1

GR 177597 July 16, 2008 1. Sema contended that Shariff Kabunsuan is entitled to one representative
in the congress under Article 6, Section 5, paragraph 3 of the Constitution
BAI SANDRA S. A. SEMA, petitioner, vs. and section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. The
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, respondents petitioner claimed that in issuing RN 7902, the COMELEC usurped
Congress power to create or reapportion legislative districts.
Carpio, Ponente  The COMELEC through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
contended:
Facts: 1. The Petitioner wrongly availed of the writ of certiorari to nullify
 The 1987 Constitution apportioned two (2) Legislative Districts to the RN 7902 because the COMELEC issued the same in the exercise
province of Maguindanao (which is part of the ARMM). of its administrative, not quasi-judicial, power
 The first legislative district is composed of Cotabato City and 8 2. The writ of prohibition became moot with the proclamation of
Municipalities, however Cotabato City is not part of ARMM but Region respondent Didagen Dilangalen as representative of the
XII, having voted against its inclusion in the ARMM. legislative district of Shariff Kabunsuan province with Cotabato
 On August 28, 2006, the ARMM regional assembly (ARMM’s legislature) City.
exercised its power under Section 19 of RA 9504 [Muslim Mindanao  The respondent (Dilangalen) countered that the petitioner is estopped
Autonomy Act No. 201 (MMA 201)] creating the province of Shariff from questioning RN 7902, since in the petitioner’s certificate of
Kabunsuan. candidacy, Sema indicated that she was seeking election as
 On February 6, 2007, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City representative of the province of Shariff Kabunsuan and Cotabato City.
passed Resolution No. 3999 requesting the COMELEC to clarify the status The respondent added that the RN 7902 is constitutional because it only
of Cotabato City in view of the conversion of the first legislative district renamed Maguindanao’s first legislative district. The respondent further
into its own separate province of Shariff Kabunsuan. claimed that the COMELEC could not reapportion Maguindanao’s first
 On March 6, 2007, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. (RN) 07-0407 legislative district to solely Cotabato City since the power of reapportion
maintaining the status quo of Cotabato City as part of the new province lies exclusively with congress. Not to mention that Cotabato City does not
of Shariff Kabunsuan. meet the population requirements under Article 6, Section 5, paragraph
 On March 29, 2007, the COMELEC promulgated RN 7845 stating that 3 of the Constitution (at least 250,000 inhabitants).
Maguindanao’s first legislative district is composed only of Cotabato City
because of the enactment of MMA 201
 On May 10, 2007, the COMELEC issued RN 7902 by renaming the first Issues relating to Article X, Section 20:
legislative district as the province of Shariff Kabunsuan and Cotabato City.
1. Whether section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 delegating the ARMM Regional
 The petitioner, Sema, was a candidate in the May 14, 2007 elections for Assembly the power to create provinces, is constitutional.
representative of Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City. The petitioner Issues relating to Article VI, Section 5:
prayed for the nullification of the RN 7902 and exclusion of the votes
casted by the inhabitants of Cotabato City in that office.
 2

2. If the new province of Shariff Kabunsuan (created under MMA 201) is entitled municipalities and barangays, provided section 10, Article X of the
to one representative in the House of Representatives (HOR) without the Constitution is followed. However, the creation of provinces and cities is
need of a national law creating a legislative district for such new province. another matter. Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution provides,
3. If the COMELEC resolution no. 7902 is constitutional, can the COMELEC “Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or
reapportion Maguindanao’s first legislative district to solely Cotabato City. each province, shall have at least one representative” in the House of
Representatives. Similarly, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the
Constitution provides, “Any province that may hereafter be created, or
Held: any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two
1. Representative districts are created by law. Pursuant to Article X, Sections hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following
20, the ARMM Regional assembly may not create a representative district election to at least one Member.”
nor may it create a province.
A province cannot be created without a legislative district because it will
There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of authority violate Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution as well as Section 3 of
in the Constitution for Congress to delegate to regional or local legislative the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Thus, the power to create a
bodies the power to create local government units. However, under its province, or a city with a population of 250,000 or more, requires also the
plenary legislative powers, Congress can delegate to local legislative power to create a legislative district. Even the creation of a city with a
bodies the power to create local government units, subject to reasonable population of less than 250,000 involves the power to create a legislative
standards and provided no conflict arises with any provision of the district because once the city’s population reaches 250,000, the city
Constitution. In fact, Congress has delegated to provincial boards, and automatically becomes entitled to one representative under Section 5
city and municipal councils, the power to create barangays within their (3), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance
jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the criteria established in the appended to the Constitution. Thus, the power to create a province or
Local Government Code, and the plebiscite requirement in Section 10, city inherently involves the power to create a legislative district.
Article X of the Constitution. However, under the Local Government
Code, “only an Act of Congress” can create provinces and cities. 3. The court ordered the consolidation of GR 177597 and GR
178628 (If the COMELEC act in Ultra Vires in issuing RN 7902). The
2. As mentioned earlier, Article X, Sections 20, the ARMM Regional petition in the latter echoed Sema’s contention that the COMELEC acted
assembly may not create a representative district nor may it create a ultra vires in issuing RA 7902 depriving the voters of Cotabato City a
province, because under Article VI, Section 5, paragraph 3 provinces representative in the HOR.
automatically get one representative district.
The power to reapportion legislative districts necessarily includes the
Each city with a population of at least two hundred and fifty thousand, or power to create legislative districts out of existing ones. —Section 5(1),
each province, shall have at least have one representative in the House Article VI of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to increase,
of Representatives. There is no provision in the Constitution that conflicts through a law, the allowable membership in the House of
with the delegation to regional legislative bodies of the power to create Representatives. Section 5 (4) empowers Congress to reapportion
 3

legislative districts. The power to reapportion legislative districts LAMBERTO MACIAS, LORENZO TEVES, FAUSTO DUGENIO, ROGACIANO
necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of MERCADO and MARIANO PERDICES, petitioners,
existing ones. Congress exercises these powers through a law that vs.
Congress itself enacts, and not through a law that regional or local THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and VICENTE GELLA in his Capacity as National
legislative bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of Treasurer, respondents.
Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of
Congress can be created, only through a national law passed by Congress.
In Montejo v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415 (1995), we held that the “power Facts:
of redistricting is traditionally regarded as part of the power (of Congress)
to make laws,” and thus is vested exclusively in Congress. Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives from Negros Oriental,
Misamis Oriental and Bulacan and the provincial Governor of Negros Oriental.
COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 is constitutional because it did not They are requesting that the respondent officials be prevented to implement RA
apportion a legislative district for Shariff Kabunsuan or reapportion the 3040, an act that apportions representative districts in the country. They alleged
legislative districts in Maguindanao but merely renamed Maguindanao’s that their respective provinces were discriminated because they were given less
first legislative district. representation. Furthermore, they allege that RA 3040 is unconstitutional and void
because:
Court Ruling:
The court declared Section 19, Article VI of Republic Act No. 9054 It was passed without printed final copies which must be furnished to the
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it grants to the Regional Assembly of the members of the HOR at least 3 calendar days prior to passage.
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao the power to create provinces and cities. It was approved more than 3 years after the return of the last census of the
Thus, the court declared VOID Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating population.
the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan. Consequently, we rule that COMELEC It apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several
Resolution No. 7902 is VALID. provinces.

Issues:

Whether or not the apportionment of representative districts under Republic Act

3040 is in accordance with the constitution.
MACIAS VS COMELEC

G.R. No. L-18684 32 SCRA 1 September 14, 1961

Discussions:
 4

The Constitution directs that the one hundred twenty Members of the House of
Representatives “shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986
may be according to the member of their respective inhabitants.” A law giving
provinces with less number of inhabitants more representative districts than those
with bigger population is invalid because it violates the principle of proportional NOTA BENE: This case is relevant to the current buzz regarding the "Sugbuak."
representation prescribed by the Constitution. Inequality of apportionment law is The issue in this case, however, is a bit on the technical side.
“arbitrary and capricious and against the vital principle of equality.” as held in
- when the boundaries of a LGU is substantially altered, there are necessarily
Houghton County V. Blacker.
more than one unit affected -- the parent LGU and the new LGU that was created
as a result of the alteration
Rulings:
FACTS:
No. The Court concluded that the statute be declared invalid. Republic Act 3040
clearly violates the said constitutional provision in several ways namely: This case was prompted by the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885, An Act
Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of
It gave Cebu seven members, while Rizal with a bigger number of inhabitants got Negros del Norte, effective Dec. 3, 1985. (Cities of Silay, Cadiz and San Carlos and
four only. the municipalities of Calatrava, Taboso, Escalante, Sagay, Manapla, Victorias, E.R.
It gave Manila four members, while Cotabato with a bigger population got three Magalona, and Salvador Benedicto.
only
Pangasinan with less inhabitants than both Manila and Cotabato got more than Pursuant to and in implementation of this law, the COMELEC scheduled a
plebiscite for January 3, 1986. Petitioners opposed, filing a case for Prohibition
both, five members having been assigned to it.
and contending that the B.P. 885 is unconstitutional and not in complete accord
Samar (with 871,857) was allotted four members while Davao with 903,224 got
with the Local Government Code because:
three only.
Bulacan with 557,691 got two only, while Albay with less inhabitants (515,691) got (1) The voters of the parent province of Negros Occidental, other than those
three. living within the territory of the new province of Negros del Norte, were not
Misamis Oriental with 387,839 was given one member only, while Cavite with less included in the plebiscite
inhabitants (379,904) got two. These were not the only instances of unequal (2) The area which would comprise the new province of Negros del Norte would
apportionment. only be about 2,856.56 sq. km., which is lesser than the minimum area
Mountain Province has 3 whereas Isabela, Laguna and Cagayan with more prescribed by the governing statute
inhabitants have 2 each. And then, Capiz, La Union and Ilocos Norte got 2 each,
whereas Sulu that has more inhabitants got 1 only. And Leyte with 967,323 The Supreme Court was in recess at the time so the petition was not timely
inhabitants got 4 only, whereas Iloilo with less inhabitants (966,145) was given 5. considered. Consequently, petitioners filed a supplemental pleading on January
4, 1986, after the plebiscite sought to be restrained was held the previous day,
January 3.
Tan vs. Comelec
 5

ISSUE: people of the municipality if the municipality is to be divided such as in the case
at bar or of the people of two or more municipalities if there be a merger. I see
W/N the plebiscite was legal and complied with the constitutional requisites no ambiguity in the Constitutional provision."
under Article XI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, which states that --
It appeared that when Parliamentary Bill NO. 3644 which proposed the creation
"Sec. 3. No province, city, municipality or barrio may be created, divided, of the new province of Negros del Norte was passed for approval, it recited
merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance therein that "the plebiscite shall be conducted in the areas affected within a
with the criteria established in the Local Government Code, and subject to the period of one hundred and twenty days from the approval of this Act." However,
approval by a majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected." when the bill was enacted into B.P. 885, there was an unexplained change from
"areas affected" to "the proposed new province, which are the areas affected."
ISSUE NO. 2: WON BP 885 is Constitutional The Supreme Court held that it was a self-serving phrase to state that the new
HELD: province constitutes the area affected.

In interpreting the above provision, the Supreme Court held that whenever a "Such additional statement serves no useful purpose for the same is misleading,
province is created, divided or merged and there is substantial alteration of the erroneous, and far from truth. The remaining portion of the parent province is as
boundaries, "the approval of a majority of votes in the plebiscite in the unit or much an area affected. The substantial alteration of the boundaries of the parent
units affected" must first be obtained. province, not to mention the adverse economic effects it might suffer,
eloquently argue the points raised by the petitioners."
The creation of the proposed new province of Negros del Norte will necessarily
result in the division and alteration of the existing boundaries of Negros Consequently, the Supreme Court pronounced that the plebiscite held on
Occidental. January 3, 1986 has no legal effect for being a patent nullity.

"Plain and simple logic will demonstrate that two political units would be "WHEREFORE, Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 is hereby declared unconstitutional. The
affected. The first would be the parent province of Negros Occidental because its proclamation of the new province of Negros del Norte, as well as the
boundaries would be substantially altered. The other affected entity would be appointment of the officials thereof are also declared null and void.
composed of those in the area subtracted from the mother province to
constitute the proposed province of Negros del Norte." SO ORDERED."

The Supreme Court further held that the case of Governor Zosimo Paredes #2 No. Sec. 97 of the Local Government Code states that no province can be
versus the Honorable Executive Secretary to the President, et al., G.R. No. 55628, created unless if it has at least 3,500 km. Negros del Norte only has at most
March 2, 1984 (128 SCRA 6), which the respondents used to support their case, 2,865 square kilometers considering the statistics relating to the land area of
should not be taken as a doctrinal or compelling precedent. Rather, it held that municipalities and cities that constitute Negros del Norte.
the dissenting view of Justice Vicente Abad Santos in the aforementioned case is
the forerunner of the applicable ruling, quoting that:

"...when the Constitution speaks of "the unit or units affected" it means all of the VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY v. COMELEC, GR No. 136781, 2000-10-06
 6

Facts: The twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had earlier been proclaimed
winners on the basis of having obtained at least two percent of the votes cast for
On the party-list system, objected to the proclamation of the 38 parties and filed
1998, the first election for party-list representation was held simultaneously with separate Motions for Reconsideration.
the national elections. A total of one hundred twenty-three (123) parties, They contended that (1) under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941, only parties,
organizations and coalitions participated. The Comelec en banc proclaimed organizations or coalitions garnering at least two percent of the votes for the
thirteen (13) ... party-list representatives from twelve (12) parties and party-list system were entitled to seats in the House of Representatives; and (2)
organizations, which had obtained at least two percent of the total number of additional seats, not exceeding two for each,.. should be allocated to those which
votes cast for the party-list system. Two of the proclaimed representatives had garnered the two percent threshold in proportion to the number of votes
belonged to Petitioner APEC cast for the winning parties, as provided by said Section 11.
PAG-ASA (People's Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good Government Issues:
Towards Alleviation of Poverty and Social Advancement) filed with the Comelec a
"Petition to Proclaim [the] Full Number of Party-List Representatives provided by 7941
the Constitution." It alleged... that the filling up of the twenty percent
membership of party-list representatives in the House of Representatives, as Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in
provided under the Constitution, was mandatory. Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? In
other words, should the twenty percent allocation for party-list solons be filled
. It further claimed that the literal application of the two percent vote up completely and all the... time?
requirement and the three-seat limit... under RA 7941 would defeat this
constitutional provision, for only 25 nominees would be declared winners, short Are the two percent threshold requirement and the three-seat limit provided in
of the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit in the House. Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

Comelec Second Division... granting PAG-ASA's Petition. It also ordered the Whether the Twenty Percent Constitutional Allocation Is Mandatory
proclamation of herein 38 respondents who, in addition to the 14 already sitting, The Statutory Requirement and Limitation
would thus total 52 party-list representatives.
Method of Allocating Additional Seats
In allocating the 52 seats, it disregarded the two percent-vote... requirement
prescribed under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941. Instead, it identified three "elements Ruling:
of the party-list system," which should supposedly determine "how the 52 seats
Court agrees with petitioners that the assailed Resolutions should be nullified,
should be filled up." First, "the system was conceived to enable the marginalized
but disagrees that they should all be granted additional seats.
sectors of the

Philippine society to be represented in the House of Representatives." Second, We rule that a simple reading of Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, easily
conveys the equally simple message that Congress was vested with the broad
"the system should represent the broadest sectors of the Philippine society."
power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of
Third, "it should encourage [the] multi-party system."
representation. The Constitution explicitly sets... down only the percentage of
 7

the total membership in the House of Representatives reserved for party-list inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and... progressive ratio"[22] to ensure
representatives. meaningful local representation.

In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress enacted RA 7941. As All in all, we hold that the statutory provision on this two percent requirement is
said earlier, Congress declared therein a policy to promote "proportional precise and crystalline. When the law is clear, the function of courts is simple
representation" in the election of party-list representatives in order to enable application, not interpretation or circumvention.
Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and... underrepresented sectors to
contribute legislation that would benefit them. It however deemed it necessary Consistent with the Constitutional Commission's pronouncements, Congress set
to require parties, organizations and coalitions participating in the system to the seat-limit to three (3) for each qualified party, organization or coalition.
obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system in "Qualified" means having hurdled the two percent vote threshold. Such three-
order to be... entitled to a party-list seat. Those garnering more than this seat limit ensures the entry of various... interest-representations into the
percentage could have "additional seats in proportion to their total number of legislature; thus, no single group, no matter how large its membership, would
votes." Furthermore, no winning party, organization or coalition can have more dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire House.
than three seats in the House of Representatives. Thus the... relevant portion of After careful deliberation, we now explain such formula, step by step.
Section 11(b) of the law provides:
Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners, the public and the private
"(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) respondents, as well as the members of this Court, that the initial step is to rank
of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each; all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions from the highest to the
Provided, that those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be lowest based on the... number of votes they each received. Then the ratio for
entitled to... additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the
Provided, finally, that each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to parties participating in the system. All parties with at least two percent of the
not more than three (3) seats." total votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties... shall be
Considering the foregoing statutory requirements, it will be shown presently that considered in the computation of additional seats. The party receiving the
Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a highest number of votes shall thenceforth be referred to as the "first" party.
ceiling for party-list seats in Congress. Step Two. The next step is to determine the number of seats the first party is
The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of entitled to, in order to be able to compute that for the other parties. Since the
the Constitution and the law, but with the very essence of "representation." distribution is based on proportional representation, the number of seats to be
Under a republican or representative state, all government authority emanates allotted to the other parties... cannot possibly exceed that to which the first
from the people, but is exercised by... representatives chosen by them. party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes.

But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the For example, the first party received 1,000,000 votes and is determined to be
mandate of a sufficient number of people. Otherwise, in a legislature that entitled to two additional seats. Another qualified party which received 500,000
features the party-list system, the result might be the proliferation of... small votes cannot be entitled to the same number of seats, since it garnered only fifty
groups which are incapable of contributing significant legislation, and which percent of the votes won by... the first party. Depending on the proportion of its
might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even legislative votes relative to that of the first party whose number of seats has already been
districts are apportioned according to "the number of their respective predetermined, the second party should be given less than that to which the first
one is entitled.
 8

The other qualified parties will always be allotted less additional seats than the Bagong Bayani and Akbayan Citizens Party filed before the COMELEC a Petition
first party for two reasons: (1) the ratio between said parties and the first party under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785
will always be less than 1:1, and (2) the formula does not admit of mathematical issued by the COMELEC. This resolution approved the participation of 154
rounding off, because there is... no such thing as a fraction of a seat. Verily, an organizations and parties, including those impleaded, in the 2001 party list
arbitrary rounding off could result in a violation of the twenty percent allocation. elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification of private respondents, arguing
An academic mathematical demonstration of such incipient violation is not mainly that the party list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and
necessary because the present set of facts, given the number of... qualified
underrepresented;
parties and the voting percentages obtained, will definitely not end up in such
not the mainstream political parties, the none-marginalized or overrepresented.
constitutional contravention.
Issues:
Principles: a. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections
b. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to ‘marginalized and
The Legal and Logical Formula for the Philippines
underrepresented’ sectors and organizations.
In crafting a legally defensible and logical solution to determine the number of
additional seats that a qualified party is entitled to, we... need to review the Held:
parameters of the Filipino party-list system. The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded to the
they are as follows: COMELEC which will determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether
the 154 parties and organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus
First, the twenty percent allocation - the combined number of all party-list Resolution satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. The
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the resolution of this Court directed the COMELEC “to refrain proclaiming any
House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list. winner” during the last party-list election, shall remain in force until after the
Second, the two percent threshold - only those parties garnering a minimum of COMELEC have compiled and reported its compliance.
two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are "qualified" a. Yes
to have a seat in the House of Representatives; b. No.
Rationale:
Third, the three-seat limit - each qualified party, regardless of the number of a.
votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one
Political parties, even the major ones, may participate in the party-list elections
"qualifying" and two additional seats.
. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents
Fourth, proportional representation - the additional seats which a qualified party cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that
is entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to their total number of votes." they are political parties.
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members of the House of
Representatives may "be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. “Furthermore, under
BAGONG BAYANI vs COMELECG.R. No. 147589 - June 26, 2001
Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution,
Facts: political parties may be registered under the party-list system
 9

. For its part, Section 2of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system of
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof," Section 3 expressly states that a
"party" is
"either a political party

or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties."

b.
That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean,
however, that any political party -- or any organization or group for that matter --
may do so. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be
consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid down in the
Constitution and RA7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution.
The provision on the party-list system is not self-executory
. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in accordance with law" or "as may
be provided by law"; it was thus
up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution
.
Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.
 10

RA 7941 the Party list Act (1995)  Whether or not the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA
7941 to qualify for one seat is constitutional
BANAT V. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009
 How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?
Facts:
 Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties from participating in
 Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency the party-list elections? If not, can the major political parties be barred from
(BANAT) filed before the National Board of Canvassers(NBC) a petition to participating in the party-list elections?
proclaim the full number of party list representatives provided by the
Constitution. However, the recommendation of the head of the legal
group of COMELEC’s national board of canvassers to declare the petition RULING:
moot and academic was approved by the COMELEC en banc.  The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list
 BANAT filed for petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the representatives cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of
resolution of COMELEC to their petition to proclaim the full number of Representatives.
party list representatives provided by the Constitution.  Yes, it is constitutional. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats
 The COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated a resolution proclaiming that a qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory
thirteen (13) parties as winners in the party-list elections in May 2007. device that prevents any party from dominating the party-list elections.
The COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the  The second clause of Section 11(b) of R. A. 7941 “those garnering more than two
party-list results, it would determine the total number of seats of each percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to
winning party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans their total number of votes” is unconstitutional. The two percent threshold only
Federation Party v. COMELEC formula. in relation to the distribution of the additional seats presents an unwarranted
 Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution
Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms (A and prevents the attainment of "the broadest possible representation of party,
Teacher) asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives."
use the Veterans formula. COMELEC denied the consideration.  In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under
 Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher filed for certiorari with mandamus Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:
and prohibition assailing the resolution of the COMELEC in its decision to 1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the
use the Veterans formula. highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
ISSUES: elections.

 Whether or not the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives in 2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one
guaranteed seat each.
 Whether or not the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 is
constitutional
 11

3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total parameters prescribed in this Decision.
number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM UNDER THE 1987
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
CONSTITUTION?
three (3) seats.
 Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political parties from TO DEMOCRATIZE POLITICAL POWER BY GIVING POLITICAL PARTIES THAT
participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the CANNOT WIN IN LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT ELECTIONS A CHANCE TO WIN SEATS IN
Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to participate in party-list THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
elections through their sectoral wings. Also, in defining a "party" that participates The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system
in party-list elections as either "a political party or a sectoral party," R.A. No. 7941 ofrepresentation. Simply put, the party-list system is intended to democratize
also clearly intended that major political parties will participate in the party-list political power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative district
elections. Excluding the major political parties in party-list elections is manifestly elections a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives.50 The voter
against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. elects two representatives in the House of Representatives: one for his or her
No. 7941. However, by the vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling legislative district, and another for his or her party-list group or organization of
in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list choice.
elections, directly or indirectly.

WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM?

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTION AND OTHER CASES
(G.R. NO. 203766 ETC., 02 APRIL 2013, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECT/S: PARTY LIST SECTORAL AND WELL AS NON-SECTORAL PARTIES.
(BRIEF TITLE: ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC)
Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-listsystem
to include not only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral parties. The framers
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the
party-list system. As explained by Commissioner Wilfredo Villacorta, political
WHAT ESSENTIALLY WAS THE RULING OF THE COURT: parties can participate in the party-list system “[F]or as long as they field
candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall
We hold that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in designate in this Constitution.”53
following prevailing decisions of this Court in disqualifying petitioners from
participating in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. However, since the Thus, in the end, the proposal to give permanent reserved seats to certain
Court adopts in this Decision new parameters in the qualification of sectors was outvoted. Instead, the reservation of seats to sectoral
national representatives was only allowed for the first three consecutive terms.55
, regional, and sectoral parties under the party-list system, thereby abandoning
the rulings in the decisions applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, There can be no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the 1987 Constitution
we remand to the COMELEC all the present petitions for the COMELEC to expressly rejected the proposal to make the party-list system exclusively for
determine who are qualified to register under the partylist system, and to
 12

sectoral parties only, and that they clearly intended the party-list system to ALLOCATED TO PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE FILLED, AS PROVIDED BY
include both sectoral and non-sectoral parties. LAW, BY SELECTION OR ELECTION FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR,
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES, WOMEN, YOUTH, AND SUCH OTHER
SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS SECTOR.”
WHAT IS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR BETWEEN SECTORAL AND NON-
SECTORAL PARTIES? Moreover, Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that, during
the first three consecutive terms of Congress after the ratification of the 1987
THEY CANNOT EXPECT TO WIN IN LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT ELECTIONS BUT THEY Constitution, “one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be
CAN GARNER, IN NATIONWIDE ELECTIONS. filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as
The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that they may be provided by law, except the religious sector.” This provision clearly shows
cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but they can garner, in again that the party-list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties for two
nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes that winning candidates obvious reasons.
can garner in legislative district elections. The party-list system will be the entry
point to membership in the House of Representatives for both these non- First, the other one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives would
traditional parties that could not compete in legislative district elections. naturally be open to non-sectoral party-list representatives, clearly negating the
idea that the party-list system is exclusively for sectoral parties representing the
WHAT COMPOSE THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM? “marginalized and underrepresented.” Second, the reservation of one-half of the
party-list seats to sectoral parties applies only for the first “three consecutive
THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS: (1) NATIONAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS; (2) terms after the ratification of this Constitution,” clearly making the party-list
REGIONAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS; AND (3) SECTORAL PARTIES OR system fully
ORGANIZATIONS.
open after the end of the first three congressional terms. This means that, after
Thus, the party-list system is composed of three different groups: (1) national this period, there will be no seats reserved for any class or type of party that
parties or organizations; (2) regional parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral qualifies under the three groups constituting the party-list system.
parties or organizations. National and regional parties or organizations are
different from sectoral parties or organizations. National and regional parties or
organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines and need not represent
any particular sector. Hence, the clear intent, express wording, and party-list structure ordained in
Section 5(1) and (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution cannot be disputed: the
WHAT IS THE PROOF THAT THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY FOR party-list system is not for sectoral parties only, but also for non-sectoral parties.
SECTORAL PARTIES?
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POLITICAL PARTY AND A SECTORAL
SECTION 5(2), ARTICLE VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION WHICH MANDATES THAT, PARTY.
DURING THE FIRST THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF CONGRESS AFTER THE
RATIFICATION OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, “ONE-HALF OF THE SEATS THE DIFFERENCE IS STATED IN R.A. NO. 7941.
 13

POLITICAL PARTY REFERS TO AN ORGANIZED GROUP OF CITIZENS ADVOCATING district elections, participate in the electoral process if they are excluded from
AN IDEOLOGY OR PLATFORM, PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES FOR THE GENERAL the party-list system? To exclude them from the partylist system is to prevent
CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT.” them from joining the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their only option the
armed struggle. To exclude them from the party-list system is, apart from being
A SECTORAL PARTY REFERS TO AN ORGANIZED GROUP OF CITIZENS BELONGING obviously senseless, patently contrary to the clear intent and express wording of
TO ANY OF THE SECTORS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 5 HEREOF WHOSE the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941. Under the party-list system, an
PRINCIPAL ADVOCACY PERTAINS TO THE SPECIAL INTEREST AND CONCERNS OF ideology-based or cause-oriented political party is clearly different from a
THEIR SECTOR.” sectoral party. A political party need not be organized as a sectoral party and
need not represent any particular sector. There is no requirement in R.A. No.
Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7941 defines a “party” as “either a political party or a 7941 that a national or regional political party must represent a “marginalized
sectoral party or a coalition of parties.” Clearly, a political party is different from and underrepresented” sector. It is sufficient that the political party consists of
a sectoral party. Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 7941 further provides that a “political citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same governance
party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an principles and policies, regardless of their economic status as citizens.

ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of

government.” On the other hand, Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that a
“sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 states that “the sectors shall include labor, peasant,
sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
special interest and concerns of their sector.” R.A. No. 7941 provides different women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.”56 The sectors
definitions for a political and a sectoral party. Obviously, they are separate and mentioned in Section 5 are not all necessarily “marginalized and
distinct from each other. underrepresented.” For sure, “professionals” are not by definition “marginalized
and underrepresented,” not even the elderly, women, and the youth. However,
DOES R.A. NO. 7941 REQUIRE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PARTIES TO REPRESENT professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth may “lack well-defined political
THE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED SECTORS? constituencies,” and can thus organize themselves into sectoral parties in
advocacy of the special interests andconcerns of their respective sectors.
NO. TO REQUIRE ALL NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PARTIES UNDER THE PARTY-LIST
SYSTEM TO REPRESENT THE “MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED” IS TO Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides another compelling reason for holding that
DEPRIVE AND EXCLUDE, BY JUDICIAL FIAT, IDEOLOGY-BASED AND CAUSE- the law does not require national or regional parties, as well as certain sectoral
ORIENTED PARTIES FROM THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM. parties in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941, to represent the “marginalized and
underrepresented.” Section 6 provides the grounds for the COMELEC to refuse or
R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to cancel the registration of parties or organizations after due notice and hearing.
represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors. To require all
national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE IF WE INTERPRET THAT ALL THE SECTORS
“marginalized and underrepresented” is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, MENTIONED IN SECTION 5 ARE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED?
ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system. How will
these ideology-based and cause-oriented parties, who cannot win in legislative IT WOULD LEAD TO ABSURDITIES.
 14

On the contrary, to even interpret that all the sectors mentioned in Section 5 are underrepresented” are those who fall in the low income group as classified by
“marginalized and underrepresented” would lead to absurdities. the National Statistical Coordination Board.58

TO WHAT DOES THE PHRASE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED REFER HOW ABOUT SECTORAL PARTIES OF PROFESSIONALS, THE ELDERLY, WOMEN
TO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BROAD POLICY DECLARATION IN SECTION 2OF AND THE YOUTH, DO THEY NEED TO BE MARGINALIZED?
R.A. NO. 7941 WITH ITS SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS, BEARING IN
MIND THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION ON THE NO. THEY BELONG TO IDEOLOGY-BASED AND CAUSE ORIENTED PARTIES.
MATTER? ALLOWING THEM TO RUN AS PARTY LIST WILL GIVE GIVE SMALL IDEOLOGY-
BASED AND CAUSE-ORIENTED PARTIES WHO LACK “WELL-DEFINED POLITICAL
THE PHRASE SHOULD REFER ONLY TO THE SECTORS IN SECTION 5 THAT ARE, BY CONSTITUENCIES” A CHANCE TO WIN SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF
THEIR NATURE, ECONOMICALLY “MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED.” REPRESENTATIVES.
The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral parties of
WHAT ARE THESE SECTORS? professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, need not be “marginalized and
underrepresented” will allow small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties
THESE SECTORS ARE: LABOR, PEASANT, FISHERFOLK, URBAN POOR, who lack “well-defined political constituencies” a chance to win seats in the
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES, HANDICAPPED, VETERANS, OVERSEAS House of Representatives. On the other hand, limiting to the “marginalized and
WORKERS, AND OTHER SIMILAR SECTORS. underrepresented” the sectoral parties for labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and
SHOULD ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SECTORAL PARTY BELONG TO THE other sectors that by their nature are economically at the margins of society, will
MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED? give the “marginalized and underrepresented” an opportunity to likewise win
seats in the House of Representatives. This interpretation will harmonize the
ONLY A MAJORITY. 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 and will give rise to a multi-party system
where those “marginalized and underrepresented,” both in economic and
For these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party must belong ideological status, will have the opportunity to send their own members to the
to the “marginalized and underrepresented.” House of Representatives.

WHAT IS ONE RESULT OF THIS INTERPRETATION?

HOW ABOUT THE NOMINEES OF THE THE SECTORAL PARTY? IT WILL MAKE THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM HONEST AND TRANSPARENT.
This interpretation will also make the party-list system honest and transparent,
eliminating the need for relatively well-off party-list representatives to
EITHER THEY MUST BELONG TO THE SECTOR OR MUST HAVE A TRACK RECORD masquerade as “wallowing in poverty, destitution and infirmity,” even as they
OF ADVOCACY FOR THAT SECTOR. attend sessions in Congress riding in SUVs.
The nominees of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or must
have a track record of advocacy for the sector represented. Belonging to the CAN POLITICAL PARTIES PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY-LIST ELECTIONS?
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector does not mean one must “wallow in NO, EXCEPT THROUGH THEIR SECTORAL WINGS.
poverty, destitution or infirmity.” It is sufficient that one, or his or her sector, is
below the middle class. More specifically, the economically “marginalized and
 15

THEY CANNOT DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE BECAUSE THEY NEITHER LACK WELL

DEFINED POLITICAL CONSTITUENCIES NOR REPRESENT MARGINALIZED AND IT MUST MUST HAVE ITS OWN CONSTITUTION, BY-LAWS, PLATFORM OR
UNDDERPRESENTED SECTORS. PROGRAM OF GOVERNMENT, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, A MAJORITY OF WHOM
MUST BELONG TO THE SECTOR REPRESENTED.
The major political parties are those that field candidates in the legislative district
elections. Major political parties cannot participate in the party-list elections Such sectoral wing of a major political party must have its own constitution, by-
since they neither lack “well-defined political constituencies” nor represent laws, platform or program of government, officers and members, a majority of
“marginalized and underrepresented” sectors. Thus, the national or regional whom must belong to the sector represented. The sectoral wing is in itself an
parties under the party-list system are independent sectoral party, and is linked to a major political party through a
coalition. This linkage is allowed by Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941, which provides
necessarily those that do not belong to major political parties. This automatically that “component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate
reserves the national and regional parties under the party-list system to those independently (in party-list elections) provided the coalition of which they form
who “lack well-defined political constituencies,” giving them the opportunity to part does not participate in the party-list system.”
have members in the House of Representatives.
Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the qualifications of party-list nominees.
WHY ARE POLITICAL PARTIES ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY LIST This provision prescribes a special qualification only for the nominee from the
ELECTIONS THROUGH THEIR SECTORAL WINGS? youth sector.

TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO WORK ASSIDUOUSLY IN EXTENDING THEIR WHAT IS THE QUALIFICATION OF A PARTY-LIST NOMINEE?
CONSTITUENCIES TO THE “MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED” AND TO
THOSE WHO “LACK WELL-DEFINED POLITICAL CONSTITUENCIES.” HE MUST BE A BONA-FIDE MEMBER OF THE PARTY OR ORGANIZATION WHICH
The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 allow major political parties to HE OR SHE SEEKS TO REPRESENT.
participate in party-list elections so as to encourage them to work assiduously in IN THE CASE OF SECTORAL PARTIES, TO BE A BONA FIDE PARTY-LIST NOMINEE
extending their constituencies to the “marginalized and underrepresented” and ONE MUST EITHER BELONG TO THE SECTOR REPRESENTED, OR HAVE A TRACK
to those who “lack well-defined political constituencies.” The participation of RECORD OF ADVOCACY FOR SUCH SECTOR.
major political parties in party-list elections must be geared towards the entry, as
members of the House of Representatives, of the “marginalized and A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or organization
underrepresented” and those who “lack well-defined political constituencies,” which he or she seeks to represent. In the case of sectoral parties, to be a bona
giving them a voice in lawmaking. fide party-list nominee one must either belong to the sector represented, or
have a track record of advocacy for such sector.
Thus, to participate in party-list elections, a major political party that fields
candidates in the legislative district elections must organize a sectoral wing, like a WHAT ARE NOW THE NEW PARAMETERS TO BE FOLLOWED BY COMELEC?
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, professional, women or youth wing, that
can register under the party-list system. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SECTORAL WING?

 16

1. THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM: (1) MUST BELONG TO THE SECTOR THEY REPRESENT. THE NOMINEES OF SECTORAL
NATIONAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS, (2) REGIONAL PARTIES OR PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT REPRESENT THE “MARGINALIZED AND
ORGANIZATIONS, AND (3) SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS. UNDERREPRESENTED,” OR THAT REPRESENT THOSE WHO LACK “WELL-DEFINED
POLITICAL CONSTITUENCIES,” EITHER MUST BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
2. NATIONAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS AND REGIONAL PARTIES OR SECTORS, OR MUST HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF ADVOCACY FOR THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT NEED TO ORGANIZE ALONG SECTORAL LINES AND DO RESPECTIVE SECTORS. THE NOMINEES OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PARTIES OR
NOT NEED TO REPRESENT ANY “MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED” ORGANIZATIONS MUST BE BONA-FIDE MEMBERS OF SUCH PARTIES OR
SECTOR. ORGANIZATIONS.

3. POLITICAL PARTIES CAN PARTICIPATE IN PARTY-LIST ELECTIONS PROVIDED 6. NATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS SHALL
THEY REGISTER UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM AND DO NOT FIELD CANDIDATES NOT BE DISQUALIFIED IF SOME OF THEIR NOMINEES ARE DISQUALIFIED,
IN LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT ELECTIONS. A POLITICAL PARTY, WHETHER MAJOR OR PROVIDED THAT
NOT, THAT FIELDS CANDIDATES IN LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT ELECTIONS CAN THEY HAVE AT LEAST ONE NOMINEE WHO REMAINS QUALIFIED.
PARTICIPATE IN PARTYLIST ELECTIONS ONLY THROUGH ITS SECTORAL WING
THAT CAN SEPARATELY REGISTER UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM. THE
SECTORAL WING IS BY ITSELF AN INDEPENDENT SECTORAL PARTY, AND IS LINKED G.R. No. 192803 December 10, 2013
TO A POLITICAL PARTY THROUGH A COALITION.
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, INC., ALSO KNOWN
AS ARARO PARTY-LIST,Petitioner,
4. SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS MAY EITHER BE “MARGINALIZED AND
vs.
UNDERREPRESENTED” OR LACKING IN “WELL-DEFINED POLITICAL
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
CONSTITUENCIES.” IT IS ENOUGH THAT THEIR PRINCIPAL ADVOCACY PERTAINS
LEONEN, J:
TO THE SPECIAL INTEREST AND CONCERNS OF THEIR SECTOR. THE SECTORS THAT
ARE “MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED” INCLUDE LABOR, PEASANT,
NATURE:
FISHERFOLK, URBAN POOR, INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES,
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by a party-list group that ran for
HANDICAPPED, VETERANS, AND OVERSEAS
the 2010 national elections. The petitioner questions the validity of the formula
used by the Commission on Elections in determining and proclaiming the winning
62 RULE 64 IN RELATION TO RULE 65, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
party-list groups.
WORKERS. THE SECTORS THAT LACK “WELL-DEFINED POLITICAL
CONSTITUENCIES” INCLUDE PROFESSIONALS, THE ELDERLY, WOMEN, AND THE
FACTS:
YOUTH.
Petitioner, ARARO was a duly accredited party-list garnered a total of 147,204
votes in the May 10, 2010 elections and ranked 50th. The COMELEC En Banc
5. A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS
sitting as the National Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed twenty-eight (28)
THAT REPRESENT THE “MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED” MUST
party-list organizations as winners involving a total of thirty-five (35) seats
BELONG TO THE “MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED” SECTOR THEY
guaranteed and additional seats. The petitioner questioned the formula used by
REPRESENT. SIMILARLY, A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF SECTORAL PARTIES
the COMELEC and filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer
OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT LACK “WELL-DEFINED POLITICAL CONSTITUENCIES”
for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order
 17

The petitioner suggests that the formula used by the Commission on Elections is The third issue requires our determination of the computation of the correct
flawed because votes that were spoiled or that were not made for any party-lists divisor to be used. The options are
were not counted. According to the petitioner, around seven million (7,000,000)
votes were disregarded as a result of the Commission on Elections’ erroneous HELD:
interpretation. 7,112,792 (Total number of disregarded votes according to 1. This case is moot and academic but the Court discussed the issues raised by the
petitioner ARARO) petitioner as these are capable of repetition yet evading review 32 and for the
guidance of the bench, bar, and public.33
On the other hand, the formula used by the Commission on Elections En 2. The computation proposed by petitioner ARARO even lowers its chances to meet
Banc sitting as the National Board of Canvassers is the following: the 2% threshold required by law for a guaranteed seat. Its arguments will
Number of seats available to legislative districts_x .20 =Number of seats available neither benefit nor injure the party. Thus, it has no legal standing to raise the
to party-list representatives .80 argument in this Court.
Thus, the total number of party-list seats available for the May 2010 elections is
57 as shown below: 3. The Court agree with the petitioner but only to the extent that votes later on
229__x .20 =57 .80 determined to be invalid due to no cause attributable to the voter should not be
The National Board of Canvassers’ Resolution No. 10-009 applies the formula excluded in the divisor. In other words, votes cast validly for a party-list group
used in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency listed in the ballot but later on disqualified should be counted as part of the
(BANAT) v. COMELEC18 to arrive at the winning party-list groups and their divisor. To do otherwise would be to disenfranchise the voters who voted on the
guaranteed seats, where: basis of good faith that that ballot contained all the qualified candidates.
Number of votes of party-list However, following this rationale, party-list groups listed in the ballot but whose
______________________________= disqualification attained finality prior to the elections and whose disqualification
Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list was reasonably made known by the Commission on Elections to the voters prior
Total number of votes for party-list candidates to such elections should not be included in the divisor.

the Commission on Elections through the Office of the Solicitor General took the Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 is clear that only those votes cast for the
position that invalid or stray votes should not be counted in determining the party-list system shall be considered in the computation of the percentage of
divisor. The Commission on Elections argues that this will contradict Citizens’ representation:
Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) v. COMELEC22 and Barangay Association for 1. (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%)
National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC. 23 It asserts that: of the total votes cast for the party-list systemshall be entitled to one seat each:
Neither can the phrase be construed to include the number of voters who did Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
not even vote for any qualified party-list candidate, as these voters cannot be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes:
considered to have cast any vote "for the party-list system."24 Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to
I. Whether the case is already moot and academic not more than three (3) seats.
II. Whether petitioners have legal standing
III. Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in The formula in determining the winning party-list groups, as used and
its interpretation of the formula used in BANAT v. COMELEC25 to determine the interpreted in the case of BANAT v. COMELEC, is MODIFIED as follows:
party-list groups that would be proclaimed in the 2010 elections
 18

Number of votes. of party-list Total number of valid votes for party-list candidate for congressman which under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987
candidates Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list Constitution, should be for a period not less than one year preceding the (May 8,
The divisor shall be the total number of valid votes cast for the party-list system 1995) day of the election.
including votes cast for party-list groups whose names are in the ballot but are Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino amended the entry on his
subsequently disqualified. Party-list groups listed in the ballot but whose residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 13 days. The Commission
disqualification attained finality prior to the elections and whose disqualification on Elections passed a resolution that dismissed the petition on May 6 and
was reasonably made known by the Commission on Elections to the voters prior allowed Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino, with 38,547 votes, won
to such elections should not be included in the divisor. The divisor shall also not against Augusto Syjuco with 35,910 votes.
include votes that are declared spoiled or invalid. Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the Comelec, to which, on
May 15, the latter acted with an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino
until the Commission resolved the issue. On 2 June, the Commission on Elections
Aquino v COMELEC (1995) found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office for lack of
constitutional qualification of residence.
Aquino then filed a Petition of Certiorari assailing the May 15 and June 2 orders.
Agapito A. Aquino, petitioner vs. Commission on Election, Move Makati, Mateo
Bedon, and Juanito Icaro, respondents
Issue:
Sept, 18, 1995
1. Whether “residency” in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes
Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
“domicile” to warrant the disqualification of Aquino from the position in the
electoral district.
Relevant Provisions:
2. WON it is proven that Aquino has established domicile of choice and not just
Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
residence (not in the sense of the COC)in the district he was running in.
No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least
Held:
twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list
1. Yes, The term “residence” has always been understood as synonymous with
representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected,
“domicile” not only under the previous constitutions but also under the 1987
and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately
Constitution. The Court cited the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
preceding the day of the election.
wherein this principle was applied.
Mr. Nolledo:
Facts:
I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was an attempt to
On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino, the petitioner, filed his Certificate of
require residence in the place not less than one year immediately preceding the
Candidacy for the position of Representative for the new (remember: newly
day of elections.
created) Second Legislative District of Makati City. In his certificate of candidacy,
…
Aquino stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned district (284
What is the Committee’s concept of residence for the legislature? Is it actual
Amapola Cor. Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati) for 10 months.
residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive residence?
Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-
Mr. Davide:
NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify
This is in the district, for a period of not less than one year preceding the day of
Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a
 19

election. This was in effect lifted from the 1973 constituition, the interpretation choice as well) up to the filing of his COC was in Conception, Tarlac.
given to it was domicile. Aquino’s connection to the new Second District of Makati City is an alleged lease
Mrs. Braid: agreement of a condominium unit in the area. The intention not to establish a
On section 7, page2, Noledo has raised the same point that resident has been permanent home in Makati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit
interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than actual residence. instead of buying one. The short length of time he claims to be a resident of
… Makati (and the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims of other
Mr. De los Reyes residences in Metro Manila) indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his
So we have to stick to the original concept that it should be by domicile and not physical residence is not to acquire a new, residence or domicile but only to
physical and actual residence. qualify as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City.
Therefore, the framers intended the word “residence” to have the same meaning Aquino’s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a
of domicile. bare assertion which is hardly supported by the facts in the case at bench. To
The place “where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home,” successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal
where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which
refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. correspond with the purpose.
The purpose is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the Commission on Elections due to his
and needs of the community from taking advantage of lack of one year residence in the district.
favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain. Decision
While there is nothing wrong with the purpose of establishing residence in a Instant petition dismissed. Order restraining respondent Comelec from
given area for meeting election law requirements, this defeats the essence of proclaiming the candidate garnering the next highest number of votes in the
representation, which is to place through assent of voters those most cognizant congressional elections of Second district of Makati City made permanent.
and sensitive to the needs of a particular district, if a candidate falls short of the Dicta:
period of residency mandated by law for him to qualify. I. Aquino’s petition of certiorari contents were:
Which brings us to the second issue. A. The Comelec’s lack of jurisdiction to determine the disqualification issue
involving congressional candidates after the May 8, 1995 elections, such
2. No, Aquino has not established domicile of choice in the district he was determination reserved with the house of representatives electional tribunal
running in. B. Even if the Comelec has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction ceased in the instant case
The SC agreed with the Comelec’s contention that Aquino should prove that he after the elections and the remedy to the adverse parties lies in another forum
established a domicile of choice and not just residence. which is the HR Electoral Tribunal consistent with Section 17, Article VI of the
The Constitution requires a person running for a post in the HR one year of 1987 Constitution.
residency prior to the elections in the district in which he seeks election to . C. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it proceeded to
Aquino’s certificate of candidacy in a previous (May 11, 1992) election indicates promulagate its questioned decision despite its own recognition that a threshold
that he was a resident and a registered voter of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac for issue of jurisdiction has to be judiciously reviewed again, assuming arguendo that
more than 52 years prior to that election. His birth certificate indicated that the Comelec has jurisdiction
Conception as his birthplace and his COC also showed him to be D. The Comelec’s finding of non-compliance with the residency requirement of
a registered voter of the same district. Thus his domicile of origin (obviously, one year against the petitioner is contrary to evidence and to applicable laws and
 20

jurisprudence. 1.) Imelda Marcos established her domicile in Tacloban City, which was her
E. The Comelec erred in failing to appreciate the legal impossibility of enforcing father’s hometown, in 1938 when she was 8 years old. She pursued her studies
the one year residency requirement of Congressional candidates in newly (GS,HS, College) in the aforementioned city and subsequently taught in the Leyte
created political districts which were only existing for less than a year at the time Chinese School. In 1952, she went to Manila to work in the House of
of the election and barely four months in the case of petitioner’s district in Representatives. Two years after, she married Pres. Ferdinand Marcos when he
Makati. was still a Congressman in Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. In 1959,
F. The Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
her husband was elected a Senator and they lived in San Juan, Rizal where she
ordered the board of canvassers to determine and proclaim the winner out of
again registered as a voter. And in 1965, she lived in the Malacanang Palace when
the remaining qualified candidates after the erroneous disqualification of the
petitioner in disregard of the doctrine that a second place candidate or a person her husband became the President. This time, she registered as a voter in San
who was repudiated by the electorate is a loser and cannot be proclaimed as Miguel, Manila. After their exile in Hawaii, she ran for President in 1992 and
substitute winner. indicated in her CoC that she was a resident and register voter of San Juan, Metro
II. Modern day carpetbaggers can’t be allowed to take advantage of the creation Manila.
of new political districts by suddenly transplanting themselves in such new
districts, prejudicing their genuine residents in the process of taking advantage of 2.) Marcos filed her CoC for the position of Representative of the First District of
existing conditions in these areas. Leyte.
III. according to COMELEC: The lease agreement was executed mainly to support
3.) The incumbent Representative, Montejo, filed for her disqualification alleging
the one year residence requirement as a qualification for a candidate of the HR,
that she did not meet the 1 year constitutional requirement for residency.
by establishing a commencement date of his residence. If a oerfectly valid lease
agreement cannot, by itself establish a domicile of choice, this particular lease 4.) Apparently, she wrote down in her CoC in item no.8, which asked for the
agreement cannot be better. number of years of residency, that she had been a resident for 7 months.

Romualdez-Marcos vs Comelec (1995) 5.) Marcos filed an amended CoC changing “7 months” to “since childhood”,
claiming that it was an honest misinterpretation that she thought she was being
Petition: Appeal by certiorari
asked for her actual and physical presence in Tolosa, and not her domicile.
Petitioner: Imelda Marcos
6.) The COMELEC found the petition for her disqualification meritorious and
DOCTRINE: If a person retains his domicile of origin for purposes of the residence cancelled her amended CoC. For them, it was clear that Marcos has not complied
requirement, the 1 year period is irrelevant because wherever he is, he is a with the 1 year residency requirement.
resident of his domicile of origin. Second, if a person reestablishes a previously
 In election cases, the term residence has always been considered
abandoned domicile, the 1 year requirement must be satisfied. (Bernas book)
synonymous with domicile. This is the intention to reside in the place
coupled with the personal presence.
 When she returned after her exile, she did not choose to go back to
FACTS: Tacloban. Thus, her animus revertendi (intention to return)
#JudgePrincess points to Manila.
 21

 Pure intention to reside in Tacloban is not sufficient, there must be 2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal or change of
conduct indicative of such intention. domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and
establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose. In the
absence and concurrence of all these, domicile of origin should be deemed to
7.) The COMELEC denied her motion for reconsideration but issued a resolution
continue.
allowing for her proclamation should she obtain the highest number of votes. On
the same day, however, the COMELEC reversed itself and directed the suspension 3. A wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile because the term
of her proclamation. “residence” in Civil Law* does not mean the same thing in Political Law. When
Imelda married late President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and
8.) Marcos found out that she was won by a landslide in the said elections and
merely gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium.
prayed for her proclamation. Hence, this petition.
*Civil Code kasi sa Art 110: The husband shall fix the residence of the family.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First
Sobrang distinguished yung residence at domicile sa Civil law.
District of Leyte for a period of one year.
4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired
RULING + RATIO:
right to choose a new one only after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon
The case at hand reveals that there is confusion as to the application of ‘Domicile’ returning to the country clearly indicated that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of
and ‘Residence’ in election law. origin, as her domicile of choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her residence
certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while living in her brother’s house, an act,
- Originally, the essential distinction between residence and domicile lies which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She even kept close
in the fact that residence is the PHYSICAL presence of a person in a given area ties by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other
and domicile is where a person intends to remain or his permanent residence.
important milestones.
A person can only have a single domicile.
- It was ascertained from the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution DISPOSITION: COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of
that residence for election purposes is synonymous with domicile. Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the First
District of Leyte.
It cannot be contested that the petitioner held various residences in her lifetime.
The Courts reiterate that an individual does not lose his domicile even if she has
maintained different residences for different purposes. None of these purposes
pointed to her intention of abandoning her domicile of origin.

The Courts ruled in favor of Marcos because of the ff reasons:

1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became Imelda’s domicile

of origin by operation of law when her father brought them to Leyte;
 22

TORAYNO v. COMELEC (2000) Tagoloan; (3) he had fully exercised the powers and prerogatives of
governor until he filed his CoC for mayor.
 In discharging his duties as provincial governor, Emano remained a
FACTS: resident of the province. Residence is a continuing qualification that an
elective official must possess throughout his term. Thus, private
 Emano was proclaimed gov of Misamis Oriental. In his CoC, his respondent could not have changed his residence while he was still
residence was declared to be in Tagoloan, MO. governor.
 While still gov, Emano executed a Voter Registration Record in CDO
(geographically located in MO) which he claimed 20 yrs of residence. He  The ff were not sufficient to constitute a change of domicile: having a
filed his CoC for mayor of CDO, stating that his residence for preceding 2 house in CDO, residing therein while exercising one's office as governor
yrs and 5 mos was in CDO. (the city being the seat of government of the province), securing a
 Residents of CDO filed petition before COMELEC for disqualification— residence certificate and registering as voter therein.
failed to meet the 1-yr residency req't. Respondent:
 Prior to resolution of petition, COMELEC proclaimed Emano as elected
mayor.  He actually and physically resided in CDO while serving as provincial
 Petitioners filed petition for quo warranto before the COMELEC. governor, since the seat of the provincial government was located at the
 COMELEC for Emano, hence, this petition. heart of that city. It is the person concerned who would be in the best
position to make a choice as to his residence. In this case, Emano decided
to adopt CDO as his place of residence after the May 1995 elections. In
ISSUES: fact, in January 1997, he secured his Community Tax Certificate at the City
Treasurer's Office, stating therein that he was a resident of CDO. During
1. WON Emano had duly established his residence in CDO at least one year the general registration of voters in June 1997, he registered in one of
prior to the elections to qualify him to run for the mayorship CDO.
2. If not, WON Damasing, the candidate who had received the second
highest number of votes, should be proclaimed mayor of the city.  His transfer of legal residence did not ipso facto divest him of his position
as governor. First, there is no law that prevents an elected official from
transferring residence while in office. Second, an elective official's transfer
DECISION: of residence does not prevent the performance of that official's duties,
Third, as ruled in Frivaldo, the loss of any of the required qualifications for
HELD: election merely renders the official's title or right to office open to
challenge. No one challenged his right to the Office when he transferred
Petitioners:
his residence.
 Emano maintains his domicile in Tagoloan, MO, not in CDO, as allegedly  The sanctity of the people's will, as expressed in the election result, must
shown by the following facts: (1) he had run and won as governor of MO be respected. He is not, after all, a stranger to the city, much less to its
for three consecutive terms immediately preceding the 1998 elections; voters.
(2) in the pleadings he filed in connection with an election protest against
him relating to the 1995 election, he had stated that he was a resident of Court:
 23

 YES. Emano and his family had actually been residing in Capistrano reiterate the principle that the manifest will of the people as expressed
Subdivision, CDO, in a house he had bought in 1973. During the three through the ballot must be given fullest effect. In case of doubt, political
terms that he was governor of MO, he physically lived in that city, where laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate.
the seat of the provincial government was located. In June 1997, he also
registered as voter of the same city.
2. Issue moot and academic
◦ Applying Mamba-Perez case—These facts indubitably prove that
Emano was a resident of CDO for a period of time sufficient to qualify
him to run for public office.
 Fact that CDO is a highly urbanized city and that its residents do not
participate in provincial elections is of no moment. Such political
subdivisions and voting restrictions, however, are simply for the purpose
of parity in representation. The classification does not completely isolate
its residents, politics, commerce and other businesses from the entire
province especially when the city is at the very heart of the province itself.
◦ CDO was once an integral part of MO and remains a geographical part
of the province. Not only is it at the center of the province; more
important, it is itself the seat of the provincial government. As a
consequence, the provincial officials who carry out their functions in
the city cannot avoid residing therein; much less, getting acquainted
with its concerns and interests.
 The issue before the Court is whether Emano's residence in the city
qualifies him to run for and be elected as mayor, not whether he could
have continued sitting as governor of the province. There was no
challenge to his eligibility to continue running the province; hence, the
Court cannot make any pronouncement on such issue.
 The actual, physical and personal presence of Emano in CDO is substantial
enough to show his intention to fulfill the duties of mayor and for the
voters to evaluate his qualifications for the mayorship. Petitioners' very
legalistic, academic and technical approach to the residence requirement
does not satisfy this simple, practical and common-sense rationale for the
residence requirement.
 There is no question that Emano was the overwhelming choice of the
people. He won by a margin of about 30,000 votes. Thus, it is apt to