Naval vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 207851, July 8, 2014| REYES, J.:
Petitioner: ANGEL G. NAVAL
Respondent: COMELEC
FACTS:
A provincial board member cannot be elected and serve for
more than three consecutive terms. Before the Court is a
Petition for Certiorari to assail the (a) COMELEC Second
Division’s Resolution granting the petition filed by Julia,
seeking to cancel the COC as Member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur of Naval, who is allegedly
violating the three-term limit imposed upon elective local
officials; and (b) COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution denying
Naval’s Motion for Reconsideration to the Resolution issued
by COMELEC Second Diviosn.
From 2004 to 2007 and 2007 to 2010, Naval had been elected
and had served as a member of the Sanggunian, Second
District, Province of Camarines Sur.
On October 12, 2009, the President approved Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9716, which reapportioned the legislative districts
in Camarines Sur. Notably, 8 out of 10 towns were taken from
the old Second District to form the present Third District. The
present Second District is composed of the two remaining
towns, Gainza and Milaor, merged with five towns from the
old First District.
In the 2010 elections, Naval once again won as among the
members of the Sanggunian, Third District. He served until
2013.
In the 2013 elections, Naval ran anew and was re-elected as
Member of the Sanggunian, Third District.
Julia was likewise a Sanggunian Member candidate from the
Third District in the 2013 elections. He filed before the
COMELEC a Verified Petition to Deny Due Course or to
Cancel COC of Naval. Julia posited that Naval had fully served
the entire Province of Camarines Sur for three consecutive
terms as a member of the Sanggunian, irrespective of the
district he had been elected from. Allowing Naval to run as a
Sanggunian member for the fourth time is violative of the
inflexible three-term limit rule enshrined in the Constitution
and the LGC, which must be strictly construed.
Naval alleges: First, Second and Third Legislative Districts of
Camarines Sur are not merely renamed but are composed of
new sets of municipalities. With the separation of Gainza and
Milaor from the other eight towns which used to comprise the
Second District, the voters from the Third Legislative District
are no longer the same ones as those who had elected him to
office in the 2004 and 2007 elections.
OSG contends: Seeking the denial of the instant petition, OSG
contends that Naval had been elected and had fully served the
same local elective post for three consecutive terms. Naval thus
violated Section 78 of the OEC when he filed his COC despite
knowledge of his ineligibility.
COMELEC Second Division’s Resolution: Cancelled
Naval’s COC on grounds:
When a candidate for public office swears in his COC that he is
eligible for the elective posts he seeks, while, in reality, he
knowingly lacks the necessary requirements for eligibility, he
commits a false material misrepresentation cognizable under
Section 78 of the OEC.
The new Third District where Naval was elected and has
served is composed of the same municipalities comprising the
previous Second District, absent the towns Gainza and Milaor.
The territorial jurisdiction Naval seeks to serve for the term
2013-2016 is the same as the territorial jurisdiction he
previously served. The electorate who voted for him in 2004,
2007 and 2010 is the same electorate who shall vote for him
come May 13, 2013 Elections. They are the same group of
voters who elected him into office for three consecutive terms.
COMELEC en banc’s Resolution: Denied Naval’s Motion
for Reconsideration to the above. The COMELEC pointed out
that absent the verification required under Section 3, Rule 19 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Naval’s motion was
instantly dismissible. Nonetheless, according to the
COMELEC, it is clear that the position to which Naval has
filed his candidacy for the 13 May 2013 elections is the same
position for which he had been elected and had served for the
past nine (9) years. The enactment of R.A. No. 9716 did not
convert Naval’s post into one different from what he
previously had.
ISSUE:
WON Naval’s, a provincial board member, election to the
same position for the third and fourth time, but now in
representation of the renamed district, a violation of the three-
term limit rule.
RULING:
YES. With 26 in favor and 17 against, the Constitutional
Commission approved that there is no immediate reelection
after three successive terms. For the Body believed that the
imposition of term limits would be tantamount to squandering
the experience of seasoned public servants and a curtailment of
the power of the citizens to elect whoever they want to remain
in the office.
As worded, the constitutional provision fixes the term of a
local elective office and limits an elective official’s stay in
office to no more than three consecutive terms. The
“limitation” under this first branch of the provision is
expressed in the negative—“no such official shall serve for
more than three consecutive terms.” This formulation—no
more than three consecutive terms—is a clear command
suggesting the existence of an inflexible rule. This examination
of the wording of the constitutional provision and of the
circumstances surrounding its formulation impresses upon us
the clear intent to make term limitation a high priority
constitutional objective whose terms must be strictly construed
and which cannot be defeated by, nor sacrificed for, values of
less than equal constitutional worth.
In Naval’s case, the words of R.A. No. 9716 plainly state that
the new Second District is to be created, but the Third District
is to be renamed. Verba legis non est recedendum. The terms
used in a legal provision to be construed compels acceptance
and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the
postulate that the framers mean what they say.
The rationale behind reapportionment is the constitutional The Court accords primacy to upholding the will of the voting
requirement to achieve equality of representation among the public, the real sovereign, so to speak. However, let all the
districts. The aim of legislative apportionment is to equalize candidates for public office be reminded that as citizens, we
population and voting power among districts. The basis for have a commitment to be bound by our Constitution and laws.
districting shall be the number of the inhabitants of a city or a Side by side our privileges as citizens are restrictions too.
province and not the number of registered voters therein. It is
The drafters of the Constitution recognized the propensity of
with this mindset that the Court should consider Naval’s
public officers to perpetuate themselves in power, hence, the
argument anent having a new set of constituents electing him
adoption of term limits and a guarantee of every citizen’s equal
into office in 2010 and 2013.
access to public service. These are the restrictions statesmen
should observe for they are intended to help ensure the
Reapportionment is “the realignment or change in legislative continued vitality of our republican institutions. Petition is
districts brought about by changes in population and mandated DENIED. The Resolutions of the COMELEC are
by the constitutional requirement of equality of AFFIRMED.
representation.”
Naval’s ineligibility to run, by reason of violation of the three-
term limit rule, does not undermine the right to equal
representation of any of the districts in Camarines Sur. With or
without him, the renamed Third District, which he labels as a
new set of constituents, would still be represented, albeit by
another eligible person.
In sum, the Court finds no compelling reason to grant the
reliefs prayed for by Naval. For the Court to declare otherwise
would be to create a dangerous precedent unintended by the
drafters of our Constitution and of R.A. No. 9716. Considering
that the one-term gap or rest after three consecutive elections is
a result of a compromise among the members of the
Constitutional Commission, no cavalier exemptions or
exceptions to its application is to be allowed. Further,
sustaining Naval’s arguments would practically allow him to
hold the same office for 15 years.
BANAT vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009| CARPIO, J.:
Petitioner: BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR
NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY
(BANAT),
Respondent: COMELEC
FACTS:
BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-
List Representatives Provided by the Constitution. On July
2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC (National Board of
Canvassers), proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as winners in the
party-list elections based on the presumptive two percent (2%)
threshold of votes were thus given one (1) guaranteed party-list
seat each.
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.
1. at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast = guarantee
one (1) seat
2. those garnering more than two percent (2%) = additional
seats in proportion to their total number of votes
3. to not more than three (3) seats.
BUHAY party-list obtained the highest number of votes
among the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and
coalitions, making it the “first party” in accordance with
Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC.
ISSUES:
1. Is the twenty percent (20%) allocation for party-list
representatives in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution
mandatory or merely a ceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941
constitutional?
3. Is the two percent (2%) threshold prescribed in Section 11(b)
of RA 7941 to qualify for one seat constitutional?
4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated?
5. 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: Section 5(2), Article VI is computed this way, as
reiterated in Veterans formula:
The formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical
interpretation of the term “proportional representation,” this Number of seats Number of seats
Court is compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of available to available to
additional seats to party-list organizations. legislative districts x .20 =
party-list representatives
Number of Party-List Representatives: .80
The Formula Mandated by the Constitution
This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the
The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 reads: number of seats available for party-list representatives
whenever a legislative district is created by law. Since the 14th
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. — Congress of the Philippines has 220 district representatives,
The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per there are 55 seats available to party-list representatives.
centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House
of Representatives including those under the party-list. 220 x .20 = 55 seat available to party-
list representatives
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides: .80

Section 5(1), Article VI - The “House of

Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law.”
The House of Representatives shall be composed of district
representatives and party-list representatives. The Constitution
allows the legislature to modify the number of the members of
the House of Representatives.
Section 5 (2), Article VI - The party-list representatives
shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of
representatives including those under the party-list.
Allocation of Seats for Party-List Representatives:
The Statutory Limits Presented by the Two Percent Threshold
and the Three-Seat Cap
All parties agree on the formula to determine the
guaranteed seats to party-list candidates garnering at least two-
percent of the total party-list votes. However, there are
numerous interpretations of the provisions of R.A. No. 7941 on
the allocation of “additional seats” under the Party-List
System.
Section 11 and Section 12 of RA No. 7941 provide:
1. rank from the highest to the lowest
2. at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast =
guarantee one (1) seat
3. garnering more than two percent (2%) = additional seat
= unconstitutional
4. not more than three (3) seats.
The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides
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.” This is where petitioners’ and intervenors’
problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets
the clause “in proportion to their total number of votes” to be in
proportion to the votes of the first party. This interpretation is
contrary to the express language of R.A. No. 7941. The Court
rule this as unconstitutional.
This Court finds that the two percent (2%) threshold for
additional seat makes it mathematically impossible to achieve
the maximum number of 20% allocation for party list.
In computing the additional seats, fractional seats are
disregarded in the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941
allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats.
In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional,
we do not limit our allocation of additional seats to the two-
percenters.
Two steps of additional seat allocation:
1. The percentage is multiplied by the remaining
available seats, 38, which is the difference between the 55
maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the
17 guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer
of the product of the percentage and of the remaining available
seats corresponds to a party’s share in the remaining available
seats.
Let’s take the case of BAYAN MUNA for an example
computation:
BAYAN MUNA = 6.14% x 38 = 233.32 / 100 = 2.33 =
therefore, 2 additional seat
2. Assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next
in rank until all available seats are completely distributed. We
distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of
seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to
determine the
Participation of Major Political Parties in Party-List Elections:
Congress, in enacting R.A. No. 7941, put the three-seat
cap to prevent any party from dominating the party-list
elections.
 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. 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.
Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission state that major political parties
are allowed to establish, or form coalitions with, sectoral
organizations for electoral or political purposes. There should
not be a problem if, for example, the Liberal Party participates
in the party-list election through the Kabataang Liberal ng
Pilipinas (KALIPI), its sectoral youth wing. The other major
political parties can thus organize, or affiliate with, their
chosen sector or sectors.
Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary
that the party-list organization’s nominee “wallow in poverty,
destitution and infirmity” as there is no financial status
required in the law. It is enough that the nominee of the
sectoral party/organization/coalition belongs to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, that is, if the
nominee represents the fisherfolk, he or she must be a
fisherfolk, or if the nominee represents the senior citizens, he
or she must be a senior citizen.
However, by a 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.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates the
filling-up of the entire 20% allocation of party-list
representatives found in the Constitution. The Constitution, in
paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI, left the determination of
the number of the members of the House of Representatives to
Congress: “The House of Representatives shall be composed
of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, x x x.” 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.
However, we cannot allow the continued existence of a
provision in the law which will systematically prevent the
constitutionally allocated 20% party-list representatives from
being filled. The two percent (2%) threshold for additional seat
makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum
number of 20% allocation.
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.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition.
We declare unconstitutional the two percent (2%) threshold in
the distribution of additional party-list seats. Major political
parties are disallowed from participating in party-list elections.
ATONG PAGLAUM v COMELEC
G.R NO. 203766, April 2, 2013 | Davide, Jr., J.
Petitioner: Atong Paglaum
Respondents: Commission on Elections
FACTS
54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and
Prohibition filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations
assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating
in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their
petitions for registration under the party-list system, or
cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list
organizations.
The COMELEC disqualified groups and organizations from
participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections based on
jurisprudence. 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, the case is remanded
to 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 the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No.
7941) and COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531,
approximately 280 groups and organizations registered and
manifested their desire to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-
list elections.
The COMELEC disqualified groups and organizations from
participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections PBB
(Partido ng Bayan ng Bida) was denied participation in the 13
May 2013 party-list elections because
a. PBB does not represent any "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector;
b. PBB failed to apply for registration as a party-
list group;
c. PBB failed to establish its track record as an
organization that seeks to uplift the lives of the
"marginalized and underrepresented.
The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May
2013 party-list elections those that did not satisfy these two
criteria:
d. all national, regional, and sectoral groups or
organizations must represent the "marginalized
and underrepresented" sectors
e. all nominees must belong to the "marginalized
and underrepresented" sector they represent.
f. as political or regional parties they are not
organized along sectoral lines and do not
represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented."
g. petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the
sectors they represent may have been
disqualified, although they may have a track
record of advocacy for their sectors.
 h. nominees of non-sectoral parties may have been
disqualified because they do not belong to any
sector.
i. a party may have been disqualified because one
or more of its nominees failed to qualify, even if
the party has at least one remaining qualified
nominee.
ISSUE: 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, either by denial of their new petitions for
registration under the party-list system, or by cancellation of
their existing registration and accreditation as party-list
organizations
RULING: NO.
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, the court decided to 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 the Decision
The Party-List System
The voter elects two representatives in the House of
Representatives
a. one for his or her legislative district
b. another for his or her party-list group or
organization of choice
Section 5 Article VI of the Constitution
(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
Christian S. Monsod: "the party-list system is not synonymous
with that of the sectoral representation."
Sectoral representation in the Assembly: certain sectors would
have reserved seats; that they will choose among themselves
who would sit in those reserved seats
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.
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
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."
The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral
parties is that they cannot expect to win in legislative district
elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at least
the same number of votes that winning candidates can garner in
legislative district elections. The party-list system will be the
entry point to membership in the House of Representatives for
both these non-traditional parties that could not compete in
legislative district elections.
The party-list system is composed of three different groups:
c. (1) national parties or organizations;
d. (2) regional parties or organizations; and
e. (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.
The party-list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties for
2 reasons:
A. 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."
B. 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," making the party-list
system fully open after the end of the first three congressional
terms. 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.
Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act
Party: either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of
parties
A. Political party: 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.
B. Sectoral party: 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
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
ISSUE: 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.
RULING: NO.
Ang Bagong Bayani: “while even major political parties are
expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to
participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the
declared statutory policy of enabling ‘Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors xxx to
be elected to the House of Representatives.’
Bagong Bayani guidelines for qualifying those who desire or
participate in party-list systems:
The political party, sector, organization or coalition must
represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups
identified in Section 5 of RA 7941 While even major political
parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution
to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with
the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x
to be elected to the House of Representatives”. The religious
sector may not be represented in the party-list system
A party or an organization must not be disqualified under
Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for
disqualification as follows:
i. It is a religious sect or denomination,
organization or association, organized
for religious purposes
ii. It advocates violence or unlawful means
to seek its goal
iii. 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
iv. It violates or fails to comply with laws,
rules or regulations relating to elections
v. It declares untruthful statements in its
petition
vi. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1)
year
vii. 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
The party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a
project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the
government
The party must not only comply with the requirements of the
law; its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941
reads as follows:
No person shall be nominated as party-list
representative unless:
1. he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines,
2. a registered voter a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than
one (1)year immediately preceding the
day of the election,
3. able to read and write,
4. a bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent
for at least ninety (90) days preceding
the day of the election,
5. is at least twenty-five (25) years of age
on the day of the election
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he
must
1. at least be twenty-five (25) but not more
than thirty (30) years of age on the day
of the election.
2. Any youth sectoral representative who
attains the age of thirty (30) during his
term shall be allowed to continue in
office until the expiration of his term.
Not only the candidate party or organization must represent
marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its
nominees. The nominee must likewise be able to contribute to
the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
will benefit the nation as a whole.
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, In
following prevailing jurisprudence, the COMELEC could not
have committed grave abuse of discretion. It would not be in
accord with the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to apply
the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining
who are qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013
party-list elections. For this purpose, we suspend our rule that a
party may appeal to this Court from decisions or orders of the
COMELEC only if the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion
qualified to register under the party-list system under the
parameters prescribed in this Decision but they shall not
participate in the 13 May 2013 part-list elections. The 41
petitions, which have been granted mandatory injunctions to
include the names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are
remanded to the Commission on Elections for determination
whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-list
system and to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list
elections under the parameters prescribed in this Decision. The
Commission on Elections may conduct summary evidentiary
hearings for this purpose. This Decision is immediately
executory.

Exemptions or incentives granted to natural or juridical persons

are withdrawn except those granted to local water districts,
cooperatives duly registered under RA 6938, non-stock and
non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, and otherwise
provided by RA 7160.

The present petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC

not because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners
may now possibly qualify to participate in the coming 13 May
2013 party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed
by this Court.

All the present 54 petitions are GRANTED. The 13 petitions,

which have been granted Status Quo Ante Orders but without
mandatory injunction to include the names of petitioners in the
printing of ballots, are remanded to the Commission on
Elections only for determination whether petitioners are
Ang LADLAD Vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 190582, April 08, 2010 ; DEL CASTILLO
Petitioner: ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY REPRESENTED
HEREIN BY ITS CHAIR, DANTON REMOTO
Respondent: COMELEC
FACTS:
The case has its roots in the COMELEC's refusal to accredit
Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization under RA 7941 or the
Party-List System Act. Ang Ladlad is an organization
composed of men and women who identify themselves as
LGBTs (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered
individuals). They were incorporated in 2003 and was denied
accreditation for lack of substantial membership base.
COMELEC's First Resolution:
Ang Ladlad collides with Article 695 of the Civil Code which
defines nuisance as 'any act or ommission, establishment,
business, condition of property, or anything else which shocks,
defies, or disregards decency or morality.' It also collides with
Art 1306 of the Civil Code: The contracting parties may
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The
granting of this petition would mean exposing our children to
an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our
faith.
Petitioners sought reconsideration but the First Resolution was
affirmed, stating:
The spirit of RA 7941... Even stating that it has properly
proven its under-representation and marginalization, it cannot
be said that Ladlad's expressed sexual orientations per se would
benefit the nation as a whole.
The party-list system is not a tool to advocate tolerance and
acceptance of misunderstood persons or groups. Rather, it is a
tool for the realization of aspirations of marginalized
individuals whose interests are also the nation's. Until the time
comes when Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual
orientations and transgender identities is beneficial to the
nation, its application for accreditation under the party-list will
remain just that.
On public morals, “as a society, the Philippines cannot ignore
its more than 500 years of Muslim and Christian upbringing,
such that some moral precepts espoused by said religions have
seeped into society and these are not publicly accepted moral
norms.
Petitioners prayed for the annulment of the Resolution and an
ex parte of a preliminary mandatory injunction against the
COMELEC's printing of the final ballots.
CHR: CHR filed a Motion to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus
Curiae and opined that the denial of petition of Ang Ladlad on
moral grounds violated the standards and principles of the
Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
OSG: OSG concurred with petitioner and argued that
COMELEC erred in denying accreditation.
ISSUE:
Whether Ang Ladlad party-list should be given accreditation
RULING: We explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, "the enumeration of
marginalized and under-represented sectors is not exclusive"
Ground of making untruthful statements - this is irregular
procedure; at worst, a belated afterthought, a change in
respondent's theory, and a serious violation of petitioner's right
to procedural due process.
The Supreme Court finds no misrepresentation – Ang ladlad
never claimed to exist in each province of the Philippines.
Rather, petitioner alleged that the LGBT community in the
Philippines was estimated to constitute at least 670,000
persons; that it had 16,100 affiliates and members around the
country, and 4,044 members in its electronic discussion group.
Ang Ladlad also represented itself to be "a national LGBT
umbrella organization with affiliates around the Philippines
composed of the following LGBT networks:"
Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with
the legal requirements for accreditation. Indeed, aside from
COMELEC's moral objection and the belated allegation of
non-existence, nowhere in the records has the respondent ever
found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to register as a
party-list organization under any of the requisites under RA
7941 or the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani.
Religion as the Basis for Refusal to Accept Ang Ladlad's
Petition for Registration
Our non-establishment clause calls for is "government
neutrality in religious matters." government must act for
secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular
effects. We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-
establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible
and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
Public Morals as a Ground to Deny Ang Ladlad's Petition
for Registration Even though society disapproves of
homosexuality, it has not been criminalized. The resolutions
have not specific any overt immoral acts by ang ladlad.
Comelec did not say what societal ills are sought to be
prevented, why special protection is needed for the youth, or
how admission into the party-list system would be harmful to
society. We cannot countenance advocates who, undoubtedly
with the loftiest of intentions, situate morality on one end of an
argument or another, without bothering to go through the rigors
of legal reasoning and explanation.
As references to NCC and RPC - mere allegation of violation
of laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invocation of public
morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal
proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or
culpability.
Equal protection
Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither burdens
a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold
the classification as long as it bears a rational relationship to
some legitimate government end.
The COMELEC posits that the majority of the Philippine
population considers homosexual conduct as immoral and
unacceptable, and this constitutes sufficient reason to
disqualify the petitioner. Unfortunately for the respondent, the
Philippine electorate has expressed no such belief. No law
exists to criminalize homosexual behavior
The COMELEC's differentiation, and its unsubstantiated claim
that Ang Ladlad cannot contribute to the formulation of
legislation that would benefit the nation, furthers no legitimate
state interest other than disapproval of or dislike for a
disfavored group. From the standpoint of the political process,
the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender have the same
interest in participating in the party-list system on the same
basis as other political parties similarly situated.
Petitioner itself has merely demanded that it be recognized
under the same basis as all other groups similarly situated, and
that the COMELEC made "an unwarranted and impermissible
classification not justified by the circumstances of the case."
Freedom of Expression and Association - Under our system
of laws, every group has the right to promote its agenda and
attempt to persuade society of the validity of its position
through normal democratic means.
It is in the public square that deeply held convictions and
differing opinions should be distilled and deliberated upon.
Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to
the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any compelling state
interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose its
views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is
certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason
than promoting an approved message or discouraging a
disfavored one.
These foreign authorities, while not formally binding on
Philippine courts, may nevertheless have persuasive influence
on the Court's analysis. Foreign authorities – US - ruled that
existing free speech doctrines protect gay and lesbian rights to
expressive conduct
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly
stated that a political party may campaign for a change in the
law or the constitutional structures of a state if it uses legal and
democratic means and the changes it proposes are consistent
with democratic principles.
The petitioner has been precluded, because of COMELEC's
action, from publicly expressing its views as a political party
and participating on an equal basis in the political process with
other equally-qualified party-list candidates, we find that there
has, indeed, been a transgression of petitioner's fundamental
rights.
Non-Discrimination and International Law
ICCPR and UNDHR believe that the principle of non-
discrimination requires that laws of general application relating
to elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless of
sexual orientation.
Petitioner's invocation of the Yogyakarta Principles (the
Application of International Human Rights Law In Relation to
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity),which petitioner
declares to reflect binding principles of international law. - At
this time, we are not prepared to declare that these Yogyakarta While the enumeration of the marginalized and
Principles contain norms that are obligatory on the Philippines. underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates the
clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented
So much of contemporary international law is characterized by under the party-list system.
the "soft law" nomenclature, i.e., international law is full of
principles that promote international cooperation, harmony,
and respect for human rights, most of which amount to no more
than well-meaning desires, without the support of either State
practice or opinio juris.

This Court's role is not to impose its own view of acceptable

behavior. Rather, it is to apply the Constitution and laws as
best as it can, uninfluenced by public opinion, and confident in
the knowledge that our democracy is resilient enough to
withstand vigorous debate.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The

Resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated November
11, 2009 and December 16, 2009 in SPP No. 09-228 (PL) are
hereby SET ASIDE. The Commission on Elections is directed
to GRANT petitioner's application for party-list accreditation.

Dissenting Opinions:
Corona:
According to RA 7941, the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors to be represented under the party-list system are
enumerated as that sectors including labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals.
AMORES v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (2010)
G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010; J. VILLANUEVA
Petitioner: MILAGROS E. AMORES
Respondent: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and EMMANUEL JOEL
FACTS:
Milagros E. Amores filed a petition for Quo Warranto before
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
seeking the ouster of Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva alleging,
among others, that Villanueva was disqualified to be a nominee
of the youth sector of the party-list organization Citizens’
Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) as he was already 31 years
old or beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9 of RA
No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) and his change of affiliation
from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino works and
their families sector was not affected as least six months prior
to the May 14, 2007 elections so as to be qualified to represent
the new sector under Section 15 of RA No. 7941.
The HRET dismissed Amores’ petition on the grounds that
first, the age qualification for youth sectoral nominees under
Section 9 of RA No. 7941 applied only to those nominated as
such during the first three congressional terms after the
ratification of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral
party is thereafter registered exclusively as representing the
youth sector, which CIBAC, a multi-sectoral organization, is
not and second, Section 15 of RA No. 7941 did not apply to
Villanueva’s shift of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to
its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector as there
was no resultant change in party-list affiliation. Amores’
motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Villanueva is disqualified under Section 9 of
R.A. 7941
2. Whether Section 15 of R.A. 7941 applies in this case
RULING:
It bears noting that the term of office of party-list
representatives elected in the May, 2007 elections will expire
on June 30, 2010. While the petition has, thus, become moot
and academic, rendering of a decision on the merits in this case
would still be of practical value.
1. Villanueva is disqualified.
Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No
person shall be nominated as party-list representative
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of
not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of
the election, able to read and write, a bona fide member of
the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at
least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and
is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the
election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be
twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age
on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral
representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his
term shall be allowed to continue in office until the
 expiration of his term. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
The Court finds no textual support for public respondent’s
interpretation that Section 9 applied only to those nominated
during the first three congressional terms after the ratification
of the Constitution or until 1998, unless a sectoral party is
thereafter registered exclusively as representing the youth
sector.
As the law states in unequivocal terms that a nominee of the
youth sector must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than
thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election, so it must be
that a candidate who is more than 30 on election day is not
qualified to be a youth sector nominee. Since this mandate is
contained in RA No. 7941, the Party-List System Act, it covers
ALL youth sector nominees vying for party-list representative
seats.
As petitioner points out, RA No. 7941 was enacted only in
March, 1995. There is thus no reason to apply Section 9 thereof
only to youth sector nominees nominated during the first three
congressional terms after the ratification of the Constitution in
1987. Under this interpretation, the last elections where Section
9 applied were held in May, 1995 or two months after the law
was enacted. This is certainly not sound legislative intent, and
could not have been the objective of RA No. 7941.
There is likewise no rhyme or reason in public respondent’s
ratiocination that after the third congressional term from the
ratification of the Constitution, which expired in 1998, Section
9 of RA No. 7941 would apply only to sectoral parties
registered exclusively as representing the youth sector. This
distinction is nowhere found in the law. Ubi lex non distinguit
nec nos distinguire debemus. When the law does not
distinguish, we must not distinguish.
2. Section 15 of RA No. 7941 applies.
Respecting Section 15 of RA No. 7941, the Court fails to find
even an iota of textual support for public respondent’s
ratiocination that the provision did not apply to private
respondent’s shift of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to
its overseas Filipino workers and their families sector as there
was no resultant change in party-list affiliation. Section 15
reads:
Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect. Any elected
party-list representative who changes his political party
or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall
forfeit his seat: Provided, That if he changes his
political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6)
months before an election, he shall not be eligible for
nomination as party-list representative under his new
party or organization. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
What is clear is that the wording of Section 15 covers changes
in both political party and sectoral affiliation. And the latter
may occur within the same party since multi-sectoral party-list
organizations are qualified to participate in the Philippine
party-list system. Hence, a nominee who changes his sectoral
affiliation within the same party will only be eligible for
nomination under the new sectoral affiliation if the change has
been effected at least six months before the elections.
It is, therefore, beyond cavil that Sections 9 and 15 of RA No.
7941 apply to private respondent. The Court finds that private
respondent was not qualified to be a nominee of either the
youth sector or the overseas Filipino workers and their families
sector in the May, 2007 elections. The records disclose that
private respondent was already more than 30 years of age in
May, 2007, it being stipulated that he was born in August,
1975. Moreover, he did not change his sectoral affiliation at
least six months before May, 2007, public respondent itself
having found that he shifted to CIBAC’s overseas Filipino
workers and their families sector only on March 17, 2007.
ABAYON V HRET
G.R. NO. 222236, MAY 3, 2016 ; MENDOZA, J
PETITIONER : HARLIN C. ABAYON,
RESPONDENT: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTOLRAL TRIBUNAL (HRET) AND RAUL A.
DAZA
FACTS:
Petitioner Harlin Abayon was running for the position of
Representative of the First Legislative District of Northern
Samar. While Respondent Raul Daza also running for the
position of Representative of the First Legislative District of
Northern Samar. In the May 13, 2013 elections, out of the 332
clustered precincts in the First District of N.S, Abayon
garnered the majority vote. On May 17, 2013, Abayon was
duly proclaimed as a member of the HoR.
On May 31, 2013, Daza filed his Election Protest challenging
the election results in 25 precincts in the Municipalities of
Biri, Capul, Catarman, Lavezares, San Isidro and Victoria. He
alleged that there was massive fraud, vote-buying and that
terrorism was committed by Abayon and his supporters. On
Aug 1, 2013, Abayon filed his verified answer with a counter-
protest, where he challenged the results in ALL precincts.
On Feb 27, HRET conducted revision proceedings in the 25
precincts protested by Daza. Abayon was still the winner here.
Thereafter, Daza moved for the withdrawal of his cause of
action for the recount and revision but maintained his prayer
for the annulment of election results on the ground of
terrorism.
HRET granted Daza’s motion. HRET annulled the election
results in 5 precincts because of the commission of massive
terrorism. When HRET deducted the votes from the precincts,
Daza was the winner.
This decision was supported by testimonial and documentary
evidence presented by Daza, which are as follows:
National Democratic Front -Easter Visayas had already shown
its animosity and hostility towards Daza through posting of
statements declaring them as enemies of the people of Samar.
Comics vilifying them were distributed
Pulong-pulongs” were hold where NDF-EV exhorted the
attendees to vote against Daza. His supporters from Liberal
Party were prevented from campaigning Abayon had meetings
with NDF-EV officials. NDF-EV armed partisans were
deployed around the school premises on election day, which
the HRET found as convincing.
HRET disregarded the certifications issued by the Provinsial
Election Supervisor Atty. Gulay Jr. and P/Ssupt. Lenaming ,
indicating that there was no failure of elections and that the
conduct was generally peaceful despite the occurrence of two
incidents, because they were not presented to testify. The
HRET concluded that since the terrorism affected more than
50% of the votes cast in the precincts and it was impossible to
distinguish from the good votes from the bad, the annulment
was warranted.
Petitioners argued that the HRET had no jurisdiction to nullify
the election results since it was akin to a declaration of failure
of elections, it was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
COMELEC pursuant to Sec. 4 of RA 7166.
Even if HRET had jurisdiction, there was no clear and
convincing evidence to establish that terrorism affected more
than 50% of the votes, and that it was impossible to distinguish
the good votes from the bad. He relies on the certifications of
COMELEC and PNP.
On the other hand the respondent argued that HRET had
jurisdiction. and there was clear and convincing evidence to
justify the annulment.
Hence this petition for Certiorari
2. NO. Annulment of elections is only warranted in
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not HRET had jurisdiction over the
annulment of elections.
2. If HRET had jurisdiction, WON HRET had grounds to
annul the elections.
RULING:
1. YES. The power to annul elections is Constitutionally
granted to the HRET by virtue of Sec 17, Article VI.
An Election Protest proposes to oust the winning
candidate from office. It is a contest between the
winning candidate and the defeated candidate, based on
frauds or irregularities. The power of HRET to annul
elections differ from the power granted to the
COMELEC to declare failure of elections. The power
granted by the Constitution necessarily includes those
which raise the issue of fraud and terrorism to warrant
the annulment.
First, the power granted to COMELEC is under its
administrative function. While the power of the HRET
is an incident of its judicial function.
Second, HRET only annuls election results connected
with the election contest brought to it, while the
COMELEC declares the failure of the ENTIRE
election.
Therefore, there was no overlap of jurisdiction, and
HRET has jurisdiction.
exceptional circumstances. This case does not warrant
the annulment.
There are two indispensable requisites that must concur
in order to justify the nullification (good to know
concepts). None of the ballots of the witnesses of the
respondent were subjected to terroristic acts. No
evidence was presented which directly points to the
petitioner as the one perpetrated the commission of the
terroristic acts. There was also no report from the PNP
to the COMELEC of the commission of massive
terrorism, as provided for in Comelec resolution 9583.
The other witnesses only testified that there was
violence committed by the NDF-EV but not the fact
that they voted for Abayon because of fear.

The certification of the COMELEC and PNP should be

given weight against the unsubstantiated claims of Daza
since the presumption is that it was issued in the regular
performance of their duties.

Therefore, the decision of the HRET to annul the

election was clearly unsupported by clear and
convincing evidence.

The requisites for declaring the annulment of the

election are as follows:

- Illegality of the ballots must affect MORE THAN

50% of the votes cast on the specific precinct/s
sought to be annulled, or in case of the entire
municipality, more than 50% of its total precincts
and the votes cast therein
- It is impossible to distinguish with reasonable
certainty between the lawful and unlawful ballots.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the HRET is reversed

and set aside. Abayon is declared as the lawfully
elected Representative.
LICO v. COMELEC
GR No. 205505, September 29, 2015; SERENO, C.J
PETITIONER: ISIDRO LICO
RESPONDENT: COMELEC
FACTS:
Ating Koop filed its Manifestation of Intent to Participate in
the Party- List System of Representation for the May 2010
Elections. Also, a list of its nominees was filed with the
COMELEC, the list includes petitioner Atty. Isidro Lico.
Subsequently, COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as one of
the winning party-list groups and Ating Koop earned a seat in
the House of Representatives. Petitioner Lico took his oath of
office and thereafter assumed office.
Several months prior to its proclamation as one of the winning
party- list organizations, Ating Koop issued Central
Committee Resolution 2010-01, which incorporated a term-
sharing agreement signed by its nominees. Under the
agreement, petitioner Lico was to serve as Party- list
Representative for the first year of the three-year term
Ating Koop introduced amendments to its Constitution and
By-laws. Among the salient changes was the composition of
the Central Committee. The amendments likewise mandated
the holding of an election of Central Committee members
within six months after the Second National Convention.
In effect, the amendments cut short the three-year term of the
incumbent members (referred to hereafter as the Interim
Central Committee) of the Central Committee. The said
Interim Central Committee was dominated by members of the
Rimas Group.
Almost one year after petitioner Lico had assumed office, the
Interim Central Committee expelled him from Ating Koop for
disloyalty. Apart from allegations of malversation and graft
and corruption, the Committee cited petitioner Lico's refusal to
honor the term-sharing agreement as factual basis for
disloyalty and as cause for his expulsion under Ating Koop's
Amended Constitution and By-laws.
Rimas Group lodged a petition with COMELEC against
petitioner Lico and prayed that petitioner Lico. be ordered to
vacate the office of Ating Koop in the House of
Representatives.
The COMELEC En Banc held that it had no jurisdiction to
expel Congressman Lico from the House of Representatives,
considering that his expulsion from Ating Koop affected his
qualifications as member of the House of Representatives, and
it is the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
that had jurisdiction over the Petition. However, the
COMELEC upheld the validity of petitioner Lico's expulsion
from Ating Koop, explaining that when the Interim Central
Committee ousted him from Ating Koop, the said
Committee's members remained in hold-over capacity even
after their terms had expired and that the COMELEC was not
in a position to substitute its judgment for that of Ating Koop
with respect to the cause of the expulsion.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Commission on Election (COMELEC) has
jurisdiction over the expulsion of a sitting party-list
representative: from the House of Representatives, on the one
hand and from his party-list organization, on the other.
RULING:
The COMELEC En Banc held that it had no jurisdiction to
expel Congressman Lico from the House of Representatives,
considering that his expulsion from Ating Koop affected his
qualifications as member of the House, and therefore it was.the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) that had
jurisdiction over the Petition.
The Court held that it was for the HRET to interpret the
meaning of the requirement of bona fide membership in a
party-list organization. It reasoned that under Section 17,
Article VI of the Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all
contests when it comes to qualifications of the members of the
House of Representatives.
The COMELEC upheld the validity of petitioner Lico's
expulsion from Ating Koop, explaining that when the Interim
Central Committee ousted him from Ating Koop, the said
Committee's members remained in hold-over capacity even
after their terms had expired and that the COMELEC was not
in a position to substitute its judgment for that of Ating Koop
with respect to the cause of the expulsion.
We find that while the COMELEC correctly dismissed the
Petition to expel petitioner Lico from the House of
Representatives for being beyond its jurisdiction, it
nevertheless proceeded to rule upon the validity of his
expulsion from Ating Koop - a matter beyond its purview.
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution... ndows the
HRET with jurisdiction to resolve questions on the
qualifications of members of Congress. In the case of party-list
representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over a
disqualification case upon proclamation of the winning party-
list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of office as
member of the House of Representative
In this case, the COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as a
winning party-list group; petitioner Lico took his oath and he
assumed office in the House of Representatives. Thus, it is the
HRET, and not the COMELEC, that has jurisdiction over the
disqualification case.
We find to be without legal basis, however, is the action of the
COMELEC in upholding the validity of the expulsion of
petitioner Lico from Ating Koop, despite its own ruling that the
HRET has jurisdiction over the disqualification issue. These
findings already touch upon the qualification requiring a party-
list nominee to be a bona fide member of the party-list group
sought to be represented.
The rules on intra-party matters and on the jurisdiction of the
HRET are not parallel concepts that do not intersect. Rather,
the operation of the rule on intra-party matters is circumscribed
by Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and
jurisprudence on the jurisdiction of electoral tribunals. The
jurisdiction of the HRET is exclusive. It is given full authority
to hear and decide the cases on any matter touching on the
validity of the title of the proclaimed winner.
The Court held that it was for the HRET to interpret the
meaning of the requirement of bona fide membership in a
party-list organization. It reasoned that under Section 17,
Article VI of the Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all
contests when it comes to qualifications of the members of the
House of Representatives.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is

GRANTED. The COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 31
January 2013 and the COMELEC Second Division Resolution
dated 18 July 2012 in E.M. No. 12-039 are hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE insofar as it... declares valid the
expulsion of Congressman Lico from Ating Koop and it
upholds the ATING KOOP Party-list Group represented by its
President, Amparo T. Rimas, as the legitimate Party-list Group.
ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 206952. 22 October 2013; Reyes, J.
PETITIONER: ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST
RESPONDENT : COMMISSION ON ELECTION
FACTS:
ABANG LINGKOD is a sectoral organization that represented
the peasant farmers and fisherfolk. It participated in the 2010
elections but failed to obtain the necessary votes for a seat in
the House of Representatives. In May 2012, it manifested its
intent to participate in the 2013 elections with the COMELEC.
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9513 requiring previously
registered party-list groups to undergo evidentiary hearings to
determine compliance with RA 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-
OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC. In August 2012, ABANG
LINGKOD filed the pertinent documents to prove its
compliance with RA 7941.
In November 2012, the COMELEC En Banc issued a
Resolution cancelling the registration of ABANG LINGKOD,
on the ground that it failed to establish its track record in
uplifting the cause of the marginalized and underrepresented. It
only submitted photographs of alleged activities done after the
2010 elections. Furthermore, the nominees of ABANG
LINGKOD failed to show that they are themselves
marginalized and underrepresented, or that they have been
involved at activities aimed at improving the plight of these
same.
ABANG LINGKOD, along with 51 other party-list groups,
filed petitions for certiorari with the SC. In April 2013, the
Court rendered the Decision in the case of Atong Paglaum Inc.
v. COMELEC, which laid down new parameters in screening
groups for the party-list system:
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 interests 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 the 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 or 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.
Thus, the SC remanded the cases of the previously registered
party-list groups to the COMELEC to determine if they are
qualified under the parameters laid down by the Court. On May
10 2013, the COMELEC affirmed the cancellation of ABANG
LINGKOD without further evidentiary hearings due to the
proximity of the elections.
They affirmed the cancellation as the party-list must show
“consistent participation and advocacy in the sector, and not
just seasonal and sporadic programs which are unrelated to its
sector.” The evidence submitted by ABANG LINGKOD
consisted of pictures of a seminar on 10 July 2010, a Medical
Mission on 11 November 2010, Disaster Management Training
on 21 October 2011, Book-giving on 28 June 2011, and
Medical Mission on 1 December 2011.
Moreover, the photographs appeared to have been digitally
altered to superimpose the party’s name and logo on the
banners to feign participation in the event. The COMELEC
cancelled the registration of ABANG LINGKOD, as this
conduct was tantamount to declaring unlawful statements in its
petition.
ABANG LINGKOD filed an MR but withdrew this and filed
instead a petition for certiorari with the SC, as the election
returns were already being canvassed. It argued that its right to
due process was violated when the COMELEC affirmed the
cancellation of its registration without any evidentiary hearing,
and that there was no valid justification for the COMELEC to
cancel its registration as it had complied with the parameters in
Atong Paglaum.
ISSUES:
1) WON ABANG LINGKOD was denied due process
2) WON COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
cancelling the registration of ABANG LINGKOD
 1. No
Due Process
The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard; a
formal or trial-type hearing is not essential. In this case, the
COMELEC had afforded ABANG LINGKOD sufficient
opportunity to present evidence establishing its qualification as
a party-list group.
Resolution No. 9513 informed ABANG LINGKOD that its
registration would be reviewed by the COMELEC. Thus, it
was able to manifest its intent to participate in the 2013
elections and submit the necessary documents to establish its
qualifications.
No further hearings were necessary as COMELEC had
possession of the evidence it needed to review the
qualifications. Contrary to the claim of ABANG LINGKOD,
the Decision in Atong Paglaum did not require conduct of
evidentiary hearings for those groups which obtained
mandatory injunction, allowing them to participate in the 2013
elections. The dispositive only stated that the COMELEC “may
conduct summary evidentiary hearings.”
Moreover, ABANG LINGKOD was able to file an MR on the
Resolution cancelling its registration, negating its claim that it
was denied due process.
The flaw in the reasoning of the COMELEC is that it insists on
requiring party-list groups to present evidence, showing their
track record in representing the marginalized and
underrepresented. Notably, this was not required by RA 7941
but was only required as a result of the Ang Bagong Bayani-
OFW Labor Party case.
Track record cannot be considered as included in the
requirement in RA 7941 that a group submit “its constitution,
by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers,
coalition agreement and other relevant information as the
COMELEC may require.” These are pieces of documentary
evidence which establish that the group exists and is a going
concern, and which also provide an abstract of the ideals that
the party seek to achieve.
When Atong Paglaum modified the doctrine of who may
register under the party-list system, parties no longer even
needed to represent any marginalized and underrepresented
sector.
Representation of such sectors are only required for
organizations that purport to represent those sectors stated
under Sec. 5 of RA 9741, which are economically marginalized
and underrepresented. There was no mention in Atong
Paglaum that the organization would need to submit its track
record. It is enough that the group’s principal advocacy
pertains to the special interests and concerns of its sector, or
that the ideals it represents be geared towards the cause of their
sector.
If at all, evidence of track record is only required for the
nominees of sectoral organizations representing the
marginalized and underrepresented, who do not themselves
belong to the represented sector.
Disqualification for declaring untruthful statements
The Court does not condone the deceit perpetrated by ABANG
LINGKOD in submitting edited photographs. However, it
cannot be a ground for the cancellation of their registration as
track record is no longer a requirement.
The Court stated that “declaration of an untruthful statement”
as a ground for denial or cancellation of registration under
Section 6(6) of RA 9742 is akin to material representation in
the Certificate of Candidacy under Sec. 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code. Jurisprudence interpreting this latter provision
holds that the false representation must consist of a deliberate
attempt to mislead or hide a fact which would otherwise render
a candidate ineligible.
Since track record is no longer a requirement, the
misrepresentation in the photos is not an attempt to hide a fact
which would affect the qualification of ABANG LINGKOD as
a party-list group. Hence, it could not be used as a ground to
cancel their registration.
The COMELEC had also justified the cancellation on the fact
that ABANG LINGKOD did not adduce evidence to show the
track record of its nominees – a NGO worker, an employee,
and 3 farmers.
The Court disagreed, noting that under the parameters of Atong
Paglaum, the 3 farmers would not need to present track record
as they belong to the marginalized sector sought to be
represented. Under the sixth parameter of Atong Paglaum, the
party-list group would not be disqualified should some of its
nominees be disqualified, provided that at least one nominee
remains qualified.
2. No. Cancellation of party-list registration
Court finds that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
cancelling the registration of ABANG LINGKOD under the
party-list system. The COMELEC affirmed the cancellation of
ABANG LINGKOD's registration on the ground that it
declared untruthful statement in its bid for accreditation as a
party-list group in the May 2013 elections, pointing out that it
deliberately submitted digitally altered photographs of
activities to make it appear that it had a track record in
representing the marginalized and underrepresented.
Essentially, ABANG LINGKOD's registration was cancelled
on the ground that it failed to adduce evidence showing its
track record in representing the marginalized and
underrepresented.
R.A. No. 7941 did not require groups intending to register
under the party-list system to submit proof of their track record
as a group. The track record requirement was only imposed in
Ang Bagong Bayani where the Court held that national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations seeking
registration under the party-list system must prove through
their, inter alia, track record that they truly represent the
marginalized and underrepresented.
In Atong Paglaum, the Court has modified to a great extent the
jurisprudential doctrines on who may register under the party-
list system and the representation of the marginalized and
underrepresented. For purposes of registration under the party-
list system, national or regional parties or organizations need
not represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector;
that representation of the marginalized and underrepresented is
only required of sectoral organizations that represent the
sectors stated under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 that are, by
their nature, economically marginalized and underrepresented.
Contrary to the COMELEC's claim, sectoral parties or
organizations, such as ABANG LINGKOD, are no longer
required to adduce evidence showing their track record, i.e.
proof of activities that they have undertaken to further the
cause of the sector they represent. Indeed, it is enough that
their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. Otherwise stated, it is sufficient that
the ideals represented by the sectoral organizations are geared
towards the cause of the sector/s, which they represent.
Dissent of Justice Leonen
Leonen argues that organizations which seek to represent the
marginalized would still need to submit evidence of track
record while national and regional organizations would only
need to show existence as a bona fide organization.
Ponencia disagreed as this would result in an unjust situation
which would put a premium on national and regional
organizations, while imposing an additional burden on sectoral
organizations.
Leonen argued that Atong Paglaum did not explicitly reverse
the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. Hence, the track record
requirement would still subsist.
Ponencia disagreed as the track record requirement was for the
specific purpose of showing that the organization was truly
representative of the sector claimed. This was needed since
representation would be easy to claim and feign.
Under Atong Paglaum, not all groups would need to represent
a marginalized sector. Hence, there would no longer be any
need to feign representation. Even for sectoral organizations, it
is enough that their principal advocacy pertain to the sector
they represent.
Leonen also argued that the deceit practiced by ABANG
LINGKOD seriously puts in question its existence as a group
per se and the genuineness of its representation of the farmers
and fisherfolk.
Ponencia stated that the COMELEC cancelled the registration
solely for lack of evidence of track record, not for any issue on
its existence or representation. It would be unjust to scrutinize
these two when they were not at issue in the COMELEC.
Moreover, ABANG LINGKOD had previously participated in
the 2010 elections, and garnered 260,215 votes in the 2013
elections. These show that the group indeed exists as a
legitimate party-list group, and that the electorate considers the
group as truly representative of farmers and fisherfolk.