Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17


The power to enact laws, to alter and repeal the same. It is exercised by the congress
of the Philippines. It is the plenary power of congress/legislative branch to exercise
legislative power. But under our constitution, the power is only confined in the
congress. Pursuant to the DOCTRINE OF LOCAL AUTONOMY as embodied in Art
X, LGUs through its local legislative bodies (i.e., the provincial, city, municipal and
even the barangay legislative bodies), exercises legislative power, within the confines
of their respective jurisdiction, through the enactment of various ordinances.
Likewise, pursuant to the provision on INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM, the people
as the ultimate repository of sovereign power, exercises legislative power. During
MARTIAL LAW, the president exercises legislative power, i.e., PDs issued by Marcos
during ML are pursuant to the legislative power vested upon the head of the state
during ML.
Congress of the Philippines, as possessing the plenary power to exercise legislative power
The congress is a bicameral body. It consists of 2 chambers, the Senate and HOR.
Members of the senate are nationally elected. Whereas, the members of the house are
elected through the so-called legislative districts (LD) and under the Party-list system
(PL). Considering that the senators are nationally elected, can we say that they are
more superior than the members of HOR? No, they are of equal chambers, they are
Composition of the Senate
The senate is composed of 24 senators. They are elected at large by the qualified
voters of the philippines.
QUALIFICATIONS OF A SENATOR: (there are only five qualifications under the
1. Natural-born citizen Of the philippines (being a constitutional office)
A natural born citizen of the phils is a citizen from birth without having to
perform any act in order to perfect his citizenship.
2. At least 35 years of age ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION
It is sufficient that on the day the people cast their vote, the candidate for the
senate has reached 35 yrs of age. It is immaterial and not important that at the time
he files his COC, he is still 34 yrs old.
3. Able to read and write
There educational rqt. But one must know how to read and write
4. Resident of the philippines for at least 2 yrs immediately preceding the day of the
5. Registered voter in the phils
1. Natural-born citizen of the Phils
2. Able to read and write
3. At least 25 yo on the day of the election

4. A resident of the district where he intends to be elected for at least one year
5. A registered voter
The above qualifications apply to district representatives. For PL reps, pursuant to
RA 7941 (PL Act), basically, a PL reps has the same qualification as that of the
DRs except as regards the residency in the district where he intends to be elected.
It doesnt apply to PL reps who are elected to office pursuant to the peculiar
system of PL election where the PL where a representative belongs is the one
elected nationally by the qualified voters.
For the nominee of youth PL, he must not be less than 25 and more than 30 yo at
on the day of the election. If during his term, he reaches 31 yo, he shall be allowed
to continue the entire term of office despite reaching the age of more than 30 yo.
For the Senators:
6 years, which shall commence at noon on the 30th day of June following their
election, unless otherwise provided by law. A senator is entitled to 2
successive terms, meaning, one after another or immediately following.
for HOR members:
3 years, which shall commence at noon on the 30th day of June following their
election. A member of the HOR is entitled to 3 successive terms.
In both Senate and HOR members, VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION for any
length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity Of
the service for the full term for which the senator or the member of the HOR
has been elected. Meaning, if a member voluntarily resigned, that will
constitute as his one full term.
Pimentel vs Comelec
A particular provision in the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, RA 9165, is being
questioned. There is a provision in the law wherein a elected official before
assuming office has to undergo a mandatory drug test. Note that in 9165 there
is also a provision wherein if a person is accused of a crime, he must undergo
the mandatory drug test. The mandatory test also applies to applicants for
drivers license. For schools, random drug test is required. Employment in
private and public sector, drug test is also required.
As for elected government officials, failure to undergo a mandatory drug test,
he will not be allowed to assume office for which he was elected. The
mandatory drug test provision on elected government official before
assumption of office was questioned by Sen Pimentel. According to pimentel,
that is unconstitutional because in effect, that specific provision of RA 9165 is
providing additional qualification other than what are provided for in the
constitution and therefore it is unconstitutional because IT VIOLATES THE
SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION, the Doctrine of Constitutional

SC sustained the argument of Pimentel. Sen Pimentel is correct because the

qualifications for an elective office like the senators and members of HOR are
provided for by no less than the Constitution and therefore, the congress has
no power to go beyond the provision of the constitution without amending the
constitution. The constitution must be amended first by providing additional
qualification. But congress cannot enact a law providing for additional
Within the context of political law, residency is synonymous with domicile.
DOMICILE, defined
It is one wherein a person, whenever he is, whether he is absent for business or
pleasure, he intends to return.
Marcos vs Comelec
Imelda Marcos decided to run for congressional district in Tacloban. When
Marcos file her COC, she indicated in the years of her stay in the district
where she intends to be elected 6 months. Take note that under the
Constitution, the period of stay for members of HOR should be 1 year. The 6
months residency Marcos indicated in her COC was questioned by her
oppositor in a petition to disqualify her as a congressional candidate in
Tacloban. Although later on, Marcos amended her COC and instead of 6
months, she amended it to since birth. Her reason was, it was really the place
where she was born and grew up.
SC ruled that when Imelda Marcos married the late president, she
TEMPORARILY lost her domicile of choice. She followed the domicile of her
husband. But when the husband died, she immediately reverted to her original
domicile, which is Tacloban, Leyte and therefore Imelda Marcos was qualified
to run in the congressional district.
Aquino vs Comelec
Butz Aquino hailed from Tarlac. When Makati provided for an additional
legislative district, Butz intended to run there as congressman. He indicated in
his COC that he is staying in Makati for 1 year. But it was established that
Butz does not own any property in Makati. He was merely leasing a condo
unit in Makati and the contract of lease presented as evidence to prove that
such lease was short of the 1 yr requirement. For that reason, he was
disqualified to run as congressman in Makati because of the obvious reality
that his domicile is originally from Tarlac and Aquino failed to overcome the
presumption that he has already changed his domicile from Tarlac to Makati.
With those prevailing circumstances, he doesnt own a property in Makati, the
lease contract was short of 1 year, therefore, there is no clear indication that
Butz has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati.
Asistio vs Pe-Aguirre
The Asistio clan is a known political clan in Caloocan City. Luis himself
became the mayor of the Caloocan for quite some time. The brother has
likewise became the mayor of the city. The sister became a congressman in

one of the citys district. The nephews became councilors and even Luis, the
petitioner himself, became a two-termer congressman in Caloocan. He now
decided to run for mayoralty position. At that time, the mayor was Echiverri.
Out of political strategy, Asistio filed a disqualification case against Echiverri.
And of course, in the interest of due process, Echiverri has to file a responsive
pleading. But when the group of Echiverri was trying to serve Asistio the
responsive pleading, they discovered that the address indicated by Asistio in
his COC and in his pleading was a place where no structure has been erected.
It is a vacant lot. Echiverri argued that it is impossible to live in the indicated
address because there was no house erected and upon further investigation, it
was discovered that it was not owned by Asistio. The property or the address
was not owned by Asistio. In fact, he was merely leasing the same. In his
answer, Asistio argued that there was oversight in the indication of the address
because the real address is the adjoining property not the one stated in the
COC as well as in the pleading. Because of that, Echiverri, this time filed a
petition to exclude Asistio as a registered voter in Caloocan City because it is
obvious that Asistio is not a resident of that place. The MTC delisted Asistio
as registered voter in Caloocan. However on appeal to RTC, Asistio failed to
pay the docket fee on time which caused the dismissal of the appeal. Asistio
went to SC and argued that he paid the docket fee on time not through
personal filing but through postal money order.
The issue here was raised as to WON Asistio may be construed to have to
have abandoned his domicile in caloocan. Take note that it was established
that he grew up in caloocan so therefore, that is his original domicile. Is there
a loss or abandonment of domicile on the part of Asistio? Thats the relevant
issue, not the payment of the filing fee.
SC ruled that it is a jurisprudential doctrine that a domicile once is not easily
lost. For an effective change or abandonment of domicile, several conditions
must be established and CONCUR:
1. There must be an actual removal or abandonment of domicile
2. There must be a clear indication that the person has no intention to return
to his previous domicile of choice.
3. Other matters indicative of that intention
There miust be a presence of ANIMUS MANENDI (an intention to move out,
to leave) coupled with ANIMUS NON-REVERTENDI (an intention not to
return, go back)
In the case, it is very clear that his original domicile is in Caloocan. Trhere
was no evidence presented that he actually transferred his domicile therefore
in the eyes or within the context of political law, even if he is physically absent
in Caloocan, he is deemed to have not lost his domicile in caloocan.
Fernandez vs HRET
Dan Fernandez was the Vice-Governor of Laguna. His domicile was in the 4th
district. During the 2007 election, he ran for the first 1 st district of Laguna. A
petition to disqualify him was filed on account of the issue on residency

because the petitioner argued that Dan was not a resident of the 1 st district. In
fact, he was elected official in the 4th district. He has been voting there,
exercising his rt of suffrage there, he owns a property situated in the 2 nd
district, he merely rents an apartment and a small business in the 1 st district.
By these, how can Dan claim that he is a resident of the 1 st district where in
fact, he doesnt own a house there. The residence was situated in the 2 nd
district, the children were studying in a school situated in the 2 nd district, and
when some people would visit the rented house in the 1 st district, they do not
usually see Dan but only the wife who would tell them to go the residence
situated in the 2nd District. HRET ruled against Dan.
SC ruled that there is no property requirement as a qualification for an elective
office. One doesnt need to own a property in the place where he intends to be
elected. There is NO PROPERTY REQUIREMENT under the
Constitution.one doesnt need sell his house in order to acquire a new house in
the place where he intends to be elected. Even if you are merely renting an
apartment, for as long as you have satisfied all the Constitutional
qualifications, then you are eligible to run in that elective office. As long as
you satisfied the 1 year requirement.
HOR are of two kinds:
1. The district representatives
The total number of the composition of HOR under the Constitution
should be not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law.
The qualifying phrase unless otherwise provided by law means to say
that the congress amy increase its membership through:
ii. A creation of a Legislative District
Take note that under the Constitution, a province, regardless of its
population, will always be entitled to a LD, at least one LD. For a city to
be entitled to a LD, it has to reach a population requirement of 250,000
Sema vs Comelec
The issue is WON a regional legislative body has the power to create
legislative district.
A regional legislative body is a creation of congress. It is inferior of,
obviously, congress. Pursuant to Mindanao Autonomy Act, the creation of
ARMM, the congress enacted that particular law in compliance with the
mandate of the constitution. It provided for a legislative assembly for
ARMM. Its a regional legislative body for ARMM. Part of or among the
powers of the ARMM is the creation of or power to create LGUs, that is, a
province, a city, a municipality or even a barangay. It is part of the law
created by congress. And pursuant to that power, ARMM created the
province of Shariff Kabunsuan. And that was the bone of contention in the
instant case. WON ARMM can, indeed, create LGUs particularly

provinces and cities, because for that matter, it will have the power to
create legislative district. According to that particular case, while it is true
that ARMM has been given the power to create LGUs, it does not extend it
power of creartion to provinces and cities. Because if that power is given
to ARMM, it will have a resulting power of creating LD, which power
only belong to congress. Because IT IS ONLY THE CONGRESS THAT
Take note that under the constitution, once a province is created, it
automatically entitles itself to a LD. It is provided in the constitution that
each province or each city with a population of at least 250,000 shall be
entitled to at least one LD. So once a province is created, then it
automatically entitles itself to a LD. And that should not be the intention of
the congress in creating or establishing ARMM. Likewise, if a city attains
250,000 population, then it will become entitled to a LD. An inferior body,
ARMM, which is a creation of congress, cannot dictate to congress its
membership. Take note that if a LD is created, a congressman will be
elected to represent that LD. When a congressman is elected in a new LD,
his membership will increase the composition of congress. If ARMM
would create several provinces, it will in effect would dictate the number
of members in the congress. Therefore, the province of Shariff Kabunsuan
was declared as null and void for being unconstitutional. However,
ARMM can create municipalities and barangays.
Aldava vs Comelec
The issue is the so-called 250,000 population. It involves the City of
Malolos, Bulacan. In 2009, congress enacted a law creating the City of
malolos. Malolos used to be a component city of bulacan, meaning to say
it shares the same LD with its neighboring municipalities. But with the
creation of that law or with the conversion of malolos into an independent
city, under the law, it will become entitle to a LD. Part of the justification
for the creation LD is a certtification coming from the region III regional
director of NSO (now PSA) attesting the fact that by 2010, malolos city
will reach a population of 250,000 inhabitants, by 2010 without specifying
a particular month or a particular date.
That was questioned by the petitioner. He argued that the creation of a
separate LD for malolos city is unconstitutional. Bcoz a city, like malolos
city, will only be entitled to a LD once it reached 250,000 population. At
the moment of its creation, it has not yet reached 250,000 pop. The very
document presented that will justify the creation of a LD for malolos states
that the 250,000 rqt will be met not on the day of its creation but the
following year, during the ensuing year, 2010 and therefore, that is
premature. It is not yet ripe for malolos city to be provided with a separate
LD. If that law was created in 2009, when will be the ensuing election? It
will be 2010 and definitely, May, 2010. But the certification provided that
by 2010, it will reach 250,000 population. There is no specification as to
what particular month it will reach the 250,000. What if the rqt would be
reached on december 2010, e yung eleksyon natin is May, 2010? Ibig

sabihin by May it has not yet reached 250,000 and therefore it is not yet
entitled to a LD.
Malolos will only be entitled to a LD once it meets the qualification, the
Aquino vs Comelec
The case is about the creation of a LD. This involves the province of
CamSur. Camsur used to have four LDs. But congress enacted a law
creating for additional LD for CamSur. So instead of 4 LD, with the
enactment of that law, it becomes five. There were rumors that the law was
enacted to accommodate the son of GMA, Dato. How did it happened?
For example this is d1, this is d2, this is d3and d4. So we have 1, 2, 3 and
4. In providing for Additional LD, it reduces or taken some barangays in
d1 and d2. So instead of for LDs, it became 5 LD taking away some
barangays from d1 and d2 to create d5. Aquino, the outgoing president,
together with the spouse of incoming VP, Jessie Robredo, filed a petition
questioning the constitutionality of that additional LD. Their main
argument is that by the creation of the additional district, one district, d1,
has now a decreased population. It has less than 250,000 polpulation. With
the creation of the additional district, one district has decreased its
population of less than 250,000 population.
SC ruled Is population a requirement in the creation of a LD in a
province? Under the constitution, No. Population as a requirement for the
creation of LD is only needed in cities in a province. A province from the
moment of its creation is automatically entitled to a LD. As a matter of
fact, according to SC, that has been answered in the case of Mariano vs
Comelec, 1997 case.
Mariano vs Comelec
Involving the city of Makati. In the case, Makati used to have a lone
congressional district. But with the enactment of a law increasing or
providing for additional LD in makati, from one it becomes two. That time
the population of makati was only more than 400,000. So if you divide it
by two, it would result to a less than 250k population for each district. But
still, the creation of that LD was sustained by SC. Bcoz the requirement of
250k population is only needed for the creation or for the INITIAL
CREATION of a LD, not for an additional LD. For the initial creation of a
LD in a city, the 250k is required. But for providing for additional LD,
increasing the number of LDs, the population requirement is no longer
needed. Kung initial creation lang ng LD in a city, you have to follow the
population requirement. But if you will only increase the LD, the
population requirement is no longer required. Dont confuse yourself.
Hindi porket city ka na e meron ka nang LD. Wag nyo iconfuse yung sarili
nyo. Magkakaron ka lang ng LD pag nameet mo yung 250k population
requirement. EXAMPLE: So meron ka ng isang LD, nagincrease ka ng
300, can you create an additional Ld? The answer is yes bcoz the
population requirement is no longer needed, if you add a LD. In fact under

the LGC, a city may be created kung ang population e I think kahit 150k
lang e or if I may recall it right maybe 200k.

Bagabuyo vs Comelec
This is about the issue of plebiscite requirement. If will recall, Sec 10, Art
X, of the constitution provides that No province, city, municipality or
barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundaries
substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in
the LGC and subject to the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite in the political units directly affected. So yun yung sinasabi.
Meaning to say, if you abolish, merge, divide, alter substantially the
boundaries of that LGU or political subdivision, it has to comply with the
criteria established under the LGC and to be Approved by the people in a
plebiscite called for the purpose by the people in the political units directly
affected. So meron requirement ng plebscite. Here comes the instant case.
It involves the CDO city. CDO used to have a lone congressional district.
Through an act of congress, it increased/provided for additional LD or CD.
Now, here comes the petitioner questioning the constitutionality of the
creation of that additional LD. According to the petitioner, it fails to
comply to the mandate sec 10 Art X relative to the conduct of plebiscite.
According to the petitioner, you have to submit that law for approval to the
people first. Mag-conduct muna tayo ng plebscite if the people are
approving the creation of the additional LD.
SC ruled NO. If you are merely creating a LD, there is no need to conduct
a plebiscite for the purpose. Sec 10 Art X applies only if you are
abolishing, merging, creating a political subdivision. If you refer to the
political or LGUs, meaning, provinces, citries, municipalities, barangay. A
LD IS NOT A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION. It may be classified or termed
as a political unit, but certainly, it is not a political subdivision where there
is a chief executive. A LD does not have a chief executive. The
which LD still belongs or still under the jurisdiction of a particular local
govt unit, being a province or a city. Since LD is not a political
subdivision, it cannot sue or be sued. Only the political subdivision can be
sued or sue. Reason: LD has no chief executive. It is not a political
subdivision, therefore there is no requirement of a plebiscite. In Tobias vs
Abalos, Mandaluyong used to share same CD with san Juan. When the
conversion of Mandaluyong into HUC was done, a plebiscite was
conducted, not in san juan but only in madaluyong. So there is no
necessity of conducting a plebiscite. In the case of mandaluyong, we are
creating a HUC, we are not creating a merely LD. There is an alteration of
congressional district. We have altered the CD of san juan and
mandaluyong. But since what was altered was a congressional district, a
political unit but not a political subdivision, no plebiscite was ever
conducted in san juan, only in mandaluyong.

As a GENERAL RULE, alteration of LD for the self-interest or benefit of
a political candidate. Under our constitution it is not allowed because of
the constitutional provision that each LD shall comprise, as far as
practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territories. The constitution
provides that the territories comprising one LD should, as far as
practicable, adjoins each other. Contiguous, compact and adjacent. In other
word, magkakatabi.
Exception to GR: Caloocan City having the northern portion and the
poblacion or the southern portion. Why? Because Caloocan has been there
since time immemorial, prior to the 1987 constitution.
2. The party-list representatives
Under the constitution, the members of HOR are of 2 kinds. The district
representatives who are elected through LDs and the party-list
representatives. Based on the constitutional provision, who are now the
members of the HOR? Is it the party-list, wherein we elect Ang Buhay, we
elect AKO Teacher, Magdalo etc.,? Are those party-list that we elect are
members of congress? No they are not. The members of congress are the
nominees of those particular PL who have been elected. Bcoz of the
provision in the constitution that those who refers to persons who are
elected through National, Sectoral and Regional parties or organization.
Although, they have assumed office pursuant to the peculiar characteristics
of the PL system of election. We are electing the PL but the ones who
becomes members of the HOR are not the PLs but the representatives or
the nominees of those PLs.
Under the constitution, the PL representatives, meaning, the persons, the
nominees shall constitute 20% of the total membership of the HOR. Under
the constitution, the total composition of members of HOR shall be 250,
unless otherwise provided by law. As I said earlier, the congress may
increase its membership through a GENERAL REAPPORTIONMENT
LAW or THROUGH A CREATION OF LD. Now, under the present setup, the membership of HOR is 291 and 20% of that 291 is allocated to
PLs. The 20% of 291 is 58.
BANAT vs Comelec
This is how we elect our PL reps. There are four parameters initiated in the
case of BANAT:
1. 20% of the total members of HOR is allocated to PL representatives.
So that for every 4 DRs, there should always be one PL rep. Ratio is
2. A PL garnering or obtaining at least 2% of the total votes cast for the
PL shall be entitled to a guaranteed seat;
3. As for the additional seat, it will be distributed in proportion to your
ratio, to your respective % in the PL election;

4. The three-seat cap is constitutional.

Under the PL Act, RA 7941, there is a provision there that the
maximum seat that can be allocated for a particular PL shall only be up
to 3 seats. Hindi na pwede maging 4 or 5 kahit na sabihin mong
makakuha sya ng 20%. Out of the total votes cast, hangang tatlo lang
sya. And PRIOR to the BANAT RULING, you can only have
additional seat if you reach another 2% threshold. Meaning to say,
kung gusto mo makadalawang seat, you have to obtain at least 4%. But
now, pursuant to BANAT ruling, that has been abandoned already.
Meaning to say, even if a PL obtained less than 2%, it does not
necessarily follow that it will no longer have a seat in congress.
Depende pa din yan sa ranking nila, sa magiging % ranking nila. Thats
the BANAT ruling.
How do you obtain your % in the PL?
Number of votes for particular PL
total number of votes for the
entire PL
This has been qualified in araro vs comelec
Araro vs Comelec
It has qualified the divisor. How do you determine the divisor? According to
ARARO, you exclude those votes which were considered or has been declared
as spoiled ballots, or those which were denied or were not counted in the valid
votes, either through improper shading, multiple shading, or there were some
improper marks on the ballots. All those things that are ATTRIBUTABLE to
the fault of the voter. Ide-disregard mo yun. You will not count it for purposes
of determining the total number of votes cast. However, the total number of
votes cast shall include those votes for PL which were disqualified by the
Comelec but there is a pending motion for reconsideration meaning to say the
decision is not yet final. Provided that those Party-list are listed in the ballot. It
may happen that a particular PL is listed in the ballot but were subsequently
disqualified by trhe comelec. But due to lack of time to revise the ballot, and
perhaps in the interest of fiscal respect, hindi na nila pinalitan yung ballot, kasi
magastos pa pag papalitan pa nila yung ballot. So those disqualified PL still
remained in the ballot. SC said the votes cast for those PL which were
disqualified but which disqualification has not yet attain finality should be
included in the divisor in determining the number of the total votes cast. If the
disqualification has attained finality, and such disqualification with finality
HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED to the electorate by the comelec, then you
exclude them even if they are listed in the ballot. In other words, kahit final na
yung disqualification, kung si comelec ay di nacommunicate yung decision sa
electorate, include mo pa din sya sa divisor. Pero kung na-communicate
naman sya prior to the election, then hindi mo na sya iinclude, I-exclude mo
na sya. The rationale behind it So as not to disenfranchise the voters. The
voters, they rely on the ballot with respect on those who are qualified to be

voted upon. Kung tatangalin mo yun dahil meron silang disqualification,

although it has not yet attain fianlity, nade-disenfranchise yung voters.
300,000 (votes for a PL)
20,000,000 (votes for the entire PL)
=1.51% (it did not get 2% but may still have a seat)
For 58 seats. 28 seats were already filled, due to 2% guaranteed seats;
therefore there are 30 remaining seats to be filled.
1. PL a got 10%; less 2% GS = 8%; 0.08 x 30 = 2.4; Note:
the whole integer 2
entitleS it to another seat. The
remaining .4 may still entitle it to another seat, depending
on the outcome of the computation for the remaining PLs.
But the maximum is only 3 seats.
2. PL b got 8%; less 2% GS = 6%; 0.06 x 30 = 1.8; note: the
whole integer 1, although less than 2% may still entitle it to
a seat, as well as the .8, depending on the outcome on the
outcome of the computation for the other PLs.
3. PL c got 6%; less 2% GS = 4%; 0.04 x 30 = 1.2
4. PL d got 5%; less 2% GS =3%; 0.03 x 30 = .9 (no whole
integer, but may still have a seat)
5. PL e got 4%; less 2% GS= 2%; 0.02 x 30 = .6
6. PL f got 3%; less 2% GS = 1%; 0.01 x 30 = .3 (PL f is the
priority in getting another seat as against the .2 of PL c in
the second phase of distribution)
7. PL g got 2%
8. PL h got 1%
9. PL i got .9%
10. PL j got .5%
In the example, PL a to g will get a sure seat. But it doesnt follow that
they will get the additional seat to fill out the 3 seat cap. Although PL 'a
got 10% he is not sure that he will get additional seats to complete the 3seat cap. In BANAT, it has explained for the computation for additional
seat. In computing additional seat, of course you have to obtain the % of
the PL. and the remaining available seats for the PLs. Meaning to say, after
deducting the GS, in our present situation which have 58 PL seats,
assuming the GS in our example is 28 and they are all filled up, 30 has to
be filled, lahat ng nakakuha ng 2%, tangalin na yung 2% nila kasi naallocate na yun sa GS. So si a meron na lang 8%; si b, 6%; and so on.
Multiply the remaining % to the remaining seats, which is 30. Unahin
idistribute yung mga whole integers sa remaining seats. Then yung mga
decimal points from highest to lowest. This is assuming that there are
available seats. Kasi baka after the first or second phase of distribution e
wala na natirang seats.

Why is it that prior to the BANAT ruling, for a PL to be entitled to a seat, it
must obtain the 2%? But under the BANAT ruling, even if you obtain less
than 2%, it is possible that you can obtain a seat in PL representative,
As ruled by the SC, the continued operation of 2% threshold will be
mathematically and physically impossible to fill up the PL. In that PL, the
Total number os seats allocated for the PL exceeds by 50. Ibig sabihin,
kapag daw yung PL natin, gaya ngayon na 58 ang PL, nagexceed na sya sa
50. Kapag inapply yung 2%, hangang 50 lang ang mapi-fill up mo. Yung 8
remaining seats ay magiging vacant. Hindi mo na mapi-fill up yan. Dahil
yung 2%, hangang 50 lang ang kayang i-produce. 2x50=100. Hangang
100% lang. E kung 58 yung ating seats, sayang yung 8. Magiging vacant.
Walang makakakuha nyan. Kahiot gaano karami ang boboto sa PL, it will
always be 100%. Hindi pwedeng 116%.
With that parameters laid down in BANAT, are we saying then that,
hanggat controlling si BANAT, all the PL seats will be filled up? The
answer is YES.
In case of tie on the last 2, the law on PL does not provide. But by analogy,
under the LGC, those who received the same number of votes shall draw
Senior Citizens vs Comelec
Term sharing is not allowed. Senior Citizens vs Comelec ruling, 2013
decision. In the case, SC clarified there is no term sharing. Term-sharing
agreement is not allowed in the PL Act. Wherein there is a MOA among
the nominees of that PL. that for 1 year, if the PL obtains 1 seat in
congress, the first nominee will assume the office. If it obtains two seats,
the 1st and 2nd nominees will assume the respective seats and the 3 rd
nominee will assume the seat of the 1 st nominee after the lapse of 1
years. Meaning to say, after 1 years, the 1 st nominee will yield the seat to
the 3rd nominee. That was the agreement. SC ruled that the MOA is not
allowed for being unconstitutional. There ios a clear provision in the
constitution that the term of office of the members of the HOR shall 3
years. But take note that there is a provision in the PL Act that in case of
vacancy, i.e., the nominee dies, or becomes incapacitated, or resigns, the
substitute will be taken from the list of nominees submitted to the comelec.
Actually, kulang lang sa diskarte kasi yung senior citizen. Nag-away kasi
sila kaya naipresent yung MOA. E kung nagresign na lang yung 1 st
nominee, automatic si 3rd nominee ang uupo, kung naging internal lang sa
kanila yun. Kaya lang since pinresent na sya, yung MOA nila, SC
disallowed the MOA. Take note that under the PL, part of the compliance
of a PL group in participating in the PL elections is to submit the list of
nominees, which list SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN FIVE.

Cocofed vs Comelec
Cocofed submitted only 2 nominees, instead of 5. Bcoz of that, Comelec
disqualified it. Ccofed questioned the propriety of. The ruling of the
comelec to the SC.
SC ruled that isnt it that one of the grounds for denial, rejection or
cancellation of a registration of a PL is if it fails to comply with the laws,
rules and regulations relating to elections? The provision mandating the
PL to submit the names of at least five nominees is part of the Rules and
Regulations relating to election and therefore, the rejection or cancellation
of the registration by the Comelec is within the parameters of its authority.
It does not exceed its powers. It sustained the decision of Comelec.
Lokin vs Comelec
The comelec exceeded its powers, it committed an ultra vires act.
The list of nominees must be presented/filed with Comelec 45 days prior
to the PL election. It must contain at least FIVE names in the order of
priority. This is mandatory. Non-submission is a ground for
disqualIfication. If you submitted those names already, as a rule, you can
no longer alter it. But you can substitute, you can make a substitution of
those nominees listed on several grounds (take note that, as a general rule,
once the list is submitted, it cannot be revoked, cancelled or withdrawn.
UNLESS the nominee) as provided for by law:
1. The nominee withdraws in writing his nomination, or
2. Dies, or
3. Becomes incapacitated,or
In any of those cases, substitution may be allowed. But here comes the
comelec, coming up with a resolution providing for substitution. Instead of
3, it provided 4 instances wherein substitution may be allowed. Including
the 3 provided by law, comelec added another ground for substitution
which provided that when the nomination is withdrawn by the Party.
Because of that, Lokin was aggrieved as he was substituted by Joel
Villanueva without his consent, because under the law, the nomination
must be withdrawn by the nominee in writing. In the instant case, the
withdrawal came not from the nominee but from the PL where he belongs
on the basis of the comelec resolution allowing the PL to make the
withdrawal of the nomination. (declared ultra vires)
SC ruled the resolution ultra vires on the part of the comelec. The comelec,
despite its power to enact rules and regulations relating to the conduct of
election, has no power to go beyond the mandate of the substantive law,
the PL Act. It is clearly indicated or enumerated in the PL Act the grounds
for the valid substitution of a nominee, which does not include the
withdrawal of nomination by the party.
Take note that under the Absentee Voting Act, the overseas filipinos abroad have the
right to elect PL representative. These are among the positions, this particular

position, is among the position that overseas filipinos may cast their vote. There are
only four positions: President, VP, Senators, PL. Lets have the PARAMETERS of
PRINCIPLES laid down by the SC in the case of Atong Paglaum vs Comelec.
Atong Paglaum vs Comelec
Who may participate? What kind of party may join the PL election:
1. N P/O ; R P/O ;
N P/O and R P/O may be considered as Political parties. Bcoz they
have a kind of ideology for the system of government. Ideology
or principles for the system or operation of the government.
Example of national party: PDP Laban. Example of regional party
or organization: AKO BICOL, because their interest is for a
particular region or political area.
A Sectoral P/O, on the other hand, has a particular interest or
concern for a particular sector. It may be considered as
marginalized or under-privilege or one which lacks a well-defined
political constituency. A sectoral party which may be considered
as marginalized or under-represented are the fisherfolks, urban
poor, indigenous cultural community, the handicapped, farmers.
Those lacking a well-defined political constituency are the
women, the youth, the professionals. They dont have definitive
political constituency. Basta mga kababaihan, from all walks of
life, without qualification. They may all participate in the PL
election. Prior the Atong Paglaum ruling, a 2013 decision, only
those who represent the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors of the society may participate in the PL election. Under
the Atong Paglaum, even political parties may now participate in
the PL election. Why? Because:
i. Under the PL ACT, it is clearly provided that National and Political parties
may participate in the PL election. That the PL election is not exclusive to
PL groups
ii. One justification given by the SC is that, if we exclude political parties or
those who have a plotical ideology, if we exclude them in participating,
then we deny them their able representation through peaceful process.
Saan mo sila dadalin? Sa kalsada, through the employment of violence in
order to express their sentiments against the government. Wala na sila
arena na mapupuntahan. Tinangalan mo sila ng opportunity na pumunta sa
kongreso. Example of these groups: NDF, Magdalo which have their own
ideas how to run the government.
2. N P/O and R P/O do not need to organize along sectoral line.
Meaning to say, they do not need to advocate or represent the
marginalized or underrepresented sectors of the society. They do
not need to have a constituency which lacks well-defined political
constituency. Di na sila kailangan mag prove na they are
representing the marginalized or underrepresented sectors. They
do not need to organize along sectoral lines in order to
participate in the PL election. The mere fact that they are political

parties or regional parties will suffice that they can participate in

the PL election, provided they comply with other documentary
3. Political Party, referring to regional p/o, may participate in the PL
election provided that they do not field candidates in the District
PDP Laban. If it fielded candidates in the district election, it
cannot participate in the PL election.
However, as ruled by the SC, if political parties have fielded
candidates in the district election, they can still participate in the
PL election through their respective SECTORAL WINGS. And that
SW is, by itself, an independent sectoral party but only coalized
with the political party. Nakipag-coalition lang sya doon sa
political party, pero may sarili syang identity.
SB, Ang Buhay coalized with LP,
4. Sect P/O needs to organize along sectoral lines.
It may represents either the Marginalized or underrepresented
sector of society or those who lack well-defined political
5. Majority of the members of the Sec P/O must belong to the sector
they are representing. If the sec p/o represents the urban poor,
then majority of the members of that party must belong to the
urban poor. If it represents the handicapped, majority of the
members must be handicapped
For Political Party, the N P/O, they must be
political party.

BONA-FIDE members of the

For Nominees of Sectoral party, they must either belong to the sector they are
representing or must have a track record of advocacy for the concern of that
particular sector. Meaning to say, the nominee of the sectoral party is either
belonging to the sector they are representing or he has track record of advocacy or
concern for that particular sector. Kahit mayaman si nominee, kung meron syang
advocacy sa urban poor, then he qualifies to be a nominee sa sectoral party.
6. A PL is not disqualified if some of its nominees are disqualified provided at least
one nominee is still or remains to be qualified.
Ang ibig sabihin, si PL hindi sya madidisqualify simply because the nominees it
has submitted to the comelec do not possess the required qualifications, provided
out of the five nominees, may isa na natira na qualified as nominee. The
qualification is the same as the district representative.


1. If PL intending to participate is a foreign political party/organization
2. If PL, even if locally established, is receiving from or being supported financially
by a Foreign government, party/organization
3. If it is advocating violence or any unlawful means in order to achieve its goal
Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago vs Comelec
On account of the Oakwood mutiny, Magdalo was disqualified by Comelec.
SC originally sustained the disqualification of Magadalo. It ruled that Magdalo is
advocating violence in order to achieve its goal. However, in the light of
SUPERVENING CIRCUMSTANCE (doctrine of supervening event), wherein
Magdalo members were eventually granted amnesty by the President, there was a
qualifying statement made by the SC in the decision. Magdalo, since it has been
granted amnesty, it may now participate in the ensuing election. It will not prevent
Magdalo, despite the decision sustaining the decision of comelec, it will not
prevent Magdalo from participating in the ensuing election because of the
amnesty given. But for that particular election, Magdalo the disqualification was
upheld by SC.
In a similar case of Ang Ladlad vs Comelec
Ang Ladlad was disqualified by comelec because of morality issue. As admitted
by Ladlad, it is advocating the practice men-to-men sex. That was construed by
comelec as immorality.
enumerated under the law.
4. If it is a religious sect, denomination or organization aimed towards religious
purpose (i.e., el shaddai)
5. If it fails to comply or violates any laws, rules and regulation relating to election
STATEMENT in its petition for registration
7. If it ceased to exist for a period of 1 year
8. If it fails to participate in the last 2 preceding PL elections OR fails to garner at
least 2% of the votes cast in the PL election (but the latter clause has to be
qualified with BANAT ruling that even if you failed to obtain 2%, provided that
you obtain a seat in congress, that will not be a ground for your disqualification,
as resolved by the SC in PGBI)
Philippine Guardian Brotherhood, Incorporated
Guardian failed to participate in the PL election for the first term. In the ensuing or
succeeding term, it fails to obtain 2%. However, pursuant to the BANAT ruling,
despite not obtaining 2%, it obtains a seat in congress. So in the 3 rd ensuing election, it
again participated in the PL election. This time the comelec disqualifies it or someone
moved for its disqualification because of the provision of law that first, that it never
participated in the preceding election and on the succeeding term, it never obtain 2%.

Two issues were raised. First, it failed to participate. Second, it fails to obtain 2%.
Question: can the two be combined? SC said NO, it cannot be combined because the
words used, the qualifying word used in the provision, is OR not AND. So they are
to be treated alternatively and not conjunctively or jointly. Pero sa PGBI, ang
inaddress kasi dun, the mere fact or notwithstanding that it obtains a seat in congress,
it only means that Par 8 is not applicable to PGBI.
Term of Office of PL Representative
The term of office of PL reps shall be the same as that of the DRs. As a matter of fact,
they enjoy the same perks, privileges, salaries, emoluments and both, the DRs and PL
reps, can participate in the enactment of a law which affects the not only their sectors
but even the districts. They are both the same and for the that matter, they are both
SUBJECT TO THE BAR OR LIMITATION of 3-consecutive terms. One peculiarity,
meaning, one difference between the DR from PL rep is that when the PL rep changes
his party-list affiliation, that is tantamount to to forfeiting his seat. If he leaves the
party-list he is representing, he is in effect, conceding his seat or resigning from his
position as a PL rep. And once the change of affiliation transpired within 6 months
prior to PL election, that PL rep cannot become a nominee for the new PL he now
belongs in that ensuing PL election.