lOMoARcPSD|23018844

PIMENTEL JR VS COMELEC (b) otherwise known as Electoral Reforms Law

GR NO 133509 against Salayon and Llorente.
FEBRUARY 9, 2000
TOBIAS VS ABALOS
FACTS: 239 SCRA 106

 On May 8, 1995 petitioner rain in the national

elections as a candidate for Senator FACTS:
 On September 17, 1996 petitioner filed with Complainants, invoking their right as taxpayers
COMELEC against private respondents Attys. and as residents of Mandaluyong, filed a petition
Ligaya Salayon and Antonio Llorente, Chairman and questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act No.
Vice Chairman, respectively of City Board of 7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the
Canvassers, and Reynaldo San Juan (Campaign Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City
Manager of Juan Ponce Enrile), thereby charging to be known as the City of Mandaluyong." Before the
the three with violation of the Omnibus Election enactment of the law, Mandaluyong and San Juan
Code. belonged to the same legislative district.
 Petitioner alleged that respondents decreased The petitioners contended that the act is unconstitutional
his votes in the Statement of Votes (SOVs) per for violation of three provisions of the constitution. First, it
precut in the City Certificate of Canvass for Pasig violates the one subject one bill rule. The bill provides for
City the conversion of Mandaluyong to HUC as well as the
 According to the respondents, the discrepancy division of congressional district of San Juan and
was due to honest mistake because of fatigue Mandaluyong into two separate district. Second, it also
 On January 8, 1998 COMELEC dismissed the violate Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution, which
petition for insufficiency of evidence to establish provides that the House of Representatives shall be
probable cause. Thereafter, denied the Petitioner’s composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
motion for reconsideration. members, unless otherwise fixed by law. The division of
San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional
ISSUE: districts increased the members of the House of
Representative beyond that provided by the Constitution.
WON COMELEC’s resolution in finding that there is no Third, Section 5 of Article VI also provides that within
probable cause to charge respondents is valid? three years following the return of every census, the
Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative
RULING: districts based on the standard provided in Section 5.
Petitioners stated that the division was not made
 The Court noted that Salayon and Llorente in pursuant to any census showing that the minimum
their counter affidavits did not dispute the conflicting population requirement was attained.
figures in the election returns, and explained that it
was a result of honest mistake and oversight due to ISSUE:
fatigue
 The Court held that there is a limit to what can (1) Does RA 7675 violate the one subject one bill rule?
be construed as honest mistake or oversight due to (2) Does it violate Section 5(1) of Article VI of the
fatigue in relation to performance of official duty Constitution on the limit of number of rep?
 In Pimentel vs. COMELEC, the court ruled (3) Is the inexistence of mention of census in the law
that merit of defenses such as honest mistake, show a lack of constitutional requirement?
simple error, good faith, and mere performance
of ministerial duties, as interposed by persons RULING:
charged with the election offense of tampering, The Supreme Court ruled that the contentions
increasing or decreasing of votes received by a are devoid of merit. With regards to the first contention of
candidate in any election, are best ventilated in one subject one bill rule, the creation of a separate
the trial proper than at the preliminary congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a separate
investigation and distinct subject from its conversion into a HUC but is
 It did not only affect the votes garnered by other a natural and logical consequence. In addition, a liberal
candidates but also affected votes for Enrile which construction of the "one title-one subject" rule has been
exceeded the number of total number of voters in invariably adopted by this court so as not to cripple or
the precincts; hence the defense of petitioners are impede legislation.
unacceptable The second contention that the law violates the
 The discrepancy of votes alone establish present limit of the number of representatives, the
probable cause and justify the belief that election provision of the section itself show that the 250 limit is
offenses were committed by Salayon and Llorente. not absolute. The Constitution clearly provides that the
The same could not be said for San Juan House of Representatives shall be composed of not
 COMELEC was ordered to file before the RTC more than 250 members, "unless otherwise provided by
proper criminal information for violation of Sec. 27 law”. Therefore, the increase in congressional

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

representation mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is not (3) WON it is unconstitutional for it increased the
unconstitutional. legislative district of Makati only by special law (the
With regards, to the third contention that there is Charter in violation of the constitutional provision
no mention in the assailed law of any census to show requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed by
that Mandaluyong and San Juan had each attained the Congress within three (3) years following the return of
minimum requirement of 250,000 inhabitants to justify every census.
their separation into two legislative districts, unless
otherwise proved that the requirements were not met, (4) WON it is unconstitutional for the increase in
the said Act enjoys the presumption of having passed legislative district was not expressed in the title of the
through the regular congressional processes, including bill.
due consideration by the members of Congress of the
minimum requirements for the establishment of separate RULING:
legislative district
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. (1) No. Petitioners have not demonstrated that the
delineation of the land area of the proposed City of
Makati will cause confusion as to its boundaries. We
MARIANO JR VS COMELEC note that said delineation did not change even by an inch
242 SCRA 211 the land area previously covered by Makati as a
municipality. In language that cannot be any clearer,
section 2 of RA 7854 stated that, the city's land area
"shall comprise the present territory of the municipality."
The court take judicial notice of the fact that Congress
FACTS: has also refrained from using the metes and bounds
description of land areas of other local government units
Petitioners assailed certain provisions of Republic Act with unsettled boundary dispute.
No. 7854 as unconstitutional. R.A. No. 7854 is entitled,
“An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati into a (2) No. The requirements before a litigant can challenge
Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati. the constitutionality of a law are well delineated. They
are: 1) there must be an actual case or controversy; (2)
Petitioners claim that this delineation violates Section 7 the question of constitutionality must be raised by the
and 450 of the Local Government Code which require proper party; (3) the constitutional question must be
that the area of a local government unit should be made raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the
by metes and bounds with technical descriptions. decision on the constitutional question must be
necessary to the determination of the case itself.
The importance of drawing with precise strokes the Petitioners have far from complied with these
territorial boundaries must be clear for they define the requirements. The petition is premised on the
limits of the territorial jurisdiction of a local government occurrence of many contingent events, i.e., that Mayor
cannot be overemphasized. Binay will run again in this coming mayoralty elections;
that he would be reelected in said elections; and that he
The boundaries must be clear for they define the limits of would seek re-election for the same position in the 1998
the territorial jurisdiction of a local government unit. It elections. Considering that these contingencies may or
can legitimately exercise powers of government only may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical
within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. Beyond these issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or
limits, its acts are ultra vires. Needless to state, any controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig
uncertainty in the boundaries of local government units (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise
will sow costly conflicts in the exercise of governmental this abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue
powers which ultimately will prejudice the people's in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court
welfare. This is the evil sought to be avoided by the has no jurisdiction.
Local Government Code in requiring that the land area of
a local government unit must be spelled out in metes 3) No. The Constitution clearly provides that Congress
and bounds, with technical descriptions. shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty
(250) members, "unless otherwise fixed by law". As thus
ISSUE(S): worded, the Constitution did not preclude Congress from
increasing its membership by passing a law, other than a
(1) WON RA 7854 did not properly identify the land area general reapportionment of the law. This is its exactly
or territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes and bounds, what was done by Congress in enacting R.A. No. 7854
with technical descriptions. and providing for an increase in Makati's legislative
district. Moreover, to hold that reapportionment can only
(2) WON it attempted to alter or restart the "three be made through a general apportionment law, with a
consecutive term" limit for local elective officials. review of all the legislative districts allotted to each local
government unit nationwide, would create an inequitable
situation where a new city or province created by

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

Congress will be denied legislative representation for an I.

indeterminate period of time. Section 10, Article X of the Constitution provides that
(4) No. In the case of Tobias v. Abalos , we reiterated "[n]o province, city, municipality or barangay may be
the policy of the Court favoring a liberal construction of created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary
the "one title-one subject" rule so as not to impede substantially altered, except in accordance with the
legislation. To be sure, the Constitution does not criteria established in the Local Government Code and
command that the title of a law should exactly subject to the approval by a majority of the votes cast in
mirror, fully index, or completely catalogue all its a plebiscite in the political units directly affected." These
details. Hence, we ruled that "it should be sufficient criteria are now set forth in Section 7 of the Local
compliance if the title expresses the general subject Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160). One of
and all the provisions are germane to such general these is that the territorial jurisdiction of the local
subject." government unit to be created or converted should be
In said case, we ruled that reapportionment of legislative properly identified by metes and bounds with technical
districts may be made through a special law, such as in descriptions.
the charter of a new city. The Constitution clearly The omission of R.A. No. 7854 (An Act Converting the
provides that Congress shall be composed of not more Municipality of Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City
than two hundred fifty (250) members, unless otherwise to be Known as the City of Makati) to describe the
fixed by law. As thus worded, the Constitution did not territorial boundaries of the city by metes and bounds
preclude Congress from increasing its membership by does not make R.A. No. 7854 unconstitutional or illegal.
passing a law, other than a general reapportionment law. The Constitution does not provide for a description by
This is exactly what was done by Congress in enacting metes and bounds as a condition sine qua non for the
R.A. No. 7854 and providing for an increase in Makati's creation of a local government unit or its conversion from
legislative district. Moreover, to hold that one level to another. The criteria provided for in Section
reapportionment can only be made through a general 7 of R.A. No. 7854 are not absolute, for, as a matter of
apportionment law, with a review of all the legislative fact, the section starts with the clause "as a general
districts allotted to each local government unit rule." The petitioners' reliance on Section 450 of R.A.
nationwide, would create an inequitable situation where No. 7160 is unavailing. Said section only applies to the
a new city or province created by Congress will be conversion of a municipality or a cluster of barangays
denied legislative representation for an indeterminate into a COMPONENT CITY, not a highly urbanized city. It
period of time. That intolerable situation will deprive the pertinently reads as follows:
people of a new city or province a particle of their "SEC. 450. Requisite for creation. — (a) A municipality
sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot admit of any kind of or a cluster of barangays may be converted into a
subtraction. It is indivisible. It must be forever whole or it component city if it has an average annual income, as
is not sovereignty. certified by the Department of Finance, of at least
Petitioners cannot insist that the addition of another Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) for the last two
legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Section (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices,
5(3), Article VI of the Constitution for as of the latest and if it has either of the following requisites:
survey (1990 census), the population of Makati stands at (b) The territorial jurisdiction of a newly created city shall
only four hundred fifty thousand (450,000). Said section be properly identified by metes and bounds. . . .
provides, inter alia, that a city with a population ofat least The Constitution classifies cities as either highly
two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall have at least urbanized or component. Section 12 of Article X
one representative. Even granting that the population of thereof provides:
Makati as of the 1990 census stood at four hundred fifty "SEC. 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as
thousand (450,000), its legislative district may still be determined by law, and component cities whose
increased since it has met the minimum population charters prohibit their voters from voting for
requirement of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000). In provincial elective officials, shall be independent of
fact, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the the province. The voters of component cities within
Constitution provides that a city whose population has a province, whose charters contain no such
increased to more than two hundred fifty thousand prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to
(250,000) shall be entitled toat least one congressional vote for elective provincial officials."
representative. And Section 451 of R.A. No. 7160 provides:
Finally, we do not find merit in petitioners' contention that "SEC. 451. Cities Classified. — A city may either be
the creation of an additional legislative district in Makati component or highly urbanized: Provided, however, That
should have been expressly stated in the title of the bill. the criteria established in this Code shall not affect the
WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED for classification and corporate status of existing cities.
lack of merit. Independent component cities are those component
PRINCIPLES: cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for
provincial elective officials. Independent component
 SEPARATE OPINION cities shall be independent of the province."
DAVIDE, JR., J ., concurring: II.
I concur in the well written opinion of Mr. Justice Reynato Strictly speaking, the increase in the number of
S. Puno. I wish, however, to add a few observations. legislative seats for the City of Makati provided for in

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

R.A. No. 7854 is not an increase justified by the clause voters or a difference of 22,226 registered voters. To
unless otherwise fixed by law in paragraph 1, Section 5, diminish the difference, he proposed that the municipality
Article VI of the Constitution. That clause contemplates of Tolosa with 7,700 registered voters be transferred
of thereapportionment mentioned in the succeeding from the First to the Second District. The motion was
paragraph (4) of the said Section which reads in full as opposed by intervenor, Sergio Apostol. Respondent
follows: Commission denied the motion ruling that: (1) its
"Within three years following the return of every adjustment of municipalities involved the least disruption
census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of the territorial composition of each district; and (2) said
of legislative districts based on the standards adjustment complied with the constitutional requirement
provided in this section." that each legislative district shall comprise, as far as
In short, the clause refers to a general practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory.
reapportionment law.
The increase under R.A. No. 7854 is a permissible CENSUS 1990 CENSUS 1994
increase under Sections 1 and 3 of the Ordinance FIRST DISTRICT 303, 349 178, 688
appended to the Constitution. SECOND 272, 167 156, 462
1. 2. R.A. No. 7854 is a consolidation of House Bill No. DISTRICT
12240 sponsored by Congressman Joker Arroyo and THIRD 214, 499 125, 7763
Senate Bill No. 1244 sponsored by Senator Vicente DISTRICT
Sotto III. FOURTH 269, 347 155, 995
"SECTION 7. Creation and Conversion. — As a general DISTRICT
rule, the creation of a local government unit or its FIFTH DISTRICT 309, 148 181, 242
conversion from one level to another level shall be based
For an overview of the distribution in the province, see
on verifiable indicators of viability and projected capacity
the table below for the population distribution, census
to provide services…
1990 and 1994:
SECTION 450. Requisites for Creation. —
(b) The territorial jurisdiction of a newly-created city shall
In this petition, petitioner insists that Section 1 of
be properly
Resolution No. 2736 violates the principle of equality of
Constitution proposed by the 1986 Constitutional
representation ordained in the Constitution. Citing
Commission and subsequent elections, and until
Wesberry v. Sanders, he argues that respondent
otherwise provided by law, the Members thereof shall be
COMELEC violated "the constitutional precept that as
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
much as practicable one man's vote in a congressional
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila Area
election is to be worth as much as another's." The
Solicitor General, in his Comment, concurred with the
MONTEJO VS COMELEC views of the petitioner. The intervenor, however, opposed
GR NO 118702 the petition on two (2) grounds: (1) COMELEC has no
MARCH 16, 1995 jurisdiction to promulgate Resolution No. 2736; and (2)
assuming it has jurisdiction, said Resolution is in accord
with the Constitution. Respondent COMELEC filed its
FACTS: own Comment alleging that it acted within the
parameters of the Constitution.
Petitioner Cirilo Roy Montejo, representing the First
District of Leyte, pleads for the annulment of Section 1 of The province of Leyte is composed of 5 legislative
Resolution No. 2736 of the COMELEC, redistricting districts. Biliran, located in the third district of Leyte, was
certain municipalities in Leyte, on the ground that it made its sub-province by virtue of RA 2141. When
violates the principle of equality of representation. To Biliran was converted into a regular province, 8
remedy the alleged inequity, petitioner seeks to transfer municipalities of the third district composed the new
the municipality of Tolosa from his district to the Second province. As a consequence, the composition of the
District of the province. Intervenor Sergio Apostol, third district was reduced to 5 municipalities. To remedy
representing the Second District, vigorously opposed the the resulting inequality in the distribution of inhabitants,
inclusion of Tolosa in his district. We gave due course to voters and municipalities in Leyte, the COMELEC
the petition considering that, at bottom, it involves the promulgated Resolution No. 2736 where it transferred
validity of the unprecedented exercise by the COMELEC the municipality of Capoocan of the second district and
of the legislative power of redistricting and the municipality of Palompon of the fourth district to the
reapportionment. third district of Leyte.

Petitioner Montejo filed a motion for reconsideration ISSUE:

calling the attention of respondent COMELEC, among
others, to the inequitable distribution of inhabitants and Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to transfer
voters between the First and Second Districts. He municipalities from one legislative district to another
alleged that the First District has 178,688 registered legislative district?
voters while the Second District has 156,462 registered
RULING:

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

apportionment of the legislative districts; and,how the

NO. THE COURT FINDS SECTION 1 OF RESOLUTION apportionment should be made. Commissioner Davide,
NO. 2736 VOID. Jr., offered three (3) options for the Commission to
consider: (1) allow President Aquino to do the
The basic powers of respondent COMELEC, as enforcer apportionment by law; (2) empower the COMELEC to
and administrator of our election laws, are spelled out in make the apportionment; or (3) let the Commission
black and white in Section 2(c), Article IX of the exercise the power by way of an Ordinance appended to
Constitution. Rightly, respondent COMELEC does not the Constitution. The different dimensions of the options
invoke this provision but relies on the Ordinance were discussed by Commissioners Davide, Felicitas S.
appended to the 1987 Constitution as the source of its Aquino and Blas F. Ople.
power of redistricting which is traditionally regarded as
part of the power to make laws. The Ordinance is Consistent with the limits of its power to make minor
entitled "Apportioning the Seats of the House of adjustments, Section 3 of the Ordinance did not also
Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines to the give the respondent COMELEC any authority to transfer
Different Legislative Districts in Provinces and Cities and municipalities from one legislative district to another
the Metropolitan Manila Area." Its substantive sections district. The power granted by Section 3 to the
state: respondent COMELEC is to adjust the number
"SECTION 1. For purposes of the election of Members ofmembers (not municipalities) "apportioned to the
of the House of Representatives of the First Congress of province out of which such new province was created. . .
the Philippines under the Constitution proposed by the ."
1986 Constitutional Commission and subsequent
elections, and until otherwise provided by law, the Prescinding from these premises, we hold that
Members thereof shall be elected from legislative respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
Metropolitan Manila Area as follows: promulgatedSection 1 of its Resolution No. 2736
transferring the municipality of Capoocan of the Second
"SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections is hereby District and the municipality of Palompon of the Fourth
empowered to make minor adjustments of the District to the Third District of Leyte.
reapportionment herein made.
It may well be that the conversion of Biliran from a sub-
"SECTION 3. Any province that may hereafter be province to a regular province brought about an
created, or any city whose population may hereafter imbalance in the distribution of voters and inhabitants in
increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall the five (5) legislative districts of the province of Leyte.
be entitled in the immediately following election to at This imbalance, depending on its degree, could devalue
least one Member or such number of Members as it may a citizen's vote in violation of the equal protection clause
be entitled to on the basis of the number of its of the Constitution. Be that as it may, it is not proper at
inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in this time for petitioner to raise this issue using the case
paragraph (3), Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution. at bench as his legal vehicle. The issue involves a
The number of Members apportioned to the province out problem of reapportionment of legislative districts and
of which such new province was created or where the petitioner's remedy lies with Congress. Section 5(4),
city, whose population has so increased, is Article VI of the Constitution categorically gives
geographically located shall be correspondingly adjusted Congress the power to reapportion, thus: "Within three
by the Commission on Elections but such adjustment (3) years following the return of every census, the
shall not be made within one hundred and twenty days Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative
before the election." (Emphasis supplied) districts based on the standards provided in this section."
In Macias v. COMELEC, we ruled that the validity of a
The Ordinance was made necessary because legislative apportionment is a justiciable question. But
Proclamation No. 3 of President Corazon C. Aquino, while this Court can strike down an unconstitutional
ordaining the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of reapportionment, it cannot itself make the
the Philippines, abolished the Batasang Pambansa. She reapportionment as petitioner would want us to do by
then exercised legislative powers under the Provisional directing respondent COMELEC to transfer the
Constitution. municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the
Second District of the province of Leyte.
The Ordinance was the principal handiwork of then
Commissioner Hilario G. Davide, Jr., now a distinguished IN VIEW WHEREOF, Section 1 of the Resolution No.
member of this Court. The records reveal that the 2736 insofar as it transferred the municipality of
Constitutional Commission had to resolve several Capoocan of the Second District and the municipality of
prejudicial issues before authorizing the first Palompon of the Fourth District to the Third District of the
congressional elections under the 1987 Constitution. province of Leyte, is annulled and set aside. We also
Among the vital issues were: whether the members of deny the Petition praying for the transfer of the
the House of Representatives would be elected by municipality of Tolosa from First District to the Second
district or by province; who shall undertake the District of the province of Leyte.

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

FACTS:

AQUINO VS COMELEC On the first election for party-list representation in 1998,

GR NO 189793 COMELEC proclaimed thirteen representatives from
APRIL 7, 2010 twelve party-list organizations.

Partylist PAG-ASA filed with the Comelec a “Petition to

FACTS: Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives”
provided by the Constitution.
Petitioners in their capacities as public officers (Senator
Benigno Aquino III and Mayor Jesse Robredo) seek the 1. They allege that the filling up of
nullification of R.A. 9716 which seeks to reconfigure the the two percent membership of
first and second districts of Camarines Sur and add two party-list representatives in the
congressional districts for the province. House is mandatory.
2. The group also claimed that the
Petitioners argue that the reapportionment is two percent vote requirement and
unconstitutional since there must be a minimum the three-seat limit under RA 7941
population of 250,000 for the creation of a district. are incoherent with the Constitution.
This is because the number of
The proposed first district only has a population of declared winners (25), is short of the
176,383 number of representatives who
should occupy party-list seats in the
Basis: Sec 5(3) Article VI, 1987 Consti: Each legislative house (52).
district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a Following the PAG-ASA petition, nine other
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or party-list organizations filed the same.
each province, shall have at least one
representative. COMELEC granted the PAG-ASA petition, which
resulted in the addition of 38 party-list groups to
In support of the Consti provision, petitioners argue that complement the 52 seats in the House. Its basis was the
the intent of the framers of the 1987 Consti in adopting “three elements” of the party-list system. To wit:
the 250,000 population requirement is when they fixed 1. To enable marginalized sectors
the original number to 200 seats in the house, they also of the PH society to be represented
took into account the projected national population which in the House;
at that time was 55 million. This means for every 2. The system should represent
representative, there are about 250,000 people. the broadest sectors of PH society
and
ISSUE: 3. To encourage a multi-party
system.
WON a population requirement of 250,000 be fulfilled in
order for a city or province to be afforded an additional The petitioners, composed of the initial twelve party-list
congressional district? organizations that were proclaimed winners in the 1998
party-list elections objected to the COMELEC ruling.
RULING: They maintained the following:
No. There is no language in the constitution that fixes a
1.Only those who had garnered 2%
250,000 minimum population to compose an additional of the votes cast in the party-list
legislative district. Section 5(3) Article 6 merely provides system are entitled to seats in the
that a 250,000 population requirement is needed in order House and that
for a city or province to be entitled to a representative. 2. additional seats, not exceeding
This population requirement refers to a city/province’s two for every party-list, shall be
initial district, as provided in the Mariano case. A city or afforded to party-lists that have
a province need not increase its population to another obtained the 2% threshold in
250,000 for the same to be entitled to an additional proportion to the number of votes
district. Therefore, R.A. 9716 is constitutional as far as cast for the winning parties.
its provisions for an additional congressional district are ISSUE:
concerned.
WON the twenty percent allocation for party-list
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY VS COMELEC representatives is a mandatory rule.
GR NO 136781
OCTOBER 6, 2000

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

WON the two-percent requirement to be entitled to from party-list representatives (Sec. 5, Article VI, 1987
representation in the House and the three-seat limit as Constitution);
provided in R.A. 7941 constitutional?
2. Pursuant to Sec. 11b of R.A. 7941 or the Party-List
RULING: System Act, a party-list which garners at least 2% of the
total votes cast in the party-list elections shall be entitled
No. Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution merely to one seat;
provides a ceiling for party-list seats in Congress.
Moreover, the language of R.A. 7941 is clear that party- 3. If a party-list garners at least 4%, then it is entitled to 2
list representation is afforded to organizations that have seats; if it garners at least 6%, then it is entitled to 3
received at least two percent of the votes, that additional seats – this is pursuant to the 2-4-6 rule or the
seats are afforded in proportion to the winning party’s Panganiban Formula from the case of Veterans
total number of votes, and that a party-list shall be Federation Party vs COMELEC.
entitled to not more than three (3) seats. The prerogative
4. In no way shall a party be given more than three seats
to change the two percent requirement rests within the
even if if garners more than 6% of the votes cast for the
power of Congress. When the law is clear, the duty of
party-list election (3 seat cap rule, same case).
quasi-judicial bodies such as COMELEC is to apply the
law as it is, not to reinvent, or second-guess it. The Barangay Association for National Advancement
Therefore, the 20% requirement is not mandatory. and Transparency (BANAT), a party-list candidate,
questioned the proclamation as well as the formula being
Yes. As provided in the preceding argument of the
used. BANAT averred that the 2% threshold is invalid;
Supreme Court, the statutory provision of R.A. 7941 is
Sec. 11 of RA 7941 is void because its provision that a
clear. Moreover, the two percent requirement is in
party-list, to qualify for a congressional seat, must garner
consonance with the intent of the framers of the
at least 2% of the votes cast in the party-list election, is
Constitution, insofar as “proportional representation” is
not supported by the Constitution. Further, the 2% rule
concerned. It is long held in Republican states that
creates a mathematical impossibility to meet the 20%
government authority resides within the people, but is
party-list seat prescribed by the Constitution. BANAT
exercised by representatives chosen by them. To have
also questions if the 20% rule is a mere ceiling or is it
meaningful representation, the elected representatives
mandatory. If it is mandatory, then with the 2% qualifying
must have the mandate coming from a sufficient number
vote, there would be instances when it would be
of people. To go away with this principle would result in
impossible to fill the prescribed 20% share of party-lists
the creation of small groups in Congress that are
in the lower house.
incapable of contributing to significant legislation and
would pose a threat to the stability of Congress. The BANAT also proposes a new computation (which shall
three-seat limit is provided in R.A. 7941 wherein the be discussed in the RULING portion of this digest). On
additional seats are afforded to “qualified” partylist the other hand, BAYAN MUNA, another party-list
groups who have hurdled the two-percent requirement. candidate, questions the validity of the 3 seat rule
The intent of limiting party-list representation to three (Section 11a of RA 7941). It also raised the issue of
seats is to allow for multiple interest groups to be whether or not major political parties are allowed to
represented in Congress to avoid a single group from participate in the party-list elections or is the said
dominating the party-list seats, if not the entire House. elections limited to sectoral parties.
Therefore, the 2% threshold and the three-seat limit are
constitutional. ISSUE:

BANAT VS COMELEC WON the 20% allocation for party-list representatives

GR NO 179271 mandatory or a mere ceiling.
APRIL 21, 2009
WON the 2% threshold to qualify for a seat valid.

FACTS: RULING:

In July and August 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other
National Board of Canvassers, made a partial hand, states the ratio of party-list representatives to the
proclamation of the winners in the party-list elections total number of representatives. We compute the
which was held in May 2007. In proclaiming the winners number of seats available to party-list
and apportioning their seats, the COMELEC considered representatives from the number of legislative
the following rules:

1. In the lower house, 80% shall comprise the seats for

legislative districts, while the remaining 20% shall come

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

districts. On this point, we do not deviate from the first 2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions
formula in Veterans, thus: receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total
votes cast for the party-list system shall be
However, we hold that the allocation of additional entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
partylist seats (based on Veterans and Section 11(b) 3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes,
of RA 7941) is unconstitutional. The two percent according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be
threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
the maximum number of available party list seats when total number of votes until all the additional seats
the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
shall no longer be included because they have already
been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed
Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as seats shall no longer be included because they have
"additional seats" are the maximum seats reserved already been allocated, at one seat each, to every
under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats. two-percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for
Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a allocation as "additional seats" are the maximum seats
provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of reserved under the Party List System less the
fractional seats. guaranteed seats.

To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a
Suppose there are 50 million votes cast for the 100 provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of
participants in the party list elections. A party that has fractional seats.
two percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a
guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the first 50 NOTE:
parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a
seat despite the availability of 55 seats. Because of the Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits
operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will major political parties from participating in the party-list
repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list system.
seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast
to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of The framers of the Constitution clearly intended the
parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is major political parties to participate in party-list elections
always impossible for the number of occupied party-list through their sectoral wings.
seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of the Constitutional
threshold is present. Commission state that major political parties are allowed
to establish, or form coalitions with, sectoral
We therefore strike down the two percent threshold organizations for electoral or political purposes.
only in relation to the distribution of the additional
seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) ANG BAGONG BAYANI OFW LABOR PARTY VS
COMELEC
of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an
GR NO 147589
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of JUNE 26, 2013
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents
the attainment of "the broadest possible representation
of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of FACTS:
Representatives." Before us are two Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on March 26,
representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the 2001. This Resolution approved the participation of 154
following procedure shall be observed: organizations and parties, including those herein
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners
be ranked from the highest to the lowest based seek the disqualification of private respondents, arguing
on the number of votes they garnered during the mainly that the party-list system was intended to benefit
elections. the marginalized and underrepresented; not the
mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or
overrepresented.

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

ISSUE: "MR. TADEO. Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay

pwedeng paghati-hatian ng UNIDO, PDP-Laban, PNP,
1. Whether or not political parties may Liberal at Nacionalista?
participate in the party-list elections.
MR. OPLE. Maaari yan sapagkat bukas ang party list
2. Whether or not the party-list system is system sa lahat ng mga partido."
exclusive to 'marginalized and
underrepresented' sectors and Indeed, Commissioner Monsod stated that the purpose
organizations. of the party-list provision was to open up the system, in
order to give a chance to parties that consistently place
RULING: third or fourth in congressional district elections to win a
seat in Congress. He explained: "The purpose of this is
to open the system. In the past elections, we found out
1. Participation of Political Parties
that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count
their votes nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or
In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party 1,500,000 votes. But they were always third or fourth
contends that "the inclusion of political parties in the place in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in
party-list system is the most objectionable portion of the the Assembly. But this way, they would have five or six
questioned Resolution." For its part, Petitioner Bayan representatives in the Assembly even if they would not
Muna objects to the participation of "major political win individually in legislative districts. So, that is
parties." On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives of
General, like the impleaded political parties, submits that the party-list system."
the Constitution and RA No. 7941 allow political parties
to participate in the party-list elections. It argues that the
For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for "a
party-list system is, in fact, open to all "registered
party-list system of registered national, regional and
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations."
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x
x." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a
We now rule on this issue. Under the Constitution and political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties."
RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified More to the point, the law defines "political party" as "an
from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the platform, principles and policies for the general conduct
Constitution provides that members of the House of of government and which, as the most immediate means
Representatives may "be elected through a party-list of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and
system of registered national, regional, and sectoral supports certain of its leaders and members as
parties or organizations." candidates for public office."

Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as
the Constitution, political parties may be registered under to the participation of political parties in the party-list
the party-list system. system. We quote the pertinent provision below:

"Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, "x x x

organization, or coalition shall be valid, except
for those registered under the party-list system
"For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5)
as provided in this Constitution.
major political parties on the basis of party
representation in the House of Representatives at the
"Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not
coalitions registered under the party-list system, be entitled to participate in the party-list system.
shall not be represented in the voters'
registration boards, boards of election
x x x"
inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other
similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to
appoint poll watchers in accordance with law." Indubitably, therefore, political parties – even the major
ones -- may participate in the party-list elections.
During the deliberations in the Constitutional
Commission, Comm. Christian S. Monsod pointed out 2. Marginalized and Underrepresented
that the participants in the party-list system may "be a
regional party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO, That political parties may participate in the party-list
Magsasaka, or a regional party in Mindanao." This was elections does not mean, however, that any political
also clear from the following exchange between Comms. party -- or any organization or group for that matter --
Jaime Tadeo and Blas Ople: may do so. The requisite character of these parties or
organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to
7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall
as follows: provide the simplest scheme possible."

"(1) The House of Representatives shall be The Marginalized and Underrepresented to Become
composed of not more than two hundred and Lawmakers Themselves
fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law,
who shall be elected from legislative districts The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the promoting proportional representation by means of the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the Filipino-style party-list system, which will "enable" the
number of their respective inhabitants, and on election to the House of Representatives of Filipino
the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and citizens,
those who, as provided by law, shall be elected
through a party-list system of registered national, 1. who belong to marginalized and
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties; and
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute
twenty per centum of the total number of 2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
representatives including those under the party
list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the 3. who could contribute to the formulation and
seats allocated to party-list representatives shall enactment of appropriate legislation that will
be filled, as provided by law, by selection or benefit the nation as a whole.
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, The key words in this policy are "proportional
and such other sectors as may be provided by representation," "marginalized and underrepresented,"
law, except the religious sector." (Emphasis and "lack well-defined constituencies."
supplied.)
"Proportional representation" here does not refer to the
Notwithstanding the sparse language of the provision, a number of people in a particular district, because the
distinguished member of the Constitutional Commission party-list election is national in scope. Neither does it
declared that the purpose of the party-list provision was allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed
to give "genuine power to our people" in Congress. group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the
Hence, when the provision was discussed, he exultantly "marginalized and underrepresented" as exemplified by
announced: "On this first day of August 1986, we shall, the enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely, "labor,
hopefully, usher in a new chapter to our national history, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
by giving genuine power to our people in the communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,
legislature." veterans, overseas workers, and professionals."

The foregoing provision on the party-list system is not However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim
self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like representation of the marginalized and
"in accordance with law" or "as may be provided by law"; underrepresented, because representation is easy to
it was thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty claim and to feign. The party-list organization or party
objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was must factually and truly represent the marginalized and
enacted. It laid out the statutory policy in this wise: underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section
5. Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list
"SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The State shall promote candidate-organization must be "Filipino citizens
proportional representation in the election of belonging to marginalized and underrepresented
representatives to the House of Representatives through sectors, organizations and parties."
a party-list system of registered national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, Finally, "lack of well-defined constituenc[y] " refers to the
which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group, like
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of
organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined government. Rather, it points again to those with
political constituencies but who could contribute to the disparate interests identified with the "marginalized or
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that underrepresented."
will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of
the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that
State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open only those Filipinos who are "marginalized and
party system in order to attain the broadest possible underrepresented" become members of Congress under
representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the the party-list system, Filipino-style.

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine patent violation

power to the people, not only by giving more law to those of the
who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to Constitution and
become veritable lawmakers themselves. Consistent the law.
with this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we
repeat, is likewise clear: "to enable Filipino citizens Once and for all,
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented new parameters
sectors, organizations and parties, x x x, to become must be set.
members of the House of Representatives." Where the
language of the law is clear, it must be applied according PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
to its express terms.
Atong Paglaum Inc. and 51
COMELEC
other party-list groups
The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be
represented under the party-list system are enumerated
in Section 5 of RA 7941, which states: SUMMARY
 52 party-list groups were disqualified by the
"SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized group of persons COMELEC for the May 2013 elections.
may register as a party, organization or coalition for  Applying the doctrines set by Ang Bagong
purposes of the party-list system by filing with the Bayan and BANAT, the said party-list groups were
COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the disqualified due to being political parties, its
election a petition verified by its president or secretary members not bona fide members of the sector they
stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as are representing, etc.
a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a  The Court then laid out the background
coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching information, long history, and functions of the party-
thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of list groups, in accordance with what the 1987
government, list of officers, coalition agreement and Constitution and RA 7941 (The Party-List System
other relevant information as the COMELEC may Act) dictate.
require: Provided, that the sector shall include labor,  The issue is whether or not the COMELEC erred
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural in disqualifying the petitioners and if they had
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, applied correctly the doctrines set by Ang Bagong
veterans, overseas workers, and professionals." Bayan and BANAT.
 The Court ruled that the COMELEC did not
While the enumeration of marginalized and commit grave abuse of discretion as it had only
underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it followed the jurisprudence set to attend to said
demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all issue.
sectors can be represented under the party-list system. It  HOWEVER, the Court rests the fault in the two
is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that conflicting jurisprudence/cases that influenced
words employed in a statute are interpreted in COMELEC’s decision. Thus, a set of new
connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by parameters had been formulated.
reference to, the words and the phrases with which they  The petitions were then remanded to the
are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in COMELEC for them to re-evaluate the 54 party-list
a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by groups using the new parameters set by the Court.
those in immediate association.
RELEVANT FACTS
1. Approximately 280 groups and organizations
ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC registered and manifested their desire to participate
GR NO 203766 in the elections.
APRIL 2, 2013 2. The cases constitute 54 Petitions for certiorari
and petitions for certiorari and prohibition by 52
Party-list Legal Basis Doctrine party-list groups and organizations assailing the
reps The Court held resolutions issued by the COMELEC.
(Parties) that they cannot 3. Some of these party-list groups include: Atong
Sec. 5, Art. VI of engage in socio- Paglaum, Inc., AKO Bicol Political Party, UNIMAD,
the 1987 political Alliance for Rural Concerns, 1-CARE, and many
Constitution engineering and more.
judicially 4. Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a
legislate the temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
RA 7941 (The exclusion of injunction. The Court issued Status Quo Ante Orders
Party-List major political in all petitions.
System parties from the 5. The Decision governs only the 54 consolidated
Act) party-list petitions that were granted Status Quo Ante Orders.
elections in 6. The elections were to be held on May 13, 2013.

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

5. Majority of the “marginalized

ARGUMENTS and underrepresented” members
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS must belong to the “marginalized
The COMELEC committed  Political parties and underrepresented” sector they
grave abuse of discretion should not run for the represent. The nominees for these
amounting to lack or elections. sectoral parties must either belong
excess of jurisdiction in  The members from to their respective sectors or must
disqualifying petitioners their respective party-list have a track record of advocacy for
from participating in the groups must also belong the same.
May 2013 party-list to the sectors that they 6. National, regional and sectoral
elections. represent. parties or organizations shall not
be disqualified if some of their
ISSUES – HELD – RATIO nominees are disqualified,
ISSUE RATIO provided that they have at least
W/N the NO. one nominee who remains
COMELEC qualified.
erred in The Court held that the COMELEC did W/N the criteria NO.
disqualifying the not commit grave abuse of discretion in applied to Ang
52 party-list its decisions in disqualifying the Bagong Bayani The rulings in Ang Bagong Bayani and
groups from petitioners from the May 2013 and BANAT BANAT seem to be inconsistent with
running for the elections. COMELEC just followed the should be each other and with what the
May 2013 current jurisprudence/cases that tackle applied in the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and
elections. this issue. However, for the sake of present case? RA 7941 state.
uniformity of standards, the Court
adopts new parameters in the The Court held that they cannot
qualification of national, regional and engage in socio-political engineering
sectoral parties under the party-list and judicially legislate the exclusion of
system. major political parties from the party-list
elections in patent violation of the
The Court remanded all the petitions to Constitution and the law. The
the COMELEC and urged them to experimentations in socio-political
adhere to these parameters in re- engineering have only resulted in
evaluating the said petitions: confusion and absurdity in the party-list
system.
1. The groups may participate in
the party-list system: national, That’s why, to further set uniform
regional and sectoral parties and standards and to understand the party-
organizations. list systems clearly, the Court came up
2. National parties or with new parameters in determining the
organizations and regional parties qualifications of party-list groups
or organizations do not need to eligible to run for office (see list
organize along sectoral lines and above).
do not need to represent any
“marginalized and RULING
underrepresented” sector. WHEREFORE, all the present 54 petitions are
3. Political parties can participate GRANTED. The 13 petitions, which have been granted
in party-list elections provided that Status Quo Ante Orders but without mandatory injunction
they register under the party-list to include the names of petitioners in the printing of
system, do not field candidates in ballots, are remanded to the Commission on Elections
legislative district elections and that only for determination whether petitioners are qualified to
they can only register their sectoral register under the party-list system under the parameters
wing. prescribed in this Decision, but they shall not participate
4. Sectoral parties or in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections. The 41 petitions,
organizations may either be which have been granted mandatory injunctions to
“marginalized and include the names of petitioners in the printing of ballots,
underrepresented” or lacking in are remanded to the Commission on Elections for
“well-defined political determination whether petitioners are qualified to register
constituencies.” Sectors: labor, under the party-list system and to participate in the 13
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, May 2013 party-list elections under the parameters
indigenous cultural communities, prescribed in this Decision. The Commission on
handicapped, veterans and Elections may conduct summary evidentiary hearings for
overseas workers. this purpose. This Decision is immediately executory.

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

 Laws are deemed incorporated in every contract

x x x accreditation. Hence, pertinent provisions of
ANG LADLAD PARTY LIST VS COMELEC the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code are
GR NO 190582 deemed part of the requirement to be complied with
APRIL 8, 2010 for accreditation.
 the LGBT sector is neither enumerated in the
constitution and RA 7941, nor is it associated with or
FACTS: related to any of the sectors in the enumeration.
This is a petition for certiorari with an application for a  Even assuming that the petitioner has properly
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction filed by Ang proven its under-representation and marginalization,
Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad) against the respondent it cannot be said that Ang Ladlad’s expressed sexual
COMELEC for refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party- orientations per se would benefit the nation as a
list organization under Republic Act RA No. 7941 “Party- whole.
list System Act”  Sec 2 of the party-list law states the purpose of
 2006, Ang Ladlad first filed for registration with the party-list system of electing congressional
the COMELEC but was denied on the ground the representatives is to enable Filipino citizens
organization has no substantial membership base. belonging to the marginalized and under-
 August 17, 2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a represented sectors, organizations and parties, and
petition for registration with the COMELEC who lack well defined political constituencies but
 November 11, 2009, Comelec admitted the who could contribute to the formulation and
petitioner’s evidence the COMELEC (2nd division) enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit
dismissed the petition on moral grounds. the nation as a whole, to become members of the
 Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration three House of representatives.
commissioners voted to overturn the first assailed  The party-list system is a tool for the realization
resolution while the other three denied Petitioner’s of aspirations of marginalized individuals whose
motion for reconsideration the COMELEC chairman interests are also the nation’s
upheld the first assailed resolution.  Until the time comes when ang Ladlad is able to
 January 4, 2010, filed a petition prayed to annul justify that having mixed sexual orientations and
the assailed resolutions and grant the application for transgender identities is beneficial to the nation, its
accreditation. Also sought to stop the COMELEC for application for accreditation under the party-list
the printing of the final ballots for the May 2010 system will remain just that.
elections.  petitioner not truthful when it stated that any of
 January 12, 2010, the court issued a temporary its nominees/party-list representatives have not
restraining order directed the COMELEC to ceased violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or
and desist from implementing the assailed regulations relating to the elections.
resolutions  The majority of the Philippine population
Arguments: considered homosexual conducts as immoral and
Petitioner Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of unacceptable which constitutes sufficient reason to
lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals disqualify the petitioner.
(LGBTs) incorporated in 2003.
 LGBT community is a marginalized and under- ISSUE:
represented disadvantaged because of their sexual
orientation and gender identity; victims of exclusion, Whether or not Ang Ladlad complied with requirements
discrimination and violence. of the constitution and Party-list System Act (RA 7941)?
 Petitioner argued that they complied with the 8-
point guidelines enunciated by the court in Ang RULING:
Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC.
Petitioner Laid out its national membership base Yes, respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang
which consisted individual members and Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only those
organizational supporters, and outlined its platform sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to
of governance. said sectors may be registered under the party-list
 It had 16,100 affiliates and members around the system, the court held “the enumeration of marginalized
country and 4,044 members in its electronic and under-represented sectors is not exclusive.
discussion group. “a national LGBT umbrella
organization with affiliates around the Philippines Since the Comelec only searched for the names ANG
composed of LGBT networks. LADLAD LGBT or LADLAD LGBT and did not find the
Respondent COMELEC presence of the petitioner in any of the regions.
 Argued that the definition of the LGBT sector Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance
made it clear that petitioner tolerated immorality with the legal requirements for accreditation. Aside from
which offends religious beliefs and sexual the COMELEC’s moral objection.
immorality.

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

Respondents’ argument that homosexual conducts as Questions involved in her eligibility as first nominee
immoral and unacceptable the reason petitioner should were internal concerns of the said Party-list.
be disqualified; The Philippine electorate has expressed  RA 7941 “Party-list System Act” vested in the
no such belief no law exists to criminalize homosexual COMELEC the authority to determine which parties
behavior or expressions or parties about homosexual or organization have the qualifications to seek party-
behavior. list seats in the HOR in the elections.
Respondents
From the standpoint of political process, the LGBTs have  Petitioner abayon was not qualified to sit in the
the same interest in participating in the party-list system House as a party-list nominee because she did not
on the same basis as other political parties similarly belong to the marginalized and under-represented
situated. Laws of general application should apply with sectors, petitioner being the wife of an incumbent
equal force to the LGBTs, and they deserve to participate congressional district representative.
in the party-list system on the same basis as other  Petitioner lost her bid as party-list representative
marginalized and under-represented sectors. of the An Waray party-list organization in the
Wherefore, the petition is hereby granted. preceded election on May 10, 2004.

ABAYON VS HRET ISSUE:

GR NO 189466
FEBRUARY 11, 2010 Whether or not HRET has jurisdiction over the question
of qualifications of Petitioner Abayon as nominee of
Aangat Tayo who took the seat at the HOR that won in
The case is about the authority of the House of the the 2007 election?
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to pass upon
the eligibilities of the nominee of the party-list group that RULING:
won the seat in the lower house of congress.
ABAD, J.: Yes, Although the party-list organization that is voted for
in the elections, it is not the organization that sits as and
Facts: becomes a member of the HOR sec 5, of article 6 of the
 petitioner Daryl Grace J. Abayon is the first constitution identifies who the “members” of that house
nominee of the Aangat Tayo Party-list organization are “who shall be elected from the legislative districts x x
that won a seat in the House of Representatives x and those who, x x x shall be elected through a party-
(HOR) in the 2007 election. list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
 Respondents Perfecto C. Lucban et. Al., all parties or organizations.”
registered voters filed a petition for quo warranto
with respondent HRET against the Aangat Tayo and Clearly, the members of the HOR are from two kinds,
its nominee, petitioner abayon, the former claimed from the constitution’s point of view, the party-list
that Aangat Tayo was not eligible for a party-list seat representatives who are “elected into office, not their
in the HOR since it did not represent the parties or organizations.” These representatives are
marginalized and under-represented sectors. elected, however, through the party-list system that the
 On July 16, 2009, respondent dismissed the constitution authorized and the congress by law
petition against Aangat Tayo but upheld its established where the voters cast their votes for the
jurisdiction over the qualifications of petitioner organizations or parties to which such party-list
 Petitioner filed for reconsideration, HRET denied representative belong.
the same.
 September 17, 2009, petitioner filed a petition for The party-list system act itself recognized party-list
special civil action of certiorari nominees as members of the HOR. Under sec 2
Arguments: “declaration of Policy” “enable Filipino Citizens belonging
Petitioners to the marginalized and under-represented sectors,
 The COMELEC had already confirmed the organizations, and parties. “Become members of the
status of Aangat Tayo as a national multi-sectoral HOR.”
party-list organization represented the workers,
women, youth, urban poor, and elderly. Petitioner In Bantay Republic Act BA-RA 7941 v. COMELEC a
belonged to the women sector party-list representative is in every sense “an elected
 Respondent HRET had no jurisdiction over the member of the HOR.” Although the vote cast in a party-
petition for quo warranto since respondents and list election is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end,
HRET attacked the registration of the Aangat Tayo would be a vote for its nominees, who, in the appropriate
as a party-list organization, the matter is within the cases, would eventually sit in the HOR.
jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
 Aangat Tayo was taking the seat in the HOR and Both the constitution and Party-list System Act set the
not petitioner abayon, the latter was just its nominee. qualifications and grounds for disqualification of party-list
nominees. Sec 9 of RA 7941 provides that a nominee
must be a “bona fide member of the party or organization

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

which he seeks to represent.” It is for the HRET to Section 4 of R.A. No. 7941, which allows any party,
interpret the meaning of the particular qualification of a organization and coalition already registered with the
nominee the need for him to be a bona fide member or Commission to no longer register anew; the party
representative of his party-list organization. though is required to file with the Commission, not
later than ninety (90) days before the election, a
In this case, characterize the petitioner’s relation to the manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-
said party-list and the marginalized and under- list system; since PGBI filed a Request/Manifestation
represented interests that they presumably embodied. seeking a deferment of its participation in the 2007
elections within the required period prior to the 2007
Petitioners pointed the authority to determine the elections, it has the option to choose whether or not
qualifications of a party-list nominee belonged to the to participate in the next succeeding election under
party or organization that nominated her. the same conditions as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed
Under sec 17 of Article 6 of the constitution provides that 2. Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No. 177548 —
the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating Philippine Mines Safety Environment Association,
to, among other things, the qualifications of the members also known as "MINERO" v. Commission on
of the HOR. Since party-list nominees are “elected Elections — cannot apply in the instant controversy
members” of the HOR no less than the district for two reasons: (a) the factual milieu of the cited
representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear case is removed from PGBI's; (b) MINERO, prior to
and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the delisting, was afforded the opportunity to be heard,
cases of district representatives, once the party or while PGBI and the 25 others similarly affected by
organization of the party-list has been proclaimed and Resolution No. 8679 were not. Additionally, the
the nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as requirement of Section 6(8) has been relaxed by the
member of the HOR, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over Court's ruling in G.R. No. 179271 (Banat v.
the election contests relating to his qualifications ends COMELEC) and the exclusion of PGBI and the 25
and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins. other party-list is a denial of the equal protection of
the laws;
Respondent HRET did not gravely abused its discretion 3. The implementation of the challenged resolution
when it dismissed the patitions for quo warranto against should be suspended and/or aborted to prevent a
the party-lists but upheld its jurisdiction over the miscarriage of justice in view of the failure to notify
qualifications of the petitioners the parties in accordance with the same Section 6(8)
Wherefore, the court dismissed the petitions. or R.A. No. 7941.
The COMELEC denied PGBI's motion/opposition for lack
of merit.
PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD INC VS 1. For first assertion, The provision simply means
COMELEC that without the required manifestation or if a party or
GR NO 190529 organization does not participate, the exemption
APRIL 29, 2010 from registration does not arise and the party,
organization or coalition must go through the
process again and apply for requalification; a
FACTS: request for deferment would not exempt PGBI from
registering anew.
For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC en 2. Second assertion, MINERO ruling is squarely in
banc issued on October 13, 2009 Resolution No. 8679 point, as MINERO failed to get 2% of the votes in
deleting several party-list groups or organizations from 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004
the list of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, elections.
organizations or coalitions. Among the party-list 3. Third assertion, PGBI was given an opportunity
organizations affected was PGBI; it was delisted to be heard or to seek the reconsideration of the
because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 and action or ruling complained of — the essence of due
it did not participate in the 2007 elections. Nevertheless, process; this is clear from Resolution No. 8679
the COMELEC stated in this Resolution that any which expressly gave the adversely affected parties
national, regional sectoral party or organizations or the opportunity to file their opposition.
coalitions adversely affected can personally or through As regards the alternative relief of application for
its authorized representative file a verified opposition on accreditation, the COMELEC found the motion to have
October 26, 2009. been filed out of time
PGBI filed its Opposition to Resolution No. 8679, but
likewise sought, through its pleading, the admission ad ISSUE:
cautelam of its petition for accreditation as a party-list
organization under the Party-List System Act. Among (a) whether there is legal basis for delisting PGBI; and
other arguments, PGBI asserted that: (b) whether PGBI's right to due process was violated.
1. The assailed resolution negates the right of
movant and those similarly situated to invoke RULING:

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

two preceding elections should now be understood, in

(a.) NO. (b.) NO. WHEREFORE, premises considered, light of theBanatruling, to mean failure to qualify for a
we GRANT the petition and accordingly ANNUL party-list seat in two preceding elections for the
COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 insofar as the constituency in which it has registered. This, we declare,
petitioner PGBI is concerned, and the Resolution is how Section 6 (8) of RA 7941 should be understood
which denied PGBI's motion for reconsideration. and applied. We do so under our authority to state what
PGBI is qualified to be voted upon as a party-list the law is, 10 and as an exception to the application of
group or organization in the coming May 2010 the principle of stare decisis.
elections.
The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to
a. The Minero Ruling adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which
Our Minero ruling is an erroneous application of Section are established) enjoins adherence to judicial
6 (8) of RA 7941; hence, it cannot sustain PGBI's precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the
delisting from the roster of registered national, regional rule established in a decision of its Supreme Court.
or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the
party-list system. b. The Issue of Due Process
On the due process issue, we agree with the COMELEC
The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified that PGBI's right to due process was not violated for
complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after PGBI was given an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a
due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, reconsideration of Resolution No. 8679. A formal or trial-
regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition if it: type hearing is not at all times and in all instances
(a) fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding essential. The requirement is satisfied where the parties
elections; or (b) fails to obtain at least two per centum are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the their side of the controversy at hand. What is frowned
two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which upon is absolute lack of notice and hearing. We find it
it has registered. The word "or" is a disjunctive term obvious under the attendant circumstances that PGBI
signifying disassociation and independence of one thing was not denied due process. In any case, given the
from the other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be result of this Resolution, PGBI has no longer any cause
construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a for complaint on due process grounds.
disjunctive word. Thus, the plain, clear and
unmistakable language of the law provides for two (2) PRINCIPLES:
separate reasons for delisting.
From ABAD, J., dissenting, Separate Opinion
Minero therefore simply cannot stand. Its basic defect It is evident from Section 6 (8) above that the legislature
lies in its characterization of the non-participation of a intended the two separate tests — failure to take part in
party-list organization in an election as similar to a failure the last two preceding elections or failure to garner at
to garner the 2% threshold party-list vote. What Minero least 2% of the votes cast in such elections — to be
effectively holds is that a party list organization that does complimentary. Their purpose is to put every party-list
not participate in an election necessarily gets, by default, organization, which won the right to be registered, to a
less than 2% of the party-list votes. To be sure, this is a two-election wringer, a voters' preference test, for lack
confused interpretation of the law, given the law's clear of a better term to describe it.
and categorical language and the legislative intent to
treat the two scenarios differently. A delisting based on a
mixture or fusion of these two different and separate BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT OR BA-RA 7941 VS
grounds for delisting is therefore a strained application of COMELEC
the law — in jurisdictional terms, it is an interpretation GR NO 177271
not within the contemplation of the framers of the law MAY 4, 2007
and hence is a gravely abusive interpretation of the law.
Ruling in Barangay Association for Advancement and
National Transparency v. COMELEC (Banat) where we FACTS:
partly invalidated the 2% party-list vote requirement The Comelec issued Resolution No. 7804 prescribing
provided in RA 7941 as follows: We rule that, in rules and regulations to govern the filing of manifestation
computing the allocation of additional seats, the of intent to participate and submission of names of
continued operation of the two percent threshold for the nominees under the party- list system of representation
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second in connection with the May 14, 2007 elections. Pursuant
clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is thereto, a number of organized groups filed the
unconstitutional. necessary manifestations. Subsequent events saw BA-
RA 7941 and UP-LR filing with the Comelec a n Urgent
To reiterate, (a) Section 6 (8) of RA 7941 provides for Petition to Disqualify, thereunder seeking to disqualify
two separate grounds for delisting; these grounds cannot the nominees of certain party-list organizations. Both
be mixed or combined to support delisting; and (b) the petitioners appear not to have the names of the
disqualification for failure to garner 2% party- list votes in

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

nominees sought to be disqualified since they still asked places on election day. The names of the party-list
for a copy of the list of nominees. nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.
(Emphasis added.)
Before the Court are these two consolidated petitions Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the
forcertiorari and mandamus to nullify and set aside Comelec and the given rationale therefor is the right to
certain issuances of the Commission on Elections information enshrined in the self- executory 15 Section 7,
(Comelec) respecting party-list groups which have Article III of the Constitution, viz:
manifested their intention to participate in the party-list
elections on May 14, 2007. Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
In the first petition, petitioners Bantay Republic Act (BA- records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
RA 7941, for short) and the Urban Poor for Legal official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well to
Reforms (UP-LR, for short) assail the various Comelec government research data used as basis for policy
resolutions accrediting private respondents Biyaheng development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
Pinoy et al., to participate in the forthcoming party-list such limitations as may be provided by law.
elections without simultaneously determining whether or
not their respective nominees possess the requisite Complementing and going hand in hand with the right to
qualifications defined in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, or information is another constitutional provision
the "Party-List System Act" and belong to the enunciating the policy of full disclosure and transparency
marginalized and underrepresented sector each seeks to in Government. We refer to Section 28, Article II of the
represent. Constitution reading:

In the second petition, petitioners Loreta Ann P. Rosales, Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by
Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full
Foundation impugn Comelec denying their request for public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
the release or disclosure of the names of the nominees interest.
of the fourteen (14) accredited participating party-list
groups mentioned in petitioner Rosales' previous letter- The Comelec's reasoning that a party-list election is not
request. an election of personalities is valid to a point. It cannot
be taken, however, to justify its assailed non-disclosure
While both petitions commonly seek to compel the stance which comes, as it were, with a weighty
Comelec to disclose or publish the names of the presumption of invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a
nominees of the various party-list groups named in the fundamental right to information.
petitions, they also seek 1) that the 33 private
respondents named therein be "declare[d] as unqualified WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 177271 is partly
to participate in the party-list elections as sectoral DENIED insofar as it seeks to nullify the
organizations, parties or coalition for failure to comply accreditation of the respondents named therein.
with the guidelines prescribed by the [Court] in [Ang However, insofar as it seeks to compel the Comelec
Bagong Bayani v. Comelec]" and, 2) correspondingly, to disclose or publish the names of the nominees of
that the Comelec be enjoined from allowing respondent party-list groups, sectors or organizations
groups from participating in the May 2007 elections. accredited to participate in the May 14, 2007 elections,
the same petition and the petition in G.R. No. 177314
ISSUE: are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Comelec is hereby
ORDERED to immediately disclose and release the
1. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal names of the nominees of the party-list groups, sectors
the names of the nominees of the various party-list or organizations accredited to participate in the May 14,
groups, has violated the right to information and free 2007 party-list elections. The Comelec is further
access to documents as guaranteed by the Constitution; DIRECTED to submit to the Court its compliance
and herewith within five (5) days from notice hereof.
2. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated by the This Decision is declared immediately executory upon its
Constitution to disclose to the public the names of said receipt by the Comelec.
nominees.
PRINCIPLES: The right to information is a public right
RULING: where the real parties in interest are the public, or the
citizens to be precise. And for every right of the people
1. YES. And 2. NO. SEC. 7. Certified List of Registered recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding duty on
Parties. — The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) the part of those who govern to respect and protect that
days before election, prepare a certified list of national, right. This is the essence of the Bill of Rights in a
regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions constitutional regime. Without a government's
which have applied or who have manifested their desire acceptance of the limitations upon it by the Constitution
to participate under the party-list system and distribute in order to uphold individual liberties, without an
copies thereof to all precincts for posting in the polling acknowledgment on its part of those duties exacted by

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

the rights pertaining to the citizens, the Bill of Rights Representative of the First District of Leyte and also a
becomes a sophistry. candidate for the same position, filed a "Petition for
By weight of jurisprudence, any citizen can challenge Cancellation and Disqualification" with the Commission
any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his right to on Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the
information and may seek its enforcement by constitutional requirement for residency. The petitioner,
mandamus. And since every citizen by the simple fact of in an honest misrepresentation, wrote seven months
his citizenship possesses the right to be informed, under residency, which she sought to rectify by adding
objections on ground of locus standi are ordinarily the words "since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected
unavailing. Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 29, 1995 and that
"she has always maintained Tacloban City as her
Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right domicile or residence. She arrived at the seven months
to information and its companion right of access to residency due to the fact that she became a resident of
official records are not absolute. As articulated in the Municipality of Tolosa in said months.
Legaspi, supra, the people's right to know is limited to
"matters of public concern" and is further subject to such ISSUE:
limitation as may be provided by law. Similarly, the policy
of full disclosure is confined to transactions involving Whether Imelda Marcos was a resident of the First
"public interest" and is subject to reasonable conditions District of Leyte to satisfy
prescribed by law. Too, there is also the need of the one year residency requirement to be eligible in
preserving a measure of confidentiality on some matters, running as representative
such as military, trade, banking and diplomatic secrets or
those affecting national security. RULINGS:

As may be noted, no national security or like Yes. The court is in favor of a conclusion supporting
concerns is involved in the disclosure of the names petitioner’s claim of legal
of the nominees of the party-list groups in question. residence or domicile in the First District of Leyte.
Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of
discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the 1. A minor follows the domicile of her parents. Tacloban
petitioners for a list of the nominees of the party-list became Imelda's domicile of origin by operation of law
groups subject of their respective petitions. when her father brought them to Leyte;
Mandamus, therefore, lies.
2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual
removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS VS COMELEC abandoning the former residence and establishing a new
248 SCRA 300 one, and acts which correspond with the purpose. In the
absence and concurrence of all these, domicile of origin
should be deemed to continue.
FACTS:
3. A wife does not automatically gain the husband's
Petitioner Imelda Marcos, a little over 8 years old, in or domicile because the term "residence" in Civil Law does
about 1938, established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte not mean the same thing in Political Law. When Imelda
where she studied and graduated high school in the Holy married late President Marcos in 1954, she kept her
Infant Academy from 1938 to 1949. She then pursued domicile of origin and merely gained a new home and
her college degree, education, in St. Paul's College now not domicilium necessarium.
Divine Word University also in Tacloban. Subsequently,
she taught in Leyte Chinese School still in Tacloban. She 4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her
went to Manila during 1952 to work with her cousin, the marriage and acquired the right to choose a new one
late speaker Daniel Romualdez in his office in the House only after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon
of Representatives. In 1954, she married late President returning to the country clearly indicated that she chose
Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a Congressman of Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of
llocos Norte and was registered there as a voter. When choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her residence
Pres.Marcos was elected as Senator in 1959, they lived certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while living in her
together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a brother's house, an act, which supports the domiciliary
voter. In 1965, when Marcos won the presidency, they intention clearly manifested. She even kept close ties by
lived in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her
San Miguel Manila. She served as member of the birthdays and other important milestones.
Batasang Pambansa and Governor of Metro Manila
during 1978. WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner
possesses the necessary residence qualifications to run
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was running for the position for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First
of Representative of the First District of Leyte for the District of Leyte, the COMELEC's questioned
1995 Elections. Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent Resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May 11, and May 25,

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

1995 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent COMELEC is In order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for
hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of Representative of the Second District of Makati City, he
Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected must prove that he has established not just residence
Representative of the First District of Leyte. but domicile of choice.

Petitioner, in his certificate of candidacy for the 1992

DOCTRINE: If a person retains his domicile of origin for elections, indicated not only that he was a resident of
purposes of the residence requirement, the 1 year San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he was a
period is irrelevant because wherever he is, he is a resident of the same for 52 years immediately preceding
resident of his domicile of origin. Second, if a person that elections. At that time, his certificate indicated that
reestablishes a previously abandoned domicile, the 1 he was also a registered voter of the same district. His
year requirement must be satisfied. (Bernas book) birth certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as the
birthplace of his parents. What stands consistently clear
and unassailable is that his domicile of origin of record
AQUINO VS COMELEC up to the time of filing of his most recent certificate of
248 SCRA 400 candidacy for the 1995 elections was Concepcion,
Tarlac.
FACTS:
On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino, the petitioner, The intention not to establish a permanent home in
filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Makati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit
Representative for the Second Legislative District of instead of buying one. While a lease contract may be
Makati City. In his certificate of candidacy, Aquino stated indicative of petitioner's intention to reside in Makati City,
that he was a resident of the aforementioned district (284 it does not engender the kind of permanency required to
Amapola Cor. Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati) for 10 prove abandonment of one's original domicile.
months.
Petitioner's assertion that he has transferred his domicile
On April 24, 1995, Move Makati, a registered political from Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion which is hardly
party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD- supported by the facts. To successfully effect a change
UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal or
to disqualify Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of
the residence qualification as a candidate for abandoning the former place of residence and
congressman which under Section 6, Article VI of the establishing a new one and definite acts which
1987 Constitution, should be for a period not less than correspond with the purpose. In the absence of clear and
one year preceding the (May 8, 1995) day of the positive proof, the domicile of origin should be deemed
election. to continue.

Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino

amended the entry on his residency in his certificate of DOCTRINE/ PRINCIPLES: The sanctity of the people’s
candidacy to 1 year and 13 days. The Commission on will must be observed at all times if our nascent
Elections passed a resolution that dismissed the petition democracy is to be preserved. In any challenge having
on May 6 and allowed Aquino to run in the election of 8 the effect of reversing a democratic choice, expressed
May, 1995. Aquino, with 38,547 votes, won against through the ballot, this Court should be ever so vigilant in
Augusto Syjuco with 35,910 votes. finding solutions which would give effect to the will of the
majority, for sound public policy dictates that all elective
Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the offices are filled by those who have received the highest
Comelec, to which, on May 15, 1995, the latter acted number of votes cast in an election. When a challenge to
with an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino a winning candidate’s qualifications however becomes
until the Commission resolved the issue. inevitable, the ineligibility ought to be so noxious to the
Constitution that giving effect to the apparent will of the
On 2 June 1995, the Commission on Elections found people would ultimately do harm to our democratic
Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office institutions.
for lack of constitutional qualification of residence. Justice Kapunan in Aquino vs. COMELEC (1995)
Aquino then filed a Petition of Certiorari assailing the
May 15 and June 2 orders.
CO VS HRET
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner lacked the residence GR NO 92191-92
qualification as a candidate for congressman as JULY 30, 1991
mandated by Sec.6,Art. VI of the Constitution

RULINGS FACTS:

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

On May 11, 1987, the congressional election for the whether or not they have acted within the bounds of the
second district of Northern Samar was held. Constitution.

Among the candidates who vied for the position of Yet, in the exercise thereof, the Court is to merely check
representative in the second legislative district of whether or not the governmental branch or agency has
Northern Samar are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and gone beyond the Constitutional limits of its jurisdiction,
Antonio Co and the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr. not that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of
a showing that the HRET has committed grave abuse of
Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is no
representative of the second district of Northern Samar. occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power; it
will not decide a matter which by its nature is for the
The petitioners filed election protests against the private HRET alone to decide. It has no power to look into what
respondent premised on the following grounds: it thinks is apparent error.

1) Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the In the case at bar, the Court finds no improvident use of
Philippines; and power, no denial of due process on the part of the HRET
2) Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of the second district of which will necessitate the exercise of the power of
Northern Samar. judicial review by the Supreme Court.

The HRET, in its decision dated November 6, 1989,

found for the private respondent. FRIVALDO VS COMELEC
GR NO 87193
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners JUNE 23, 1989
on November 12, 1989. This was, however, denied by
the HRET, in its resolution dated February 22, 1989. FACTS:
Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-
Hence, these petitions for certiorari. elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22, 1988
and assumed office in due time.
ISSUE:
Whether or not HRET erred in its decision dated 6 On October 27, 1988, the league of Municipalities,
November 1989. Sorsogon Chapter (hereafter, League), represented by
its President, Salvador Estuye, who was also suing in his
RULING: personal capacity, filed with the Commission on
No. The issue arises refers to our jurisdiction. The Elections a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo's
Constitution explicitly provides that the House of election and proclamation on the ground that he was not
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United
Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole judges States on January 20,1983.
of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective members. The authority In his answer dated May 22, 1988, Frivaldo admitted that
conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear, and he was naturalized in the United States as alleged but
complete. The use of the word sole emphasizes the pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he had
exclusivity of the jurisdiction of these Tribunals. sought American citizenship only to protect himself
against President Marcos. His naturalization, he said,
The Supreme Court in the case of Lazatin v. HRET (168 was "merely forced upon himself as a means of survival
SCRA 391 [1988]) stated that under the 1987 against the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Law
Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal is Dictator's agents abroad."
original and exclusive. The Court continued further, ". . .
so long as the Constitution grants the HRET the power He added that he had returned to the Philippines after
to be the sole judge of all contests relating to election, the EDSA revolution to help in the restoration of
returns and qualifications of members of the House of democracy. He also argued that the challenge to his title
Representatives, any final action taken by the HRET on should be dismissed, being in reality a quo warranto
a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be petition that should have been filed within ten days from
reviewed by this Court . . . the power granted to the his proclamation, in accordance with Section 253 of the
Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete and Omnibus Election Code. The League, moreover, was not
excludes the exercise of any authority on the part of this a proper party because it was not a voter and so could
Court that would in any wise restrict it or curtail it or even not sue under the said section.
affect the same."
Frivaldo moved for a preliminary hearing on his
However, the Supreme Court under the 1987 affirmative defenses, but the respondent Commission on
Constitution, has been given an expanded jurisdiction, Elections decided instead by its Order of January 20,
so to speak, to review the decisions of the other 1988, to set the case for hearing on the merits. His
branches and agencies of the government to determine motion for reconsideration was denied in another Order

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

dated February 21, 1988. He then came to this Court in Regional Governor of the ARMM, which caused the
a petition for certiorari and prohibition to ask that the said House of Representatives to exclude the petitioner from
orders be set aside on the ground that they had been its roll of members. This exclusion is pursuant to BP 881,
rendered with grave abuse of discretion. or the Omnibus Election Code, Art. IX, Sec. 76, which
states the following:
ISSUE: “Any elective official whether national or local
Whether or not the Supreme Court can challenge the running for any office other than the one which he is
aforementioned Orders of the COMELEC. holding in a permanent capacity except for President
and Vice-President shall be considered ipso facto
resigned from his office upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy.”
RULING: Following his loss from the incumbent elections, the
Yes. It is true that the Commission on Elections has the petitioner prayed to resume his duties as the district
primary jurisdiction over this question as the sole judge representative, but was denied by the House, hence this
of all contests relating to the election, returns and petition, which the petitioner argues the abovementioned
qualifications of the members of the Congress and provision as unconstitutional insofar as it violates the
elective provincial and city officials. representative’s term as it was prescribed by the
Constitution.
However, the decision on Frivaldo's citizenship has
already been made by the COMELEC through its ISSUE:
counsel, the Solicitor General, who categorically claims
that Frivaldo is a foreigner. We assume this stance was WON the cited provision from the Omnibus Election
taken by him after consultation with the public Code is unconstitutional.
respondent and with its approval. It therefore represents
the decision of the COMELEC itself that we may now RULING:
review. Exercising our discretion to interpret the Rules of
Court and the Constitution, we shall consider the present The Supreme Court cited the ruling in Monroy v CA,
petition as having been filed in accordance with Article reiterating that forfeiture of office comes as a
IX-A, Section 7, of the Constitution, to challenge the consequence of filing the certificate of candidacy for
aforementioned Orders of the COMELEC. another office. Regardless of the outcome of the
following election, said seat is irrevocable and can only
The argument that the petition filed with the Commission be gained through another election or appointment.
on Elections should be dismissed for tardiness is not When the petitioner filed the certificate of candidacy, only
well-taken. The herein private respondents are seeking the act of filing is considered, and as the SC states, it is
to prevent Frivaldo from continuing to discharge his not necessary for the other position to be held.
office of governor because he is disqualified from doing The Supreme Court also ruled that the provision being
so as a foreigner. Qualifications for public office are questioned is not violative of the Constitution,
continuing requirements and must be possessed not considering the technicality as a mode of voluntary
only at the time of appointment or election or assumption renunciation, under Sec. 7 Par. 2 of Art. VI of the
of office but during the officer's entire tenure. Once any Constitution.
of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be The Supreme Court denies the petition for lack of merit.
seasonably challenged.
JIMENEZ VS CABANGBANG
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and petitioner 17 SCRA 876
JUAN G. FRIVALDO is hereby declared not a citizen of
the Philippines and therefore DISQUALIFIED from FACTS:
serving as Governor of the Province of Sorsogon.
Accordingly, he is ordered to vacate his office and Prior to the petition, the respondent Cabangbang was a
surrender the same to the duly elected Vice-Governor of member of the House of Representatives when he wrote
the said province once this decision becomes final and an open letter to the President at the time, which was
executory. The temporary restraining order dated March then picked up and published by multiple news
9, 1989, is LIFTED. circulations. The letter, was hostile and allegedly
maligned numerous executive officials, including officers
DIMAPORO VS MITRA of the AFP, who the petitioner allegedly accused of
GR NO 96859 planning a coup. The petitioner Jimenez charged the
OCTOBER 15, 1991 respondent, alleging that the latter had committed libel
against the objects of the letter. The respondent cited
FACTS: Art. VI, Sec. 15 of the then Constitution (now Art. VI,
Sec. 11), stating that what he had said was under
The petitioner Dimaporo was a member of the House of privileged communications, after which the lower courts
Representatives for Lanao del Sur. Prior to the petition, dismissed the charges, hence this petition for review.
he filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

ISSUE: recommended, and suspending him from office for

fifteen months.
WON the letter is covered by the Art. VI, Sec. 15 of the
then Constitution. Congressman Osmeña, in a privilege speech delivered
before the House, made the serious imputations of
RULING: bribery against the President which are quoted in
Resolution No. 59 and that he refused to produce before
Art. VI, Sec. 15 the Constitution reads: the House Committee created for the purpose, evidence
“The Senators and Members of the House of to substantiate such imputations. There is also no
Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, question that for having made the imputations and for
and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during failing to produce evidence in support thereof, he was,
their attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in by resolution of the House, suspended from office for a
going to and returning from the same; and for any period of fifteen months for serious disorderly behaviour.
speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in
any other place.” Osmeña contended in his petition that: (1) the
The respondent referred to the latter half of the Constitution gave him complete parliamentary immunity,
provision, in invoking his privilege from arrest when the and so, for words spoken in the House, he ought not to
libel charge was petitioned. be questioned; (20 that his speech constituted no
According to the Supreme Court, the letter was not disorderly behaviour for which he could be punished;
covered, as it was not communications conducted in the and (3) supposing he could be questioned and discipline
fulfillment of their functions in session. However, the therefor, the House had lost the power to do so because
Supreme Court also did not necessarily agree with the it had taken up other business before approving House
plaintiff’s course of action, as the word of the letter does Resolution No. 59. Now, he takes the additional position
not implicate them as the conductors of the coup, but (4) that the House has no power, under the Constitution,
rather unwitting tools in its enactment. The Supreme to suspend one of its members.
Court also does not believe the statements are
derogatory enough to warrant the recovery of damages. ISSUE:
The Supreme Court dismisses the petition.
WON there was a violation of his parliamentary
immunity. (NO)
OSMENA VS PENDATUN
109 PHIL 863 RULING:
Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity
FACTS: which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every
legislative assembly of the democratic world. As old as
On July 14, 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmeña, Jr., the English Parliament, its purpose "is to enable and
submitted to this Court a verified petition for "declaratory encourage a representative of the public to discharge his
relief, certiorari and prohibition with preliminary public trust with firmness and success" for "it is
injunction" against Congressman Salapida K. Pendatun indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest
and fourteen other congressmen in their capacity as liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from
members of the Special Committee created by House the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom
Resolution No. 59. He asked for annulment of such exercise of that liberty may occasion offense." Such
Resolution on the ground of infringenment of his immunity has come to this country from the practices of
parliamentary immunity. Parliamentary as construed and applied by the Congress
He alleges in his petition that first, the resolution violated of the United States.
his constitutional absolute parliamentary immunity for
speeches delivered in the house; second, his words Its extent and application remain no longer in doubt in so
constituted no actionable conduct; and third, after his far as related to the question before us. It guarantees the
allegedly objectionable speech and words, the House legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of
took up other business, and Rule XVII, sec. 7 of the being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before
Rules of House provides that if other business has the courts or any other forum outside of the
intervened after the member had uttered obnoxious Congressional Hall. But is does not protect him from
words in debate, he shall not be held to answer therefor responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever
nor be subject to censure by the House. his words and conduct are considered by the latter
The special committee continued to perform its talk, and disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof.
after giving Congressman Osmeña a chance to defend Q: may the court interfere by issuing a relief, certiorari,
himself, submitted its reports on July 18, 1960, finding and prohibition with preliminary injunction?
said congressman guilty of serious disorderly behaviour; A: No, the House has exclusive power; the courts have
and acting on such report, the House approved on the no jurisdiction to interfere.
same day—before closing its session—House
Resolution No. 175, declaring him guilty as At the present case the court rules that the resolution
cannot be nullified on the ground of the violation of his

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

parliamentary immunity, because he is not being ISSUE:

charged criminally or civilly outside of congress, he is
being investigated within the house concern. The house WON the statements uttered by Senator Miriam is
is the judge of what constituted disorder behaviour, not covered by the Constitutional provision on parliamentary
only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction immunity. (Yes, but the court heavily chastised the lady
upon it, but also because the matter depends mainly on senator for indulging in "insulting rhetoric and offensive
the factual circumstances of which the house knows personalities.)
best.
RULING:

POBRE VS DEFENSOR SANTIAGO The Court sided with Sen. Defensor-Santiago's defense
AC NO 7399 that she should be afforded parliamentary immunity from
AUGUST 25, 2009 suit pursuant to Section 11, Art. VI of the 1987
Constitution, which section states in part that "no
[Senator] x x x shall be questioned nor be held liable in
FACTS: any other place for any speech or debate in the
Congress or in any committee thereof." Although there
In his sworn letter/complaint dated December 22, 2006, was no express admission on the part of the lady
with enclosures, Antero J. Pobre invites the Court’s senator that she did indeed say those words, there was
attention to the following excerpts of Senator Miriam no categorical denial either, which the Court ultimately
Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered on the Senate regarded as an implied admission.
floor: This Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the the forefront in upholding the institution of parliamentary
mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, immunity and promotion of free speech. Neither has the
debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like Court lost sight of the importance of the legislative and
throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of oversight functions of the Congress that enable this
this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief representative body to look diligently into every affair of
Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the government, investigate and denounce anomalies, and
Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position talk about how the country and its citizens are being
[of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I served. Courts do not interfere with the legislature or its
would rather be in another environment but not in the members in the manner they perform their functions in
Supreme Court of idiots x x x. the legislative floor or in committee rooms. Any claim of
an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of
To Pobre, the foregoing statements reflected a total the statement uttered by the member of the Congress
disrespect on the part of the speaker towards then Chief does not destroy the privilege. The disciplinary authority
Justice Artemio Panganiban and the other members of of the assembly and the voters, not the courts, can
the Court and constituted direct contempt of court. properly discourage or correct such abuses committed in
Accordingly, Pobre asks that disbarment proceedings or the name of parliamentary immunity.
other disciplinary actions be taken against the lady
senator. For the above reasons, the plea of Senator Santiago for
the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or
In her comment on the complaint dated April 25, 2007, disciplinary is granted (complaint dismissed). Indeed, her
Senator Santiago, through counsel, does not deny privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a
making the aforequoted statements. She, however, disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. It is
explained that those statements were covered by the felt, however, that this could not be the last word on the
constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, being matter.
part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her
duty as member of Congress or its committee. The The Court wishes to express its deep concern about the
purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out language Senator Santiago, a member of the Bar, used
in the open controversial anomalies in governance with a in her speech and its effect on the administration of
view to future remedial legislation. She averred that she justice. To the Court, the lady senator has undoubtedly
wanted to expose what she believed "to be an unjust act crossed the limits of decency and good professional
of the Judicial Bar Council [JBC]," which, after sending conduct. It is at once apparent that her statements in
out public invitations for nomination to the soon to-be question were intemperate and highly improper in
vacated position of Chief Justice, would eventually substance. To reiterate, she was quoted as stating that
inform applicants that only incumbent justices of the she wanted "to spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio
Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court," and
that the JBC should have at least given an advanced calling the Court a "Supreme Court of idiots."
advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, A careful re-reading of her utterances would readily show
would not be considered for the position of Chief that her statements were expressions of personal anger
Justice. and frustration at not being considered for the post of
Chief Justice. In a sense, therefore, her remarks were

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

outside the pale of her official parliamentary functions. six seats to gain control of the Board and of the
Even parliamentary immunity must not be allowed to be management of the company. The Acero Group which
used as a vehicle to ridicule, demean, and destroy the won only five seats, questioned the said election in a quo
reputation of the Court and its magistrates, nor as armor warranto proceeding filed with the Securities and
for personal wrath and disgust. Authorities are agreed Exchange Commission (SEC) wherein they claimed that
that parliamentary immunity is not an individual privilege the stockholders' votes were not properly counted.
accorded the individual members of the Parliament or Assemblyman Estanislao Fernandez (Assemblyman
Congress for their personal benefit, but rather a privilege Fernandez, the then member of the interim Batasang
for the benefit of the people and the institution that Pambansa, moved to intervene or orally entered his
represents them. appearnace as a counsel for respondent Acero et al. in a
case before the Securities and Exchange Commission
To be sure, Senator Santiago could have given vent to (SEC, an administrative body) involving an intra-
her anger without indulging in insulting rhetoric and corporate dispute with Puyat et al. regarding the election
offensive personalities. of the directors of International Pipe Industries (IPI, a
We, however, would be remiss in our duty if we let the private corporation). Puyat et al. objected on
Senator’s offensive and disrespectful language that constitutional grounds; averring it is in violation of Art
definitely tended to denigrate the institution pass by. It is VIII, sec 11 (now art VI, sec 14) of the Constitution which
imperative on our part to re-instill in Senator/Atty. bars assemblymen from appearing as counsel before
Santiago her duty to respect courts of justice, especially any administrative body. With that, it discouraged
this Tribunal, and remind her anew that the Assemblyman Fernandez from further appearing as
parliamentary non-accountability thus granted to counsel. On the basis of ownership of 10 shares of stock
members of Congress is not to protect them against of IPI, Fernandez alleged legal interest in the matter in
prosecutions for their own benefit, but to enable them, litigation. In view thereof, SEC granted Fernandez the
as the people’s representatives, to perform the functions motion. Hence the existence of this petition. Reviewing
of their office without fear of being made responsible the circumstances surrounding his purchase of the
before the courts or other forums outside the shares, Assemblyman Fernandez acquired P200.00
congressional hall. It is intended to protect members of worth of stock and also, it was noted that he had
Congress against government pressure and intimidation acquired the mere 10 shares out of 262, 843 outstanding
aimed at influencing the decision-making prerogatives of shares after he has signified his intention to appear as
Congress and its members. counsel for Acero but was denied on constitutional
ground, after the quo warranto suit had been filed by
The Rules of the Senate itself contains a provision Acero et al.
on Unparliamentary Acts and Language that enjoins a
Senator from using, under any circumstance, "offensive ISSUE:
or improper language against another Senator
or against any public institution." But as to Senator Whether or not in intervening in the SEC Case,
Santiago’s unparliamentary remarks, the Senate Assemblyman Fernandez is, in effect, appearing as
President had not apparently called her to order, let counsel, albeit indirectly, before an administrative body
alone referred the matter to the Senate Ethics in contravention of the Constitution
Committee for appropriate disciplinary action, as the provision.
Rules dictates under such circumstance. The lady
senator clearly violated the rules of her own chamber. It RULING:
is unfortunate that her peers bent backwards and
avoided imposing their own rules on her. No. Ordinarily, by virtue of the Motion for Intervention,
Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said to be
appearing as counsel. Ostensibly, he is not appearing on
PUYAT VS DEGUZMAN behalf of another, although he is not joining the cause of
GR NO 51122 private respondents. His appearance could theoretically
MARCH 25, 1982 be for the protection of his ownership of ten (10) shares
of IPI in respect of the matter in litigation and not for the
protection of the petitioners nor respondents who have
FACTS: their respective capable and respected counsel.
However, under the facts and circusmtances, he
This case is a suit for Certiorari and Prohibition with acquired them "after the fact," that is, on May 30, 1979,
Preliminary Injunction poised against the Order of after the contested election of Directors on May 14,
respondent Associate Commissioner of the Securities 1979, after the quo warranto suit had been filed on May
and Exchange Commission (SEC) granting 25, 1979 before SEC and one day before the scheduled
Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to hearing of the case before the SEC on May 31, 1979.
intervene in SEC Case No. 1747. Under those said facts, the court found that there has
been an indirect "appearance as counsel before xxx any
In an election for the eleven Directors of the International administrative body…” The court held that it is a
Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI), the Puyat Group won circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. The

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

"intervention" was an afterthought to enable him to rightfully belongs to Tatad. They assert the definition of
appear actively in the proceedings in some other “majority” in Article VI, Sec 16(1) of the Constitution
capacity. refers to a group of senators who (1) voted for the
winning Sen. Pres, and (2) accepted committee
Therefore, respondent Commissioner's Order granting chairmanships, therefore those otherwise compromise
Atty. Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC the “minority.” Accordingly, they are of the view that
Case No. 1747 is hereby reversed and set aside. The Guingona, having voted for Fernan (the elected Sen.
temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued is hereby President), belongs to the “majority.” In view thereof,
made permanent. No costs. they assert Art VI, sec 16(1) has not been observed in
the selection of the Minority Leader.

SANTIAGO VS GUINGONA
GR NO 134577 ISSUE:
NOVEMBER 18, 1998
1. Whether the Court have jurisdiction over the
petition
FACTS:
2. Whether Guingona unlawfully usurp the position
The Senate of the Philippines, with Sen. John Henry R. of Minority Leader in the view that Art VI, sec 16(1)
Osmeña as presiding officer, convened on July 27, 1998 of the Constitution was not observed
for the first regular session of the eleventh Congress. At
the time, in terms of party affiliation, the composition of 3. Whether Respondent Fernan act with grave
the Senate was as follows: abuse of discretion in recognizing Respondent
Guingona as the minority leader
10 members Laban ng Masang Pilipino (LAMP)
7 members Lakas-National Union of Christian RULING:
Democrats-United
Muslim Democrats of the 1. Yes. To resolve the issue of jurisdiction, this
Philippines (Lakas- Court carefully reviewed and deliberated on the
NUCD-UMDP) various important cases involving this very important
1 member Liberal Party (LP) and basic question, which it has ruled upon in the
1 member Aksyon Demokrasya past. In the case if Avelino v. Cuenco, the Court
1 member People's Reform Party (PRP) ultimately assumed jurisdiction (1) "in the light of
1 member Gabay Bayan subsequent events which justify its intervention;" and
2 members Independent (2) because the resolution of the issue hinged on the
––––—— interpretation of the constitutional provision on the
23 total number of senators 7 (The last six members are presence of a quorum to hold a session and therein
all classified by petitioners as "independent".) elect a Senate President. In line with this, in Tañada
v. Cuenco, the Court ruled that the validity of the
Upon opening its 1st regular session, the Senate held its selection of members of the Senate Electoral
election of officers. Sen. Fernan was declared duly Tribunal by the senators was not a political question.
elected Senate President. Thereafter, the Senate failed The choice of these members did not depend on the
to arrive at a consensus on the matter of the Minority Senate's "full discretionary authority," but was
leader for which Sen Tatad and Sen Guingona of the subject to mandatory constitutional limitations. Thus,
PRP and Lakas-NUCP-UMPD (both “minority” parties, the Court held that not only was it clearly within its
LAMP being the “majority”) respectively were being jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the selection
considered. On July 30, 1998, after 3 session days of proceedings, but it was also its duty to consider and
debate on the issue, the majority leader informed the determine the issue. The same question of
body that he was in receipt of a letter signed by the jurisdiction was raised in Tañada v. Angara, wherein
seven Lakas-NUCD-UMDP senators; stating that they the petitioners sought to nullify the Senate's
had elected Senator Guingona as the minority leader. By concurrence in the ratification of the World Trade
virtue thereof, the Senate President Fernan formally Organization (WTO) Agreement. The Court ruled:
recognized Senator Guingona as the minority leader of "Where an action of the legislative branch is
the Senate upon receiving information that all Lakas- seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
NUCD- UMDP senators signed in agreement. becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the
judiciary to settle the dispute." In another landmark
On July 31, 1998, Senators Santiago and Tatad of the case, Lansang v. Garcia, Chief Justice Roberto
PRP instituted this present (original) petition for quo Concepcion wrote that the Court "had authority to
warranto under Rule 66, Section 5, Rules of Court, and should inquire into the existence of the factual
seeking the ouster of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. as bases required by the Constitution for the
minority leader of the Senate and the declaration of suspension of the privilege of the writ [of habeas
Senator Tatad as the rightful minority leader, alleging that corpus]."
Guingona had been usurping a position which, to them,

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

Therefore, it is clear that this Court has despotic manner by reason of passion or
jurisdiction over the petition. It is well within the hostility." Where no provision of the Constitution,
power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire the laws or even the rules of the Senate has
whether indeed the Senate or its officials been clearly shown to have been violated,
committed a violation of the Constitution or disregarded or overlooked, grave abuse of
gravely abuse their discretion in exercise of their discretion cannot be imputed to Senate officials
functions and prerogatives. for acts done within their competence and
2. No. The term "majority" has been judicially authority.
defined a number of times. When referring to a
certain number out of a total or aggregate, it simply Therefore, the court dismissed the petition.
"means the number greater than half or more than
half of any total." The plain and unambiguous words BAGUILAT VS ALVAREZ
of the subject constitutional clause simply mean that GR NO 227757
the Senate President must obtain the votes of more JULY 25, 2017
than one half of all the senators. Not by any
construal does it thereby delineate who comprise the
"majority", much less the "minority," in the said body. FACTS:
And there is no showing that the framers of our
Constitution had in mind other than the usual The petition alleges that prior to the opening of the 17th
meanings of these terms. Art VI, Sec 16 (1) does not Congress on July 25, 2016, several news articles
delineate who compromise the “majority much less surfaced about Rep. Suarez’s announcement that
the “minority.” Notably, the Constitution [in Art VI, he sought the adoption or anointment of President
Sec 16 (1)] is explicit on the manner of electing a Rodrigo Roa Duterte's Administration as the "Minority
Senate President and a House Speaker, it is, Leader" to lead a “cooperative minority" in the
however, dead silent on the manner of selecting the House of Representatives (or the House), and even
other officers in both chambers of Congress. All that purportedly encamped himself in Davao shortly after
it says is that “each House shall choose such other the May 2016 Elections to get the endorsement of
officers as it may deem necessary.” To our mind, the President Duterte and the majority partisans.
method of choosing who will be conferred to the
House. In the absence of constitutional or statutory The petition further claims that to ensure Rep.
guidelines, the Court is devoid of any basis upon Suarez's election as the Minority Leader, the
which to determine the legality of the acts of the supermajority coalition in the House allegedly “lent"
Senate relative thereto. While in terms of usurpation Rep. Suarez some of its members to feign membership
of office, the court held that the specific norms or in the Minority, and thereafter, vote for him as the
standards that may be used in determining who may
Minority Leader
lawfully occupy the disputed position has not been
laid down by the Constitution, the statutes, or the then-Acting Floor Leader Rep. Fariñas and Rep.
Senate itself in which the power has been vested. Jose Atienza (Rep. Atienza) had an interchange before
Absent any clear-cut guideline, in no way can it be the Plenary, wherein the latter elicited the following from
said that illegality or irregularity tainted Respondent
the former:
Guingona's assumption and exercise of the powers
of the office of Senate minority leader. Furthermore, (a) all those who vote for the winning Speaker shall
no grave abuse of discretion has been shown to belong to the Majority and those who vote for the
characterize any of his specific acts as minority
other candidates shall belong to the Minority;
leader. Therefore, the Constitution vests in each
house of Congress the power "to determine the rules (b) those who abstain from voting shall likewise be
of its proceedings." Pursuant thereto, the Senate considered part of the Minority; and
formulated and adopted a set of rules to govern its
internal affairs. (c) the Minority Leader shall be elected by the
3. No. The court held that Respondent Fernan did members of the Minority.
not gravely abuse his discretion as Senate President
in recognizing Respondent Guingona as the minority The Elections for the Speakership were held, "[w]ith
leader. The all-embracing and plenary power and 252 Members voting for [Speaker] Alvarez, eight
duty of the Court "to determine whether or not there [(8)]voting for Rep. Baguilat, seven [(7)] voting for
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to Rep. Suarez, 21 abstaining and one [(1)] registering
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any a no vote," thus, resulting in Speaker Alvarez being
branch or instrumentality of the Government" is the duly elected Speaker of the House of
restricted only by the definition and confines of the Representatives of the 17th Congress.
term "grave abuse of discretion."
The court believe that the Senate President Petitioners hoped that as a "long-standing tradition"
cannot be accused of "capricious or whimsical of the House —where the candidate who garnered
exercise of judgment" or of "an arbitrary and the second (2nd)-highest number of votes for

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

Speakership automatically becomes the Minority jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of

Leader — Rep. Baguilat would be declared and discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not
recognized as the Minority Leader. However, despite only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on
numerous follow-ups from respondents, Rep. Baguilat matters of this nature.
was never recognized as such.
Principles:
Petitioners filed the instant petition for mandamus,
insisting thatRep. Baguilat should be recognized as the The Court cannot intrude in pursuant to the principle of
Minority Leader in light of: (a) the"long-standing tradition" separation of powers, as well as the political question
in the House where the candidate who garnered the doctrine
second (2nd)-highest number of votes for Mandamus meaning:
Speakership automatically becomes the Minority
Leader; and (b) the irregularities attending "Mandamus is defined as a writ commanding a tribunal,
Rep.Suarez's election to said Minority Leader position. corporation, board or person to do the act required to be
done when it or he unlawfully neglects the performance
ISSUE: of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
WON respondents may becompelled via a writ of resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully
mandamus to recognize: (a) Rep. Baguilat as the excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; or office or which such other is entitled, there being no
and (b) petitioners as the only legitimate members of other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
the House Minority. ordinary course of law."

RULING: AVELINO VS CUENCO

83 PHIL 17
The petition is without merit.

The Court finds that petitioners have no clear legal FACTS:

right to the reliefs sought. Records disclose that prior to
the Speakership Election held on July 25, 2016, On February 21, 1949, hours before the opening of the
then-Acting Floor Leader Rep. Fariñas responded to session Senator Tañada and Senator Prospero Sanidad
a parliamentary inquiry from Rep. Atienza as to who filed with the Secretary of the Senate resolution
enumerating charges against the then Senate
would elect the Minority Leader of the House of
President and ordering the investigation thereof.
Representatives. Rep. Fariñas then articulated that:

(a) all those who vote for the winning Speaker shall Although a sufficient number of senators to constitute a
belong to the Majority and those who vote for other quorum were at the Senate session hall at the
appointed time (10:00 A. M.), and the petitioner was
candidates shall belong to the Minority;
already in his office, said petitioner delayed his
(b) those who abstain from voting shall likewise be appearance at the session hall until about 11:35 A.
considered part of the Minority; and M. When he finally ascended the rostrum, he did
not immediately open the session, but instead
(c) the Minority Leader shall be elected by the members requested from the Secretary a copy of the
of the Minority. resolution submitted by Senators Tañada and
Sanidad and in the presence of the public he read
The election of the Speaker of the House slowly and carefully said resolution, after which he
proceeded without any objection from any member of called and conferred with his colleagues Senators
Congress, including herein petitioners. Francisco and Tirona.

Section 8 of the Rules of the house on membership to When the session was called to order, Senator Tañada
the Majority and the Minority repeatedly stood up to claim his right to deliver his one-
hour speech, but Senate President Avelino kept on
Section 16 (1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads: ignoring him, and announced that he would order the
Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and arrest of anyone who would speak without being
the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority previously recognized. A commotion broke out. A move
vote of all its respective Members. Each house shall for adjournment was opposed. Suddenly, Senate
choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. President Avelino banged his gavel and walked out of
the session hall followed by his followers (leaving only 12
As explained by former Chief Justice Roberto senators in the hall). Thereafter, senators who remained
Concepcion the judiciary is the final arbiter on the went on with the session (so called “rump session”) and
question of whether a branch of government or any of its voted to declare vacant the position of the Senate
officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of President and designated respondent Senator Cuenco

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

as the Acting Senate President. In this petition, Senator that the question “What is that, Mr. Speaker?” was a
Avelino prays for the Court to declare him the rightful privileged question or a point of order which, under the
Senate President and to oust respondent Senator rules of the House, has precedence over other matters,
Cuenco. with the exception of motion of adjourn.
The contention has no merit, Rep. Rep. Arroyo did not
ISSUE: have the floor. Without first drawing the attention of the
Chair, he simply stood up and started talking. As a
1. Is the rump session a continuation of the morning result, the chair did not hear him and proceeded to ask if
session? there were objections to the Majority Leader’s motion.
2. Supposing the rump session was not a continuation of Hearing none, he declared the report approved.
the morning session, was there a quorum when Senator
Avelino was ousted, and Senator Cuenca was elected as ISSUE:
the Senate President?
Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was
RULING: passed in violation of the rules of the House.

1. Yes. A minority of 10 senators may not, by leaving the RULING:

Hall, prevent the other 12 senators from passing a
resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement. Rule XVI §96 of the Rules of the House of
2. Yes. In view of Sen. Confesor’s absence from the Representatives provides: §96 Manner of Addressing the
country, for all practical considerations, he may not Chair. – When a member desires to speak, he shall rise
participate in the Senate deliberations. Therefore, an and respectfully address the Chair “Mr. Speaker”.
absolute majority of all the members of the Senate less Rule XXVI, §59 says: §59 Whenever a Senator wishes
one (23), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate to speak, he shall rise and request the President or the
for the purpose of a quorum; that is, 12 senators in this Presiding Officer to allow him to have the floor which
case constitute a quorum. Even if the 12 did not consent shall be necessary before he may proceed.
constitute a quorum, they could have ordered the arrest Rule XX Sec 121 Defines a question of privilege as
of one, at least, of the absent members. If one had been follows: Questions of privilege are those affecting the
so arrested, there would be no doubt [that there is a duties, conduct, rights, privileges, dignity, integrity or
quorum] then, and Sen. Cuenco would have been reputation of the House or of its members, collectively or
elected just the same since, at most, only 11 will side individually.
with Sen. Avelino. It would be most injudicious [then] to In sum, there is no basis for the charge that the approval
declare the latter as the rightful President of the Senate. of the conference committee report on what later
became R.A. No. 8240 was railroaded through the
Principles: House of Representative. Nor is there any need for
Quorum: When the Constitution declares that a majority petitioners to invoke the power to this court under Art.
of “each House” shall constitute a quorum, “the House” VIII, sec 1 of the constitution to determine whether, in
does not mean “all” the members. Even a majority of all enacting R.A. No. 8240, the House of Representatives
the members may constitute “the House.” There is a acted with grave abuse of discretion, since that is what
difference between a majority of “the House,” the latter we have precisely done, although the result of our review
requiring less number than the first. may not be what petitioners want. It should be added
Art VI, Sec 16, Par 2 that, even if petitioners’ allegations are true, the
Majority of “all Members” means absolute majority. “A disregard of the rules in this case would not affect the
majority” of each House means simple majority, requiring validity of R.A. No. 8240, the rules allegedly violated
a less number. being merely internal rules of procedure of the House
rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment
ARROYO VS DE VENECIA of laws. It is well settled that a legislative act will not be
GR NO 127255 declared invalid for noncompliance with internal rules.
JUNE 26, 1998 Motion for rehearing and reconsideration is DENIED with
FINALITY.
FACTS:
SANTIAGO vs SANDIGANBAYAN
Petitioners seek a rehearing and reconsideration of the G. R. No. 128055
Court’s decision dismissing their petition for certiorari APRIL 18, 2001
and prohibition. Basically, their contention is that when
the Majority Leader (Rep. Rodolfo Albano) moved for the FACTS:
approval of the conference committee report on the bill
that became R.A. No. 8240, leading the chair (Deputy The case arose from complaints filed by a group of
Speaker Raul Daza) to ask of there was any objection to employees of the Commission of Immigration and
the motion, and Rep. Joker P. Arroyo asked “What is Deportation against petitioner, then CID Commissioner,
that, Mr. Speaker?” the Chair allegedly ignored him and for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
instead declared the report approved. Petitioner claim Practices Act. In Oct 1988, Santiago approved the

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|23018844

application for legalization of the stay of about 32 aliens. senate of the Philippines for the implementation of the
Her act was said to be illegal and was tainted with bad suspension order.
faith.
Two other criminal cases, one for violation of the ISSUE:
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 46 and the other
for libel, were also filed with the Regional Trial Court of Whether or not Sandiganbayan can order suspension of
Manila. a member of the Senate without violating the
Constitution.
Pursuant to the information filed with the
Sandiganbayan, Presiding Justice Francis E. RULING:
Garchitorena issued an order for the arrest of petitioner,
fixing the bail at Fifteen Thousand Pesos. Petitioner Yes. The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the
posted a cash bail without need for physical appearance preventive suspension of an incumbent public official
as she was then recuperating from injuries sustained in a charged with violation of the provisions of RA 3019 has
vehicular accident. The Sandiganbayan granted her both legal and jurisprudential support, specifically
provisional liberty until June 5, 1991 or until her physical Section 13 of the said law which states that any
condition would warrant her physical appearance in incumbent public officer against whom any criminal
court. prosecution under a valid information under this Act shall
be suspended from office.
Petitioner moved for cancellation of her cash bond and Section 13 of RA 3019 also does not state that the public
prayed that she be allowed provisional liberty upon a officer concerned must be suspended only in the office
recognizance. On May 24, 1991, petitioner filed, where he is alleged to have committed the acts with
concurrently, a Petition for Certiorari with prohibition and which he has been charged. Thus, it has been held that
preliminary Injunction before the Court. the use of the word “office” would indicate that it applies
to any officer which the officer charged may be holding,
Sandiganbayan issued an order deferring petitioner’s and not only the particular office under which he stands
arraignment and the consideration of her motion to accused.
cancel the cash bond until further advice from the court. Also, the order of suspension prescribed in RA 3019 is
different from that of Section 16(3) of Article Vi of the
On January 13, 1992, the Court rendered its decision 1987 Constitution because the former is preventive (not
dismissing the petition and lifting the temporary a penalty), and the latter is punitive imposed by either
restraining order. The subsequent motion for House of Congress upon its members. RA 3019 does
reconsideration filed by petitioner proved unavailing. not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress.
The doctrine of separation of powers simply recognized
Petitioner, filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion to that each of the 3 co-equal branches of government has
“Redetermine Probable Cause” and to dismiss or quash exclusive prerogatives and effectively prevents one
said information. Pending the resolution of this incident, branch from unduly intruding into the internal affairs of
the prosecution filed on July 31, 1995 with the another.
Sandiganbayan a motion to issue an order suspending
petitioner. PAREDES v SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 108251
On August 3, 1995, the Sandiganbayan resolved to allow January 31, 1996
the testimony of one Rodolfo Pedellaga (Pedellaga).
The presentation was schedule on September 15, 1995.
In the interim, the Sandiganbayan directed petitioner to
file her opposition to the July 31, 1995 motion of the
prosecution within 15 days from receipt thereof.
On august 18, 1995, petitioner submitted to the
Sandiganbayan a motion for reconsideration of its
August 3, 1995 order which would allow the testimony of
Pedellaga. The incident later denied by the
Sandiganbayan.

On August 22, 1995 petitioner filed her opposition to the

motion of the prosecution to suspend her on January 25,
1996.

The instant recourse. The petition assails the authority

of the Sandiganbayan to decree a 90 days preventive
suspension of Mme. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a
Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, from any
government position, and furnishing a copy thereof to the

Downloaded by Xavier Sangalang (xaybyer@gmail.com)