, no publication censored, or any assembly significant, and should be effectively enforced in domestic legal systems so that such norms
denied. [COMELEC] simply exercised its authority to review and verify
may become actual, rather than ideal, standards of conduct.
the qualifications of petitioner as a sectoral party applying to participate in
the party-list system. This lawful exercise of duty cannot be said to be a
transgression of Section 4, Article III of the Constitution.
Our Decision today is fully in accord with our international obligations to protect and
xxxx promote human rights. In particular, we explicitly recognize the principle of non-discrimination
A denial of the petition for registration x x x does not deprive the members as it relates to the right to electoral participation, enunciated in the UDHR and the ICCPR.
of the petitioner to freely take part in the conduct of elections. Their right to
vote will not be hampered by said denial. In fact, the right to vote is a
constitutionally-guaranteed right which cannot be limited. The principle of non-discrimination is laid out in Article 26 of the ICCPR, as follows:
As to its right to be elected in a genuine periodic election, petitioner Article 26

contends that the denial of Ang Ladlads petition has the clear and immediate
effect of limiting, if not outrightly nullifying the capacity of its members to All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any
fully and equally participate in public life through engagement in the party discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law
list elections. shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and
effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race,
This argument is puerile. The holding of a public office is not a colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
right but a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. x x x[47] origin, property, birth or other status.
The OSG fails to recall that petitioner has, in fact, established its qualifications to
participate in the party-list system, and as advanced by the OSG itself the moral objection
In this context, the principle of non-discrimination requires that laws of general
offered by the COMELEC was not a limitation imposed by law. To the extent, therefore, that
application relating to elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless of sexual
the petitioner has been precluded, because of COMELECs action, from publicly expressing its
orientation. Although sexual orientation is not specifically enumerated as a status or ratio for
views as a political party and participating on an equal basis in the political process with other
discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR, the ICCPR Human Rights Committee has opined
equally-qualified party-list candidates, we find that there has, indeed, been a transgression of
that the reference to sex in Article 26 should be construed to include sexual
petitioners fundamental rights.
11
orientation.[48] Additionally, a variety of United Nations bodies have declared discrimination on xxxx
the basis of sexual orientation to be prohibited under various international agreements.[49]
15. The effective implementation of the right and the opportunity
to stand for elective office ensures that persons entitled to vote have a free
The UDHR provides: choice of candidates. Any restrictions on the right to stand for election, such
as minimum age, must be justifiable on objective and reasonable criteria.
Article 21. Persons who are otherwise eligible to stand for election should not be
excluded by unreasonable or discriminatory requirements such as
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his education, residence or descent, or by reason of political affiliation. No
country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. person should suffer discrimination or disadvantage of any kind because of
that person's candidacy. States parties should indicate and explain the
Likewise, the ICCPR states: legislative provisions which exclude any group or category of persons from
elective office.[50]
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any
of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable We stress, however, that although this Court stands willing to assume the
restrictions:
responsibility of giving effect to the Philippines international law obligations, the blanket
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through
invocation of international law is not the panacea for all social ills. We refer now to the
freely chosen representatives;
petitioners invocation of the Yogyakarta Principles (the Application of International Human
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which
shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, Rights Law In Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity),[51] which petitioner declares
guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; to reflect binding principles of international law.
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service

in his country. At this time, we are not prepared to declare that these Yogyakarta Principles contain
norms that are obligatory on the Philippines. There are declarations and obligations outlined in
As stated by the CHR in its Comment-in-Intervention, the scope of the right to electoral said Principles which are not reflective of the current state of international law, and do not find
participation is elaborated by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 25 basis in any of the sources of international law enumerated under Article 38(1) of the Statute of
(Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to Vote) as follows: the International Court of Justice.[52] Petitioner has not undertaken any objective and rigorous
analysis of these alleged principles of international law to ascertain their true status.
1. Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the right of
every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote
and to be elected and the right to have access to public service. Whatever We also hasten to add that not everything that society or a certain segment of society
form of constitution or government is in force, the Covenant requires States
wants or demands is automatically a human right. This is not an arbitrary human intervention
to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure
that citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects. that may be added to or subtracted from at will. It is unfortunate that much of what passes for
Article 25 lies at the core of democratic government based on the consent
of the people and in conformity with the principles of the Covenant. human rights today is a much broader context of needs that identifies many social desires as
12
rights in order to further claims that international law obliges states to sanction these innovations.
This has the effect of diluting real human rights, and is a result of the notion that if wants are
couched in rights language, then they are no longer controversial.
Using even the most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta Principles, consisting of a
declaration formulated by various international law professors, are at best de lege ferenda and
do not constitute binding obligations on the Philippines. Indeed, so much of contemporary
international law is characterized by the soft law nomenclature, i.e., international law is full of
principles that promote international cooperation, harmony, and respect for human rights, most
of which amount to no more than well-meaning desires, without the support of either State
practice or opinio juris.[53]
As a final note, we cannot help but observe that the social issues presented by this case
are emotionally charged, societal attitudes are in flux, even the psychiatric and religious
communities are divided in opinion. This Courts role is not to impose its own view of acceptable
behavior. Rather, it is to apply the Constitution and laws as best as it can, uninfluenced by public
opinion, and confident in the knowledge that our democracy is resilient enough to withstand
vigorous debate.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Commission on

Elections dated November 11, 2009 and December 16, 2009 in SPP No. 09-228 (PL) are
hereby SET ASIDE. The Commission on Elections is directed to GRANT petitioners
application for party-list accreditation.
SO ORDERED.
13
G.R. No. 203766 April 2, 2013 vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan
Igot, Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. G.R. No. 203960
x-----------------------x 1st CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR RURAL ENERGY, INC. (1-

CARE), Petitioner,
G.R. Nos. 203818-19 vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY (AKB), Petitioner,
vs. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203976
x-----------------------x
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, INC.
G.R. No. 203922 (ARARO), Petitioner,
vs.
ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
(APEC),represented by its President Congressman Ponciano D.
Payuyo, Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
x-----------------------x ASSOCIATION FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON LEADERSHIP

(ARAL) PARTY-LIST, represented herein by Ms. Lourdes L. Agustin, the
G.R. No. 203936 partys Secretary General, Petitioner,
vs.
AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA, represented by its COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
President Michael Abas Kida,Petitioner,
vs. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204002
x-----------------------x
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL CONCERNS, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 203958 vs.
KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA, INC.
(KAKUSA), Petitioner, x-----------------------x
14
G.R. No. 204094 KAAGAPAY NG NAGKAKAISANG AGILANG PILIPINONG
MAGSASAKA (KAP), formerly known as AKO AGILA NG
ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD), Petitioner, NAGKAKAISANG MAGSASAKA (AKO AGILA), represented by its
vs. Secretary General, Leo R. San Buenaventura, Petitioner,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. vs.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204100
G.R. No. 204139
1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC., (1BRO-PGBI)
formerly PGBI, Petitioner, ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), represented by Atty. Berteni
vs. Catalua Causing, Petitioner,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent. vs.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204122
G.R. No. 204141
1 GUARDIANS NATIONALIST PHILIPPINES, INC.,
(1GANAP/GUARDIANS), Petitioner, BANTAY PARTY LIST, represented by Maria Evangelina F. Palparan,
vs. President, Petitioner,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC composed of SIXTO S. vs.
BRILLANTES, JR., Chairman, RENE V. SARMIENTO, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
Commissioner,LUCENITO N. TAGLE, Commissioner,ARMANDO C.
VELASCO, Commissioner,ELIAS R. YUSOPH, Commissioner, x-----------------------x
andCHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, Commissioner,Respondents.
G.R. No. 204153
x-----------------------x
PASANG MASDA NATIONWIDE PARTY by its President Roberto "Ka
G.R. No. 204125 Obet" Martin, Petitioner,
vs.
AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ALLIANCE, INC. (A- COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.
IPRA), represented by its Secretary General,Ronald D. Macaraig, Petitioner,
vs. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204158
x-----------------------x
ABROAD PARTY LIST, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204126 vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.,
COMMISSIONERS RENE V. SARMIENTO, ARMANDO C. VELASCO,
15
ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, MARIA GRACIA ALLIANCE OF BICOLNON PARTY (ABP), Petitioner,
CIELO M. PADACA, LUCENITO TAGLE, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS vs.
ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF,Respondents. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204174 G.R. No. 204239
AANGAT TAYO PARTY LIST-PARTY, represented by its President Simeon GREEN FORCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF
T. Silva, Jr., Petitioner, MOTHER EARTH (GREENFORCE),Petitioner,
vs. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204216 G.R. No. 204240
COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, AGRI-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA MAGSASAKA NG PILIPINAS

INC., Petitioner, MOVEMENT (AGRI), represented by its Secretary General, Michael Ryan A.
vs. Enriquez, Petitioner,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. vs.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204220
G.R. No. 204263
ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,
vs. A BLESSED PARTY LIST A.K.A. BLESSEDFEDERATION OF FARMERS
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent. AND FISHERMEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204236 x-----------------------x
FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, G.R. No. 204318

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. UNITED MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS FOUNDATION (UNIMAD)
PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x vs.
G.R. No. 204238
16
x-----------------------x ALLIANCE OF ADVOCATES IN MININGADVANCEMENT FOR
NATIONAL PROGRESS (AAMA), Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204321 vs.
ANG AGRIKULTURA NATIN ISULONG (AANI), represented by its
Secretary General Jose C. Policarpio, Jr.,Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
x-----------------------x SOCIAL MOVEMENT FOR ACTIVEREFORM AND TRANSPARENCY

(SMART), represented by its Chairman, Carlito B. Cubelo, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204323 vs.
BAYANI PARTYLIST as represented byHomer Bueno, Fitrylin Dalhani,Israel
de Castro, Dante Navarroand Guiling Mamondiong, Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., G.R. No. 204364
COMMISSIONERS RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE,
ARMANDO C. VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG-TAO, PARA SA LUPA,
LIM, and MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA, Respondents. PABAHAY, HANAPBUHAY AT KAUNLARAN (AKO BUHAY), Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.,
RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO C. VELASCO,
G.R. No. 204341 ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA
CIELO M. PADACA, in their capacities as Commissioners
thereof, Respondents.
ACTION LEAGUE OF INDIGENOUS MASSES(ALIM) PARTY-LIST,
represented herein by its President Fatani S. Abdul Malik, Petitioner,
vs. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204367
x-----------------------x
AKBAY KALUSUGAN INCORPORATION(AKIN), Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204356 vs.
BUTIL FARMERS PARTY, Petitioner,
vs. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204370
x-----------------------x
AKO AN BISAYA (AAB), represented by itsSecretary General, Rodolfo T.
G.R. No. 204358 Tuazon, Petitioner,
17
vs. G.R. No. 204408
PILIPINO ASSOCIATION FOR COUNTRY-URBAN POOR YOUTH
x-----------------------x ADVANCEMENT AND WELFARE (PACYAW),Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204374 COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
BINHI-PARTIDO NG MGA MAGSASAKA PARA SA MGA x-----------------------x

MAGSASAKA, Petitioner,
vs. G.R. No. 204410
1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK), Petitioner,
x-----------------------x vs.
G.R. No. 204379
x-----------------------x
ALAGAD NG SINING (ASIN) represented by its President, Faye Maybelle
Lorenz, Petitioner, G.R. No. 204421
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. SENIOR CITIZEN PARTY-LIST, represented herein by
x-----------------------x its 1st nominee and Chairman, Francisco G. Datol, Jr., Petitioner,
vs.
ASSOCIATION OF GUARD UTILITY HELPER, AIDER, RIDER, x-----------------------x

DRIVER/DOMESTIC HELPER, JANITOR, AGENT AND NANNY OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. (GUARDJAN), Petitioner, G.R. No. 204425
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,
x-----------------------x vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANY OF ITS OFFICERS AND
G.R. No. 204402 AGENTS, ACTING FOR AND IN ITS BEHALF, INCLUDING THE CHAIR
AND MEMBERSOF THE COMMISSION, Respondents.
KALIKASAN PARTY-LIST, represented by its President, Clemente G.
Bautista, Jr., and Secretary General, Frances Q. Quimpo, Petitioner, x-----------------------x
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent. G.R. No. 204426
x-----------------------x
18
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL ATHLETICS ENTREPRENEURS AND vs.
HOBBYISTS, INC. (ALA-EH), Petitioner, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., x-----------------------x
RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO C. VELASCO,
ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA
G.R. No. 204484
CIELO M. PADACA, in their respective capacities as COMELEC Chairperson
and Commissioners, Respondents.
PARTIDO NG BAYAN ANG BIDA (PBB), represented by its Secretary
General, Roger M. Federazo, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204428
x-----------------------x
ANG GALING PINOY (AG), represented by its Secretary General, Bernardo
R. Corella, Jr., Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204485
vs.
ALLIANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS, NETWORKS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF
THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALONA),Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204435
x-----------------------x
1 ALLIANCE ADVOCATING AUTONOMY PARTY (1AAAP), Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204486
1st KABALIKAT NG BAYAN GINHAWANG SANGKATAUHAN (1st
x-----------------------x
KABAGIS), Petitioner,
vs.
ABYAN ILONGGO PARTY (AI), represented byits Party President, Rolex T. x-----------------------x
Suplico, Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204490
PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY (PPP), Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204455
PERLAS-BERNABE,*
MANILA TEACHER SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION,
INC., Petitioner,
DECISION
19
CARPIO, J.: Ang Bagong
Bayani.
The Cases
These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and
Prohibition1 filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions
issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from
participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their
petitions for registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of their Omnibus Resolution dated 27 November 20129
registration and accreditation as party-list organizations.
2 204455 12- Manila - A non-stock
041 Teachers savings and
This Court resolved to consolidate the 54 petitions in the Resolutions dated 13 (PLM) Savings and loan association
November 2012,2 20 November 2012,3 27 November 2012,4 4 December 2012,5 11 Loan cannot be
December 2012,6 and 19 February 2013.7 Association, considered
Inc. marginalized and
The Facts Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941) and (Manila underrepresented;
COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531, approximately 280 groups and Teachers) and
organizations registered and manifested their desire to participate in the 13 May - The first and
2013 party-list elections. second
nominees are not
teachers by
G.R. SPP Group Grounds for
profession.
No. No. Denial
3 204426 12- Association of - Failure to show
A. Via the COMELEC En Bancs automatic review of
011 Local Athletics that its
the COMELEC
(PLM) Entrepreneurs members belong
Divisions resolutions approving registration of
and Hobbyists, to the
groups/organizations
Inc. (ALA-EH) marginalized;
Resolution dated 23 November 20128 and
- Failure of the
1 204379 12- Alagad ng - The "artists" nominees to
099 Sining (ASIN) sector is not qualify.
(PLM) considered
marginalized and Resolution dated 27 November 201210
underrepresented;
- Failure to prove 4 204435 12- 1 Alliance - Failure of the
track 057 Advocating nominees to
record; and (PLM) Autonomy qualify: although
- Failure of the Party registering
nominees to (1AAAP) as a regional
qualify under RA political party,
7941 and two of the
nominees are not
residents of the
20
region; and 7 204436 12- Abyan Ilonggo - Failure to show
four of the five 009 Party (AI) that the
nominees do (PP), party represents a
not belong to the 12- marginalized and
marginalized and 165 underrepresented
underrepresented. (PLM) sector, as
the Province of
Iloilo has
Resolution dated 27 November 201211 district
representatives;
5 204367 12- Akbay - Failure of the - Untruthful
104 Kalusugan group to show statements in the
(PL) (AKIN), Inc. that its nominees memorandum;
belong to and
the urban poor - Withdrawal of
sector. three of its
Resolution dated 29 November 201212 five nominees.
6 204370 12- Ako An Bisaya - Failure to Resolution dated 4 December 201214

011 (AAB) represent a 8 204485 12- Alliance of - Failure to
(PP) marginalized 175 Organizations, establish that the
sector of (PL) Networks and group can
society, despite Associations of represent 14
the formation the Philippines, sectors; - The
of a sectoral wing Inc. (ALONA) sectors of
for the homeowners
benefit of farmers associations,
of Region entrepreneurs
8; and cooperatives
- Constituency are not
has district marginalized and
representatives; underrepresented;
- Lack of track and
record in - The nominees
representing do not belong
peasants and to the
farmers; and marginalized and
- Nominees are underrepresented.
neither
farmers nor B. Via the COMELEC En Bancs review on motion
peasants. for reconsideration
of the COMELEC Divisions resolutions denying
Resolution dated 4 December 201213 registration of groups
and organizations
21
Resolution dated 7 November 201215 do not belong
to the sector
9 204139 12- Alab ng - Failure to prove which the group
127 Mamamahayag track claims to
(PL) (ALAM) record as an represent.
organization;
- Failure to show
that the
Resolution dated 14 November 201217
group actually
represents the 11 204394 12- Association of - Failure to prove
marginalized and 145 Guard, Utility membership base
underrepresented; (PL) Helper, Aider, and track
and Rider, Driver/ record;
- Failure to Domestic - Failure to
establish that the Helper, present activities
group can Janitor, Agent that sufficiently
represent all and benefited its
sectors it seeks to Nanny of the intended
represent. Philippines, constituency; and
Inc. - The nominees
(GUARDJAN) do not belong
10 204402 12- Kalikasan - The group to any of the
061 Party-List reflects an sectors which
(PP) (KALIKASAN) advocacy for the the group seeks
environment, and to represent.
is not
Resolution dated 5 December 201218
representative of
the 12 204490 12- Pilipinas Para - Failure to show
marginalized and 073 sa that the
underrepresented; (PLM) Pinoy (PPP) group represents
- There is no a
proof that marginalized and
majority of its underrepresented
members sector, as
belong to the Region 12 has
marginalized district
and representatives;
underrepresented; and
- The group - Failure to show
represents a track
sectors with record of
conflicting undertaking
interests; and programs for the
- The nominees
22
welfare of in the May 2013
the sector the party-list
group seeks to elections
represent. - Failure to
represent any
marginalized and
underrepresented
sector;
- The Bicol
region already
has
representatives in
In a Resolution dated 5 December 2012,19 the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Congress; and
COMELEC Second Divisions resolution to grant Partido ng Bayan ng Bidas (PBB) - The nominees
registration and accreditation as a political party in the National Capital Region. are not
However, PBB was denied participation in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections marginalized and
because PBB does not represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector; underrepresented.
PBB failed to apply for registration as a party-list group; and PBB failed to establish
its track record as an organization that seeks to uplift the lives of the "marginalized Omnibus Resolution dated 11 October 201225
and underrepresented."20
These 13 petitioners (ASIN, Manila Teachers, ALA-EH, 1AAAP, AKIN, AAB, AI, 2 203766 12-161 Atong Paglaum, Cancelled
ALONA, ALAM, KALIKASAN, GUARDJAN, PPP, and PBB) were not able to (PLM) Inc. (Atong registration and
secure a mandatory injunction from this Court. The COMELEC, on 7 January 2013 Paglaum) accreditation
issued Resolution No. 9604,21 and excluded the names of these 13 petitioners in the - The nominees
printing of the official ballot for the 13 May 2013 party-list elections. do not belong
Pursuant to paragraph 222 of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC En Banc to the sectors
scheduled summary evidentiary hearings to determine whether the groups and which the party
organizations that filed manifestations of intent to participate in the 13 May 2013 represents; and
party-list elections have continually complied with the requirements of R.A. No. - The party failed
7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC23 (Ang Bagong to file its
Bayani). The COMELEC disqualified the following groups and organizations from Statement of
participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections: Contributions
and Expenditures
for the
G.R. SPP Group Grounds for 2010 Elections.
No. No. Denial
Resolution dated 10 October 201224
1 203818- 12-154 AKO Bicol Retained
19 (PLM) Political Party registration and
12-177 (AKB) accreditation as a
(PLM) political
party, but denied
participation
23
3 203981 12-187 Association for Cancelled underrepresented;
(PLM) Righteousness registration and - Failure to
Advocacy on accreditation establish track
Leadership - Failure to record; and
(ARAL) comply, and for - Failure of the
violation of nominees to
election laws; qualify as
- The nominees representatives of
do not the youth and
represent the young urban
sectors which professionals.
the party
represents; and Omnibus Resolution dated 16 October 201226
- There is doubt 6 204100 12-196 1-Bro Philippine Cancelled
that the party (PLM) Guardians registration
is organized for Brotherhood, - Failure to
religious Inc. (1BRO- define the sector
purposes. PGBI) it seeks to
4 204002 12-188 Alliance for Cancelled represent; and
(PLM) Rural Concerns registration and - The nominees
(ARC) accreditation do not belong
- Failure of the to a marginalized
nominees to and
qualify; and underrepresented
- Failure of the sector.
party to prove 7 204122 12-223 1 Guardians Cancelled
that majority of (PLM) Nationalist registration
its members Philippines, Inc. - The party is a
belong to the (1GANAP/ military
sectors it seeks GUARDIANS) fraternity;
to represent. - The sector of
5 204318 12-220 United Cancelled community
(PLM) Movement registration and volunteer
Against Drugs accreditation workers is too
Foundation - The sectors of broad to allow
(UNIMAD) drug for meaningful
counsellors and representation;
lecturers, and
veterans and the - The nominees
youth, are do not appear
not marginalized to belong to the
and sector of
24
community not rural
volunteer energy
workers. consumers; and
- The nominees
do not belong
to the sector of
rural energy
consumers.
10 203922 12-201 Association of Cancelled
8 20426 12-257 Blessed Cancelled (PLM) Philippine registration and
(PLM) Federation of registration Electric accreditation
Farmers and - Three of the Cooperatives - Failure to
Fishermen seven (APEC) represent a
International, nominees do not marginalized and
Inc. (A belong to underrepresented
BLESSED the sector of sector; and
Party-List) farmers and - The nominees
fishermen, the do not belong
sector sought to the sector that
to be represented; the party
and claims to
- None of the represent.
nominees are Resolution dated 23 October 201229
registered voters
of Region 11 204174 12-232 Aangat Tayo Cancelled
XI, the region (PLM) Party-List Party registration and
sought to be ( AT ) accreditation
represented. - The incumbent
representative in
Resolution dated 16 October 201227 Congress
9 203960 12-260 1st Cancelled failed to author
(PLM) Consumers registration or sponsor
Alliance for - The sector of bills that are
Rural Energy, rural energy beneficial to the
Inc. (1-CARE) consumers is not sectors that the
marginalized and party
underrepresented; represents
- The partys (women, elderly,
track record is youth, urban
related to electric poor); and
cooperatives and - The nominees
25
do not belong 13 204240 12-279 Agri-Agra na Cancelled
to the (PLM) Reporma Para sa registration
marginalized Magsasaka ng - The party
sectors Pilipinas ceased to exist
that the party Movement for
seeks to (AGRI) more than a year
represent. immediately
after the May
2010 elections;
- The nominees
do not belong
to the sector of
peasants and
farmers that the
Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201230 party seeks to
12 203976 12-288 Alliance for Cancelled represent;
(PLM) Rural and registration and - Only four
Agrarian accreditation nominees were
Reconstruction, - The interests of submitted to the
Inc. (ARARO) the peasant COMELEC;
and urban poor and
sectors that - Failure to show
the party meaningful
represents differ; activities for its
- The nominees constituency.
do not belong 14 203936 12-248 Aksyon Cancelled
to the sectors that (PLM) Magsasaka- registration
the party Partido Tinig ng - Failure to show
seeks to Masa (AKMA- that
represent; PTM) majority of its
- Failure to show members are
that three of marginalized and
the nominees are underrepresented;
bona fide - Failure to prove
party members; that four of
and its nine nominees
- Lack of a Board actually
resolution belong to the
to participate in farmers sector;
the party-list and
elections. - Failure to show
Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201231 that five of
its nine nominees
26
work on 16 204364 12-180 Adhikain at Cancelled
uplifting the lives (PLM) Kilusan ng registration
of the Ordinaryong - Failure to show
members of the Tao Para sa that
sector. Lupa, Pabahay, nominees
Hanapbuhay at actually belong to
Kaunlaran the sector, or that
(AKO-BAHAY) they have
undertaken
meaningful
activities for the
sector.
17 204141 12-229 The True Cancelled
15 204126 12-263 Kaagapay ng Cancelled (PLM) Marcos Loyalist registration
(PLM) Nagkakaisang registration (for God, - Failure to show
Agilang - The Country and that
Pilipinong Manifestation of People) majority of its
Magsasaka Intent Association of members are
(KAP) and Certificate of the Philippines, marginalized and
Nomination Inc. (BANTAY) underrepresented;
were not signed and
by an - Failure to prove
appropriate that two of
officer of the its nominees
party; actually belong
- Failure to show to the
track record marginalized and
for the farmers underrepresented.
and peasants
sector; and
- Failure to show
that
nominees
actually belong to
the sector, or that
they have
undertaken
meaningful
activities for the
sector.
27
18 204408 12-217 Pilipino Cancelled 20 203958 12-015 Kapatiran ng Cancelled
(PLM) Association for registration (PLM) mga Nakulong registration
Country Urban - Change of na Walang Sala, - Failure to prove
Poor Youth sector (from Inc. (KAKUSA) that
Advancement urban poor youth na Walang Sala,
and Welfare to urban Inc. (KAKUSA)
( PA C YAW ) poor) necessitates majority of its
a new officers and
application; members belong
- Failure to show to the
track record marginalized and
for the underrepresented;
marginalized and - The incumbent
underrepresented; representative in
- Failure to prove Congress
that failed to author
majority of its or sponsor
members and bills that are
officers are from beneficial to the
the urban sector that the
poor sector; and party
- The nominees represents
are not (persons
members of the imprisoned
urban poor without proof of
sector. guilt beyond
reasonable
19 204153 12-277 Pasang Masda Cancelled doubt);
(PLM) Nationwide registration - Failure to show
Party (PASANG - The party track record
MASDA) represents drivers for the
and operators, marginalized and
who may have underrepresented;
conflicting and
interests; and - The nominees
- Nominees are did not
either appear to be
operators or marginalized and
former operators. underrepresented.
28
21 204428 12-256 Ang Galing Cancelled Contribution
(PLM) Pinoy (AG) registration and and Expenditures
accreditation for the
- Failure to attend 2007 Elections.
the
summary
hearing;
- Failure to show
track record
for the
marginalized and
underrepresented;
and
- The nominees
did not
appear to be Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 201234
marginalized and 23 204239 12-060 Green Force for Cancelled
underrepresented. (PLM) the Environment registration and
Resolution dated 7 November 201233 Sons and accreditation
Daughters of - The party is an
22 204094 12-185 Alliance for Cancelled Mother Earth advocacy
(PLM) Nationalism and registration and (GREENFORCE) group and does
Democracy accreditation not represent
(ANAD) - Failure to the marginalized
represent an and
identifiable underrepresented;
marginalized and - Failure to
underrepresented comply with the
sector; track record
- Only three requirement; and
nominees were - The nominees
submitted to the are not
COMELEC; marginalized
- The nominees citizens.
do not
belong to the
marginalized
and
underrepresented;
and
- Failure to
submit its
Statement of
29
24 204236 12-254 Firm 24-K Cancelled - Three of the
(PLM) Association, Inc. registration and nominees do
(FIRM 24-K) accreditation not appear to
- The nominees belong to the
do not marginalized.
belong to the
sector that the Resolution dated 7 November 201235
party seeks to 26 204358 12-204 Alliance of Cancelled
represent (PLM) Advocates in registration
(urban poor and Mining - The sector it
peasants of Advancement represents is a
the National for National specifically
Capital Region); Progress defined group
- Only two of its (AAMA) which may not be
nominees allowed
reside in the registration under
National Capital the party-list
Region; and system; and
- Failure to - Failure to
comply with the establish that the
track record nominees
requirement. actually belong to
25 204341 12-269 Action League Cancelled the sector.
(PLM) of Indigenous registration and Resolution dated 7 November 201236
Masses (ALIM) accreditation
- Failure to 27 204359 12-272 Social Cancelled
establish that its (PLM) Movement for registration
nominees are Active Reform - The nominees
members of the and are
indigenous Transparency disqualified from
people in the (SMART) representing the
Mindanao and sectors that
Cordilleras the party
sector that the represents;
party seeks to - Failure to
represent; comply with the
- Only two of the track record
partys requirement; and
nominees reside - There is doubt
in the as to whether
Mindanao and majority of its
Cordilleras; members are
and
30
marginalized and 29 204323 12-210 Bayani Party Cancelled
underrepresented. (PLM) List (BAYANI) registration and
accreditation
- Failure to prove
a track
record of trying
to uplift the
marginalized and
underrepresented
sector of
professionals;
and
Resolution dated 7 November 201237 - One nominee
28 204238 12-173 Alliance of Cancelled was declared
(PLM) Bicolnon Party registration and unqualified to
(ABP) accreditation represent the
- Defective sector of
registration and professionals.
accreditation Resolution dated 7 November 201239
dating back to
2010; 30 204321 12-252 Ang Agrikultura Cancelled
- Failure to (PLM) Natin Isulong registration and
represent any (AANI) accreditation
sector; and - Failure to
- Failure to establish a track
establish that the record of
nominees are enhancing the
employed in the lives
construction of the
industry, the marginalized and
sector it claims to underrepresented
represent. farmers
which it claims to
Resolution dated 7 November 201238 represent;
and
- More than a
majority of the
partys nominees
do not
belong to the
farmers sector.
31
31 204125 12-292 Agapay ng Cancelled sector of coconut
(PLM) Indigenous registration and farmers and
Peoples Rights accreditation producers.
Alliance, Inc. - Failure to prove
(A-IPRA) that its five
nominees are
members of the
indigenous
people sector;
- Failure to prove
that its five
nominees
actively
participated in
the Resolution dated 7 November 201242
undertakings of 33 204220 12-238 Abang Lingkod Cancelled
the party; and (PLM) Party-List registration
- Failure to prove (ABANG - Failure to
that its five LINGKOD) establish a track
nominees are record of
bona fide continuously
members. representing the
Resolution dated 7 November 201241 peasant
farmers sector;
32 204216 12-202 Philippine Cancelled - Failure to show
(PLM) Coconut registration and that its
Producers accreditation members actually
Federation, Inc. - The party is belong to
(COCOFED) affiliated with the peasant
private and farmers sector;
government and
agencies and is - Failure to show
not that its
marginalized; nominees are
- The party is marginalized
assisted by the and
government in underrepresented,
various have
projects; and actively
- The nominees participated in
are not programs for the
members of the advancement of
marginalized farmers, and
32
adhere to its 35 204374 12-228 Binhi-Partido ng Cancelled
advocacies. (PLM) mga Magsasaka registration and
Para sa mga accreditation
Magsasaka - The party
(BINHI) receives
assistance from
the
government
through the
Department of
Agriculture;
and
- Failure to prove
that the
group is
marginalized and
underrepresented.
34 204158 12-158 Action Cancelled
(PLM) Brotherhood for registration and 36 204356 12-136 Butil Farmers Cancelled
Active accreditation - (PLM) Party (BUTIL) registration and
Dreamers, Inc. Failure to show accreditation
(ABROAD) that the - Failure to
party is actually establish that the
able to agriculture and
represent all of cooperative
the sectors it sectors are
claims to marginalized and
represent; underrepresented;
- Failure to show and
a complete - The partys
track record of its nominees
activities neither appear to
since its belong to
registration; and the sectors they
- The nominees seek to
are not part represent, nor to
of any of the have
sectors which actively
the party seeks to participated in
represent. the
undertakings of
Resolution dated 28 November 201244 the party.
33
Resolution dated 3 December 201246 39 204421, 12-157 Coalition of Cancelled
204425 (PLM), Senior Citizens registration
37 204486 12-194 1st Cancelled 12-191 in the - The party
(PLM) Kabalikat ng registration and (PLM) Philippines, Inc. violated election
Bayan accreditation (SENIOR laws because its
Ginhawang - Declaration of CITIZENS) nominees
Sangkatauhan untruthful had a term-
(1st statements; sharing
KABAGIS) - Failure to exist agreement.
for at least
one year; and
- None of its These 39 petitioners (AKB, Atong Paglaum, ARAL, ARC, UNIMAD, 1BRO-PGBI,
nominees 1GANAP/GUARDIANS, A BLESSED Party-List, 1-CARE, APEC, AT, ARARO,
belong to the AGRI, AKMA-PTM, KAP, AKO-BAHAY, BANTAY, PACYAW, PASANG
labor, MASDA, KAKUSA, AG, ANAD, GREENFORCE, FIRM 24-K, ALIM, AAMA,
fisherfolk, and SMART, ABP, BAYANI, AANI, A-IPRA, COCOFED, ABANG LINGKOD,
urban poor ABROAD, BINHI, BUTIL, 1st KABAGIS, 1-UTAK, SENIOR CITIZENS) were
indigenous able to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court, directing the COMELEC to
cultural include the names of these 39 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the
communities 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
sectors which it Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
seeks to preliminary injunction. This Court issued Status Quo Ante Orders in all petitions.
represent. This Decision governs only the 54 consolidated petitions that were granted Status
Quo Ante Orders, namely:
38 204410 12-198 1-United Cancelled G.R. SPP Group
(PLM) Transport accreditation No. No.
Koalisyon (1- - The party
UTAK) represents drivers Resolution dated 13 November 2012
and operators, 203818- 12-154 AKO Bicol Political Party
who may have 19 (PLM) (AKB)
conflicting 12-177
interests; and (PLM)
- The partys
nominees do not 203981 12-187 Association for Righteousness
belong to any (PLM) Advocacy on
marginalized Leadership (ARAL)
and
underrepresented 204002 12-188 Alliance for Rural Concerns
sector. (PLM) (ARC)
Resolution dated 4 December 201248 203922 12-201 Association of Philippine

(PLM) Electric Cooperatives
(APEC)
34
203960 12-260 1st 204158 12-158 Action Brotherhood for Active
(PLM) Consumers Alliance for Rural (PLM) Dreamer, Inc.
Energy, Inc. (ABROAD)
(1-CARE)
Resolutions dated 4 December 2012
203936 12-248 Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig
(PLM) ng Masa 204122 12-223 1 Guardians Nationalist
(AKMA-PTM) (PLM) Philippines, Inc.
(1GANAP/GUARDIANS)
203958 12-015 Kapatiran ng mga Nakulong na
(PLM) Walang Sala, 203766 12-161 Atong Paglaum, Inc. (Atong
Inc. (KAKUSA) (PLM) Paglaum)
203976 12-288 Alliance for Rural and Agrarian 204318 12-220 United Movement Against Drugs
(PLM) Reconstruction, (PLM) Foundation
Inc. (ARARO) (UNIMAD)
Resolution dated 20 November 2012 204263 12-257 Blessed Federation of Farmers

(PLM) and Fishermen
204094 12-185 Alliance for Nationalism and International, Inc. (A BLESSED
(PLM) Democracy Party-List)
(ANAD)
204174 12-232 Aangat Tayo Party-List Party
204125 12-292 Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples (PLM) (AT)
(PLM) Rights Alliance,
Inc. (A-IPRA) 204126 12-263 Kaagapay ng Nagkakaisang
(PLM) Agilang Pilipinong
204100 12-196 1-Bro Philippine Guardians Magsasaka (KAP)
(PLM) Brotherhood, Inc.
(1BRO-PGBI) 204364 12-180 Adhikain at Kilusan ng
(PLM) Ordinaryong Tao Para sa
Resolution dated 27 November 2012 Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at
Kaunlaran
204141 12-229 The True Marcos Loyalist (for (AKO-BAHAY)
(PLM) God, Country
and People) Association of the 204139 12-127 Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM)
Philippines, Inc. (PL)
(BANTAY)
204220 12-238 Abang Lingkod Party-List
204240 12-279 Agri-Agra na Reporma Para sa (PLM) (ABANG
(PLM) Magsasaka ng LINGKOD)
Pilipinas Movement (AGRI)
204236 12-254 Firm 24-K Association, Inc.
204216 12-202 Philippine Coconut Producers (PLM) (FIRM 24-K)
(PLM) Federation, Inc.
(COCOFED) 204238 12-173 Alliance of Bicolnon Party
(PLM) (ABP)
35
204239 12-060 Green Force for the Environment 204490 12-073 Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP)
(PLM) Sons and (PLM)
Daughters of Mother Earth
(GREENFORCE) 204379 12-099 Alagad ng Sining (ASIN)
(PLM)
204321 12-252 Ang Agrikultura Natin Isulong
(PLM) (AANI) 204367 12-104 Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN)
(PL)
204323 12-210 Bayani Party List (BAYANI)
(PLM) 204426 12-011 Association of Local Athletics
(PLM) Entrepreneurs
204341 12-269 Action League of Indigenous and Hobbyists, Inc. (ALA-EH)
(PLM) Masses (ALIM)
204455 12-041 Manila Teachers Savings and
204358 12-204 Alliance of Advocates in Mining (PLM) Loan Association,
(PLM) Advancement Inc. (Manila Teachers)
for National Progress (AAMA)
204374 12-228 Binhi-Partido ng mga Magsasaka
204359 12-272 Social Movement for Active (PLM) Para sa mga
(PLM) Reform and Magsasaka (BINHI)
Transparency (SMART)
204370 12-011 Ako An Bisaya (AAB)
204356 12-136 Butil Farmers Party (BUTIL) (PP)
(PLM)
204435 12-057 1 Alliance Advocating
Resolution dated 11 December 2012 (PLM) Autonomy Party
(1AAAP)
204402 12-061 Kalikasan Party-List
(PL) (KALIKASAN) 204486 12-194 1st Kabalikat ng Bayan
(PLM) Ginhawang
204394 12-145 Association of Guard, Utility Sangkatauhan (1st KABAGIS)
(PL) Helper, Aider,
Rider, Driver/Domestic Helper, 204410 12-198 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-
Janitor, Agent (PLM) UTAK)
and Nanny of the Philippines,
Inc. 204421, 12-157 Coalition of Senior Citizens in
(GUARDJAN) 204425 (PLM) the Philippines,
12-191 Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS)
204408 12-217 Pilipino Association for Country (PLM)
(PLM) Urban Poor
Youth Advancement and Welfare 204436 12-009 Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI)
(PACYAW) (PP),
12-165
204428 12-256 Ang Galing Pinoy (AG) (PLM)
(PLM)
204485 12-175 Alliance of Organizations,
(PL) Networks and
36
Associations of the Philippines, Section 5, Article VI
Inc. (ALONA)
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
204484 11-002 Partido ng Bayan ng Bida (PBB) hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities,
and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
204153 12-277 Pasang Masda Nationwide Party respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
(PLM) (PASANG and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
MASDA) system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the
The Issues
total number of representatives including those under the party list. For
three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of
We rule upon two issues: first, whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
new petitions for registration under the party-list system, or by cancellation of their provided by law, except the religious sector.
existing registration and accreditation as party-list organizations; and second,
whether the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid down in Ang
Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C
Bagong Bayani and Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency v. Commission on Elections49 (BANAT) should be applied by the
COMELEC in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be
valid, except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this
Constitution.
The Courts Ruling
Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list
We hold that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following
system, shall not be represented in the voters registration boards, boards of election
prevailing decisions of this Court in disqualifying petitioners from participating in
inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be
the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. However, since the Court adopts in this
entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.
Decision new parameters in the qualification of national, regional, and sectoral
parties under the party-list system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions
applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, we remand to the COMELEC Commissioner Christian S. Monsod, the main sponsor of the party-list system,
all the present petitions for the COMELEC to determine who are qualified to register stressed that "the party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral
under the party-list system, and to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list representation."51 The constitutional provisions on the party-list system should be
elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this Decision. read in light of the following discussion among its framers:
The Party-List System MR. MONSOD: x x x.
The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system of representation. I would like to make a distinction from the beginning that the proposal for the party
Simply put, the party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation. Precisely, the
political parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats party list system seeks to avoid the dilemma of choice of sectors and who constitute
in the House of Representatives.50 The voter elects two representatives in the House the members of the sectors. In making the proposal on the party list system, we were
of Representatives: one for his or her legislative district, and another for his or her made aware of the problems precisely cited by Commissioner Bacani of which
party-list group or organization of choice. The 1987 Constitution provides: sectors will have reserved seats. In effect, a sectoral representation in the Assembly
37
would mean that certain sectors would have reserved seats; that they will choose gets 5 percent; a womens party gets 2 1/2 percent and anybody who has at least 2
among themselves who would sit in those reserved seats. And then, we have the 1/2 percent of the vote qualifies and the 50 seats are apportioned among all of these
problem of which sector because as we will notice in Proclamation No. 9, the sectors parties who get at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote.
cited were the farmers, fishermen, workers, students, professionals, business,
military, academic, ethnic and other similar groups. So these are the nine sectors that What does that mean? It means that any group or party who has a constituency of,
were identified here as "sectoral representatives" to be represented in this say, 500,000 nationwide gets a seat in the National Assembly. What is the
Commission. The problem we had in trying to approach sectoral representation in the justification for that? When we allocate legislative districts, we are saying that any
Assembly was whether to stop at these nine sectors or include other sectors. And we district that has 200,000 votes gets a seat. There is no reason why a group that has a
went through the exercise in a caucus of which sector should be included which went national constituency, even if it is a sectoral or special interest group, should not
up to 14 sectors. And as we all know, the longer we make our enumeration, the more have a voice in the National Assembly. It also means that, let us say, there are three
limiting the law become because when we make an enumeration we exclude those or four labor groups, they all register as a party or as a group. If each of them gets
who are not in the enumeration. Second, we had the problem of who comprise the only one percent or five of them get one percent, they are not entitled to any
farmers. Let us just say the farmers and the laborers. These days, there are many representative. So, they will begin to think that if they really have a common interest,
citizens who are called "hyphenated citizens." A doctor may be a farmer; a lawyer they should band together, form a coalition and get five percent of the vote and,
may also be a farmer. And so, it is up to the discretion of the person to say "I am a therefore, have two seats in the Assembly. Those are the dynamics of a party list
farmer" so he would be included in that sector. system.
The third problem is that when we go into a reserved seat system of sectoral We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of sectoral representation while
representation in the Assembly, we are, in effect, giving some people two votes and at the same time making sure that those who really have a national constituency or
other people one vote. We sought to avoid these problems by presenting a party list sectoral constituency will get a chance to have a seat in the National Assembly.
system. Under the party list system, there are no reserved seats for sectors. Let us These sectors or these groups may not have the constituency to win a seat on a
say, laborers and farmers can form a sectoral party or a sectoral organization that will legislative district basis. They may not be able to win a seat on a district basis but
then register and present candidates of their party. How do the mechanics go? surely, they will have votes on a nationwide basis.
Essentially, under the party list system, every voter has two votes, so there is no
discrimination. First, he will vote for the representative of his legislative district. The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past elections, we found out that
That is one vote. In that same ballot, he will be asked: What party or organization or
there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes nationwide; have
coalition do you wish to be represented in the Assembly? And here will be attached a
about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always third place or fourth place
list of the parties, organizations or coalitions that have been registered with the
in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they
COMELEC and are entitled to be put in that list. This can be a regional party, a
would have five or six representatives in the Assembly even if they would not win
sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO, Magsasaka or a regional party in Mindanao. individually in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose
One need not be a farmer to say that he wants the farmers' party to be represented in and objectives of the party list system.
the Assembly. Any citizen can vote for any party. At the end of the day, the
COMELEC will then tabulate the votes that had been garnered by each party or each
organization one does not have to be a political party and register in order to BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, am I right in interpreting that when we speak
participate as a party and count the votes and from there derive the percentage of now of party list system though we refer to sectors, we would be referring to sectoral
the votes that had been cast in favor of a party, organization or coalition. party list rather than sectors and party list?
When such parties register with the COMELEC, we are assuming that 50 of the 250 MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, if this body accepts the party list system, we do
seats will be for the party list system. So, we have a limit of 30 percent of 50. That not even have to mention sectors because the sectors would be included in the party
means that the maximum that any party can get out of these 50 seats is 15. When the list system. They can be sectoral parties within the party list system.
parties register they then submit a list of 15 names. They have to submit these names
because these nominees have to meet the minimum qualifications of a Member of the xxxx
National Assembly. At the end of the day, when the votes are tabulated, one gets the
percentages. Let us say, UNIDO gets 10 percent or 15 percent of the votes; KMU
38
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we suggested or proposed MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang linawin ito. Political
the party list system because we wanted to open up the political system to a parties, particularly minority political parties, are not prohibited to participate
pluralistic society through a multiparty system. x x x We are for opening up the in the party list election if they can prove that they are also organized along
system, and we would like very much for the sectors to be there. That is why sectoral lines.
one of the ways to do that is to put a ceiling on the number of representatives
from any single party that can sit within the 50 allocated under the party list MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all political parties can
system. x x x. participate because it is precisely the contention of political parties that they
represent the broad base of citizens and that all sectors are represented in them.
xxx Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats is not limited MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO na isang
to political parties. My question is this: Are we going to classify for example political party, it will dominate the party list at mawawalang saysay din yung sector.
Christian Democrats and Social Democrats as political parties? Can they run Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang party list system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan
under the party list concept or must they be under the district legislation side of ng diin ang "reserve." Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. Kung titingnan
it only? natin itong 198 seats, reserved din ito sa political parties.
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these parties that the MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run there. But my
Commissioner mentioned can field candidates for the Senate as well as for the question to Commissioner Villacorta and probably also to Commissioner Tadeo is
House of Representatives. Likewise, they can also field sectoral candidates for that under this system, would UNIDO be banned from running under the party list
the 20 percent or 30 percent, whichever is adopted, of the seats that we are system?
allocating under the party list system.
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral candidates. On
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field district that condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed to register for the party list
candidates and can also participate in the party list system? system.
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the party list system, they MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares that
will be fielding only sectoral candidates. answer?
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO participate in the party MR. TADEO. The same.
list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines.
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field candidates who
come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this MR. MONSOD: Sino po ang magsasabi kung iyong kandidato ng UNIDO ay hindi
Constitution. talagang labor leader or isang laborer? Halimbawa, abogado ito.
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Taada wants to run under BAYAN group and MR. TADEO: Iyong mechanics.
says that he represents the farmers, would he qualify?
MR. MONSOD: Hindi po mechanics iyon because we are trying to solve an inherent
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify. problem of sectoral representation. My question is: Suppose UNIDO fields a labor
leader, would he qualify?
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party list system and say
Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who would pass on whether he is a farmer or not?
39
MR. TADEO: The COMELEC may look into the truth of whether or not a proposal was further whittled down by allocating only half of the seats under the
political party is really organized along a specific sectoral line. If such is verified party-list system to candidates from the sectors which would garner the required
or confirmed, the political party may submit a list of individuals who are number of votes. The majority was unyielding. Voting 19-22, the proposal for
actually members of such sectors. The lists are to be published to give permanent seats, and in the alternative the reservation of the party-list system to the
individuals or organizations belonging to such sector the chance to present sectoral groups, was voted down. The only concession the Villacorta group was able
evidence contradicting claims of membership in the said sector or to question to muster was an assurance of reserved seats for selected sectors for three
the claims of the existence of such sectoral organizations or parties. This consecutive terms after the enactment of the 1987 Constitution, by which time they
proceeding shall be conducted by the COMELEC and shall be summary in would be expected to gather and solidify their electoral base and brace themselves in
character. In other words, COMELEC decisions on this matter are final and the multi-party electoral contest with the more veteran political groups. 54 (Emphasis
unappealable.52 (Emphasis supplied) supplied)
Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-list system to Thus, in the end, the proposal to give permanent reserved seats to certain sectors was
include not only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral parties. The framers intended outvoted. Instead, the reservation of seats to sectoral representatives was only
the sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the party-list allowed for the first three consecutive terms.55 There can be no doubt whatsoever
system. As explained by Commissioner Wilfredo Villacorta, political parties can that the framers of the 1987 Constitution expressly rejected the proposal to make the
participate in the party-list system "For as long as they field candidates who party-list system exclusively for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly intended
come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this the party-list system to include both sectoral and non-sectoral parties.
Constitution."53
The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that they
In fact, the framers voted down, 19-22, a proposal to reserve permanent seats to cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but they can garner, in
sectoral parties in the House of Representatives, or alternatively, to reserve the party- nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes that winning candidates can
list system exclusively to sectoral parties. As clearly explained by Justice Jose C. garner in legislative district elections. The party-list system will be the entry point to
Vitug in his Dissenting Opinion in Ang Bagong Bayani: membership in the House of Representatives for both these non-traditional parties
that could not compete in legislative district elections.
The draft provisions on what was to become Article VI, Section 5, subsection (2), of
the 1987 Constitution took off from two staunch positions the first headed by The indisputable intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution to include in the
Commissioner Villacorta, advocating that of the 20 per centum of the total seats in party-list system both sectoral and non-sectoral parties is clearly written in Section
Congress to be allocated to party-list representatives half were to be reserved to 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution, which states:
appointees from the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. The proposal was
opposed by some Commissioners. Mr. Monsod expressed the difficulty in delimiting Section 5. (1) The House of Representative shall be composed of not more that two
the sectors that needed representation. He was of the view that reserving seats for the hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
marginalized and underrepresented sectors would stunt their development into full- legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
pledged parties equipped with electoral machinery potent enough to further the Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the
sectoral interests to be represented. The Villacorta group, on the other hand, was basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall
apprehensive that pitting the unorganized and less-moneyed sectoral groups in an be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and
electoral contest would be like placing babes in the lion's den, so to speak, with the sectoral parties or organizations. (Emphasis supplied)
bigger and more established political parties ultimately gobbling them up. R.A. 7941
recognized this concern when it banned the first five major political parties on the
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution is crystal-clear that there shall be "a
basis of party representation in the House of Representatives from participating in
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
the party-list system for the first party-list elections held in 1998 (and to be organizations." The commas after the words "national," and "regional," separate
automatically lifted starting with the 2001 elections). The advocates for permanent national and regional parties from sectoral parties. Had the framers of the 1987
seats for sectoral representatives made an effort towards a compromise that the
Constitution intended national and regional parties to be at the same time sectoral,
party-list system be open only to underrepresented and marginalized sectors. This
they would have stated "national and regional sectoral parties." They did not,
40
precisely because it was never their intention to make the party-list system Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of
exclusively sectoral. proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
What the framers intended, and what they expressly wrote in Section 5(1), could not coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
be any clearer: the party-list system is composed of three different groups, and the Component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently
sectoral parties belong to only one of the three groups. The text of Section 5(1) provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the party-list
leaves no room for any doubt that national and regional parties are separate from system.
sectoral parties.
(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a
Thus, the party-list system is composed of three different groups: (1) national coalition of parties.
parties or organizations; (2) regional parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties
or organizations. National and regional parties or organizations are different from (c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating
sectoral parties or organizations. National and regional parties or organizations need an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct
not be organized along sectoral lines and need not represent any particular sector. of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing
their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders
Moreover, Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that, during and members as candidates for public office.
the first three consecutive terms of Congress after the ratification of the 1987
Constitution, "one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical
filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a regional party when its
poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority
be provided by law, except the religious sector." This provision clearly shows again of the cities and provinces comprising the region.
that the party-list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties for two obvious
reasons. (d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging
to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal
First, the other one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives would advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector.
naturally be open to non-sectoral party-list representatives, clearly negating the idea
that the party-list system is exclusively for sectoral parties representing the (e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of
"marginalized and underrepresented." Second, the reservation of one-half of the groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics,
party-list seats to sectoral parties applies only for the first "three consecutive terms employment, interests or concerns.
after the ratification of this Constitution," clearly making the party-list system fully
open after the end of the first three congressional terms. This means that, after this
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional,
period, there will be no seats reserved for any class or type of party that qualifies
sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes.
under the three groups constituting the party-list system. (Emphasis supplied)
Hence, the clear intent, express wording, and party-list structure ordained in Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party" as "either a political party or a
Section 5(1) and (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution cannot be disputed: the sectoral party or a coalition of parties." Clearly, a political party is different from a
party-list system is not for sectoral parties only, but also for non-sectoral sectoral party. Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 7941 further provides that a "political
parties. party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government." On the
Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act, which is the law that other hand, Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that a "sectoral party refers to
implements the party-list system prescribed in the Constitution, provides: an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section
5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns
41
of their sector." R.A. No. 7941 provides different definitions for a political and a after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral
sectoral party. Obviously, they are separate and distinct from each other. party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to (1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association
represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. To require all organized for religious purposes;
national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented" is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system. How will these
ideology-based and cause-oriented parties, who cannot win in legislative district
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
elections, participate in the electoral process if they are excluded from the party-list
system? To exclude them from the party-list system is to prevent them from joining
the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their only option the armed struggle. To (4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political
exclude them from the party-list system is, apart from being obviously senseless, party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its
patently contrary to the clear intent and express wording of the 1987 Constitution officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election
and R.A. No. 7941. purposes;
Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or cause-oriented political party is (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to
clearly different from a sectoral party. A political party need not be organized as a elections;
sectoral party and need not represent any particular sector. There is no requirement
in R.A. No. 7941 that a national or regional political party must represent a (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector. It is sufficient that the political party
consists of citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
governance principles and policies, regardless of their economic status as citizens.
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 states that "the sectors shall include labor, peasant, obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, has registered.
and professionals."56The sectors mentioned in Section 5 are not all necessarily
"marginalized and underrepresented." For sure, "professionals" are not by definition None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel registration refers to non-representation of
"marginalized and underrepresented," not even the elderly, women, and the youth. the "marginalized and underrepresented."
However, professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth may "lack well-defined
political constituencies," and can thus organize themselves into sectoral parties in
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" appears only once in R.A. No.
advocacy of the special interests and concerns of their respective sectors.
7941, in Section 2 on Declaration of Policy.57 Section 2 seeks "to promote
proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of
Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides another compelling reason for holding that the Representatives through the party-list system," which will enable Filipinos belonging
law does not require national or regional parties, as well as certain sectoral parties in to the "marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties,
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941, to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." and who lack well-defined political constituencies," to become members of the
Section 6 provides the grounds for the COMELEC to refuse or cancel the registration House of Representatives. While the policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No.
of parties or organizations after due notice and hearing. 7941 broadly refers to "marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties," the specific implementing provisions of R.A. No. 7941 do not define or
Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The COMELEC may, require that the sectors, organizations or parties must be "marginalized and
motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, underrepresented." On the contrary, to even interpret that all the sectors mentioned in
Section 5 are "marginalized and underrepresented" would lead to absurdities.
42
How then should we harmonize the broad policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No. parties. This automatically reserves the national and regional parties under the party-
7941 with its specific implementing provisions, bearing in mind the applicable list system to those who "lack well-defined political constituencies," giving them the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution on the matter? opportunity to have members in the House of Representatives.
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" should refer only to the To recall, Ang Bagong Bayani expressly declared, in its second guideline for the
sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically "marginalized and accreditation of parties under the party-list system, that "while even major political
underrepresented." These sectors are: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling
similar sectors. For these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors xxx to be
must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented." The nominees of the elected to the House of Representatives. "However, the requirement in Ang Bagong
sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or must have a track record of Bayani, in its second guideline, that "the political party xxx must represent the
advocacy for the sector represented. Belonging to the "marginalized and marginalized and underrepresented," automatically disqualified major political
underrepresented" sector does not mean one must "wallow in poverty, destitution or parties from participating in the party-list system. This inherent inconsistency in
infirmity." It is sufficient that one, or his or her sector, is below the middle class. Ang Bagong Bayani has been compounded by the COMELECs refusal to register
More specifically, the economically "marginalized and underrepresented" are those sectoral wings officially organized by major political parties. BANAT merely
who fall in the low income group as classified by the National Statistical formalized the prevailing practice when it expressly prohibited major political
Coordination Board.58 parties from participating in the party-list system, even through their sectoral wings.
The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral parties of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 expressly prohibited the "first five (5) major political
professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, need not be "marginalized and parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the
underrepresented" will allow small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who start of the Tenth Congress" from participating in the May 1988 party-list
lack "well-defined political constituencies" a chance to win seats in the House of elections.59 Thus, major political parties can participate in subsequent party-list
Representatives. On the other hand, limiting to the "marginalized and elections since the prohibition is expressly limited only to the 1988 party-list
underrepresented" the sectoral parties for labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, elections. However, major political parties should participate in party-list elections
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other only through their sectoral wings. The participation of major political parties through
sectors that by their nature are economically at the margins of society, will give the their sectoral wings, a majority of whose members are "marginalized and
"marginalized and underrepresented" an opportunity to likewise win seats in the underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies," will facilitate
House of Representatives. the entry of the "marginalized and underrepresented" and those who "lack well-
defined political constituencies" as members of the House of Representatives.
This interpretation will harmonize the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 and will
give rise to a multi-party system where those "marginalized and The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 allow major political parties to participate
underrepresented," both in economic and ideological status, will have the in party-list elections so as to encourage them to work assiduously in extending their
opportunity to send their own members to the House of Representatives. This constituencies to the "marginalized and underrepresented" and to those who "lack
interpretation will also make the party-list system honest and transparent, eliminating well-defined political constituencies." The participation of major political parties in
the need for relatively well-off party-list representatives to masquerade as party-list elections must be geared towards the entry, as members of the House of
"wallowing in poverty, destitution and infirmity," even as they attend sessions in Representatives, of the "marginalized and underrepresented" and those who "lack
Congress riding in SUVs. well-defined political constituencies," giving them a voice in law-making. Thus,to
participate in party-list elections, a major political party that fields candidates in the
The major political parties are those that field candidates in the legislative district legislative district elections must organize a sectoral wing, like a labor, peasant,
elections. Major political parties cannot participate in the party-list elections since fisherfolk, urban poor, professional, women or youth wing, that can register under
they neither lack "well-defined political constituencies" nor represent "marginalized the party-list system.
and underrepresented" sectors. Thus, the national or regional parties under the
party-list system are necessarily those that do not belong to major political
43
Such sectoral wing of a major political party must have its own constitution, by-laws, declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
platform or program of government, officers and members, a majority of whom must and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives." x
belong to the sector represented. The sectoral wing is in itself an independent x x.
sectoral party, and is linked to a major political party through a coalition. This
linkage is allowed by Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941, which provides that "component xxxx
parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently (in party-list
elections) provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the
Third, x x x the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. x x
party-list system." x.
Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the qualifications of party-list nominees. This
xxxx
provision prescribes a special qualification only for the nominee from the youth
sector.
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA
7941, which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows:
Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as
party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) "(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association,
year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a bona organized for religious purposes;
fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least
ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
years of age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not
more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. (4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political
party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its
Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election
shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term.1wphi1 purposes;
A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or organization which (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to
he or she seeks to represent. In the case of sectoral parties, to be a bona fide elections;
party-list nominee one must either belong to the sector represented, or have a
track record of advocacy for such sector. (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
In disqualifying petitioners, the COMELEC used the criteria prescribed in Ang (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
Bagong Bayani and BANAT. Ang Bagong Bayani laid down the guidelines for
qualifying those who desire to participate in the party-list system: (8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to
obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. x has registered."
xx
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or
Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the an entity funded or assisted by, the government. x x x.
Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the
44
xxxx We cannot, however, fault the COMELEC for following prevailing jurisprudence in
disqualifying petitioners. In following prevailing jurisprudence, the COMELEC
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees could not have committed grave abuse of discretion. However, for the coming 13
must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows: May 2013 party-list elections, we must now impose and mandate the party-list
system actually envisioned and authorized under the 1987 Constitution and R.A.
No. 7941. In BANAT, this Court devised a new formula in the allocation of party-list
"SEC 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. - No person shall be nominated as
seats, reversing the COMELEC's allocation which followed the then prevailing
party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)year formula in Ang Bagong Bayani. In BANAT, however, the Court did not declare that
immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a bona the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. Similarly, even as we
acknowledge here that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, we
fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least
declare that it would not be in accord with the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941
ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25)
to apply the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining who are
qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. For this
purpose, we suspend our rule62 that a party may appeal to this Court from decisions
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not or orders of the COMELEC only if the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral discretion.
representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to
continue in office until the expiration of his term."
Thus, we remand all the present petitions to the COMELEC. In determining who
may participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters:
marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. x x x.
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1)
Eighth, x x x the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and
enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
(Emphasis supplied)
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do
In 2009, by a vote of 8-7 in BANAT, this Court stretched the Ang Bagong not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
Bayani ruling further. In BANAT, the majority officially excluded major political "marginalized and underrepresented" sector.
parties from participating in party-list elections,60 abandoning even the lip-service
that Ang Bagong Bayani accorded to the 1987 Constitution and R.A.No. 7941 that
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they
major political parties can participate in party-list elections.
register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative
district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields
The minority in BANAT, however, believed that major political parties can candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list
participate in the party-list system through their sectoral wings. The minority elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under
expressed that "[e]xcluding the major political parties in party-list elections is the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral
manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission, and party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot engage in socio-political engineering and
judicially legislate the exclusion of major political parties from the party-list
elections in patent violation of the Constitution and the law." 61 The experimentations 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and
in socio-political engineering have only resulted in confusion and absurdity in the underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
party-list system. Such experimentations, in clear contravention of the 1987
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are "marginalized and
Constitution and R.A. No. 7941, must now come to an end.
underrepresented" include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The
45
sectors that lack "well-defined political constituencies" include WHEREFORE, all the present 54 petitions are GRANTED. The 13 petitions, which
professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth. have been granted Status Quo Ante Orders but without mandatory injunction to
include the names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are remanded to the
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that Commission on Elections only for determination whether petitioners are qualified to
represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the register under the party-list system under the parameters prescribed in this Decision
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a but they shall not participate in the 13 May 2013 part-list elections. The 41 petitions,
majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well- which have been granted mandatory injunctions to include the names of petitioners
defined political constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent. in the printing of ballots, are remanded to the Commission on Elections for
The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the determination whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-list system
"marginalized and underrepresented," or that represent those who lack and to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the parameters
"well-defined political constituencies," either must belong to their prescribed in this Decision. The Commission on Elections may conduct summary
respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their evidentiary hearings for this purpose. This Decision is immediately executory.
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or
organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations. SO ORDERED.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be

disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they
have at least one nominee who remains qualified.
The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections
those that did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral
groups or organizations must represent the "marginalized and underrepresented"
sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent. Petitioners may have been disqualified by
the COMELEC because as political or regional parties they are not organized along
sectoral lines and do not represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." Also,
petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the sectors they represent may have been
disqualified, although they may have a track record of advocacy for their sectors.
Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties may have been disqualified because they
do not belong to any sector. Moreover, a party may have been disqualified because
one or more of its nominees failed to qualify, even if the party has at least one
remaining qualified nominee. As discussed above, the disqualification of petitioners,
and their nominees, under such circumstances is contrary to the 1987 Constitution
and R.A. No. 7941.
This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its provisions faithfully,
and desist from engaging in socio-economic or political experimentations contrary to
what the Constitution has ordained. Judicial power does not include the power to re-
write the Constitution. Thus, the present petitions should be remanded to the
COMELEC not because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may now possibly qualify to
participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters
prescribed by this Court.
46
G.R. No. 147589 June 26, 2001 lofty objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanism into an atrocious veneer
for traditional politics.
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the acronym OFW),
represented herein by its secretary-general, MOHAMMAD OMAR The Case
FAJARDO, petitioner,
vs. Before us are two Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY GO! GO! PHILIPPINES; Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 1 issued by the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
THE TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES; on March 26, 2001. This Resolution approved the participation of 154 organizations
PHILIPPINE LOCAL AUTONOMY; CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR and parties, including those herein impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections.
JUSTICE, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE; CHAMBER OF Petitioners seek the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the
REAL ESTATE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; SPORTS & HEALTH party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not
ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; ANG LAKAS NG OVERSEAS the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented.
CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW); BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION and
others under "Organizations/Coalitions" of Omnibus Resolution No. 3785; The Factual Antecedents
PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO; LAKAS NUCD-UMDP; NATIONALIST
PEOPLE'S COALITION; LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO;
AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO; PDP-LABAN; LIBERAL PARTY; With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received several Petitions for
NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG; and registration filed by sectoral parties, organizations and political parties. According to
others under "Political Parties" of Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. respondents. the Comelec, "[v]erifications were made as to the status and capacity of these parties
and organizations and hearings were scheduled day and night until the last party
w[as] heard. With the number of these petitions and the observance of the legal and
x---------------------------------------------------------x
procedural requirements, review of these petitions as well as deliberations takes a
longer process in order to arrive at a decision and as a result the two (2) divisions
G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001 promulgated a separate Omnibus Resolution and individual resolution on political
parties. These numerous petitions and processes observed in the disposition of these
BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, petition[s] hinder the early release of the Omnibus Resolutions of the Divisions
vs. which were promulgated only on 10 February 2001." 2
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION
(NPC); LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP); PARTIDO NG Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 deadline prescribed under Comelec
MASANG PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP; LIBERAL PARTY; Resolution No. 3426 dated December 22, 2000, the registered parties and
MAMAMAYANG AYAW SA DROGA; CREBA; NATIONAL FEDERATION organizations filed their respective Manifestations, stating their intention to
OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS; JEEP; and BAGONG BAYANI participate in the party-list elections. Other sectoral and political parties and
ORGANIZATION, respondents. organizations whose registrations were denied also filed Motions for
Reconsideration, together with Manifestations of their intent to participate in the
PANGANIBAN, J.: party-list elections. Still other registered parties filed their Manifestations beyond the
deadline.
The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give more law to the
great masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them to become The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manifestations (or accreditations) of
veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment 154 parties and organizations, but denied those of several others in its assailed March
of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to make the marginalized and the 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which we quote:
underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the State's benevolence, but active
participants in the mainstream of representative democracy. Thus, allowing all "We carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in mind that this system of
individuals and groups, including those which now dominate district elections, to proportional representation scheme will encourage multi-partisan [sic] and enhance
have the same opportunity to participate in party-list elections would desecrate this
47
the inability of small, new or sectoral parties or organization to directly participate in list elections, but barred the proclamation of any winner therein, until further orders
this electoral window. of the Court.
"It will be noted that as defined, the 'party-list system' is a 'mechanism of Thereafter, Comments 14 on the second Petition were received by the Court and, on
proportional representation' in the election of representatives to the House of May 17, 2001, the Oral Argument was conducted as scheduled. In an Order given in
Representatives from national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or open court, the parties were directed to submit their respective Memoranda
coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections. simultaneously within a non-extendible period of five days. 15
"However, in the course of our review of the matters at bar, we must recognize the Issues:
fact that there is a need to keep the number of sectoral parties, organizations and
coalitions, down to a manageable level, keeping only those who substantially comply During the hearing on May 17, 2001, the Court directed the parties to address the
with the rules and regulations and more importantly the sufficiency of the following issues:
Manifestations or evidence on the Motions for Reconsiderations or Oppositions." 3
"1. Whether or not recourse under Rule 65 is proper under the premises.
On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed before the Comelec a More specifically, is there no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the
Petition praying that "the names of [some of herein respondents] be deleted from the ordinary course of law?
'Certified List of Political Parties/Sectoral Parties/Organizations/Coalitions
Participating in the Party List System for the May 14, 2001 Elections' and that said "2. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list
certified list be accordingly amended." It also asked, as an alternative, that the votes
elections.
cast for the said respondents not be counted or canvassed, and that the latter's
nominees not be proclaimed. 4 On April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-
Youth also filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration and Nomination against "3. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to 'marginalized and
some of herein respondents. 5 underrepresented' sectors and organizations.
On April 18, 2001, the Comelec required the respondents in the two disqualification "4. Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in
cases to file Comments within three days from notice. It also set the date for hearing promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. 3785." 16
on April 26, 2001, 6 but subsequently reset it to May 3, 2001.7 During the hearing,
however, Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion merely directed the parties to submit their The Court's Ruling
respective memoranda. 8
The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded to the Comelec
Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the Comelec, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW which will determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties
Labor Party filed a Petition 9 before this Court on April 16, 2001. This Petition, and organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution satisfy the
docketed as GR No. 147589, assailed Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941, as specified in this Decision.
Resolution dated April 17, 2001, 10 the Court directed respondents to comment on the
Petition within a non-extendible period of five days from notice. 11 First Issue:
On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna also filed before this Court a Recourse Under Rule 65
Petition, 12 docketed as GR No. 147613, also challenging Comelec Omnibus
Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated May 9, 2001, 13 the Court ordered the Respondents contend that the recourse of both petitioners under Rule 65 is improper
consolidation of the two Petitions before it; directed respondents named in the because there are other plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of
second Petition to file their respective Comments on or before noon of May 15, law. 17 The Office of the Solicitor General argues that petitioners should have filed
2001; and called the parties to an Oral Argument on May 17, 2001. It added that the before the Comelec a petition either for disqualification or for cancellation of
Comelec may proceed with the counting and canvassing of votes cast for the party-
48
registration, pursuant to Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Comelec Resolution No. 3307- Participation of Political Parties
A 18 dated November 9, 2000.19
In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party contends that "the inclusion of
We disagree. At bottom, petitioners attack the validity of Comelec Omnibus political parties in the party-list system is the most objectionable portion of the
Resolution 3785 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, insofar as it questioned Resolution." 27 For its part, Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the
allowed respondents to participate in the party-list elections of 2001. Indeed, under participation of "major political parties." 28 On the other hand, the Office of the
both the Constitution 20 and the Rules of Court, such challenge may be brought Solicitor General, like the impleaded political parties, submits that the Constitution
before this Court in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65. and RA No. 7941 allow political parties to participate in the party-list elections. It
argues that the party-list system is, in fact, open to all "registered national, regional
Moreover, the assailed Omnibus Resolution was promulgated by Respondent and sectoral parties or organizations." 29
Commission en banc; hence, no motion for reconsideration was possible, it being a
prohibited pleading under Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of We now rule on this issue. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents
Procedure. 21 cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they
are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members
The Court also notes that Petitioner Bayan Muna had filed before the Comelec a of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a party-list system of
Petition for Cancellation of Registration and Nomination against some of herein registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations."
respondents. 22 The Comelec, however, did not act on that Petition. In view of the
pendency of the elections, Petitioner Bayan Muna sought succor from this Court, for Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political
there was no other adequate recourse at the time. Subsequent events have proven the parties may be registered under the party-list system.
urgency of petitioner's action; to this date, the Comelec has not yet formally resolved
the Petition before it. But a resolution may just be a formality because the Comelec, "Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition
through the Office of the Solicitor General, has made its position on the matter quite shall be valid, except for those registered under the party-list system as
clear. provided in this Constitution.
In any event, this case presents an exception to the rule that certiorari shall lie only in "Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the
the absence of any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. 23 It has been held that party-list system, shall not be represented in the voters' registration boards,
certiorari is available, notwithstanding the presence of other remedies, "where the boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies.
issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved, and in case of However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with
urgency." 24 Indeed, the instant case is indubitably imbued with public interest and law." 30
with extreme urgency, for it potentially involves the composition of 20 percent of the
House of Representatives.
During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Comm. Christian S.
Monsod pointed out that the participants in the party-list system may "be a regional
Moreover, this case raises transcendental constitutional issues on the party-list party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO, 31Magsasaka, or a regional party in
system, which this Court must urgently resolve, consistent with its duty to "formulate Mindanao." 32 This was also clear from the following exchange between Comms.
guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules." 25 Jaime Tadeo and Blas Ople: 33
Finally, procedural requirements "may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of "MR. TADEO. Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay pwedeng paghati-hatian ng
justice, when the issue involves the principle of social justice x x x when the decision UNIDO, PDP-Laban, PNP, Liberal at Nacionalista?
sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and
certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available." 26
MR. OPLE. Maaari yan sapagkat bukas ang party list system sa lahat ng mga
partido."
Second Issue:
49
Indeed, Commissioner Monsod stated that the purpose of the party-list provision was consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution
to open up the system, in order to give a chance to parties that consistently place and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides as follows:
third or fourth in congressional district elections to win a seat in Congress. 34 He
explained: "The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past elections, we found "(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
out that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes nationwide, hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always third or fourth place elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities,
in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
would have five or six representatives in the Assembly even if they would not win respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
individually in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
and objectives of the party-list system." system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system of registered (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x x." total number of representatives including those under the party list. For
Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a political party or a sectoral party three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of
or a coalition of parties." More to the point, the law defines "political party" as "an the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by
organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its provided by law, except the religious sector." (Emphasis supplied.)
leaders and members as candidates for public office."
Notwithstanding the sparse language of the provision, a distinguished member of the
Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as to the participation of Constitutional Commission declared that the purpose of the party-list provision was
political parties in the party-list system. We quote the pertinent provision below: to give "genuine power to our people" in Congress. Hence, when the provision was
discussed, he exultantly announced: "On this first day of August 1986, we shall,
"x x x hopefully, usher in a new chapter to our national history, by giving genuine power to
our people in the legislature." 35
"For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on
the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the The foregoing provision on the party-list system is not self-executory. It is, in fact,
Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list interspersed with phrases like "in accordance with law" or "as may be provided by
system. law"; it was thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the
Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted. It laid out the statutory policy in this
x x x" wise:
Indubitably, therefore, political parties even the major ones -- may participate in "SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The State shall promote proportional
the party-list elections. representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives
through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to
Third Issue:
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack
well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and
Marginalized and Underrepresented enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to
become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall
That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean, develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the
however, that any political party -- or any organization or group for that matter -- broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of
may do so. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be
50
Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos who are
legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible." "marginalized and underrepresented" become members of Congress under the party-
list system, Filipino-style.
The Marginalized and Underrepresented to Become Lawmakers Themselves
The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people, not only
The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional by giving more law to those who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to
representation by means of the Filipino-style party-list system, which will "enable" become veritable lawmakers themselves. Consistent with this intent, the policy of the
the election to the House of Representatives of Filipino citizens, implementing law, we repeat, is likewise clear: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging
to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, x x x, to
become members of the House of Representatives." Where the language of the law is
1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations
clear, it must be applied according to its express terms. 37
and parties; and
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the party-list
system are enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:
3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
"SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized group of persons may register as a party,
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the
COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by
The key words in this policy are "proportional representation," "marginalized and its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a
underrepresented," and "lack ofwell-defined constituencies." national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or
organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of
"Proportional representation" here does not refer to the number of people in a government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as
particular district, because the party-list election is national in scope. Neither does it the COMELEC may require: Provided, that the sector shall include labor, peasant,
allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group. Rather, it refers to fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
the representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented" as exemplified by the women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals."
enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not
overseas workers, and professionals." exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be
represented under the party-list system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory
However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with, and
marginalized and underrepresented, because representation is easy to claim and to their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with which
feign. The party-list organization or party must factually and truly represent the they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may be
marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association. 38
5. 36 Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization
must be "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, The Party-List System Desecrated by the OSG Contentions
organizations and parties."
Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy, the Office of the Solicitor
Finally, "lack of well-defined constituenc[y] " refers to the absence of a traditionally General submits that RA No. 7941 "does not limit the participation in the party-list
identifiable electoral group, like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of system to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society." 39 In fact, it
government. Rather, it points again to those with disparate interests identified with contends that any party or group that is not disqualified under Section 6 40 of RA
the "marginalized or underrepresented." 7941 may participate in the elections. Hence, it admitted during the Oral Argument
that even an organization representing the super rich of Forbes Park or Dasmarias
Village could participate in the party-list elections. 41
51
The declared policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position of the Office of the the remaining 20 percent, the OSG and the Comelec disregard the fundamental
Solicitor General (OSG). We stress that the party-list system seeks to enable certain difference between the congressional district elections and the party-list elections.
Filipino citizens specifically those belonging to marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, organizations and parties to be elected to the House of Representatives. As earlier noted, the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the
The assertion of the OSG that the party-list system is not exclusive to the system, 44 in order to enhance the chance of sectoral groups and organizations to gain
marginalized and underrepresented disregards the clear statutory policy. Its claim representation in the House of Representatives through the simplest scheme
that even the super-rich and overrepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of possible. 45 Logic shows that the system has been opened to those who have never
the party-list system. gotten a foothold within it -- those who cannot otherwise win in regular elections and
who therefore need the "simplest scheme possible" to do so. Conversely, it would be
Indeed, the law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel illogical to open the system to those who have long been within it -- those privileged
dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park. The interests sectors that have long dominated the congressional district elections.
of these two sectors are manifestly disparate; hence, the OSG's position to treat them
similarly defies reason and common sense. In contrast, and with admirable candor, The import of the open party-list system may be more vividly understood when
Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan 42 admitted during the Oral Argument that a group of compared to a student dormitory "open house," which by its nature allows outsiders
bankers, industrialists and sugar planters could not join the party-list system as to enter the facilities. Obviously, the "open house" is for the benefit of outsiders
representatives of their respective sectors. 43 only, not the dormers themselves who can enter the dormitory even without such
special privilege. In the same vein, the open party-list system is only for the
While the business moguls and the mega-rich are, numerically speaking, a tiny "outsiders" who cannot get elected through regular elections otherwise; it is not for
minority, they are neither marginalized nor underrepresented, for the stark reality is the non-marginalized or overrepresented who already fill the ranks of Congress.
that their economic clout engenders political power more awesome than their
numerical limitation. Traditionally, political power does not necessarily emanate Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and overrepresented to vie for the remaining
from the size of one's constituency; indeed, it is likely to arise more directly from the seats under the party-list system would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance
number and amount of one's bank accounts. of the marginalized and underrepresented, contrary to the intention of the law to
enhance it. The party-list system is a tool for the benefit of the underprivileged; the
It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized and underrepresented in our midst are the law could not have given the same tool to others, to the prejudice of the intended
majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity. It was for them that the beneficiaries.
party-list system was enacted -- to give them not only genuine hope, but genuine
power; to give them the opportunity to be elected and to represent the specific This Court, therefore, cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied and prostituted
concerns of their constituencies; and simply to give them a direct voice in Congress by those who are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. It cannot let that flicker
and in the larger affairs of the State. In its noblest sense, the party-list system truly of hope be snuffed out. The clear state policy must permeate every discussion of the
empowers the masses and ushers a new hope for genuine change. Verily, it invites qualification of political parties and other organizations under the party-list system.
those marginalized and underrepresented in the past the farm hands, the fisher folk,
the urban poor, even those in the underground movement to come out and
Refutation of the Separate Opinions
participate, as indeed many of them came out and participated during the last
elections. The State cannot now disappoint and frustrate them by disabling and
desecrating this social justice vehicle. The Separate Opinions of our distinguished colleagues, Justices Jose C. Vitug and
Vicente V. Mendoza, are anchored mainly on the supposed intent of the framers of
the Constitution as culled from their deliberations.
Because the marginalized and underrepresented had not been able to win in the
congressional district elections normally dominated by traditional politicians and
vested groups, 20 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives were set aside The fundamental principle in constitutional construction, however, is that the
for the party-list system. In arguing that even those sectors who normally controlled primary source from which to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the
80 percent of the seats in the House could participate in the party-list elections for language of the provision itself. The presumption is that the words in which the
constitutional provisions are couched express the objective sought to be
attained. 46 In other words, verba legis still prevails. Only when the meaning of the
52
words used is unclear and equivocal should resort be made to extraneous aids of From its assailed Omnibus Resolution, it is manifest that the Comelec failed to
construction and interpretation, such as the proceedings of the Constitutional appreciate fully the clear policy of the law and the Constitution. On the contrary, it
Commission or Convention, in order to shed light on and ascertain the true intent or seems to have ignored the facet of the party-list system discussed above. The OSG as
purpose of the provision being construed. 47 its counsel admitted before the Court that any group, even the non-marginalized and
overrepresented, could field candidates in the party-list elections.
Indeed, as cited in the Separate Opinion of Justice Mendoza, this Court stated in
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary 48 that "the debates and proceedings of When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the Commission on Elections,
the constitutional convention [may be consulted] in order to arrive at the reason and violates or ignores the Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down by this
purpose of the resulting Constitution x x x only when other guides fail as said Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. 49 Indeed, the function of all
proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is judicial and quasi-judicial instrumentalities is to apply the law as they find it, not to
clear. Debates in the constitutional convention 'are of value as showing the views of reinvent or second-guess it. 50
the individual members, and as indicating the reason for their votes, but they give us
no light as to the views of the large majority who did not talk, much less of the mass In its Memorandum, Petitioner Bayan Muna passionately pleads for the outright
or our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of disqualification of the major political parties Respondents Lakas-NUCD, LDP,
fundamental law. We think it safer to construe the constitution from what appears NPC, LP and PMP on the ground that under Comelec Resolution No. 4073, they
upon its face.' The proper interpretation therefore depends more on how it was have been accredited as the five (six, including PDP-Laban) major political parties in
understood by the people adopting it than in the framers' understanding thereof." the May 14, 2001 elections. It argues that because of this, they have the "advantage
of getting official Comelec Election Returns, Certificates of Canvass, preferred poll
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, relative to the party-list system, is couched watchers x x x." We note, however, that this accreditation does not refer to the party-
in clear terms: the mechanics of the system shall be provided by law. Pursuant list election, but, inter alia, to the election of district representatives for the purpose
thereto, Congress enacted RA 7941. In understanding and implementing party-list of determining which parties would be entitled to watchers under Section 26 of
representation, we should therefore look at the law first. Only when we find its Republic Act No. 7166.
provisions ambiguous should the use of extraneous aids of construction be resorted
to. What is needed under the present circumstances, however, is a factual determination
of whether respondents herein and, for that matter, all the 154 previously approved
But, as discussed earlier, the intent of the law is obvious and clear from its plain groups, have the necessary qualifications to participate in the party-list elections,
words. Section 2 thereof unequivocally states that the party-list system of electing pursuant to the Constitution and the law.
congressional representatives was designed to "enable underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who Bayan Muna also urges us to immediately rule out Respondent Mamamayan Ayaw
could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will sa Droga (MAD), because "it is a government entity using government resources and
benefit the nation as a whole x x x." The criteria for participation is well defined. privileges." This Court, however, is not a trier of facts. 51 It is not equipped to receive
Thus, there is no need for recourse to constitutional deliberations, not even to the evidence and determine the truth of such factual allegations.
proceedings of Congress. In any event, the framers' deliberations merely express
their individual opinions and are, at best, only persuasive in construing the meaning Basic rudiments of due process require that respondents should first be given an
and purpose of the constitution or statute. opportunity to show that they qualify under the guidelines promulgated in this
Decision, before they can be deprived of their right to participate in and be elected
Be it remembered that the constitutionality or validity of Sections 2 and 5 of RA under the party-list system.
7941 is not an issue here. Hence, they remain parts of the law, which must be applied
plainly and simply. Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants
Fourth Issue:
The Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand the case to the Comelec for the latter
to determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
Grave Abuse of Discretion organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections comply with the
53
requirements of the law. In this light, the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the MR. MONSOD. If the evidence shows that the intention is to go around the
following guidelines, culled from the law and the Constitution, to assist the Comelec prohibition, then certainly the Comelec can pierce through the legal fiction." 54
in its work.
The following discussion is also pertinent:
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In "MR. VILLACORTA. When the Commissioner proposed "EXCEPT RELIGIOUS
other words, it must show -- through its constitution, articles of incorporation, GROUPS," he is not, of course, prohibiting priests, imams or pastors who may be
bylaws, history, platform of government and track record -- that it represents and elected by, say, the indigenous community sector to represent their group.
seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its
membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. And it must
REV. RIGOS. Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who represents the Iglesia ni
demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or is likely to choose the
Kristo, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church et cetera." 55
interest of such sectors.
Furthermore, the Constitution provides that "religious denominations and sects shall
Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the
not be registered."56 The prohibition was explained by a member57 of the
Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the
Constitutional Commission in this wise: "[T] he prohibition is on any religious
declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
organization registering as a political party. I do not see any prohibition here against
and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives." In
a priest running as a candidate. That is not prohibited here; it is the registration of a
other words, while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are religious sect as a political party."58
political parties, they must show, however, that they represent the interests of the
marginalized and underrepresented. The counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko and other
similarly situated political parties admitted as much during the Oral Argument, as the Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA
following quote shows: 7941, which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows:
"JUSTICE PANGANIBAN: I am not disputing that in my question. All I am saying "(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association
is, the political party must claim to represent the marginalized and underrepresented organized for religious purposes;
sectors?
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
52
ATTY. KAPUNAN: Yes, Your Honor, the answer is yes."
53
Third, in view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay
Hayaang Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the (4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political
express constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be represented in party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its
the party-list system. The extent of the constitutional proscription is demonstrated by officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election
the following discussion during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission: purposes;
"MR. OPLE. x x x (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to
elections;
In the event that a certain religious sect with nationwide and even international
networks of members and supporters, in order to circumvent this prohibition, decides (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
to form its own political party in emulation of those parties I had mentioned earlier
as deriving their inspiration and philosophies from well-established religious faiths, (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
will that also not fall within this prohibition?
54
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to the working class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy
obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list to give genuine representation to the marginalized and underrepresented.
system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it
has registered."59 Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-defined political constituency,
the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a party or group for appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. Senator Jose Lina
violation of or failure to comply with election laws and regulations. These laws explained during the bicameral committee proceedings that "the nominee of a party,
include Section 2 of RA 7941, which states that the party-list system seeks to "enable national or regional, is not going to represent a particular district x x x." 61
Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties x x x to become members of the House of Epilogue
Representatives." A party or an organization, therefore, that does not comply with
this policy must be disqualified.
The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the law: "to enable Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute
an entity funded or assisted by, the government. By the very nature of the party-list to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
system, the party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized by citizens nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives."
and operated by citizens. It must be independent of the government. The
participation of the government or its officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that
is not only illegal60 and unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to the objective of those who have less in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one
the law: to enable citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors
such tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It gives the great masses of
and organizations to be elected to the House of Representatives.
our people genuine hope and genuine power. It is a message to the destitute and the
prejudiced, and even to those in the underground, that change is possible. It is an
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees invitation for them to come out of their limbo and seize the opportunity.
must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions of the Comelec and the
"SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as other respondents that the party-list system is, without any qualification, open to all.
party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a Such position does not only weaken the electoral chances of the marginalized and
registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) underrepresented; it also prejudices them. It would gut the substance of the party-list
year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a bona system. Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage. Instead of enabling the
fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least marginalized, it would further weaken them and aggravate their marginalization.
ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25)
In effect, the Comelec would have us believe that the party-list provisions of the
Constitution and RA 7941 are nothing more than a play on dubious words, a
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not mockery of noble intentions, and an empty offering on the altar of people
more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral empowerment. Surely, this could not have been the intention of the framers of the
representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to Constitution and the makers of RA 7941.
continue in office until the expiration of his term."
WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the Comelec, which is hereby
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized DIRECTED to immediately conduct summary evidentiary hearings on the
and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 qualifications of the party-list participants in the light of the guidelines enunciated in
of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens "who belong to marginalized and this Decision. Considering the extreme urgency of determining the winners in the
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties." Surely, the interests of the last party-list elections, the Comelec is directed to begin its hearings for the parties
youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or and organizations that appear to have garnered such number of votes as to qualify for
55
seats in the House of Representatives. The Comelec is further DIRECTED to submit
to this Court its compliance report within 30 days from notice hereof.1wphi1.nt
The Resolution of this Court dated May 9, 2001, directing the Comelec "to refrain
from proclaiming any winner" during the last party-list election, shall remain in force
until after the Comelec itself will have complied and reported its compliance with the
foregoing disposition.
This Decision is immediately executory upon the Commission on Elections' receipt

thereof. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
56
G.R. No. 162203 April 14, 2004 steps to make it an organization of, by and for the marginalized and underrepresented
groups of society, particularly the indigenous cultural communities and the youth. To
AKLAT-ASOSASYON PARA SA KAUNLARAN NG LIPUNAN AT this end, it has allegedly effected a fundamental change in its purposes as an
ADHIKAIN PARA SA TAO, INC., petitioner, organization, nature of its membership and focus of its programs. 10
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), respondent. The Comelec denied the motion in its questioned Resolution dated February 13,
2004, on three grounds, namely: the petition was filed beyond the deadline set by the
RESOLUTION Comelec in Resolution No. 6320 for registration of party-list organizations; the
petition was not one for re-qualification as Aklat was never a registered party-list
organization having failed to meet the eight-point guidelines set by the Court in
TINGA, J.:
the Bagong Bayani case; and that its decision not to extend the deadline for
registration of party-list organizations is valid, the Comelec being in the best position
For resolution is the Petition1 for certiorari and mandamus filed by Aklat-Asosasyon to make such a determination.11
Para Sa Kaunlaran Ng Lipunan At Adhikain Para Sa Tao, Inc. (Aklat) assailing the
Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution2 dated January 8, 2004, which
In the instant Petition, Aklat asserts that under Section 5 of R.A. 7941, petitions for
dismissed its Petition3 for re-qualification as a party-list organization, and
registration as a party-list organization may be filed not later than ninety (90) days
the Resolution4 dated February 13, 2004, which denied its Motion for
before the elections. It therefore had until February 10, 2004, the ninetieth (90th) day
Reconsideration.5
before the elections on May 10, 2004, within which to file its petition. Hence, its
petition, which was filed on November 20, 2003, was filed within the allowed
Briefly, the facts are as follows: period. Section 5 of Resolution No. 632012 which requires the filing of such petitions
not later than September 30, 2003, is null and void as it amends R.A. 7941.
On November 20, 2003, Aklat filed a Petition for declaration of re-
qualification as a party-list organization for purposes of the May 2004 It further maintains that it has complied with the eight-point guidelines set in
elections. It alleged in its petition that it participated in the 2001 elections the Bagong Bayani case. Allegedly, Aklat has a total membership of over 4,000
but was disqualified by the Comelec as it was found not to have complied persons who belong to the marginalized and underrepresented groups. It has
with the guidelines set by the Court in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW established information and coordination centers throughout the country for the
Labor Party v. Comelec (Bagong Bayani case)6 for party-list organizations benefit and in representation of indigenous cultural communities, farm and factory
to qualify and participate as such in the party-list elections. Accordingly, workers including fisherfolk and the youth. Aklat also asserts that it is different from
Aklat "re-organized itself in order that it will comply with the 8-point Asosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran ng Industria ng Aklat (A.K.L.A.T.) which was
guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court" 7 in the said case. previously de-registered by the Comelec. Because of all these, Aklat contends that
the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it denied its petition for re-
In its assailed Resolution dated January 8, 2004, the Comelec dismissed the petition qualification.
stating that Aklat cannot be considered as an organization representing the
marginalized and underrepresented groups as identified under Section 5 of Republic The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment dated March 26, 2004,
Act No. 7941 (R.A. 7941). According to the Comelec, Aklats statement that it has stating that the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
re-organized itself does not cure this defect as "there is nothing in the petition which assailed Resolutions. According to the OSG, Resolution No. 6320 is not in conflict
will help us identify what particular marginalized and underrepresented group with and is, in fact, germane to the purpose of R.A. 7941. It was within the scope of
AKLAT is now representing."8 Further, the Comelec held that "AKLAT lumped all the authority granted to the Comelec that it issued Resolution No. 6320 setting the
the sectoral groups imaginable under the classification of regular members just to deadline for filing petitions for registration under the party-list system on September
convince us that it is now cured of its defect." 9 30, 2003. In line with the purpose of R.A. 7941 to enable marginalized sectors to
actively participate in legislation, the Comelec must be given sufficient time to
On January 15, 2004, Aklat filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated January 14, evaluate all petitions for registration, at the same time allowing oppositions to be
2004, substantially averring that it has reorganized itself and taken the necessary filed to the end that only those truly qualified may be accredited under the party-list
57
system. Besides, Republic Act No. 843613 allows the Comelec to change the periods COMELEC may require: Provided, That the sectors shall include labor,
and dates prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts to ensure their peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
accomplishment. handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals[Italics supplied.]
The OSG further maintains that the petition for re-qualification failed to comply with
the provisions of Resolution No. 6320. According to the OSG, the petition was not By its wording, R.A. 7941 itself supports the Comelecs position that the period
properly verified there being no showing that Mr. Dominador Buhain, the signatory stated therein refers to the prohibitive period beyond which petitions for registration
of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, was duly authorized by should no longer be filed nor entertained. Put elsewise, it is simply the minimum
Aklat to verify or cause the preparation and filing of the petition on its behalf. countback period which is not subject to reduction since it is prescribed by law, but it
Moreover, Aklat was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission only is susceptible of protraction on account of administrative necessities and other
on October 20, 2003, a month before it filed its petition for re-qualification. Hence, it exigencies perceived by the poll body.
has not existed for a period of at least one (1) year prior to the filing of the petition as
required by Section 6 of Resolution No. 6320. The OSG also points out that Aklat Verily, the Comelec has the power to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations
failed to support its petition with the documents required under Section 7 of to enforce and administer election laws. This power includes the determination,
Resolution No. 6320, namely: a list of its officers and members particularly showing within the parameters fixed by law, of appropriate periods for the accomplishment of
that the majority of its membership belongs to the marginalized and certain pre-election acts like filing petitions for registration under the party-list
underrepresented sectors it seeks to represent, and a track record or summary system. This is exactly what the Comelec did when it issued its Resolution No. 6320
showing that it represents and seeks to uplift the marginalized and underrepresented declaring September 30, 2003, as the deadline for filing petitions for registration
sectors of society. under the party-list system. Considering these, as well as the multifarious pre-
election activities that the Comelec is mandated to undertake, the issuance of its
Moreover, the OSG notes that the incorporators and directors of Aklat are invariably Resolution No. 6320 cannot be considered tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
known as pillars of the book publishing industry or authors. Hence, even as re-
organized, Aklat remains to be an association of authors, book publishers, and Neither is there grave abuse of discretion in the Comelecs denial of Aklats petition
publishing companies, rather than the organization of indigenous cultural on the ground that it failed to substantiate its claim that it represents the marginalized
communities, farm and factory workers, fisherfolk and youth it claims to be. and underrepresented sectors of society. It should be noted that it was Aklat which
asserted in its petition before the poll body that it has re-organized and is now
For its part, the Comelec filed a Comment dated March 29, 2004, stating that the applying for re-qualification after its de-registration for failure to comply with the
period of ninety (90) days prescribed in R.A. 7941 refers to the prohibitive period guidelines set forth in the Bagong Bayani case. Thus, the Comelec cannot be faulted
beyond which petitions for registration may no longer be filed. Furthermore, the for relying on its earlier finding, absent any evidence in Aklats petition to the
documents submitted by Aklat do not prove that its members belong to the contrary, that Aklat is not an organization representing the marginalized and
marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society. underrepresented sectors, but is actually a business interest or economic lobby group
which seeks the promotion and protection of the book publishing industry.
Aklats contention that Resolution No. 6320 is null and void as it amends and
amplifies R.A. 7941 deserves scant consideration. R.A. 7941 provides: Significantly, Aklat and A.K.L.A.T. have substantially the same incorporators. In
fact, four (4) of Aklats six (6) incorporators14 are also incorporators of
Sec. 5. Registration.Any organized group of persons may register as a A.K.L.A.T.15 This substantial similarity is hard to ignore and bolsters the conclusion
party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by that the supposed re-organization undertaken by Aklat is plain window-dressing as it
filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the has not really changed its character as a business interest of persons in the book
election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to publishing industry.
participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or
organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto The Court observes that Aklats articles of incorporation and document entitled The
its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of Facts About Aklat which were attached to its petition for re-qualification contain
officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the general averments that it supposedly represents marginalized groups such as the
58
youth, indigenous communities, urban poor and farmers/fisherfolk. These general
statements do not measure up to the first guideline set by the Bagong Bayani case for
screening party-list participants, i.e., that "the political party, sector, organization or
coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in
Section 5 of R.A. 7941. In other words, it must showthrough its constitution,
articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track record
that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has
chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such sectors." 16
In this regard, the Court notes with approval the OSGs contention that Aklat has no
track record to speak of concerning its representation of marginalized and
underrepresented constituencies considering that it has been in existence for only a
month prior to the filing of its petition for re-qualification.
It should finally be emphasized that the findings of fact by the Comelec, or any other
administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are
binding on the Supreme Court.17
In view of the foregoing, the Comelec can, by no means, be held to have committed
grave abuse of discretion to justify the setting aside of the assailed Resolutions.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
59
[G.R. No. 136781. October 6, 2000] ALAGAD (PARTIDO NG MARALITANG-LUNGSOD), NATIONAL
CONFEDERATION OF SMALL COCONUT FARMERS'
ORGANIZATIONS (NCSFCO), and LUZON FARMERS' PARTY
(BUTIL), petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SENIOR
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY, ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN NG MGA CITIZENS, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PAG-
MAGSASAKA, MANGGAGAWANG BUKID AT MANGINGISDA, ASA, MAHARLIKA, OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN,
ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG TAO PARA SA KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW,
LUPA, PABAHAY AT KAUNLARAN, and LUZON FARMERS WOMENPOWER INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, 4L,
PARTY, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PAG-ASA, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN,
SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, ANAK-BAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN,
AMIN, PAG-ASA, MAHARLIKA, OCW-UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA- KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, and AABANTE KA
KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS PILIPINAS, respondents.
OCW, WOMEN-POWER, INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE,
4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, DECISION
ANAKBAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN,
KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA PILIPINAS -- All PANGANIBAN, J.:*
Being Party-List Parties/Organizations -- and Hon. MANUEL B.
VILLAR, JR. in His Capacity as Speaker of the House of
Representatives, respondents. Prologue
To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election, the

[G.R. No. 136786. October 6, 2000] Constitution and Republic Act (RA) No. 7941 mandate at least four inviolable
parameters. These are:
First, the twenty percent allocation - the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of
AKBAYAN! (CITIZENS' ACTION PARTY), ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG
Representatives, including those elected under the party list.
ORDINARYONG TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY AT
KAUNLARAN (AKO), and ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE Second, the two percent threshold - only those parties garnering a minimum of
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES (APEC), petitioners, vs. COMMISSION two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have
ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES a seat in the House of Representatives;
represented by Speaker Manuel B. Villar, PAG-ASA, SENIOR
CITIZENS, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, Third, the three-seat limit - each qualified party, regardless of the number of
MAHARLIKA, OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one
KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW, qualifying and two additional seats.
WOMENPOWER INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, FOUR Fourth, proportional representation - the additional seats which a qualified
"L", AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number of votes.
ANAK-BAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN,
KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA Because the Comelec violated these legal parameters, the assailed Resolutions
PILIPINAS, respondents. must be struck down for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The poll
body is mandated to enforce and administer election-related laws. It has no power to
contravene or amend them. Neither does it have authority to decide the wisdom,
propriety or rationality of the acts of Congress.
[G.R. No. 136795. October 6, 2000]
60
Its bounden duty is to craft rules, regulations, methods and formulas to elected by a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
implement election laws -- not to reject, ignore, defeat, obstruct or circumvent them. organizations.
In fine, the constitutional introduction of the party-list system - a normal feature
of parliamentary democracies - into our presidential form of government, modified by (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
unique Filipino statutory parameters, presents new paradigms and novel questions, number of representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive
which demand innovative legal solutions convertible into mathematical formulations terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one half of the seats allocated to
which are, in turn, anchored on time-tested jurisprudence. party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election
from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth,
and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
The Case Complying with its constitutional duty to provide by law the selection or election
of party-list representatives, Congress enacted RA 7941 on March 3, 1995. Under this
statutes policy declaration, the State shall "promote proportional representation in the
Before the Court are three consolidated Petitions for Certiorari (with election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system
applications for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
injunction) under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing (1) the October 15, 1998 thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
Resolution[1] of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), Second Division, in Election underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined
Matter 98-065;[2] and (2) the January 7, 1999 Resolution[3] of the Comelec en banc, political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
affirming the said disposition. The assailed Resolutions ordered the proclamation of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of
thirty-eight (38) additional party-list representatives "to complete the full complement the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee
of 52 seats in the House of Representatives as provided under Section 5, Article VI of a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation
the 1987 Constitution and R.A. 7941. of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their
chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest
scheme possible. (italics ours.)
The Facts and the Antecedents
The requirements for entitlement to a party-list seat in the House are prescribed
by this law (RA 7941) in this wise:
Our 1987 Constitution introduced a novel feature into our presidential system of
government -- the party-list method of representation. Under this system, any national, Sec. 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. -- The party-list representatives shall
regional or sectoral party or organization registered with the Commission on Elections constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House
may participate in the election of party-list representatives who, upon their election of Representatives including those under the party-list.
and proclamation, shall sit in the House of Representatives as regular members.[4] In
effect, a voter is given two (2) votes for the House -- one for a district congressman For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on
and another for a party-list representative.[5] the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the
Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list
Specifically, this system of representation is mandated by Section 5, Article VI
system.
of the Constitution, which provides:
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure
Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
shall be observed:
hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the (a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
61
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of 186,388 votes, which were equivalent to 2.04 percent of the total votes cast for the
the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each; party-list system. Thus, its first nominee, Emerito S. Calderon, was proclaimed on
Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be September 8, 1998 as the 14th party-list representative.[7]
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; Provided,
finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than On July 6, 1998, PAG-ASA (Peoples Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good
three (3) seats. Government Towards Alleviation of Poverty and Social Advancement) filed with the
Comelec a "Petition to Proclaim [the] Full Number of Party-List Representatives
provided by the Constitution." It alleged that the filling up of the twenty percent
Pursuant to Section 18 of RA 7941, the Comelec en banc promulgated Resolution membership of party-list representatives in the House of Representatives, as provided
No. 2847, prescribing the rules and regulations governing the election of party-list under the Constitution, was mandatory. It further claimed that the literal application
representatives through the party-list system. of the two percent vote requirement and the three-seat limit under RA 7941 would
defeat this constitutional provision, for only 25 nominees would be declared winners,
short of the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit in the House.
Election of the Fourteen Party-List Representatives
Thereafter, nine other party-list organizations[8] filed their respective Motions for
Intervention, seeking the same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA on substantially the
On May 11, 1998, the first election for party-list representation was held same grounds.Likewise, PAG-ASAs Petition was joined by other party-list
simultaneously with the national elections. A total of one hundred twenty-three (123) organizations in a Manifestation they filed on August 28, 1998. These organizations
parties, organizations and coalitions participated. On June 26, 1998, the Comelec en were COCOFED, Senior Citizens, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP,
banc proclaimed thirteen (13) party-list representatives from twelve (12) parties and AMIN, PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, OCW-UNIFIL, KAMPIL, MAHARLIKA,
organizations, which had obtained at least two percent of the total number of votes AFW, Women Power, Inc., Ang Lakas OCW, FEJODAP, CUP, Veterans Care,
cast for the party-list system. Two of the proclaimed representatives belonged to Bantay Bayan, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, ALU and BIGAS.
Petitioner APEC, which obtained 5.5 percent of the votes. The proclaimed winners On October 15, 1998, the Comelec Second Division promulgated the present
and the votes cast in their favor were as follows:[6] assailed Resolution granting PAG-ASA's Petition. It also ordered the proclamation of
Party/Organization/ Number of Percentage of Nominees herein 38 respondents who, in addition to the 14 already sitting, would thus total 52
Coalition Votes Obtained Total Votes party-list representatives. It held that "at all times, the total number of
1. APEC 503,487 5.5% Rene M. Silos congressional[9] seats must be filled up by eighty (80%) percent district representatives
Melvyn D. Eballe and twenty (20%) percent party-list representatives." In allocating the 52 seats, it
2. ABA 321,646 3.51% Leonardo Q. Montemayor disregarded the two percent-vote requirement prescribed under Section 11 (b) of RA
3. ALAGAD 312,500 3.41% Diogenes S. Osabel 7941. Instead, it identified three "elements of the party-list system," which should
4. VETERANS 304,802 3.33% Eduardo P. Pilapil supposedly determine "how the 52 seats should be filled up." First, "the system was
FEDERATION conceived to enable the marginalized sectors of the Philippine society to be
5. PROMDI 255,184 2.79% Joy A.G. Young represented in the House of Representatives." Second, "the system should represent
6. AKO 239,042 2.61% Ariel A. Zartiga the broadest sectors of the Philippine society." Third, "it should encourage [the] multi-
7. NCSCFO 238,303 2.60% Gorgonio P. Unde party system. (Boldface in the original.) Considering these elements, but ignoring the
8. ABANSE! PINAY 235,548 2.57% Patricia M. Sarenas two percent threshold requirement of RA 7941, it concluded that "the party-
9. AKBAYAN 232,376 2.54% Loreta Ann P. Rosales list groups ranked Nos. 1 to 51 x x x should have at least one representative. It thus
10. BUTIL 215,643 2.36% Benjamin A. Cruz disposed as follows:
11. SANLAKAS 194,617 2.13% Renato B. Magtubo
12. COOP-NATCCO 189,802 2.07% Cresente C. Paez "WHEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the
Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881), Republic Act No. 7941 and other election laws,
After passing upon the results of the special elections held on July 4, 18, and 25, the Commission (Second Division) hereby resolves to GRANT the instant petition
1998, the Comelec en banc further determined that COCOFED (Philippine Coconut and motions for intervention, to include those similarly situated.
Planters Federation, Inc.) was entitled to one party-list seat for having garnered
62
ACCORDINGLY, the nominees from the party-list hereinbelow enumerated based 26. ALU
on the list of names submitted by their respective parties, organizations and
coalitions are PROCLAIMED as party-list representatives, to wit: 27. BIGAS
28. COPRA
1. SENIOR CITIZENS
29. GREEN
2. AKAP
30. ANAKBAYAN
3. AKSYON
31. ARBA
4. PINATUBO
32. MINFA
5. NUPA
33. AYOS
6. PRP
34. ALL COOP
7. AMIN
35. PDP-LABAN
8. PAG-ASA
36. KATIPUNAN
9. MAHARLIKA
37. ONEWAY PRINT
10. OCW-UNIFIL
38. AABANTE KA PILIPINAS
11. FCL
12. AMMA-KATIPUNAN to complete the full complement of 52 seats in the House of Representatives as
provided in Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. 7941.
13. KAMPIL
14. BANTAY BAYAN The foregoing disposition sums up a glaring bit of inconsistency and flip-
flopping. In its Resolution No. 2847 dated June 25, 1996, the Comelec en banc had
15. AFW unanimously promulgated a set of Rules and Regulations Governing the Election of x
x x Party-List Representatives Through the Party-List System. Under these Rules and
16. ANG LAKAS OCW Regulations, one additional seat shall be given for every two percent of the vote, a
17. WOMENPOWER, INC. formula the Comelec illustrated in its Annex A. It apparently relied on this method
when it proclaimed the 14 incumbent party-list solons (two for APEC and one each
18. FEJODAP for the 12 other qualified parties). However, for inexplicable reasons, it abandoned
said unanimous Resolution and proclaimed, based on its three elements, the Group of
19. CUP
38 private respondents.[10]
20. VETERANS CARE
The twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had earlier been proclaimed
21. 4L winners on the basis of having obtained at least two percent of the votes cast for the
party-list system, objected to the proclamation of the 38 parties and filed separate
22. AWATU Motions for Reconsideration. They contended that (1) under Section 11 (b) of RA
23. PMP 7941, only parties, organizations or coalitions garnering at least two percent of the
votes for the party-list system were entitled to seats in the House of Representatives;
24. ATUCP and (2) additional seats, not exceeding two for each, should be allocated to those which
had garnered the two percent threshold in proportion to the number of votes cast for
25. NCWP the winning parties, as provided by said Section 11.
63
Ruling of the Comelec En Banc On January 12, 1999, this Court issued a Status Quo Order directing the Comelec
to CEASE and DESIST from constituting itself as a National Board of Canvassers on
13 January 1999 or on any other date and proclaiming as winners the nominees of the
Noting that all the parties -- movants and oppositors alike - had agreed that the parties, organizations and coalitions enumerated in the dispositive portions of its 15
twenty percent membership of party-list representatives in the House "should be filled October 1998 Resolution or its 7 January 1999 Resolution, until further orders from
up, the Comelec en banc resolved only the issue concerning the apportionment or this Court.
allocation of the remaining seats. In other words, the issue was: Should the remaining
38 unfilled seats allocated to party-list solons be given (1) to the thirteen qualified On July 1, 1999, oral arguments were heard from the parties. Atty. Jeremias U.
parties that had each garnered at least two percent of the total votes, or (2) to the Group Montemayor appeared for petitioners in GR No. 136781; Atty. Gregorio A. Andolana,
of 38 - herein private respondents - even if they had not passed the two percent for petitioners in GR No. 136786; Atty. Rodante D. Marcoleta for petitioners in GR
threshold? No. 136795; Attys. Ricardo Blancaflor and Pete Quirino Quadra, for all the private
respondents; Atty. Porfirio V. Sison for Intervenor NACUSIP; and Atty. Jose P.
The poll body held that to allocate the remaining seats only to those who had Balbuena for Respondent Comelec. Upon invitation of the Court, retired Comelec
hurdled the two percent vote requirement "will mean the concentration of Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong acted as amicus curiae.Solicitor General
representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives to Ricardo P. Galvez appeared, not for any party but also as a friend of the Court.
thirteen organizations representing two political parties, three coalitions and four
sectors: urban poor, veterans, women and peasantry x x x. Such strict application of Thereafter, the parties and the amici curiae were required to submit their
the 2% 'threshold' does not serve the essence and object of the Constitution and the respective Memoranda in amplification of their verbal arguments. [14]
legislature -- to develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to
attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the
House of Representatives x x x. Additionally, it "will also prevent this Commission The Issues
from complying with the constitutional and statutory decrees for party-list
representatives to compose 20% of the House of Representatives.
The Court believes, and so holds, that the main question of how to determine the
Thus, in its Resolution dated January 7, 1999, the Comelec en banc, by a razor-
winners of the subject party-list election can be fully settled by addressing the
thin majority -- with three commissioners concurring[11] and two
following issues:
members[12] dissenting -- affirmed the Resolution of its Second Division. It, however,
held in abeyance the proclamation of the 51st party (AABANTE KA PILIPINAS),
"pending the resolution of petitions for correction of manifest errors. 1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Section
5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? In other
Without expressly declaring as unconstitutional or void the two percent vote words, should the twenty percent allocation for party-list solons be filled up
requirement imposed by RA 7941, the Commission blithely rejected and circumvented completely and all the time?
its application, holding that there were more important considerations than this
statutory threshold. 2. Are the two percent threshold requirement and the three-seat limit provided in
Consequently, several petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
prayers for the issuance of temporary restraining orders or writs of preliminary
injunction, were filed before this Court by the parties and organizations that had 3. If the answer to Issue 2 is in the affirmative, how should the additional seats of a
obtained at least two per cent of the total votes cast for the party-list system.[13] In the qualified party be determined?
suits, made respondents together with the Comelec were the 38 parties, organizations
and coalitions that had been declared by the poll body as likewise entitled to party-list
seats in the House of Representatives. Collectively, petitioners sought the
The Courts Ruling
proclamation of additional representatives from each of their parties and organizations,
all of which had obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list
system.
64
The Petitions are partly meritorious. The Court agrees with petitioners that the district representatives to be elected during the 1998 national elections, the number of
assailed Resolutions should be nullified, but disagrees that they should all be granted party-list seats would be 52, computed as follows:
additional seats.
208
-------- x .20 = 52
.80
First Issue: Whether the Twenty Percent Constitutional Allocation Is Mandatory
The foregoing computation of seat allocation is easy enough to comprehend. The
problematic question, however, is this: Does the Constitution require all such allocated
The pertinent provision[15] of the Constitution on the composition of the House seats to be filled up all the time and under all circumstances? Our short answer is No.
of Representatives reads as follows:
Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two Twenty Percent Allocation a Mere Ceiling
hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the The Constitution simply states that "[t]he party-list representatives shall
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those
elected by a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or under the party-list.
organizations.
According to petitioners, this percentage is a ceiling; the mechanics by which it
is to be filled up has been left to Congress. In the exercise of its prerogative, the
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
legislature enacted RA 7941, by which it prescribed that a party, organization or
number of representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive
coalition participating in the party-list election must obtain at least two percent of the
terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one half of the seats allocated to
total votes cast for the system in order to qualify for a seat in the House of
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election
Representatives.
from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth,
and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. Petitioners further argue that the constitutional provision must be construed
together with this legislative requirement. If there is no sufficient number of
participating parties, organizations or coalitions which could hurdle the two percent
vote threshold and thereby fill up the twenty percent party-list allocation in the House,
Determination of the Total Number of Party-List Lawmakers
then naturally such allocation cannot be filled up completely. The Comelec cannot be
faulted for the "incompleteness," for ultimately the voters themselves are the ones
Clearly, the Constitution makes the number of district representatives the who, in the exercise of their right of suffrage, determine who and how many should
determinant in arriving at the number of seats allocated for party-list lawmakers, who represent them.
shall comprise "twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including On the other hand, Public Respondent Comelec, together with the respondent
those under the party-list." We thus translate this legal provision into a mathematical parties, avers that the twenty percent allocation for party-list lawmakers is mandatory,
formula, as follows: and that the two percent vote requirement in RA 7941 is unconstitutional, because its
No. of district representatives strict application would make it mathematically impossible to fill up the House party-
---------------------------------- x .20 = No. of party-list list complement.
.80 representatives We rule that a simple reading of Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, easily
[16]
This formulation means that any increase in the number of district conveys the equally simple message that Congress was vested with the broad power
representatives, as may be provided by law, will necessarily result in a corresponding to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. The
increase in the number of party-list seats. To illustrate, considering that there were 208 Constitution explicitly sets down only the percentage of the total membership in the
House of Representatives reserved for party-list representatives.
65
In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress enacted RA 7941. As In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that only those
said earlier, Congress declared therein a policy to promote "proportional parties, organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents
representation" in the election of party-list representatives in order to enable Filipinos deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. This intent can be
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation gleaned from the deliberations on the proposed bill. We quote below a pertinent
that would benefit them. It however deemed it necessary to require parties, portion of the Senate discussion:
organizations and coalitions participating in the system to obtain at least two percent
of the total votes cast for the party-list system in order to be entitled to a party-list SENATOR GONZALES: For purposes of continuity, I would want to follow up a
seat. Those garnering more than this percentage could have "additional seats in point that was raised by, I think, Senator Osmea when he said that a political party
proportion to their total number of votes. Furthermore, no winning party, organization must have obtained at least a minimum percentage to be provided in this law in order
or coalition can have more than three seats in the House of Representatives. Thus the to qualify for a seat under the party-list system.
relevant portion of Section 11(b) of the law provides:
They do that in many other countries. A party must obtain at least 2 percent of the
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of votes cast, 5 percent or 10 percent of the votes cast. Otherwise, as I have said, this
the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each; will actually proliferate political party groups and those who have not really been
Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be given by the people sufficient basis for them to represent their constituents and, in
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; Provided, turn, they will be able to get to the Parliament through the backdoor under the name
finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than of the party-list system, Mr. President."[18]
three (3) seats.
A similar intent is clear from the statements of the bill sponsor in the House of
Considering the foregoing statutory requirements, it will be shown presently that Representatives, as the following shows:
Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a
ceiling for party-list seats in Congress.
MR. ESPINOSA. There is a mathematical formula which this computation is based
On the contention that a strict application of the two percent threshold may result at, arriving at a five percent ratio which would distribute equitably the number of
in a mathematical impossibility, suffice it to say that the prerogative to determine seats among the different sectors. There is a mathematical formula which is, I think,
whether to adjust or change this percentage requirement rests in Congress.[17] Our task patterned after that of the party list of the other parliaments or congresses, more
now, as should have been the Comelecs, is not to find fault in the wisdom of the law particularly the Bundestag of Germany.[19]
through highly unlikely scenarios of clinical extremes, but to craft an innovative
mathematical formula that can, as far as practicable, implement it within the context Moreover, even the framers of our Constitution had in mind a minimum-vote
of the actual election process. requirement, the specification of which they left to Congress to properly
determine. Constitutional Commissioner Christian S. Monsod explained:
Indeed, the function of the Supreme Court, as well as of all judicial and quasi-
judicial agencies, is to apply the law as we find it, not to reinvent or second-guess
it. Unless declared unconstitutional, ineffective, insufficient or otherwise void by the MR. MONSOD. x x x We are amenable to modifications in the minimum percentage
proper tribunal, a statute remains a valid command of sovereignty that must be of votes. Our proposal is that anybody who has two-and-a-half percent of the votes
respected and obeyed at all times. This is the essence of the rule of law. gets a seat. There are about 20 million who cast their votes in the last elections. Two-
and-a-half percent would mean 500,000 votes. Anybody who has a constituency of
500,000 votes nationwide deserves a seat in the Assembly. If we bring that down to
two percent, we are talking about 400,000 votes. The average vote per family is
Second Issue: The Statutory Requirement and Limitation three. So, here we are talking about 134,000 families. We believe that there are many
sectors who will be able to get seats in the Assembly because many of them have
memberships of over 10,000. In effect, that is the operational implication of our
The Two Percent Threshold proposal. What we are trying to avoid is this selection of sectors, the reserve seat
system. We believe that it is our job to open up the system and that we should not
66
have within that system a reserve seat. We think that people should organize, should legislature; thus, no single group, no matter how large its membership, would
work hard, and should earn their seats within that system. [20] dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire House.
We shall not belabor this point, because the validity of the three-seat limit is not
The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of seriously challenged in these consolidated cases.
the Constitution and the law, but with the very essence of "representation." Under a
republican or representative state, all government authority emanates from the people,
but is exercised by representatives chosen by them.[21] But to have meaningful
representation, the elected persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of Third Issue: Method of Allocating Additional Seats
people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list system, the result might
be the proliferation of small groups which are incapable of contributing significant
legislation, and which might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even Having determined that the twenty percent seat allocation is merely a ceiling, and
legislative districts are apportioned according to "the number of their respective having upheld the constitutionality of the two percent vote threshold and the three-seat
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" [22] to ensure limit imposed under RA 7941, we now proceed to the method of determining how
meaningful local representation. many party-list seats the qualified parties, organizations and coalitions are entitled
to. The very first step - there is no dispute on this - is to rank all the participating
All in all, we hold that the statutory provision on this two percent requirement is parties, organizations and coalitions (hereafter collectively referred to as "parties")
precise and crystalline. When the law is clear, the function of courts is simple according to the votes they each obtained. The percentage of their respective votes as
application, not interpretation or circumvention.[23] against the total number of votes cast for the party-list system is then determined. All
those that garnered at least two percent of the total votes cast have an assured or
guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives. Thereafter, "those garnering more
The Three-Seat-Per-Party Limit than two percent of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
total number of votes." The problem is how to distribute additional seats
"proportionally," bearing in mind the three-seat limit further imposed by the law.
An important consideration in adopting the party-list system is to promote and
encourage a multiparty system of representation. Again, we quote Commissioner
Monsod: One Additional Seat Per Two Percent Increment
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we suggested or proposed
the party list system because we wanted to open up the political system to a One proposed formula is to allocate one additional seat for every additional
pluralistic society through a multiparty system.But we also wanted to avoid the proportion of the votes obtained equivalent to the two percent vote requirement for the
problems of mechanics and operation in the implementation of a concept that has first seat.[25]Translated in figures, a party that wins at least six percent of the total votes
very serious shortcomings of classification and of double or triple votes. We are for cast will be entitled to three seats; another party that gets four percent will be entitled
opening up the system, and we would like very much for the sectors to be there. That to two seats; and one that gets two percent will be entitled to one seat only. This
is why one of the ways to do that is to put a ceiling on the number of representatives proposal has the advantage of simplicity and ease of comprehension. Problems arise,
from any single party that can sit within the 50 allocated under the party list however, when the parties get very lop-sided votes -- for example, when Party A
system. This way, we will open it up and enable sectoral groups, or maybe regional receives 20 percent of the total votes cast; Party B, 10 percent; and Party C, 6
groups, to earn their seats among the fifty. x x x.[24] percent. Under the method just described, Party A would be entitled to 10 seats; Party
B, to 5 seats and Party C, to 3 seats. Considering the three-seat limit imposed by law,
Consistent with the Constitutional Commission's pronouncements, Congress set all the parties will each uniformly have three seats only. We would then have the
the seat-limit to three (3) for each qualified party, organization or spectacle of a party garnering two or more times the number of votes obtained by
coalition. "Qualified" means having hurdled the two percent vote threshold. Such another, yet getting the same number of seats as the other one with the much lesser
three-seat limit ensures the entry of various interest-representations into the votes. In effect, proportional representation will be contravened and the law rendered
nugatory by this suggested solution. Hence, the Court discarded it.
67
The Niemeyer Formula formula would violate the principle of "proportional representation," a basic tenet of
our party-list system.
Another suggestion that the Court considered was the Niemeyer formula, which The Niemeyer formula, while no doubt suitable for Germany, finds no
was developed by a German mathematician and adopted by Germany as its method of application in the Philippine setting, because of our three-seat limit and the non-
distributing party-list seats in the Bundestag. Under this formula, the number of mandatory character of the twenty percent allocation. True, both our Congress and the
additional seats to which a qualified party would be entitled is determined by Bundestag have threshold requirements -- two percent for us and five for them. There
multiplying the remaining number of seats to be allocated by the total number of votes are marked differences between the two models, however. As ably pointed out by
obtained by that party and dividing the product by the total number of votes garnered private respondents,[26] one half of the German Parliament is filled up by party-list
by all the qualified parties. The integer portion of the resulting product will be the members. More important, there are no seat limitations, because German law
number of additional seats that the party concerned is entitled to. Thus: discourages the proliferation of small parties. In contrast, RA 7941, as already
mentioned, imposes a three-seat limit to encourage the promotion of the multiparty
No. of remaining seats system. This major statutory difference makes the Niemeyer formula completely
to be allocated No. of additional inapplicable to the Philippines.
--------------------------- x No. of votes of = seats of party
Total no. of votes of party concerned concerned Just as one cannot grow Washington apples in the Philippines or Guimaras
qualified parties (Integer.decimal) mangoes in the Arctic because of fundamental environmental differences, neither can
the Niemeyer formula be transplanted in toto here because of essential variances
The next step is to distribute the extra seats left among the qualified parties in the between the two party-list models.
descending order of the decimal portions of the resulting products. Based on the 1998
election results, the distribution of party-list seats under the Niemeyer method would
be as follows:
The Legal and Logical Formula for the Philippines
Party Number of Guaranteed Additional Extra Total
Votes Seats Seats Seats
1. APEC 503,487 1 5.73 1 7 It is now obvious that the Philippine style party-list system is a unique paradigm
2. ABA 321,646 1 3.66 1 5 which demands an equally unique formula. In crafting a legally defensible and logical
3. ALAGAD 312,500 1 3.55 4 solution to determine the number of additional seats that a qualified party is entitled
4. VETERANS 304,802 1 3.47 4 to, we need to review the parameters of the Filipino party-list system.
FEDERATION
As earlier mentioned in the Prologue, they are as follows:
5. PROMDI 255,184 1 2.90 1 4
6. AKO 239,042 1 2.72 1 4 First, the twenty percent allocation - the combined number of all party-list
7. NCSCFO 238,303 1 2.71 1 4 congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of
8. ABANSE! PINAY 235,548 1 2.68 1 4 Representatives, including those elected under the party list.
9. AKBAYAN 232,376 1 2.64 1 4
10. BUTIL 215,643 1 2.45 3 Second, the two percent threshold - only those parties garnering a minimum of
11. SANLAKAS 194,617 1 2.21 3 two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have
12. COOP-NATCCO 189,802 1 2.16 3 a seat in the House of Representatives;
13. COCOFED 186,388 1 2.12 3 Third, the three-seat limit - each qualified party, regardless of the number of
Total 3,429,338 13 32 7 52 votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one
However, since Section 11 of RA 7941 sets a limit of three (3) seats for each qualifying and two additional seats.
party, those obtaining more than the limit will have to give up their excess seats. Under Fourth, proportional representation - the additional seats which a qualified
our present set of facts, the thirteen qualified parties will each be entitled to three seats, party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number of votes.
resulting in an overall total of 39. Note that like the previous proposal, the Niemeyer
68
The problem, as already stated, is to find a way to translate proportional Court. The Supreme Court does not make the law; it merely applies it to a given set of
representation into a mathematical formula that will not contravene, circumvent or facts.
amend the above-mentioned parameters.
After careful deliberation, we now explain such formula, step by step.
Formula for Determining Additional Seats for the First Party
Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners, the public and the private
respondents, as well as the members of this Court, that the initial step is to rank all the
participating parties, organizations and coalitions from the highest to the lowest based Now, how do we determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to? The
on the number of votes they each received. Then the ratio for each party is computed only basis given by the law is that a party receiving at least two percent of the total
by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the parties participating in the votes shall be entitled to one seat. Proportionally, if the first party were to receive twice
system. All parties with at least two percent of the total votes are guaranteed one seat the number of votes of the second party, it should be entitled to twice the latter's
each. Only these parties shall be considered in the computation number of seats and so on. The formula, therefore, for computing the number of seats
of additional seats. The party receiving the highest number of votes shall thenceforth to which the first party is entitled is as follows:
be referred to as the first party.
Number of votes
Step Two. The next step is to determine the number of seats the first party is of first party Proportion of votes of
entitled to, in order to be able to compute that for the other parties. Since the -------------------- = first party relative to
distribution is based on proportional representation, the number of seats to be allotted Total votes for total votes for party-list system
to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is entitled by party-list system
virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes.
If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off is
For example, the first party received 1,000,000 votes and is determined to be equal to at least six percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party list groups,
entitled to two additional seats. Another qualified party which received 500,000 votes then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats
cannot be entitled to the same number of seats, since it garnered only fifty percent of overall. If the proportion of votes without a rounding off is equal to or greater than
the votes won by the first party. Depending on the proportion of its votes relative to four percent, but less than six percent, then the first party shall have one additional or
that of the first party whose number of seats has already been predetermined, the a total of two seats. And if the proportion is less than four percent, then the first party
second party should be given less than that to which the first one is entitled. shall not be entitled to any additional seat.
The other qualified parties will always be allotted less additional seats than the We adopted this six percent bench mark, because the first party is not always
first party for two reasons: (1) the ratio between said parties and the first party will entitled to the maximum number of additional seats. Likewise, it would prevent the
always be less than 1:1, and (2) the formula does not admit of mathematical rounding allotment of more than the total number of available seats, such as in an extreme case
off, because there is no such thing as a fraction of a seat. Verily, an arbitrary rounding wherein 18 or more parties tie for the highest rank and are thus entitled to three seats
off could result in a violation of the twenty percent allocation. An academic each. In such scenario, the number of seats to which all the parties are entitled may
mathematical demonstration of such incipient violation is not necessary because the exceed the maximum number of party-list seats reserved in the House of
present set of facts, given the number of qualified parties and the voting percentages Representatives.
obtained, will definitely not end up in such constitutional contravention.
Applying the above formula, APEC, which received 5.5% of the total votes cast,
The Court has previously ruled in Guingona Jr. v. Gonzales[27] that a fractional is entitled to one additional seat or a total of two seats.
membership cannot be converted into a whole membership of one when it would, in
effect, deprive another party's fractional membership. It would be a violation of the Note that the above formula will be applicable only in determining the number
constitutional mandate of proportional representation. We said further that "no party of additional seats the first party is entitled to. It cannot be used to determine the
can claim more than what it is entitled to x x x. number of additional seats of the other qualified parties. As explained earlier, the use
of the same formula for all would contravene the proportional representation
In any case, the decision on whether to round off the fractions is better left to the parameter. For example, a second party obtains six percent of the total number of votes
legislature. Since Congress did not provide for it in the present law, neither will this cast. According to the above formula, the said party would be entitled to two additional
seats or a total of three seats overall. However, if the first party received a significantly
69
higher amount of votes -- say, twenty percent -- to grant it the same number of seats Additional seats 321,646
as the second party would violate the statutory mandate of proportional representation, for concerned = ----------- x 1 = .64 or 0 additional seat, since
since a party getting only six percent of the votes will have an equal number of party (ABA) 503,487 rounding off is not to be applied
representatives as the one obtaining twenty percent. The proper solution, therefore, is
to grant the first party a total of three seats; and the party receiving six percent, Applying the above formula, we find the outcome of the 1998 party-list election
additional seats in proportion to those of the first party. to be as follows:
Organization Votes %age of Initial No. Additional Total
Garnered Total Votes of Seats Seats
Formula for Additional Seats of Other Qualified Parties 1. APEC 503,487 5.50% 1 1 2
2. ABA 321,646 3.51% 1 321,646 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.64 1
3. ALAGAD 312,500 3.41% 1 312,500 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.62 1
Step Three The next step is to solve for the number of additional seats that 4. VETERANS 304,802 3.33% 1 304,802 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.61 1
the other qualified parties are entitled to, based on proportional representation. The FEDERATION
formula is encompassed by the following complex fraction: 5. PROMDI 255,184 2.79% 1 255,184 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.51 1
6. AKO 239,042 2.61% 1 239,042 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.47 1
No. of votes of 7. NCSFO 238,303 2.60% 1 238,303 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.47 1
concerned party 8. ABANSE! 235,548 2.57% 1 321,646 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.47 1
------------------ PINAY
Total no. of votes 9. AKBAYAN! 232,376 2.54% 1 232,376 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.46 1
Additional seats for party-list system No. of additional 10. BUTIL 215,643 2.36% 1 215,643 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.43 1
for concerned = ----------------------- x seats allocated to 11. SANLAKAS 194,617 2.13% 1 194,617 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.39 1
party No. of votes of the first party 12. COOP- 189,802 2.07% 1 189,802 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.38 1
first party NATCCO
------------------ 13. COCOFED 186,388 2.04% 1 186,388 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.37 1
Total no. of votes
for party list system Incidentally, if the first party is not entitled to any additional seat, then the ratio
of the number of votes for the other party to that for the first one is multiplied by
In simplified form, it is written as follows: zero. The end result would be zero additional seat for each of the other qualified parties
No. of votes of as well.
Additional seats concerned party No. of additional The above formula does not give an exact mathematical representation of the
for concerned = ------------------ x seats allocated to number of additional seats to be awarded since, in order to be entitled to one additional
party No. of votes of the first party seat, an exact whole number is necessary. In fact, most of the actual mathematical
first party proportions are not whole numbers and are not rounded off for the reasons explained
Thus, in the case of ABA, the additional number of seats it would be entitled to earlier. To repeat, rounding off may result in the awarding of a number of seats in
is computed as follows: excess of that provided by the law. Furthermore, obtaining absolute proportional
representation is restricted by the three-seat-per-party limit to a maximum of
No. of votes of two additional slots. An increase in the maximum number of additional
Additional seats ABA No. of additional representatives a party may be entitled to would result in a more accurate proportional
for concerned = -------------------- x seats allocated to representation. But the law itself has set the limit: only two additional seats. Hence,
party (ABA) No. of votes of the first party we need to work within such extant parameter.
first party (APEC)
The net result of the foregoing formula for determining additional seats happily
Substituting actual values would result in the following equation: coincides with the present number of incumbents; namely, two for the first party
(APEC) and one each for the twelve other qualified parties. Hence, we affirm the
70
legality of the incumbencies of their nominees, albeit through the use of a different The low turnout of the party-list votes during the 1998 elections should not be
formula and methodology. interpreted as a total failure of the law in fulfilling the object of this new system of
representation. It should not be deemed a conclusive indication that the requirements
In his Dissent, Justice Mendoza criticizes our methodology for being too imposed by RA 7941 wholly defeated the implementation of the system. Be it
strict. We say, however, that our formula merely translated the Philippine legal remembered that the party-list system, though already popular in parliamentary
parameters into a mathematical equation, no more no less. If Congress in its wisdom democracies, is still quite new in our presidential system. We should allow it some
decides to modify RA 7941 to make it less strict, then the formula will also be modified time to take root in the consciousness of our people and in the heart of our tripartite
to reflect the changes willed by the lawmakers. form of republicanism. Indeed, the Comelec and the defeated litigants should not
despair.
Quite the contrary, the dismal result of the first election for party-list
Epilogue
representatives should serve as a challenge to our sectoral parties and organizations. It
should stir them to be more active and vigilant in their campaign for representation in
In sum, we hold that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the the State's lawmaking body. It should also serve as a clarion call for innovation and
thirty-eight (38) herein respondent parties, organizations and coalitions are each creativity in adopting this novel system of popular democracy.
entitled to a party-list seat, because it glaringly violated two requirements of RA With adequate information dissemination to the public and more active sectoral
7941: the two percent threshold and proportional representation. parties, we are confident our people will be more responsive to future party-list
In disregarding, rejecting and circumventing these statutory provisions, the elections. Armed with patience, perseverance and perspicacity, our marginalized
Comelec effectively arrogated unto itself what the Constitution expressly and wholly sectors, in time, will fulfill the Filipino dream of full representation in Congress under
vested in the legislature: the power and the discretion to define the mechanics for the the aegis of the party-list system, Philippine style.
enforcement of the system. The wisdom and the propriety of these impositions, absent WHEREFORE, the Petitions are hereby partially GRANTED. The assailed
any clear transgression of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion amounting to Resolutions of the Comelec are SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED. The proclamations of
lack or excess of jurisdiction, are beyond judicial review. [28] the fourteen (14) sitting party-list representatives - two for APEC and one each for the
Indeed, the Comelec and the other parties in these cases - both petitioners and remaining twelve (12) qualified parties - are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to
respondents - have failed to demonstrate that our lawmakers gravely abused their costs.
discretion in prescribing such requirements. By grave abuse of discretion is meant SO ORDERED.
such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.[29] Davide, Jr., C.J., Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago,
and De Leon Jr., JJ., concur.
The Comelec, which is tasked merely to enforce and administer election-related Bellosillo, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., in the result.
laws,[30] cannot simply disregard an act of Congress exercised within the bounds of its Puno, J., see separate concurring opinion.
authority. As a mere implementing body, it cannot judge the wisdom, propriety or Mendoza, J., dissents.
rationality of such act. Its recourse is to draft an amendment to the law and lobby for Kapunan, and Quisumbing, JJ., join the opinion of J. Mendoza.
its approval and enactment by the legislature.
Furthermore, a reading of the entire Constitution reveals no violation of any of Consolidated Table
its provisions by the strict enforcement of RA 7941. It is basic that to strike down a DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS
law or any of its provisions as unconstitutional, there must be a clear and unequivocal
showing that what the Constitution prohibits, the statute permits. [31] Group (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Actual Percent Guarant Additi Ext Tot Seat Total
Neither can we grant petitioners prayer that they each be given additional seats votes age of eed onal ra al6 s in numb
(for a total of three each), because granting such plea would plainly and simply violate receiv votes seat3 seats4 seat exce er
the proportional representation mandated by Section 11 (b) of RA 7941. ed1 cast for s5 ss of
of seats
71
party- 3 allow than
list2 ed7 2%
1. APEC 503,48 5.50% 1 5.73 1 7 4 3 TOTAL 9,155, 100% 13 32 7 52 13 39
7 309
2. ABA 321,64 3.51% 1 3.66 1 5 2 3
6
3. 312,50 3.41% 1 3.55 4 1 3
ALAGAD 0
4. 304,90 3.33% 1 3.47 4 1 3
VETERA 2
NS
FEDERA
TION
5. 255,18 2.79% 1 2.90 1 4 1 3
PROMDI 4
6. AKO 239,04 2.61% 1 2.72 1 4 1 3
2
7. NCSFO 338,30 2.60% 1 2.71 1 4 1 3
3
8. 235,54 2.57% 1 2.68 1 4 1 3
ABANSE! 8
PINAY
9. 232,37 2.54% 1 2.64 1 4 1 3
AKBAYA 6
N!
10 BUTIL 215,64 2.36% 1 2.45 3 - 3
3
11. 194,61 2.13% 1 2.21 3 - 3
SANLAK 7
AS
12. 189,80 2.07% 1 2.16 3 - 3
COOP- 2
NATCCO
13. 186,38 2.04% 1 2.12 3 - 3
COCOFE 8
D
14. 143,44 1.57%
SENIOR 4
CITIZENS
15. Other 5,582, Each
Parties 427 with
less
72
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR G.R. No. 179271 AND HARMONY TOWARDS
NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., PUNO, C.J.,
AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), and ABONO, QUISUMBING,
Petitioner, Petitioners, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS - versus - CARPIO MORALES,
(sitting as the National Board of TINGA,
Canvassers), CHICO-NAZARIO,
Respondent. VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
PROFESSIONALS, BRION,
Intervenor. PERALTA, and
BERSAMIN, JJ.
AANGAT TAYO,
Intervenor.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated:
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS Respondent.
OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE _______________________
PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR
CITIZENS), x---------------------------------------------------x
Intervenor.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR G.R. No. 179295 DECISION
TEACHER EMPOWERMENT
THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION Present: CARPIO, J.:
73
Estrella DL Santos, in her capacity as President and First Nominee of the Veterans
The Case Freedom Party, filed a motion to intervene in both G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295.
Petitioner in G.R. No. 179271 Barangay Association for National Advancement and The Facts
Transparency (BANAT) in a petition for certiorari and mandamus,[1] assails the The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list
Resolution[2] promulgated on 3 August 2007 by the Commission on Elections representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties under
(COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). The COMELECs resolution in NBC No. 07- the Party-List System.[6]
041 (PL) approved the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List
National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Legal Group, to deny the petition of BANAT Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-041 (PL)
for being moot.BANAT filed before the COMELEC En Banc, acting as NBC, before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because [t]he Chairman and the Members
a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the of the [COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papers that the
Constitution. [COMELEC] is duty bound to and shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would
apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party-list seats.[7] There were no
The following are intervenors in G.R. No. 179271: Arts Business and Science intervenors in BANATs petition before the NBC. BANAT filed a memorandum on 19
Professionals (ABS), Aangat Tayo (AT), and Coalition of Associations of Senior July 2007.
Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizens). On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution
No. 07-60. NBC Resolution No. 07-60 proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as winners in
Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295 Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher the party-list elections, namely: Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY), Bayan Muna,
Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), Gabrielas Women Party (Gabriela),
Reforms (A Teacher) in a petition for certiorari with mandamus and Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan!
prohibition,[3] assails NBC Resolution No. 07-60[4] promulgated on 9 July 2007. NBC Citizens Action Party (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL),
No. 07-60 made a partial proclamation of parties, organizations and coalitions that Cooperative-Natco Network Party (COOP-NATCCO), Anak Pawis, Alliance of Rural
obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party-List System. The Concerns (ARC), and Abono. We quote NBC Resolution No. 07-60 in its entirety
COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results, below:
it would determine the total number of seats of each winning party, organization, or
WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections sitting en banc as
coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC[5] (Veterans). National Board of Canvassers, thru its Sub-Committee for Party-
List, as of 03 July 2007, had officially canvassed, in open and public
proceedings, a total of fifteen million two hundred eighty three
thousand six hundred fifty-nine (15,283,659) votes under the
74
Party-List System of Representation, in connection with the in Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC adopting a formula
National and Local Elections conducted last 14 May 2007; for the additional seats of each party, organization or coalition
WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation receving more than the required two percent (2%) votes, stating that
Groups of the National Board of Canvassers reveals that the the same shall be determined only after all party-list ballots have
projected/maximum total party-list votes cannot go any higher been completely canvassed;
than sixteen million seven hundred twenty three thousand one
hundred twenty-one (16,723,121) votes given the following WHEREAS, the parties, organizations, and coalitions that have thus
statistical data: far garnered at least three hundred thirty four thousand four
hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes are as follows:
Projected/Maximum Party-List Votes for May 2007 Elections
RANK PARTY/ORGANIZATION/ VOTES

i. Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated 15,283,659
COALITION RECEIVED
ii. Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/
1 BUHAY 1,163,218
untabulated (i.e. canvass deferred) 1,337,032
2 BAYAN MUNA 972,730
iii. Maximum party-list votes (based on 100%
3 CIBAC 760,260
outcome) from areas not yet submitted for canvass
(Bogo, Cebu; Bais City; Pantar, Lanao del Norte; and 4 GABRIELA 610,451
Pagalungan, Maguindanao) 102,430
5 APEC 538,971
Maximum Total Party-List Votes 16,723,121 6 A TEACHER 476,036
WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List 7 AKBAYAN 470,872

System Act) provides in part:
8 ALAGAD 423,076
The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving
at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for 9 BUTIL 405,052
the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat
each: provided, that those garnering more than two 10 COOP-NATCO 390,029
percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to
additional seats in proportion to their total number 11 BATAS 386,361
of votes: provided, finally, that each party,
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not 12 ANAK PAWIS 376,036
more than three (3) seats.
WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based on the above projected 13 ARC 338,194
total of party-list votes, the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold
can be pegged at three hundred thirty four thousand four
14 ABONO 337,046
hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes;
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, in Citizens Battle Against
Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its ruling
75
WHEREAS, except for Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng
Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an URGENT 11 Anak Pawis ANAKPAWIS
PETITION FOR CANCELLATION/REMOVAL OF
REGISTRATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF PARTY-LIST 12 Alliance of Rural Concerns ARC
NOMINEE (With Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has
been filed before the Commission, docketed as SPC No. 07-250, all 13 Abono ABONO
the parties, organizations and coalitions included in the
aforementioned list are therefore entitled to at least one seat under This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties,
the party-list system of representation in the meantime. organizations, or coalitions which may later on be established to
have obtained at least two percent (2%) of the total actual votes cast
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the under the Party-List System.
Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144,
Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941, and other election laws, the The total number of seats of each winning party, organization or
Commission on Elections, sitting en banc as the National Board of coalition shall be determined pursuant to Veterans Federation Party
Canvassers, hereby RESOLVES to PARTIALLY PROCLAIM, versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the
subject to certain conditions set forth below, the following parties, party-list results.
organizations and coalitions participating under the Party-List
System: The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng
Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS) is hereby deferred until final
resolution of SPC No. 07-250, in order not to render the proceedings
1 Buhay Hayaan Yumabong BUHAY therein moot and academic.
2 Bayan Muna BAYAN MUNA Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties,
organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be
3 Citizens Battle Against Corruption CIBAC held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
4 Gabriela Womens Party GABRIELA Let the Clerk of the Commission implement this Resolution,
furnishing a copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of
5 Association of Philippine Electric APEC Representatives of the Philippines.
Cooperatives
SO ORDERED.[8] (Emphasis in the original)
6 Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment A TEACHER
Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony
Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60, the COMELEC, acting as NBC, promulgated
Towards Educational Reforms, Inc.
NBC Resolution No. 07-72, which declared the additional seats allocated to the
7 Akbayan! Citizens Action Party AKBAYAN
appropriate parties. We quote from the COMELECs interpretation of
8 Alagad ALAGAD the Veterans formula as found in NBC Resolution No. 07-72:
9 Luzon Farmers Party BUTIL
10 Cooperative-Natco Network Party COOP-NATCCO
76
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, the Commission on Elections
sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers proclaimed 13 ABONO 340,151
thirteen (13) qualified parties, organization[s] and coalitions based
on the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold of 334,462 votes WHEREAS, based on the above Report, Buhay Hayaan
from the projected maximum total number of party-list votes of Yumabong (Buhay) obtained the highest number of votes among the
16,723,121, and were thus given one (1) guaranteed party-list seat thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, making
each; it the first party in accordance with Veterans Federation Party
WHEREAS, per Report of the Tabulation Group and Supervisory versus COMELEC, reiterated in Citizens Battle Against Corruption
Committee of the National Board of Canvassers, the projected (CIBAC) versus COMELEC;
maximum total party-list votes, as of July 11, 2007, based on the WHEREAS, qualified parties, organizations and coalitions
votes actually canvassed, votes canvassed but not included in Report participating under the party-list system of representation that have
No. 29, votes received but uncanvassed, and maximum votes obtained one guaranteed (1) seat may be entitled to an additional
expected for Pantar, Lanao del Norte, is 16,261,369; and that the seat or seats based on the formula prescribed by the Supreme Court
projected maximum total votes for the thirteen (13) qualified parties, in Veterans;
organizations and coalition[s] are as follows: WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the first party,
the correct formula as expressed in Veterans, is:
Party-List Projected total number of votes Number of votes of first party Proportion of votes of first
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = party relative to total votes for
1 BUHAY 1,178,747 Total votes for party-list system party-list system
2 BAYAN MUNA 977,476 wherein the proportion of votes received by the first party (without
rounding off) shall entitle it to additional seats:
3 CIBAC 755,964
4 GABRIELA 621,718 Proportion of votes received Additional seats

by the first party
5 APEC 622,489
Equal to or at least 6% Two (2) additional seats
6 A TEACHER 492,369
Equal to or greater than 4% but less than 6% One (1) additional seat
7 AKBAYAN 462,674
Less than 4% No additional seat
8 ALAGAD 423,190
9 BUTIL 409,298 WHEREAS, applying the above formula, Buhay obtained the
following percentage:
10 COOP-NATCO 412,920
1,178,747
11 ANAKPAWIS 370,165 - - - - - - - - = 0.07248 or 7.2%
16,261,369
12 ARC 375,846
which entitles it to two (2) additional seats.
77
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the other Canvassers, hereby RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to
qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, the correct formula proclaim the following parties, organizations or coalitions as
as expressed in Veterans and reiterated in CIBAC is, as follows: entitled to additional seats, to wit:
No. of votes of
concerned party No. of additional
Additional seats for = ------------------- x seats allocated to Party List Additional Seats
a concerned party No. of votes of first party
first party BUHAY 2
WHEREAS, applying the above formula, the results are as follows: BAYAN MUNA 1
CIBAC 1
Party List Percentage Additional Seat
GABRIELA 1
BAYAN MUNA 1.65 1
APEC 1
CIBAC 1.28 1
This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties,
GABRIELA 1.05 1 organizations or coalitions which may later on be established to have
obtained at least two per cent (2%) of the total votes cast under the
APEC 1.05 1 party-list system to entitle them to one (1) guaranteed seat, or to the
appropriate percentage of votes to entitle them to one (1) additional
A TEACHER 0.83 0 seat.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties,
AKBAYAN 0.78 0 organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be
held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
ALAGAD 0.71 0
Let the National Board of Canvassers Secretariat implement this
BUTIL 0.69 0 Resolution, furnishing a copy hereof to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the Philippines.
COOP-NATCO 0.69 0
SO ORDERED.[9]
ANAKPAWIS 0.62 0
ARC 0.63 0 Acting on BANATs petition, the NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-88 on 3
ABONO 0.57 0 August 2007, which reads as follows:
NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the

Constitution, Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144,
This pertains to the Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-
Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941 and other elections laws, the
List Representatives Provided by the Constitution filed by the
Commission on Elections en banc sitting as the National Board of
78
Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency LIST SEATS, ANNEX A of COMELEC
(BANAT). RESOLUTION 2847 dated 25 June 1996, shall be
used for [the] purpose of determining how many
Acting on the foregoing Petition of the Barangay Association for seats shall be proclaimed, which party-list groups
National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) party-list, are entitled to representative seats and how many
Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, National Board of Canvassers Legal of their nominees shall seat [sic].
Group submitted his comments/observations and recommendation
thereon [NBC 07-041 (PL)], which reads: 5. In the alternative, to declare as unconstitutional
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 and that the
COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS: procedure in allocating seats for party-list
representative prescribed by Section 12 of RA
Petitioner Barangay Association for National 7941 shall be followed.
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), in its
Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List RECOMMENDATION:
Representatives Provided by the Constitution
prayed for the following reliefs, to wit: The petition of BANAT is now moot and academic.
1. That the full number -- twenty percent (20%) -- The Commission En Banc in NBC Resolution No.
of Party-List representatives as mandated by 07-60 promulgated July 9, 2007 re In the Matter
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution shall be of the Canvass of Votes and Partial Proclamation
proclaimed. of the Parties, Organizations and Coalitions
Participating Under the Party-List System During
2. Paragraph (b), Section 11 of RA 7941 which the May 14, 2007 National and Local
prescribes the 2% threshold votes, should be Elections resolved among others that the total
harmonized with Section 5, Article VI of the number of seats of each winning party,
Constitution and with Section 12 of the same RA organization or coalition shall be determined
7941 in that it should be applicable only to the first pursuant to the Veterans Federation
party-list representative seats to be allotted on the Party versus COMELEC formula upon
basis of their initial/first ranking. completion of the canvass of the party-list results.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the National Board of
3. The 3-seat limit prescribed by RA 7941 shall be Canvassers RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve and
applied; and adopt the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, NBC
Legal Group, to DENY the herein petition of BANAT for being
4. Initially, all party-list groups shall be given the moot and academic.
number of seats corresponding to every 2% of the Let the Supervisory Committee implement this resolution.
votes they received and the additional seats shall SO ORDERED.[10]
be allocated in accordance with Section 12 of RA
7941, that is, in proportion to the percentage of
votes obtained by each party-list group in relation
to the total nationwide votes cast in the party-list BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC
election, after deducting the corresponding votes
of those which were allotted seats under the 2% Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file a motion for reconsideration of NBC
threshold rule. In fine, the formula/procedure Resolution No. 07-88.
prescribed in the ALLOCATION OF PARTY-
79
1.11 Anak Pawis 1
On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting as
1.12 ARC 1
NBC, to reconsider its decision to use the Veterans formula as stated in its NBC
Resolution No. 07-60 because the Veterans formula is violative of the Constitution 1.13 Abono 1
and of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941). On the same day, the COMELEC 1.14 AGAP 1
[11]
denied reconsideration during the proceedings of the NBC.
1.15 AMIN 1
Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations proclaimed on 9 July 2007, the
The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan
COMELEC proclaimed three other party-list organizations as qualified parties entitled
(BATAS), against which an Urgent Petition for Cancellation/Removal of Registration
to one guaranteed seat under the Party-List System: Agricultural Sector Alliance of
and Disqualification of Party-list Nominee (with Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining
the Philippines, Inc. (AGAP),[12] Anak Mindanao (AMIN),[13] and An Waray.[14] Per
Order) has been filed before the COMELEC, was deferred pending final resolution of
the certification[15] by COMELEC, the following party-list organizations have been
SPC No. 07-250.
proclaimed as of 19 May 2008:
Issues
Party-List No. of Seat(s)
1.1 Buhay 3 BANAT brought the following issues before this Court:
1.2 Bayan Muna 2

1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list
1.3 CIBAC 2 representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?
1.4 Gabriela 2
2. Is the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA
7941 constitutional?
1.5 APEC 2
3. Is the two percent threshold and qualifier votes prescribed by
1.6 A Teacher 1
the same Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
1.7 Akbayan 1 4. How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?[16]
1.8 Alagad 1
Bayan Muna, A Teacher, and Abono, on the other hand, raised the following issues in
1.9 Butil 1
their petition:
1.10 Coop-Natco [sic] 1
80
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives
in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely
I. Respondent Commission on Elections, acting as National Board
a ceiling?
of Canvassers, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it promulgated NBC 2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
Resolution No. 07-60 to implement the First-Party Rule in the
allocation of seats to qualified party-list organizations as said rule:
3. Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of
RA 7941 to qualify for one seat constitutional?
A. Violates the constitutional principle of
proportional representation. 4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated?
B. Violates the provisions of RA 7941 particularly:
5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties
from participating in the party-list elections? If not, can the
1. The 2-4-6 Formula used by the First Party Rule in allocating
major political parties be barred from participating in the party-
additional seats for the First Party violates the principle of
list elections?[18]
proportional representation under RA 7941.
2. The use of two formulas in the allocation of additional seats, one

for the First Party and another for the qualifying parties, violates The Ruling of the Court
Section 11(b) of RA 7941.
3. The proportional relationships under the First Party Rule are The petitions have partial merit. We maintain that a Philippine-style party-list election
different from those required under RA 7941;
has at least four inviolable parameters as clearly stated in Veterans. For easy reference,
C. Violates the Four Inviolable Parameters of the Philippine party- these are:
list system as provided for under the same case of Veterans
Federation Party, et al. v. COMELEC.
First, the twenty percent allocation the combined number
II. Presuming that the Commission on Elections did not commit of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of total membership of the House of Representatives, including those
jurisdiction when it implemented the First-Party Rule in the elected under the party list;
allocation of seats to qualified party-list organizations, the same
being merely in consonance with the ruling in Veterans Federations Second, the two percent threshold only those parties garnering a
Party, et al. v. COMELEC, the instant Petition is a justiciable case minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-
as the issues involved herein are constitutional in nature, involving list system are qualified to have a seat in the House of
the correct interpretation and implementation of RA 7941, and are Representatives;
of transcendental importance to our nation.[17]
Third, the three-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of the
number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of
Considering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the parties in these three seats; that is, one qualifying and two additional seats;
cases, we defined the following issues in our advisory for the oral arguments set on 22 Fourth, proportional representation the additional seats which a
qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their
April 2008:
total number of votes.[19]
81
xxx
However, because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical interpretation
of the term proportional representation, this Court is compelled to revisit the formula
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the House of Representatives
for the allocation of additional seats to party-list organizations.
shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
fixed by law. The House of Representatives shall be composed of district
Number of Party-List Representatives:
representatives and party-list representatives. The Constitution allows the legislature
The Formula Mandated by the Constitution
to modify the number of the members of the House of Representatives.
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the ratio of party-
list representatives to the total number of representatives. We compute the number of
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:
seats available to party-list representatives from the number of legislative districts. On
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of this point, we do not deviate from the first formula in Veterans, thus:
not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Number of seats available Number of seats available to
Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and to legislative districts x .20 = party-list representatives
those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or .80
organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum

of the total number of representatives including those under the This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats available
party-list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
for party-list representatives whenever a legislative district is created by law. Since the
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or 14thCongress of the Philippines has 220 district representatives, there are 55 seats
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be available to party-list representatives.
provided by law, except the religious sector.
220 x .20 = 55
The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:
.80
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The party-list

representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total
number of the members of the House of Representatives including
those under the party-list.
82
entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more
After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to the total
than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional
number of representatives, the Constitution left the manner of allocating the seats seats in proportion to their total number of votes: Provided,
finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled
available to party-list representatives to the wisdom of the legislature. to not more than three (3) seats.
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List

Allocation of Seats for Party-List Representatives: Representatives. The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the
The Statutory Limits Presented by the Two Percent Threshold parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them
according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list
and the Three-Seat Cap representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes
obtained by each party, organization, or coalition as against the total
nationwide votes cast for the party-list system. (Emphasis supplied)
All parties agree on the formula to determine the maximum number of seats reserved
under the Party-List System, as well as on the formula to determine the guaranteed
In G.R. No. 179271, BANAT presents two interpretations through three formulas to
seats to party-list candidates garnering at least two-percent of the total party-list votes.
allocate party-list representative seats.
However, there are numerous interpretations of the provisions of R.A. No. 7941 on
the allocation of additional seats under the Party-List System. Veterans produced the
The first interpretation allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section 11(b) on the
First Party Rule,[20] and Justice Vicente V. Mendozas dissent in Veterans presented
2% requirement with Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT described this procedure
Germanys Niemeyer formula[21] as an alternative.
as follows:
The Constitution left to Congress the determination of the manner of allocating the (a) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent
(20%) of the total Members of the House of Representatives
seats for party-list representatives. Congress enacted R.A. No. 7941, paragraphs (a) including those from the party-list groups as prescribed by Section
and (b) of Section 11 and Section 12 of which provide: 5, Article VI of the Constitution, Section 11 (1 st par.) of RA 7941
and Comelec Resolution No. 2847 dated 25 June 1996. Since there
are 220 District Representatives in the 14th Congress, there shall be
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. x x x 55 Party-List Representatives. All seats shall have to be proclaimed.
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, [22] the (b) All party-list groups shall initially be allotted one (1) seat for
following procedure shall be observed: every two per centum (2%) of the total party-list votes they obtained;
provided, that no party-list groups shall have more than three (3)
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from seats (Section 11, RA 7941).
the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered
during the elections. (c) The remaining seats shall, after deducting the seats obtained by
the party-list groups under the immediately preceding paragraph and
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two after deducting from their total the votes corresponding to those
percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be seats, the remaining seats shall be allotted proportionately to all the
83
party-list groups which have not secured the maximum three (3)
seats under the 2% threshold rule, in accordance with Section 12 of only. The number of seats allocated to a qualified party is computed by multiplying
RA 7941.[23] the total party-list seats available with the second percentage. There will be a first
round of seat allocation, limited to using the whole integers as the equivalent of the
Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be awarded under BANATs first interpretation. number of seats allocated to the concerned party-list. After all the qualified parties are
given their seats, a second round of seat allocation is conducted. The fractions, or
The second interpretation presented by BANAT assumes that the 2% vote requirement remainders, from the whole integers are ranked from highest to lowest and the
is declared unconstitutional, and apportions the seats for party-list representatives by remaining seats on the basis of this ranking are allocated until all the seats are filled
following Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT states that the COMELEC: up.[26]
(a) shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or We examine what R.A. No. 7941 prescribes to allocate seats for party-list
coalitions on a nationwide basis;
(b) rank them according to the number of votes received; and, representatives.
(c) allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to
the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization
or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party- Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the ranking of the participating parties from
list system.[24]
the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections.
BANAT used two formulas to obtain the same results: one is based on the proportional
percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total nationwide party-
list votes, and the other is by making the votes of a party-list with a median percentage
of votes as the divisor in computing the allocation of seats. [25] Thirty-four (34) party- Table 1. Ranking of the participating parties from the highest to the
lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the
list seats will be awarded under BANATs second interpretation. elections.[27]
In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both the
COMELECs original 2-4-6 formula and the Veterans formula for systematically Votes Votes
Rank Party Rank Party
preventing all the party-list seats from being filled up. They claim that both formulas Garnered Garnered
do not factor in the total number of seats alloted for the entire Party-List 1 BUHAY 1,169,234 48 KALAHI 88,868
System. Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher reject the three-seat cap, but accept the
2 BAYAN 979,039 49 APOI 79,386
2% threshold. After determining the qualified parties, a second percentage is generated
MUNA
by dividing the votes of a qualified partyby the total votes of all qualified parties
84
3 CIBAC 755,686 50 BP 78,541 24 ABA-AKO 218,818 71 BABAE KA 36,512
4 GABRIELA 621,171 51 AHONBAYAN 78,424 25 ALIF 217,822 72 SB 34,835
5 APEC 619,657 52 BIGKIS 77,327 26 SENIOR 213,058 73 ASAP 34,098

CITIZENS
6 A TEACHER 490,379 53 PMAP 75,200
27 AT 197,872 74 PEP 33,938
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 54 AKAPIN 74,686
28 VFP 196,266 75 ABA 33,903
8 ALAGAD 423,149 55 PBA 71,544
ILONGGO
9 COOP- 409,883 56 GRECON 62,220
29 ANAD 188,521 76 VENDORS 33,691
NATCCO
30 BANAT 177,028 77 ADD-TRIBAL 32,896
10 BUTIL 409,160 57 BTM 60,993
31 ANG 170,531 78 ALMANA 32,255
11 BATAS 385,810 58 A SMILE 58,717
KASANGGA
12 ARC 374,288 59 NELFFI 57,872
32 BANTAY 169,801 79 AANGAT KA 29,130
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 60 AKSA 57,012
PILIPINO
14 ABONO 339,990 61 BAGO 55,846
33 ABAKADA 166,747 80 AAPS 26,271
15 AMIN 338,185 62 BANDILA 54,751
34 1-UTAK 164,980 81 HAPI 25,781
16 AGAP 328,724 63 AHON 54,522
35 TUCP 162,647 82 AAWAS 22,946
17 AN WARAY 321,503 64 ASAHAN MO 51,722
36 COCOFED 155,920 83 SM 20,744
18 YACAP 310,889 65 AGBIAG! 50,837
37 AGHAM 146,032 84 AG 16,916
19 FPJPM 300,923 66 SPI 50,478
38 ANAK 141,817 85 AGING PINOY 16,729
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 67 BAHANDI 46,612
39 ABANSE! 130,356 86 APO 16,421
21 ABS 235,086 68 ADD 45,624 PINAY
22 KAKUSA 228,999 69 AMANG 43,062 40 PM 119,054 87 BIYAYANG 16,241
23 KABATAAN 228,637 70 ABAY PARAK 42,282 BUKID
85
41 AVE 110,769 88 ATS 14,161 Party-List, in
42 SUARA 110,732 89 UMDJ 9,445 %
43 ASSALAM 110,440 90 BUKLOD 8,915 1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1
FILIPINA 2 BAYAN MUNA 979,039 6.14% 1
44 DIWA 107,021 91 LYPAD 8,471 3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1
45 ANC 99,636 92 AA-KASOSYO 8,406 4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1
46 SANLAKAS 97,375 93 KASAPI 6,221 5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1
47 ABC 90,058 TOTAL 15,950,900 6 A TEACHER 490,379 3.07% 1
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1
8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1

The first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 states that parties, organizations,
and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party- 9 COOP-NATCCO 409,883 2.57% 1
list system shall be entitled to one seat each. This clause guarantees a seat to the two- 10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1
percenters. In Table 2 below, we use the first 20 party-list candidates for illustration
11 BATAS[29] 385,810 2.42% 1
purposes.The percentage of votes garnered by each party is arrived at by dividing the
12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1
number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast
for all party-list candidates. 13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 2.32% 1
14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1

Table 2. The first 20 party-list candidates and their respective
percentage of votes garnered over the total votes for the party-list.[28]
15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% 1
Votes 16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1
Votes Garnered Guaranteed 17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% 1

Rank Party
Garnered over Total Seat
Total 17
Votes for
18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0
86
19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0 the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that
the first 50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% 0
availability of 55 seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this
situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list seats to 60 seats
From Table 2 above, we see that only 17 party-list candidates received at least 2%
and even if we increase the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum
from the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates. The 17 qualified party-
number of parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is always impossible
list candidates, or the two-percenters, are the party-list candidates that are entitled to
for the number of occupied party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent
one seat each, or the guaranteed seat. In this first round of seat allocation, we
threshold is present.
distributed 17 guaranteed seats.
The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that those garnering
We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution
more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in
of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No.
proportion to their total number of votes. This is where petitioners and intervenors
7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full
problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets the clause in proportion
implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the
to their total number of votes to be in proportion to the votes of the first party. This
attainment of the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests
interpretation is contrary to the express language of R.A. No. 7941.
in the House of Representatives.[30]
We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11 of
of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the
R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:
second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds
that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest
maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party list
to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the
distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent
that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list
(2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed
representatives.
seat each.
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are 50 million votes
cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections. A party that has two percent of
87
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of
votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than

three (3) seats.
Table 3. Distribution of Available Party-List Seats

In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included
because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-
Votes (B)
percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as additional seats are the Addition
Garnere Guarantee plus Applyin
maximum seats reserved under the Party List System less the guaranteed al
d over d Seat (C), in g the
seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 Seats
Total whole three
allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats.
Votes integer seat cap
Votes for s
In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional, we do not limit our allocation Ran
Party Garnere Party
of additional seats in Table 3 below to the two-percenters. The percentage of votes k
d List, in
garnered by each party-list candidate is arrived at by dividing the number of votes
% (First
garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for party-list (Second
Round)
candidates. There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation. First, the Round)
percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats, 38, which is the difference
(B) (E)
between the 55 maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the 17 (C)
(A) (D)
guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer of the product of the
percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a partys share in the 1 BUHAY 1,169,23 7.33% 1 2.79 3 N.A.
remaining available seats. Second, we assign one party-list seat to each of the parties 4
next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed. We distributed all of 2 BAYAN 979,039 6.14% 1 2.33 3 N.A.
the remaining 38 seats in the second round of seat allocation. Finally, we apply the MUNA
three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is
3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1 1.80 2 N.A.
entitled. Thus:
88
4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1 1.48 2 N.A. 23 KABATAA 228,637 1.43% 0 1 1 N.A.
N
5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
24 ABA-AKO 218,818 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
6 A Teacher 490,379 3.07% 1 1.17 2 N.A.
25 ALIF 217,822 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1 1.11 2 N.A.
26 SENIOR 213,058 1.34% 0 1 1 N.A.
8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1 1.01 2 N.A.
CITIZENS
9[31] COOP- 409,883 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
27 AT 197,872 1.24% 0 1 1 N.A.
NATCCO
28 VFP 196,266 1.23% 0 1 1 N.A.
10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
29 ANAD 188,521 1.18% 0 1 1 N.A.
11 BATAS 385,810 2.42% 1 1 2 N.A.
30 BANAT 177,028 1.11% 0 1 1 N.A.
12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1 1 2 N.A.
31 ANG 170,531 1.07% 0 1 1 N.A.
13 ANAKPAW 370,261 2.32% 1 1 2 N.A.
KASANGG
IS
A
14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1 1 2 N.A.
32 BANTAY 169,801 1.06% 0 1 1 N.A.
15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% 1 1 2 N.A.
33 ABAKADA 166,747 1.05% 0 1 1 N.A.
16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1 1 2 N.A.
34 1-UTAK 164,980 1.03% 0 1 1 N.A.
17 AN 321,503 2.02% 1 1 2 N.A.
35 TUCP 162,647 1.02% 0 1 1 N.A.
WARAY
36 COCOFED 155,920 0.98% 0 1 1 N.A.
18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0 1 1 N.A.
Tota 17 55
19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0 1 1 N.A.
l
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% 0 1 1 N.A.
21 ABS 235,086 1.47% 0 1 1 N.A.

Applying the procedure of seat allocation as illustrated in Table 3 above, there are 55
22 KAKUSA 228,999 1.44% 0 1 1 N.A.
party-list representatives from the 36 winning party-list organizations. All 55 available
89
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the party list
party-list seats are filled. The additional seats allocated to the parties with sufficient
system, they will be fielding only sectoral candidates.
number of votes for one whole seat, in no case to exceed a total of three seats for each
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO participate
party, are shown in column (D). in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field

Participation of Major Political Parties in Party-List Elections candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors
that we shall designate in this Constitution.
The Constitutional Commission adopted a multi-party system that allowed all MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Taada wants to run under
BAYAN group and says that he represents the farmers, would he
political parties to participate in the party-list elections. The deliberations of the
qualify?
Constitutional Commission clearly bear this out, thus:
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party
suggested or proposed the party list system because we wanted to list system and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who would pass on
open up the political system to a pluralistic society through a whether he is a farmer or not?
multiparty system. x x x We are for opening up the system, and
we would like very much for the sectors to be there. That is why MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang
one of the ways to do that is to put a ceiling on the number of linawin ito. Political parties, particularly minority political
representatives from any single party that can sit within the 50 parties, are not prohibited to participate in the party list election
allocated under the party list system. x x x. if they can prove that they are also organized along sectoral
lines.
xxx
MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats political parties can participate because it is precisely the contention
is not limited to political parties. My question is this: Are we going of political parties that they represent the broad base of citizens and
to classify for example Christian Democrats and Social Democrats that all sectors are represented in them. Would the Commissioner
as political parties? Can they run under the party list concept or must agree?
they be under the district legislation side of it only?
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these parties that UNIDO na isang political party, it will dominate the party list at
the Commissioner mentioned can field candidates for the Senate as mawawalang saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political
well as for the House of Representatives. Likewise, they can also parties ang party list system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan ng diin ang
field sectoral candidates for the 20 percent or 30 percent, reserve. Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. Kung
whichever is adopted, of the seats that we are allocating under titingnan natin itong 198 seats, reserved din ito sa political parties.
the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field there. But my question to Commissioner Villacorta and probably
district candidates and can also participate in the party list system? also to Commissioner Tadeo is that under this system, would
UNIDO be banned from running under the party list system?
90
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral sectoral representation are achieved in a wider, more lasting, and
candidates. On that condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed to more institutionalized way. Therefore, I support this [Monsod-
register for the party list system. Villacorta] amendment. It installs sectoral representation as a
constitutional gift, but at the same time, it challenges the sector to
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he rise to the majesty of being elected representatives later on through
shares that answer? a party list system; and even beyond that, to become actual political
parties capable of contesting political power in the wider
MR. TADEO. The same. constitutional arena for major political parties.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral x x x [32] (Emphasis supplied)
lines.
R.A. No. 7941 provided the details for the concepts put forward by the Constitutional
xxxx Commission. Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:
MR. OPLE. x x x In my opinion, this will also create the stimulus

for political parties and mass organizations to seek common Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of
ground. For example, we have the PDP-Laban and the UNIDO. I see proportional representation in the election of representatives to the
no reason why they should not be able to make common goals with House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral
mass organizations so that the very leadership of these parties can parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the
be transformed through the participation of mass organizations. And Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or
if this is true of the administration parties, this will be true of others organizations of a coalition may participate independently provided
like the Partido ng Bayan which is now being formed. There is no the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the
question that they will be attractive to many mass organizations. In party-list system.
the opposition parties to which we belong, there will be a stimulus
for us to contact mass organizations so that with their participation, (b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a
the policies of such parties can be radically transformed because this coalition of parties.
amendment will create conditions that will challenge both the mass
organizations and the political parties to come together. And the (c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens
party list system is certainly available, although it is open to all the advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the
parties. It is understood that the parties will enter in the roll of the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate
COMELEC the names of representatives of mass organizations means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports
affiliated with them. So that we may, in time, develop this excellent certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office.
system that they have in Europe where labor organizations and
cooperatives, for example, distribute themselves either in the Social It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the
Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Party in Germany, geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a
and their very presence there has a transforming effect upon the regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical
philosophies and the leadership of those parties. territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising
the region.
It is also a fact well known to all that in the United States, the AFL-
CIO always vote with the Democratic Party. But the businessmen, (d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens
most of them, always vote with the Republican Party, meaning that belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof
there is no reason at all why political parties and mass organizations whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and
should not combine, reenforce, influence and interact with each concerns of their sector,
other so that the very objectives that we set in this Constitution for
91
(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition
of groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or further illustrate, the Nacionalista Party can establish a fisherfolk wing to participate
characteristics, employment, interests or concerns. in the party-list election, and this fisherfolk wing can field its fisherfolk
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, nominees. Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (KAMPI) can do the same for the urban
regional, sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or poor.
election purposes.
The qualifications of party-list nominees are prescribed in Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941:
Congress, in enacting R.A. No. 7941, put the three-seat cap to prevent any party from
dominating the party-list elections.
Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be

Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political parties from nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural born
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the elections, able to read and write, bona
clearly intended the major political parties to participate in party-list elections through
fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent
their sectoral wings. In fact, the members of the Constitutional Commission voted for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is
at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
down, 19-22, any permanent sectoral seats, and in the alternative the reservation of the
party-list system to the sectoral groups.[33] In defining a party that participates in party- In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-
five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the
list elections as either a political party or a sectoral party, R.A. No. 7941 also clearly election. Any youth sectoral representative who attainsthe age of
intended that major political parties will participate in the party-list thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue until the
expiration of his term.
elections. Excluding the major political parties in party-list elections is manifestly
against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No.
Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list organizations
7941. This Court cannot engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate
nominee wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity[34] as there is no financial status
the exclusion of major political parties from the party-list elections in patent violation
required in the law. It is enough that the nominee of the sectoral
of the Constitution and the law.
party/organization/coalition belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors,[35] that is, if the nominee represents the fisherfolk, he or she must be a
Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
fisherfolk, or if the nominee represents the senior citizens, he or she must be a senior
state that major political parties are allowed to establish, or form coalitions with,
citizen.
sectoral organizations for electoral or political purposes. There should not be a
problem if, for example, the Liberal Party participates in the party-list election through
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire 20%
the Kabataang Liberal ng Pilipinas (KALIPI), its sectoral youth wing. The other major
allocation of party-list representatives found in the Constitution. The Constitution, in
political parties can thus organize, or affiliate with, their chosen sector or sectors. To
92
paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI, left the determination of the number of the
members of the House of Representatives to Congress: The House of Representatives SO ORDERED.
shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
fixed by law, x x x. The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling;
party-list representatives cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives. However, we cannot allow the continued existence of a provision in
the law which will systematically prevent the constitutionally allocated 20% party-list
representatives from being filled. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of
seats that a qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory
device that prevents any party from dominating the party-list elections. Seats for party-
list representatives shall thus be allocated in accordance with the procedure used in
Table 3 above.
However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling

in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list
elections, directly or indirectly. Those who voted to continue disallowing major
political parties from the party-list elections joined Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno in
his separate opinion. On the formula to allocate party-list seats, the Court is unanimous
in concurring with this ponencia.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the

Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August 2007 in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) as well
as the Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC No. 07-60. We declare unconstitutional
the two percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list seats. The
allocation of additional seats under the Party-List System shall be in accordance with
the procedure used in Table 3 of this Decision. Major political parties are disallowed
from participating in party-list elections. This Decision is immediately executory. No
pronouncement as to costs.
93
G.R. No. 179271 July 8, 2009 not violate the above-cited Constitutional provision considering that the
total members would now rise to 270.
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND
TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), Petitioner, C. The Court declared as unconstitutional the 2% threshold only in relation
vs. to the distribution of additional seats as found in the second clause of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (sitting as the National Board of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. Yet, it distributed first seats to party-list
Canvassers), Respondent. groups which did not attain the minimum number of votes that will entitle
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS, Intervenor. them to one seat. Clarification is, therefore, sought whether the term
AANGAT TAYO, Intervenor. "additional seats" refer to 2nd and 3rd seats only or all remaining available
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE seats. Corollary thereto, the House of Representatives wishes to be clarified
PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR CITIZENS),Intervenor. whether there is no more minimum vote requirement to qualify as a party-
list representative.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D. For the guidance of the House of Representatives, clarification is sought
G.R. No. 179295 as to whether the principle laid down in Veterans that "the filling up of the
allowable seats for party-list representatives is not mandatory," has been
abandoned.1
BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR TEACHER EMPOWERMENT
THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION AND HARMONY TOWARDS
EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., and ABONO, Petitioners, On the other hand, Armi Jane Roa-Borje (Roa-Borje), third nominee of Citizens
vs. Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), filed a motion for leave for partial
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. reconsideration-in-intervention, alleging that:
RESOLUTION The Supreme Court, in ruling on the procedure for distribution of seats, has deprived
without due process and in violation of the equal protection clause, parties with more
significant constituencies, such as CIBAC, Gabriela and APEC, in favor of parties
CARPIO, J.:
who did not even meet the 2% threshold.2
The House of Representatives, represented by Speaker Prospero C. Nograles, filed a
Following the Courts Decision of 21 April 2009, the Commission on Elections
motion for leave to intervene in G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295. The House of
(COMELEC) submitted to this Court on 27 April 2009 National Board of
Representatives filed a motion for clarification in intervention and enumerated the
Canvassers (NBC) Resolution No. 09-001. NBC Resolution No. 09-001 updated the
issues for clarification as follows:
data used by this Court in its Decision of 21 April 2009. The total votes for party-list
is now 15,723,764 following the cancellation of the registration of party-list group
A. There are only 219 legislative districts and not 220. Accordingly, the Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement (FPJPM). Moreover, the total
alloted seats for party-list representation should only be 54 and not 55. The number of legislative districts is now 219 following the annulment of Muslim
House of Representatives seeks clarification on which of the party-list Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating the province of Shariff Kabunsuan. Thus,
representatives shall be admitted to the Roll of Members considering that the percentage and ranking of the actual winning party-list groups are different from
the Court declared as winners 55 party-list representatives. Table 3 of the Decision in G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295.
B. The House of Representatives wishes to be guided on whether it should The Number of Members of the House of Representatives
enroll in its Roll of Members the 32 named party-list representatives in the 2007 Elections
enumerated in Table 3 or only such number of representatives that would
complete the 250 member maximum prescribed by Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of
the Constitution. In the event that it is ordered to admit all 32, will this act Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:
94
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and 11 9230 2003 San Jose del Monte City
fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area 12 8508 and 1998 and Antipolo (1st District)
in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a 9232 2003
uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected
through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or 13 9232 2003 Antipolo (2nd District)
organizations. (Emphasis supplied) 14 9269 2004 Zamboanga City (2nd
District)
The 1987 Constitution fixes the maximum number of members of the House of
Representatives at 250. However, the 1987 Constitution expressly allows for an 15 9355 2006 Dinagat Island
increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives provided a law 16 9357 2006 Sultan Kudarat (2nd District)
is enacted for the purpose. This is clear from the phrase "unless otherwise provided
by law" in Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The Legislature has the 17 9360 2006 Zamboanga Sibugay (2nd
option to choose whether the increase in the number of members of the House of District)
Representatives is done by piecemeal legislation or by enactment of a law
authorizing a general increase. Legislation that makes piecemeal increases of the 18 9364 2006 Marikina City (2nd District)
number of district representatives is no less valid than legislation that makes a 19 9371 2007 Cagayan de Oro (2nd District)
general increase.
20 9387 2007 Navotas City
In 1987, there were only 200 legislative districts. Twenty legislative districts were
added by piecemeal legislation after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution: Thus, for purposes of the 2007 elections, there were only 219 district representatives.
Navotas City became a separate district on 24 June 2007, more than a month after
Republic Year Legislative District the 14 May 2007 elections.
Act Signed
into Law The Number of Party-List Seats
in the 2007 Elections
1 7160 1992 Biliran
2 7675 1994 Mandaluyong City Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads in part:
3 7854 1994 Makati (2nd District)

The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number
4 7878 1995 Apayao of representatives including those under the party-list. x x x
5 7896 and 1995 Guimaras The 1987 Constitution fixes the ratio of party-list representatives to district
7897 representatives. This ratio automatically applies whenever the number of district
6 7926 1995 Muntinlupa City representatives is increased by law. The mathematical formula for determining the
number of seats available to party-list representatives is
7 8470 1998 Compostela Valley
8 8487 1998 Taguig City (2nd District)
9 8526 1998 Valenzuela City (2nd District)
10 9229 2003 Paraaque (2nd District)
95
New Districts:
Number of seats available Paraaque City (2nd
to legislative districts Number of seats available to District)
x .20 =
party-list representatives San Jose del Monte
.80 City
Antipolo (1st
District)
As we stated in our Decision of 21 April 2009, "[t]his formula allows for the Antipolo (2nd
corresponding increase in the number of seats available for party-list District)
representatives whenever a legislative district is created by law." Thus, for every Zamboanga City
four district representatives, the 1987 Constitution mandates that there shall be one (2nd District)
party-list representative. There is no need for legislation to create an additional party- 2007 219 54 273
list seat whenever four additional legislative districts are created by law. Section New Districts:
5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution automatically creates such additional party- Dinagat Island
list seat. Sultan Kudarat (2nd
District)
We use the table below to illustrate the relationship between the number of Zamboanga Sibugay
legislative districts and the number of party-list seats for every election year after (2nd District)
1987. Marikina City (2nd
District)
Cagayan de Oro (2nd
Election Number of Number of Total Number of Members District)
Year Legislative Districts Party-List of the House of
2010 220 55 275
Seats Representatives
New District:
1992 200 50 250
Navotas City
1995 206 51 257 (assuming no
New Districts: additional districts
Biliran are created)
Mandaluyong City
Makati (2nd District)
Apayao We see that, as early as the election year of 1995, the total number of members of the
Guimaras House of Representatives is already beyond the initial maximum of 250 members as
Muntinlupa City fixed in the 1987 Constitution.
1998 209 52 261
New Districts: Any change in the number of legislative districts brings a corresponding change in
Compostela Valley the number of party-list seats. However, the increase in the number of members of
Taguig City (2nd the House of Representatives went unnoticed as the available seats for party-list
District) representatives have never been filled up before. As of the oral arguments in G.R.
Valenzuela City (2nd Nos. 179271 and 179295, there were 220 legislative districts. Fifty-five party-list
District) seats were thus allocated. However, the number of legislative districts was
2001 209 52 261 subsequently reduced to 219 with our ruling on 16 July 2008 declaring void the
2004 214 53 267 creation of the Province of Sharif Kabunsuan.3 Thus, in the 2007 elections, the
number of party-list seats available for distribution should be correspondingly
reduced from 55 to 54.
96
The filling-up of all available party-list seats is not mandatory. Actual occupancy of In the absence of a minimum vote requirement in the second round of party-list seat
the party-list seats depends on the number of participants in the party-list election. If allocation, there is no need to belabor the disparity between the votes obtained by the
only ten parties participated in the 2007 party-list election, then, despite the first and last ranked winning parties in the 2007 party-list elections. In the same
availability of 54 seats, the maximum possible number of occupied party-list seats manner, no one belabors the disparity between the votes obtained by the highest and
would only be 30 because of the three-seat cap. In such a case, the three-seat cap lowest ranked winners in the senatorial elections. However, for those interested in
prevents the mandatory allocation of all the 54 available seats. comparing the votes received by party-list representatives vis-a-vis the votes
received by district representatives, the 162,678 votes cast in favor of TUCP, the last
Under Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941, garnering 2% of the total votes cast party to obtain a party-list seat, is significantly higher than the votes received by 214
guarantees a party one seat. This 2% threshold for the first round of seat allocation of the 218 elected district representatives.4
does not violate any provision of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the Court upholds this
2% threshold for the guaranteed seats as a valid exercise of legislative The Actual Number of Party-List Representatives
power.1avvphi1 in the 2007 Elections
In the second round allocation of additional seats, there is no minimum vote The data used in Table 3 of our Decision promulgated on 21 April 2009 was based
requirement to obtain a party-list seat because the Court has struck down the on the submissions of the parties. We used the figures from Party-List Canvass
application of the 2% threshold in the allocation of additional seats. Specifically, the Report No. 32, as of 6:00 p.m. of 31 August 2007. The NBC issued NBC Report No.
provision in Section 11(b) of the Party-List Act stating that "those garnering more 33 on 11 June 2008, updating the 31 August 2007 report. The parties did not
than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in the furnish this Court with a copy of NBC Report No. 33. In any case, we stated in
proportion to their total number of votes" can no longer be given any effect. the dispositive portion of our Decision that "[t]he allocation of additional seats under
Otherwise, the 20 percent party-list seats in the total membership of the House of the Party-List System shall be in accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 of
Representatives as provided in the 1987 Constitution will mathematically be this decision." Party-List Canvass Report No. 32 is not part of the
impossible to fill up. procedure.1avvphi1
However, a party-list organization has to obtain a sufficient number of votes to gain The computation of the COMELEC in NBC No. 09-001 applying the procedure laid
a seat in the second round of seat allocation. What is deemed a sufficient number of down in our Decision requires correction for purposes of accuracy. Instead of
votes is dependent upon the circumstances of each election, such as the number of multiplying the percentage of votes garnered over the total votes for party-list by 36,
participating parties, the number of available party-list seats, and the number of the COMELEC multiplied the percentage by 37. Thirty-six is the proper multiplier as
parties with guaranteed seats received in the first round of seat allocation. To it is the difference between 54, the number of available party-list seats, and 18, the
continue the example above, if only ten parties participated in the 2007 party-list number of guaranteed seats. Only the figures in column (C) are affected. The
election and each party received only one thousand votes, then each of the ten parties allocation of seats to the winning party-list organizations, however, remains the
would receive 10% of the votes cast. All are guaranteed one seat, and are further same as in NBC No. 09-001. Our modification of the COMELECs computation in
entitled to receive two more seats in the second round of seat allocation. NBC No. 09-001 is shown below:
Similarly, a presidential candidate may win the elections even if he receives only one Ra Party Votes Votes Guarant Additio (B) Applyi
thousand votes as long as all his opponents receive less than one thousand votes. A nk Garne Garne eed Seat nal plus ng the
winning presidential candidate only needs to receive more votes than his opponents. red red (First Seats (C), three
The same policy applies in every election to public office, from the presidential to over Round) (Second in seat
the barangay level. Except for the guaranteed party-list seat, there is no minimum Total (B) Round) whole cap
vote requirement before a candidate in any election, for any elective office, can be Votes (C) intege (E)
proclaimed the winner. Of course, the winning candidate must receive at least one for rs
vote, assuming he has no opponents or all his opponents do not receive a single vote. Party (D)
List, in
97
% 19 UNI-MAD 251,80 1.60% 0 1 1 N.A.
(A) 4
20 ABS 235,15 1.50% 0 1 1 N.A.
2
21 ALIF 229,26 1.46% 0 1 1 N.A.
7
1 BUHAY 1,169,3 7.44% 1 2.68 3 N.A. 22 KAKUSA 229,03 1.46% 0 1 1 N.A.
38 6
2 BAYAN 979,18 6.23% 1 2.24 3 N.A. 23 KABATA 228,70 1.45% 0 1 1 N.A.
MUNA 9 AN 0
3 CIBAC 755,73 4.81% 1 1.73 2 N.A. 24 ABA- 219,36 1.40% 0 1 1 N.A.
5 AKO 3
4 GABRIEL 621,26 3.95% 1 1.42 2 N.A. 25 SENIOR 213,09 1.36% 0 1 1 N.A.
A 6 CITIZENS 5
5 APEC 619,73 3.94% 1 1.42 2 N.A. 26 AT 200,03 1.27% 0 1 1 N.A.
3 0
6 A Teacher 490,85 3.12% 1 1.12 2 N.A. 27 VFP 196,35 1.25% 0 1 1 N.A.
3 8
7 AKBAYA 466,44 2.97% 1 1.07 2 N.A. 28 ANAD 188,57 1.20% 0 1 1 N.A.
N 8 3
85 ALAGAD 423,16 2.69% 1 1 2 N.A. 29 BANAT 177,06 1.13% 0 1 1 N.A.
5 8
9 COOP- 409,98 2.61% 1 1 2 N.A. 30 ANG 170,59 1.08% 0 1 1 N.A.
NATCCO 7 KASANG 4
10 BUTIL 409,16 2.60% 1 1 2 N.A. GA
8 31 BANTAY 169,86 1.08% 0 1 1 N.A.
11 BATAS 385,95 2.45% 1 1 2 N.A. 9
6 32 ABAKAD 166,89 1.06% 0 1 1 N.A.
12 ARC 374,34 2.38% 1 1 2 N.A. A 7
9 33 1-UTAK 165,01 1.05% 0 1 1 N.A.
13 ANAKPA 370,32 2.36% 1 1 2 N.A. 2
WIS 3 34 TUCP 162,67 1.03% 0 1 1 N.A.
14 AMIN 347,52 2.21% 1 1 2 N.A. 8
7 35 COCOFE 156,00 0.99% 0 0 0 N.A.
15 ABONO 340,00 2.16% 1 1 2 N.A. D 7
2 Total 18 54
16 YACAP 331,62 2.11% 1 1 2 N.A.
3 Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS) and Ang
17 AGAP 328,81 2.09% 1 1 2 N.A. Laban ng Indiginong Filipino (ALIF) both have pending cases before the
4 COMELEC. The COMELEC correctly deferred the proclamation of both BATAS
18 AN 321,51 2.04% 1 1 2 N.A. and ALIF as the outcome of their cases may affect the final composition of party-list
WARAY 6 representatives. The computation and allocation of seats may still be modified in the
event that the COMELEC decides against BATAS and/or ALIF.
98
To address Roa-Borjes motion for partial reconsideration-in-intervention and for states that the party-list representatives shall be "those who, as provided by law,
purposes of computing the results in future party-list elections, we reiterate that in shall be elected through a party-list system," giving the Legislature wide
the second step of the second round of seat allocation, the preference in the discretion in formulating the allocation of party-list seats. Clearly, there is no
distribution of seats should be in accordance with the higher percentage and higher constitutional requirement for absolute proportional representation in the allocation
rank, without limiting the distribution of party-list seats in the House of Representatives.
to parties receiving two-percent of the votes.6 To limit the distribution of seats to the Section 2, on Declaration of Policy, of R.A. No. 7941 provides that the "State shall
two-percenters would mathematically prevent the filling up of all the available party- promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of
list seats. Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof x x x." However, this
In the table above, CIBAC cannot claim a third seat from the seat allocated to TUCP, proportional representation in Section 2 is qualified by Section 11(b) 8 of the same
the last ranked party allocated with a seat. CIBAC's 2.81% (from the percentage of law which mandates a three-seat cap, which is intended to bar any single party-list
4.81% less the 2% for its guaranteed seat) has a lower fractional seat value after the organization from dominating the party-list system. Section 11(b) also qualifies this
allocation of its second seat compared to TUCP's 1.03%. CIBAC's fractional seat proportional representation by imposing a two percent cut-off for those entitled to
after receiving two seats is only 0.03 compared to TUCP's 0.38 fractional seat. the guaranteed seats. These statutory qualifications are valid because they do not
Multiplying CIBAC's 2.81% by 37, the additional seats for distribution in the second violate the Constitution, which does not require absolute proportional representation
round, gives 1.03 seat, leaving 0.03 fractional seat. Multiplying TUCP's 1.03% by 37 for the party-list system.
gives a fractional seat of 0.38, higher than CIBAC's fractional seat of 0.03. The
fractional seats become material only in the second step of the second round of seat To summarize, there are four parameters in a Philippine-style party-list election
allocation to determine the ranking of parties. Thus, for purposes of the second step system:
in the second round of seat allocation,7 TUCP has a higher rank than CIBAC.
1. Twenty percent of the total number of the membership of the House of
Roa-Borjes position stems from the perceived need for absolute proportionality in Representatives is the maximum number of seats available to party-list
the allocation of party-list seats. However, the 1987 Constitution does not require organizations, such that there is automatically one party-list seat for every
absolute proportionality in the allocation of party-list seats. Section 5(1), Article VI four existing legislative districts.
of the 1987 Constitution provides:
2. Garnering two percent of the total votes cast in the party-list elections
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred guarantees a party-list organization one seat. The guaranteed seats shall be
and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected distributed in a first round of seat allocation to parties receiving at least two
from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the percent of the total party-list votes.
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, 3. The additional seats, that is, the remaining seats after allocation of the
as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered guaranteed seats, shall be distributed to the party-list organizations
national, regional, and sectoral parties and organizations. (Boldfacing and including those that received less than two percent of the total votes. The
italicization supplied) continued operation of the two percent threshold as it applies to the
allocation of the additional seats is now unconstitutional because this
The phrase "legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the threshold mathematically and physically prevents the filling up of the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective available party-list seats. The additional seats shall be distributed to the
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" in Section 5(1) of parties in a second round of seat allocation according to the two-step
Article VI requires that legislative districts shall be apportioned according to procedure laid down in the Decision of 21 April 2009 as clarified in this
proportional representation. However, this principle of proportional representation Resolution.
applies only to legislative districts, not to the party-list system. The allocation of
seats under the party-list system is governed by the last phrase of Section 5(1), which
99
4. The three-seat cap is constitutional. The three-seat cap is intended by the
Legislature to prevent any party from dominating the party-list system.
There is no violation of the Constitution because the 1987 Constitution does
not require absolute proportionality for the party-list system. The well-
settled rule is that courts will not question the wisdom of the Legislature as
long as it is not violative of the Constitution.
These four parameters allow the mathematical and practical fulfillment of the
Constitutional provision that party-list representatives shall comprise twenty percent
of the members of the House of Representatives. At the same time, these four
parameters uphold as much as possible the Party-List Act, striking down only that
provision of the Party-List Act that could not be reconciled anymore with the 1987
Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the Courts Decision of 21 April 2009 in the present case is

clarified accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
100

Election Cases Chapter 4 Political Parties

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Election Cases Chapter 4 Political Parties

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY G.R. No.

The ANG LADLAD apparently advocates sexual

In the United States, whose equal protection doctrine pervades Philippine

Thus, even if societys understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of LGBTs

not remove an issue from our scrutiny.

unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.[43]

As to its right to be elected in a genuine periodic election, petitioner Article 26

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Commission on

x-----------------------x 1st CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR RURAL ENERGY, INC. (1-

x-----------------------x ASSOCIATION FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON LEADERSHIP

G.R. No. 204174 G.R. No. 204239

G.R. No. 204216 G.R. No. 204240

COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, AGRI-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA MAGSASAKA NG PILIPINAS

G.R. No. 204236 x-----------------------x

FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, G.R. No. 204318

x-----------------------x SOCIAL MOVEMENT FOR ACTIVEREFORM AND TRANSPARENCY

BINHI-PARTIDO NG MGA MAGSASAKA PARA SA MGA x-----------------------x

ASSOCIATION OF GUARD UTILITY HELPER, AIDER, RIDER, x-----------------------x

6 204370 12- Ako An Bisaya - Failure to Resolution dated 4 December 201214

Resolution dated 4 December 201248 203922 12-201 Association of Philippine

Resolution dated 20 November 2012 204263 12-257 Blessed Federation of Farmers

The Party-List System MR. MONSOD: x x x.

6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be

This Decision is immediately executory upon the Commission on Elections' receipt

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DISMISSED.

To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election, the

RANK PARTY/ORGANIZATION/ VOTES

WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List 7 AKBAYAN 470,872

9 Luzon Farmers Party BUTIL

10 Cooperative-Natco Network Party COOP-NATCCO

4 GABRIELA 621,718 Proportion of votes received Additional seats

ABONO 0.57 0 August 2007, which reads as follows:

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the

1.2 Bayan Muna 2

2. The use of two formulas in the allocation of additional seats, one

(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum

Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The party-list

Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List

4 GABRIELA 621,171 51 AHONBAYAN 78,424 25 ALIF 217,822 72 SB 34,835

5 APEC 619,657 52 BIGKIS 77,327 26 SENIOR 213,058 73 ASAP 34,098

22 KAKUSA 228,999 69 AMANG 43,062 40 PM 119,054 87 BIYAYANG 16,241

23 KABATAAN 228,637 70 ABAY PARAK 42,282 BUKID

42 SUARA 110,732 89 UMDJ 9,445 %

43 ASSALAM 110,440 90 BUKLOD 8,915 1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1

FILIPINA 2 BAYAN MUNA 979,039 6.14% 1

44 DIWA 107,021 91 LYPAD 8,471 3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1

45 ANC 99,636 92 AA-KASOSYO 8,406 4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1

46 SANLAKAS 97,375 93 KASAPI 6,221 5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1

47 ABC 90,058 TOTAL 15,950,900 6 A TEACHER 490,379 3.07% 1

7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1

8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1

14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1

Votes 16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1

Votes Garnered Guaranteed 17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% 1

4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than

Table 3. Distribution of Available Party-List Seats

21 ABS 235,086 1.47% 0 1 1 N.A.

MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field

MR. OPLE. x x x In my opinion, this will also create the stimulus

Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be

However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling

WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the

3 7854 1994 Makati (2nd District)