G.R. No. L-114783 December 8, 1994
petitioners assert that Section 49 has the effect of preempting the right of
ROBERT V. TOBIAS, RAMON M. GUZMAN, TERRY T. LIM, GREGORIO D.
GABRIEL, and ROBERTO R. TOBIAS, JR. petitioners,
vs.
HON. CITY MAYOR BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, CITY TREASURER WILLIAM
MARCELINO, and THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD, all of the City of
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, respondents.
FACTS:
- Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known
as "An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized
City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong."
- Prior to the enactment of the assailed statute, the municipalities of Mandaluyong
and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, the
incumbent congressional representative of this legislative district, sponsored the bill
which eventually became R.A. No. 7675. President Ramos signed R.A. No. 7675
into law on February 9, 1994.
- Petitioners contend that R.A. No. 7675, specifically Article VIII, Section 49 thereof,
is unconstitutional for being violative of three specific provisions of the
Constitution.
a. Contravenes the "one subject-one bill" rule, as enunciated in Article VI,
Section 26(1) of the Constitution, “Every bill passed by the Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof”.
Petitioners said the topic is not germane to the subject matter of RA No. 7675,
latter embracing two principal subjects, namely: (1) the conversion of
Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city; and (2) the division of the
congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts.
b. Petitioners argue that the division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate
congressional districts under Section 49 of the assailed law has resulted in an
increase in the composition of the House of Representatives beyond that
provided in Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution. To wit, ” 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.”
c. Petitioners contend that said division was not made pursuant to any census
showing that the subject municipalities have attained the minimum population
requirements. And
d.
Congress to reapportion legislative districts pursuant to Sec. 5(4), “Within
three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this
section.”
e. Petitioners contend that the people of San Juan should have been made to
participate in the plebiscite on R.A. No. 7675 as the same involved a change
in their legislative district.
ISSUES:
a. Whether or not RA No. 7675 contravenes the one subject-one bill rule
b. WON the division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into a separate congressional
district is unconstitutional
C. WON Mandaluyong has attained the minimum population requirement without
the census
D. WON RA No. 7675 preempts the right the right of congress to reapportion
legislative districts
E. WON people of San Juan should have been made to participate in the plebiscite
on R.A. No. 7675 as the same involved a change in their legislative district.
RULING:
a. No. The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a
subject separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion into a highly
urbanized city but is a natural and logical consequence of its conversion into a
highly urbanized city. Why? conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized
city with a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand indubitably
ordains compliance with the "one city-one representative" proviso in the
Constitution:
. . . Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or
each province, shall have at least one representative" (Article VI,
Section 5(3), Constitution).
Hence, it is in compliance with the aforestated constitutional mandate that the
creation of a separate congressional district for the City of Mandaluyong is decreed
under Article VIII, Section 49 of R.A. No. 7675
 Liberally construed- "one title-one subject" .Thus, in Sumulong v. Comelec (73
Phil. 288 [1941]), "should be given a practical rather than a technical construction.
It should be sufficient compliance with such requirement if the title expresses the
general subject and all the provisions are germane to that general subject."
b. No. The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than 250 members, "unless otherwise provided by law." The
latter clause mean the present composition of Congress may be increased, if
Congress itself so mandates through a legislative enactment. Therefore, the increase
in congressional representation mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is
CONSTITUTIONAL.
c.No.The said Act enjoys the presumption of having passed through the regular
congressional processes, including due consideration by the members of Congress
of the minimum requirements for the establishment of separate legislative districts.
At any rate, it is not required that all laws emanating from the legislature must
contain all relevant data considered by Congress in the enactment of said laws.
d. NO. it was Congress itself which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted the
assailed law, including Section 49 thereof. Congress cannot possibly preempt itself
on a right which pertains to itself.
e.NO. The principal subject involved in the plebiscite was the conversion of
Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. The matter of separate district
representation was only ancillary thereto. Thus, the inhabitants of San Juan were
properly excluded from the said plebiscite as they had nothing to do with the
change of status of neighboring Mandaluyong.
G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CIRILO ROY MONTEJO, respondents.
FACTS:
- In or about 1938 when respondent was a little over 8 years old, she established her
domicile in Tacloban, Leyte following the domicile of her parents. She studied in
the Holy Infant Academy in Tacloban from 1938 to 1949 when she graduated from
high school. She pursued her college studies in St. Paul's College, now Divine
Word University in Tacloban, where she earned her degree in Education.
Thereafter, she taught in the Leyte Chinese School, still in Tacloban City. In 1952
she went to Manila to work with her cousin, the late speaker Daniel Z. Romualdez
in his office in the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married ex-President
Ferdinand E. Marcos when he was still a congressman of Ilocos Norte and
registered there as a voter. When her husband was elected Senator of the Republic
in 1959, she and her husband lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered
as a voter. In 1965, when her husband was elected President of the Republic of the
Philippines, she lived with him in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in
San Miguel, Manila. When Mr. Marcos died, Imelda Marcos went back to
Tacloban.
- The 1987 Constitution mandates that an aspirant for election to the House of
Representatives be "a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected,
and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding
the election."2 The mischief which this provision — reproduced verbatim from the
1973 Constitution — seeks to prevent is the possibility of a "stranger or newcomer
unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with
the latter, from an elective office to serve that community."3
- Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the
position of Representative of the First District of Leyte with the Provincial Election
Supervisor on March 8, 1995
- On March 23, 1995, private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent
Representative of the First District of Leyte and a candidate for the same position,
filed a "Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification"5 with the Commission on
Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for
residency.
- Supported by the evidence of declarations made by her in Voter Registration
Record 94-No. 33497726 and in her Certificate of Candidacy.
- In addition, Cirilo Roy Montejo (kalaban ni Ramos) opposed her intended
registration by writing a letter stating that "she(RAMOS) is not a resident of said
city but of Barangay Olot, Tolosa, Leyte
- On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of
Candidacy, changing the entry "seven" months to "since childhood" in item no. 8 of
the amended certificate.
- On the same day, the Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte informed petitioner
that they cannot receive or accept the Certificate of Candidacy on the ground that it
is filed out of time.
- COMELEC, by a vote of 2 to 1, 13 came up with a Resolution 1.) finding private
respondent's Petition for Disqualification in SPA 95-009 meritorious; 2) striking off
petitioner's Corrected/Amended Certificate of Candidacy of March 31, 1995; and 3)
canceling her original Certificate of Candidacy.
- RAMOS’ ARGUMENTS:
a. Ramos argued that the entry of the word "seven" in her original Certificate of
Candidacy was the result of an "honest misinterpretation" 10 which she sought
 to rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected
Certificate of Candidacy and that
b. she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence.
c. she thought that what was asked was her "actual and physical" presence in
Tolosa and not residence of origin or domicile in the First Legislative District,
to which she could have responded "since childhood.
d. she stated that her domicile is Tacloban City, a component of the First
District, to which she always intended to return whenever absent and which
she has never abandoned.
e. she has been a resident of the First Legislative District of Leyte since
childhood, although she only became a resident of the Municipality of Tolosa
for seven months
f. She asserts that she has always been a resident of Tacloban City, a component
of the First District, before coming to the Municipality of Tolosa
- COMELEC’S ARGUMENTS:
A. incident belies respondent's claim of "honest misinterpretation or honest
mistake." Besides, the Certificate of Candidacy only asks for RESIDENCE.
Since on the basis of her Answer, she was quite aware of "residence of origin"
which she interprets to be Tacloban City,
B. to allow respondent to change the seven (7) month period of her residency in
order to prolong it by claiming it was "since childhood" is to allow an
untruthfulness to be committed before this Commission.
C. In election cases, the term "residence" has always been considered as
synonymous with "domicile" which imports not only the intention to reside in
a fixed place but also personal presence in-that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to
which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to
return. In respondent's case, when she returned to the Philippines in 1991, the
residence she chose was not Tacloban but San Juan, Metro Manila. Thus,
her animus revertendi is pointed to Metro Manila and not Tacloban
D. She registered as a voter in different places and on several occasions declared
that she was a resident of Manila. Although she spent her school days in
Tacloban, she is considered to have abandoned such place when she chose to
stay and reside in other different places.
E. In the case of Romualdez vs. RTC (226 SCRA 408) the Court explained how
one acquires a new domicile by choice. There must concur: (1) residence or
bodily presence in the new locality; (2) intention to remain there; and (3)
intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words there must basically
be animus manendi with animus non revertendi. When respondent chose to
stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila, coupled with her intention to stay there
by registering as a voter there and expressly declaring that she is a resident of
that place, she is deemed to have abandoned Tacloban City, where she spent
her childhood and school days, as her place of domicile.
F. Respondent has not presented any evidence to show that her conduct, one year
prior the election, showed intention to reside in Tacloban. Worse, what was
evident was that prior to her residence in Tolosa, she had been a resident of
Manila.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First
District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9, 1995 elections.
HELD:
- YES.
- It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought
to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the
constitution's residency qualification requirement. The said statement becomes
material only when there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It
would be plainly ridiculous for a candidate to deliberately and knowingly make a
statement in a certificate of candidacy which would lead to his or her
disqualification.
- An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained
residences in different places. Residence, it bears repeating, implies a factual
relationship to a given place for various purposes. The absence from legal residence
or domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or
semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence. Thus, the assertion by
the COMELEC that "she could not have been a resident of Tacloban City since
childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy because she became a
resident of many places" flies in the face of settled jurisprudence in which this
Court carefully made distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for
election law purposes.
- There is a difference between domicile and residence. "Residence" is used to
indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary; "domicile" denotes a
fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of
returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another.
Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to
remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for the same
purpose at any time, but he may have numerous places of residence. His place of
residence is generally his place of domicile, but it is not by any means necessarily
so since no length of residence without intention of remaining will constitute
domicile.
- For political purposes and election laws, residence is used synonymously with
domicile.
- The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification for certain
elective positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that when the
Constitution speaks of "residence" in election law, it actually means only "domicile
- Second, domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of
domicile, one must demonstrate: 37
1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one; and
 3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.
- It cannot be correctly argued that petitioner lost her domicile of origin by
operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late President Ferdinand E.
Marcos in 1952. For there is a clearly established distinction between the Civil
Code concepts of "domicile" and "residence." 39 The presumption that the wife
automatically gains the husband's domicile by operation of law upon marriage
cannot be inferred from the use of the term "residence" in Article 110 of the Civil
Code- the husband shall fix the residence of the family, but the court may exempt
the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service
of the Republic.This part of the article clearly contemplates only actual residence
because it refers to a positive act of fixing a family home or residence. The article
obviously cannot be understood to refer to domicile which is a fixed, fairly-
permanent concept when it plainly connotes the possibility of transferring from one
place to another not only once, but as often as the husband may deem fit to move
his family, a circumstance more consistent with the concept of actual residence.
- In this case, minor follows the domicile of his parents. As domicile, once
acquired is retained until a new one is gained, it follows that in spite of the fact of
petitioner's being born in Manila, Tacloban, Leyte was her domicile of origin by
operation of law. In this case, Mr. Marcos had several places of residence, among
which were San Juan, Rizal and Batac, Ilocos Norte. There is no showing which of
these places Mr. Marcos did fix as his family's residence. But assuming that Mr.
Marcos had fixed any of these places as the conjugal residence, what petitioner
gained upon marriage was actual residence. She did not lose her domicile of origin.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner gained a new "domicile"
after her marriage and only acquired a right to choose a new one after her husband
died, petitioner's acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she
not only impliedly but expressly chose her domicile of origin.
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR G.R. No. 179271
NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT
AND TRANSPARENC (BANAT) VS. COMELEC
FACTS:
- The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list
representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties under
the Party-List System.[6]
- On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-
List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-041
(PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because [t]he Chairman and the
Members of the [COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papers that
the [COMELEC] is duty bound to and shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is,
would apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party-list seats
- the COMELEC proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as winners in the party-list
elections, namely: Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens
Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), Gabrielas Women Party (Gabriela),
Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan!
Citizens Action Party (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL),
Cooperative-Natco Network Party (COOP-NATCCO), Anak Pawis, Alliance of
Rural Concerns (ARC), and Abono
- Projected/Maximum Party-List Votes for May 2007 Elections
i. Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated 15,283,659
ii. Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/
untabulated (i.e. canvass deferred) 1,337,032
iii. Maximum party-list votes (based on 100% outcome)
from areas not yet submitted for canvass (Bogo, Cebu;
Bais City; Pantar, Lanao del Norte; and Pagalungan,
Maguindanao) 102,430
Maximum Total Party-List Votes 16,723,121
- WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System
Act) provides in part:
-
- The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list
system shall be entitled to one seat each: provided, that those
garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number
of votes: provided, finally, that each party, organization, or
coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based on the above projected total
of party-list votes, the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold can be
pegged at three hundred thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-
two (334,462) votes;
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, in Citizens Battle Against Corruption
(CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its ruling in Veterans
Federation Party versus COMELEC adopting a formula for the
additional seats of each party, organization or coalition receving more
than the required two percent (2%) votes, stating that the same shall be
 determined only after all party-list ballots have been completely
canvassed; 2 BAYAN MUNA 977,476
- WHEREAS, the parties, organizations, and coalitions that have thus far
garnered at least three hundred thirty four thousand four hundred 3 CIBAC 755,964
sixty-two (334,462) votes are as follows:
4 GABRIELA 621,718
RANK PARTY/ORGANIZATION/ VOTES
5 APEC 622,489
COALITION RECEIVED
6 A TEACHER 492,369
1 BUHAY 1,163,218
7 AKBAYAN 462,674
2 BAYAN MUNA 972,730
8 ALAGAD 423,190
3 CIBAC 760,260
9 BUTIL 409,298
4 GABRIELA 610,451
10 COOP-NATCO 412,920
5 APEC 538,971
11 ANAKPAWIS 370,165
6 A TEACHER 476,036
12 ARC 375,846
7 AKBAYAN 470,872
13 ABONO 340,151
8 ALAGAD 423,076
- Based on the Veterans ruling, the formula for determining the additional
9 BUTIL 405,052 seats for the first party is:

10 COOP-NATCO 390,029

11 BATAS 386,361
ANG BAGONG BAYANI VS. COMELEC
12 ANAK PAWIS 376,036
FACTS:
13 ARC 338,194

14 ABONO 337,046
- 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 total number of seats of each winning party, organization or - On 2001 elections, the Comelec received several Petitions for registration filed by
coalition shall be determined pursuant to Veterans Federation Party sectoral parties, organizations and political parties.
versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party- - The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manifestations (or accreditations) of
list results. 154 parties and organizations, but denied those of several others in its assailed
- March 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which we quote:

Party-List Projected total number of votes

"We carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in mind that this system of
1 BUHAY 1,178,747 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.
- 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
- 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.
- PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
A. major political parties CANNOT participate in the party-list elections
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections.
2. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to 'marginalized and
underrepresented' sectors and organizations.
HELD:
1. YES.
- . 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."
- 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."
- Commissioner Monsod stated in the deliberations 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."
- 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."
- 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.”
- Section 11 of RA 7941, "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.
- therefore, political parties – even the major ones -- may participate in the party-list
elections.
2. YES.
- 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."
- Member of the Constitutional Commission declared that the purpose of the party-
list provision was to give "genuine power to our people" in Congress
- The foregoing provision on the party-list system is not self-executory because of the
phrase “as may be provided by law”. it was thus up to Congress to identify the
objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.
- SEC. 2 Declaration of Policy (RA 7941) –
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 (labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals), 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- Therefore, cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied and prostituted by those
who are neither marginalized nor underrepresented.
G.R. No. 203766 April 2, 2013
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
FACTS:
- 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 (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.
- Majority of these groups are political parties
ISSUE:
1. WON 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
2. WON 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.
LAWS INOLVED:
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.
HELD:
1. NO. (NOTE: ITO LANG IMPORTANT NA RULING. YUNG IBA
DISCUSSION LANG SA DELIBERATIONS, LIKE RATIONALE NI
MONSOD, ETC.)
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 ANG BAGONG BAYANI and BANAT, 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.
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national
parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral
parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not
need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any “marginalized
and underrepresented” sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under
the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
political party, whether major or not, that 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.
Section 3. Definition of Terms
a. (b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.
b. (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.
c. 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.
d. (f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral
parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes
- IMPORTANT THINGS TO NOTE IN THE DELIBERATIONS:
(DISCUSSION LANG TO)
A. 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.
B. Major political parties may participate for as long as they field
candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors that we
shall designate in this Constitution.
C. 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.
D. MR. MONSOD: Sino po ang magsasabi kung iyong kandidato ng UNIDO ay
hindi talagang labor leader or isang laborer? Halimbawa, abogado ito.
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.
E. 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."
F. R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations
to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. 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:
J. (1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized
for religious purposes;
K. (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
L. (3) It is a foreign party or organization;
M. (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;
N. (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to
elections;
O. (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
P. (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
Q. (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.
 THEREFORE, None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel registration constituencies," will facilitate the entry of the "marginalized and
refers to non-representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented" and those who "lack well-defined political constituencies"
underrepresented." as members of the House of Representatives.

R. QUESTION: How then should we harmonize the broad policy Such sectoral wing of a major political party must have its own constitution, by-laws, platform
declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No. 7941 with its specific implementing or program of government, officers and members, a majority of whom must belong to the
provisions, bearing in mind the applicable provisions of the 1987 sector represented. The sectoral wing is in itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to
Constitution on the matter? a major political party through a coalition.

ANSWER: The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" should refer U.RATIONALE: To allow major political parties to participate in party-list elections so as to
only to the sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically encourage them to work assiduously in extending their constituencies to the "marginalized and
"marginalized and underrepresented." These sectors are: labor, peasant, underrepresented" and to those who "lack well-defined political constituencies.
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,
veterans, overseas workers, and other similar sectors. For these sectors, a "SEC 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. - No person shall be nominated as party-list
majority of the members of the sectoral party must belong to the representative unless he is
"marginalized and underrepresented." The nominees of the sectoral
party either must belong to the sector, or must have a track record of 1. a natural-born citizen of the Philippines,
advocacy for the sector represented. Belonging to the "marginalized and 2. a registered voter,
underrepresented" sector does not mean one must "wallow in poverty, 3. a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)year immediately
destitution or infirmity." It is sufficient that one, or his or her sector, is below preceding the day of the election,
the middle class. More specifically, the economically "marginalized and 4. able to read and write,
underrepresented" are those who fall in the low income group as classified by 5. a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at
the National Statistical Coordination Board. least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and
6. is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
S. GENERAL RULE: The major political parties are those that field candidates
in the legislative district elections. Major political parties cannot participate in In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must
the party-list elections since they neither lack "well-defined political
constituencies" nor represent "marginalized and underrepresented" 1. at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of
sectors. Thus, the national or regional parties under the party-list system the election.
are necessarily those that do not belong to major political parties.
T. EXCEPTION: However, major political parties should participate in party- Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be
list elections only through their sectoral wings. The participation of major allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term."
political parties through their sectoral wings, a majority of whose members are
"marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political