ATONG PAGLAOM, INC.

vs COMELEC
GR No. 203766
April 2, 2013

Facts:
 This case partially abandoned the rulings in Ang Bagong
Bayani vs COMELEC and BANAT vs COMELEC.
 Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified
by the Commission on Elections in the May 2013 party-list
elections for various reasons but primarily for not being
qualified as representatives for marginalized or
underrepresented sectors.
 Atong Paglaum et al then filed a petition for certiorari
against COMELEC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the
part of COMELEC in disqualifying them.

Issue:
 Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in disqualifying the said party-lists.

Ruling:
 No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set in the
cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. However, the
Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the COMELEC
as the Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines
which abandoned some principles established in the two
aforestated cases. The new guidelines are as follows:
I. Parameters. In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC must
use the following parameters:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list
system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional
parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or
organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines
and do not need to represent any “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections
provided they register under the party-list system and do
not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
political party, whether major or not, that fields
 candidates in legislative district elections can participate
in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that
can separately register under the party-list system. The
sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party,
and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be
“marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-
defined political constituencies.” It is enough that their
principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are
“marginalized and underrepresented” include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack “well-defined political
constituencies” include professionals, the elderly, women,
and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the “marginalized and
underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members of sectoral parties or
organizations that lack “well-defined political
constituencies” must belong to the sector they represent.
The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the “marginalized and underrepresented,” or
that represent those who lack “well-defined political
constituencies,” either must belong to their respective
sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional
parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of
such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations
shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are
disqualified, provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified.
II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are
disallowed, as has always been the practice, from
participating in the party-list elections. But, since there’s
really no constitutional prohibition nor a statutory
prohibition, major political parties can now participate in
the party-list system provided that they do so through
their bona fide sectoral wing (see parameter 3 above).
Allowing major political parties to participate, albeit
indirectly, in the party-list elections will encourage them
to work assiduously in extending their constituencies to
the “marginalized and underrepresented” and to those
who “lack well-defined political constituencies.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave weight to the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission when they
were drafting the party-list system provision of the
Constitution. The Commissioners deliberated that it was
their intention to include all parties into the party-list
elections in order to develop a political system which is
pluralistic and multiparty. (In the BANAT case, Justice
Puno emphasized that the will of the people should defeat
the intent of the framers; and that the intent of the
people, in ratifying the 1987 Constitution, is that the
party-list system should be reserved for the marginalized
sectors.)
III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list
system is NOT RESERVED for the “marginalized and
underrepresented” or for parties who lack “well-defined
political constituencies”. It is also for national or regional
parties. It is also for small ideology-based and cause-
oriented parties who lack “well-defined political
constituencies”. The common denominator however is
that all of them cannot, they do not have the machinery –
unlike major political parties, to field or sponsor
candidates in the legislative districts but they can acquire
the needed votes in a national election system like the
party-list system of elections.
If the party-list system is only reserved for
marginalized representation, then the system itself
unduly excludes other cause-oriented groups from
running for a seat in the lower house.
As explained by the Supreme Court, party-list
representation should not be understood to include
only labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas
workers, and other sectors that by their nature
are economically at the margins of society. It should be
 noted that Section 5 of Republic Act 7941 includes,
among others, in its provision for sectoral representation
groups of professionals, which are not per se
economically marginalized but are still qualified as
“marginalized, underrepresented, and do not have well-
defined political constituencies” as they are ideologically
marginalized.
_________________________________________________________
_

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs COMELEC

GR No. 190582
April 8, 2010

Facts:
 The COMELEC refused to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list
organization under R.A. 7941, otherwise known as the
Party-List System Act, on the ground that the LGBT sector is
neither enumerated in the Constitution and R.A. 7941, nor is
it associated with or related to any of the sectors in the
enumeration.
 Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women
who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or
trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs).
 In denying Ang Ladlad’s registration, the Comelec’s Second
Division ruled: “Until the time comes when Ladlad is able to
justify that having mixed sexual orientations and
transgender identities is beneficial to the nation, its
application for accreditation under the party-list system will
remain just that. x x x x Even if society’s understanding,
tolerance, and acceptance of LGBT’s is elevated, there can
be no denying that Ladlad constituencies are still males and
females, and they will remain either male or female
protected by the same Bill of Rights that applies to all
citizens alike. x x x x As a society, the Philippines cannot
ignore its more than 500 years of Muslim and Christian
upbringing, such that some moral precepts espoused by
said religions have seeped into society and these are not
publicly accepted moral norms.”
Issue:
 Whether or not there is legal basis for Comelec’s refusal to
accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list group.
Ruling:
 There is none. Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling
in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only
those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related
to said sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals) may be registered under the party-list
system.
 The enumeration of marginalized and under-represented
sectors is not exclusive. The crucial element is not whether
a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular
organization complies with the requirements of the
Constitution and R.A. 7941.
 Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that, “no
law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what
our non-establishment clause calls for is “government
neutrality in religious matters.”
 Clearly, governmental reliance on religious justification is
inconsistent with this policy of neutrality. We thus find that
it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for
the Comelec to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the
exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Moral disapproval, without more, is
not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of
homosexuals from participation in the party-list system.
 The denial of Ang Ladlad’s registration on purely moral
grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and
disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to further
any substantial public interest.

COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation

Inc. vs COMELEC
GR No. 207026
August 6, 2013
Summary:
Party-lists must submit a list of five nominees before the
COMELEC. Otherwise, they would be disqualified from
participating in the elections, as what happened to petitioner
COCOFED in this case.

Facts:
 Petitioner is an organization and sectoral party whose
membership comes from the peasant sector, particularly
the coconut farmers and producers. On May 29, 2012,
COCOFED manifested with the COMELEC its intent to
participate in the party-list elections of May 13, 2013 and
submitted the names of only two nominees.
 On November 7, 2012, the COMELEC cancelled COCOFED’s
registration and accreditation as a party-list organization on
several grounds. Notably, the Concurring Opinion of
Commissioner Christian Lim cited, as additional ground, that
since COCOFED submitted only two nominees, then it failed
to comply with Section 8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 79417
that requires the party to submit to COMELEC a list of not
less than five nominees.
 COCOFED questioned the COMELEC’s cancellation of its
registration and accreditation before the Supreme Court. Its
petition was eventually consolidated with other petitions
that formed the basis for the Atong Paglaum decision.
 In its Decision in Atong Paglaum, the Court remanded all the
petitions to the COMELEC to determine their compliance
with the new parameters and guidelines set by the Court in
that case.
 On May 10, 2013, the COMELEC issued its assailed
resolution, maintaining its earlier ruling cancelling
COCOFED’s registration and accreditation for its failure to
comply with the requirement of Section 8 of RA No. 7941,
i.e., to submit a list of not less than five nominees.
 COCOFED moved for reconsideration only to withdraw its
motion later. Instead, on May 20, 2013, COCOFED filed a
Manifestation with Urgent Request to Admit Additional
Nominees with the COMELEC.
  On May 24, 2013, the COMELEC issued a resolution
declaring the cancellation of COCOFED’s accreditation final
and executory.

Issue/S:
 Whether or not the petition is already moot and
academic since COCOFED only received 0.36% of the
total number of votes cast in the party-list elections (less
than 2%)
 Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion in issuing the assailed resolution cancelling
COCOFED’s registration

Ruling:
 No. The validity of the COMELEC’s resolution, cancelling
COCOFED’s registration, remains a very live issue that is
not dependent on the outcome of the elections. Under
Section 4 of RA No. 7941, a party-list group already
registered “need not register anew” for purposes of
every subsequent election, but only needs to file a
manifestation of intent to participate with the COMELEC.
A finding that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion
in cancelling COCOFED’s registration would entitle it, if it
is so minded, to participate in subsequent elections
without need of undergoing registration proceedings
anew.
 No. Failure to submit the list of five nominees before the
election warrants the cancellation of its registration. o
First, the language of Section 8 of RA No. 7941 does not
only use the word “shall” in connection with the
requirement of submitting a list of nominees; it uses this
mandatory term in conjunction with the number of
names to be submitted that is couched negatively, i.e.,
“not less than five.” The use of these terms together is a
plain indication of legislative intent to make the statutory
requirement mandatory for the party to undertake. o
Second, while COCOFED’s failure to submit a complete
list of nominees may not have been among the grounds
cited by the COMELEC in earlier cancelling its
registration, this is not sufficient to support a finding of
grave abuse of discretion. o Third, the fact that a party-
 list group is entitled to no more than three seats in
Congress, regardless of the number of votes it may
garner, does not render Section 8 of RA No. 7941
permissive in nature. The publication of the list of
nominees does not only serve as the reckoning period of
certain remedies and procedures under the resolution.
Most importantly, the required publication satisfies the
people’s constitutional right to information on matters of
public concern. The need for submission of the complete
list required by law becomes all the more important in a
party-list election to apprise the electorate of the
individuals behind the party they are voting for. o Fourth,
we cannot discern any valid reason why a party-list
group cannot comply with the statutory requirement. o
Fifth, while under the 6th parameter in Atong Paglaum,
the Court said that the disqualification of some of the
nominees shall not result in the disqualification of the
party-list group "provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified," the Court in no way
authorized a party-list group's inexcusable failure, if not
outright refusal, to comply with the clear letter of the law
on the submission of at least five nominees.

Araro vs COMELEC
GR No. 192803
December 10, 2013

Nature:
 This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by a party-list
group that ran for the 2010 national elections. The
petitioner questions the validity of the formula used by the
Commission on Elections in determining and proclaiming
the winning party-list groups.

Facts:
 Petitioner, ARARO was a duly accredited party-list garnered
a total of 147,204 votes in the May 10, 2010 elections and
ranked 50th. The COMELEC En Banc sitting as the National
Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed twenty-eight (28)
party-list organizations as winners involving a total of thirty-
 five (35) seats guaranteed and additional seats. The
petitioner questioned the formula used by the COMELEC
and filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with
Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
Order
 The petitioner suggests that the formula used by the
Commission on Elections is flawed because votes that were
spoiled or that were not made for any party-lists were not
counted. According to the petitioner, around seven million
(7,000,000) votes were disregarded as a result of the
Commission on Elections’ erroneous
interpretation. 7,112,792 (Total number of disregarded
votes according to petitioner ARARO)
 On the other hand, the formula used by the Commission on
Elections En Banc sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers is the following:
o Number of seats available to legislative districts X .20
=Number of seats available to party-list
representatives .80
o Thus, the total number of party-list seats available for
the May 2010 elections is 57 as shown below:
229__x .20 =57 .80
 The National Board of Canvassers’ Resolution No. 10-009
applies the formula used in Barangay Association for
National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v.
COMELEC to arrive at the winning party-list groups and their
guaranteed seats, where:
Number of votes of party-list
_____________________=
Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list
Total number of votes for party-list candidates

 the Commission on Elections through the Office of the

Solicitor General took the position that invalid or stray votes
should not be counted in determining the divisor. The
Commission on Elections argues that this will
contradict Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) v.
COMELEC and Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC. It
asserts that:
  Neither can the phrase be construed to include the number
of voters who did not even vote for any qualified party-list
candidate, as these voters cannot be considered to have
cast any vote "for the party-list system."

Issues:
 Whether the case is already moot and academic
 Whether petitioners have legal standing
 Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave
abuse of discretion in its interpretation of the formula used
in BANAT v. COMELEC to determine the party-list groups
that would be proclaimed in the 2010 elections. The third
issue requires our determination of the computation of the
correct divisor to be used. The options are

Held:
 This case is moot and academic but the Court discussed the
issues raised by the petitioner as these are capable of
repetition yet evading review and for the guidance of the
bench, bar, and public.
 The computation proposed by petitioner ARARO even lowers
its chances to meet the 2% threshold required by law for a
guaranteed seat. Its arguments will neither benefit nor
injure the party. Thus, it has no legal standing to raise the
argument in this Court.
 The Court agree with the petitioner but only to the extent
that votes later on determined to be invalid due to no cause
attributable to the voter should not be excluded in the
divisor. In other words, votes cast validly for a party-list
group listed in the ballot but later on disqualified should be
counted as part of the divisor. To do otherwise would be to
disenfranchise the voters who voted on the basis of good
faith that that ballot contained all the qualified candidates.
However, following this rationale, party-list groups listed in
the ballot but whose disqualification attained finality prior to
the elections and whose disqualification was reasonably
made known by the Commission on Elections to the voters
prior to such elections should not be included in the divisor.
 Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 is clear that only
those votes cast for the party-list system shall be
 considered in the computation of the percentage of
representation:
 (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at
least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-
list systemshall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That
those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes
shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
total number of votes: Provided, finally, That each party,
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
three (3) seats.

 The formula in determining the winning party-list groups, as

used and interpreted in the case of BANAT v. COMELEC, is
MODIFIED as follows:
 Number of votes. of party-list Total number of valid votes
for party-list candidates Proportion or Percentage of votes
garnered by party-list
 The divisor shall be the total number of valid votes cast for
the party-list system including votes cast for party-list
groups whose names are in the ballot but are subsequently
disqualified. Party-list groups listed in the ballot but whose
disqualification attained finality prior to the elections and
whose disqualification was reasonably made known by the
Commission on Elections to the voters prior to such
elections should not be included in the divisor. The divisor
shall also not include votes that are declared spoiled or
invalid.

Fallo:
 The prayer to enjoin the Commission on Elections from
proclaiming the qualified party-list groups is denied for
being moot and academic;
 The formula in determining the winning party-list groups, as
used and interpreted in the case of BANAT v. COMELEC, is
MODIFIED

AQUINO vs COMELEC
GR No. 120265
September 18, 1995
Facts:
 Petitioner Agapito Aquino filed his certificate of candidacy
for the position of Representative for the Second District of
Makati City. Private respondents Move Makati, a duly
registered political party, and MateoBedon, Chairman of
LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Brgy. Cembo, Makati City, filed a
petition to disqualify petitioner on the ground that the latter
lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for
congressman which, under Sec. 6, Art. VI of the
Constitution, should be for a period not less than 1 year
immediately preceding the elections.

Issue:
 Whether “residency” in the certificate of candidacy actually
connotes “domicile” to warrant the disqualification of
Aquino from the position in the electoral district.

Ruling:
 No. The essence of representation is to place through the
assent of voters those most cognizant and sensitive to the
needs of a particular district. Clearly, Aquino’s domicile of
origin was Concepcion, Tarlac, and the same is not easily
lost. That coupled with the fact that Aquino himself claims
to have other residences in Metro Mla. and that he claims to
be resident of the condominium unit in Makati for only a
short length of time “indicate that” his “sole purpose in
transferring his physical residence” is not to acquire a new
residence of domicile “but only to qualify as a candidate for
Representative of the 2nd district of Makati City.” The
absence of clear and positive proof showing a successful
abandonment of domicile under the conditions stated
above, the lack of identification— sentimental, actual or
otherwise—with the area, and the suspicious circumstances
under which the lease agreement [of the condominium unit
in Makati (instead of buying one)] was effected all belie his
claim of residency for the period required by the
Constitution.
 In order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for
Representative of the Second District of Makati City, he
must prove that he has established not just residence but
domicile of choice. Petitioner, in his certificate of candidacy
for the 1992 elections, indicated not only that he was a
resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he
was a resident of the same for 52 years immediately
preceding that elections. At that time, his certificate
indicated that he was also a registered voter of the same
district. His 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 up to
the time of filing of his most recent certificate of candidacy
for the 1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac. The intention
not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident
in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one.
While a lease contract may be indicative of petitioner’s
intention to reside in Makati City, it does not engender the
kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of
one’s original domicile.