Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. vs.

Commission on Elections
646 SCRA 63
March 22, 2011
FACTS:
There was a Status Quo Order directing the Comelec to restore and maintain the
PGBI to its situation prior to the issuance of Comelec Resolution No. 8679, pending the
resolution of the petition for certiorari that PGBI filed to challenge this Comelec
Resolution. The Status Quo Order, in short, directly ordered the Comelec to include
PGBI in the list of candidates under the party-list system in the May 10, 2010 elections
pending the final determination of PGBI’s qualification to be voted upon as a party-list
organization.
Comelec’s Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation, PGBI essentially
alleged that the Comelec posited seemingly misleading and innocuous reasons in
seeking reconsideration. Among other arguments, it claimed that the Comelec had been
less than candid in its submissions: first, compliance with the Status Quo Order at that
point would not disrupt the timetable or entail additional and costly expenditures given
that the Comelec had yet to terminate all related activities and preparations for the May
10, 2010 elections; second, the Comelec had yet to promulgate, on February 11, 2010,
its decisions on several pending disqualification cases and recently accredited six other
party-list organizations to add to the more than 154 previously accredited sectoral
parties and/or organizations. PGBI also manifested that the ballot template that the
Comelec published in its website on February 8, 2010 did not include the name or
acronym of PGBI, in contravention of the Status Quo Order; and third, the Comelec’s
blatant disregard of the Status Quo Order reeked of official arrogance, given this Court’s
determination that it should be included in the ballot pending resolution of PGBI’s
petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the delisting of Philippine Guardians Brotherhood by Comelec is
proper.
HELD:
No. An equally important aspect of a democratic electoral exercise is the right of
free choice of the electorates on who shall govern them. The party-list system affords
them this choice, as it gives the marginalized and underrepresented sectors the
opportunity to participate in governance. The Supreme Court recognized the validity of
the automation of the May 10, 2010 elections in Roque, Jr. v. Comelec, and stress that
automation is not the end-all and be-all of an electoral process. An equally important
aspect of a democratic electoral exercise is the right of free choice of the electorates on
who shall govern them; the party-list system, in the words of Ang Bagong Bayani–OFW
Labor Party v. Comelec, affords them this choice, as it gives the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors the opportunity to participate in governance. Wittingly or
unwittingly, the Comelec took this freedom of choice away and effectively
disenfranchised the members of the sector that PGBI sought to represent when it did
not include PGBI in the list of qualified parties vying for a seat under the party-list
system of representation. This is a consideration no less weighty than the automation of
the election and cannot be simply disregarded on mere generalized allegations of
automation difficulties.
 Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,
G.R. No. 189600
June 29, 2010
FACTS:
There was a Petition for certiorari challenging the assumption of office of one
Emmanuel Joel Villanueva as the youth sector Representative of Citizens’ Battle
Against Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives. Petitioner, Amores,
argues that Villanueva was 31 at the time of filing of nomination, beyond the age limit of
30 which was the limit imposed by RA 7941 for "youth sector" representatives.
Villanueva's change of affiliation from Youth Sector to OFWs and their families was also
not effected during the six months prior to elections. Public respondent held that Section
15 of RA No. 7941 did not apply as there was no resultant change in party-list affiliation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Villanueva is eligible to hold office as a member of the House
of Representatives representing the party-list organization CIBAC.
HELD:
No. A nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation within the same party will not
only be eligible for nomination under the new sectoral affiliation of the change has been
effected at least six months before the elections. 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. Again, since the statute is clear and free from ambiguity, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is the plain
meaning rule or verba legis, as expressed in the maxim index animi sermo or speech is
the index of intention.
 Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections
618 SCRA 32
April 08, 2010
FACTS:
Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify
themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs).
Incorporated in 2003, Ang Ladlad first applied for registration with the COMELEC in
2006. The application for accreditation was denied on the ground that the organization
had no substantial membership base. On August 17, 2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a
Petition for registration with the COMELEC.
On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioners evidence, the COMELEC
(Second Division) dismissed the Petition on moral grounds, stating that: This Petition is
dismissible on moral grounds. Petitioner defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender (LGBT) Community, thus a marginalized and under-represented sector
that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender
identity. and proceeded to define sexual orientation as that which refers to a persons
capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and
sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender, of the same gender, or more than
one gender.
On January 4, 2010, Ang Ladlad filed this Petition, praying that the Court annul
the Assailed Resolutions and direct the COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlads application for
accreditation. Ang Ladlad also sought the issuance ex parte of a preliminary mandatory
injunction against the COMELEC, which had previously announced that it would begin
printing the final ballots for the May 2010 elections by January 25, 2010.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ladlad's application for accreditation be granted.
HELD:
Yes. Aside from Commission on Elections’ (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 Republic Act No. 7941 or the guidelines in Ang Bagong
Bayani. The SC found that 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. The difference, COMELEC claims, lies in Ang Ladlad’s morality, or lack thereof.
Veterans Federation Party vs. Commission on Elections
342 SCRA 244
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:
Whether or not twenty percent allocation for party-list lawmakers is mandatory.

HELD:
No. 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.