Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
Grant first party 3 seats, and the party receiving 6%, additional seats in
proportion to the first party
Additional seats for other parties
Additional seats = no of votes of concerned party/no of votes of first party x first
party additional seats
Fractional membership cannot be converted into whole because this will deprive
anothers fractional membership and would be a violation of the constitutional
mandate of proportional representation
Ang Bagong Bayani v COMELEC
Facts: Petitioners are challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 (COMELEC) which approved
the participation of 154 organizations and parties in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners
seek the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the party-list system
was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream
political parties, the non-marginalized or over-represented.
Issues:
1. WON political parties may participate in the party-list elections
2. WON the party-list system is exclusive to marginalized and underrepresented sectors
and organizations
3. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating above
resolution
Held/Ratio:
1. Yes they can. The Constitution and RA 7941 states that the party-list system is open
to all registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations. Private
respondents cannot be disqualified from the elections based on the above grounds.
2(3). Yes. It is exclusive to the unprivileged. It is clear in the Constitution as well as in RA
7941 that the COMELEC should see to it that only those Filipinos who are marginalized
and underrepresented should become members of Congress under the party-list system.
Allowing the non-marginalized and overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under
the party-list system would prejudice the chance of the underprivileged.
Ang Bagong Bayani OFW Labor Party, et al. v. COMELEC, et al.
Facts: Parties BUHAY, COCOFED, SANLAKAS and PM have already been validly proclaimed by
the Comelec. Before the Court, however, are Motions for proclamation filed by various partylist participants who raised the following question: Aside from those already validly
proclaimed pursuant to earlier Resolutions of the Court, are thre other party-list candidates
that should be proclaimed winners?
Issues:
1. WON Labo v COMELEC and Grego v COMELEC and related cases should be deemed
applicable to the determination of winners in party-list elections?
2. WON the votes cast for parties/orgs that were subsequently disqualified for having
failed to meet the 8-pt guideline should be deducted from the total votes cast for the
party-list system during said elections?
Held/Ratio:
1. Based on RA 7941 Sec 10 which states that a vote cast for a party, sectoral
organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted shall not be counted, Labo and
Grego cannot be considered.
2. Votes obtained by disqualified party-list candidates are not to be counted in
determining the total votes cast for the party-list system pursuant to RA 7941 Sec 12.
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
Held/Ratio: DENIED. RA 4065 is hereby declared not to have been duly enacted.
It is the approval by Congress and not the signatures of presiding officers that is essential in
determining if a bill has been successfully passed by Congress (enrolled bill). Also, the
journal discloses that the amendments introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate
were not incorporated in the text sent to the President which was signed by him.
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
Sec 2a: Only through the permission of the President can the Department Heads can
appear in Congress
Sec 2b: Exec privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of
INFORMATION, not PERSONS
Sec 3: A claim of privilege must be clearly asserted. Implied claims of exec privilege
are not allowed.
Neri v Senate Committee
Facts:Romulo Neri has already testified before the respondent Committees in an 11-hour
proceeding regarding matters on National Broadband Project (NBN) awarded by DOTC to
ZTE. Petitioner disclosed that COMELEC Chair Abalos offered him 200M in exchange for his
approval of the NBN project. He, however, refused to answer questions pertaining to PGMA
by invoking executive privilege. Exec Secretary Ermita wrote respondents a letter for them
to dispense with questions under executive privilege. He did not show up in the succeeding
hearing and was held in contempt. He then explained that he had not shown contemptible
conduct and that he still was willing to cooperate provided that he be given in advance what
he needs to clarify. Such is the nature of this present motion for reconsideration
Issues:
1. WON there is a recognized presumptive presidential communications privilege in our
legal system
2. WON there is factual or legal basis to hold that the communications elicited by the 3
questions (WON PGMA followed up the project? WON she directed him to prioritize it?
WON she directed him to approve it?) are covered by executive privilege
3. WON respondent Committees have shown that the communications elicited by the 3
questions are critical to exercise their functions.
4. WON respondent Committees committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing
contempt order
Held/Ratio:
1. Presidential communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of government
and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.
2. In upholding executive privilege with respect to the 3 questions, it did not in any way
curb the publics right to information
3. Inquiries by the legislature are not subject to the exacting standards of evidence
essential to arrive at accurate findings in court proceedings.
4. Yes. The subpoena issued to petitioner did not inform him of the questions to be
asked. It merely commanded him to testify on what he knows
SEC 25 Garcia v Mata
Facts: Petitioner filed for certiorari to review Court of First Instances decision which declared
Par 11 of the Special Provisions of the AFP of RA No. 1600 (Appropriation Act for the FY 5657) unconstitutional and invalid. Petitioner also argues that his reversion to inactive status
was in violation of the above provision which prohibits the reversion to inactive status of
reserve officers on active duty with at least 10 yrs of accumulated service.
Held/Ratio: DENIED. Court affirmed lower courts decisions. It is unconstitutional because a
new and completely unrelated provision was attached to the Appropriation Act. Said
provision is a RIDER (LOL)
Demetria v Alba
Facts: Petitioner is assailing the constitutionality of Par 1 Sec 44 of PD 1177 or Budget
Reform Decree of 1977 as it unduly empowers the president to transfer funds within the
government without any limits whatsoever.
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco
JMHRoco