Veterans Federation Party v.
COMELEC Held:
[G.R. No. 136781. October 6, 2000]
Facts:
COMELEC proclaimed 14 party-list representatives from 13
parties which obtained at least 2% of the total number of
votes cast for the party-list system as members of the House
of Representatives. Upon petition for respondents, who were
party-list organizations, it proclaimed 38 additional party-
list representatives although they obtained less than 2% of
the total number of votes cast for the party-list system on the
ground that under the Constitution, it is mandatory that at
least 20% of the members of the House of Representatives
come from the party-list representatives.
Issue:
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?
Held:
It is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for the
party-list seats in the House of Representatives. The
Constitution vested Congress with the broad power to define
and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of
representatives. In the exercise of its constitutional
prerogative, Congress deemed it necessary to require parties
participating in the system to obtain at least 2% of the total
votes cast for the party list system to be entitled to a party-
list seat. Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties
having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of
representation are actually represented in Congress.
FORMULA FOR
determination of total number of party-list representatives
= #district representatives/.80 x .20
additional representatives of first party = # of votes of first
party/ # of votes of party list system
additional seats for concerned party = # of votes of
concerned party/ # votes of first party x additional seats
for concerned party
Issue:
Are the two percent threshold requirement and the three-seat
limit provided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
Yes. In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted
to ensure that only those parties, organizations and
coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents
deserving of representation are actually represented in
Congress. This intent can be gleaned from the deliberations
on the proposed bill. 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" to ensure meaningful local
representation.
Issue:
How should the additional seats of a qualified party be
determined?
Held:
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.
Step Three The next step is to solve for the number of
additional seats that the other qualified parties are entitled
to, based on proportional representation.
Bantay Republic Act. Vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 177271)
FACTS:
Before the Court are two consolidated petitions for certiorari
and mandamus to nullify and set aside certain issuances of the
Commission on Elections (Comelec) respecting party-list
groups which have manifested their intention to participate in
the party-list elections on May 14, 2007.
A number of organized groups filed the necessary
manifestations and subsequently were accredited by the
Comelec to participate in the 2007 elections. Bantay Republic
Act (BA-RA 7941) and the Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-
LR) filed with the Comelec an Urgent Petition seeking to
disqualify the nominees of certain party-list organizations.
Meanwhile petitioner Rosales, in G.R. No. 177314, addressed 2
letters to the Director of the Comelec’s Law Department
requesting a list of that groups’ nominees. Evidently
unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was the issuance of
Comelec en banc Resolution 07-0724 under date April 3, 2007
virtually declaring the nominees’ names confidential and in net
effect denying petitioner Rosales’ basic disclosure request.
According to COMELEC, there is nothing in R.A. 7941 that
requires the Comelec to disclose the names of nominees, and
that party list elections must not be personality oriented
according to Chairman Abalos.
In the first petition (G.R. No. 177271), BA-RA 7941 and UP-
LR assail the Comelec resolutions accrediting private
respondents Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the
forthcoming party-list elections without simultaneously
determining whether or not their respective nominees possess
the requisite qualifications defined in R.A. No. 7941, or the
"Party-List System Act" and belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector each seeks to.
In the second petition (G.R. No. 177314), petitioners Loreta
Ann P. Rosales, Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay
Katarungan Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution dated
April 3, 2007.
While both petitions commonly seek to compel the Comelec to
disclose or publish the names of the nominees of the various
party-list groups named in the petitions, BA-RA 7941 and UP-
LR have the additional prayers that the 33 private respondents
named therein be "declare[d] as unqualified to participate in the
party-list elections and that the Comelec be enjoined from
allowing respondent groups from participating in the elections.
ISSUE:
1. Can the Court cancel the accreditation accorded by the
Comelec to the respondent party-list groups named in their
petition on the ground that these groups and their
respective nominees do not appear to be qualified.
2. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal the
names of the nominees of the various party-list groups, has
violated the right to information and free access to
documents as guaranteed by the Constitution; and
3. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated by the
Constitution to disclose to the public the names of said
nominees.
Ruling:
1. The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of petitioners
BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of accreditation on
the grounds thus advanced in their petition. The exercise would
require the Court to make a factual determination, a matter
which is outside the office of judicial review by way of special
civil action for certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, the Court is
not called upon to decide factual issues and the case must be
decided on the undisputed facts on record. The sole function of
a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion and does not include a review of the
tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence. Also, the petitioner’s
posture that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion when it granted the assailed accreditations without
simultaneously determining the qualifications of their nominees
is without basis, Nowhere in R .A. No. 7941 is there a
requirement that the qualification of a party-list nominee be
determined simultaneously with the accreditation of an
organization.
2. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, viz:
Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records,
and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Section 28, Article II of the Constitution reading:
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the
State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure
of all its transactions involving public interest.
As may be noted, no national security or like concerns is
involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the
partylist groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed
grave abuse of discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of
the petitioners for a list of the nominees of the party-list groups
subject of their respective petitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies.
The last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. 7941 reading: "[T]he
names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the
certified list" is certainly not a justifying card for the Comelec
to deny the requested disclosure. To us, the prohibition imposed
on the Comelec under said Section 7 is limited in scope and
duration, meaning, that it extends only to the certified list which
the same provision requires to be posted in the polling places
on election day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition to
the absolute is to read into the law something that is not
intended. As it were, there is absolutely nothing in R.A. No.
7941 that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even
publishing through mediums other than the "Certified List" the
names of the party-list nominees. The Comelec obviously
misread the limited nondisclosure aspect of the provision as an
absolute bar to public disclosure before the May 2007 elections.
The interpretation thus given by the Comelec virtually tacks an
unconstitutional dimension on the last sentence of Section 7 of
R.A. No. 7941.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 177271 is partly
DENIED insofar as it seeks to nullify the accreditation of the
respondents named therein. However, insofar as it seeks to
compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the names of the
nominees of party-list groups, sectors or organizations
accredited to participate in the May 14, 2007 elections, the
same petition and the petition in G.R. No. 177314 are
GRANTED.
Cibac v. Comelec
Facts The correct formula in ascertaining the
entitlement to additional seats of the first
 Comelec, upon May 2004 election, issued party and other qualified party-list groups
Resolution No. NBC 04-004 that proclaims was clearly explicated in Veterans.
CIBAC as one of those qualified to occupy a
seat in Congress Number of votes of the first party /the Total
 CIBAC received 493,546 notes out of the votes for the party list system = Proportion
12,627,852 votes cast for all party-list of votes of first party relative to total votes
participants. A total of 3.9084% which relative for party list system.
forecloses the CIBAC's chance to have
additional seats. Since there is a conflict of formula between
 In 2004, CIBAC together with BUTIL and PM Bagong Bayani and Veterans Cases, the court
filed a motion to recognize their entitlement to ruled that the latter should prevail stating that
an additional seat basing their claim on Ang the case of Bagong Bayani is just a pro hac
Bagong Bayani v. Comelec applying: vice case and that the case of Veterans is the
general rule in computation.
Additional seats = votes of qualified party/votes cast
by first party x allotted seat for First Party Thus denying the petition of CIBAC for lack
of merit.
 In 2006, Comelec issued the challenged
Resolution No. 06-0248 containing excerpt
from the minutes of Regular En Banc meeting
of the Comelec resolving the issue by denying
the motion of CIBAC by following the Memo
of the CIC on Party-list concerns which
provides the simplified formula for resolution
of additional seats.
 CIBAC filed petition for certiorari

Issue:

 WON Comelec committed grave abuse of

discretion in using the simplified formula
in computing for additional seat in the
Congress

Ruling:

 No. Supreme Court looked at the enabling law on

the matter. RA 7941 declares that the State shall
promote proportional representation in the election
of its party-list in the House of Representatives.

In determining the number of seats a

party-list is entitled to, Sec. 11 prescribes
that:
“ 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 proportion to
their total number of votes: provided, nally,
that each party, organization, or coalition
shall be entitled to no more than three (3) [ GR No. 147589, Jun 26, 2001 ]
seats.” ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY v.
COMELEC
FACTS:
BAGONG BAYANI (petitioners) seeks the disqualification
of Private Respondents from the 2001 party-list elections.
With the onset of the 2001 party-list election, several
petitions for registration were filed by sectoral parties,
organizations and political parties. The COMELEC gave
due course or approval of manifestations of 154 parties but
denied those of several others as assailed in their Omnibus
Resolution No. 3785.
On this Omnibus Resolution, several petitions for the
removal and deletion of the names of herein Private
Respondents from the 'Certified List xxx in the Party List
System for the May 14, 2001 Elections'. Objecting that
Political Parties should not be included.
One of the petitioners, BAGONG BAYANI, submitted a
petition directly to the Supreme Court, contending that the
party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized
and underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties,
the non-marginalized or overrepresented, which the private
respondents (political parties) fall into.
Comments were gathered and Oral Arguments were
conducted by the Supreme Court, all accruing to the
following issues;
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not political parties may participate in
the party-list elections.
2) Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to
'marginalized and underrepresented' sectors and
organizations.
3) Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus
Resolution No. 3785.
HELD / RATIO:
1) YES. Under R.A. 7941, private respondent
cannot be disqualified merely on the grounds that they
are political parties, which is also in-line with S.5, Art.
VI of the Constitution.
R.A. 7941 allows political parties to participate in the party-
list election, being open to all "registered national, regional
and sectoral parties or organizations."
And S.5, Art. 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."
In the deliberation, it was discussed that the purpose of the
party-list provision was to open up the system, in order to
give a chance to parties (including political parties) xxx to
win a seat in Congress.
2) YES. Political parties MAY participate but such
character must be consistent with the purpose of the
party-list system as laid down in the Constitution and
R.A. No. 7941.
S.5, Art. VI – Constitution lays down that requisites of a
qualified party-list representative and those legible to
occupy a seat in the House of Representative.
• ¬ S.2 – R.A. No. 7941 – declare the policy
of required characteristics of party-list and their
representative;
• o who belong to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and
• o who lack well-defined constituencies; but
• o who could contribute to the formulation
and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
nation as a whole.
The party-list organization must factually and truly
represent the marginalized and underrepresented.
Party-list governed by big corporations are, in turn, not
allowed to be qualified, for “allowing the non-marginalized
and overrepresented to vie for the seat under the party-list
system will not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of
those the law seeks to be represented”.
3) YES.
It is manifested, in its assailed Omnibus Resolution that
the COMELEC failed to appreciate fully the policy of
the law and the constitution and ignore the facets of the
party-list system discussed above.
The Court favours the Petitioners BUT does not outright
disqualify the Private Respondents but remands the case
back to the COMELEC with an accommodating Guidelines
for Screening, and orders the COMELEC to conduct
summary evidentiary hearings of the qualifications of the
party-list participants.
GUIDELINES FOR SCREENING:
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition
must represent the marginalized and underrepresented
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941.
Second, major political parties xxx must show, however,
that they represent the interests of the marginalized and
underrepresented.
Third, xxx religious sector may not be represented in the
party-list system xxx "the prohibition is on any religious
organization registering as a political party. I do not see any
prohibition here against a priest running as a candidate. That
is not prohibited here; it is the registration of a religious sect
as a political party
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified
under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds
for disqualification as follows:
"(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or
association organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government,
foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether
directly or through any of its officers or members or
indirectly through third parties for partisan election
purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding
elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of
the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2)
preceding elections for the constituency in which it has
registered."
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of
xxx the government. By the very nature of the party-list
system, the party or organization must be a group of
citizens,organized by citizens and operated by citizens.
Sixth, its nominees must [comply with the requirements of
the law.] (SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees)
Seventh, its nominees must represent the marginalized and natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered
underrepresented sectors of society. voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not
Eighth, xxx while lacking a well-defined political less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of
constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to the election, able to read and write, a bona fide member
contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate of the party or organization which he seeks to represent
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the
election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on
STATUTES CITED; the day of the election.
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides as In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must
follows: at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than
"(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of thirty (30) years of age on the day of the
not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless election. Any youth sectoral representative who
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the be allowed to continue in office until the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of expiration of his term."
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."
RA 7941 was enacted. It laid out the statutory policy in this
wise:

"SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The State shall promote

proportional representation in the election of representatives
to the House of Representatives through a party-list system
of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable
Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and
who lack well-defined political constituencies but who
could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a
whole, to become members of the House of
Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop
and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to
attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral
or group interests in the House of Representatives by
enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the
legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible."

"SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized group of persons

may register as a party, organization or coalition for
purposes of the party-list system by filing with the
COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the
election a petition verified by its president or secretary
stating its desire to participate in the partylist system as a
national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a
coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto
its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of
government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other
relevant information as the COMELEC may require:
Provided, that the sector shall include labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals."
"SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person
shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL
ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT) ,
petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (sitting as
the National Board of Canvassers), respondent.
FACTS:
 On June 22, 2002, BANAT filed a petition to Proclaim the
Full Number of Party-List Representatives provided by the
Constitution (NBC No. 07-041 (PL) before the NBC.
 This petition arises because of the statement of the
chairman and members of COMELEC that party-list seat
shall be allocated based on the Panganiban’s Formula as
used in Veterans v. COMELEC ruling
 There were no intervenors in that said petition. BANAT
filed a memorandum on July 2007.
 The election for party-list representatives happened on
May 14, 2007.
 On July 24, 2007, the COMELEC proclaimed 13 parties as
winners in the 2007 election. Only 13 parties reached the
2% threshold as mandated by Sec. 11 of R.A. 7941.
 Additional seats were allocated using the Panganiban’s
Formula in Veterans ruling.
 BANAT was not included in the proclaimed winners.
 With regards to BANAT petition, Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig,
Head of the National Board of Canvassers Legal Group
submitted his comments/observations and recommendation
which stated that the petition should be denied because it is
now moot and academic.
 COMELEC approved Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig
recommendation.
 BANAT filed for certiorari and mandamus assailing the
decision of the COMELEC.
 Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher also asked the
COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to
use the Veterans formula because the Veterans formula is
violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941
(R.A. No. 7941).
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.
Panganiban’s Formula:
Number of votes of first party/ Total votes for party-list system
= Proportion of votes of first party relative to total votes for
party-list system
ARGUMENTS:
BANAT contended that the full number of seats shall be
proclaimed, which is 20% of the Party-List representatives as
mandated by Section 5, Article VI.
Sec. 11 of RA 7941 should be harmonized with Section 12 of
RA 7941 for the purposes of allocating additional seats and not
with the Panganiban’s formula.
Sec. 11 of RA 7941 is unconstitutional with regards to the 2%
threshold
ISSUE:
1.) WON the COMELEC was right in allocating the
additional seats using the Panganiban’s Formula in
Veterans ruling. / How shall the party-list representatives
be allocated?
2.) Is the two percent threshold and "qualifier" votes
prescribed by the same Section 11(b) of RA 7941
constitutional?
3.) Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list
representatives in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling?
RULING:
The petitions have partial merit. We maintain that a Philippine-
style party-list election has at least four inviolable parameters
as clearly stated in Veterans.
In computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued
operation of the 2% threshold for the distribution of the
additional seats as found in the second clause of Sec 11 (b) of
RA No. 7941 is unconstitutional.
The 2% threshold makes it mathematically impossible to
achieve the maximum number of available party list seats. The
continued operation of the 2% threshold in the distribution of
the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive
ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives. E
cannot allow the continued existence of a provision in the law
which will systematically prevent the constitutionally allocated
20% party-list representatives from being filed.
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 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.
Seats for party-list representatives shall thus be allocated in
accordance with the procedure used in (see: ) Table 3 above.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We
SET ASIDE the Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August
2007 in NBC No. 07-
041 (PL) as well as the Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC
No. 07-60. We declare unconstitutional the two percent
threshold in the
distribution of additional party-list seats. The allocation of
additional seats under the Party-List System shall be in
accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 of this Decision.
Major political parties are disallowed from participating in
party-list elections. This Decision is immediately executory. No
pronouncement as to costs.
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. vs
 Commission on Elections
G.R No. 190529, 29 April 2010
Brion, J.:
ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY:
The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI)
seeks in this petition for certiorari and in the motion
for reconsideration it subsequently filed to nullify
Commission on Election (COMELEC) Resolution No.
8679 and the Resolution denying PGBI’s motion for
reconsideration.
FACTS:
For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC
en banc issued on October 13, 2010 Resolution No.
8679 deleting several party-list groups or organizations
from the list of registered national, regional or sectoral
parties, organizations or coalitions. Among the party-
list organizations affected was PGBI; it was delisted
because it failed to get 2% votes cast in 2004 and it did
not participate in the 2007 elections. Nevertheless, the
COMELEC stated in the resolution that any national,
regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions
adversely affected can personally or through its
authorized representative file a verified opposition on
October 26, 2009. PGBI file its opposition to
Resolution No. 8679 but likewise sought, through its
pleading, the admission ad cautelam of its petition for
accreditation as a party-list organization under the
Party-List System Act. PGBI asserted that the assailed
resolution negates the right of movant and those
similarly situated to invoke Section 4 of RA 7941,
which allows any party, organization and coalition
already registered with the Commission to no longer
register anew, that the Supreme Court rulings in
MINERO vs COMELEC cannot apply in the instant
controversy, and that the implementation of the
challenged resolution should be suspended and/or
aborted to prevent a miscarriage of justice in view of
the failure to notify the parties in accordance with the
same Section 6(8) of RA 7941.
The COMELEC denied PGBI’s motion/opposition for
lack of merit. First, the COMELEC observed that
PGBI clearly misunderstood the import of Section 4 of
RA 7941. Second, the MINERO ruling is squarely in
point, as MINERO failed to get 2% of the votes in
2001 and did not participate in the 2004 elections.
Third, PGBI was given an opportunity to be heard or
to seek the reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of the essence of due process; this is clear
from Resolution No. 8679 which expressly gave the
adversely effected parties the opportunity to file their
petition.
PGBI came to Supreme Court in its petition for
certiorari, arguing the same positions it raised with the
COMELEC when it moved to reconsider its delisting.
ISSUES:
1. WHETHER or NOT there is legal basis for
delisting PGBI; and
HELD:
According to the Court, the MINERO ruling is an
erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941;
hence, it cannot sustain PGBI's delisting from the
roster of registered national, regional or sectoral
parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list
system. First the law is clear in that the word "or" is a
disjunctive term signifying disassociation and
independence of one thing from the other things
enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in the
sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive
word. Thus, the plain, clear and unmistakable language
of the law provides for two separate reasons for
delisting. Second, MINERO is diametrically opposed
to the legislative intent of Section 6(8) of RA 7941 and
therefore, simply cannot stand. Its basic defect lies in
its characterization of the non-participation of a party-
list organization in
an election as similar to a failure to garner the 2%
threshold party-list vote. What MINERO
effectively holds is that a party list organization
that does not participate in an election necessarily
gets, by default, less than 2% of the party-list
votes. To be sure, this is a confused interpretation
of the law, given the law's clear and categorical
language and the legislative intent to treat the two
scenarios differently. A delisting based on a
mixture or fusion of these two different and
separate grounds for delisting is therefore a
strained application of the law - in jurisdictional
terms, it is an interpretation not within the
contemplation of the framers of the law and
hence is a gravely abusive interpretation of the
law.
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELECG.R.
No. 190582April 8, 2010
 The Supreme Court granted the petition
FACTS: and set aside the resolutions of the COMELEC. It
also directed the COMELEC to grant petitioner’s
Petitioner is an organization composed of application for party-list accreditation.
men and women who identify themselves as The enumeration of marginalized and
lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered under-represented sectors is not exclusive. The
individuals (LGBT’s). Incorporated in 2003, Ang crucial element is not whether a sector is
Ladlad first applied for registration with the specifically enumerated, but whether a particular
COMELEC in 2006 as a party-list organization organization complies with the requirements of
under Republic Act 7941, otherwise known as the the Constitution and RA 7941. Ang Ladlad has
Party-List System Act. The application for sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the
accreditation was denied on the ground that the legal requirements for accreditation. Nowhere in
organization had no substantial membership base. the records has the respondent ever found/ruled
In 2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a petition for that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to register as a
registration with the COMELEC upon which it party-list organization under any of the requisites
was dismissed on moral grounds. under RA 7941.
Our Constitution provides in Article III,
Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration but the
Section 5 that “no law shall be made respecting an
COMELEC upheld its First Resolution, stating
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
that “the party-list system is a tool for the
exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our non-
realization of aspirations of marginalized
establishment clause calls for is “government
individuals whose interests are also the nation’s.
neutrality in religious matters. Clearly,
Until the time comes when Ladlad is able to
“governmental reliance on religious justification is
justify that having mixed sexual orientations and
inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.”
transgender identities is beneficial to the nation,
Laws of general application should apply
its application for accreditation under the party-
with equal force to LGBTs and they deserve to
list system will remain just that.” That “the
participate in the party-list system on the same
Philippines cannot ignore its more than 500 years
basis as other marginalized and under-represented
of Muslim and Christian upbringing, such that
sectors.
some moral precepts espoused by said religions
The principle of non-discrimination
have sipped into society and these are not publicly
requires the laws of general application relating to
accepted moral norms.” COMELEC reiterated
elections be applied to all persons, regardless of
that petitioner does not have a concrete and
sexual orientation.
genuine national poltical agenda to benefit the
nation and that the petition was validly dismissed
on moral grounds. It also argued for the first time
that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors
enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941.
Thus Ladlad filed this petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Petitioner should be

accredited as a party-list organization under RA
7941.

HELD: