G.R. No.

147589            June 26, 2001

ANG BAGONG BAYANI vs. Comelec

x---------------------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001

BAYAN MUNA vs. Comelec
Party-list system' is a 'mechanism of proportional representation' in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives from national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with
the Commission on Elections.

FACTS:
Bagong Bayani and Akbayan Citizens Party filed before the COMELEC, challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785
issued by the COMELEC.

The resolution approved the participation of 154 organizations and parties, including those impleaded, in the 2001
party list elections.

Petitioners seek disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the party list system was intended to
benefit the marginalized and underrepresented not the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or
overrepresented.

Bayan Muna argues that the party-list system is intended to address the problem of ineffective representation of
underprivileged sectors of society and enhance direct peoples action and participation in the decision-making
process to counter-balance the territorial representation of 80% of the House of Representatives, and that to allow
participation in the party-list system of respondent political parties and parties/coalitions would be to defeat this
purpose because these parties do not represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

On the other hand, the COMELEC argues:

Both the Constitution and the Party-List System Act clearly allow, and they do not prohibit, the participation of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations to participate in the party-list system, whether
or not said parties or organizations represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society.

It cites the proviso of Art. VI, 5(2) of the Constitution that 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, as proof that marginalized sectors are
not entitled to permanent seats in the House of Representatives. In any event, it is contended that petitioner’s
recourse is not to this Court but to the COMELEC because whether a party, organization, or coalition represents
marginalized and underrepresented sectors is a question of fact, and this Court is not a trier of facts.

ISSUE:
a. WON political parties may participate in the party-list elections. YES

b. WON the party-list system is exclusive to 'marginalized and underrepresented' sectors and organizations. NO
RULING:
The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great masses of our people
who have less in life, but also to enable them to become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to
participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to make the marginalized and the
underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the State's benevolence, but active participants in the
mainstream of representative democracy. Thus, allowing all individuals and groups, including those which now
dominate district elections, to have the same opportunity to participate in party-list elections would desecrate this
lofty objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanism into an atrocious veneer for traditional politics.

a. Political parties, even the major ones, may participate in the party-list elections. Under the
Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list
elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
“Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political parties may be
registered under the party-list system. For its part, Section 2of RA 7941 also provides for "a
party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof, x x x." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a political party or a
sectoral party or a coalition of parties."

b. Political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean, however, that any
political party -- or any organization or group for that matter -- may do so. The requisite
character of these parties or organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list
system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA7941. Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution. The provision on the party-list system is not self-executory. It is, in fact,
interspersed with phrases like "in accordance with law" or "as may be provided by law"; it was
thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941
was enacted.

Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides as follows:

"(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.

(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of
this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided
by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector."\

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."

In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos who are "marginalized and
underrepresented" become members of Congress under the party-list system, Filipino-style.

The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people, not only by giving more law
to those who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers
themselves. Consistent with this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we repeat, is likewise clear:
"to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties, x x x, to become members of the House of Representatives." Where the language of the law is
clear, it must be applied according to its express terms. 

The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the party-list system are
enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:

"SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition
for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before
the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-
list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or
organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of
officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided,
that the sector shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals."

While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates
the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system. It is a
fundamental principle of statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted in
connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with
which they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified
or specialized by those in immediate association.
 Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 203766)

FACTS:
52 party-list groups and organizations filed separate petitions totaling 54 with the Supreme Court (SC) in
an effort to reverse various resolutions by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) disqualifying them
from the May 2013 party-list race. The Comelec, in its assailed resolutions issued in October, November
and December of 2012, ruled, among others, that these party-list groups and organizations failed to
represent a “marginalized and underrepresented sector,” their nominees do not come from a
“marginalized and underrepresented sector,” and/or some of the organizations or groups are not truly
representative of the sector they intend to represent in Congress.

Petitioners argued that the poll body committed grave abuse of discretion in denying some of the
petitioners’ application for accreditation and cancelling the existing accreditation of the rest. They also
lamented the poll body’s “denial” to accord them due process in the evaluation proceedings.

The high court consolidated these cases; Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio was tasked as the
Member-in-charge of the case.

Status quo ante orders (SQAO) were issued in all 54 petitions which restored the status quo prior to the
disqualification of petitioners. However, only 39 of the 52 petitioners or only 41 petitions were able to
secure a mandatory injunction, directing the Comelec to include their names in the printing of official
ballots.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or Not 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? (NO, COMELEC MERELY FOLLOWED THE SC’S RULING IN BAGONG BAYANI AND
BANAT)

(2) WON the criteria for participating in the party list system laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani and
Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on Elections
(BANAT) should be applied by the COMELEC in the coming 13 May 2013 party list elections. (NO,
A NEW SET OF PARAMETERS IS PROVIDED BY THE SC)

RULING:

SUMMARY OF THE NEW PARAMETERS MODIFYING ANG BAGONG BAYANI AND BANAT.
Thus, we remand all the present petitions to the COMELEC. In determining who may participate in the
coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent partylist elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the following
parameters:
(1) Three different groups may participate in the party list system: (i) national parties or organizations,
(ii) regional parties or organizations, and (iii) sectoral parties or organizations.

(2) National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along
sectoral lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector.

(3) Political parties can participate in party list elections provided they register under the party list
system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or
not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party list elections only
through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party list system. The sectoral wing is by
itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.

(4) Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in
well-defined political constituencies. It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special
interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are marginalized and underrepresented include
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and
overseas workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political constituencies include professionals, the
elderly, women, and the youth.

(5) A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the marginalized and
underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent.
Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack well -defined political
constituencies must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented, or that represent those who lack
well-defined political constituencies, either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track
record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or
organizations must be bona fide members of such parties or organizations.

(6) National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their
nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

Political parties need not align themselves with sectoral groups or organizations, and the nominees

thereof need not come from that sector itself, provided that he can show that he has a proven track
record for advocating the cause of the organization he seeks to represent.

The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral parties of professionals, the
elderly, women and the youth, need not be "marginalized and underrepresented" will allow small
ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who lack “well-defined political constituencies" a chance to
win seats in the House of Representatives.

On the other hand, limiting to the "marginalized and underrepresented" the sectoral parties for labor,
peasant, fisher folk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas
workers, and other sectors that by their nature are economically at the margins of society, will give the
“marginalized and underrepresented" an opportunity to likewise win seats in the House of
Representatives.

Belonging to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector does not mean one must “wallow in
poverty, destitution or infirmity." It is sufficient that one, or his or her sector, is below the middle class
or those who fall in the low-income group as classified by the National Statistical Coordination Board.

GR No. 207134, Jun 16, 2015

AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA v. COMELEC

FACTS:

Petitioner was among the accredited candidates for party-list representative during the national and
local elections held on May 13, 2013. On May 24, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc sitting as the National
Board of Canvassers (NBOC), under NBOC Resolution No. 0006-13, proclaimed fourteen (14) party-list
groups, which obtained at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system and were thus
entitled to one (1) guaranteed seat each, pursuant to Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941.
Petitioners filed for a TRO but the same was dismissed.

Petitioner’s contention:

1. Allocation of additional seats – prejudicial to the interest of the parties

2. It was hasty and premature because there were still uncanvassed and untransmitted results
from Mindanao and absentee votes.

3. It was invalid as it was based on an incomplete canvass/consolidation of only 110 Certificates of

Canvass (COCs), some of which were not electronically transmitted in gross violation of Section 27, R.A.
No. 8436 (as amended by Section 22, R.A. No. 9369).

4. Allocation of additional seats did not conform to Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 and this Court's
ruling in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC.

Comment of the Solicitor General:

1. COMELEC faithfully adhered to the procedure prescribed in BANAT in the allocation of party-list
seats (14 guaranteed seats were first allocated to those who obtained 2% of the total votes cast for
party-list and thereafter 44 additional seats were completely distributed). It was explained that party-list
groups with products of less than one was still allocated seats depending on their rank and availability of
seats. As to the uncanvassed votes at the time, COMELEC had reserved five "buffer" seats to
accommodate possible changes in the ranking.

2. The Solicitor General further contends that COMELEC's proclamation of initial winners under
NBOC Res. No. 0008-13 is valid as the votes yet to be canvassed did not materially affect the results of
the election.

ISSUE:
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in allocating the additional seats for the 38 party-
list candidates proclaimed as winners in the May 13, 2013 elections. (No)

RULING:

NO. Both petitions are dismissed.

1. COMELEC is authorized by law to proclaim winning candidates if the remaining

uncanvassed election returns will not affect the result of the elections

A canvass of votes will only be illegal if the election returns missing or not counted will affect the results
of the election. In this case, COMELEC based its ruling on its national canvass reports for party-list. As of
May 28, 2013, AKMA-PTM garnered 164,980 votes and ABANTE KA had 111,429 votes. In Party-List
Canvass Report No. 11 as of July 18, 2013, AKMA-PTM's total votes slightly increased to 165,784 votes
while ABANTE KA had a total of 111,625 votes. There was no significant change in the rankings as per
the latest canvass and therefore COMELEC had sufficient basis for proclaiming the initial winners on May
28, 2013 and reserving only five buffer seats.

2. OMELEC's allocation of additional seats for party-list in accordance with our ruling in BANAT

In BANAT v. COMELEC, we laid down the following procedure in determining the allocation of seats for
party-list representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941: (a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions
shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections; (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total
votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each; (c) Those garnering
sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats
in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated; (d) Each party,
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation. First, 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. Second, we 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 number of seats each
qualified party-list candidate is entitled.

It is clear from the foregoing that party-list groups garnering less than 2% of the party-list votes may yet
qualify for a seat in the allocation of additional seats depending on their ranking in the second round. In
sum, we hold that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in allocating the party-list seats in
the 2013 elections and proclaiming the winners after distributing the guaranteed and additional seats in
accordance with our ruling in BANAT.