Republic of the Philippines

Omnibus Resolution dated 27 November 20129

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 203766 April 2, 2013
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner, 2 204455 12-041 Manila Teachers - A non-stock savings and
vs. (PLM) Savings and loan association cannot be
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent. Loan considered marginalized and
PERLAS-BERNABE,* Association, Inc. underrepresented; and
DECISION (Manila - The first and second
CARPIO, J.: Teachers) nominees are not teachers by
The Cases profession.
These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition1 filed by 52
party-list groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial
of their petitions for registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and
accreditation as party-list organizations. 3 204426 12-011 Association of - Failure to show that its
This Court resolved to consolidate the 54 petitions in the Resolutions dated 13 November 2012,2 20 (PLM) Local Athletics members belong to the
November 2012,3 27 November 2012,4 4 December 2012,5 11 December 2012,6 and 19 February 2013.7 Entrepreneurs marginalized; and
The Facts Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941) and COMELEC and Hobbyists, - Failure of the nominees to
Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531, approximately 280 groups and organizations registered and Inc. (ALA-EH) qualify.
manifested their desire to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
G.R. No. SPP No. Group Grounds for Denial

Resolution dated 27 November 201210

A. Via the COMELEC En Bancs automatic review of the COMELEC

Divisions resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations 4 204435 12-057 1 Alliance - Failure of the nominees to
(PLM) Advocating qualify: although registering
Autonomy Party as a regional political party,
(1AAAP) two of the nominees are not
residents of the region; and
Resolution dated 23 November 20128
four of the five nominees do
not belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented.
1 204379 12-099 Alagad ng - The "artists" sector is not
(PLM) Sining (ASIN) considered marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to prove track
Resolution dated 27 November 201211
record; and
- Failure of the nominees to
qualify under RA 7941 and
Ang Bagong Bayani.
5 204367 12-104 (PL) Akbay - Failure of the group to show
Kalusugan that its nominees belong to
(AKIN), Inc. the urban poor sector.
 Resolution dated 29 November 201212
6 204370 12-011 (PP) Ako An Bisaya - Failure to represent a
(AAB) marginalized sector of
society, despite the formation
of a sectoral wing for the
benefit of farmers of Region
8;
- Constituency has district
representatives;
- Lack of track record in
representing peasants and
farmers; and
- Nominees are neither
farmers nor peasants.
Resolution dated 4 December 201213
7 204436 12-009 (PP), Abyan Ilonggo - Failure to show that the
12-165 Party (AI) party represents a
(PLM) marginalized and
underrepresented sector, as
the Province of Iloilo has
district representatives;
- Untruthful statements in the
memorandum; and
- Withdrawal of three of its
five nominees.
Resolution dated 4 December 201214
8 204485 12-175 (PL) Alliance of - Failure to establish that the
Organizations, group can represent 14
Networks and Associations sectors; - The sectors of
of homeowners
the Philippines, associations, entrepreneurs
Inc. (ALONA) and cooperatives are not
marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The nominees do not belong
to the marginalized and
underrepresented.
B. Via the COMELEC En Bancs review on motion for reconsideration
of the COMELEC Divisions resolutions denying registration of groups
and organizations
Resolution dated 7 November 201215
9 204139 12-127 (PL) Alab ng - Failure to prove track
Mamamahayag record as an organization;
(ALAM) - Failure to show that the
group actually represents the
marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- Failure to establish that the
group can represent all
sectors it seeks to represent.
Resolution dated 7 November 201216
10 204402 12-061 (PP) Kalikasan Party-List - The group reflects an 12 204490 12-073 Pilipinas Para sa - Failure to show that the
(KALIKASAN) advocacy for the (PLM) Pinoy (PPP) group represents a
environment, and is not marginalized and
representative of the underrepresented sector, as
marginalized and Region 12 has district
underrepresented; representatives; and
- There is no proof that - Failure to show a track
majority of its members record of undertaking
belong to the marginalized programs for the welfare of
and underrepresented; the sector the group seeks to
- The group represents represent.
sectors with conflicting
interests; and
- The nominees do not belong
to the sector which the group
claims to represent.
In a Resolution dated 5 December 2012,19 the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the COMELEC Second
Divisions resolution to grant Partido ng Bayan ng Bidas (PBB) registration and accreditation as a political
party in the National Capital Region. However, PBB was denied participation in the 13 May 2013 party-
list elections because PBB does not represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector; PBB
failed to apply for registration as a party-list group; and PBB failed to establish its track record as an
Resolution dated 14 November 201217 organization that seeks to uplift the lives of the "marginalized and underrepresented."20
These 13 petitioners (ASIN, Manila Teachers, ALA-EH, 1AAAP, AKIN, AAB, AI, ALONA, ALAM,
KALIKASAN, GUARDJAN, PPP, and PBB) were not able to secure a mandatory injunction from this
Court. The COMELEC, on 7 January 2013 issued Resolution No. 9604,21 and excluded the names of
11 204394 12-145 (PL) Association of - Failure to prove these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
Guard, Utility membership base and track Pursuant to paragraph 222 of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC En Banc scheduled summary
Helper, Aider, record; evidentiary hearings to determine whether the groups and organizations that filed manifestations of intent
Rider, Driver/ - Failure to present activities to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections have continually complied with the requirements of
Domestic that sufficiently benefited its R.A. No. 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC23 (Ang Bagong Bayani). The
Helper, intended constituency; and COMELEC disqualified the following groups and organizations from participating in the 13 May 2013
Janitor, Agent - The nominees do not belong party-list elections:
and to any of the sectors which G.R. No. SPP Group Grounds for Denial
Nanny of the the group seeks to represent. No.
Philippines, Inc.
(GUARDJAN)

Resolution dated 10 October 201224

Resolution dated 5 December 201218

1 203818- 12-154 AKO Bicol Retained registration and 3 203981 12-187 Association for Cancelled registration and
19 (PLM) Political Party accreditation as a political (PLM) Righteousness accreditation
12-177 (AKB) party, but denied participation Advocacy on - Failure to comply, and for
(PLM) in the May 2013 party-list Leadership violation of election laws;
elections (ARAL) - The nominees do not
- Failure to represent any represent the sectors which
marginalized and the party represents; and
underrepresented sector; - There is doubt that the party
- The Bicol region already is organized for religious
has representatives in purposes.
Congress; and
- The nominees are not
marginalized and
underrepresented.
4 204002 12-188 Alliance for Cancelled registration and
(PLM) Rural Concerns accreditation
(ARC) - Failure of the nominees to
qualify; and
- Failure of the party to prove
Omnibus Resolution dated 11 October 201225 that majority of its members
belong to the sectors it seeks
to represent.

2 203766 12-161 Atong Paglaum, Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Inc. (Atong accreditation
Paglaum) - The nominees do not belong
to the sectors which the party 5 204318 12-220 United Cancelled registration and
represents; and (PLM) Movement accreditation
- The party failed to file its Against Drugs - The sectors of drug
Statement of Contributions Foundation counsellors and lecturers,
and Expenditures for the (UNIMAD) veterans and the youth, are
2010 Elections. not marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to establish track
record; and
- Failure of the nominees to
qualify as representatives of
the youth and young urban
professionals.

Omnibus Resolution dated 16 October 201226

6 204100 12-196 1-Bro Philippine Cancelled registration 9 203960 12-260 1st Cancelled registration
(PLM) Guardians - Failure to define the sector (PLM) Consumers - The sector of rural energy
Brotherhood, it seeks to represent; and Alliance for consumers is not
Inc. (1BRO-PGBI) - The nominees do not belong Rural Energy, marginalized and
to a marginalized and Inc. (1-CARE) underrepresented;
underrepresented sector. - The partys track record is
related to electric
cooperatives and not rural
energy consumers; and
- The nominees do not belong
7 204122 12-223 1 Guardians Cancelled registration to the sector of rural energy
(PLM) Nationalist - The party is a military consumers.
Philippines, Inc. fraternity;
(1GANAP/ - The sector of community
GUARDIANS) volunteer workers is too
broad to allow for meaningful
representation; and
- The nominees do not appear Resolution dated 16 October 201228
to belong to the sector of
community volunteer
workers.
10 203922 12-201 Association of Cancelled registration and
(PLM) Philippine accreditation
Electric - Failure to represent a
Cooperatives marginalized and
(APEC) underrepresented sector; and
8 20426 12-257 Blessed Cancelled registration
- The nominees do not belong
(PLM) Federation of - Three of the seven
to the sector that the party
Farmers and nominees do not belong to
claims to represent.
Fishermen the sector of farmers and
International, fishermen, the sector sought
Inc. (A to be represented; and
BLESSED - None of the nominees are
Party-List) registered voters of Region
XI, the region sought to be Resolution dated 23 October 201229
represented.

Resolution dated 16 October 201227

11 204174 12-232 Aangat Tayo Cancelled registration and 13 204240 12-279 Agri-Agra na Cancelled registration
(PLM) Party-List Party accreditation (PLM) Reporma Para sa - The party ceased to exist for
( AT ) - The incumbent Magsasaka ng more than a year immediately
representative in Congress Pilipinas after the May 2010 elections;
failed to author or sponsor Movement - The nominees do not belong
bills that are beneficial to the (AGRI) to the sector of peasants and
sectors that the party farmers that the party seeks to
represents (women, elderly, represent;
youth, urban poor); and - Only four nominees were
- The nominees do not belong submitted to the COMELEC;
to the marginalized sectors and
that the party seeks to - Failure to show meaningful
represent. activities for its constituency.

Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201230 14 203936 12-248 Aksyon Cancelled registration
(PLM) Magsasaka-Partido - Failure to show that
Tinig ng majority of its members are
Masa (AKMA-PTM) marginalized and
12 203976 12-288 Alliance for Cancelled registration and underrepresented;
(PLM) Rural and accreditation - Failure to prove that four of
Agrarian - The interests of the peasant its nine nominees actually
Reconstruction, and urban poor sectors that belong to the farmers sector;
Inc. (ARARO) the party represents differ; and
- The nominees do not belong - Failure to show that five of
to the sectors that the party its nine nominees work on
seeks to represent; uplifting the lives of the
- Failure to show that three of members of the sector.
the nominees are bona fide
party members; and
- Lack of a Board resolution
to participate in the party-list
elections.

Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201231

15 204126 12-263 Kaagapay ng Cancelled registration 18 204408 12-217 Pilipino Cancelled registration
(PLM) Nagkakaisang - The Manifestation of Intent (PLM) Association for - Change of sector (from
Agilang and Certificate of Nomination Country Urban urban poor youth to urban
Pilipinong were not signed by an Poor Youth poor) necessitates a new
Magsasaka appropriate officer of the Advancement application;
(KAP) party; and Welfare - Failure to show track record
- Failure to show track record ( PA C YAW ) for the marginalized and
for the farmers and peasants underrepresented;
sector; and - Failure to prove that
- Failure to show that majority of its members and
nominees actually belong to officers are from the urban
the sector, or that they have poor sector; and
undertaken meaningful - The nominees are not
activities for the sector. members of the urban poor
sector.

16 204364 12-180 Adhikain at Cancelled registration

(PLM) Kilusan ng - Failure to show that 19 204153 12-277 Pasang Masda Cancelled registration
Ordinaryong nominees actually belong to (PLM) Nationwide - The party represents drivers
Tao Para sa the sector, or that they have Party (PASANG and operators, who may have
Lupa, Pabahay, undertaken meaningful MASDA) conflicting interests; and
Hanapbuhay at activities for the sector. - Nominees are either
Kaunlaran operators or former operators.
(AKO-BAHAY)

17 204141 12-229 The True Cancelled registration

(PLM) Marcos Loyalist - Failure to show that
(for God, majority of its members are
Country and marginalized and
People) underrepresented; and
Association of - Failure to prove that two of
the Philippines, its nominees actually belong
Inc. (BANTAY) to the marginalized and
underrepresented.
20 203958 12-015 Kapatiran ng Cancelled registration
(PLM) mga Nakulong - Failure to prove that
na Walang Sala, na Walang Sala,
Inc. (KAKUSA) Inc. (KAKUSA)
majority of its officers and
members belong to the
marginalized and
underrepresented;
- The incumbent
representative in Congress
failed to author or sponsor
bills that are beneficial to the
sector that the party
represents (persons
imprisoned without proof of
guilt beyond reasonable
doubt);
- Failure to show track record
for the marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The nominees did not
appear to be marginalized and
underrepresented.
Resolution dated 30 October 201232
21 204428 12-256 Ang Galing Cancelled registration and
(PLM) Pinoy (AG) accreditation
- Failure to attend the
summary hearing;
- Failure to show track record
for the marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The nominees did not
appear to be marginalized and
underrepresented.
Resolution dated 7 November 201233
22 204094 12-185 Alliance for Cancelled registration and
(PLM) Nationalism and accreditation
Democracy - Failure to represent an
(ANAD) identifiable marginalized and
underrepresented sector;
- Only three nominees were
submitted to the COMELEC;
- The nominees do not
belong to the marginalized
and underrepresented; and
- Failure to submit its
Statement of Contribution
and Expenditures for the
2007 Elections.
Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 201234
23 204239 12-060 Green Force for Cancelled registration and
(PLM) the Environment accreditation
Sons and - The party is an advocacy
Daughters of group and does not represent
Mother Earth the marginalized and
(GREENFORCE) underrepresented;
- Failure to comply with the
track record requirement; and
- The nominees are not
marginalized citizens.
24 204236 12-254 Firm 24-K Cancelled registration and 26 204358 12-204 Alliance of Cancelled registration
(PLM) Association, Inc. accreditation (PLM) Advocates in - The sector it represents is a
(FIRM 24-K) - The nominees do not Mining specifically defined group
belong to the sector that the Advancement which may not be allowed
party seeks to represent for National registration under the party-list system; and
(urban poor and peasants of Progress - Failure to establish that the
the National Capital Region); (AAMA) nominees actually belong to
- Only two of its nominees the sector.
reside in the National Capital
Region; and
- Failure to comply with the
track record requirement.
Resolution dated 7 November 201236

27 204359 12-272 Social Cancelled registration

25 204341 12-269 Action League Cancelled registration and
(PLM) Movement for - The nominees are
(PLM) of Indigenous accreditation
Active Reform disqualified from
Masses (ALIM) - Failure to establish that its
and representing the sectors that
nominees are members of the
Transparency the party represents;
indigenous people in the
(SMART) - Failure to comply with the
Mindanao and Cordilleras
track record requirement; and
sector that the party seeks to
- There is doubt as to whether
represent;
majority of its members are
- Only two of the partys
marginalized and
nominees reside in the
underrepresented.
Mindanao and Cordilleras;
and
- Three of the nominees do
not appear to belong to the
marginalized.
Resolution dated 7 November 201237

Resolution dated 7 November 201235

28 204238 12-173 Alliance of Cancelled registration and 30 204321 12-252 Ang Agrikultura Cancelled registration and
(PLM) Bicolnon Party accreditation (PLM) Natin Isulong accreditation
(ABP) - Defective registration and (AANI) - Failure to establish a track
accreditation dating back to record of enhancing the lives
2010; of the marginalized and
- Failure to represent any underrepresented farmers
sector; and which it claims to represent;
- Failure to establish that the and
nominees are employed in the construction - More than a majority of the
industry, the partys nominees do not
sector it claims to represent. belong to the farmers sector.

Resolution dated 7 November 201238 Resolution dated 7 November 201240

29 204323 12-210 Bayani Party Cancelled registration and 31 204125 12-292 Agapay ng Cancelled registration and
(PLM) List (BAYANI) accreditation (PLM) Indigenous accreditation
- Failure to prove a track Peoples Rights - Failure to prove that its five
record of trying to uplift the Alliance, Inc. nominees are members of the
marginalized and (A-IPRA) indigenous people sector;
underrepresented sector of - Failure to prove that its five
professionals; and nominees actively
- One nominee was declared participated in the
unqualified to represent the undertakings of the party; and
sector of professionals. - Failure to prove that its five nominees are
bona fide
members.

Resolution dated 7 November 201239

Resolution dated 7 November 201241

32 204216 12-202 Philippine Cancelled registration and 34 204158 12-158 Action Cancelled registration and
(PLM) Coconut accreditation (PLM) Brotherhood for Active accreditation - Failure to show that the
Producers - The party is affiliated with Dreamers, Inc. party is actually able to
Federation, Inc. private and government (ABROAD) represent all of the sectors it
(COCOFED) agencies and is not claims to represent;
marginalized; - Failure to show a complete
- The party is assisted by the track record of its activities
government in various since its registration; and
projects; and - The nominees are not part
- The nominees are not of any of the sectors which
members of the marginalized the party seeks to represent.
sector of coconut farmers and
producers.

Resolution dated 28 November 201244

Resolution dated 7 November 201242

35 204374 12-228 Binhi-Partido ng Cancelled registration and

(PLM) mga Magsasaka accreditation
33 204220 12-238 Abang Lingkod Cancelled registration Para sa mga - The party receives
(PLM) Party-List - Failure to establish a track Magsasaka assistance from the
(ABANG record of continuously (BINHI) government through the
LINGKOD) representing the peasant Department of Agriculture;
farmers sector; and
- Failure to show that its - Failure to prove that the
members actually belong to group is marginalized and
the peasant farmers sector; underrepresented.
and
- Failure to show that its
nominees are marginalized
and underrepresented, have
actively participated in Resolution dated 28 November 201245
programs for the
advancement of farmers, and
adhere to its advocacies.

Resolution dated 14 November 201243

36 204356 12-136 Butil Farmers Cancelled registration and
(PLM) Party (BUTIL) accreditation
- Failure to establish that the
agriculture and cooperative
sectors are marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The partys nominees
neither appear to belong to
the sectors they seek to
represent, nor to have
actively participated in the
undertakings of the party.
38 204410 12-198 1-United Cancelled accreditation
(PLM) Transport - The party represents drivers
Koalisyon (1-UTAK) and operators, who may have
conflicting interests; and
- The partys nominees do not
belong to any marginalized
and underrepresented sector.
Resolution dated 4 December 201248

39 204421, 12-157 Coalition of Cancelled registration

204425 (PLM), Senior Citizens - The party violated election
Resolution dated 3 December 201246 12-191 in the laws because its nominees
(PLM) Philippines, Inc. had a term-sharing
(SENIOR agreement.
CITIZENS)
37 204486 12-194 1st Cancelled registration and
(PLM) Kabalikat ng accreditation
Bayan - Declaration of untruthful
Ginhawang statements;
Sangkatauhan - Failure to exist for at least
(1st one year; and These 39 petitioners (AKB, Atong Paglaum, ARAL, ARC, UNIMAD, 1BRO-PGBI, 1GANAP/GUARDIANS,
KABAGIS) - None of its nominees A BLESSED Party-List, 1-CARE, APEC, AT, ARARO, AGRI, AKMA-PTM, KAP, AKO-BAHAY, BANTAY,
belong to the labor, PACYAW, PASANG MASDA, KAKUSA, AG, ANAD, GREENFORCE, FIRM 24-K, ALIM, AAMA, SMART,
fisherfolk, and urban poor ABP, BAYANI, AANI, A-IPRA, COCOFED, ABANG LINGKOD, ABROAD, BINHI, BUTIL, 1st KABAGIS,
indigenous cultural 1-UTAK, SENIOR CITIZENS) were able to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court, directing the
communities sectors which it COMELEC to include the names of these 39 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the 13 May
seeks to represent. 2013 party-list elections.
Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
This Court issued Status Quo Ante Orders in all petitions. This Decision governs only the 54 consolidated
petitions that were granted Status Quo Ante Orders, namely:
G.R. No. SPP No. Group
Resolution dated 4 December 201247

Resolution dated 13 November 2012

203818-19 12-154 AKO Bicol Political Party (AKB) 204094 12-185 Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy
(PLM) (PLM) (ANAD)
12-177
(PLM)

204125 12-292 Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance,

(PLM) Inc. (A-IPRA)
203981 12-187 Association for Righteousness Advocacy on
(PLM) Leadership (ARAL)

204100 12-196 1-Bro Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc.

(PLM) (1BRO-PGBI)
204002 12-188 Alliance for Rural Concerns (ARC)
(PLM)

Resolution dated 27 November 2012

203922 12-201 Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives

(PLM) (APEC)
204141 12-229 The True Marcos Loyalist (for God, Country
(PLM) and People) Association of the Philippines, Inc.
(BANTAY)
203960 12-260 1st
(PLM) Consumers Alliance for Rural Energy, Inc.
(1-CARE)
204240 12-279 Agri-Agra na Reporma Para sa Magsasaka ng
(PLM) Pilipinas Movement (AGRI)

203936 12-248 Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa

(PLM) (AKMA-PTM)
204216 12-202 Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc.
(PLM) (COCOFED)

203958 12-015 Kapatiran ng mga Nakulong na Walang Sala,

(PLM) Inc. (KAKUSA)
204158 12-158 Action Brotherhood for Active Dreamer, Inc.
(PLM) (ABROAD)

203976 12-288 Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction,

(PLM) Inc. (ARARO)
Resolutions dated 4 December 2012

Resolution dated 20 November 2012

204122 12-223 1 Guardians Nationalist Philippines, Inc. 204236 12-254 Firm 24-K Association, Inc. (FIRM 24-K)
(PLM) (1GANAP/GUARDIANS) (PLM)

203766 12-161 Atong Paglaum, Inc. (Atong Paglaum) 204238 12-173 Alliance of Bicolnon Party (ABP)
(PLM) (PLM)

204318 12-220 United Movement Against Drugs Foundation 204239 12-060 Green Force for the Environment Sons and
(PLM) (UNIMAD) (PLM) Daughters of Mother Earth (GREENFORCE)

204263 12-257 Blessed Federation of Farmers and Fishermen 204321 12-252 Ang Agrikultura Natin Isulong (AANI)
(PLM) International, Inc. (A BLESSED Party-List) (PLM)

204174 12-232 Aangat Tayo Party-List Party (AT) 204323 12-210 Bayani Party List (BAYANI)
(PLM) (PLM)

204126 12-263 Kaagapay ng Nagkakaisang Agilang Pilipinong 204341 12-269 Action League of Indigenous Masses (ALIM)
(PLM) Magsasaka (KAP) (PLM)

204364 12-180 Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong Tao Para sa 204358 12-204 Alliance of Advocates in Mining Advancement
(PLM) Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at Kaunlaran (PLM) for National Progress (AAMA)
(AKO-BAHAY)

204359 12-272 Social Movement for Active Reform and

204139 12-127 (PL) Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) (PLM) Transparency (SMART)

204220 12-238 Abang Lingkod Party-List (ABANG 204356 12-136 Butil Farmers Party (BUTIL)
(PLM) LINGKOD) (PLM)
 Resolution dated 11 December 2012 204455 12-041 Manila Teachers Savings and Loan Association,
(PLM) Inc. (Manila Teachers)

204402 12-061 (PL) Kalikasan Party-List (KALIKASAN)

204374 12-228 Binhi-Partido ng mga Magsasaka Para sa mga
(PLM) Magsasaka (BINHI)

204394 12-145 (PL) Association of Guard, Utility Helper, Aider,

Rider, Driver/Domestic Helper, Janitor, Agent
and Nanny of the Philippines, Inc. 204370 12-011 (PP) Ako An Bisaya (AAB)
(GUARDJAN)

204435 12-057 1 Alliance Advocating Autonomy Party

204408 12-217 Pilipino Association for Country Urban Poor (PLM) (1AAAP)
(PLM) Youth Advancement and Welfare (PACYAW)

204486 12-194 1st Kabalikat ng Bayan Ginhawang

204428 12-256 Ang Galing Pinoy (AG) (PLM) Sangkatauhan (1st KABAGIS)
(PLM)

204410 12-198 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK)

204490 12-073 Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP) (PLM)
(PLM)

204421, 12-157 Coalition of Senior Citizens in the Philippines,

204379 12-099 Alagad ng Sining (ASIN) 204425 (PLM) Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS)
(PLM) 12-191
(PLM)

204367 12-104 (PL) Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN)

204436 12-009 (PP), Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI)
12-165
(PLM)
204426 12-011 Association of Local Athletics Entrepreneurs
(PLM) and Hobbyists, Inc. (ALA-EH)

204485 12-175 (PL) Alliance of Organizations, Networks and

Associations of the Philippines, Inc. (ALONA)

204484 11-002 Partido ng Bayan ng Bida (PBB)
Resolution dated 11 December 2012
204153 12-277 Pasang Masda Nationwide Party (PASANG
(PLM) MASDA)
The Issues
We rule upon two issues: first, whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list
elections, either by denial of their new petitions for registration under the party-list system, or by
cancellation of their existing registration and accreditation as party-list organizations; and second,
whether the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani and Barangay
Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on Elections49 (BANAT) should
be applied by the COMELEC in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
The Courts Ruling
We hold that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following prevailing decisions of
this Court in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
However, since the Court adopts in this Decision new parameters in the qualification of national, regional,
and sectoral parties under the party-list system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied
by the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, we remand to the COMELEC all the present petitions for
the COMELEC to determine who are qualified to register under the party-list system, and to participate in
the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this Decision.
The Party-List System
The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system of representation. Simply put, the party-
list system is intended to democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative
district elections a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives.50 The voter elects two
representatives in the House of Representatives: one for his or her legislative district, and another for his
or her party-list group or organization of choice. The 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 5, Article VI
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall
be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution,
one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be 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 may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C
Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be
represented in the voters registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or
other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.
Commissioner Christian S. Monsod, the main sponsor of the party-list system, stressed that "the party-
list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation."51 The constitutional
provisions on the party-list system should be read in light of the following discussion among its framers:
MR. MONSOD: x x x.
I would like to make a distinction from the beginning that the proposal for the party list system is not
synonymous with that of the sectoral representation. Precisely, the party list system seeks to avoid the
dilemma of choice of sectors and who constitute the members of the sectors. In making the proposal on
the party list system, we were made aware of the problems precisely cited by Commissioner Bacani of
which sectors will have reserved seats. In effect, a sectoral representation in the Assembly would mean
that certain sectors would have reserved seats; that they will choose among themselves who would sit in
those reserved seats. And then, we have the problem of which sector because as we will notice in
Proclamation No. 9, the sectors cited were the farmers, fishermen, workers, students, professionals,
business, military, academic, ethnic and other similar groups. So these are the nine sectors that were
identified here as "sectoral representatives" to be represented in this Commission. The problem we had
in trying to approach sectoral representation in the Assembly was whether to stop at these nine sectors
or include other sectors. And we went through the exercise in a caucus of which sector should be included
which went up to 14 sectors. And as we all know, the longer we make our enumeration, the more limiting
the law become because when we make an enumeration we exclude those who are not in the
enumeration. Second, we had the problem of who comprise the farmers. Let us just say the farmers and
the laborers. These days, there are many citizens who are called "hyphenated citizens." A doctor may be
a farmer; a lawyer may also be a farmer. And so, it is up to the discretion of the person to say "I am a
farmer" so he would be included in that sector.
The third problem is that when we go into a reserved seat system of sectoral representation in the
Assembly, we are, in effect, giving some people two votes and other people one vote. We sought to avoid
these problems by presenting a party list system. Under the party list system, there are no reserved seats
for sectors. Let us say, laborers and farmers can form a sectoral party or a sectoral organization that will
then register and present candidates of their party. How do the mechanics go? Essentially, under the
party list system, every voter has two votes, so there is no discrimination. First, he will vote for the
representative of his legislative district. That is one vote. In that same ballot, he will be asked: What party
or organization or coalition do you wish to be represented in the Assembly? And here will be attached a
list of the parties, organizations or coalitions that have been registered with the COMELEC and are
entitled to be put in that list. This can be a regional party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO,
Magsasaka or a regional party in Mindanao. One need not be a farmer to say that he wants the farmers'
party to be represented in the Assembly. Any citizen can vote for any party. At the end of the day, the
COMELEC will then tabulate the votes that had been garnered by each party or each organization one
does not have to be a political party and register in order to participate as a party and count the votes
and from there derive the percentage of the votes that had been cast in favor of a party, organization or
coalition.
When such parties register with the COMELEC, we are assuming that 50 of the 250 seats will be for the
party list system. So, we have a limit of 30 percent of 50. That means that the maximum that any party
can get out of these 50 seats is 15. When the parties register they then submit a list of 15 names. They
have to submit these names because these nominees have to meet the minimum qualifications of a
Member of the National Assembly. At the end of the day, when the votes are tabulated, one gets the
percentages. Let us say, UNIDO gets 10 percent or 15 percent of the votes; KMU gets 5 percent; a
womens party gets 2 1/2 percent and anybody who has at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote qualifies and
the 50 seats are apportioned among all of these parties who get at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote.
What does that mean? It means that any group or party who has a constituency of, say, 500,000
nationwide gets a seat in the National Assembly. What is the justification for that? When we allocate
legislative districts, we are saying that any district that has 200,000 votes gets a seat. There is no reason
why a group that has a national constituency, even if it is a sectoral or special interest group, should not
have a voice in the National Assembly. It also means that, let us say, there are three or four labor groups,
they all register as a party or as a group. If each of them gets only one percent or five of them get one
percent, they are not entitled to any representative. So, they will begin to think that if they really have a
common interest, they should band together, form a coalition and get five percent of the vote and,
therefore, have two seats in the Assembly. Those are the dynamics of a party list system.
We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of sectoral representation while at the same time
making sure that those who really have a national constituency or sectoral constituency will get a chance
to have a seat in the National Assembly. These sectors or these groups may not have the constituency
to win a seat on a legislative district basis. They may not be able to win a seat on a district basis but
surely, they will have votes on a nationwide basis.
The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past elections, we found out that there were certain
groups or parties that, if we count their votes nationwide; have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But
they were always third place or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in the
Assembly. But this way, they would have five or six representatives in the Assembly even if they would
not win individually in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives
of the party list system.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, am I right in interpreting that when we speak now of party list system
though we refer to sectors, we would be referring to sectoral party list rather than sectors and party list?
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, if this body accepts the party list system, we do not even have to
mention sectors because the sectors would be included in the party list system. They can be sectoral
parties within the party list system.
xxxx
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we suggested or proposed the party list system
because we wanted to open up the political system to a pluralistic society through a multiparty system. x
x x We are for opening up the system, and we would like very much for the sectors to be there.
That is why one of the ways to do that is to put a ceiling on the number of representatives from
any single party that can sit within the 50 allocated under the party list system. x x x.
xxx
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats is not limited to political parties.
My question is this: Are we going to classify for example Christian Democrats and Social
Democrats as political parties? Can they run under the party list concept or must they be under
the district legislation side of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these parties that the Commissioner mentioned
can field candidates for the Senate as well as for the House of Representatives. Likewise, they
can also field sectoral candidates for the 20 percent or 30 percent, whichever is adopted, of the
seats that we are allocating under the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field district candidates and can also
participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the party list system, they will be fielding only
sectoral candidates.
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field candidates who come from the different
marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Taada wants to run under BAYAN group and says that he represents
the farmers, would he qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party list system and say Juan dela Cruz is a
farmer. Who would pass on whether he is a farmer or not?
MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang linawin ito. Political parties, particularly
minority political parties, are not prohibited to participate in the party list election if they can prove
that they are also organized along sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all political parties can participate because it is
precisely the contention of political parties that they represent the broad base of citizens and that all
sectors are represented in them. Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO na isang political party, it will
dominate the party list at mawawalang saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang
party list system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan ng diin ang "reserve." Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized
sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198 seats, reserved din ito sa political parties.
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run there. But my question to Commissioner
Villacorta and probably also to Commissioner Tadeo is that under this system, would UNIDO be banned
from running under the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral candidates. On that condition alone,
UNIDO may be allowed to register for the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares that answer?
MR. TADEO. The same.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD: Sino po ang magsasabi kung iyong kandidato ng UNIDO ay hindi talagang labor leader
or isang laborer? Halimbawa, abogado ito.
MR. TADEO: Iyong mechanics.
MR. MONSOD: Hindi po mechanics iyon because we are trying to solve an inherent problem of sectoral
representation. My question is: Suppose UNIDO fields a labor leader, would he qualify?
MR. TADEO: The COMELEC may look into the truth of whether or not a political party is really
organized along a specific sectoral line. If such is verified or confirmed, the political party may
submit a list of individuals who are actually members of such sectors. The lists are to be published
to give individuals or organizations belonging to such sector the chance to present evidence
contradicting claims of membership in the said sector or to question the claims of the existence
of such sectoral organizations or parties. This proceeding shall be conducted by the COMELEC
and shall be summary in character. In other words, COMELEC decisions on this matter are final
and unappealable.52 (Emphasis supplied)
Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-list system to include not only
sectoral parties but also non-sectoral parties. The framers intended the sectoral parties to constitute a
part, but not the entirety, of the party-list system. As explained by Commissioner Wilfredo Villacorta,
political parties can participate in the party-list system "For as long as they field candidates who
come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this Constitution."53
In fact, the framers voted down, 19-22, a proposal to reserve permanent seats to sectoral parties in the
House of Representatives, or alternatively, to reserve the party-list system exclusively to sectoral parties.
As clearly explained by Justice Jose C. Vitug in his Dissenting Opinion in Ang Bagong Bayani:
The draft provisions on what was to become Article VI, Section 5, subsection (2), of the 1987 Constitution
took off from two staunch positions the first headed by Commissioner Villacorta, advocating that of the
20 per centum of the total seats in Congress to be allocated to party-list representatives half were to be
reserved to appointees from the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. The proposal was opposed
by some Commissioners. Mr. Monsod expressed the difficulty in delimiting the sectors that needed
representation. He was of the view that reserving seats for the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors would stunt their development into full-pledged parties equipped with electoral machinery potent
enough to further the sectoral interests to be represented. The Villacorta group, on the other hand, was
apprehensive that pitting the unorganized and less-moneyed sectoral groups in an electoral contest would
be like placing babes in the lion's den, so to speak, with the bigger and more established political parties
ultimately gobbling them up. R.A. 7941 recognized this concern when it banned the first five major political
parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives from participating in the party-
list system for the first party-list elections held in 1998 (and to be automatically lifted starting with the 2001
elections). The advocates for permanent seats for sectoral representatives made an effort towards a
compromise that the party-list system be open only to underrepresented and marginalized sectors.
This proposal was further whittled down by allocating only half of the seats under the party-list system to
candidates from the sectors which would garner the required number of votes. The majority was
unyielding. Voting 19-22, the proposal for permanent seats, and in the alternative the reservation of the
party-list system to the sectoral groups, was voted down. The only concession the Villacorta group was
able to muster was an assurance of reserved seats for selected sectors for three consecutive terms after
the enactment of the 1987 Constitution, by which time they would be expected to gather and solidify their
electoral base and brace themselves in the multi-party electoral contest with the more veteran political
groups.54 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, in the end, the proposal to give permanent reserved seats to certain sectors was outvoted. Instead,
the reservation of seats to sectoral representatives was only allowed for the first three consecutive
terms.55 There can be no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the 1987 Constitution expressly rejected
the proposal to make the party-list system exclusively for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly
intended the party-list system to include both sectoral and non-sectoral parties.
The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that they cannot expect to win in
legislative district elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes
that winning candidates 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-traditional parties that could not
compete in legislative district elections.
The indisputable intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution to include in the party-list system both
sectoral and non-sectoral parties is clearly written in Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution, which
states:
Section 5. (1) The House of Representative shall be composed of not more that two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among
the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties
or organizations. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution is crystal-clear that there shall be "a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations." The commas after the words
"national," and "regional," separate national and regional parties from sectoral parties. Had the framers
of the 1987 Constitution intended national and regional parties to be at the same time sectoral, they would
have stated "national and regional sectoral parties." They did not, precisely because it was never their
intention to make the party-list system exclusively sectoral.
What the framers intended, and what they expressly wrote in Section 5(1), could not be any clearer: the
party-list system is composed of three different groups, and the sectoral parties belong to only one of the
three groups. The text of Section 5(1) leaves no room for any doubt that national and regional parties are
separate from sectoral parties.
Thus, the party-list system is composed of three different groups: (1) national parties or organizations;
(2) regional parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral 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.
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 Constitution, "one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives shall be 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
may be provided by law, except the religious sector." This provision clearly shows again that the party-
list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties for two obvious reasons.
First, the other one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives would 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 "marginalized and underrepresented." Second, the reservation of one-
half of the party-list seats to sectoral parties applies only for the first "three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution," clearly making the party-list system fully open after the end of the first
three congressional terms. This means that, after this period, there will be no seats reserved for any class
or type of party that qualifies under the three groups constituting the party-list system.
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 party-list system is not for sectoral
parties only, but also for non-sectoral parties.
Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act, which is the law that implements the party-list system
prescribed in the Constitution, provides:
Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in
the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
Component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently provided the coalition of
which they form part does not participate in the party-list system.
(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.
(c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform,
principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate
means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and
members as candidates for public office.
It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority
of the regions. It is a regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at
least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region.
(d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors
enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector.
(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share
similar physical attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns.
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or
organizations for political and/or election purposes. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party" as "either a political party or a sectoral party or a
coalition of parties." Clearly, a political party is different from a sectoral party. Section 3(c) of R.A. No.
7941 further provides that a "political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an
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 sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy
pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector." R.A. No. 7941 provides different
definitions for a political and a sectoral party. Obviously, they are separate and distinct from each other.
R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. To require all national and regional parties under the
party-list system to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" is to deprive and exclude, by
judicial fiat, 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 district elections, participate in the
electoral process if they are excluded from the party-list system? To exclude them from the party-list
system is to prevent 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 obviously senseless, patently
contrary to the clear intent and express wording of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or cause-oriented political party is clearly different from a
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. 7941 that a national or regional political party must
represent a "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. It is sufficient that the political party consists of
citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same governance principles and policies,
regardless of their economic status as citizens.
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 states that "the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals."56The sectors mentioned in Section 5 are not all necessarily "marginalized and
underrepresented." For sure, "professionals" are not by definition "marginalized and underrepresented,"
not even the elderly, women, and the youth. However, professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth
may "lack well-defined political constituencies," and can thus organize themselves into sectoral parties in
advocacy of the special interests and concerns of their respective sectors.
Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides another compelling reason for holding that the law does not require
national or regional parties, as well as certain sectoral 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
cancel the registration of parties or organizations after due notice and hearing.
Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon
verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration
of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization,
whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan
election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency
in which it has registered.
None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel registration refers to non-representation of the "marginalized
and underrepresented."
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" appears only once in R.A. No. 7941, in Section 2 on
Declaration of Policy.57 Section 2 seeks "to promote proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of Representatives through the party-list system," which will enable Filipinos
belonging to the "marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who
lack well-defined political constituencies," to become members of the House of Representatives.
While the policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No. 7941 broadly refers to "marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties," the specific implementing provisions of R.A. No.
7941 do not define or require that the sectors, organizations or parties must be "marginalized and
underrepresented." On the contrary, to even interpret that all the sectors mentioned in Section 5 are
"marginalized and underrepresented" would lead to absurdities.
How then should we harmonize the broad policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No. 7941 with its specific
implementing provisions, bearing in mind the applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution on the matter?
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" should refer only to the sectors in Section 5 that
are, by their nature, economically "marginalized and underrepresented." These sectors are: labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas
workers, and other similar sectors. For these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party
must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented." 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 "marginalized and underrepresented" sector does not mean one must
"wallow in 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 underrepresented" are those who fall in the
low income group as classified by the National Statistical Coordination Board.58
The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral parties of professionals, the elderly,
women and the youth, need not be "marginalized and underrepresented" will allow small ideology-based
and cause-oriented parties who lack "well-defined political constituencies" a chance to win seats in the
House of Representatives. On the other hand, limiting to the "marginalized and underrepresented" the
sectoral parties for labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,
veterans, overseas workers, and other sectors that by their nature are economically at the margins of
society, will give the "marginalized and underrepresented" an opportunity to likewise win seats in the
House of Representatives.
This interpretation will harmonize the 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 ideological
status, will have the opportunity to send their own members to the House of Representatives. This
interpretation will also make the party-list system honest and transparent, eliminating the need for
relatively well-off party-list representatives to masquerade as "wallowing in poverty, destitution and
infirmity," even as they attend sessions in Congress riding in SUVs.
The major political parties are those that field candidates in the legislative district elections. Major political
parties cannot participate in the party-list elections since they neither lack "well-defined political
constituencies" nor represent "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. Thus, the national or
regional parties under the party-list system are necessarily those that do not belong to major
political parties. This automatically reserves the national and regional parties under the party-list system
to those who "lack well-defined political constituencies," giving them the opportunity to have members in
the House of Representatives.
To recall, Ang Bagong Bayani expressly declared, in its second guideline for the accreditation of parties
under the party-list system, that "while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and
the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy
of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors xxx to be elected to
the House of Representatives. "However, the requirement in Ang Bagong Bayani, in its second guideline,
that "the political party xxx must represent the marginalized and underrepresented," automatically
disqualified major political parties from participating in the party-list system. This inherent inconsistency
in Ang Bagong Bayani has been compounded by the COMELECs refusal to register sectoral wings
officially organized by major political parties. BANAT merely formalized the prevailing practice when it
expressly prohibited major political parties from participating in the party-list system, even through their
sectoral wings.
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 expressly prohibited the "first five (5) major political parties on the basis
of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress" from
participating in the May 1988 party-list elections.59 Thus, major political parties can participate in
subsequent party-list elections since the prohibition is expressly limited only to the 1988 party-
list elections. However, major political parties should participate in party-list elections only through their
sectoral wings. The participation of major political parties through their sectoral wings, a majority of whose
members are "marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies,"
will facilitate the entry of the "marginalized and underrepresented" and those who "lack well-defined
political constituencies" as members of the House of Representatives.
The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 allow major political parties to participate in party-list elections
so as to encourage them to work assiduously in extending their constituencies to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" and to those who "lack well-defined political constituencies." The participation of major
political parties in party-list elections must be geared towards the entry, as members of the House of
Representatives, of the "marginalized and underrepresented" and those who "lack well-defined political
constituencies," giving them a voice in law-making. 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 labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, professional, women or youth wing, that can register under the
party-list system.
Such sectoral wing of a major political party must have its own constitution, by-laws, platform or program
of government, officers and members, a majority of whom must belong to the sector represented. The
sectoral wing is in itself an 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 that "component parties
or organizations of a coalition may participate independently (in party-list elections) provided the coalition
of which they form part does not participate in the party-list system."
Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the qualifications of party-list nominees. This provision prescribes
a special qualification only for the nominee from the youth sector.
Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as party-list
representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election, able
to read and write, a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least
ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day
of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30)
years of age on the day of the election.
Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to
continue in office until the expiration of his term.1wphi1
A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or organization which he or she seeks to
represent. In the case of sectoral parties, to be a bona fide party-list nominee one must either
belong to the sector represented, or have a track record of advocacy for such sector.
In disqualifying petitioners, the COMELEC used the criteria prescribed in Ang Bagong Bayani and
BANAT. Ang Bagong Bayani laid down the guidelines for qualifying those who desire to participate in the
party-list system:
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and
underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. x x x
Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to
participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of
Representatives." x x x.
xxxx
Third, x x x the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. x x x.
xxxx
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates
the grounds for disqualification as follows:
"(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization,
whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan
election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency
in which it has registered."
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or
assisted by, the government. x x x.
xxxx
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so.
Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
"SEC 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. - No person shall be nominated as party-list representative
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a
period of not less than one (1)year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write,
a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days
preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30)
years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty
(30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term."
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. x x x.
Eighth, x x x the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. (Emphasis supplied)
In 2009, by a vote of 8-7 in BANAT, this Court stretched the Ang Bagong Bayani ruling further. In BANAT,
the majority officially excluded major political parties from participating in party-list elections,60 abandoning
even the lip-service that Ang Bagong Bayani accorded to the 1987 Constitution and R.A.No. 7941 that
major political parties can participate in party-list elections.
The minority in BANAT, however, believed that major political parties can participate in the party-list
system through their sectoral wings. The minority expressed that "[e]xcluding the major political parties
in party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission,
and R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the
exclusion of major political parties from the party-list elections in patent violation of the Constitution and
the law."61 The experimentations in socio-political engineering have only resulted in confusion and
absurdity in the party-list system. Such experimentations, in clear contravention of the 1987 Constitution
and R.A. No. 7941, must now come to an end.
We cannot, however, fault the COMELEC for following prevailing jurisprudence in disqualifying
petitioners. In following prevailing jurisprudence, the COMELEC could not have committed grave abuse
of discretion. However, for the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, we must now impose and
mandate the party-list system actually envisioned and authorized under the 1987 Constitution and R.A.
No. 7941. In BANAT, this Court devised a new formula in the allocation of party-list seats, reversing the
COMELEC's allocation which followed the then prevailing formula in Ang Bagong Bayani. In BANAT,
however, the Court did not declare that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. Similarly,
even as we acknowledge here that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, we declare
that it would not be in accord with the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to apply the criteria in Ang
Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining who are qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013
party-list elections. For this purpose, we suspend our rule62 that a party may appeal to this Court from
decisions or orders of the COMELEC only if the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
Thus, we remand all the present petitions to the COMELEC. In determining who may participate in the shall not participate in the 13 May 2013 part-list elections. The 41 petitions, which have been granted
coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the following mandatory injunctions to include the names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are remanded to the
parameters: Commission on Elections for determination whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) list system and to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the parameters prescribed in
regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations. this Decision. The Commission on Elections may conduct summary evidentiary hearings for this purpose.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along This Decision is immediately executory.
sectoral lines and do not need to represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. SO ORDERED.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system ANTONIO T. CARPIO
and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that Associate Justice
fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list 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 to a political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-
defined political constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest
and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented" include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political constituencies" include professionals, the elderly,
women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent.
Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political
constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or that represent those who lack
"well-defined political constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track
record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or
organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their
nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.
The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections those that did not
satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral groups or organizations must represent
the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong to the "marginalized
and underrepresented" sector they represent. Petitioners may have been disqualified by the COMELEC
because as political or regional parties they are not organized along sectoral lines and do not represent
the "marginalized and underrepresented." Also, petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the sectors
they represent may have been disqualified, although they may have a track record of advocacy for their
sectors. Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties may have been disqualified because they do not
belong to any sector. Moreover, a party may have been disqualified because one or more of its nominees
failed to qualify, even if the party has at least one remaining qualified nominee. As discussed above, the
disqualification of petitioners, and their nominees, under such circumstances is contrary to the 1987
Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its provisions faithfully, and desist from
engaging in socio-economic or political experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has ordained.
Judicial power does not include the power to re-write the Constitution. Thus, the present petitions should
be remanded to the COMELEC not because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may now possibly qualify to participate in the coming 13
May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed by this Court.
WHEREFORE, all the present 54 petitions are GRANTED. The 13 petitions, which have been granted
Status Quo Ante Orders but without mandatory injunction to include the names of petitioners in the printing
of ballots, are remanded to the Commission on Elections only for determination whether petitioners are
qualified to register under the party-list system under the parameters prescribed in this Decision but they
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 147589 June 26, 2001
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the acronym OFW), represented herein by its
secretary-general, MOHAMMAD OMAR FAJARDO, petitioner,
vs.
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY GO! GO! PHILIPPINES; THE TRUE MARCOS
LOYALIST ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES; PHILIPPINE LOCAL AUTONOMY; CITIZENS
MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE; CHAMBER OF REAL
ESTATE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; SPORTS & HEALTH ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION, INC.;
ANG LAKAS NG OVERSEAS CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW); BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION
and others under "Organizations/Coalitions" of Omnibus Resolution No. 3785; PARTIDO NG
MASANG PILIPINO; LAKAS NUCD-UMDP; NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION; LABAN NG
DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO; AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO; PDP-LABAN; LIBERAL PARTY;
NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG; and others under "Political
Parties" of Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001
BAYAN MUNA, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION (NPC); LABAN NG
DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP); PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-NUCD-
UMDP; LIBERAL PARTY; MAMAMAYANG AYAW SA DROGA; CREBA; NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS; JEEP; and BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION, respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great masses of our
people who have less in life, but also to enable them to become veritable lawmakers themselves,
empowered to participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to make
the marginalized and the underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the State's benevolence, but
active participants in the mainstream of representative democracy. Thus, allowing all individuals and
groups, including those which now dominate district elections, to have the same opportunity to participate
in party-list elections would desecrate this lofty objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanism
into an atrocious veneer for traditional politics.
The Case
Before us are two Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No.
3785 1 issued by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on March 26, 2001. This Resolution approved
the participation of 154 organizations and parties, including those herein impleaded, 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 overrepresented.
The Factual Antecedents
With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received several Petitions for registration filed by
sectoral parties, organizations and political parties. According to the Comelec, "[v]erifications were made
as to the status and capacity of these parties and organizations and hearings were scheduled day and
night until the last party w[as] heard. With the number of these petitions and the observance of the legal
and procedural requirements, review of these petitions as well as deliberations takes a longer process in
order to arrive at a decision and as a result the two (2) divisions promulgated a separate Omnibus
Resolution and individual resolution on political parties. These numerous petitions and processes
observed in the disposition of these petition[s] hinder the early release of the Omnibus Resolutions of the
Divisions which were promulgated only on 10 February 2001." 2
Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 deadline prescribed under Comelec Resolution No. 3426 dated
December 22, 2000, the registered parties and organizations filed their respective Manifestations, stating
their intention to participate in the party-list elections. Other sectoral and political parties and organizations
whose registrations were denied also filed Motions for Reconsideration, together with Manifestations of
their intent to participate in the party-list elections. Still other registered parties filed their Manifestations
beyond the deadline.
The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manifestations (or accreditations) of 154 parties and
organizations, but denied those of several others in its assailed March 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No.
3785, which we quote:
"We carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in mind that this system of proportional
representation scheme will encourage multi-partisan [sic] and enhance the inability of small, new or
sectoral parties or organization to directly participate in this electoral window.
"It will be noted that as defined, the 'party-list system' is a 'mechanism of proportional representation' in
the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections.
"However, in the course of our review of the matters at bar, we must recognize the fact that there is a
need to keep the number of sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions, down to a manageable level,
keeping only those who substantially comply with the rules and regulations and more importantly the
sufficiency of the Manifestations or evidence on the Motions for Reconsiderations or Oppositions." 3
On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed before the Comelec a Petition praying that "the
names of [some of herein respondents] be deleted from the 'Certified List of Political Parties/Sectoral
Parties/Organizations/Coalitions Participating in the Party List System for the May 14, 2001 Elections'
and that said certified list be accordingly amended." It also asked, as an alternative, that the votes cast
for the said respondents not be counted or canvassed, and that the latter's nominees not be proclaimed.
4 On April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth also filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Registration and Nomination against some of herein respondents. 5
On April 18, 2001, the Comelec required the respondents in the two disqualification cases to file
Comments within three days from notice. It also set the date for hearing on April 26, 2001, 6 but
subsequently reset it to May 3, 2001.7 During the hearing, however, Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion
merely directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda. 8
Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the Comelec, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party filed a
Petition 9 before this Court on April 16, 2001. This Petition, docketed as GR No. 147589, assailed Comelec
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated April 17, 2001, 10 the Court directed respondents
to comment on the Petition within a non-extendible period of five days from notice. 11
On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna also filed before this Court a Petition, 12 docketed as GR No.
147613, also challenging Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated May 9, 2001,
13 the Court ordered the consolidation of the two Petitions before it; directed respondents named in the
second Petition to file their respective Comments on or before noon of May 15, 2001; and called the
parties to an Oral Argument on May 17, 2001. It added that the Comelec may proceed with the counting
and canvassing of votes cast for the party-list elections, but barred the proclamation of any winner therein,
until further orders of the Court.
Thereafter, Comments 14 on the second Petition were received by the Court and, on May 17, 2001, the
Oral Argument was conducted as scheduled. In an Order given in open court, the parties were directed
to submit their respective Memoranda simultaneously within a non-extendible period of five days. 15
Issues:
During the hearing on May 17, 2001, the Court directed the parties to address the following issues:
"1. Whether or not recourse under Rule 65 is proper under the premises. More specifically, is there no
other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law?
"2. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections.
"3. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to 'marginalized and underrepresented' sectors and
organizations.
"4. Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution
No. 3785." 16
The Court's Ruling
The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded to the Comelec which will
determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations enumerated
in the assailed Omnibus Resolution satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941, as specified
in this Decision.
First Issue:
Recourse Under Rule 65
Respondents contend that the recourse of both petitioners under Rule 65 is improper because there are
other plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. 17 The Office of the Solicitor
General argues that petitioners should have filed before the Comelec a petition either for disqualification
or for cancellation of registration, pursuant to Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Comelec Resolution No. 3307-
A 18 dated November 9, 2000.19
We disagree. At bottom, petitioners attack the validity of Comelec Omnibus Resolution 3785 for having
been issued with grave abuse of discretion, insofar as it allowed respondents to participate in the party-
list elections of 2001. Indeed, under both the Constitution 20 and the Rules of Court, such challenge may
be brought before this Court in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Moreover, the assailed Omnibus Resolution was promulgated by Respondent Commission en banc;
hence, no motion for reconsideration was possible, it being a prohibited pleading under Section 1 (d),
Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. 21
The Court also notes that Petitioner Bayan Muna had filed before the Comelec a Petition for Cancellation
of Registration and Nomination against some of herein respondents. 22 The Comelec, however, did not
act on that Petition. In view of the pendency of the elections, Petitioner Bayan Muna sought succor from
this Court, for there was no other adequate recourse at the time. Subsequent events have proven the
urgency of petitioner's action; to this date, the Comelec has not yet formally resolved the Petition before
it. But a resolution may just be a formality because the Comelec, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, has made its position on the matter quite clear.
In any event, this case presents an exception to the rule that certiorari shall lie only in the absence of any
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. 23 It has been held that certiorari is available, notwithstanding
the presence of other remedies, "where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is
involved, and in case of urgency." 24 Indeed, the instant case is indubitably imbued with public interest
and with extreme urgency, for it potentially involves the composition of 20 percent of the House of
Representatives.
Moreover, this case raises transcendental constitutional issues on the party-list system, which this Court
must urgently resolve, consistent with its duty to "formulate guiding and controlling constitutional
principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules." 25
Finally, procedural requirements "may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue
involves the principle of social justice x x x when the decision sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when
the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available."
26
Second Issue:
Participation of Political Parties
In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party contends that "the inclusion of political parties in the
party-list system is the most objectionable portion of the questioned Resolution." 27 For its part, Petitioner
Bayan Muna objects to the participation of "major political parties." 28 On the other hand, the Office of the
Solicitor General, like the impleaded political parties, submits that the Constitution and RA No. 7941 allow
political parties to participate in the party-list elections. It argues that the party-list system is, in fact, open
to all "registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations." 29
We now rule on this issue. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be
disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties. Section 5,
Article VI of the Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected
through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations."
Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political parties may be registered
under the party-list system.
"Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
"Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be
represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or
other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law." 30
During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Comm. Christian S. Monsod pointed out that
the participants in the party-list system may "be a regional party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO,
31Magsasaka, or a regional party in Mindanao." 32 This was also clear from the following exchange
between Comms. Jaime Tadeo and Blas Ople: 33
"MR. TADEO. Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay pwedeng paghati-hatian ng UNIDO, PDP-Laban,
PNP, Liberal at Nacionalista?
MR. OPLE. Maaari yan sapagkat bukas ang party list system sa lahat ng mga partido."
Indeed, Commissioner Monsod stated that the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the
system, in order to give a chance to parties that consistently place third or fourth in congressional district
elections to win a seat in Congress. 34 He explained: "The purpose of this is to open the system. In the
past elections, we found out that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes
nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always third or fourth place in each
of the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they would have five or six
representatives in the Assembly even if they would not win individually in legislative districts. So, that is
essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives of the party-list system."
For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system of registered national, regional
and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x x." Section 3 expressly states that a "party"
is "either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." More to the point, the law defines
"political party" as "an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and
policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their
adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public
office."
Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as to the participation of political parties in the party-
list system. We quote the pertinent provision below:
"x x x
"For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party
representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall
not be entitled to participate in the party-list system.
x x x"
Indubitably, therefore, political parties even the major ones -- may participate in the party-list elections.
Third Issue:
Marginalized and Underrepresented
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 RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides as follows:
"(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall
be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution,
one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be 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 may be provided by law, except the religious sector." (Emphasis supplied.)
Notwithstanding the sparse language of the provision, a distinguished member of the Constitutional
Commission declared that the purpose of the party-list provision was to give "genuine power to our
people" in Congress. Hence, when the provision was discussed, he exultantly announced: "On this first
day of August 1986, we shall, hopefully, usher in a new chapter to our national history, by giving genuine
power to our people in the legislature." 35
The foregoing 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. It laid out the statutory
policy in this wise:
"SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national,
regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-
defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives.
Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to
attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of
Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall
provide the simplest scheme possible."
The Marginalized and Underrepresented to Become Lawmakers Themselves
The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional representation by means of
the Filipino-style party-list system, which will "enable" the election to the House of Representatives of
Filipino citizens,
1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
nation as a whole.
The key words in this policy are "proportional representation," "marginalized and underrepresented," and
"lack ofwell-defined constituencies."
"Proportional representation" here does not refer to the number of people in a particular district, because
the party-list election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or
oppressed group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented" as
exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals."
However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the marginalized and
underrepresented, because representation is easy to claim and to feign. The party-list organization or
party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned
in Section 5. 36 Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must be
"Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties."
Finally, "lack of well-defined constituenc[y] " refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral
group, like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of government. Rather, it points again to
those with disparate interests identified with the "marginalized or underrepresented."
In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos who are "marginalized and
underrepresented" become members of Congress under the party-list system, Filipino-style.
The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people, not only by giving more law to
those who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves.
Consistent with this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we repeat, is likewise clear: "to enable
Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, x x
x, to become members of the House of Representatives." Where the language of the law is clear, it must
be applied according to its express terms. 37
The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the party-list system are
enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:
"SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition
for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before
the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list
system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or
organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of
officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, that
the sector shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals."
While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates
the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system. It is a
fundamental principle of statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted in
connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with which
they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified or
specialized by those in immediate association. 38
The Party-List System Desecrated by the OSG Contentions
Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy, the Office of the Solicitor General submits that RA No.
7941 "does not limit the participation in the party-list system to the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors of society."39 In fact, it contends that any party or group that is not disqualified under Section 6 40
of RA 7941 may participate in the elections. Hence, it admitted during the Oral Argument that even an
organization representing the super rich of Forbes Park or Dasmarias Village could participate in the
party-list elections. 41
The declared policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). We
stress that the party-list system seeks to enable certain Filipino citizens specifically those belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties to be elected to the House of
Representatives. The assertion of the OSG that the party-list system is not exclusive to the marginalized
and underrepresented disregards the clear statutory policy. Its claim that even the super-rich and
overrepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of the party-list system.
Indeed, the law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be
appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park. The interests of these two sectors are manifestly
disparate; hence, the OSG's position to treat them similarly defies reason and common sense. In contrast,
and with admirable candor, Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan 42 admitted during the Oral Argument that a group
of bankers, industrialists and sugar planters could not join the party-list system as representatives of their
respective sectors. 43
While the business moguls and the mega-rich are, numerically speaking, a tiny minority, they are neither
marginalized nor underrepresented, for the stark reality is that their economic clout engenders political
power more awesome than their numerical limitation. Traditionally, political power does not necessarily
emanate from the size of one's constituency; indeed, it is likely to arise more directly from the number
and amount of one's bank accounts.
It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized and underrepresented in our midst are the majority who wallow
in poverty, destitution and infirmity. It was for them that the party-list system was enacted -- to give them
not only genuine hope, but genuine power; to give them the opportunity to be elected and to represent
the specific concerns of their constituencies; and simply to give them a direct voice in Congress and in
the larger affairs of the State. In its noblest sense, the party-list system truly empowers the masses and
ushers a new hope for genuine change. Verily, it invites those marginalized and underrepresented in the
past the farm hands, the fisher folk, the urban poor, even those in the underground movement to
come out and participate, as indeed many of them came out and participated during the last elections.
The State cannot now disappoint and frustrate them by disabling and desecrating this social justice
vehicle.
Because the marginalized and underrepresented had not been able to win in the congressional district
elections normally dominated by traditional politicians and vested groups, 20 percent of the seats in the
House of Representatives were set aside for the party-list system. In arguing that even those sectors who
normally controlled 80 percent of the seats in the House could participate in the party-list elections for the
remaining 20 percent, the OSG and the Comelec disregard the fundamental difference between the
congressional district elections and the party-list elections.
As earlier noted, the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the system, 44 in order to enhance
the chance of sectoral groups and organizations to gain representation in the House of Representatives
through the simplest scheme possible. 45 Logic shows that the system has been opened to those who
have never gotten a foothold within it -- those who cannot otherwise win in regular elections and who
therefore need the "simplest scheme possible" to do so. Conversely, it would be illogical to open the
system to those who have long been within it -- those privileged sectors that have long dominated the
congressional district elections.
The import of the open party-list system may be more vividly understood when compared to a student
dormitory "open house," which by its nature allows outsiders to enter the facilities. Obviously, the "open
house" is for the benefit of outsiders only, not the dormers themselves who can enter the dormitory even
without such special privilege. In the same vein, the open party-list system is only for the "outsiders" who
cannot get elected through regular elections otherwise; it is not for the non-marginalized or
overrepresented who already fill the ranks of Congress.
Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the party-
list system would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the marginalized and underrepresented,
contrary to the intention of the law to enhance it. The party-list system is a tool for the benefit of the
underprivileged; the law could not have given the same tool to others, to the prejudice of the intended
beneficiaries.
This Court, therefore, cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied and prostituted by those who are
neither marginalized nor underrepresented. It cannot let that flicker of hope be snuffed out. The clear
state policy must permeate every discussion of the qualification of political parties and other organizations
under the party-list system.
Refutation of the Separate Opinions
The Separate Opinions of our distinguished colleagues, Justices Jose C. Vitug and Vicente V. Mendoza,
are anchored mainly on the supposed intent of the framers of the Constitution as culled from their
deliberations.
The fundamental principle in constitutional construction, however, is that the primary source from which
to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the provision itself. The presumption is that
the words in which the constitutional provisions are couched express the objective sought to be attained.
46 In other words, verba legis still prevails. Only when the meaning of the words used is unclear and
equivocal should resort be made to extraneous aids of construction and interpretation, such as the
proceedings of the Constitutional Commission or Convention, in order to shed light on and ascertain the
true intent or purpose of the provision being construed. 47
Indeed, as cited in the Separate Opinion of Justice Mendoza, this Court stated in Civil Liberties Union v.
Executive Secretary 48 that "the debates and proceedings of the constitutional convention [may be
consulted] in order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution x x x only when other
guides fail as said proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is
clear. Debates in the constitutional convention 'are of value as showing the views of the individual
members, and as indicating the reason for their votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the large
majority who did not talk, much less of the mass or our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that
instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it safer to construe the constitution from what appears
upon its face.' The proper interpretation therefore depends more on how it was understood by the people
adopting it than in the framers' understanding thereof."
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, relative to the party-list system, is couched in clear terms: the
mechanics of the system shall be provided by law. Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted RA 7941. In
understanding and implementing party-list representation, we should therefore look at the law first. Only
when we find its provisions ambiguous should the use of extraneous aids of construction be resorted to.
But, as discussed earlier, the intent of the law is obvious and clear from its plain words. Section 2 thereof
unequivocally states that the party-list system of electing congressional representatives was designed to
"enable underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political
constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
will benefit the nation as a whole x x x." The criteria for participation is well defined. Thus, there is no need
for recourse to constitutional deliberations, not even to the proceedings of Congress. In any event, the
framers' deliberations merely express their individual opinions and are, at best, only persuasive in
construing the meaning and purpose of the constitution or statute.
Be it remembered that the constitutionality or validity of Sections 2 and 5 of RA 7941 is not an issue here.
Hence, they remain parts of the law, which must be applied plainly and simply.
Fourth Issue:
Grave Abuse of Discretion
From its assailed Omnibus Resolution, it is manifest that the Comelec failed to appreciate fully the clear
policy of the law and the Constitution. On the contrary, it seems to have ignored the facet of the party-list
system discussed above. The OSG as its counsel admitted before the Court that any group, even the
non-marginalized and overrepresented, could field candidates in the party-list elections.
When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the Commission on Elections, violates or ignores the
Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down by this Court on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion. 49 Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasi-judicial instrumentalities is to apply the law as
they find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it. 50
In its Memorandum, Petitioner Bayan Muna passionately pleads for the outright disqualification of the
major political parties Respondents Lakas-NUCD, LDP, NPC, LP and PMP on the ground that under
Comelec Resolution No. 4073, they have been accredited as the five (six, including PDP-Laban) major
political parties in the May 14, 2001 elections. It argues that because of this, they have the "advantage of
getting official Comelec Election Returns, Certificates of Canvass, preferred poll watchers x x x." We note,
however, that this accreditation does not refer to the party-list election, but, inter alia, to the election of
district representatives for the purpose of determining which parties would be entitled to watchers under
Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166.
What is needed under the present circumstances, however, is a factual determination of whether
respondents herein and, for that matter, all the 154 previously approved groups, have the necessary
qualifications to participate in the party-list elections, pursuant to the Constitution and the law.
Bayan Muna also urges us to immediately rule out Respondent Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD),
because "it is a government entity using government resources and privileges." This Court, however, is
not a trier of facts. 51 It is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth of such factual
allegations.
Basic rudiments of due process require that respondents should first be given an opportunity to show that
they qualify under the guidelines promulgated in this Decision, before they can be deprived of their right
to participate in and be elected under the party-list system.
Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants
The Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand the case to the Comelec for the latter to determine, after
summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations allowed to participate in the
party-list elections comply with the requirements of the law. In this light, the Court finds it appropriate to
lay down the following guidelines, culled from the law and the Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its
work.
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and
underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words, it must show -- through its
constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track record -- that it
represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its
membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a
conflict of interests, it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such sectors.
Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to
participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of
Representatives." In other words, while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are
political parties, they must show, however, that they represent the interests of the marginalized and
underrepresented. The counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko and other similarly situated political parties
admitted as much during the Oral Argument, as the following quote shows:
"JUSTICE PANGANIBAN: I am not disputing that in my question. All I am saying is, the political party
must claim to represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors?
ATTY. KAPUNAN: Yes, Your Honor, the answer is yes."52
Third, in view of the objections53 directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong,
which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express constitutional provision that the religious
sector may not be represented in the party-list system. The extent of the constitutional proscription is
demonstrated by the following discussion during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission:
"MR. OPLE. x x x
In the event that a certain religious sect with nationwide and even international networks of members and
supporters, in order to circumvent this prohibition, decides to form its own political party in emulation of
those parties I had mentioned earlier as deriving their inspiration and philosophies from well-established
religious faiths, will that also not fall within this prohibition?
MR. MONSOD. If the evidence shows that the intention is to go around the prohibition, then certainly the
Comelec can pierce through the legal fiction."54
The following discussion is also pertinent:
"MR. VILLACORTA. When the Commissioner proposed "EXCEPT RELIGIOUS GROUPS," he is not, of
course, prohibiting priests, imams or pastors who may be elected by, say, the indigenous community
sector to represent their group.
REV. RIGOS. Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who represents the Iglesia ni Kristo, the Catholic
Church, the Protestant Church et cetera."55
Furthermore, the Constitution provides that "religious denominations and sects shall not be registered."56
The prohibition was explained by a member57 of the Constitutional Commission in this wise: "[T] he
prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a political party. I do not see any prohibition here
against a priest running as a candidate. That is not prohibited here; it is the registration of a religious sect
as a political party."58
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates
the grounds for disqualification as follows:
"(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization,
whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan
election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency
in which it has registered."59
Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a party or group for violation of or failure to comply
with election laws and regulations. These laws include Section 2 of RA 7941, which states that the party-
list system seeks to "enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties x x x to become members of the House of Representatives." A party or an
organization, therefore, that does not comply with this policy must be disqualified.
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or
assisted by, the government. By the very nature of the party-list system, the party or organization must
be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It must be independent of the
government. The participation of the government or its officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is
not only illegal60 and unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations to be elected to the
House of Representatives.
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so.
Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
"SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as party-list
representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election, able
to read and write, a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least
ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day
of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30)
years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty
(30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term."
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented
sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino
citizens "who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties." Surely,
the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or
the working class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine
representation to the marginalized and underrepresented.
Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must
likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit
the nation as a whole. Senator Jose Lina explained during the bicameral committee proceedings that "the
nominee of a party, national or regional, is not going to represent a particular district x x x."61
Epilogue
The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the law: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political
constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives."
Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those who have less
in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have
less in life. It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine power. It is a message to
the destitute and the prejudiced, and even to those in the underground, that change is possible. It is an
invitation for them to come out of their limbo and seize the opportunity.
Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions of the Comelec and the other respondents
that the party-list system is, without any qualification, open to all. Such position does not only weaken the
electoral chances of the marginalized and underrepresented; it also prejudices them. It would gut the
substance of the party-list system. Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage. Instead of
enabling the marginalized, it would further weaken them and aggravate their marginalization.
In effect, the Comelec would have us believe that the party-list provisions of the Constitution and RA 7941
are nothing more than a play on dubious words, a mockery of noble intentions, and an empty offering on
the altar of people empowerment. Surely, this could not have been the intention of the framers of the
Constitution and the makers of RA 7941.
WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the Comelec, which is hereby DIRECTED to immediately
conduct summary evidentiary hearings on the qualifications of the party-list participants in the light of the
guidelines enunciated in this Decision. Considering the extreme urgency of determining the winners in
the last party-list elections, the Comelec is directed to begin its hearings for the parties and organizations
that appear to have garnered such number of votes as to qualify for seats in the House of Representatives.
The Comelec is further DIRECTED to submit to this Court its compliance report within 30 days from notice
hereof.1wphi1.nt
The Resolution of this Court dated May 9, 2001, directing the Comelec "to refrain from proclaiming any
winner" during the last party-list election, shall remain in force until after the Comelec itself will have
complied and reported its compliance with the foregoing disposition.
This Decision is immediately executory upon the Commission on Elections' receipt thereof. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, Buena, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., in the result.
Vitug and Mendoza, JJ., see dissenting opinion.
Quisumbing, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., join the dissent of J. Vicente M. Mendoza.
Ynares-Santiago, J., abroad on official business.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 162203 April 14, 2004
AKLAT-ASOSASYON PARA SA KAUNLARAN NG LIPUNAN AT ADHIKAIN PARA SA TAO, INC.,
petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), respondent.
RESOLUTION
TINGA, J.:
For resolution is the Petition1 for certiorari and mandamus filed by Aklat-Asosasyon Para Sa Kaunlaran
Ng Lipunan At Adhikain Para Sa Tao, Inc. (Aklat) assailing the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
Resolution2 dated January 8, 2004, which dismissed its Petition3 for re-qualification as a party-list
organization, and the Resolution4 dated February 13, 2004, which denied its Motion for Reconsideration.5
Briefly, the facts are as follows:
On November 20, 2003, Aklat filed a Petition for declaration of re-qualification as a party-list organization
for purposes of the May 2004 elections. It alleged in its petition that it participated in the 2001 elections
but was disqualified by the Comelec as it was found not to have complied with the guidelines set by the
Court in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec (Bagong Bayani case)6 for party-
list organizations to qualify and participate as such in the party-list elections. Accordingly, Aklat "re-
organized itself in order that it will comply with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court"7
in the said case.
In its assailed Resolution dated January 8, 2004, the Comelec dismissed the petition stating that Aklat
cannot be considered as an organization representing the marginalized and underrepresented groups as
identified under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. 7941). According to the Comelec, Aklats
statement that it has re-organized itself does not cure this defect as "there is nothing in the petition which
will help us identify what particular marginalized and underrepresented group AKLAT is now
representing."8 Further, the Comelec held that "AKLAT lumped all the sectoral groups imaginable under
the classification of regular members just to convince us that it is now cured of its defect."9
On January 15, 2004, Aklat filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated January 14, 2004, substantially
averring that it has reorganized itself and taken the necessary steps to make it an organization of, by and
for the marginalized and underrepresented groups of society, particularly the indigenous cultural
communities and the youth. To this end, it has allegedly effected a fundamental change in its purposes
as an organization, nature of its membership and focus of its programs.10
The Comelec denied the motion in its questioned Resolution dated February 13, 2004, on three grounds,
namely: the petition was filed beyond the deadline set by the Comelec in Resolution No. 6320 for
registration of party-list organizations; the petition was not one for re-qualification as Aklat was never a
registered party-list organization having failed to meet the eight-point guidelines set by the Court in the
Bagong Bayani case; and that its decision not to extend the deadline for registration of party-list
organizations is valid, the Comelec being in the best position to make such a determination.11
In the instant Petition, Aklat asserts that under Section 5 of R.A. 7941, petitions for registration as a party-
list organization may be filed not later than ninety (90) days before the elections. It therefore had until
February 10, 2004, the ninetieth (90th) day before the elections on May 10, 2004, within which to file its
petition. Hence, its petition, which was filed on November 20, 2003, was filed within the allowed period.
Section 5 of Resolution No. 632012 which requires the filing of such petitions not later than September 30,
2003, is null and void as it amends R.A. 7941.
It further maintains that it has complied with the eight-point guidelines set in the Bagong Bayani case.
Allegedly, Aklat has a total membership of over 4,000 persons who belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented groups. It has established information and coordination centers throughout the country
for the benefit and in representation of indigenous cultural communities, farm and factory workers
including fisherfolk and the youth. Aklat also asserts that it is different from Asosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran
ng Industria ng Aklat (A.K.L.A.T.) which was previously de-registered by the Comelec. Because of all
these, Aklat contends that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it denied its petition for re-
qualification.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment dated March 26, 2004, stating that the Comelec
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolutions. According to the OSG,
Resolution No. 6320 is not in conflict with and is, in fact, germane to the purpose of R.A. 7941. It was
within the scope of the authority granted to the Comelec that it issued Resolution No. 6320 setting the
deadline for filing petitions for registration under the party-list system on September 30, 2003. In line with
the purpose of R.A. 7941 to enable marginalized sectors to actively participate in legislation, the Comelec
must be given sufficient time to evaluate all petitions for registration, at the same time allowing oppositions
to be filed to the end that only those truly qualified may be accredited under the party-list system. Besides,
Republic Act No. 843613 allows the Comelec to change the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain
pre-election acts to ensure their accomplishment.
The OSG further maintains that the petition for re-qualification failed to comply with the provisions of
Resolution No. 6320. According to the OSG, the petition was not properly verified there being no showing
that Mr. Dominador Buhain, the signatory of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, was
duly authorized by Aklat to verify or cause the preparation and filing of the petition on its behalf. Moreover,
Aklat was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission only on October 20, 2003, a month
before it filed its petition for re-qualification. Hence, it has not existed for a period of at least one (1) year
prior to the filing of the petition as required by Section 6 of Resolution No. 6320. The OSG also points out
that Aklat failed to support its petition with the documents required under Section 7 of Resolution No.
6320, namely: a list of its officers and members particularly showing that the majority of its membership
belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors it seeks to represent, and a track record or
summary showing that it represents and seeks to uplift the marginalized and underrepresented sectors
of society.
Moreover, the OSG notes that the incorporators and directors of Aklat are invariably known as pillars of
the book publishing industry or authors. Hence, even as re-organized, Aklat remains to be an association
of authors, book publishers, and publishing companies, rather than the organization of indigenous cultural
communities, farm and factory workers, fisherfolk and youth it claims to be.
For its part, the Comelec filed a Comment dated March 29, 2004, stating that the period of ninety (90)
days prescribed in R.A. 7941 refers to the prohibitive period beyond which petitions for registration may
no longer be filed. Furthermore, the documents submitted by Aklat do not prove that its members belong
to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society.
Aklats contention that Resolution No. 6320 is null and void as it amends and amplifies R.A. 7941
deserves scant consideration. R.A. 7941 provides:
Sec. 5. Registration.Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition
for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before
the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list
system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or
organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of
officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided,
That the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals[Italics supplied.]
By its wording, R.A. 7941 itself supports the Comelecs position that the period stated therein refers to
the prohibitive period beyond which petitions for registration should no longer be filed nor entertained. Put
elsewise, it is simply the minimum countback period which is not subject to reduction since it is prescribed
by law, but it is susceptible of protraction on account of administrative necessities and other exigencies
perceived by the poll body.
Verily, the Comelec has the power to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to enforce and
administer election laws. This power includes the determination, within the parameters fixed by law, of
appropriate periods for the accomplishment of certain pre-election acts like filing petitions for registration
under the party-list system. This is exactly what the Comelec did when it issued its Resolution No. 6320
declaring September 30, 2003, as the deadline for filing petitions for registration under the party-list
system. Considering these, as well as the multifarious pre-election activities that the Comelec is mandated
to undertake, the issuance of its Resolution No. 6320 cannot be considered tainted with grave abuse of
discretion.
Neither is there grave abuse of discretion in the Comelecs denial of Aklats petition on the ground that it
failed to substantiate its claim that it represents the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society.
It should be noted that it was Aklat which asserted in its petition before the poll body that it has re-
organized and is now applying for re-qualification after its de-registration for failure to comply with the
guidelines set forth in the Bagong Bayani case. Thus, the Comelec cannot be faulted for relying on its
earlier finding, absent any evidence in Aklats petition to the contrary, that Aklat is not an organization
representing the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, but is actually a business interest or
economic lobby group which seeks the promotion and protection of the book publishing industry.
Significantly, Aklat and A.K.L.A.T. have substantially the same incorporators. In fact, four (4) of Aklats six
(6) incorporators14 are also incorporators of A.K.L.A.T.15 This substantial similarity is hard to ignore and
bolsters the conclusion that the supposed re-organization undertaken by Aklat is plain window-dressing
as it has not really changed its character as a business interest of persons in the book publishing industry.
The Court observes that Aklats articles of incorporation and document entitled The Facts About Aklat
which were attached to its petition for re-qualification contain general averments that it supposedly
represents marginalized groups such as the youth, indigenous communities, urban poor and
farmers/fisherfolk. These general statements do not measure up to the first guideline set by the Bagong
Bayani case for screening party-list participants, i.e., that "the political party, sector, organization or
coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of R.A.
7941. In other words, it must showthrough its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history,
platform of government and track recordthat it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and
underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or is likely to
choose the interest of such sectors."16
In this regard, the Court notes with approval the OSGs contention that Aklat has no track record to speak
of concerning its representation of marginalized and underrepresented constituencies considering that it
has been in existence for only a month prior to the filing of its petition for re-qualification.
It should finally be emphasized that the findings of fact by the Comelec, or any other administrative agency
exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on the Supreme Court.17
In view of the foregoing, the Comelec can, by no means, be held to have committed grave abuse of
discretion to justify the setting aside of the assailed Resolutions.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 189600 June 29, 2010
MILAGROS E. AMORES, Petitioner,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and EMMANUEL JOEL J.
VILLANUEVA,Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Via this petition for certiorari, Milagros E. Amores (petitioner) challenges the Decision of May 14, 2009
and Resolution No. 09-130 of August 6, 2009 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (public
respondent), which respectively dismissed petitioners Petition for Quo Warranto questioning the legality
of the assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva (private respondent) as representative of the
party-list organization Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives, and
denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
In her Petition for Quo Warranto1 seeking the ouster of private respondent, petitioner alleged that, among
other things, private respondent assumed office without a formal proclamation issued by the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC); he was disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since, at the
time of the filing of his certificates of nomination and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond
the age limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-
List System Act; and his change of affiliation from CIBACs youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers
and their families sector was not effected at least six months prior to the May 14, 2007 elections so as to
be qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15 of RA No. 7941.
Not having filed his Answer despite due notice, private respondent was deemed to have entered a general
denial pursuant to public respondents Rules.2
As earlier reflected, public respondent, by Decision of May 14, 2009,3 dismissed petitioners Petition for
Quo Warranto, finding that CIBAC was among the party-list organizations which the COMELEC had
partially proclaimed as entitled to at least one seat in the House of Representatives through National
Board of Canvassers (NBC) Resolution No. 07-60 dated July 9, 2007. It also found the petition which was
filed on October 17, 2007 to be out of time, the reglementary period being 10 days from private
respondents proclamation.
Respecting the age qualification for youth sectoral nominees under Section 9 of RA No. 7941, public
respondent held that it applied only to those nominated as such during the first three congressional terms
after the ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter registered
exclusively as representing the youth sector, which CIBAC, a multi-sectoral organization, is not.
In the matter of private respondents shift of affiliation from CIBACs youth sector to its overseas Filipino
workers and their families sector, public respondent held that Section 15 of RA No. 7941 did not apply as
there was no resultant change in party-list affiliation.
Her Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution No. 09-130 dated August 6, 2009,4
petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari.5
Petitioner contends that, among other things, public respondent created distinctions in the application of
Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 that are not found in the subject provisions, fostering interpretations at
war with equal protection of the laws; and NBC Resolution No. 07-60, which was a partial proclamation
of winning party-list organizations, was not enough basis for private respondent to assume office on July
10, 2007, especially considering that he admitted receiving his own Certificate of Proclamation only on
December 13, 2007.
In his Comment,6 private respondent avers in the main that petitioner has not substantiated her claims of
grave abuse of discretion against public respondent; and that he became a member of the overseas
Filipinos and their families sector years before the 2007 elections.
It bears noting that the term of office of party-list representatives elected in the May, 2007 elections will
expire on June 30, 2010. While the petition has, thus, become moot and academic, rendering of a decision
on the merits in this case would still be of practical value.7
The Court adopts the issues framed by public respondent, to wit: (1) whether petitioners Petition for Quo
Warranto was dismissible for having been filed unseasonably; and (2) whether Sections 9 and 15 of RA
No. 7941 apply to private respondent.
On the first issue, the Court finds that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in
considering petitioners Petition for Quo Warranto filed out of time. Its counting of the 10-day reglementary
period provided in its Rules8 from the issuance of NBC Resolution No. 07-60 on July 9, 2007 is erroneous.
To be sure, while NBC Resolution No. 07-60 partially proclaimed CIBAC as a winner in the May, 2007
elections, along with other party-list organizations,9 it was by no measure a proclamation of private
respondent himself as required by Section 13 of RA No. 7941.
Section 13. How Party-List Representatives are Chosen. Party-list representatives shall be proclaimed
by the COMELEC based on the list of names submitted by the respective parties, organizations, or
coalitions to the COMELEC according to their ranking in said list.
AT ALL EVENTS, this Court set aside NBC Resolution No. 07-60 in Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency v. COMELEC10 after revisiting the formula for allocation of additional
seats to party-list organizations.
Considering, however, that the records do not disclose the exact date of private respondents
proclamation, the Court overlooks the technicality of timeliness and rules on the merits. Alternatively,
since petitioners challenge goes into private respondents qualifications, it may be filed at anytime during
his term.
Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of
appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure. Once any of the
required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged.11
On the second and more substantial issue, the Court shall first discuss the age requirement for youth
sector nominees under Section 9 of RA No. 7941 reading:
Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as party-list
representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)year immediately preceding the day of the election, able
to read and write, a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least
ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day
of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30)
years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty
(30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.)
The Court finds no textual support for public respondents interpretation that Section 9 applied only to
those nominated during the first three congressional terms after the ratification of the Constitution or until
1998, unless a sectoral party is thereafter registered exclusively as representing the youth sector.
A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity,
there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only room for application.12
As the law states in unequivocal terms that a nominee of the youth sector must at least be twenty-five
(25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election, so it must be that a candidate
who is more than 30 on election day is not qualified to be a youth sector nominee. Since this mandate is
contained in RA No. 7941, the Party-List System Act, it covers ALL youth sector nominees vying for party-
list representative seats.
As petitioner points out, RA No. 7941 was enacted only in March, 1995. There is thus no reason to apply
Section 9 thereof only to youth sector nominees nominated during the first three congressional terms after
the ratification of the Constitution in 1987. Under this interpretation, the last elections where Section 9
applied were held in May, 1995 or two months after the law was enacted. This is certainly not sound
legislative intent, and could not have been the objective of RA No. 7941.
There is likewise no rhyme or reason in public respondents ratiocination that after the third congressional
term from the ratification of the Constitution, which expired in 1998, Section 9 of RA No. 7941 would apply
only to sectoral parties registered exclusively as representing the youth sector. This distinction is nowhere
found in the law. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus. When the law does not distinguish,
we must not distinguish.13
Respecting Section 15 of RA No. 7941, the Court fails to find even an iota of textual support for public
respondents ratiocination that the provision did not apply to private respondents shift of affiliation from
CIBACs youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector as there was no resultant
change in party-list affiliation. Section 15 reads:
Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect. Any elected party-list representative who changes his political
party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat: Provided, That if he changes his
political party orsectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for
nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
What is clear is that the wording of Section 15 covers changes in both political party and sectoral affiliation.
And the latter may occur within the same party since multi-sectoral party-list organizations are qualified
to participate in the Philippine party-list system. Hence, a nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation
within the same party will only be eligible for nomination under the new sectoral affiliation if the change
has been effected at least six months before the elections. Again, since the statute is clear and free from
ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is the
plain meaning rule or verba legis, as expressed in the maxim index animi sermo or speech is the index
of intention.14
It is, therefore, beyond cavil that Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 apply to private respondent.
The Court finds that private respondent was not qualified to be a nominee of either the youth sector or
the overseas Filipino workers and their families sector in the May, 2007 elections.
The records disclose that private respondent was already more than 30 years of age in May, 2007, it
being stipulated that he was born in August, 1975.15 Moreover, he did not change his sectoral affiliation
at least six months before May, 2007, public respondent itself having found that he shifted to CIBACs
overseas Filipino workers and their families sector only on March 17, 2007.161avvphi1
That private respondent is the first nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was later upheld, is of no moment.
A party-list organizations ranking of its nominees is a mere indication of preference, their qualifications
according to law are a different matter.
It not being contested, however, that private respondent was eventually proclaimed as a party-list
representative of CIBAC and rendered services as such, he is entitled to keep the compensation and
emoluments provided by law for the position until he is properly declared ineligible to hold the same.17
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 14, 2009 and Resolution No. 09-130
dated August 6, 2009 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are SET ASIDE. Emmanuel
Joel J. Villanueva is declared ineligible to hold office as a member of the House of Representatives
representing the party-list organization CIBAC.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 189466 February 11, 2010
DARYL GRACE J. ABAYON, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, PERFECTO C.
LUCABAN, JR., RONYL S. DE LA CRUZ and AGUSTIN C. DOROGA, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 189506
CONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. PALPARAN, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET), DR. REYNALDO LESACA, JR.,
CRISTINA PALABAY, RENATO M. REYES, JR., ERLINDA CADAPAN, ANTONIO FLORES and
JOSELITO USTAREZ,Respondents.
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
These two cases are about the authority of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to
pass upon the eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list groups that won seats in the lower house of
Congress.
The Facts and the Case
In G.R. 189466, petitioner Daryl Grace J. Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-list
organization that won a seat in the House of Representatives during the 2007 elections.
Respondents Perfecto C. Lucaban, Jr., Ronyl S. Dela Cruz, and Agustin C. Doroga, all registered voters,
filed a petition for quo warranto with respondent HRET against Aangat Tayo and its nominee, petitioner
Abayon, in HRET Case 07-041. They claimed that Aangat Tayo was not eligible for a party-list seat in the
House of Representatives, since it did not represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
Respondent Lucaban and the others with him further pointed out that petitioner Abayon herself was not
qualified to sit in the House as a party-list nominee since she did not belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, she being the wife of an incumbent congressional district representative. She
moreover lost her bid as party-list representative of the party-list organization called An Waray in the
immediately preceding elections of May 10, 2004.
Petitioner Abayon countered that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had already confirmed the
status of Aangat Tayo as a national multi-sectoral party-list organization representing the workers,
women, youth, urban poor, and elderly and that she belonged to the women sector. Abayon also claimed
that although she was the second nominee of An Waray party-list organization during the 2004 elections,
she could not be regarded as having lost a bid for an elective office.
Finally, petitioner Abayon pointed out that respondent HRET had no jurisdiction over the petition for quo
warranto since respondent Lucaban and the others with him collaterally attacked the registration of
Aangat Tayo as a party-list organization, a matter that fell within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. It was
Aangat Tayo that was taking a seat in the House of Representatives, and not Abayon who was just its
nominee. All questions involving her eligibility as first nominee, said Abayon, were internal concerns of
Aangat Tayo.
On July 16, 2009 respondent HRET issued an order, dismissing the petition as against Aangat Tayo but
upholding its jurisdiction over the qualifications of petitioner Abayon.1 The latter moved for reconsideration
but the HRET denied the same on September 17, 2009,2 prompting Abayon to file the present petition for
special civil action of certiorari.
In G.R. 189506, petitioner Jovito S. Palparan, Jr. is the first nominee of the Bantay party-list group that
won a seat in the 2007 elections for the members of the House of Representatives. Respondents
Reynaldo Lesaca, Jr., Cristina Palabay, Renato M. Reyes, Jr., Erlinda Cadapan, Antonio Flores, and
Joselito Ustarez are members of some other party-list groups.
Shortly after the elections, respondent Lesaca and the others with him filed with respondent HRET a
petition for quowarranto against Bantay and its nominee, petitioner Palparan, in HRET Case 07-040.
Lesaca and the others alleged that Palparan was ineligible to sit in the House of Representatives as party-
list nominee because he did not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that Bantay
represented, namely, the victims of communist rebels, Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units
(CAFGUs), former rebels, and security guards. Lesaca and the others said that Palparan committed gross
human rights violations against marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations.
Petitioner Palparan countered that the HRET had no jurisdiction over his person since it was actually the
party-list Bantay, not he, that was elected to and assumed membership in the House of Representatives.
Palparan claimed that he was just Bantays nominee. Consequently, any question involving his eligibility
as first nominee was an internal concern of Bantay. Such question must be brought, he said, before that
party-list group, not before the HRET.
On July 23, 2009 respondent HRET issued an order dismissing the petition against Bantay for the reason
that the issue of the ineligibility or qualification of the party-list group fell within the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC pursuant to the Party-List System Act. HRET, however, defended its jurisdiction over the
question of petitioner Palparans qualifications.3 Palparan moved for reconsideration but the HRET denied
it by a resolution dated September 10, 2009,4 hence, the recourse to this Court through this petition for
special civil action of certiorari and prohibition.
Since the two cases raise a common issue, the Court has caused their consolidation.
The Issue Presented
The common issue presented in these two cases is:
Whether or not respondent HRET has jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of petitioners Abayon
and Palparan as nominees of Aangat Tayo and Bantay party-list organizations, respectively, who took
the seats at the House of Representatives that such organizations won in the 2007 elections.
The Courts Ruling
Petitioners Abayon and Palparan have a common theory: Republic Act (R.A.) 7941, the Party-List System
Act, vests in the COMELEC the authority to determine which parties or organizations have the
qualifications to seek party-list seats in the House of Representatives during the elections. Indeed, the
HRET dismissed the petitions for quo warranto filed with it insofar as they sought the disqualifications of
Aangat Tayo and Bantay. Since petitioners Abayon and Palparan were not elected into office but were
chosen by their respective organizations under their internal rules, the HRET has no jurisdiction to inquire
into and adjudicate their qualifications as nominees.
If at all, says petitioner Abayon, such authority belongs to the COMELEC which already upheld her
qualification as nominee of Aangat Tayo for the women sector. For Palparan, Bantays personality is so
inseparable and intertwined with his own person as its nominee so that the HRET cannot dismiss the quo
warranto action against Bantay without dismissing the action against him.
But, although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not the organization that
sits as and becomes a member of the House of Representatives. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution,5
identifies who the "members" of that House are:
Sec. 5. (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among
the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall
be elected through a party list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations. (Underscoring supplied)
Clearly, the members of the House of Representatives are of two kinds: "members x x x who shall be
elected from legislative districts" and "those who x x x shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations." This means that, from the
Constitutions point of view, it is the party-list representatives who are "elected" into office, not their parties Parenthetically, although the Party-List System Act does not so state, the COMELEC seems to believe,
or organizations. These representatives are elected, however, through that peculiar party-list system that when it resolved the challenge to petitioner Abayon, that it has the power to do so as an incident of its
the Constitution authorized and that Congress by law established where the voters cast their votes for authority to approve the registration of party-list organizations. But the Court need not resolve this
the organizations or parties to which such party-list representatives belong. question since it is not raised here and has not been argued by the parties.
Once elected, both the district representatives and the party-list representatives are treated in like What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution9 provides that the HRET shall be the
manner. They have the same deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments. They can participate in the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the members of the House
making of laws that will directly benefit their legislative districts or sectors. They are also subject to the of Representatives. Since, as pointed out above, party-list nominees are "elected members" of the
same term limitation of three years for a maximum of three consecutive terms. House of Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear
It may not be amiss to point out that the Party-List System Act itself recognizes party-list nominees as and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the party
"members of the House of Representatives," thus: or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELECs jurisdiction over election
representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins.10
regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens The Court holds that respondent HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion when it dismissed the petitions
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack for quo warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list and Bantay party-list but upheld its jurisdiction over the
well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of question of the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan.
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the consolidated petitions and AFFIRMS the Order dated July 16,
Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party 2009 and Resolution 09-183 dated September 17, 2009 in HRET Case 07-041 of the House of
system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the Representatives Electoral Tribunal as well as its Order dated July 23, 2009 and Resolution 09-178 dated
House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, September 10, 2009 in HRET Case 07-040.
and shall provide the simplest scheme possible. (Underscoring supplied) SO ORDERED.
As this Court also held in Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 v. Commission on Elections,6 a party-list ROBERTO A. ABAD
representative is in every sense "an elected member of the House of Representatives." Although the vote Associate Justice
cast in a party-list election is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, WE CONCUR:
who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House of Representatives.
Both the Constitution and the Party-List System Act set the qualifications and grounds for disqualification REYNATO S. PUNO
of party-list nominees. Section 9 of R.A. 7941, echoing the Constitution, states: Chief Justice
Sec. 9. Qualification of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as party-list
representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident
of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the
election, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to
represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five
(25) years of age on the day of the election.1avvphi1
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than
thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains
the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of his term.
In the cases before the Court, those who challenged the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan
claim that the two do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that they ought to
represent. The Party-List System Act provides that a nominee must be a "bona fide member of the party
or organization which he seeks to represent."7
It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of this particular qualification of a nomineethe need for him
or her to be a bona fide member or a representative of his party-list organizationin the context of the
facts that characterize petitioners Abayon and Palparans relation to Aangat Tayo and Bantay,
respectively, and the marginalized and underrepresented interests that they presumably embody.
Petitioners Abayon and Palparan of course point out that the authority to determine the qualifications of
a party-list nominee belongs to the party or organization that nominated him. This is true, initially. The
right to examine the fitness of aspiring nominees and, eventually, to choose five from among them after
all belongs to the party or organization that nominates them.8 But where an allegation is made that the
party or organization had chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee to become its party-list
representative in the lower House and enjoy the secured tenure that goes with the position, the resolution
of the dispute is taken out of its hand.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 190529 March 22, 2011
PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC., represented by its Secretary-General GEORGE
"FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
BRION, J.:
We resolve in this Resolution all the pending incidents in this case, specifically:
(a) the contempt charge1 against the respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) for its alleged
disobedience to this Courts Status Quo Order2 dated February 2, 2010; and
(b) the issue of whether the petitioner, Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI), should be declared
to have participated in the party-list elections of May 10, 2010, in light of the Comelecs failure to obey
our Status Quo Order and our subsequent Resolution3 granting PGBIs petition to annul its delisting from
the roster of accredited party-list groups or organizations.4
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
These incidents arose from our Status Quo Order directing the Comelec to restore and maintain the PGBI
to its situation prior to the issuance of Comelec Resolution No. 8679, pending the resolution of the petition
for certiorari that PGBI filed to challenge this Comelec Resolution. Our Status Quo Order, in short, directly
ordered the Comelec to include PGBI in the list of candidates under the party-list system in the May 10,
2010 elections pending the final determination of PGBIs qualification to be voted upon as a party-list
organization.
We issued the Status Quo Order on February 2, 2010. It was served on the Comelec on the same date,5
i.e., within the period that the Comelec itself gave for the correction of any error or omission in its published
official list of party-list participants in the May 10, 2010 elections. The Comelec itself declared:
On January 30, 2010 at 3:00 oclock (sic) in the afternoon, pursuant to Comelec Minute Resolution No.
10-0042 dated January 19, 2010, the Information Technology Department of Comelec published a list of
candidates with the instruction that "(s)hould there be any misspelling, omission or other errors, the
concerned candidate must call the Law Departments attention within five (5) days from this publication
for the purpose of correction. Thereafter, Comelec shall be relieved from liability"6 and the final list shall
then be prepared for printing.7
The Comelec responded the next day (February 3, 2010) to our Status Quo Order by asking for its
reconsideration and/or recall, based on the following grounds/arguments:
1) There will be insurmountable and tremendous operational constraints and costs implications in
complying with the status quo order.
2) To add the petitioners party/acronym in the database of the List of Candidates for sectoral
party/organization or coalition participating in the party-list system of representation will have a critical
impact on the already tight and overstretched election timelines of the Commission. Copy of the Revised
Automation Implementation Calendar is hereto attached as Annex "1".
3) Printing of the ballots is an intricate and complicated process. It is not a simple process of encoding
data in a computer and printing the ballots using a printer attached to the computer.
4) Prior to the printing of the ballots, several technical and mechanical preparatory activities have to be
done which include among other things:
a. Generation and back-up of database containing the candidates[] information;
b. Configuration of Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines and Consolidation and Canvassing
System (CCS);
c. Creation and design of one thousand six hundred seventy-four (1,674) ballot templates;
d. Production of the ballot templates;
e. Verification of each and every ballot template to ensure that it contains the accurate names of
candidates for the national positions and acronyms of sectoral party/organization or coalition participating
in the party-list system of representation and their corresponding assignments to the correct districts,
provinces, municipalities/cities, and clustered precincts. Since the ballots are precinct-specific to ensure
the security of the voting and counting, this means verification of seventy six thousand three hundred forty
(76,340) variations of the one thousand six hundred seventy-four (1,674) ballot templates; and
f. Placing several security markings in the ballots.
5) In fact, the installation of the Election Management System, which is used to generate the PCOS
machines configuration and ballot templates production have already been in place as of January 25,
2010.
6) To comply with the status quo order will not only affect the printing of the ballots but also have serious
implications on other activities of the Commission, such as:
a. The setting of configuration of the PCOS and CCS machines;
b. Testing of PCOS machines in their actual configuration with the ballots;
c. Deployment of PCOS and CCS machines and transmission equipments;
d. Checking/testing, demos, and sealing of the PCOS and CCS machines; and
e. Shipment of the ballots to all parts of the country.
7) Due to several re-scheduling of the timelines of the Commission, Smartmatic-TIM cautioned that it is
extremely risky to change the database containing the candidates information at this point in time. Any
change in the database and other preparatory activities would mean:
a. Twelve thousand (12,000) PCOS might not be configured and dispatched to the field on time; and
b. Four million eight hundred thousand (4,800,000) ballots might not be printed before the deadline and
shipped out on time.
Even if the Commission will resort to contingency measures to configure and ship out the twelve thousand
(12,000) PCOS machines on time, the printing of the ballots cannot be completed before May 10, 2010.
This means that four million eight hundred thousand (4,800,000) voters might not be able to vote due to
lack of ballots, thus disenfranchising them.
xxx xxx xxx
10) Hence, the Commission fervently requests the understanding and forbearance of the Honorable Court
which is the bastion of our justice system, protector of the democratic processes and our last resort in
ensuring a clean, peaceful, orderly and credible May 10, 2010 elections, to take a second look on the
status quo order issued on February 2, 2010.8
In its Comment to Comelecs Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation,9 PGBI essentially alleged
that the Comelec posited seemingly misleading and innocuous reasons in seeking reconsideration.
Among other arguments, it claimed that the Comelec had been less than candid in its submissions: first,
compliance with the Status Quo Order at that point would not disrupt the timetable or entail additional and
costly expenditures given that the Comelec had yet to terminate all related activities and preparations for
the May 10, 2010 elections;10 second, the Comelec had yet to promulgate, on February 11, 2010, its
decisions on several pending disqualification cases and recently accredited six other party-list
organizations to add to the more than 154 previously accredited sectoral parties and/or organizations.
PGBI also manifested that the ballot template that the Comelec published in its website on February 8,
2010 did not include the name or acronym of PGBI, in contravention of the Status Quo Order; and third,
the Comelecs blatant disregard of the Status Quo Order reeked of official arrogance, given this Courts
determination that it should be included in the ballot pending resolution of PGBIs petition for certiorari.11
In our Resolution of April 29, 2010,12 we granted PGBIs petition and, accordingly, annulled the assailed
Comelec Resolutions in SPP No. 09-004 (MP)13 which delisted PGBI from the roster of duly registered
national, regional and sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions. We declared at the same time that
PGBI is qualified to be voted upon as a party-list group or organization in the May 10, 2010 elections.
Despite the Status Quo Order and the Resolution, however, PGBI was never included in the ballot as one
of the accredited party-list groups or organizations eligible for election under the party-list system. Hence,
PGBI was never voted upon as a party-list candidate in the May 10, 2010 elections.
Before the elections or on April 28, 2010, PGBI filed a Manifestation (of Continuing Objection to Comelecs
Defiance of the Order of the Honorable Supreme Court).14 It claimed that Comelec Resolution No. 8815,
dated April 5, 2007, excluded the nominees of PGBI in the official list of party-list/coalitions/sectoral
organizations participating in the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections. Acting on this
Manifestation, we required the Comelec, via our Resolution of May 7, 2010, to explain and show cause,
within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of the Resolution, why it should not be held
in CONTEMPT of COURT for its alleged defiance of our Status Quo Order.15
In its Compliance16 to the Show Cause Order (submitted on May 21, 2010), the Comelec reiterated the
arguments it raised in its Extreme Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and To Lift Status Quo Order.
Specifically, it reiterated that there were "insurmountable and tremendous operational constraints and
cost implications in complying with the status quo order," which order (referring to the Status Quo Order)
is tantamount to technical, legal, and physical impossibility for respondents to comply.17 The Comelec
asked the Court to note the explanation and accept it as sufficient compliance with the Show Cause
Order.
Required to comment on the Comelecs Compliance, PGBI filed a Manifestation Cum Comment,18
asserting that a careful reading of the Compliance reveals that the Comelec simply deftly skirted and,
ultimately, never obeyed the Status Quo Order, and thus wantonly and contumaciously disregarded the
same. The PGBI additionally manifested that via a letter to the Comelec on May 4, 2010, it raised the
following concerns:
The preceding pronouncement [referring to the Courts Resolution granting PGBIs petition] may appear
to be inconsequential and a pyrrhic victory in view of the error and omission to include the name of the
petitioner in the ballots for the scheduled elections. How this Honorable Commission will find the means
and/or alternative to comply with and/or implement the directive in said decision is a matter left to its
judgment and discretion.
Be that as it may, it is the petitioners considered view that a definitive ruling, including the grant of its
Motion for Reconsideration in SPP No. 09-004 (MP), be expressly made in order that the limitation
prescribed in Section 6(8) of R.A. No. 7941, replicated in COMELEC Resolution No. 2847, promulgated
on June 25, 1996, will not apply to herein petitioner for purposes of the May 2013 elections.
While the implementation of the dispositions in the said Resolution has become a physical impossibility,
it is petitioners respectful submittal that it should not be penalized for not being able to participate in the
coming May 10, 2010 party-list election. [parenthetical note at 1st paragraph supplied; underscoring in
the original].
Based on its apprehension that it might end up twice in jeopardy of not being able to participate in the
party-list elections of 2013 in view of Section 6(8) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, PGBI requested that
the matter of its participation in the May 2013 party-list elections be given a categorical ruling.19
In its Reply,20 the Comelec asserted that a discussion on PGBIs eligibility for the 2013 elections i.e.,
whether its declared eligibility for the 2010 elections and its eventual inability to participate thereto should
be considered as a failure to participate in the last two (2) elections, as defined in R.A. No. 7941 is
purely academic, and is purely an advisory opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant. Judicial
power, the Comelec claimed, is limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases and
controversies involving existing conflicts that are appropriate or ripe for judicial determination; it does not
extend to hypothetical, conjectural or anticipatory questions. It claimed additionally that as the specialized
constitutional body charged with the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative
to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, PGBIs question is a matter
within its competence and primary jurisdiction to decide once it becomes ripe for adjudication.
OUR RULING
After due consideration of the attendant facts and the law, we find the Comelec guilty of indirect
contempt of this Court.
The Comelec Chair and Members are guilty of indirect contempt of Court
We explained in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC21 the Courts contempt power as
follows:
The power to punish contempt is inherent in all courts, because it is essential to the preservation of order
in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of the courts; and,
consequently, to the due administration of justice.
Under our Rules of Court, contempt is classified into direct and indirect. Direct contempt, which may be
summary, is committed "in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings
before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal
to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to
do so."
Indirect contempt, on the other hand, is not committed in the presence of the court and can be punished
only after notice and hearing. Disobedience or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of
a court or injunction granted by a court or judge constitutes indirect contempt. We quote Section 3, Rule
71 of the Rules of Court, enumerating the acts punishable as indirect contempt, as follows:
"SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. After a charge in writing has been
filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed
by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be
punished for indirect contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act
of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process
of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such
real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs
the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting
direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration
of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an
order or process of a court held by him.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the
respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings."
Based on the recited antecedent facts, it cannot be disputed that the Comelec did not comply with our
Status Quo Order; it simply pleaded insurmountable and tremendous operational constraints and costs
implications as reasons for its avoidance of our Order. It essentially posited that compliance with our
Status Quo Order was rendered impossible by the automation of the May 10, 2010 elections.
However, we find this explanation unacceptable, given the Comelecs own self-imposed deadline of
February 4, 2010 for the correction of errors and omissions, prior to printing, of the published list of
participating party-list groups and organizations in the May 10, 2010 elections.
The Comelec deadline could only mean that the Comelec had determined that changes in the official
ballot could still be made at any time prior to the deadline. In the context of the cases then pending
involving the registration of party-list organizations, the deadline was a clear signal from the Comelec that
the cases would have to be resolved before the deadline; otherwise, the Comelec could not be held liable
for their non-inclusion.
We fully read and respected the Comelecs signal, fully aware that we have to balance the interests the
Comelec has to protect, with PGBIs intent to be voted as a party-list organization. Thus, on February 2,
2010, we issued our Status Quo Order after a preliminary but judicious evaluation of the merits of PGBIs
motion for reconsideration, only to receive the Comelecs response on February 3, 2010 manifesting that
it could no longer change the ballots because of the nature of an automated election.
In an exercise as important as an election, the Comelec cannot make a declaration and impose a
deadline, and, thereafter, expect everyone to accept its excuses when it backtracks on its announced
declaration. The Comelec knew very well that there were still cases pending for judicial determination that
could have been decided before the deadline was set.
Although the recent case of Liberal Party v. Commission on Elections,22 involved the registration of
political parties, we found that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in allowing the out of time
registration of the NP-NPC coalition despite the mandatory deadline the Comelec itself had set. In this
case, we underscored the significance of the Comelecs compliance with its self-imposed deadlines,
particularly in the implementation of the first-ever automated elections of May 10, 2010.
To be excused, the Comelec needed more than its generalized descriptions of the process of ballot
printing and the alleged problems it faced. We needed reasons on how and why the deadline was set, as
well as detailed and specific reasons why PGBI could no longer be listed while other errors and omissions
could still be remedied.
Unfortunately for the Comelec, we did not see that kind of justification in its Compliance before us. Like
the Comelec, we expect obedience to and respect for our Orders and Resolutions, and we cannot be
sidetracked based solely on supposed operational constraints caused by the automated polls. Its
treatment of our Status Quo Order simply meant that even before the Comelec deadline, a definitive ruling
that a party-list organization should be included in the list to be voted upon would have been for naught
as the Comelec would have anyway pleaded automation constraints. Even if its excuse had been
meritorious, the Comelec effectively would have been guilty of misrepresentation on an election matter
and in dealing with this Court.
Although we have recognized the validity of the automation of the May 10, 2010 elections in Roque, Jr.
v. Comelec,23 we stress that automation is not the end-all and be-all of an electoral process. An equally
important aspect of a democratic electoral exercise is the right of free choice of the electorates on who
shall govern them; the party-list system, in the words of Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v.
Comelec,24 affords them this choice, as it gives the marginalized and underrepresented sectors the
opportunity to participate in governance. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Comelec took this freedom of choice
away and effectively disenfranchised the members of the sector that PGBI sought to represent when it
did not include PGBI in the list of qualified parties vying for a seat under the party-list system of
representation. This is a consideration no less weighty than the automation of the election and cannot be
simply disregarded on mere generalized allegations of automation difficulties.
The Appropriate Penalty
Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides the penalty for indirect contempt. Section 7 of Rule 71
reads:
SEC. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt. - If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt
committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by
a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. x x x
In the past, we have found the Chairman and members of the Comelec guilty of indirect contempt in Ang
Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC.25 In that case, we held that the Chairman and members
of the COMELEC guilty of contempt and required them to pay a fine in the amount of P20, 000.00 for
"degrading the dignity of th[e] Court;26 for brazen disobedience to its lawful directives, in particular its
Temporary Restraining Order dated May 9, 2001; and for delaying the ultimate resolution of the many
incidents of the case, to the prejudice of the litigants and of the country." We also warned the Comelec
that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely in the future.27
Evidently, the Rule cited above does not provide that reprimand may be imposed on one found guilty of
indirect contempt. However, we have in recent cases imposed a penalty less than what is provided under
the Rules if the circumstances merit such.28
In Alcantara v. Ponce,29 the Court, instead of citing the respondent Atty. Escareal-Sandejas for contempt,
chose to reprimand her (and warned her that her commission of the same act would be more drastically
dealt with) noting her apparent inexperience in practice of the profession, especially in appellate
proceedings before the Court. Similarly, in Racines v. Judge Morallos,30 the Court, after finding Jaime
Racines guilty of indirect contempt, merely reprimanded him because "he is not learned in the intricacies
of the law."
In the present case, special circumstances exist which call for our leniency and compel us to impose the
penalty of severe reprimand instead of of imprisonment and/or fine under Section 7, of Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court as we have ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party. We emphasize that although
automation is a special circumstance that should be considered in the present incidental matter, however,
its effect on the Comelecs non-compliance is merely to mitigate, not to totally exculpate, the Comelec
from liability for its failure to comply with our Status Quo Order. In other words, even if we grant that
automation might have posed some difficulty in including a new party in the party-list listing, the Comelec
still failed to prove to our satisfaction that the PGBIs inclusion was technically impossible and could not
have been done even if the Comelec had wanted to. Thus, at the most, we can give the Comelec the
benefit of the doubt to the extent of recognizing its excuse as a mitigating factor.
Therefore, instead of imposing the penalty of imprisonment and/or fine provided under Section 7, Rule 71
of the Revised Rules of Court, we deem it proper to impose upon the Comelec, particularly on its Chair
and Members the penalty of severe reprimand, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense
shall be dealt with more severely.
At this juncture, we take judicial notice of Comelec Chairperson Jose A.R. Melos resignation effective
January 15, 201131 and Commissioners Nicodemo T. Ferrer and Gregorio Y. Larrazabals retirement on
February 2, 2011.32 We hasten to clarify that their departure from government service, however, do not
render moot and academic their liability for indirect contempt, since "contempt of court applies to all
persons, whether in or out of government." Thus, in Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority,33 we held:
Contempt of court applies to all persons, whether in or out of government. Thus, it covers government
officials or employees who retired during the pendency of the petition for contempt. Otherwise, a civil
servant may strategize to avail himself of an early retirement to escape the sanctions from a contempt
citation, if he perceives that he would be made responsible for a contumacious act. The higher interest of
effective and efficient administration of justice dictates that a petition for contempt must proceed to its
final conclusion despite the retirement of the government official or employee, more so if it involves a
former member of the bench.
PGBIs Participation in the May 10, 2010 Party-List Elections
We partly agree with the Comelec that we cannot recognize PGBI to be a party-list organization fully
qualified to run under the party-list system in the coming 2013 party-list elections. The question of full and
total qualification is not ripe for judicial determination as this is not before us for resolution. Participation
in a previous election and the level of votes in favor of a participating organization are not the only
qualification issues that can arise in a party-list election, and we cannot assume that PGBI shall meet all
other legal standards to qualify as a party-list organization in the 2013 elections.34
But separate from the question of PGBIs overall qualification is the narrower question of its participation
in the May 10, 2010 elections an issue that is subsumed by the issues in the main certiorari case. As
shown above, PGBI intended to participate in the May 10, 2010 elections but it was not able to do so
because the Comelec did not contrary to our express directive include it in the list of party-list
organizations to be voted upon in the May 10, 2010 elections. As it was the Comelec itself which
prevented PGBI from participating in the May 10, 2010 party-list elections when it deleted PGBI, with
grave abuse of discretion, from the list of accredited party-list groups or organizations and, thereafter,
refused to return it to the list despite our directive, PGBI should, at the very least, be deemed to have
participated in the May 10, 2010 elections, and cannot be disqualified for non-participation or for failure
to garner the votes required under Section 6(8) of R.A. No. 7941. To conclude otherwise is to effectively
recognize the ineffectiveness of our Status Quo Order, of our April 29, 2010 Decision, and of this Court.
As a final note, the subject of the Courts action is the COMELECs disobedience to our Status Quo Order
of February 2, 2010 in the case in caption. The composition of the COMELEC has since then changed.
We therefore clarify that this Resolution affects and reflects on the COMELEC and its membership as
then constituted as they were the ones directly responsible for the disobedience.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Comelec Chair35 and Members36 are hereby found GUILTY of
CONTEMPT of the Supreme Court for their disobedience to our lawful directive, specifically the Status
Quo Order dated February 2, 2010. They are accordingly SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for this
disobedience. They are further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely in the future.
The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. shall be deemed not to have transgressed the participation
and level of votes requirements under Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 with respect to the May 10,
2010 elections.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
DISSENTING OPINION
ABAD, J.:
The majority would have the Court severely reprimand the Chairman and Members of the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) for failing to comply with the Courts order of February 2, 2010 that directed
that body to maintain the status quo in the case of petitioner Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc.
(PGBI). The order meant placing its name in the list of registered and accredited party-list organizations
vying for congressional seats in the May 10, 2010 elections pending adjudication of the case.
I am compelled to disagree with the majority since, in my view, the facts do not warrant such
condemnation.
On October 13, 2009 the COMELEC issued Resolution 8679, deleting on various grounds the names of
several party-list groups, including PGBI, from the list of registered parties, organizations or coalitions.
This gave PGBI and the others with it ample opportunity to seek redress from this Court before the window
for possible reinstatement was to be permanently shut out by the need to finalize such list in time for an
electronic election.
In the case of Ang Ladlad,1 a party similarly excluded from the list, it filed its petition for certiorari with this
Court on January 4, 2010. On January 12, 2010 the Court found sufficient reason to issue a temporary
restraining order (TRO) against the COMELEC pending a decision of the case on its merits, which TRO
effectively placed Ang Ladlad back into the COMELEC list. Ang Ladlad was thus voted for in the May 10
elections even when the Court had not yet decided the merits of its case.
Here, the PGBI filed its petition for certiorari with this Court on December 23, 2009. Unfortunately for it,
the Court did not find merit in its petition and so dismissed the same on January 12, 2010 on the ground
that the COMELEC committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing its contested resolutions.
Consequently, unlike Ang Ladlad, PGBIs name remained out of the list.
PGBI filed a supplement to its petition on January 15, 2010, with plea for the issuance of a TRO but the
Court merely noted the same since it had already dismissed the main petition.
Four days later on January 19, 2010 the COMELEC issued Minute Resolution 10-0042 stating that it
would be publishing the Certified List of Candidates for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections and
that the candidates could seek correction of any "misspelling or omission of names of the candidates or
an error in the entry of information" in the list within five days of the publication.
On January 25, 2010 (a Monday) PGBI filed its motion for reconsideration of the Courts January 12, 2010
resolution that dismissed its petition. It also asked anew for the issuance of a TRO.
Meantime, on January 30, 2010 the COMELEC published the certified final list of candidates for both local
and national positions by posting it on its website, with the following statement: "Should there be
misspelling, omission or other errors, the concerned candidate shall call the Law Departments attention
within 5 days from this publication for the purpose of correction."2
Also on January 30, 2010 the COMELEC submitted to Smartmatic-TIM, Inc.1avvphi1 the data base the
latter was to use for the configuration of the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) and Consolidation and
Canvassing System (CCS) machines and the printing of the ballot template. The submission of this data
base to Smartmatic-TIM was the irreversible point against any further attempt to insert in the list the
names of other candidates or parties to be voted on in the national and local elections of May 10.
On February 2, 2010 (a Tuesday), acting on PGBIs motion for reconsideration dated January 25, the
Court resolved to issue an order directing the COMELEC to revert PGBIs case to the status quo prior to
the controversy, meaning that COMELEC was to reinstate PGBIs name in the official list of parties and
individuals that could be voted on in the elections. The Court caused the resolution to be served on the
COMELEC on the same day, February 2.
On February 3, 2010 the COMELEC noted the Courts status quo order which, if enforced according to it,
meant recalling the data base that was then being used in the on-going configuration of the PCOS and
CCS machines and the printing of the ballot template. As it happened, Smartmatic-TIM had in fact finished
500 of the 1,674 ballot templates needed for the elections and was about to submit these to the
COMELEC on the same day for verification and approval. Such a recall, COMELEC added, would have
meant a failure to print 4.8 million ballots on time.
Consequently, on the same day, February 3, 2011, the COMELEC did not lose time to file with the Court
an "extremely urgent" motion for reconsideration and to lift status quo order on the ground that, to comply
with the order of February 2, would cause havoc to the COMELEC preparation for the forthcoming
elections. Further, since the processing of the data base had already begun, undoing what had been
accomplished and redoing the whole process in order to include PGBIs name in the national elections
would spell disaster in the work of configuring the PCOS and CCS machines, testing and deploying them
along with other equipment throughout the islands, checking and sealing the machines, and printing and
shipping the ballots. The waves of delays in COMELECs timelines would have meant possible
postponement of the elections at great costs and confusion.
Nearly two months later on April 29, 2010, without resolving the COMELECs motion for reconsideration,
the Court granted PGBIs petition, declared it qualified, and annulled the COMELEC resolutions that
excluded it from the 2010 elections. Then, acting on PGBIs manifestation dated April 12, 2010 that the
COMELEC had refused to include its name on the list of parties that could be voted on, the Court required
COMELEC on May 7, 2010 to explain why it should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the
Courts February 2 status quo order.
The COMELEC submitted its explanation, essentially reiterating what it said in its "extremely urgent"
motion for reconsideration and maintaining that it did not intentionally defy the status quo order. The
COMELEC added that it was technically, legally, and physically impossible for it to comply with the order
in view of the serious operational and financial consequences that such compliance would have entailed.
PGBIs position, on the other hand, was that the COMELEC could have complied with the Courts order
with no resulting complications if it had wanted to.
The Bottom Line Issue
At bottom, the issue is whether or not it was still in fact feasible for the COMELEC to restore PGBIs name
on the final list of party-list candidates without seriously setting back its preparations for the electronic
elections and incurring huge costs.
Discussion
Although the matter presents a factual issue, the majority did not regard it necessary to order the reception
of evidence for its resolution. The majority simply rejects the COMELEC explanation, stating that this is
belied by the fact that the COMELEC published the final list of candidates on January 30, with notice that
any concerned candidate could still call its Law Department to correct "misspelling, omission or other
errors" in the published list of candidates within five days of such publication, with the last day falling on
February 4.
1. But, clearly, the opportunity provided above was only for "errors" extant on the final list like misspelling
(example: listed as "Matias" when the correct spelling is "Mathias"), omission (example: a missing
nickname), or other errors (example: interchanging the positions of surname and first name). It may be
assumed that such errors do not affect the main configuration of the final list of candidates, thus,
permitting last minute corrections.
Here, the insertion of a new name in the fixed, electronically arranged or configured, list of names, said
the COMELEC, was not possible without undoing many things that depended on such configuration.
Inserting the name of PGBI in that configuration could be the equivalent of trying to sit an extra passenger
on a row of seats in a plane when others have already taken those seats. The settled configuration of
the seats in a plane would simply refuse to yield to an extra passenger. PGBI has presented no expert
opinion that putting its name in the electronic configuration of the list at such late date was technically
feasible without throwing the whole COMELEC timetable into disarray.
2. When the COMELEC published the final list of candidates on January 30, 2010, it served notice that
"Should there be misspelling, omission or other errors, the concerned candidate shall call the Law
Departments attention within 5 days from this publication for the purpose of correction." Clearly, PGBI
could not rely on this notice since the permitted correction was reserved only to "concerned candidates."
Having been officially disqualified from running for elections, PGBI cannot be regarded as a concerned
candidate covered by the announcement.
3. The COMELEC was not indifferent to the Courts status quo order that was served on it late afternoon
of February 2, 2010. On the next day February 3, the COMELEC promptly filed an "extremely urgent"
motion for reconsideration and to lift status quo order, pleading for understanding and explaining why
complying with the order was operationally and financially impossible. COMELEC acted responsibly and
with appropriate deference to the Court.
4. Despite being told of the reasons why the COMELEC could not comply, the Court chose not to deny
its motion for reconsideration readily. The Court did not insist that the COMELEC comply with its order
come what may. Consequently, since the Court was itself quite unwilling to take responsibility for the dire
consequences of such compliance, would it be fair to punish the COMELEC for declining to take on that
responsibility? And how can the Court, more than three months later, require the COMELEC to show
cause why it should not be punished for disobeying the February 2 status quo order, when the Court did
not itself act on the COMELECs day-after explanation and motion for reconsideration of that order?
5. Finally, PGBI makes no claim that the COMELEC singled it out for exclusion and corrected the list after
January 30, 2010 to allow the entry of the names of other party-list candidates similarly situated as PGBI.
The COMELEC gave no special favor to anyone. Consequently, it cannot be said that the COMELEC
acted iniquitously against PGBI.
In any event, it was not the Courts fault that it issued its status quo order in this case at such a late date.
The petition for certiorari that PGBI filed with this Court on December 23, 2009 failed to persuade. Indeed,
the Court dismissed it outright on January 12, 2010. PGBI filed its motion for reconsideration only on
January 25, 2010 with the result that the Court had the opportunity to take up such motion only on
February 2. Still, mistakenly believing that it was not too late, the Court issued its status quo order. The
Court cannot visit such mistake upon the COMELEC. It would not be fair.
For the above reasons, I vote to accept the COMELECs explanation of why is should not be held in
contempt satisfactory.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice