LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT CASES at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each

province, shall have at least one representative.

A.) DISTRICT REP. & QUESTIONS of
APPORTIONMENT The petitioners claim that the reconfiguration by
Republic Act No. 9716 of the first and second
1. Aquino III V. Comelec districts of Camarines Sur is unconstitutional,
Apr. 7, 2010 because the proposed first district will end up
with a population of less than 250,000 or only
Issue: 176,383.
This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners Issue:
Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and w/n a population of 250,000 is an indispensable
Mayor Jesse Robredo seek the nullification as constitutional requirement for the creation of a
unconstitutional of Republic Act No. 9716, new legislative district in a province?
entitled An Act Reapportioning the Composition
of the First (1st) and Second (2nd) Legislative Held:
Districts in the Province of Camarines Sur and We deny the petition.
Thereby Creating a New Legislative District
From Such Reapportionment. Ruling:
There is no specific provision in the Constitution
Republic Act No. 9716 originated from House that fixes a 250,000 minimum population that
Bill No. 4264, and was signed into law by must compose a legislative district.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on 12 The use by the subject provision of a comma to
October 2009. It took effect on 31 October 2009 separate the phrase each city with a population
creating an additional legislative district for the of at least two hundred fifty thousand from the
Province of Camarines Sur by reconfiguring the phrase or each province point to no other
existing first and second legislative districts of conclusion than that the 250,000 minimum
the province. population is only required for a city, but not for
a province.26
The Province of Camarines Sur was estimated Apropos for discussion is the provision of the
to have a population of 1,693,821,2 distributed Local Government Code on the creation of a
among four (4) legislative districts. Following the province which, by virtue of and upon creation,
enactment of Republic Act No. 9716, the first is entitled to at least a legislative district. Thus,
and second districts of Camarines Sur were Section 461 of the Local Government Code
reconfigured in order to create an additional states:
legislative district for the province. Hence, the
first district municipalities of Libmanan, Requisites for Creation.
Minalabac, Pamplona, Pasacao, and San (a) A province may be created if it has an
Fernando were combined with the second average annual income, as certified by the
district municipalities of Milaor and Gainza to Department of Finance, of not less than Twenty
form a new second legislative district. million pesos (P20,000,000.00) based on 1991
constant prices and either of the following
Petitioners contend that the reapportionment requisites:
introduced by Republic Act No. 9716, runs afoul
of the explicit constitutional standard that (i) a contiguous territory of at least two thousand
requires a minimum population of two hundred (2,000) square kilometers, as certified by the
fifty thousand (250,000) for the creation of a Lands Management Bureau; or
legislative district. Petitioners rely on Section (ii) a population of not less than two hundred fifty
5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution as basis thousand (250,000) inhabitants as certified by
for the cited 250,000 minimum population the National Statistics Office.
standard. The provision reads:
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far Notably, the requirement of population is not an
as practicable, contiguous, compact, and indispensable requirement, but is merely an
adjacent territory. Each city with a population of alternative addition to the indispensable income
requirement.
 2. ALDABA VS. COMELEC connection with the proposed creation of
Jan. 25, 2010 Malolos City as a lone congressional district of
the Province of Bulacan.
Facts:
This is an original action for Prohibition to First, certifications on demographic projections
declare unconstitutional Republic Act No. 9591 can be issued only if such projections are
(RA 9591), creating a legislative district for the declared official by the National Statistics
city of Malolos, Bulacan, for violating the Coordination Board (NSCB). Second,
minimum population requirement for the creation certifications based on demographic projections
of a legislative district in a city. can be issued only by the NSO Administrator or
his designated certifying officer. Third,
On 1 May 2009, RA 9591 lapsed into law, intercensal population projections must be as of
amending Malolos City Charter,2 by creating a the middle of every year.
separate legislative district for the city. The
population of Malolos City was 223,069. The Moreover, the Certification states that the total
population of Malolos City on 1 May 2009 is a population of Malolos, Bulacan as of May 1,
contested fact but there is no dispute that House 2000 is 175,291. The Certification also states
Bill No. 3693 relied on an undated certification that the population growth rate of Malolos is
issued by a Regional Director of the National 3.78% per year between 1995 and 2000. Based
Statistics Office (NSO) that the projected on a growth rate of 3.78% per year, the
population of the Municipality of Malolos will be population of Malolos of 175,291 in 2000 will
254,030 by the year 2010 using the population grow to only 241,550 in 2010.
growth rate of 3.78 between 1995 to 2000.
Any population projection forming the basis for
Issue: the creation of a legislative district must be
RA 9591 is unconstitutional for failing to meet based on an official and credible source. That is
the minimum population threshold of 250,000 for why the OSG cited Executive Order No. 135,
a city to merit representation in Congress as otherwise the population projection would be
provided under Section 5(3), Article VI of the unreliable or speculative.
1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the
Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution. 3. G.R. No. 180050 : May 12, 2010

Held: RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, ET AL.,

We grant the petition and declare RA 9591 Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE
unconstitutional for being violative of Section SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, ET
5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and AL.,Respondents.
Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the
1987 Constitution PERALTA,J.:

Ruling: FACTS:
YES. The 1987 Constitution requires that for a
city to have a legislative district, the city must Before us are two Motions for
have a population of at least two hundred fifty Reconsideration of the Decision dated
thousand. February 10, 2010 one filed by the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in
House Bill No. 3693 cites the undated behalf of public respondents, and the
Certification of Regional Director Alberto N. other filed by respondent Governor
Miranda of Region III of the National Statistics Geraldine Ecleo Villaroman,
Office (NSO) as authority that the population of representing the Province of Dinagat
the City of Malolos will be 254,030 by the year Islands.
2010. The Certification states that the
population of Malolos, Bulacan as of May 1, The arguments of the movants are
2000 is 175,291. The Certification further states similar. The grounds for reconsideration
that it was issued upon the request of Mayor of Governor Villaroman can be
Danilo A. Domingo of the City of Malolos in subsumed under the grounds for
reconsideration of the OSG, which are only 106,951based on the2000 Census
as follows: ofPopulation conducted by the National
Statistics Office (NSO), which population
I. is short of the statutory requirement of
250,000 inhabitants.
The Province of Dinagat Islands was
created in accordance with the Although the Provincial Government of
provisions of the 1987 Constitution and Surigao del Norte conducted a special
the Local Government Code of 1991. census of population inDinagatIslandsin
Article 9 of the Implementing Rules and 2003, which yielded a population count
Regulations is merely interpretative of of 371,000, the result was not certified
Section 461 of the Local Government by the NSO as required by the Local
Code. Government Code. Moreover,
respondents failed to prove that with the
II. population count of 371,000, the
population of the original unit
The power to create a local government (motherProvinceofSurigao del Norte)
unit is vested with the Legislature.The would not be reduced to less than the
acts of the Legislature and Executive in minimum requirement prescribed by law
enacting into law RA 9355 should be at the time of the creation of the new
respected as petitioners failed to province.
overcome the presumption of validity or
constitutionality. Less than a year after the proclamation
of the new province, the NSO conducted
III. the2007Census of Population. The NSO
certified that as ofAugust 1,
Recent and prevailing jurisprudence 2007,DinagatIslandshad a total
considers the operative fact doctrine as population of only120,813,which wasstill
a reason for upholding the validity and below theminimum requirement of
constitutionality of laws involving the 250,000 inhabitants.
creation of a new local government unit
as in the instant case. Based on the foregoing, R.A. No. 9355
failed to comply with the population
As regards the first ground, the requirement of 250,000 inhabitants as
movantsreiterate the same arguments in certified by the NSO.
their respective Comments that aside
from the undisputed compliance with the Moreover, the land area of the province
income requirement, Republic Act (R.A.) failed to comply with the statutory
No. 9355, creating the Province requirement of2,000 square
ofDinagat Islands,has also complied kilometers.R.A. No. 9355 specifically
with the population and land area states that the Province of Dinagat
requirements. Islands contains an approximate land
area of802.12 square kilometers. This
The arguments are unmeritorious and was not disputed by the respondent
have already been passed upon by the Governor of the Province of Dinagat
Court in its Decision, ruling that R.A. No. Islands in her Comment.She and the
9355 is unconstitutional, since it failed to other respondents instead asserted that
comply with either the territorial or the province, which is composed of
population requirement contained in more than one island, is exempted from
Section 461 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise theland area requirementbased on the
known as theLocal Government Code of provision in the Rules and Regulations
1991. Implementing the Local Government
Code of 1991 (IRR), specifically
When the Dinagat Islands was paragraph 2 of Article 9which states that
proclaimed a new province onDecember [t]he land area requirement shall not
3,2006, it had an official population of apply where the proposed province is
composed of one (1) or more exemption from the other component
islands.The certificate of compliance requirement, because the non-
issued by the LandsManagement attendance of one results in the
Bureau was also based on the absence of a reason for the other
exemption under paragraph 2, Article 9 component requirement to effect a
of the IRR. qualification.

However, the Court held thatparagraph ISSUE: Whether the correct

2 of Article 9 of the IRRis null and void, interpretation of Section 461 of the
because the exemption is not found in Local Government Code is the one
Section 461 of the Local Government stated in the Dissenting Opinion
Code. There is no dispute that in case of ofAssociate Justice Antonio Eduardo B.
discrepancy between the basic law and Nachura.
the rules and regulations implementing
the said law, the basic law prevails, HELD: The Court is not persuaded.
because the rules and regulations
cannot go beyond the terms and POLITICAL LAW: general powers and
provisions of the basic law. attributes of local government units
Section 7, Chapter 2 (entitledGeneral
The movants now argue that the correct Powers and Attributes of Local
interpretation of Section 461 of the Local Government Units) of the Local
Government Code is the one stated in Government Code provides:
the Dissenting Opinion ofAssociate
Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. SEC. 7.Creation and Conversion. As a
general rule, the creation of a local
In his Dissenting Opinion, Justice government unit or its conversion from
Nachura agrees that R.A. No. 9355 one level to another levelshall be based
failed to comply with the population onverifiableindicatorsof viability and
requirement.However, he contends that projected capacity to provide services,to
the Province ofDinagat Islands did not wit:
fail to comply with the territorial
requirementbecause it is composed ofa (a)Income. It must be sufficient, based
group of islands; hence, it is exempt on acceptable standards, to provide for
from compliance not only with the all essential government facilities and
territorial contiguity requirement, but services and special functions
also with the 2,000-square-kilometer commensurate with the size of its
land area criterion inSection 461 of the population, as expected of the local
Local Government Code. government unit concerned;

He argues that the whole paragraph on (b)Population. It shall be determined as

contiguity and land area in paragraph the total number of inhabitants within the
(a) (i) above is the one being referred to territorial jurisdiction of the local
in the exemption from the territorial government unit concerned; and
requirement in paragraph (b). Thus, he
contends that if the province to be (c)Land area. It must be contiguous,
created is composed of islands, like the unless it comprises two (2) or more
one in this case, then, its territory need islands, or is separated by a local
not be contiguous and need not have an government unit independent of the
area of at least 2,000 square kilometers. others; properly identified by metes and
He asserts that this is because as the bounds with technical
law is worded, contiguity and land area descriptions;andsufficient to provide for
are not two distinct and separate such basic services and facilities to
requirements, but they qualify each meet the requirements of its populace.
other. An exemption from one of the two
component requirements in paragraph Compliance with the foregoing
(a) (i) allegedly necessitates an indicators shall be attested to by the
Department of Finance (DOF), the separated byachartered city or cities
National Statistics Office (NSO), and the which do not contribute to the
Lands Management Bureau (LMB) of incomeofthe province.
the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR). Contrary to the contention of the
movants, the exemption above pertains
POLITICAL LAW: requirements for only to the requirement of territorial
land area contiguity.It clearly states that the
requirement of territorial contiguity may
Itmust be emphasized that Section 7 be dispensed with in the case of a
above, which provides for the province comprisingtwo or more islands,
generalruleinthecreation of a local or is separated by a chartered city or
government unit, states in paragraph cities which do not contribute to the
(c)thereof that the land area must be income of the province.
contiguousandsufficient to provide for
such basic services and facilities to Nowhere in paragraph (b) is it expressly
meet the requirements of its populace. stated or may it be implied that when a
province is composed of two or more
Therefore, there are two requirements islands, or when theterritory of a
for land area:(1) the land area must be province is separated by a chartered city
contiguous; and (2) the land area must or cities, such province need not comply
be sufficient to provide for such basic with the land area requirement of at
services and facilities to meet the least 2,000 square kilometers or the
requirements of its populace.A sufficient requirement in paragraph (a) (i) of
land area in the creation of a province is Section 461of the Local Government
at least 2,000 square kilometers, as Code.
provided by Section 461 of the Local
Government Code . Where the law is free from ambiguity,
the court may not introduce exceptions
Thus, Section 461 of the Local or conditions where none is provided
Government Code, providing the from considerations of convenience,
requisites for the creation of a province, public welfare, or for any laudable
specifically states the requirement of purpose; neither may it engraft into the
acontiguousterritoryofat leasttwo law qualifications not contemplated, nor
thousand (2,000) square kilometers. construe its provisions by taking into
account questions of expediency, good
Hence, contrary to the arguments of faith, practical utility and other similar
both movants, the requirement of a reasons so as to relax non-compliance
contiguous territory and the requirement therewith. Where the law speaks in clear
of a land area of at least 2,000square and categorical language, there is no
kilometers aredistinctand separate room for interpretation, but only for
requirements for landarea under application.
paragraph (a) (i) of Section 461 and
Section 7 (c) of the Local Government Moreover, the OSG contends that since
Code. the power to create a local government
unit is vested with the Legislature, the
POLITICAL LAW: exemption from the acts of the Legislature and the Executive
requirement of territorial contiguity branch in enacting into law R.A. No.
9355 should be respected as petitioners
However, paragraph (b) of Section 461 failed to overcome the presumption of
provides two instances ofexemption validity or constitutionality.
from the requirement of territorial
contiguity, thus: The contention lacks merit.

(b)The territoryneed not be contiguousif Section 10, Article X of the Constitution

it comprises two(2)or more islands,or is States:
 Congressman Constantino Jaraula sponsored a
SEC. 10.No province, city, municipality, bill to have two legislative districts in CdO
orbarangaymay becreated, divided, instead. The law was passed (RA 9371) hence
merged, abolished, or its boundary two legislative districts were created. Rogelio
substantially altered, exceptin Bagabuyo assailed the validity of the said law
accordance with the criteria established and he went immediately to the Supreme Court
in the local government codeand subject to enjoin the COMELEC from enforcing the law
to approval by a majority of the votes in the upcoming elections. Bagabuyo
cast in a plebiscite in the political units was contending that the 2nd district was created
directly affected. without a plebiscite which he averred was
required by the Constitution.
As the law-making branch of the
government, indeed, it was the ISSUE: Whether or not a plebiscite was required
Legislature that imposed the criteria for in the case at bar.
the creation of a province as contained HELD: No, a plebiscite is not required in the
in Section 461 of the Local Government case at bar. RA 9371 merely increased the
Code.No law has yet been passed representation of Cagayan de Oro City in the
amending Section 461 of the Local House of Representatives and Sangguniang
Government Code, so only the criteria Panglungsod pursuant to Section 5, Article VI of
stated therein are the bases for the the 1987 Constitution; the criteria established
creation of a province.The Constitution under Section 10, Article X of the 1987
clearly mandates that the criteria in the Constitution only apply when there is a creation,
Local Government Code must be division, merger, abolition or substantial
followed in the creation of a province; alteration of boundaries of a province, city,
hence, any derogation of or deviation municipality, or barangay; in this case, no such
from the criteria prescribed in the Local creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration
Government Code violates Section 10, of boundaries of a local government unit took
Article X of the Constitution. place; and R.A. No. 9371 did not bring about
any change in Cagayan de Oros territory,
Contrary to the contention of the population and income classification; hence, no
movants, the evidence on record proved plebiscite is required. What happened here was
that R.A. No. 9355 failed to comply with a reapportionment of a single legislative district
either thepopulation or territorial into two legislative
requirements prescribed in Section 461 districts. Reapportionment is the realignment
of the Local Government Code for the or change in legislative districts brought about
creation of the Province of Dinagat by changes in population and mandated by the
Islands; hence, the Court declared R.A. constitutional requirement of equality of
No. 9355 unconstitutional. representation.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Before, Cagayan de Oro had only one
Motions for Reconsideration of the Decision congressman and 12 city council members
dated February 10, 2010 are hereby DENIED for citywide for its population of approximately
lack of merit. 500,000. By having two legislative districts, each
of them with one congressman, Cagayan de Oro
now effectively has two congressmen, each one
representing 250,000 of the citys population.
4. NAVAL CASE This easily means better access to their
congressman since each one now services only
5. BAGABUYO V COMELEC 250,000 constituents as against the 500,000

573 SCRA 290 Political Law Local

Government Reapportionment 6. Reyes v. COMELEC

Municipal Corporation Plebiscite G.R. No. 207264 : OCTOBER 22, 2013

Cagayan de Oro used to have only one
FACTS:
legislative district. But in 2006, CdO
 of the blog article of Eli Obligacion as hearsay
This is a Motion for Reconsideration of the En and the photocopy of the Certification from the
Banc Resolution of June 25, 2013 which found Bureau of Immigration. She likewise contends
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the that there was a violation of her right to due
Commission on Elections and affirmed the process of law because she was not given the
March 27, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC opportunity to question and present
First Division. controverting evidence.

Petitioner raised the issue in the petition which It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is not
is: Whether or not Respondent COMELEC is bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of
without jurisdiction over Petitioner who is duly procedure in the presentation of evidence.
proclaimed winner and who has already taken Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules
her oath of office for the position of Member of of Procedure "shall be liberally construed in
the House of Representatives for the lone order to achieve just, expeditious and
congressional district of Marinduque. Petitioner inexpensive determination and disposition of
is a duly proclaimed winner and having taken every action and proceeding brought before the
her oath of office as member of the House of Commission." In view of the fact that the
Representatives, all questions regarding her proceedings in a petition to deny due course or
qualifications are outside the jurisdiction of the to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary
COMELEC and are within the HRET exclusive in nature, then the "newly discovered evidence"
jurisdiction. was properly admitted by respondent
COMELEC.
The averred proclamation is the critical pointer
to the correctness of petitioner submission.The Furthermore, there was no denial of due process
crucial question is whether or not petitioner in the case at bar as petitioner was given every
could be proclaimed on May 18, 2013. opportunity to argue her case before the
Differently stated, was there basis for the COMELEC. From 10 October 2012 when Tan's
proclamation of petitioner on May 18 , 2013. petition was filed up to 27 March 2013 when the
First Division rendered its resolution, petitioner
The June 25, 2013 resolution held that before had a period of five (5) months to adduce
May 18, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc had evidence. Unfortunately, she did not avail herself
already finally disposed of the issue of petitioner of the opportunity given her.
lack of Filipino citizenship and residency via its
resolution dated May 14, 2013, cancelling In administrative proceedings, procedural due
petitioner certificate of candidacy. The process only requires that the party be given the
proclamation which petitioner secured on May opportunity or right to be heard. As held in the
18, 2013 was without any basis. On June 10, case of Sahali v. COMELEC: The petitioners
2013, petitioner went to the Supreme Court should be reminded that due process does not
questioning the COMELEC First Division ruling necessarily mean or require a hearing, but
and the May 14, 2013 COMELEC En Banc simply an opportunity or right to be heard. One
decision, baseless proclamation on 18 May may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation
2013 did not by that fact of promulgation alone but also, and perhaps many times more
become valid and legal. creditably and predictable than oral argument,
through pleadings. In administrative proceedings
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner was denied of moreover, technical rules of procedure and
due process? evidence are not strictly applied; administrative
process cannot be fully equated with due
HELD: Petitioner was denied of due process. process in its strict judicial sense. Indeed,
deprivation of due process cannot be
POLITICAL LAW: administrative due process successfully invoked where a party was given
the chance to be heard on his motion for
Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely reconsideration.
abused its discretion when it took cognizance of
"newly-discovered evidence" without the same In moving for the cancellation of petitioner's
having been testified on and offered and COC, respondent submitted records of the
admitted in evidence. She assails the admission Bureau of Immigration showing that petitioner is
a holder of a US passport, and that her status is 4. In no way shall a party be given more than
that of a "balikbayan." At this point, the burden of three seats even if if garners more than 6% of
proof shifted to petitioner, imposing upon her the the votes cast for the party-list election (3 seat
duty to prove that she is a natural-born Filipino cap rule, same case).
citizen and has not lost the same, or that she
has re-acquired such status in accordance with The Barangay Association for National
the provisions of R.A. No. 9225. Aside from the Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), a
bare allegation that she is a natural-born citizen, party-list candidate, questioned the proclamation
however, petitioner submitted no proof to as well as the formula being used. BANAT
support such contention. Neither did she submit averred that the 2% threshold is invalid; Sec. 11
any proof as to the inapplicability of R.A. No. of RA 7941 is void because its provision that a
9225 to her. party-list, to qualify for a congressional seat,
must garner at least 2% of the votes cast in the
The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. party-list election, is not supported by the
Constitution. Further, the 2% rule creates a
mathematical impossibility to meet the 20%
party-list seat prescribed by the Constitution.
B.) PARTY LIST SYSTEM BANAT also questions if the 20% rule is a mere
1. BANAT V COMELEC ceiling or is it mandatory. If it is mandatory, then
with the 2% qualifying vote, there would be
APRIL 2009 instances when it would be impossible to fill the
prescribed 20% share of party-lists in the lower
586 SCRA 210 Political Law Constitutional house. BANAT also proposes a new
Law Legislative Department Party computation (which shall be discussed in the
List System; Proportional Representation; HELD portion of this digest).
Proper Computation
On the other hand, BAYAN MUNA, another
Statutory Construction Rule in Interpreting the party-list candidate, questions the validity of the
Constitution Intent of the Framers vs Intent of 3 seat rule (Section 11a of RA 7941). It also
the People raised the issue of whether or not major political
NOTE: This case is consolidated with BAYAN parties are allowed to participate in the party-list
Muna vs COMELEC (G.R. No. 179295). elections or is the said elections limited to
sectoral parties.
In July and August 2007, the COMELEC, sitting
as the National Board of Canvassers, made a ISSUES:
partial proclamation of the winners in the party- I. How is the 80-20 rule observed in apportioning
list elections which was held in May 2007. the seats in the lower house?
In proclaiming the winners and apportioning their II. Whether or not the 20% allocation for party-
seats, the COMELEC considered the following list representatives mandatory or a mere ceiling.
rules:
III. Whether or not the 2% threshold to qualify for
1. In the lower house, 80% shall comprise the a seat valid.
seats for legislative districts, while the remaining
20% shall come from party-list representatives IV. How are party-list seats allocated?
(Sec. 5, Article VI, 1987 Constitution);
V. Whether or not major political parties are
2. Pursuant to Sec. 11b of R.A. 7941 or the allowed to participate in the party-list elections.
Party-List System Act, a party-list which garners
at least 2% of the total votes cast in the party-list VI. Whether or not the 3 seat cap rule (3 Seat
elections shall be entitled to one seat; Limit Rule) is valid.

3. If a party-list garners at least 4%, then it is HELD:

entitled to 2 seats; if it garners at least 6%, then I. The 80-20 rule is observed in the following
it is entitled to 3 seats this is pursuant to the 2- manner: for every 5 seats allotted for legislative
4-6 rule or the Panganiban Formula from the districts, there shall be one seat allotted for a
case of Veterans Federation Party vs party-list representative. Originally, the 1987
COMELEC.
Constitution provides that there shall be not seats as long as the two percent threshold is
more than 250 members of the lower house. present.
Using the 80-20 rule, 200 of that will be from It is therefore clear that the two percent
legislative districts, and 50 would be from party- threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to
list representatives. However, the Constitution the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI
also allowed Congress to fix the number of the of the Constitution and prevents the attainment
membership of the lower house as in fact, it can of the broadest possible representation of party,
create additional legislative districts as it may sectoral or group interests in the House of
deem appropriate. As can be seen in the May Representatives.
2007 elections, there were 220 district
representatives, hence applying the 80-20 rule IV. Instead, the 2% rule should mean that if a
or the 5:1 ratio, there should be 55 seats allotted party-list garners 2% of the votes cast, then it
for party-list representatives. is guaranteed a seat, and not qualified. This
allows those party-lists garnering less than 2%
How did the Supreme Court arrive at 55? This is to also get a seat.
the formula:
But how? The Supreme Court laid down the
(Current Number of Legislative following rules:
DistrictRepresentatives 0.80) x (0.20) =
Number of Seats Available to Party-List 1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall
Representatives be ranked from the highest to the lowest based
on the number of votes they garnered during the
Hence, elections.
(220 0.80) x (0.20) = 55 2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions
receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total
II. The 20% allocation for party-list votes cast for the party-list system shall be
representatives is merely a ceiling meaning, entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
the number of party-list representatives shall not
exceed 20% of the total number of the members 3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes,
of the lower house. However, it is not mandatory according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be
that the 20% shall be filled. entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
total number of votes until all the additional
III. No. Section 11b of RA 7941 is seats are allocated.
unconstitutional. There is no constitutional basis
to allow that only party-lists which garnered 2% 4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be
of the votes cast are qualified for a seat and entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
those which garnered less than 2% are
disqualified. Further, the 2% threshold creates a In computing the additional seats, the
mathematical impossibility to attain the ideal 80- guaranteed seats shall no longer be included
20 apportionment. The Supreme Court because they have already been allocated, at
explained: one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the
remaining available seats for allocation as
To illustrate: There are 55 available additional seats are the maximum seats
party-list seats. Suppose there are 50 million reserved under the Party List System less the
votes cast for the 100 participants in the party guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are
list elections. A party that has two percent of the disregarded in the absence of a provision in R.A.
votes cast, or one million votes, gets a No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of fractional
guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the seats.
first 50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50
parties get a seat despite the availability of 55 In short, there shall be two rounds in
seats. Because of the operation of the two determining the allocation of the seats. In the
percent threshold, this situation will repeat itself first round, all party-lists which garnered at least
even if we increase the available party-list seats 2% of the votes cast (called the two-percenters)
to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes are given their one seat each. The total number
cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum of seats given to these two-percenters are then
number of parties get two percent of the votes deducted from the total available seats for party-
for every party, it is always impossible for the lists. In this case, 17 party-lists were able to
number of occupied party-list seats to exceed 50 garner 2% each. There are a total 55 seats
available for party-lists hence, 55 minus 17 = 38 elections as the word party was not qualified
remaining seats. (Please refer to the full text of and that even the framers of the Constitution in
the case for the tabulation). their deliberations deliberately allowed major
political parties to participate in the party-list
The number of remaining seats, in this case 38, elections provided that they establish a
shall be used in the second round, particularly, in sectoral wing which represents the marginalized
determining, first, the additional seats for the (indirect participation), Justice Puno, in his
two-percenters, and second, in determining separate opinion, concurred by 7 other justices,
seats for the party-lists that did not garner at explained that the will of the people defeats the
least 2% of the votes cast, and in the process will of the framers of the Constitution precisely
filling up the 20% allocation for party-list because it is the people who ultimately ratified
representatives. the Constitution and the will of the people is
How is this done? that only the marginalized sections of the
country shall participate in the party-list
Get the total percentage of votes garnered by elections. Hence, major political parties cannot
the party and multiply it against the remaining participate in the party-list elections, directly or
number of seats. The product, which shall not be indirectly.
rounded off, will be the additional number of
seats allotted for the party list but the 3 seat VI. Yes, the 3 seat limit rule is valid. This is one
limit rule shall still be observed. way to ensure that no one party shall dominate
the party-list system.
Example:
In this case, the BUHAY party-list garnered the
highest total vote of 1,169,234 which is 7.33% of
the total votes cast for the party-list elections
(15,950,900). 2. G.R. No. 203766 : April 2, 2013
Applying the formula above: (Percentage of vote
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its
garnered) x (remaining seats) = number of
President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner, v.
additional seat
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
Hence, 7.33% x 38 = 2.79
CARPIO, J.:
Rounding off to the next higher number is not
allowed so 2.79 remains 2. BUHAY is a two- FACTS:
percenter which means it has a guaranteed one
seat PLUS additional 2 seats or a total of 3 52 party-list groups and organizations filed
seats. Now if it so happens that BUHAY got 20% separate petitions totaling 54 with the Supreme
of the votes cast, it will still get 3 seats because Court (SC) in an effort to reverse various
the 3 seat limit rule prohibits it from having more resolutions by the Commission on Elections
than 3 seats. (Comelec) disqualifying them from the May 2013
Now after all the tw0-percenters were given their party-list race. The Comelec, in its assailed
guaranteed and additional seats, and there are resolutions issued in October, November and
still unoccupied seats, those seats shall be December of 2012, ruled, among others, that
distributed to the remaining party-lists and those these party-list groups and organizations failed
higher in rank in the voting shall be prioritized to represent a marginalized and
until all the seats are occupied. underrepresented sector, their nominees do not
come from a marginalized and
V. No. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court underrepresented sector, and/or some of the
continued to disallow major political parties (the organizations or groups are not truly
likes of UNIDO, LABAN, etc) from participating representative of the sector they intend to
in the party-list elections. represent in Congress.
Although the ponencia (Justice Carpio) did point
Petitioners argued that the COMELEC
out that there is no prohibition either from the
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
Constitution or from RA 7941 against major
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying
political parties from participating in the party-list
petitioners from participating in the 13 May 2013
party-list elections, either by denial of their new partyrefers to an organized group of citizens
petitions for registration under the party-list belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in
system, or by cancellation of their existing Section 5 hereofwhose principal advocacy
registration and accreditation as party-list pertains to the special interest and concerns of
organizations; andsecond, whether the criteria their sector."R.A. No. 7941 provides different
for participating in the party-list system laid down definitions for a political and a sectoral party.
inAng Bagong Bayani and Barangay Association Obviously, they are separate and distinct from
for National Advancement and Transparency v. each other.
Commission on Elections(BANAT) should be
applied by the COMELEC in the coming 13 May Under the party-list system, an ideology-based
2013 party-list elections. or cause-oriented political party is clearly
different from a sectoral party. A political party
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC need not be organized as a sectoral party and
committed grave abuse of discretion need not represent any particular sector. There
is no requirement in R.A. No. 7941 that a
HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed national or regional political party must represent
the guidelines set in the cases of Ang a "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. It
Bagong Bayani and BANAT. However, the is sufficient that the political party consists of
Supreme Court remanded the cases back to citizens who advocate the same ideology or
the COMELEC as the Supreme Court now platform, or the same governance principles and
provides for new guidelines which policies,regardless of their economic status as
abandoned some principles established in citizens.
the two aforestated cases.
Political Law- parameters in qualifying party-
Political Law- Party-list system lists

Commissioner Christian S. Monsod, the main The COMELEC excluded from participating in
sponsor of the party-list system, stressed that the 13 May 2013 party-list elections those that
"the party-list system is not synonymous with did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national,
that of the sectoral representation." Indisputably, regional, and sectoral groups or organizations
the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended must represent the "marginalized and
the party-list system to include not only sectoral underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees
parties but also non-sectoral parties. The must belong to the "marginalized and
framers intended the sectoral parties to underrepresented" sector they represent.
constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the Petitioners may have been disqualified by the
party-list system.As explained by Commissioner COMELEC because as political or regional
Wilfredo Villacorta, political parties can parties they are not organized along sectoral
participate in the party-list system "For as long lines and do not represent the "marginalized and
as they field candidates who come from the underrepresented."
different marginalized sectors that we shall
designate in this Constitution." Also, petitioners' nominees who do not belong to
the sectors they represent may have been
Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List System disqualified, although they may have a track
Act is the law that implements the party-list record of advocacy for their sectors. Likewise,
system prescribed in the Constitution. nominees of non-sectoral parties may have
been disqualified because they do not belong to
Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party" any sector. Moreover, a party may have been
as"either a political party or a sectoral partyor a disqualified because one or more of its
coalition of parties." Clearly, a political party is nominees failed to qualify, even if the party has
different from a sectoral party. Section 3(c) of at least one remaining qualified nominee.
R.A. No. 7941 further provides that a"political
partyrefers to anorganized group of citizens In determining who may participate in the
advocating an ideology or platform, principles coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list
and policies for the general conduct of elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the
government."On the other hand, Section 3(d) of following parameters:
R.A. No. 7941 provides that a "sectoral
1. Three different groups may participate in the
party-list system: (1) national parties or 6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of
organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or their nominees are disqualified, provided that
organizations. they have at least one nominee who remains
qualified.
2. National parties or organizations and regional
parties or organizations do not need to organize This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987
along sectoral lines and do not need to Constitution, apply its provisions faithfully, and
represent any "marginalized and desist from engaging in socio-economic or
underrepresented" sector. political experimentations contrary to what the
Constitution has ordained. Judicial power does
3. Political parties can participate in party-list not include the power to re-write the
elections provided they register under the party- Constitution. Thus, the present petitions should
list system and do not field candidates in be remanded to the COMELEC not because the
legislative district elections. A political party, COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
whether major or not, that fields candidates in in disqualifying petitioners, but because
legislative district elections can participate in petitioners may now possibly qualify to
party-list elections only through its sectoral wing participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list
that can separately register under the party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed
system. The sectoral wing is by itself an by this Court.
independent sectoral party, and is linked to a
political party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either 3. G.R. Nos. 206844-45 : July 23, 2013
be "marginalized and underrepresented" or
lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR
It is enough that their principal advocacy CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
pertains to the special interest and concerns of (SENIOR CITIZENS PARTY-LIST),
their sector. The sectors that are "marginalized represented herein by its Chairperson and
and underrepresented" include labor, peasant, First Nominee, FRANCISCO G. DATOL, Jr.,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
communities, handicapped, veterans, and Respondent.
overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-
defined political constituencies" include LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
professionals, the elderly, women, and the
youth. FACTS:

5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties The present petitions were filed by the two rival
or organizations that represent the "marginalized factions within the same party-list organization,
and underrepresented" must belong to the the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector in the Phil., Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS). One
they represent. Similarly, a majority of the group is headed by Rep.Arquiza (Arquiza group)
members of sectoral parties or organizations and the other by Francisco Datol (Datol group).
that lack "well-defined political constituencies" SENIOR CITIZENS was allocated one seat in
must belong to the sector they represent. The Congress. Rep. Arquiza, then the organizations
nominees of sectoral parties or organizations first nominee, served as a member of the House
that represent the "marginalized and of Representatives.
underrepresented," or that represent those who
lack "well-defined political constituencies," either The nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS signed an
must belong to their respective sectors, or must agreement, entitled Irrevocable Covenant, which
have a track record of advocacy for their contains the list of their candidates and terms on
respective sectors. The nominees of national sharing of their powers. It contained an
and regional parties or organizations must be agreement on who among the candidates will
bona-fide members of such parties or serve the terms according to the power sharing
organizations. agreement.
 Relations.
After the conduct of the May 10, 2010 elections,
SENIOR CITIZENS ranked second among all The first of the enumerated rights pertain to the
the party-list candidates and was allocated two substantive rights of a party at hearing stage of
seats in the House of Representatives. The first the proceedings. The essence of this aspect of
seat was occupied by its first nominee, Rep. due process, we have consistently held, is
Arquiza, while the second was given to its simply the opportunity to be heard, or as applied
second nominee, David L. Kho (Rep. Kho). to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to
explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a
On December 14, 2011, Rep. Arquiza informed reconsideration of the action or ruling
the office of COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is
Brillantes, Jr. in a letter dated December 8, 2011 not at all times and in all instances essential; in
that the second nominee of SENIOR CITIZENS, the case of COMELEC, Rule 17 of its Rules of
Rep. Kho, had tendered his resignation. By Procedure defines the requirements for a
virtue of such resignation and as provided under hearing and these serve as the standards in the
their agreement, Rep. Arquiza stated that its determination of the presence or denial of due
fourth nominee shall assume position since their process.
third nominee, Datol, has been previously
expelled in their party. However, the board of the The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth aspects
party list, headed by Rep. Arquiza, recalled the of the Ang Tibay requirements are
previous acceptance of the resignation of Rep. reinforcements of the right to a hearing and are
Kho. the inviolable rights applicable at the deliberative
stage, as the decision-maker decides on the
The COMELEC en Banc issued a resolution that evidence presented during the hearing. These
the list submitted to them is deemed to be standards set forth the guiding considerations in
permanent as the law deprives the party the deliberating on the case and are the material
right to change their nominees. Thus, even if the and substantial components of decision-making.
expulsion of Datol in the petitioner party-list were Briefly, the tribunal must consider the totality of
true, the list and order of nominees of the Senior the evidence presented which must all be found
Citizens party-list remains the same in so far as in the records of the case (i.e., those presented
the COMELEC and the law are concerned as it or submitted by the parties); the conclusion,
does not fall under one of the three grounds reached by the decision-maker himself and not
mentioned in law for the changing of nominees. by a subordinate, must be based on substantial
And that the resignation of Kho, pursuant to the evidence.
party nominees term-sharing agreement, cannot
be recognized and be given effect so as to Finally, the last requirement, relating to the form
create a vacancy in the list and change the order and substance of the decision of a quasi-judicial
of the nominees. body, further complements the hearing and
decision-making due process rights and is
ISSUES: Whether or not the right to due similar in substance to the constitutional
process of Senior Citizens was violated requirement that a decision of a court must state
distinctly the facts and the law upon which it is
HELD: based. As a component of the rule of fairness
that underlies due process, this is the "duty to
Political Law give reason" to enable the affected person to
understand how the rule of fairness has been
The twin requirements of due notice and administered in his case, to expose the reason
hearing are indispensable before the to public scrutiny and criticism, and to ensure
COMELEC may properly order the that the decision will be thought through by the
cancellation of the registration and decision-maker. (Emphases ours, citations
accreditation of a party-list organization. omitted.)

The appropriate due process standards that In the instant case, the review of the registration
apply to the COMELEC, as an administrative or of SENIOR CITIZENS was made pursuant to
quasi-judicial tribunal, are those outlined in the COMELEC Resolution No. 9513 through a
seminal case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial summary evidentiary hearing carried out on
August 24, 2012 in SPP No. 12-157 (PLM) and
SPP No. 12-191 (PLM). In this hearing, both the
Arquiza Group and the Datol Group were indeed 4. LICO v COMELEC
given the opportunity to adduce evidence as to
their continuing compliance with the
requirements for party-list accreditation. 5. Abang-Lingkod v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 206952 : OCTOBER 22, 2013
Nevertheless, the due process violation was
committed when they were not apprised of the ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST (ABANG
fact that the term-sharing agreement entered LINGKOD), Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
into by the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS in ELECTIONS, Respondents.
2010 would be a material consideration in the
evaluation of the organizations qualifications as REYES, J.:
a party-list group for the May 13, 2013 elections.
As it were, both factions of SENIOR CITIZENS FACTS:
were not able to answer this issue squarely. In
other words, they were deprived of the ABANG LINGKOD is a sectoral organization that
opportunity to adequately explain their side represents the interests of peasant farmers and
regarding the term-sharing agreement and/or to fisherfolks, and was registered under the party-
adduce evidence, accordingly, in support of their list system on December 22, 2009. It failed to
position. obtain the number of votes needed in the May
2010 elections for a seat in the House of
It is true that during the April 18, 2012 hearing, Representatives.
the rival groups of SENIOR CITIZENS admitted
to the existence of the term-sharing agreement. On August 16, 2012, ABANG LINGKOD, in
Contrary to the claim of COMELEC, however, compliance with the COMELEC August 9, 2012
said hearing was conducted for purposes of resolution, filed with the COMELEC pertinent
discussing the petition of the Arquiza Group in documents to prove its continuing compliance
E.M. No. 12-040. To recall, said petition asked with the requirements under R.A. No. 7941.
for the confirmation of the replacement of Rep.
Kho, who had tendered his resignation effective In a Resolution dated November 7, 2012, the
on December 31, 2011. COMELEC En Banc cancelled ABANG
LINGKOD registration as a party-list group. It
More specifically, the transcript of the hearing pointed out that ABANG LINGKOD failed to
reveals that the focus thereof was on the petition establish its track record in uplifting the cause of
filed by the Arquiza group and its subsequent the marginalized and underrepresented; that it
manifestation, praying that the group be allowed merely offered photographs of some alleged
to withdraw its petition. Also, during the hearing, activities it conducted after the May 2010
COMELEC Chairman Brillantes did admonish elections.
the rival factions of SENIOR CITIZENS about
their conflicts and warned them about the ABANG LINGKOD field a petitioner for certiorari
complications brought about by their term- alleging that the COMELEC gravely abused its
sharing agreement. discretion in cancelling its registration under the
party-list system. The said petition was
However, E.M. No. 12-040 was not a proceeding consolidated with the separate petitions filed by
regarding the qualifications of SENIOR 51 other party-list groups whose registration
CITIZENS as a party-list group and the issue of were cancelled or who were denied registration
whether the term-sharing agreement may be a under the party-list system. The said party-list
ground for disqualification was neither raised nor groups, including ABANG LINGKOD, were able
resolved in that case. Chairman Brillantess to obtain status quo ante orders from the court.
remonstration was not sufficient as to constitute
a fair warning that the term-sharing agreement The Court remanded to the COMELEC the
would be considered as a ground for the cases of previously registered party-list groups,
cancellation of SENIOR CITIZENS registration including that of ABANG LINGKOD, to
and accreditation determine whether they are qualified under the
party-list system pursuant to the new
parameters laid down by the Court and, in the compliance with the requirements under R.A.
affirmative, be allowed to participate in the May No. 7941, which the COMELEC set for summary
2013 party-list elections. hearing on three separate dates, belies its claim
that it was denied due process.
On May 10, 2013, the COMELEC issued the
herein assailed Resolution, which, inter alia, There was no necessity for the COMELEC to
affirmed the cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's conduct further summary evidentiary hearing to
registration under the party-list system. The assess the qualification of ABANG LINGKOD
COMELEC issued the Resolution dated May 10, pursuant to Atong Paglaum. ABANG LINGKOD's
2013 sans any summary evidentiary hearing, Manifestation of Intent and all the evidence
citing the proximity of the May 13, 2013 adduced by it to establish its qualification as a
elections as the reason therefor. party-list group are already in the possession of
the COMELEC. Thus, conducting further
On May 12, 2013, ABANG LINGKOD sought a summary evidentiary hearing for the sole
reconsideration of the COMELEC's Resolution purpose of determining ABANG LINGKOD's
dated May 10, 2013. However, on May 15, 2013, qualification under the party-list system pursuant
ABANG LINGKOD withdrew the motion for to Atong Paglaumwould just be a superfluity.
reconsideration it filed with the COMELEC and,
instead, instituted the instant petition with this Contrary to ABANG LINGKOD's claim, the
Court, alleging that there may not be enough Court, in Atong Paglaum, did not categorically
time for the COMELEC to pass upon the merits require the COMELEC to conduct a summary
of its motion for reconsideration considering that evidentiary hearing for the purpose of
the election returns were already being determining the qualifications of the petitioners
canvassed and consolidated by the COMELEC. therein pursuant to the new parameters for
screening party-list groups.
ISSUE: hether or not ABANG LINGKOD was
denied due process? POLITICAL LAW: cancellation of party-list
registration
HELD: BANG LINGKOD was not denied of
due process. Court finds that the COMELEC gravely abused
its discretion in cancelling the registration of
POLITICAL LAW: administrative due process ABANG LINGKOD under the party-list system.
The COMELEC affirmed the cancellation of
The essence of due process is simply an ABANG LINGKOD's registration on the ground
opportunity to be heard or as applied to that it declared untruthful statement in its bid for
administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, an accreditation as a party-list group in the May
opportunity to explain one's side or an 2013 elections, pointing out that it deliberately
opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action submitted digitally altered photographs of
or ruling complained of. A formal or trial type activities to make it appear that it had a track
hearing is not at all times and in all instances record in representing the marginalized and
essential. The requirements are satisfied when underrepresented. Essentially, ABANG
the parties are afforded fair and reasonable LINGKOD's registration was cancelled on the
opportunity to explain their side of the ground that it failed to adduce evidence showing
controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is its track record in representing the marginalized
the absolute lack of notice or hearing. and underrepresented.

In the instant case, while the petitioner laments R.A. No. 7941 did not require groups intending
that it was denied due process, the Court finds to register under the party-list system to submit
that the COMELEC had afforded ABANG proof of their track record as a group. The track
LINGKOD sufficient opportunity to present record requirement was only imposed in Ang
evidence establishing its qualification as a party- Bagong Bayani where the Court held that
list group. It was notified through Resolution No. national, regional, and sectoral parties or
9513 that its registration was to be reviewed by organizations seeking registration under the
the COMELEC. That ABANG LINGKOD was party-list system must prove through their, inter
able to file its Manifestation of Intent and other alia, track record that they truly represent the
pertinent documents to prove its continuing marginalized and underrepresented.
 Respondents.
In Atong Paglaum, the Court has modified to a
great extent the jurisprudential doctrines on who x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
may register under the party-list system and the
representation of the marginalized and G.R. No. 189506
underrepresented. For purposes of registration
under the party-list system, national or regional CONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. PALPARAN,
parties or organizations need not represent any JR.,Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF
marginalized and underrepresented sector; that REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
representation of the marginalized and (HRET), DR. REYNALDO LESACA, JR.,
underrepresented is only required of sectoral CRISTINA PALABAY, RENATO M. REYES,
organizations that represent the sectors stated JR., ERLINDA CADAPAN, ANTONIO FLORES
under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 that are, by and JOSELITO USTAREZ, Respondents.
their nature, economically marginalized and
underrepresented. ABAD, J.:
FACTS:
Contrary to the COMELEC's claim, sectoral
parties or organizations, such as ABANG In G.R. 189466, petitioner Daryl Grace J.
LINGKOD, are no longer required to adduce Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat Tayo
evidence showing their track record, i.e. proof of party-list organization that won a seat in the
activities that they have undertaken to further House of Representatives during the 2007
the cause of the sector they represent. Indeed, it elections.
is enough that their principal advocacy pertains
to the special interest and concerns of their Respondents Perfecto C. Lucaban, Jr., Ronyl S.
sector. Otherwise stated, it is sufficient that the Dela Cruz, and Agustin C. Doroga, all registered
ideals represented by the sectoral organizations voters, filed a petition for quo warranto with
are geared towards the cause of the sector/s, respondent HRET against Aangat Tayo and its
which they represent. nominee, petitioner Abayon, alleging that Aangat
Tayo was not eligible for a party-list seat in the
Dissenting, Mr. Justice Leonen, however, House of Representatives, since it did not
maintains that parties or organizations intending represent the marginalized and
to register under the party-list system are still underrepresented sectors.
required to present a track record
notwithstanding the Court's pronouncement in Petitioner Abayon countered that the COMELEC
Atong Paglaum; that the track record that would had already confirmed the status of Aangat Tayo
have to be presented would only differ as to the as a national multi-sectoral party-list
nature of their group/organization. He opines organization representing the workers, women,
that sectoral organizations must prove their links youth, urban poor, and elderly and that she
with the marginalized and underrepresented belonged to the women sector.
while national or regional parties or
organizations must show that they have been Finally, petitioner Abayon pointed out that
existing as a bona fide organization. respondent HRET had no jurisdiction over the
petition for quo warranto since respondent
Lucaban and the others with him collaterally
GRANTED. attacked the registration of Aangat Tayo as a
party-list organization, a matter that fell within
the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
6. Abayon v. The Honorable HRET, Lucaban,
De La Cruz & Doroga On July 16, 2009 respondent HRET issued an
G.R. No. 189466 : February 11, 2010 order, dismissing the petition as against Aangat
Tayo but upholding its jurisdiction over the
DARYL GRACE J. ABAYON,Petitioner, v. THE qualifications of petitioner Abayon. The latter
HONORABLE HOUSE OF moved for reconsideration but the HRET denied
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, the same on prompting Abayon to file the
PERFECTO C. LUCABAN, JR., RONYL S. DE present petition for special civil action of
LA CRUZ and AGUSTIN C. DOROGA, certiorari.
In G.R. 189506, petitioner Jovito S. Palparan, Jr. As this Court also held in Bantay Republic Act or
is the first nominee of the Bantay party-list group BA-RA 7941 v. Commission on Elections, a
that won a seat in the 2007 elections for the party-list representative is in every sense "an
members of the House of Representatives. elected member of the House of
Respondents Reynaldo Lesaca, Jr., Cristina Representatives." Although the vote cast in a
Palabay, Renato M. Reyes, Jr., Erlinda party-list election is a vote for a party, such vote,
Cadapan, Antonio Flores, and Joselito Ustarez in the end, would be a vote for its nominees,
are members of some other party-list groups. who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit
in the House of Representatives.
Shortly after the elections, respondent Lesaca
and the others with him filed with respondent Both the Constitution and the Party-List System
HRET a petition for quo warranto against Bantay Act set the qualifications and grounds for
and its nominee, petitioner Palparan, alleging disqualification of party-list nominees.
that Palparan was ineligible to sit in the House of
Representatives as party-list nominee because In the cases before the Court, those who
he did not belong to the marginalized and challenged the qualifications of petitioners
underrepresented sectors that Bantay Abayon and Palparan claim that the two do not
represented, namely, the victims of communist belong to the marginalized and
rebels, Civilian Armed Forces Geographical underrepresented sectors that they ought to
Units (CAFGUs), former rebels, and security represent. The Party-List System Act provides
guards. Lesaca and the others said that that a nominee must be a "bona fide member of
Palparan committed gross human rights the party or organization which he seeks to
violations against marginalized and represent."
underrepresented sectors and organizations.
It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of this
Petitioner Palparan countered that the HRET particular qualification of a nominee the need for
had no jurisdiction over his person since it was him or her to be a bona fide member or a
actually the party-list Bantay, not he, that was representative of his party-list organization in the
elected to and assumed membership in the context of the facts that characterize petitioners
House of Representatives. Palparan claimed Abayon and Palparans relation to Aangat Tayo
that he was just Bantays nominee. and Bantay, respectively, and the marginalized
Consequently, any question involving his and underrepresented interests that they
eligibility as first nominee was an internal presumably embody.
concern of Bantay. Such question must be
brought, he said, before that party-list group, not Parenthetically, although the Party-List System
before the HRET. Act does not so state, the COMELEC seems to
believe, when it resolved the challenge to
Respondent HRET issued an order dismissing petitioner Abayon, that it has the power to do so
the petition against Bantay for the reason that as an incident of its authority to approve the
the issue of the ineligibility or qualification of the registration of party-list organizations. But the
party-list group fell within the jurisdiction of the Court need not resolve this question since it is
COMELEC pursuant to the Party-List System not raised here and has not been argued by the
Act. parties.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent HRET has What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of
jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be
petitioners Abayon and Palparan as nominees the sole judge of all contests relating to, among
of Aangat Tayo and Bantay party-list other things, the qualifications of the members of
organizations, respectively, who took the seats the House of Representatives. Since, as pointed
at the House of Representatives that such out above, party-list nominees are "elected
organizations won in the 2007 elections. members" of the House of Representatives no
less than the district representatives are, the
HELD: HRET has jurisdiction over the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon
controversy their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of
POLITICAL LAW jurisdiction of the HRET district representatives, once the party or
organization of the party-list nominee has been constitutionality where it is not the lis mota
proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath of the case.
and assumed office as member of the House of
Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction In the case at bar, the constitutionality of the
over election contests relating to his PNRC statute was raised in the issue of
qualifications ends and the HRET's own standing. As such, the Court should not have
jurisdiction begins. declared certain provisions of such as
Hence, respondent HRET did not gravely unconstitutional. On the substantive issue, the
abuse its discretion when it dismissed the PNRC is sui generis. It is unlike the private
petitions for quo warranto against Aangat corporations that the Constitution wants to
Tayo party-list and Bantay party-list but prevent Congress from creating. First, the PNRC
upheld its jurisdiction over the question of is not organized for profit. It is an organization
the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and dedicated to assist victims of war and administer
Palparan. relief to those who have been devastated by
calamities, among others. It is entirely devoted
c)LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES,INHIBITIONS to public service. It is not covered by the
AND DISQUALIFICATIONS prohibition since the Constitution aims to
eliminate abuse by the Congress, which tend to
1. Liban v. Gordon (2011) favor personal gain. Secondly, the PNRC was
G. R. No.175352: January 18, 2011 created in order to participate in the mitigation of
the effects of war, as embodied in the Geneva
DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO Convention. The creation of the PNRC is
and SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petitioners vs. compliance with international treaty obligations.
RICHARD J. GORDON,Respondent. Lastly, the PNRC is a National Society, an
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS, auxiliary of the government. It is not like
Intervenor. government instrumentalities and GOCC. The
PNRC is regulated directly by international
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: humanitarian law, as opposed to local law
FACTS: Respondent filed a motion for partial regulating the other mentioned entities. As such,
recommendation on a Supreme Court decision it was improper for the Court to have declared
which ruled that being chairman of the Philippine certain portions of the PNRC statute as
National Red Cross (PNRC) did not disqualify unconstitutional. However, it is the stand of
him from being a Senator, and that the charter Justice Carpio that there is no mandate for the
creating PNRC is unconstitutional as the PNRC Government to create a National Society to this
is a private corporation and the Congress is effect. He also raises the fact that the PNRC is
precluded by the Constitution to create such.The not sui generis in being a private corporation
Court then ordered the PNRC to incorporate organized for public needs. Justice Abad is of
itself with the SEC as a private corporation. the opinion that the PNRC is neither private or
Respondent takes exception to the second part governmental, hence it was within the power of
of the ruling, which addressed the Congress to create.
constitutionality of the statute creating the PNRC
as a private corporation. Respondent avers that E) DISCIPLINE MEMBERS
the issue of constitutionality was only touched
upon in the issue of locus standi. It is a rule that 1. POBREV DEFENSOR 597 SCRA 1
the constitutionality will not be touched upon if it
is not the lis mota of the case. 2. Non Legislative
a) Informing function
ISSUE: Whether or not it was proper for the b) Power of Impeachment
Court to have ruled on the constitutionality of the c) Other Non-Legislative Powers
PNRC statute.
1. Neri vs Senate Committee on
HELD: Petition has merit. Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigation
Political Law: It has been consistently held in
Jurisprudence that the Court should exercise FACTS: On April 21, 2007, the Department of
judicial restraint when it comes to issues of Transportation and Communication (DOTC)
entered into a contract with Zhong Xing The revocation of EO 464 (advised executive
Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the officials and employees to follow and abide by
supply of equipment and services for the the Constitution, existing laws and
National Broadband Network (NBN) Project in jurisprudence, including, among others, the case
the amount of U.S. $ 329,481,290 of Senate v. Ermita when they are invited to
(approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project legislative inquiries in aid of legislation.), does
was to be financed by the Peoples Republic of not in any way diminish the concept of executive
China. privilege. This is because this concept has
Constitutional underpinnings.
The Senate passed various resolutions relative
to the NBN deal. In the September 18, 2007 The claim of executive privilege is highly
hearing Jose de Venecia III testified that several recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry
high executive officials and power brokers were relates to a power textually committed by the
using their influence to push the approval of the Constitution to the President, such as the area
NBN Project by the NEDA. of military and foreign relations. Under our
Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to Constitution, the President is the repository of
testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon. He the commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning,
appeared in one hearing wherein he was and diplomatic powers. Consistent with the
interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he doctrine of separation of powers, the information
admitted that Abalos of COMELEC tried to bribe relating to these powers may enjoy greater
him with P200M in exchange for his approval of confidentiality than others.
the NBN project. He further narrated that he
informed President Arroyo about the bribery Several jurisprudence cited provide the
attempt and that she instructed him not to elements of presidential communications
accept the bribe. privilege:
1) The protected communication must relate to a
However, when probed further on what they quintessential and non-delegable presidential
discussed about the NBN Project, petitioner power.
refused to answer, invoking executive privilege. 2) The communication must be authored or
In particular, he refused to answer the questions solicited and received by a close advisor of the
on: President or the President himself. The judicial
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up test is that an advisor must be in operational
the NBN Project, proximity with the President.
(b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize 3) The presidential communications privilege
it, and remains a qualified privilege that may be
(c) whether or not she directed him to approve. overcome by a showing of adequate need, such
that the information sought likely contains
He later refused to attend the other hearings and important evidence and by the unavailability of
Ermita sent a letter to the senate averring that the information elsewhere by an appropriate
the communications between GMA and Neri are investigating authority.
privileged and that the jurisprudence laid down
in Senate vs Ermita be applied. He was cited in In the case at bar, Executive Secretary Ermita
contempt of respondent committees and an premised his claim of executive privilege on the
order for his arrest and detention until such time ground that the communications elicited by the
that he would appear and give his testimony. three (3) questions fall under conversation and
correspondence between the President and
ISSUE: public officials necessary in her executive and
Are the communications elicited by the subject policy decision-making process and, that the
three (3) questions covered by executive information sought to be disclosed might impair
privilege? our diplomatic as well as economic relations with
the Peoples Republic of China. Simply put, the
HELD: The communications are covered by bases are presidential communications privilege
executive privilege. and executive privilege on matters relating to
diplomacy or foreign relations.
 Using the above elements, we are convinced an appropriation of government spending
that, indeed, the communications elicited by the meant for localized projects and secured solely
three (3) questions are covered by the or primarily to bring money to a
presidential communications privilege. First, the representatives district.
communications relate to a quintessential and The earliest form of the pork barrel
non-delegable power of the President, i.e. the system is found in Section 3 of Act 3044,
power to enter into an executive agreement with otherwise known as the Public Works Act of
other countries. This authority of the President to 1922. Under this provision, release of funds
enter into executive agreements without the and realignment of unexpended portions of an
concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally item or appropriation were subject to the
been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. approval of a joint committee elected by the
Second, the communications are received by a Senate and the House of Representatives.
close advisor of the President. Under the In 1950, members of Congress, by
operational proximity test, petitioner can be virtue of being representatives of the people,
considered a close advisor, being a member of also became involved in project identification.
President Arroyos cabinet. And third, there is no The pork barrel system was temporarily
adequate showing of a compelling need that discontinued when martial law was declared.
would justify the limitation of the privilege and of
It reappeared in 1982 through an item in
the unavailability of the information elsewhere by
the General Appropriations Act (GAA) called
an appropriate investigating authority.
Support for Local Development Projects
(SLDP). SLDP started the giving of lump-
Respondent Committees further contend that
sum allocations to individual legislators. The
the grant of petitioners claim of executive
SLDP also began to cover not only public
privilege violates the constitutional provisions on
works project or hard projects but also
the right of the people to information on matters
covered soft projects such as those which
of public concern.50 We might have agreed with
would fall under education, health and
such contention if petitioner did not appear
livelihood.
before them at all. But petitioner made himself
available to them during the September 26 After the EDSA People Power
hearing, where he was questioned for eleven Revolution and the restoration of democracy,
(11) hours. Not only that, he expressly the pork barrel was revived through the
manifested his willingness to answer more Mindanao Development Fund and the
questions from the Senators, with the exception Visayas Development Fund.
only of those covered by his claim of executive In 1990, the pork barrel was renamed
privilege. Countrywide Development Fund (CDF). The
CDF was meant to cover small local
The right to public information, like any other infrastructure and other priority community
right, is subject to limitation. Section 7 of Article projects.
III provides: CDF Funds were, with the approval of
The right of the people to information on matters the President, released directly to
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to implementing agencies subject to the
official records, and to documents, and papers submission of the required list of projects and
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or activities. Senators and congressmen could
decisions, as well as to government research identify any kind of project from hard projects
data used as basis for policy development, shall such as roads, buildings and bridges to soft
be afforded the citizen, subject to such projects such as textbooks, medicines, and
limitations as may be provided by law. scholarships.
In 1993, the CDF was further modified
such that the release of funds was to be made
2. Belgica vs Ochoa
upon the submission of the list of projects and
activities identified by individual legislators.
HISTORY of CONGRESSIONAL PORK
This was also the first time when the Vice-
BARREL
President was given an allocation.
The CDF contained the same provisions
The term pork barrel, a political
from 1994-1996 except that the Department of
parlance of American-English origin, refers to
Budget and Management was required to
 submit reports to the Senate Committee on programs/projects outside of his legislative
Finance and the House Committee on district. Realignment of funds and release of
Appropriations regarding the releases made funds were required to be favorably endorsed
from the funds. by the House Committee on Appropriations
Congressional insertions (CIs) were and the Senate Committee on Finance, as the
another form of congressional pork barrel aside case may be.
from the CDF. Examples of the CIs include the
DepEd School Building Fund, the MALAMPAYA FUNDS AND PRESIDENTIAL
Congressional Initiative Allocations, and the SOCIAL FUND
Public Works Fund, among others. The use of the term pork barrel was
The allocations for the School Building expanded to include certain funds of the
Fund were made upon prior consultation with President such as the Malampaya Fund and
the representative of the legislative district the Presidential Social Fund (PSF).
concerned and the legislators had the power to The Malampaya Fund was created as a
direct how, where and when these special fund under Section 8 of Presidential
appropriations were to be spent. Decree (PD) No. 910 issued by President
In 1999, the CDF was removed from Ferdinand Marcos on March 22, 1976.
the GAA and replaced by three separate forms The PSF was created under Section 12,
of CIs: (i) Food Security Program Fund, (ii) Title IV of PD No. 1869, or the Charter of the
Lingap Para sa Mahihirap Fund, and (iii) Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Rural/Urban Development Infrastructure Corporation (PAGCOR), as amended by PD
Program Fund. All three contained a provision No. 1993. The PSF is managed and
requiring prior consultation with members of administered by the Presidential Management
Congress for the release of funds. Staff and is sourced from the share of the
In 2000, the Priority Development government in the aggregate gross earnings of
Assistance Fund (PDAF) appeared in the PAGCOR.
GAA. PDAF required prior consultation with the
representative of the district before the release PORK BARREL MISUSE
of funds. PDAF also allowed realignment of In 1996, Marikina City Representative
funds to any expense category except personal Romeo Candozo revealed that huge sums of
services and other personnel benefits. money regularly went into the pockets of
In 2005, the PDAF introduced the legislators in the form of kickbacks.
program menu concept which is essentially a In 2004, several concerned citizens
list of general programs and implementing sought the nullification of the PDAF but the
agencies from which a particular PDAF project Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack
may be subsequently chosen by the identifying of evidentiary basis regarding illegal misuse of
authority. This was retained in the GAAs from PDAF in the form of kickbacks.
2006-2010. In July 2013, the National Bureau of
It was during the Arroyo administration Investigation probed the allegation that a
when the formal participation of non- syndicate defrauded the government of P10
governmental organizations in the billion using funds from the pork barrel of
implementation of PDAF projects was lawmakers and various government agencies
introduced. for scores of ghost projects.
The PDAF articles from 2002-2010 were In August 2013, the Commission on
silent with respect to specific amounts for Audit released the results of a three-year audit
individual legislators. investigation detailing the irregularities in the
In 2011, the PDAF Article in the GAA release of the PDAF from 2007 to 2009.
contained an express statement on lump-sum Whistle-blowers also alleged that at
amounts allocated for individual legislators and least P900 million from the Malampaya Funds
the Vice-President. It also contained a had gone into a dummy NGO.
provision on realignment of funds but with the
qualification that it may be allowed only once. ISSUE: Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article
The 2013 PDAF Article allowed LGUs to and all other Congressional Pork Barrel laws are
be identified as implementing agencies. unconstitutional for violating the constitutional
Legislators were also allowed identify provisions on (a) separation of powers, (b) non-
 delegability of legislative power, (c) checks and Constitution which states that: No money
balances, (d) accountability, (e) political shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
dynasties, (f) local autonomy. pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
The legislators are individually
RULING exercising the power of appropriation because
each of them determines (a) how much of their
(a) The separation of powers between the PDAF fund would go to and (b) a specific
Executive and the Legislative Departments has project or beneficiary that they themselves also
been violated. determine.

The post-enactment measures including (c) Checks and balances

project identification, fund release, and fund
realignment are not related to functions of Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the
congressional oversight and, hence, allow amount of P24.79 Billion only appears as a
legislators to intervene and/or assume duties collective allocation limit since the said amount
that properly belong to the sphere of budget would be further divided among individual
execution, which belongs to the executive legislators who would then receive personal
department. lump-sum allocations and could, after the GAA
Legislators have been, in one form or is passed, effectively appropriate PDAF funds
another, authorized to participate in the various based on their own discretion.
operational aspects of budgeting, including This kind of lump-sum/post-enactment
the evaluation of work and financial plans for legislative identification budgeting system
individual activities and the regulation and fosters the creation of a budget within a
release of funds in violation of the separation of budget which subverts the prescribed
powers principle. procedure of presentment and consequently
Any provision of law that empowers impairs the Presidents power of item veto.
Congress or any of its members to play any It forces the President to decide
role in the implementation or enforcement of between (a) accepting the entire PDAF
the law violates the principle of separation of allocation without knowing the specific projects
powers and is thus unconstitutional. of the legislators, which may or may not be
That the said authority to identify consistent with his national agenda and (b)
projects is treated as merely recommendatory rejecting the whole PDAF to the detriment of all
in nature does not alter its unconstitutional other legislators with legitimate projects.
tenor since the prohibition covers any role in In fact, even without its post-enactment
the implementation or enforcement of the law. legislative identification feature, the 2013
Respondents also failed to prove that PDAF Article would remain constitutionally
the role of the legislators is only flawed since it would then operate as a
recommendatory in nature. They even prohibited form of lump-sum appropriation. This
admitted that the identification of the legislator is because the appropriation law leaves the
constitutes a mandatory requirement before actual amounts and purposes of the
the PDAF can be tapped as a funding source. appropriation for further determination and,
therefore, does not readily indicate a
(b)The principle of non-delegability of legislative discernible item which may be subject to the
powers has been violated Presidents power of item veto.

The 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it (d) The Congressional Pork Barrel partially
confers post-enactment identification authority prevents accountability as Congress is
to individual legislators, violates the principle of incapable of checking itself or its members.
non-delegability since said legislators are
effectively allowed to individually exercise the The fact that individual legislators are
power of appropriation, which as settled in given post-enactment roles in the
Philconsa is lodged in Congress. implementation of the budget makes it difficult
That the power to appropriate must be for them to become disinterested observers
exercised only through legislation is clear from when scrutinizing, investigating or monitoring
Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 the implementation of the appropriation law.
 The conduct of oversight would be This concept of legislator control
tainted as said legislators, who are vested with underlying the CDF and PDAF conflicts with
post-enactment authority, would, in effect, be the functions of the various Local Development
checking on activities in which they themselves Councils (LDCs) which are already legally
participate. mandated toassist the corresponding
The concept of post-enactment sanggunian in setting the direction of economic
authorization violates Section 14, Article VI of and social development, and coordinating
the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits development efforts within its territorial
members of Congress to intervene in any jurisdiction.
matter before any office of the Government, Considering that LDCs are
because it renders them susceptible to taking instrumentalities whose functions are
undue advantage of their own office. essentially geared towards managing local
The Court, however, cannot completely affairs, their programs, policies and resolutions
agree that the same post-enactment authority should not be overridden nor duplicated by
and/or the individual legislators control of his individual legislators, who are national officers
PDAF per se would allow him to perpetuate that have no law-making authority except only
himself in office. when acting as a body.
The use of his PDAF for re-election
purposes is a matter which must be analyzed
based on particular facts and on a case-to- 3. ) Araullo vs Aquino III
case basis.
Facts: When President Benigno Aquino III took
office, his administration noticed the sluggish
(e) The constitutional provision regarding growth of the economy. The World Bank advised
political dynasties is not self-executing. that the economy needed a stimulus plan.
Budget Secretary Florencio Butch Abad then
Section 26, Article II of the 1987 came up with a program called the
Constitution, which provides that the state shall Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined The DAP was seen as a remedy to speed up the
by law, is not a self-executing provision. funding of government projects. DAP enables
Since there appears to be no standing the Executive to realign funds from slow moving
law which crystallizes the policy on political projects to priority projects instead of waiting for
dynasties for enforcement, the Court must next years appropriation. So what happens
defer from ruling on this issue. under the DAP was that if a certain government
project is being undertaken slowly by a certain
executive agency, the funds allotted therefor will
(f) The Congressional Pork Barrel violates be withdrawn by the Executive. Once withdrawn,
constitutional principles on local autonomy these funds are declared as savings by the
Executive and said funds will then be reallotted
The Congressional Pork Barrel goes to other priority projects. The DAP program did
against the constitutional principles on local work to stimulate the economy as economic
autonomy since it allows district growth was in fact reported and portion of such
representatives, who are national officers, to growth was attributed to the DAP (as noted by
substitute their judgments in utilizing public the Supreme Court).
funds for local development. Other sources of the DAP include the
The gauge of PDAF and CDF unprogrammed funds from the General
allocation/division is based solely on the fact of Appropriations Act (GAA). Unprogrammed funds
office, without taking into account the specific are standby appropriations made by Congress in
interests and peculiarities of the district the the GAA.
legislator represents.
Meanwhile, in September 2013, Senator Jinggoy
The allocation/division limits are clearly
Estrada made an expos claiming that he, and
not based on genuine parameters of equality,
other Senators, received Php50M from the
wherein economic or geographic indicators
President as an incentive for voting in favor of
have been taken into consideration.
the impeachment of then Chief Justice Renato
Corona. Secretary Abad claimed that the money prioritizing government spending. As such, it did
was taken from the DAP but was disbursed upon not violate the Constitutional provision cited in
the request of the Senators. Section 29(1), Art. VI of the Constitution. In DAP
no additional funds were withdrawn from the
This apparently opened a can of worms as it
Treasury otherwise, an appropriation made by
turns out that the DAP does not only realign
law would have been required. Funds, which
funds within the Executive. It turns out that some
were already appropriated for by the GAA, were
non-Executive projects were also funded; to
merely being realigned via the DAP.
name a few: Php1.5B for the CPLA (Cordillera
Peoples Liberation Army), Php1.8B for the II. No, there is no executive impoundment in the
MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front), P700M DAP. Impoundment of funds refers to the
for the Quezon Province, P50-P100M for certain Presidents power to refuse to spend
Senators each, P10B for Relocation Projects, appropriations or to retain or deduct
etc. appropriations for whatever reason.
Impoundment is actually prohibited by the GAA
This prompted Maria Carolina Araullo,
unless there will be an unmanageable national
Chairperson of the Bagong Alyansang
government budget deficit (which did not
Makabayan, and several other concerned
happen). Nevertheless, theres no
citizens to file various petitions with the Supreme
impoundment in the case at bar because whats
Court questioning the validity of the DAP. Among
involved in the DAP was the transfer of funds.
their contentions was:
III. No, the transfers made through the DAP
DAP is unconstitutional because it violates the
were unconstitutional. It is true that the
constitutional rule which provides that no
President (and even the heads of the other
money shall be paid out of the Treasury except
branches of the government) are allowed by the
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
Constitution to make realignment of funds,
Secretary Abad argued that the DAP is based on however, such transfer or realignment should
certain laws particularly the GAA (savings and only be made within their respective offices.
augmentation provisions thereof), Sec. 25(5), Thus, no cross-border transfers/augmentations
Art. VI of the Constitution (power of the may be allowed. But under the DAP, this was
President to augment), Secs. 38 and 49 of violated because funds appropriated by the GAA
Executive Order 292 (power of the President to for the Executive were being transferred to the
suspend expenditures and authority to use Legislative and other non-Executive agencies.
savings, respectively).
Further, transfers within their respective offices
Issues: also contemplate realignment of funds to an
I. Whether or not the DAP violates the principle existing project in the GAA. Under the DAP,
no money shall be paid out of the Treasury even though some projects were within the
except in pursuance of an appropriation made Executive, these projects are non-existent
by law (Sec. 29(1), Art. VI, Constitution). insofar as the GAA is concerned because no
funds were appropriated to them in the GAA.
II. Whether or not the DAP realignments can be Although some of these projects may be
considered as impoundments by the executive. legitimate, they are still non-existent under the
III. Whether or not the DAP GAA because they were not provided for by the
realignments/transfers are constitutional. GAA. As such, transfer to such projects is
unconstitutional and is without legal basis.
IV. Whether or not the sourcing of
unprogrammed funds to the DAP is On the issue of what are savings
constitutional. These DAP transfers are not savings contrary
V. Whether or not the Doctrine of Operative Fact to what was being declared by the Executive.
is applicable. Under the definition of savings in the GAA,
savings only occur, among other instances,
HELD: when there is an excess in the funding of a
I. No, the DAP did not violate Section 29(1), Art. certain project once it is completed, finally
VI of the Constitution. DAP was merely a discontinued, or finally abandoned. The GAA
program by the Executive and is not a fund nor does not refer to savings as funds withdrawn
is it an appropriation. It is a program for from a slow moving project. Thus, since the
statutory definition of savings was not complied
with under the DAP, there is no basis at all for status. The Fund is sourced from the collection
the transfers. Further, savings should only be of the BIR and the BOC in excess of
declared at the end of the fiscal year. But under their revenue targets for the year, as determined
the DAP, funds are already being withdrawn by the Development Budget and Coordinating
from certain projects in the middle of the year Committee (DBCC). Any incentive or reward is
and then being declared as savings by the taken from the fund and allocated to the BIR
Executive particularly by the DBM. and the BOC in proportion to their
contribution in the excess collection of
IV. No. Unprogrammed funds from the GAA
the targeted amount of tax revenue.
cannot be used as money source for the DAP
because under the law, such funds may only be
Petitioners, invoking their right as
used if there is a certification from the National
taxpayers filed this petition challenging the
Treasurer to the effect that the revenue
constitutionality of RA 9335, a tax reform
collections have exceeded the revenue targets.
legislation. They contend that by establishing a
In this case, no such certification was secured
system of rewards and incentives, the law
before unprogrammed funds were used.
"transform[s] the officials and employees of the
V. Yes. The Doctrine of Operative Fact, which BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty
recognizes the legal effects of an act prior to it hunters" as they will do their best only in
being declared as unconstitutional by the consideration of such rewards. Petitioners also
Supreme Court, is applicable. The DAP has assail the creation of a congressional oversight
definitely helped stimulate the economy. It has committee on the ground that it violates the
funded numerous projects. If the Executive is doctrine of separation of powers. While the
ordered to reverse all actions under the DAP, legislative function is deemed accomplished and
then it may cause more harm than good. The completed upon the enactment and approval of
DAP effects can no longer be undone. The the law, the creation of the congressional
beneficiaries of the DAP cannot be asked to oversight committee permits legislative
return what they received especially so that they participation in the implementation and
relied on the validity of the DAP. However, the enforcement of the law.
Doctrine of Operative Fact may not be In the defense of the respondents, they
applicable to the authors, implementers, and argue that the creation of the congressional
proponents of the DAP if it is so found in the oversight committee under the law enhances,
appropriate tribunals (civil, criminal, or rather than violates, separation of powers. It
administrative) that they have not acted in good ensures the fulfilment of the legislative policy
faith. and serves as a check to any over-accumulation
of power on the part of the executive and the
implementing agencies.
4) ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST vs ISSUE:Whether or not the creation of the
PURISIMA congressional oversight committee violates the
doctrine of separation of powers?
FACTS:
RA 9335 was enacted to optimize the RULING:
revenue-generation capability and collection of 1. YES. The Joint Congressional Oversight
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Committee in RA 9335 was created for the
the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law purpose of approving the implementing rules
intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and and regulations (IRR) formulated by the DOF,
employees to exceed their revenue targets by DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and CSC. On May 22,
providing a system of rewards and 2006, it approved the said IRR.
sanctions through the creation of a From the moment the law becomes
Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a effective, any provision of law that empowers
Revenue Performance Evaluation Board Congress or any of its members to play any role
(Board). in the implementation or enforcement of the law
violates the principle of separation of powers
It covers all officials and employees and is thus unconstitutional. Under this principle,
of the BIR and the BOC with at least six a provision that requires Congress or its
months of service, regardless of employment members to approve the implementing rules of a
law after it has already taken effect shall be
unconstitutional, as is a provision that allows
Congress or its members to overturn any
directive or ruling made by the members of the
executive branch charged with the
implementation of the law.
Following this rationale, Section 12 of
RA 9335 should be struck down as
unconstitutional.
The next question to be resolved is:
what is the effect of the unconstitutionality of
Section 12 of RA 9335 on the other provisions of
the law? Will it render the entire law
unconstitutional? NO.
Section 13 of RA 9335 provides:

SEC. 13. Separability Clause.

If any provision of this Act is declared
invalid by a competent court, the
remainder of this Act or any provision
not affected by such declaration of
invalidity shall remain in force and effect.

The separability clause of RA 9335

reveals the intention of the legislature to isolate
and detach any invalid provision from the other
provisions so that the latter may continue in
force and effect. The valid portions can stand
independently of the invalid section. Without
Section 12, the remaining provisions still
constitute a complete, intelligible and valid law
which carries out the legislative intent to
optimize the revenue-generation capability and
collection of the BIR and the BOC by providing
for a system of rewards and sanctions through
the Rewards and Incentives Fund and a
Revenue Performance Evaluation Board.