BANAT VS COMELEC

Facts: Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed before
the Commission on Elections(COMELEC) a petition to proclaim the full number of party list
representatives provided by the Constitution. However, therecommendation of the head of the legal
group of COMELECs national board of canvassers to declare the petition moot and academic was
approved by the COMELEC en banc, and declared further in a resolution that the winning party list
will be resolved using the Veterans ruling. BANAT then filed a petition before the SC assailing said
resolution of the COMELEC.
Issues:
(1) Is the 20% allocation for party-list representatives provided in Sec 5 (2), Art VI of the
Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?

(2) Is the 2% threshold and qualifier votes prescribed by the same Sec 11 (b) of RA 7941
constitutional?

(3) Does the Constitution prohibit major political parties from participating in the party-
list elections? If not, can major political parties participate in the party-list elections?

Held:
(1) Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 mandates the filling up of the entire 20% allocation of
party-list representatives found in the Constitution. The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Sec 5 of Art VI,
left the determination of the number of the members of the House of Representatives to Congress.
The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot
be more then 20% of the members of the House of Representatives.

(2) No. We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the
two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Sec
11(b) of RA 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it
mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party-list seats when the
available party-list seat exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the
distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the
members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.We therefore
strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as
found in the second clause of Sec 11 (b) of RA 7941. The two percent threshold presents an
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Sec 5 (2), Art VI of the Constitution and prevents
the attainment of the-broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the
House of Representatives.

(3) No. Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 prohibits major political parties from participating in
the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution clearly intended the major
political parties to participate in party-list elections through their sectoral wings. However, by vote of
8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling in Veterans disallowing major political parties from
participating in the party-list elections, directly or indirectly.


BAGONG BAYANI vs COMELECG.R. No. 147589 - June 26, 2001
Facts:
Bagong Bayani and and Akbayan Citizens Party filed before the COMELEC a Petitionunder Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by theCOMELEC. This resolution
approved the participation of 154 organizations and parties,including those impleaded, in the 2001
party list elections. Petitioners seek thedisqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly
that the party list system wasintended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented;
not the mainstream politicalparties
, the none-marginalized or overrepresented.
Issues:
a.Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list electionsb.Whether or not the
party-list system is exclusive to marginalized andunderrepresented sectors and organizations.
Held:
The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded to the COMELECwhich will
determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties andorganizations
enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution satisfy the requirements of theConstitution and RA
7941. The resolution of this Court directed the COMELEC to refrainproclaiming any winner during
the last party-list election, shall remain in force until after theCOMELEC have compiled and reported
its compliance.a.Yesb.No.
Rationale:
a.
Political parties, even the major ones, may participate in the party-listelections
. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents
cannot bedisqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political
parties.
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives may
"be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties
or organizations."Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution,
political parties may be registered under the party-list system
. For its part, Section 2of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system
of registered national, regional andsectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x
x." Section 3 expressly statesthat a
"party" is
"either a political party

or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties."
b.
That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean,however, that any
political party -- or any organization or group for that matter -- maydo so. The requisite character
of these parties or organizations must be consistentwith the purpose of the party-list system, as laid
down in the Constitution and RA7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution.
The provision on the party-listsystem is not self-executory
. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "inaccordance with law" or "as may be provided by law";
it was thus
up to Congress tosculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution
.

AKBAYAN VS COMELEC
Political Law Election Laws Right of Suffrage Extension of Voters Registration
On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN-Youth, together with other youth movements sought the extension of
the registration of voters for the May 2001 elections. The voters registration has already ended on
December 27, 2000. AKBAYAN-Youth asks that persons aged 18-21 be allowed a special 2-day
registration. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth the sued
COMELEC for alleged grave abuse of discretion for denying the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth alleged that
there are about 4 million youth who were not able to register and are now disenfranchised. COMELEC
invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which provides that no registration shall be conducted 120
days before the regular election. AKBAYAN-Youth however counters that under Section 28 of Republic
Act 8436, the COMELEC in the exercise of its residual and stand-by powers, can reset the periods of
pre-election acts including voters registration if the original period is not observed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of discretion when it denied the extension
of the voters registration.
HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so pursuant to the clear provisions of Section
8, RA 8189 which provides that no voters registration shall be conducted within 120 days before the
regular election. The right of suffrage is not absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters
registration which is not a mere statutory requirement. The State, in the exercise of its inherent police
power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voters registration for the ultimate
purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally important
end, that even pre-election activities could be performed by the duly constituted authorities in a
realistic and orderly manner one which is not indifferent and so far removed from the pressing
order of the day and the prevalent circumstances of the times. RA 8189 prevails over RA 8436 in that
RA 8189s provision is explicit as to the prohibition. Suffice it to say that it is a pre-election act that
cannot be reset.
Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special registration, COMELEC has shown in its
pleadings that if it is allowed, it will substantially create a setback in the other pre-election matters
because the additional voters from the special two day registration will have to be screened, entered
into the book of voters, have to be inspected again, verified, sealed, then entered into the
computerized voters list; and then they will have to reprint the voters information sheet for the
update and distribute it by that time, the May 14, 2001 elections would have been overshot
because of the lengthy processes after the special registration. In short, it will cost more
inconvenience than good. Further still, the allegation that youth voters are disenfranchised is not
sufficient. Nowhere in AKBAYAN-Youths pleading was attached any actual complaint from an
individual youth voter about any inconvenience arising from the fact that the voters registration has
ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN-Youth et al admitted in their pleading that they are
asking an extension because they failed to register on time for some reasons, which is not appealing
to the court. The law aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.


Kabataan Party-List vs. Comelec

COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8585 on February 12, 2009 adjusting the deadline of voter
registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections to October 31, 2009, instead of
December 15, 2009 as previously fixed by Resolution No. 8514. The intense public clamor for an
extension of the October 31, 2009 deadline notwithstanding, the COMELEC stood firm in its decision
not to extend it, arguing mainly that it needs ample time to prepare for the automated elections. Via
the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed on October 30, 2009, petitioners challenge the
validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 and seek a declaration of its nullity.

Issue: Does the Comelec have discretion to fix other dates for continuing registration?

Held: The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular
offices hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before
a special election. Both R.A. No. 6646, Section 29 and R.A. No. 8436, Section 28 grant the COMELEC
the power to fix other periods and dates for pre-election activities only if the same cannot be
reasonably held within the period provided by law. This grant of power, however, is for the purpose
of enabling the people to exercise the right of suffrage the common underlying policy of RA 8189,
RA 6646 and RA 8436.

In the present case, the Court finds no ground to hold that the mandate of continuing voter
registration cannot be reasonably held within the period provided by RA 8189, Sec. 8 daily during
office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular elections.
There is thus no occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines
therefor.