1
GR 177597 July 16, 2008
BAI SANDRA S. A. SEMA, petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, respondents
Carpio, Ponente
Facts:
 The 1987 Constitution apportioned two (2) Legislative Districts to the
province of Maguindanao (which is part of the ARMM).
 The first legislative district is composed of Cotabato City and 8
Municipalities, however Cotabato City is not part of ARMM but Region
XII, having voted against its inclusion in the ARMM.
 On August 28, 2006, the ARMM regional assembly (ARMM’s legislature)
exercised its power under Section 19 of RA 9504 [Muslim Mindanao
Autonomy Act No. 201 (MMA 201)] creating the province of Shariff
Kabunsuan.
 On February 6, 2007, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City
passed Resolution No. 3999 requesting the COMELEC to clarify the status
of Cotabato City in view of the conversion of the first legislative district
into its own separate province of Shariff Kabunsuan.
 On March 6, 2007, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. (RN) 07-0407
maintaining the status quo of Cotabato City as part of the new province
of Shariff Kabunsuan.
 On March 29, 2007, the COMELEC promulgated RN 7845 stating that
Maguindanao’s first legislative district is composed only of Cotabato City
because of the enactment of MMA 201
 On May 10, 2007, the COMELEC issued RN 7902 by renaming the first
legislative district as the province of Shariff Kabunsuan and Cotabato City.
 The petitioner, Sema, was a candidate in the May 14, 2007 elections for
representative of Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City. The petitioner
prayed for the nullification of the RN 7902 and exclusion of the votes
casted by the inhabitants of Cotabato City in that office.
1. Sema contended that Shariff Kabunsuan is entitled to one representative
in the congress under Article 6, Section 5, paragraph 3 of the Constitution
and section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. The
petitioner claimed that in issuing RN 7902, the COMELEC usurped
Congress power to create or reapportion legislative districts.
 The COMELEC through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
contended:
1. The Petitioner wrongly availed of the writ of certiorari to nullify
RN 7902 because the COMELEC issued the same in the exercise
of its administrative, not quasi-judicial, power
2. The writ of prohibition became moot with the proclamation of
respondent Didagen Dilangalen as representative of the
legislative district of Shariff Kabunsuan province with Cotabato
City.
 The respondent (Dilangalen) countered that the petitioner is estopped
from questioning RN 7902, since in the petitioner’s certificate of
candidacy, Sema indicated that she was seeking election as
representative of the province of Shariff Kabunsuan and Cotabato City.
The respondent added that the RN 7902 is constitutional because it only
renamed Maguindanao’s first legislative district. The respondent further
claimed that the COMELEC could not reapportion Maguindanao’s first
legislative district to solely Cotabato City since the power of reapportion
lies exclusively with congress. Not to mention that Cotabato City does not
meet the population requirements under Article 6, Section 5, paragraph
3 of the Constitution (at least 250,000 inhabitants).
Issues relating to Article X, Section 20:
1. Whether section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 delegating the ARMM Regional
Assembly the power to create provinces, is constitutional.
Issues relating to Article VI, Section 5:
 2
2. If the new province of Shariff Kabunsuan (created under MMA 201) is entitled
to one representative in the House of Representatives (HOR) without the
need of a national law creating a legislative district for such new province.
3. If the COMELEC resolution no. 7902 is constitutional, can the COMELEC
reapportion Maguindanao’s first legislative district to solely Cotabato City.
Held:
1. Representative districts are created by law. Pursuant to Article X, Sections
20, the ARMM Regional assembly may not create a representative district
nor may it create a province.
There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of authority
in the Constitution for Congress to delegate to regional or local legislative
bodies the power to create local government units. However, under its
plenary legislative powers, Congress can delegate to local legislative
bodies the power to create local government units, subject to reasonable
standards and provided no conflict arises with any provision of the
Constitution. In fact, Congress has delegated to provincial boards, and
city and municipal councils, the power to create barangays within their
jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the criteria established in the
Local Government Code, and the plebiscite requirement in Section 10,
Article X of the Constitution. However, under the Local Government
Code, “only an Act of Congress” can create provinces and cities.
2. As mentioned earlier, Article X, Sections 20, the ARMM Regional
assembly may not create a representative district nor may it create a
province, because under Article VI, Section 5, paragraph 3 provinces
automatically get one representative district.
Each city with a population of at least two hundred and fifty thousand, or
each province, shall have at least have one representative in the House
of Representatives. There is no provision in the Constitution that conflicts
with the delegation to regional legislative bodies of the power to create
municipalities and barangays, provided section 10, Article X of the
Constitution is followed. However, the creation of provinces and cities is
another matter. Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution provides,
“Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or
each province, shall have at least one representative” in the House of
Representatives. Similarly, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the
Constitution provides, “Any province that may hereafter be created, or
any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two
hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following
election to at least one Member.”
A province cannot be created without a legislative district because it will
violate Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution as well as Section 3 of
the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Thus, the power to create a
province, or a city with a population of 250,000 or more, requires also the
power to create a legislative district. Even the creation of a city with a
population of less than 250,000 involves the power to create a legislative
district because once the city’s population reaches 250,000, the city
automatically becomes entitled to one representative under Section 5
(3), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution. Thus, the power to create a province or
city inherently involves the power to create a legislative district.
3. The court ordered the consolidation of GR 177597 and GR
178628 (If the COMELEC act in Ultra Vires in issuing RN 7902). The
petition in the latter echoed Sema’s contention that the COMELEC acted
ultra vires in issuing RA 7902 depriving the voters of Cotabato City a
representative in the HOR.
The power to reapportion legislative districts necessarily includes the
power to create legislative districts out of existing ones. —Section 5(1),
Article VI of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to increase,
through a law, the allowable membership in the House of
Representatives. Section 5 (4) empowers Congress to reapportion
 3
legislative districts. The power to reapportion legislative districts
necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of
existing ones. Congress exercises these powers through a law that
Congress itself enacts, and not through a law that regional or local
legislative bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of
Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of
Congress can be created, only through a national law passed by Congress.
In Montejo v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415 (1995), we held that the “power
of redistricting is traditionally regarded as part of the power (of Congress)
to make laws,” and thus is vested exclusively in Congress.
COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 is constitutional because it did not
apportion a legislative district for Shariff Kabunsuan or reapportion the
legislative districts in Maguindanao but merely renamed Maguindanao’s
first legislative district.
Court Ruling:
The court declared Section 19, Article VI of Republic Act No. 9054
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it grants to the Regional Assembly of the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao the power to create provinces and cities.
Thus, the court declared VOID Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating
the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan. Consequently, we rule that COMELEC
Resolution No. 7902 is VALID.
MACIAS VS COMELEC
G.R. No. L-18684 32 SCRA 1 September 14, 1961
LAMBERTO MACIAS, LORENZO TEVES, FAUSTO DUGENIO, ROGACIANO
MERCADO and MARIANO PERDICES, petitioners,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and VICENTE GELLA in his Capacity as National
Treasurer, respondents.
Facts:
Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives from Negros Oriental,
Misamis Oriental and Bulacan and the provincial Governor of Negros Oriental.
They are requesting that the respondent officials be prevented to implement RA
3040, an act that apportions representative districts in the country. They alleged
that their respective provinces were discriminated because they were given less
representation. Furthermore, they allege that RA 3040 is unconstitutional and void
because:
It was passed without printed final copies which must be furnished to the
members of the HOR at least 3 calendar days prior to passage.
It was approved more than 3 years after the return of the last census of the
population.
It apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several
provinces.
Issues:
Whether or not the apportionment of representative districts under Republic Act
3040 is in accordance with the constitution.
Discussions:
 4
The Constitution directs that the one hundred twenty Members of the House of
Representatives “shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as
may be according to the member of their respective inhabitants.” A law giving
provinces with less number of inhabitants more representative districts than those
with bigger population is invalid because it violates the principle of proportional
representation prescribed by the Constitution. Inequality of apportionment law is
“arbitrary and capricious and against the vital principle of equality.” as held in
Houghton County V. Blacker.
Rulings:
No. The Court concluded that the statute be declared invalid. Republic Act 3040
clearly violates the said constitutional provision in several ways namely:
It gave Cebu seven members, while Rizal with a bigger number of inhabitants got
four only.
It gave Manila four members, while Cotabato with a bigger population got three
only
Pangasinan with less inhabitants than both Manila and Cotabato got more than
both, five members having been assigned to it.
Samar (with 871,857) was allotted four members while Davao with 903,224 got
three only.
Bulacan with 557,691 got two only, while Albay with less inhabitants (515,691) got
three.
Misamis Oriental with 387,839 was given one member only, while Cavite with less
inhabitants (379,904) got two. These were not the only instances of unequal
apportionment.
Mountain Province has 3 whereas Isabela, Laguna and Cagayan with more
inhabitants have 2 each. And then, Capiz, La Union and Ilocos Norte got 2 each,
whereas Sulu that has more inhabitants got 1 only. And Leyte with 967,323
inhabitants got 4 only, whereas Iloilo with less inhabitants (966,145) was given 5.
Tan vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986
NOTA BENE: This case is relevant to the current buzz regarding the "Sugbuak."
The issue in this case, however, is a bit on the technical side.
- when the boundaries of a LGU is substantially altered, there are necessarily
more than one unit affected -- the parent LGU and the new LGU that was created
as a result of the alteration
FACTS:
This case was prompted by the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885, An Act
Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of
Negros del Norte, effective Dec. 3, 1985. (Cities of Silay, Cadiz and San Carlos and
the municipalities of Calatrava, Taboso, Escalante, Sagay, Manapla, Victorias, E.R.
Magalona, and Salvador Benedicto.
Pursuant to and in implementation of this law, the COMELEC scheduled a
plebiscite for January 3, 1986. Petitioners opposed, filing a case for Prohibition
and contending that the B.P. 885 is unconstitutional and not in complete accord
with the Local Government Code because:
(1) The voters of the parent province of Negros Occidental, other than those
living within the territory of the new province of Negros del Norte, were not
included in the plebiscite
(2) The area which would comprise the new province of Negros del Norte would
only be about 2,856.56 sq. km., which is lesser than the minimum area
prescribed by the governing statute
The Supreme Court was in recess at the time so the petition was not timely
considered. Consequently, petitioners filed a supplemental pleading on January
4, 1986, after the plebiscite sought to be restrained was held the previous day,
January 3.
 5
ISSUE:
W/N the plebiscite was legal and complied with the constitutional requisites
under Article XI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, which states that --
"Sec. 3. No province, city, municipality or barrio may be created, divided,
merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance
with the criteria established in the Local Government Code, and subject to the
approval by a majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected."
ISSUE NO. 2: WON BP 885 is Constitutional
HELD:
In interpreting the above provision, the Supreme Court held that whenever a
province is created, divided or merged and there is substantial alteration of the
boundaries, "the approval of a majority of votes in the plebiscite in the unit or
units affected" must first be obtained.
The creation of the proposed new province of Negros del Norte will necessarily
result in the division and alteration of the existing boundaries of Negros
Occidental.
"Plain and simple logic will demonstrate that two political units would be
affected. The first would be the parent province of Negros Occidental because its
boundaries would be substantially altered. The other affected entity would be
composed of those in the area subtracted from the mother province to
constitute the proposed province of Negros del Norte."
The Supreme Court further held that the case of Governor Zosimo Paredes
versus the Honorable Executive Secretary to the President, et al., G.R. No. 55628,
March 2, 1984 (128 SCRA 6), which the respondents used to support their case,
should not be taken as a doctrinal or compelling precedent. Rather, it held that
the dissenting view of Justice Vicente Abad Santos in the aforementioned case is
the forerunner of the applicable ruling, quoting that:
"...when the Constitution speaks of "the unit or units affected" it means all of the
people of the municipality if the municipality is to be divided such as in the case
at bar or of the people of two or more municipalities if there be a merger. I see
no ambiguity in the Constitutional provision."
It appeared that when Parliamentary Bill NO. 3644 which proposed the creation
of the new province of Negros del Norte was passed for approval, it recited
therein that "the plebiscite shall be conducted in the areas affected within a
period of one hundred and twenty days from the approval of this Act." However,
when the bill was enacted into B.P. 885, there was an unexplained change from
"areas affected" to "the proposed new province, which are the areas affected."
The Supreme Court held that it was a self-serving phrase to state that the new
province constitutes the area affected.
"Such additional statement serves no useful purpose for the same is misleading,
erroneous, and far from truth. The remaining portion of the parent province is as
much an area affected. The substantial alteration of the boundaries of the parent
province, not to mention the adverse economic effects it might suffer,
eloquently argue the points raised by the petitioners."
Consequently, the Supreme Court pronounced that the plebiscite held on
January 3, 1986 has no legal effect for being a patent nullity.
"WHEREFORE, Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 is hereby declared unconstitutional. The
proclamation of the new province of Negros del Norte, as well as the
appointment of the officials thereof are also declared null and void.
SO ORDERED."
#2 No. Sec. 97 of the Local Government Code states that no province can be
created unless if it has at least 3,500 km. Negros del Norte only has at most
2,865 square kilometers considering the statistics relating to the land area of
municipalities and cities that constitute Negros del Norte.
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY v. COMELEC, GR No. 136781, 2000-10-06
 6
Facts:
On
1998, the first election for party-list representation was held simultaneously with
the national elections. A total of one hundred twenty-three (123) parties,
organizations and coalitions participated. The Comelec en banc proclaimed
thirteen (13) ... party-list representatives from twelve (12) parties and
organizations, which had obtained at least two percent of the total number of
votes cast for the party-list system. Two of the proclaimed representatives
belonged to Petitioner APEC
PAG-ASA (People's Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good Government
Towards Alleviation of Poverty and Social Advancement) filed with the Comelec a
"Petition to Proclaim [the] Full Number of Party-List Representatives provided by
the Constitution." It alleged... that the filling up of the twenty percent
membership of party-list representatives in the House of Representatives, as
provided under the Constitution, was mandatory.
. It further claimed that the literal application of the two percent vote
requirement and the three-seat limit... under RA 7941 would defeat this
constitutional provision, for only 25 nominees would be declared winners, short
of the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit in the House.
Comelec Second Division... granting PAG-ASA's Petition. It also ordered the
proclamation of herein 38 respondents who, in addition to the 14 already sitting,
would thus total 52 party-list representatives.
In allocating the 52 seats, it disregarded the two percent-vote... requirement
prescribed under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941. Instead, it identified three "elements
of the party-list system," which should supposedly determine "how the 52 seats
should be filled up." First, "the system was conceived to enable the marginalized
sectors of the
Philippine society to be represented in the House of Representatives." Second,
"the system should represent the broadest sectors of the Philippine society."
Third, "it should encourage [the] multi-party system."
The twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had earlier been proclaimed
winners on the basis of having obtained at least two percent of the votes cast for
the party-list system, objected to the proclamation of the 38 parties and filed
separate Motions for Reconsideration.
They contended that (1) under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941, only parties,
organizations or coalitions garnering at least two percent of the votes for the
party-list system were entitled to seats in the House of Representatives; and (2)
additional seats, not exceeding two for each,.. should be allocated to those which
had garnered the two percent threshold in proportion to the number of votes
cast for the winning parties, as provided by said Section 11.
Issues:
7941
Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in
Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? In
other words, should the twenty percent allocation for party-list solons be filled
up completely and all the... time?
Are the two percent threshold requirement and the three-seat limit provided in
Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
Whether the Twenty Percent Constitutional Allocation Is Mandatory
The Statutory Requirement and Limitation
Method of Allocating Additional Seats
Ruling:
Court agrees with petitioners that the assailed Resolutions should be nullified,
but disagrees that they should all be granted additional seats.
We rule that a simple reading of Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, easily
conveys the equally simple message that Congress was vested with the broad
power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of
representation. The Constitution explicitly sets... down only the percentage of
 7
the total membership in the House of Representatives reserved for party-list
representatives.
In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress enacted RA 7941. As
said earlier, Congress declared therein a policy to promote "proportional
representation" in the election of party-list representatives in order to enable
Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and... underrepresented sectors to
contribute legislation that would benefit them. It however deemed it necessary
to require parties, organizations and coalitions participating in the system to
obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system in
order to be... entitled to a party-list seat. Those garnering more than this
percentage could have "additional seats in proportion to their total number of
votes." Furthermore, no winning party, organization or coalition can have more
than three seats in the House of Representatives. Thus the... relevant portion of
Section 11(b) of the law provides:
"(b) 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."
Considering the foregoing statutory requirements, it will be shown presently that
Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a
ceiling for party-list seats in Congress.
The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of
the Constitution and the law, but with the very essence of "representation."
Under a republican or representative state, all government authority emanates
from the people, but is exercised by... representatives chosen by them.
But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the
mandate of a sufficient number of people. Otherwise, in a legislature that
features the party-list system, the result might be the proliferation of... small
groups which are incapable of contributing significant legislation, and which
might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even legislative
districts are apportioned according to "the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and... progressive ratio"[22] to ensure
meaningful local representation.
All in all, we hold that the statutory provision on this two percent requirement is
precise and crystalline. When the law is clear, the function of courts is simple
application, not interpretation or circumvention.
Consistent with the Constitutional Commission's pronouncements, Congress set
the seat-limit to three (3) for each qualified party, organization or coalition.
"Qualified" means having hurdled the two percent vote threshold. Such three-
seat limit ensures the entry of various... interest-representations into the
legislature; thus, no single group, no matter how large its membership, would
dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire House.
After careful deliberation, we now explain such formula, step by step.
Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners, the public and the private
respondents, as well as the members of this Court, that the initial step is to rank
all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions from the highest to the
lowest based on the... number of votes they each received. Then the ratio for
each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the
parties participating in the system. All parties with at least two percent of the
total votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties... shall be
considered in the computation of additional seats. The party receiving the
highest number of votes shall thenceforth be referred to as the "first" party.
Step Two. The next step is to determine the number of seats the first party is
entitled to, in order to be able to compute that for the other parties. Since the
distribution is based on proportional representation, the number of seats to be
allotted to the other parties... cannot possibly exceed that to which the first
party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes.
For example, the first party received 1,000,000 votes and is determined to be
entitled to two additional seats. Another qualified party which received 500,000
votes cannot be entitled to the same number of seats, since it garnered only fifty
percent of the votes won by... the first party. Depending on the proportion of its
votes relative to that of the first party whose number of seats has already been
predetermined, the second party should be given less than that to which the first
one is entitled.
 8
The other qualified parties will always be allotted less additional seats than the
first party for two reasons: (1) the ratio between said parties and the first party
will always be less than 1:1, and (2) the formula does not admit of mathematical
rounding off, because there is... no such thing as a fraction of a seat. Verily, an
arbitrary rounding off could result in a violation of the twenty percent allocation.
An academic mathematical demonstration of such incipient violation is not
necessary because the present set of facts, given the number of... qualified
parties and the voting percentages obtained, will definitely not end up in such
constitutional contravention.
Principles:
The Legal and Logical Formula for the Philippines
In crafting a legally defensible and logical solution to determine the number of
additional seats that a qualified party is entitled to, we... need to review the
parameters of the Filipino party-list system.
they are as follows:
First, the twenty percent allocation - the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the
House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list.
Second, the two percent threshold - only those parties garnering a minimum of
two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are "qualified"
to have a seat in the House of Representatives;
Third, the three-seat limit - each qualified party, regardless of the number of
votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one
"qualifying" and two additional seats.
Fourth, proportional representation - the additional seats which a qualified party
is entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to their total number of votes."
BAGONG BAYANI vs COMELECG.R. No. 147589 - June 26, 2001
Facts:
Bagong Bayani and Akbayan Citizens Party filed before the COMELEC a Petition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785
issued by the COMELEC. This resolution approved the participation of 154
organizations and parties, including those 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 none-marginalized or overrepresented.
Issues:
a. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections
b. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to ‘marginalized and
underrepresented’ sectors and organizations.
Held:
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. The
resolution of this Court directed the COMELEC “to refrain proclaiming any
winner” during the last party-list election, shall remain in force until after the
COMELEC have compiled and reported its compliance.
a. Yes
b. No.
Rationale:
a.
Political parties, even the major ones, may participate in the party-list elections
. 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
 9

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

or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties."

b.
That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean,
however, that any political party -- or any organization or group for that matter --
may do so. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be
consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid down in the
Constitution and RA7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution.
The provision on the party-list system is not self-executory
. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in accordance with law" or "as may
be provided by law"; it was thus
up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution
.
Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.
 10
RA 7941 the Party list Act (1995)
BANAT V. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009
Facts:
 Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency
(BANAT) filed before the National Board of Canvassers(NBC) a petition to
proclaim the full number of party list representatives provided by the
Constitution. However, the recommendation of the head of the legal
group of COMELEC’s national board of canvassers to declare the petition
moot and academic was approved by the COMELEC en banc.
 BANAT filed for petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the
resolution of COMELEC to their petition to proclaim the full number of
party list representatives provided by the Constitution.
 The COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated a resolution proclaiming
thirteen (13) parties as winners in the party-list elections in May 2007.
The COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the
party-list results, it would determine the total number of seats of each
winning party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans
Federation Party v. COMELEC formula.
 Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through
Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms (A
Teacher) asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to
use the Veterans formula. COMELEC denied the consideration.
 Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher filed for certiorari with mandamus
and prohibition assailing the resolution of the COMELEC in its decision to
use the Veterans formula.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives in
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling
 Whether or not the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 is
constitutional
 Whether or not the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA
7941 to qualify for one seat is constitutional
 How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?
 Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties from participating in
the party-list elections? If not, can the major political parties be barred from
participating in the party-list elections?
RULING:
 The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list
representatives cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives.
 Yes, it is constitutional. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats
that a qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory
device that prevents any party from dominating the party-list elections.
 The second clause of Section 11(b) of R. A. 7941 “those garnering more than two
percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to
their total number of votes” is unconstitutional. The two percent threshold only
in relation to the distribution of the additional seats presents an unwarranted
obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution
and prevents the attainment of "the broadest possible representation of party,
sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives."
 In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the
highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections.
2. 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
guaranteed seat each.
 11
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
three (3) seats.
 Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political parties from
participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the
Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to participate in party-list
elections through their sectoral wings. Also, in defining a "party" that participates
in party-list elections as either "a political party or a sectoral party," R.A. No. 7941
also clearly intended that major political parties will participate in the party-list
elections. Excluding the major political parties in party-list elections is manifestly
against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission, and R.A.
No. 7941. However, by the vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling
in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list
elections, directly or indirectly.
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTION AND OTHER CASES
(G.R. NO. 203766 ETC., 02 APRIL 2013, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECT/S: PARTY LIST
(BRIEF TITLE: ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC)
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES
WHAT ESSENTIALLY WAS THE RULING OF THE COURT:
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 partylist system, and to
participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new
parameters prescribed in this Decision.
WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM UNDER THE 1987
CONSTITUTION?
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.
The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system
ofrepresentation. 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.
WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM?
SECTORAL AND WELL AS NON-SECTORAL PARTIES.
Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-listsystem
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 “[F]or as long as they field
candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall
designate in this Constitution.”53
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
 12
sectoral parties only, and that they clearly intended the party-list system to
include both sectoral and non-sectoral parties.
WHAT IS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR BETWEEN SECTORAL AND NON-
SECTORAL PARTIES?
THEY CANNOT EXPECT TO WIN IN LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT ELECTIONS BUT THEY
CAN GARNER, IN NATIONWIDE ELECTIONS.
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.
WHAT COMPOSE THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM?
THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS: (1) NATIONAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS; (2)
REGIONAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS; AND (3) SECTORAL PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS.
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.
WHAT IS THE PROOF THAT THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY FOR
SECTORAL PARTIES?
SECTION 5(2), ARTICLE VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION WHICH 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.”
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.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POLITICAL PARTY AND A SECTORAL
PARTY.
THE DIFFERENCE IS STATED IN R.A. NO. 7941.
 13
POLITICAL PARTY REFERS TO AN ORGANIZED GROUP OF CITIZENS ADVOCATING
AN IDEOLOGY OR PLATFORM, PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES FOR THE GENERAL
CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT.”
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.”
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.
DOES R.A. NO. 7941 REQUIRE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PARTIES TO REPRESENT
THE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED SECTORS?
NO. 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.
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 partylist 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.”56 The 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 andconcerns 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.
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE IF WE INTERPRET THAT ALL THE SECTORS
MENTIONED IN SECTION 5 ARE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED?
IT WOULD LEAD TO ABSURDITIES.
 14
On the contrary, to even interpret that all the sectors mentioned in Section 5 are
“marginalized and underrepresented” would lead to absurdities.
TO WHAT DOES THE PHRASE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED REFER
TO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BROAD POLICY DECLARATION IN SECTION 2OF
R.A. NO. 7941 WITH ITS SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS, BEARING IN
MIND THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION ON THE
MATTER?
THE PHRASE SHOULD REFER ONLY TO THE SECTORS IN SECTION 5 THAT ARE, BY
THEIR NATURE, ECONOMICALLY “MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED.”
WHAT ARE THESE SECTORS?
THESE SECTORS ARE: LABOR, PEASANT, FISHERFOLK, URBAN POOR,
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES, HANDICAPPED, VETERANS, OVERSEAS
WORKERS, AND OTHER SIMILAR SECTORS.
SHOULD ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SECTORAL PARTY BELONG TO THE
MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED?
ONLY A MAJORITY.
For these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party must belong
to the “marginalized and underrepresented.”
HOW ABOUT THE NOMINEES OF THE THE SECTORAL PARTY?
EITHER THEY MUST BELONG TO THE SECTOR OR MUST HAVE A TRACK RECORD
OF ADVOCACY FOR THAT SECTOR.
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
HOW ABOUT SECTORAL PARTIES OF PROFESSIONALS, THE ELDERLY, WOMEN
AND THE YOUTH, DO THEY NEED TO BE MARGINALIZED?
NO. THEY BELONG TO IDEOLOGY-BASED AND CAUSE ORIENTED PARTIES.
ALLOWING THEM TO RUN AS PARTY LIST WILL GIVE GIVE SMALL IDEOLOGY-
BASED AND CAUSE-ORIENTED PARTIES WHO LACK “WELL-DEFINED POLITICAL
CONSTITUENCIES” A CHANCE TO WIN SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
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.
WHAT IS ONE RESULT OF THIS INTERPRETATION?
IT WILL MAKE THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM HONEST AND TRANSPARENT.
This interpretation will also make the party-list system honest and transparent,
eliminating the need for relatively well-off party-list representatives to
masquerade as “wallowing in poverty, destitution and infirmity,” even as they
attend sessions in Congress riding in SUVs.
CAN POLITICAL PARTIES PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY-LIST ELECTIONS?
NO, EXCEPT THROUGH THEIR SECTORAL WINGS.
 15
THEY CANNOT DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE BECAUSE THEY NEITHER LACK WELL
DEFINED POLITICAL CONSTITUENCIES NOR REPRESENT MARGINALIZED AND
UNDDERPRESENTED SECTORS.
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.
WHY ARE POLITICAL PARTIES ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY LIST
ELECTIONS THROUGH THEIR SECTORAL WINGS?
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 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 lawmaking.
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.
WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SECTORAL WING?
IT MUST 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.
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.
WHAT IS THE QUALIFICATION OF A PARTY-LIST NOMINEE?
HE 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.
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.
WHAT ARE NOW THE NEW PARAMETERS TO BE FOLLOWED BY COMELEC?
THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:
 16
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 PARTYLIST ELECTIONS ONLY THROUGH ITS SECTORAL WING
THAT CAN SEPARATELY REGISTER UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM. THE
SECTORAL WING IS BY ITSELF AN INDEPENDENT SECTORAL PARTY, AND IS LINKED
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
62 RULE 64 IN RELATION TO RULE 65, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
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.
G.R. No. 192803 December 10, 2013
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, INC., ALSO KNOWN
AS ARARO PARTY-LIST,Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
LEONEN, J:
NATURE:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by a party-list group that ran for
the 2010 national elections. The petitioner questions the validity of the formula
used by the Commission on Elections in determining and proclaiming the winning
party-list groups.
FACTS:
Petitioner, ARARO was a duly accredited party-list garnered a total of 147,204
votes in the May 10, 2010 elections and ranked 50th. The COMELEC En Banc
sitting as the National Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed twenty-eight (28)
party-list organizations as winners involving a total of thirty-five (35) seats
guaranteed and additional seats. The petitioner questioned the formula used by
the COMELEC and filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer
for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order

The petitioner suggests that the formula used by the Commission on Elections is
flawed because votes that were spoiled or that were not made for any party-lists
were not counted. According to the petitioner, around seven million (7,000,000)
votes were disregarded as a result of the Commission on Elections’ erroneous
interpretation. 7,112,792 (Total number of disregarded votes according to
petitioner ARARO)
On the other hand, the formula used by the Commission on Elections En
Banc sitting as the National Board of Canvassers is the following:
Number of seats available to legislative districts_x .20 =Number of seats available
to party-list representatives .80
Thus, the total number of party-list seats available for the May 2010 elections is
57 as shown below:
229__x .20 =57 .80
The National Board of Canvassers’ Resolution No. 10-009 applies the formula
used in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency
(BANAT) v. COMELEC18 to arrive at the winning party-list groups and their
guaranteed seats, where:
Number of votes of party-list
______________________________=
Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list
Total number of votes for party-list candidates
the Commission on Elections through the Office of the Solicitor General took the
position that invalid or stray votes should not be counted in determining the
divisor. The Commission on Elections argues that this will contradict Citizens’
Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) v. COMELEC22 and Barangay Association for
National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC. 23 It asserts that:
Neither can the phrase be construed to include the number of voters who did
not even vote for any qualified party-list candidate, as these voters cannot be
considered to have cast any vote "for the party-list system."24
I. Whether the case is already moot and academic
II. Whether petitioners have legal standing
III. Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in
its interpretation of the formula used in BANAT v. COMELEC25 to determine the
party-list groups that would be proclaimed in the 2010 elections
17
The third issue requires our determination of the computation of the correct
divisor to be used. The options are
HELD:
1. This case is moot and academic but the Court discussed the issues raised by the
petitioner as these are capable of repetition yet evading review 32 and for the
guidance of the bench, bar, and public.33
2. The computation proposed by petitioner ARARO even lowers its chances to meet
the 2% threshold required by law for a guaranteed seat. Its arguments will
neither benefit nor injure the party. Thus, it has no legal standing to raise the
argument in this Court.
3. The Court agree with the petitioner but only to the extent that votes later on
determined to be invalid due to no cause attributable to the voter should not be
excluded in the divisor. In other words, votes cast validly for a party-list group
listed in the ballot but later on disqualified should be counted as part of the
divisor. To do otherwise would be to disenfranchise the voters who voted on the
basis of good faith that that ballot contained all the qualified candidates.
However, following this rationale, party-list groups listed in the ballot but whose
disqualification attained finality prior to the elections and whose disqualification
was reasonably made known by the Commission on Elections to the voters prior
to such elections should not be included in the divisor.
Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 is clear that only those votes cast for the
party-list system shall be considered in the computation of the percentage of
representation:
1. (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%)
of the total votes cast for the party-list systemshall 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.
The formula in determining the winning party-list groups, as used and
interpreted in the case of BANAT v. COMELEC, is MODIFIED as follows:
 18
Number of votes. of party-list Total number of valid votes for party-list
candidates Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list
The divisor shall be the total number of valid votes cast for the party-list system
including votes cast for party-list groups whose names are in the ballot but are
subsequently disqualified. Party-list groups listed in the ballot but whose
disqualification attained finality prior to the elections and whose disqualification
was reasonably made known by the Commission on Elections to the voters prior
to such elections should not be included in the divisor. The divisor shall also not
include votes that are declared spoiled or invalid.
Aquino v COMELEC (1995)
Agapito A. Aquino, petitioner vs. Commission on Election, Move Makati, Mateo
Bedon, and Juanito Icaro, respondents
Sept, 18, 1995
Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least
twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list
representatives, 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 day of the election.
Facts:
On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino, the petitioner, filed his Certificate of
Candidacy for the position of Representative for the new (remember: newly
created) Second Legislative District of Makati City. In his certificate of candidacy,
Aquino stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned district (284
Amapola Cor. Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati) for 10 months.
Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-
NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify
Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a
candidate for congressman which under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution, should be for a period not less than one year preceding the (May 8,
1995) day of the election.
Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino amended the entry on his
residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 13 days. The Commission
on Elections passed a resolution that dismissed the petition on May 6 and
allowed Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino, with 38,547 votes, won
against Augusto Syjuco with 35,910 votes.
Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the Comelec, to which, on
May 15, the latter acted with an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino
until the Commission resolved the issue. On 2 June, the Commission on Elections
found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office for lack of
constitutional qualification of residence.
Aquino then filed a Petition of Certiorari assailing the May 15 and June 2 orders.
Issue:
1. Whether “residency” in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes
“domicile” to warrant the disqualification of Aquino from the position in the
electoral district.
2. WON it is proven that Aquino has established domicile of choice and not just
residence (not in the sense of the COC)in the district he was running in.
Held:
1. Yes, The term “residence” has always been understood as synonymous with
“domicile” not only under the previous constitutions but also under the 1987
Constitution. The Court cited the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
wherein this principle was applied.
Mr. Nolledo:
I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was an attempt to
require residence in the place not less than one year immediately preceding the
day of elections.
…
What is the Committee’s concept of residence for the legislature? Is it actual
residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive residence?
Mr. Davide:
This is in the district, for a period of not less than one year preceding the day of
 19
election. This was in effect lifted from the 1973 constituition, the interpretation
given to it was domicile.
Mrs. Braid:
On section 7, page2, Noledo has raised the same point that resident has been
interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than actual residence.
… Makati (and the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims of other
Mr. De los Reyes
So we have to stick to the original concept that it should be by domicile and not
physical and actual residence.
Therefore, the framers intended the word “residence” to have the same meaning
of domicile.
The place “where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home,”
where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually
intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution
refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law.
The purpose is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions
and needs of the community from taking advantage of
favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain.
While there is nothing wrong with the purpose of establishing residence in a
given area for meeting election law requirements, this defeats the essence of
representation, which is to place through assent of voters those most cognizant
and sensitive to the needs of a particular district, if a candidate falls short of the
period of residency mandated by law for him to qualify.
Which brings us to the second issue.
2. No, Aquino has not established domicile of choice in the district he was
running in.
The SC agreed with the Comelec’s contention that Aquino should prove that he
established a domicile of choice and not just residence.
The Constitution requires a person running for a post in the HR one year of
residency prior to the elections in the district in which he seeks election to .
Aquino’s certificate of candidacy in a previous (May 11, 1992) election indicates
that he was a resident and a registered voter of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac for
more than 52 years prior to that election. His birth certificate indicated that
Conception as his birthplace and his COC also showed him to be
a registered voter of the same district. Thus his domicile of origin (obviously,
choice as well) up to the filing of his COC was in Conception, Tarlac.
Aquino’s connection to the new Second District of Makati City is an alleged lease
agreement of a condominium unit in the area. The intention not to establish a
permanent home in Makati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit
instead of buying one. The short length of time he claims to be a resident of
residences in Metro Manila) indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his
physical residence is not to acquire a new, residence or domicile but only to
qualify as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City.
Aquino’s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a
bare assertion which is hardly supported by the facts in the case at bench. To
successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal
or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which
correspond with the purpose.
Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the Commission on Elections due to his
lack of one year residence in the district.
Decision
Instant petition dismissed. Order restraining respondent Comelec from
proclaiming the candidate garnering the next highest number of votes in the
congressional elections of Second district of Makati City made permanent.
Dicta:
I. Aquino’s petition of certiorari contents were:
A. The Comelec’s lack of jurisdiction to determine the disqualification issue
involving congressional candidates after the May 8, 1995 elections, such
determination reserved with the house of representatives electional tribunal
B. Even if the Comelec has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction ceased in the instant case
after the elections and the remedy to the adverse parties lies in another forum
which is the HR Electoral Tribunal consistent with Section 17, Article VI of the
1987 Constitution.
C. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it proceeded to
promulagate its questioned decision despite its own recognition that a threshold
issue of jurisdiction has to be judiciously reviewed again, assuming arguendo that
the Comelec has jurisdiction
D. The Comelec’s finding of non-compliance with the residency requirement of
one year against the petitioner is contrary to evidence and to applicable laws and
 20
jurisprudence.
E. The Comelec erred in failing to appreciate the legal impossibility of enforcing
the one year residency requirement of Congressional candidates in newly
created political districts which were only existing for less than a year at the time
of the election and barely four months in the case of petitioner’s district in
Makati.
F. The Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
ordered the board of canvassers to determine and proclaim the winner out of
the remaining qualified candidates after the erroneous disqualification of the
petitioner in disregard of the doctrine that a second place candidate or a person
who was repudiated by the electorate is a loser and cannot be proclaimed as
substitute winner.
II. Modern day carpetbaggers can’t be allowed to take advantage of the creation
of new political districts by suddenly transplanting themselves in such new
districts, prejudicing their genuine residents in the process of taking advantage of
existing conditions in these areas.
III. according to COMELEC: The lease agreement was executed mainly to support
the one year residence requirement as a qualification for a candidate of the HR,
by establishing a commencement date of his residence. If a oerfectly valid lease
agreement cannot, by itself establish a domicile of choice, this particular lease
agreement cannot be better.
Romualdez-Marcos vs Comelec (1995)
Petition: Appeal by certiorari
Petitioner: Imelda Marcos
DOCTRINE: If a person retains his domicile of origin for purposes of the residence
requirement, the 1 year period is irrelevant because wherever he is, he is a
resident of his domicile of origin. Second, if a person reestablishes a previously
abandoned domicile, the 1 year requirement must be satisfied. (Bernas book)
FACTS:
1.) Imelda Marcos established her domicile in Tacloban City, which was her
father’s hometown, in 1938 when she was 8 years old. She pursued her studies
(GS,HS, College) in the aforementioned city and subsequently taught in the Leyte
Chinese School. In 1952, she went to Manila to work in the House of
Representatives. Two years after, she married Pres. Ferdinand Marcos when he
was still a Congressman in Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. In 1959,
her husband was elected a Senator and they lived in San Juan, Rizal where she
again registered as a voter. And in 1965, she lived in the Malacanang Palace when
her husband became the President. This time, she registered as a voter in San
Miguel, Manila. After their exile in Hawaii, she ran for President in 1992 and
indicated in her CoC that she was a resident and register voter of San Juan, Metro
Manila.
2.) Marcos filed her CoC for the position of Representative of the First District of
Leyte.
3.) The incumbent Representative, Montejo, filed for her disqualification alleging
that she did not meet the 1 year constitutional requirement for residency.
4.) Apparently, she wrote down in her CoC in item no.8, which asked for the
number of years of residency, that she had been a resident for 7 months.
5.) Marcos filed an amended CoC changing “7 months” to “since childhood”,
claiming that it was an honest misinterpretation that she thought she was being
asked for her actual and physical presence in Tolosa, and not her domicile.
6.) The COMELEC found the petition for her disqualification meritorious and
cancelled her amended CoC. For them, it was clear that Marcos has not complied
with the 1 year residency requirement.
 In election cases, the term residence has always been considered
synonymous with domicile. This is the intention to reside in the place
coupled with the personal presence.
 When she returned after her exile, she did not choose to go back to
Tacloban. Thus, her animus revertendi (intention to return)
#JudgePrincess points to Manila.
 21

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

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

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

of origin by operation of law when her father brought them to Leyte;
 22
TORAYNO v. COMELEC (2000)
FACTS:
 Emano was proclaimed gov of Misamis Oriental. In his CoC, his
residence was declared to be in Tagoloan, MO.
 While still gov, Emano executed a Voter Registration Record in CDO
(geographically located in MO) which he claimed 20 yrs of residence. He
filed his CoC for mayor of CDO, stating that his residence for preceding 2
yrs and 5 mos was in CDO.
 Residents of CDO filed petition before COMELEC for disqualification—
failed to meet the 1-yr residency req't.
 Prior to resolution of petition, COMELEC proclaimed Emano as elected
mayor.
 Petitioners filed petition for quo warranto before the COMELEC.
 COMELEC for Emano, hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. WON Emano had duly established his residence in CDO at least one year
prior to the elections to qualify him to run for the mayorship
2. If not, WON Damasing, the candidate who had received the second
highest number of votes, should be proclaimed mayor of the city.
DECISION:
HELD:
Petitioners:
 Emano maintains his domicile in Tagoloan, MO, not in CDO, as allegedly
shown by the following facts: (1) he had run and won as governor of MO
for three consecutive terms immediately preceding the 1998 elections;
(2) in the pleadings he filed in connection with an election protest against
him relating to the 1995 election, he had stated that he was a resident of
Tagoloan; (3) he had fully exercised the powers and prerogatives of
governor until he filed his CoC for mayor.
 In discharging his duties as provincial governor, Emano remained a
resident of the province. Residence is a continuing qualification that an
elective official must possess throughout his term. Thus, private
respondent could not have changed his residence while he was still
governor.
 The ff were not sufficient to constitute a change of domicile: having a
house in CDO, residing therein while exercising one's office as governor
(the city being the seat of government of the province), securing a
residence certificate and registering as voter therein.
Respondent:
 He actually and physically resided in CDO while serving as provincial
governor, since the seat of the provincial government was located at the
heart of that city. It is the person concerned who would be in the best
position to make a choice as to his residence. In this case, Emano decided
to adopt CDO as his place of residence after the May 1995 elections. In
fact, in January 1997, he secured his Community Tax Certificate at the City
Treasurer's Office, stating therein that he was a resident of CDO. During
the general registration of voters in June 1997, he registered in one of
CDO.
 His transfer of legal residence did not ipso facto divest him of his position
as governor. First, there is no law that prevents an elected official from
transferring residence while in office. Second, an elective official's transfer
of residence does not prevent the performance of that official's duties,
Third, as ruled in Frivaldo, the loss of any of the required qualifications for
election merely renders the official's title or right to office open to
challenge. No one challenged his right to the Office when he transferred
his residence.
 The sanctity of the people's will, as expressed in the election result, must
be respected. He is not, after all, a stranger to the city, much less to its
voters.
Court:
 23

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