MAGNO, KARL LAURENZ Q.

ELECTION LAW
D. Political Parties (Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution)
[G.R. No. 203646, April 16, 2013]
SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ROMEO R. ROBISO, PEDRO T. DABU, JR., LOPE E. FEBLE,
NOEL T. TIAMPONG AND JOSE FLORO CRISOLOGO, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, JONATHAN DE LA CRUZ, ED VINCENT ALBANO AND BENEDICT
KATO, Respondents.
FACTS: Sometime between January and April 2003, Alcantara, et al., along with their fellow law
teachers, organized a party named Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and
Allied Workers. The party has a constitution and by-laws (CBL) and a principal office at the same
location as Atty. Alcantara’s law office. On May 14, 2004, the party name was amended and changed
to Abakada Guro Party list. The change was duly approved by the COMELEC. In the May 2007
elections, where ABAKADA participated and won a seat, Jonathan de la Cruz (De la Cruz), its first
nominee, became the party’s sole representative in Congress. On December 15, 2009, an All Leaders
Assembly was convened. While Alcantara failed to attend the meeting, he sent Noel Tiampong in his
stead. The convening of a Supreme Assembly was proposed at the meeting, with the agenda of
amending the ABAKADA CBL, the election of new officers, and the discussion of other election related
matters. The proposal was to hold the meeting sometime in February 2010. Accordingly, in a letter
dated January 23, 2010, Ed Vincent Albano (Albano), acting as the party’s Secretary, notified the
party’s chapters and members that the party would hold its first Supreme Assembly on February 6,
2010 “pursuant to the resolution adopted by the party during its First All Leaders Assembly held last
December 15, 2009.”9 As scheduled, the respondents proceeded to hold a Supreme Assembly that
resulted in the approval and ratification of the revised ABAKADA CBL; the ouster of Alcantara et.
al from their positions; the expulsion of the petitioners from the party; and the election of De la Cruz
and Albano as new President and Secretary-General, respectively. This prompted the petitioners to
file a petition with the COMELEC to (i) declare the meeting held on February 6, 2010 void and (ii)
restrain the respondents from falsely representing themselves as the duly elected officers of
ABAKADA.
ISSUE: Whether or not ABAKADA is a political party prescribed under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.
RULING: No. ABAKADA is registered as a sectoral party, the general principles applicable to
political parties as a voluntary association apply to it. Political parties constitute a basic element of
our democratic institutional apparatus.2Among others, political parties help stimulate public
participation in the political arena and translate the results of this participation into meaningful
policies and programs of government offered to the electorate. Once in government, they are able to
significantly contribute in forging linkages between the government and the society by adjusting these
policies with the varying and often conflicting interests of the different segments of society. Should
they belong to the minority, they also provide a check to counterbalance those who are in power.
For these reasons, particularly, for the role they play in the general political process, political parties
are generally free to conduct its internal affairs pursuant to its constitutionally-protected right to free
association. The political parties, through their members, are free to adopt their own constitution and
by-laws that contain the terms governing the group in pursuing its goals. These terms, include the
terms in choosing its leaders and members, among others. To the group belongs the power to adopt a
constitution; to them likewise belongs the power to amend, modify or altogether scrap it.
G.R. No. 193808               June 26, 2012
LUISK. LOKIN, JR. and TERESITA F. PLANAS, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), CITIZENS’ BATTLE AGAINST
CORRUPTION PARTY LIST represented by VIRGINIA S. JOSE SHERWIN N. TUGNA,
and CINCHONA CRUZ-GONZALES, Respondents
FACTS: The Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), a duly registered party-list organization,
manifested their intent to participate in the May 14, 2004 synchronized national and local elections.
They submitted a list of five nominees from which its representatives would be chosen should CIBAC
obtain the number of qualifying votes. However, prior to the elections, the list of nominees was
amended: the nominations of the petitioner Lokin, Sherwin Tugna and Emil Galang were withdrawn;
Armi Jane Borje was substituted; and Emmanuel Joel Villanueva and Chinchona Cruz-Gonzales were
retained. Election results showed that CIBAC was entitled to a second seat and that Lokin, as second
nominee on the original list, to a proclamation, which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales.
The COMELEC resolved the matter on the validity of the amendment of the list of nominees and the
withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. The COMELEC en banc proclaimed Cruz-
Gonzales as the official second nominee of CIBAC. Cruz-Gonzales took her oath of office as a Party-
List Representative of CIBAC. Lokin filed a petition for mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC
to proclaim him as the official second nominee of CIBAC. Likewise, he filed another petition for
certiorari assailing Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 alleging that it expanded Section 8 of R.A. No.
7941 by allowing CIBAC to change its nominees.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 is unconstitutional and violates the Party-
List System Act
RULING: The Court held that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 was invalid. The COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 7804 as an implementing rules and regulations in accordance with the provisions of
the Omnibus Election Code and the Party-List System Act. As an administrative agency, it cannot
amend an act of Congress nor issue IRRs that may enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the law it
administers and enforces. Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 provides that: Each registered party,
organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-five (45) days before the
election a list of names, not less than five (5), from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in
case it obtains the required number of votes. A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only
persons who have given their consent in writing may be named in the list. The list shall not include
any candidate of any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the
immediately preceding election. No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shal be
allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee
dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the
substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of
Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned. The
above provision is clear and unambiguous and expresses a single and definite meaning, there is no
room for interpretation or construction but only for application. Section 8 clearly prohibits the change
of nominees and alteration of the order in the list of nominees’ names after submission of the list to
the COMELEC. It enumerates only three instances in which an organization can substitute another
person in place of the nominee whose name has been submitted to the COMELEC : (1) when the
nominee fies; (2) when the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination; and (3) when the nominee
becomes incapacitated. When the statute enumerates the exception to the application of the general
rule, the exceptions are strictly but reasonably construed. Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded
the exceptions under Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 when it provided four instances by adding
“nomination is withdrawn by the party” as statutory ground for substituting a nominee. COMELEC
had no authority to expand, extend, or add anything to law it seeks to implement. An IRR should
remain consistent with the law it intends to carry out not override, supplant or modify it. An IRR
adopted pursuant to the law is itself law but in case of conflict between the law and the IRR, the law
prevails.
G.R. No. 188920               February 16, 2010
JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., MATIAS V. DEFENSOR, JR., RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, DANILO
E. SUAREZ, SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO, SALVACION ZALDIVAR-PEREZ, HARLIN
CAST-ABAYON, MELVIN G. MACUSI and ELEAZAR P. QUINTO, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MANUEL A. ROXAS II, FRANKLIN M. DRILON and
J.R. NEREUS O. ACOSTA, Respondents.
FACTS: Drilon, the former president of the Liberal Party (LP) announced that his party withdrew
support for the administration of former Pres. Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo. However, Atienza,
LPChairman, alleged that Drilon made the announcement without consulting first the party. Atienza
hosted a party conference which resulted to the election of new officers, with Atienza as LP president.
Drilon immediately filed a petition with the COMELEC to nullify the said election claiming that it was
illegal considering that the party’s electing bodies, NECO and NAPOLCO, were not properly
convened. Moreover, Drilon claimed that under the LP Constitution, there is a three-year term.
Meaning, his term has not yet ended. However, Atienza contested that the election of new officers
could be likened to people power removing Drilon as president by direct action. Also, Atienza alleged
that the amendment to the LP Constitution providing the three-term had not been properly ratified.
The COMELEC held that the election of Atienza and others was invalid since the electing assembly did
not convene in accordance with the LP Constitution. The COMELEC ruled that since the said
Constitution was not ratified, Drilon was only sitting in a hold-overcapacity since his term has been
ended already. Subsequently, the LP held a NECO meeting to elect new party leaders before
respondent Drilon’s term expired which resulted to the election of Roxas as the new LP president.
Atienza et al. sought to enjoin Roxas from assuming the presidency of the LP questioning the validity
of the quorum. The COMELEC issued resolution denying petitioners Atienza et al’s petition. As for the
validity of petitioners Atienza, et al’s expulsion as LP members, the COMELEC observed that this was
a membership issue that related to disciplinary action within the political party. The COMELEC
treated it as an internal party matter that was beyond its jurisdiction to resolve. 
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction over intra-party dispute.
RULING: The COMELEC’s jurisdiction over intra-party disputes is limited.  It does not have blanket
authority to resolve any and all controversies involving political parties. Political parties are generally
free to conduct their activities without interference from the state.  The COMELEC may intervene in
disputes internal to a party only when necessary to the discharge of its constitutional functions. The
Court ruled in Kalaw v. Commission on Elections that the COMELEC’s powers and functions under
Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, “include the ascertainment of the identity of the political
party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts.”  Moreover, the COMELEC’s power to register
political parties necessarily involved the determination of the persons who must act on its
behalf.  Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intra-party leadership dispute, in a proper case brought
before it, as an incident of its power to register political parties. The COMELEC did not err when it
upheld Roxas’s election but refused to rule on the validity of Atienza’s expulsion.
G.R. No. 205505 September 29, 2015
ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO, RAFAEL A. PUENTESPINA, PROCULO T. SARMEN, AMELITO
L. REVUELTA, WILLIAM C. YBANEZ, SILVERIO J. SANCHEZ, GLORIA G. FUTALAN,
HILARIO DE GUZMAN, EUGENE M. PABUALAN, RODOLFO E. PEREZ, HIPOLITO R.
QUILLAN, MARIO ARENAS, TIRSO C. BUENAVENTURA, LYDIA B. TUBELLA,
REYNALDO C. GOLO& JONATHAN DEQUINA IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES,
AND AS LEGITIMATE MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF ADHIKAING TINATAGUYOD NG
KOOPERATIBA (ATING KOOP PARTY LIST), Petitioners, v. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS EN BANC AND THE SELF-STYLED SHAM ATING KOOP PARTYLIST
REPRESENTED BY AMPARO T. RIMAS, Respondents.
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
Resolution2010-01, 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.
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC is vested with jurisdiction to rule upon thevalidity of the expulsion
of Atty. Lico from Ating Koop.
RULING: 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 endows 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 thewinning party-list group,
oath of the nominee, and assumption ofoffice 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 subsequently, assumed office in the House of
Representatives.
G.R. No. 191771               May 6, 2010
LIBERAL PARTY, represented by its President Manuel A. Roxas II and Secretary
General Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NACIONALISTA PARTY, represented by its President
Manuel B. Villar and NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION, allegedly represented by
its Chairman Faustino S. Dy, Jr., Respondents.
FACTS: On July 14, 2009, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 8646 setting August 17,
2009as the last day for the filing of petitions for registration of political parties. On January 21, 2010,
the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 8752, providing, among others, for the rules for the filing
of petitions for accreditation for the determination of the dominant majority party, the dominant
minority party, ten major national parties, and two major local parties for the May 10, 2010 elections.
Resolution No. 8752 also set the deadline for filing of petitions for accreditation on February 12,
2010and required that accreditation applicants be registered political parties, organizations or
coalitions.
On February 12, 2010, the LP filed with the COMELEC its petition for accreditation as dominant
minority party. On the same date, the Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Nationalist Peoples Coalition
(NPC) filed a petition for registration as a coalition (NP-NPC) and asked that it be recognized and
accredited as the dominant minority party for purposes of the May 10, 2010elections. It was docketed
as an SPP (DM) case, indicating pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8752 that it was an
accreditation case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC can accredit dominant parties.
RULING: The petition expressly and frontally sought the issuance of a writ of prohibition and
restraining order to prevent the COMELEC from accrediting a coalition that is not registered as a
party. The combination of a petition for certiorari and for prohibition under the circumstances of the
present case is fully justified, as the registration and the accreditation that the petition covers are
linked with and in fact sequentially follow one another. Accreditation can only be granted to a
registered political party, organization or coalition; stated otherwise, a registration must first take
place before a request for accreditation can be made. Once registration has been carried out,
accreditation is the next natural step to follow. Section 2(5), Article IX-C of the Constitution and
Rule32 of the COMELEC Rules regulate the registration of political parties, organizations or
coalitions of political parties. Accreditation as a dominant party is governed by COMELEC Resolution
No. 8752, Section 1 of which states that the petition for accreditation shall be filed with the Clerk of
the Commission who shall docket it as an SPP (DM) case, in the manner that the NP-NPC petition
before the COMELEC was docketed. While the registration of political parties is a special proceeding
clearly assigned to a Division for handling under the COMELEC Rules, no similar clear-cut rule is
available for a petition for accreditation as a dominant party. Under the circumstances of the present
case where the registration was handled at the en banc, action at the COMELEC ended upon the en
banc issuance of the assailed Resolution; under Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the COMELEC Rules, a
motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling is a prohibited pleading, except in election offense
cases. Any request for accreditation that may be filed is conceptually a separate matter for the
COMELEC to handle. Thus, after the en banc issued the assailed Resolution resolving the NP-NPCs
application for registration as a coalition, the COMELECs part in the registration process was brought
to a close, rendering the Resolution ripe for review by this Court.
[G.R. NO. 161265. February 24, 2004]
LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO, represented by its Chairman EDGARDO J.
ANGARA
v.
THE COMMISION ON ELECTIONS and AGAPITO A. AQUINO
FACTS: The General Counsel of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), a registered political
party, informed the COMELEC by way of Manifestation that only the Party Chairman, Senator
Edgardo J. Angara, or his authorized representative may endorse the certificate of candidacy of the
party’s official candidates. The same Manifestation stated that Sen. Angara had placed the LDP
Secretary General, Representative Agapito A. Aquino, on “indefinite forced leave.” In the meantime,
Ambassador Enrique A. Zaldivar was designated Acting Secretary General. However, Rep. Aquino
filed his Comment, contending that the Party Chairman does not have the authority to impose
disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General. As the Manifestation filed by the LDP General
Counsel has no basis, Rep. Aquino asked the COMELEC to disregard the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its officers is
within the COMELEC’s jurisdiction
RULING: The COMELEC correctly stated that “the ascertainment of the identity of [a] political party
and its legitimate officers” is a matter that is well within its authority.  The source of this authority is
no other than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. In the exercise
of such power and in the discharge of such function, the Commission is endowed with ample
“wherewithal” and “considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will ensure the
accomplishment of the great objectives for which it was created to promote free, orderly and honest
elections.” However, by giving both wings representatives in the election committees, the COMELEC
has eroded the significance of political parties and effectively divided the opposition.  The purpose of
according dominant status and representation to a minority party is precisely to serve as an effective
check on the majority.  The COMELEC performed a disservice to the opposition and, ultimately, to
the voting public, as its Resolution facilitated, rather than forestalled, the division of the minority
party.  The assailed COMELEC Resolution does not advance, but subverts, this philosophy behind
political parties.
G.R. No. 204591               April 16, 2013
AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ALLIANCE (A-IPRA), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MELVIN G. LOTA, MAC-MAC BERNALES, MARY ANNE
P. SANTOS, JEAN ANNABELL S. GAROTA, JOSEPH T. EVANGELISTA, ET
AL. Respondents.
FACTS: Petitioner Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance (A-IPRA) is a sectoral political
party whose primordial objectives are the recognition, protection and promotion of the rights of the
indigenous people. It was allowed registration and accreditation by the COMELEC Second Division in
its Resolution dated January 13, 2010 in SPP Case No. 09-214 (PL), which reads: As borne by the
evidence, petitioner has ably complied procedurally and substantially with the requirements of
Republic Act No. 7941 or Party-List Law as well as with the guidelines enumerated in the case of Ang
Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec. It has coordinators in almost all of the provinces and cities of Region III.
Petitioner committed itself to protect and work for the betterment of the underrepresented and
marginalized sector of indigenous peoples by ensuring that their rights, cultural communities and
ancestral domains are accorded priority and recognition. Petitioner likewise committed itself to
promote the culture of the indigenous people through education and the delivery of basic services to
the indigenous cultural communities. Its track record is manifested by its active advocacy for the
passage of the IPRA Law (Republic Act No. 8371) by conducting a series of campaigns and seminars
to educate and inform the indigenous people of their rights. When the constitutionality of Republic
Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act was challenged before the Courts, petitioner A-
IPRA gave valuable inputs to the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, resulting in the
dismissal of the petition to declare said law unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to determine political parties.
RULING: Yes. In Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino v. COMELEC, this Court held that the
COMELEC correctly ruled that "the ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its legitimate
officers is a matter that is well within its authority. The source of this authority is no other than the
fundamental law itself, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. the COMELEC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in following prevailing decisions of this Court in disqualifying
petitioners from participating in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. However, since the
Court adopts in this Decision new parameters in the qualification of national, regional, and sectoral
parties under the party-list system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied by the
COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, we remand to the COMELEC all the present petitions for the
COMELEC to determine who are qualified to register under the party list system, and to participate in
the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this Decision.
G.R. No. 173165               February 17, 2010
ATTY. LUCKY M. DAMASEN, Petitioner,
vs.
OSCAR G. TUMAMAO, Respondent.
FACTS: The Vice-Mayor of San Isidro, Isabela, died. The highest-ranking member of the
Sangguniang Bayan, a member of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), was elevated as Vice-
Mayor. Mayor Abraham T. Lim (Mayor Lim) recommended to Governor Maria Gracia Cielo M.
Padaca (Governor Padaca) the appointment of Oscar G. Tumamao (Tumamao), also a member of the
LDP, to fill up the vacancy in the Sanggunian. Tumamao took his oath before the mayor as
Sangguninan member and attended its regular sessions. After a few days, Atty. Lucky Damasen
(Damasen) took his oath of affiliation to the LDP before the LDP Provincial Chairman, Ms. Ana Benita
Balauag (Provincial Chairman Balauag), and secured from her a letter of nomination addressed to
Governor Padaca for his appointment to the Sangguniang Bayan. He was appointed as Sanggunian
member by the governor and took his oath before her. Damasen attended the Sangguniang Bayan
session but was not duly recognized. Damasen filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition seeking to
be declared as the rightful member of the Sanggunian by reason of the provincial chairman’s
nomination and the governor’s appointment. The RTC ruled in favor of Damasen. It based its decision
on Sec. 45 (b) of RA 7160. This law provides for the rule on succession in cases of permanent
vacancies in the Sanggunian: first, that the appointee shall come from the same political party as that
of the Sanggunian member who caused the vacancy and; second, that the appointee must have a
nomination and a Certificate of Membership from the highest official of the political party concerned.
Tumamao appealed the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals. The CA held that Damasen was not
entitled to assume the vacant position in the Sangguniang Bayan.
ISSUE: Whether or not Damasen is entitled to assume the vacant position in the Sangguniang Bayan.
RULING: The reason behind the right given to a political party to nominate a replacement where a
permanent vacancy occurs in the Sanggunian is to maintain the party representation as willed by the
people in the election. With the elevation of petitioner Tamayo, who belonged to REFORMA-LM, to
the position of Vice-Mayor, a vacancy occurred in the Sanggunian that should be filled up with
someone belonging to the political party of petitioner Tamayo. Otherwise, REFORMA-LM’s
representation in the Sanggunian would be diminished. Xxx. As earlier pointed out, the reason behind
Par. (b), Sec. 45 of the Local Government Code is the maintenance of party representation in the
Sanggunian in accordance with the will of the electorate. Like the CA, this Court has no reason to
doubt the veracity of the letter coming from the LDP leadership. Quite clearly, from the tenor of the
letter, it appears that the membership of Damasen still had to be approved by the LDP National
Council. Thus, notwithstanding Damasen’s procurement of a Certificate of Membership from LDP
Provincial Chairman Balauag, to this Court’s mind, the same merely started the process of his
membership in the LDP, and it did not mean automatic membership thereto. While it may be argued
that Damasen was already a member upon receipt of a Certificate of Membership from LDP
Provincial Chairman Balauag, this Court cannot impose such view on the LDP. If the LDP leadership
says that the membership of Damasen still had to be endorsed to the National Council for approval,
then this Court cannot question such requirement in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is well
settled that the discretion of accepting members to a political party is a right and a privilege, a purely
internal matter, which this Court cannot meddle in.

G.R. No. 203766               April 2, 2013

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
FACTS: The case constitutes 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. 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. December 5, 2012, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the COMELEC Second Division’s
resolution to grant Partido ng Bayan ng Bida’s (PBB) registration and accreditation as a political party
in the National Capital Region. However, PBB was denied participation in the elections because PBB
does not represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. 13 petitioners were not able to
secure a mandatory injunction from the Court. The COMELEC, on 7 January 2013 issued Resolution
No. 9604, and excluded the names of these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official. Pursuant to
paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC En Banc scheduled summary evidentiary hearings
to determine whether the groups and organizations that filed manifestations of intent to participate in
the elections have continually complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 7941 and Ang Bagong
Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC (Ang Bagong Bayani). 39 petitioners were able to secure a
mandatory injunction from the Court, directing the COMELEC to include the names of these 39
petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the elections. Petitioners prayed for the issuance of
a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. This Court issued Status Quo
Ante Orders in all petitions. 

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the elections.

RULING: No. the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following prevailing
decisions in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the coming elections. However, since the
Court adopts new parameters in the qualification of the party-list system, thereby abandoning the
rulings in the decisions applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, we remand to the
COMELEC all the present petitions for the COMELEC to determine who are qualified to register
under the party-list system, and to participate in the coming elections, under the new parameters
prescribed in this Decision. Moreover, Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that,
during the first three consecutive terms of Congress after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution,
"one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women,
youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector." This provision
clearly shows again that the party-list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties for two obvious
reasons. First, the other one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives would naturally be
open to non-sectoral party-list representatives, clearly negating the idea that the party-list system is
exclusively for sectoral parties representing the "marginalized and underrepresented." Second, the
reservation of one-half of the party-list seats to sectoral parties applies only for the first "three
consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution," clearly making the party-list system fully
open after the end of the first three congressional terms. This means that, after this period, there will
be no seats reserved for any class or type of party that qualifies under the three groups constituting
the party-list system. Hence, the clear intent, express wording, and party-list structure ordained in
Section 5(1) and (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution cannot be disputed: the party-list system is
not for sectoral parties only, but also for non-sectoral parties. R.A. No. 7941 does not require national
and regional parties or organizations to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors.
To require all national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the "marginalized
and underrepresented" is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented
parties from the party-list system. How will these ideology-based and cause-oriented parties, who
cannot win in legislative district elections, participate in the electoral process if they are excluded
from the party-list system? To exclude them from the party-list system is to prevent them from
joining the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their only option the armed struggle. To exclude them
from the party-list system is, apart from being obviously senseless, patently contrary to the clear
intent and express wording of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
G.R. No. 207026               August 6, 2013
COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
FACTS: Petitioner COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) is an
organization and sectoral party whose membership comes from the peasant sector, particularly the
coconut farmers and producers. On May 29, 2012, COCOFED manifested with the COMELEC its
intent to participate in the party-list elections of May 13, 2013 and submitted the names of only two
nominees Atty. Emerito S. Calderon (first nominee) and Atty. Domingo P. Espina. On August 23,
2012, the COMELEC conducted a summary hearing, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 9513, to
determine whether COCOFED, among several party-list groups that filed manifestations of intent to
participate in the May 13, 2013 party-list elections, had continuously complied with the legal
requirements. In its November 7, 2012 resolution, the COMELEC cancelled COCOFEDs registration
and accreditation as a party-list organization on several grounds. Notably, the Concurring Opinion of
Commissioner Christian Lim cited, as additional ground, that since COCOFED submitted only two
nominees, then it failed to comply with Section 8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941that requires the party
to submit to COMELEC a list of not less than five nominees. On December 4, 2012, COCOFED
submitted the names of Charles R. Avila, in substitution of Atty. Espina, as its second nominee and
Efren V. Villaser as its third nominee. COCOFED, among several others, questioned the COMELECs
cancellation of its registration and accreditation before this Court, with a prayer for the issuance of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. By reason of the status quo ante order
issued by the Court, COCOFEDs name was included in the printing of the official ballots for the May
13, 2013 elections. On April 2, 2013, the Court rendered its Decision in Atong Paglaum, Inc., etc., et al.
v. Commission on Elections. The Court remanded all the petitions to the COMELEC to determine
their compliance with the new parameters and guidelines set by the Court in that case. On May 10,
2013, the COMELEC issued its assailed resolution, maintaining its earlier ruling cancelling
COCOFEDs registration and accreditation for its failure to comply with the requirement of Section 8
of RA No. 7941, i.e., to submit a list of not less than five nominees. The COMELEC noted that all
existing party-list groups or organizations were on notice as early as February 8, 2012 (when
Resolution No. 9359 was promulgated) that upon submission of their respective manifestations of
intent to participate, they also needed to submit a list of five nominees. During the hearing on August
23, 2012, the COMELEC pointed out to COCOFED that it had only two nominees. COCOFED moved
for reconsideration only to withdraw its motion later. Instead, on May 20, 2013, COCOFED filed a
Manifestation with Urgent Request to Admit Additional Nominees with the COMELEC, namely: (i)
Felino M. Gutierrez and (ii) Rodolfo T. de Asis. On May 24, 2013, the COMELEC issued a resolution
declaring the cancellation of COCOFEDs accreditation final and executory.
ISSUE: Whether or not can COCOFED's registration can be cancelled.

RULING: A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of
supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. In the present
case, while the COMELEC counted and tallied the votes in favor of COCOFED showing that it failed to
obtain the required number of votes, participation in the 2013 elections was merely one of the reliefs
COCOFED prayed for. The validity of the COMELECs resolution, canceling COCOFEDs registration,
remains a very live issue that is not dependent on the outcome of the elections. COCOFEDs failure to
submit a list of five nominees, despite ample opportunity to do so before the elections, is a violation
imputable to the party under Section 6(5) of RA No. 7941. In fact, almost all of the petitioners in A
tong Paglaum were disqualified on the ground that the nominees failed to "qualify," as this word was
interpreted by the COMELEC. In other words, the Court in no way authorized a party-list group's
inexcusable failure, if not outright refusal, to comply with the clear letter of the law on the submission
of at least five nominees.
G.R. No. 206952 : OCTOBER 22, 2013

ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST (ABANG LINGKOD), Petitioner,

vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari filed by Abang Lingkod challenging the May 2013 resolution
issued by COMELEC cancelling the Abang Lingkod's party-list registration. COMELEC says that it is
not enough that the party-list organization claim representation of the marginalized and
underrepresented because representation is easy to claim.  Records shows that Abang Lingkod failed
to stablish its track record which is important to prove that the party-list continuously represents the
marginalized. Abang Lingkod merely offered pictures of some alleged activities they conducted after
the 2010 elections. These pictures appear to be edited. Under The Party-List System Act, a group’s
registration may be cancelled for declaring unlawful statements in its petition. Photoshopping images
to establish a fact that did not occur is tantamount to declaring unlawful statements. It is on this
ground that the Commission cancels ABANG LINGKOD’s registration. Abang Lingkod filed a motion
for reconsideration but it was denied by COMELEC, thus this current Petition for certiorari.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in cancelling
ABANG LINGKOD’s registration under the party-list system.
RULING: COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A party, by law, is either "a political
party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." A political party is defined as:
x x x an 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.
(Emphasis provided)
A party is a national party "when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a
majority of the regions. It is a regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical
territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region."
On the other hand, a sectoral party:
x x x refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5
hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector.
R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. To require all national and regional parties under the
party-list system to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" is to deprive and exclude, by
judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system. Petitioner is a
sectoral party-list group that purports to represent the peasant farmers. However, it did not even
comply with the bare requirement that sectoral party-list groups representing a sector should show
that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. As correctly
argued by the public respondent, petitioner will not, therefore, qualify even under the new parameters
set forth in Atong Paglaum.

G.R. No. 193808               June 26, 2012

LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. and TERESITA F. PLANAS, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), CITIZENS’ BATTLE AGAINST
CORRUPTION PARTY LIST represented by VIRGINIA S. JOSE SHERWIN N. TUGNA,
and CINCHONA CRUZ-GONZALES, Respondents
FACTS: The Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), a duly registered party-list organization,
manifested their intent to participate in the May 14, 2004 synchronized national and local elections.
They submitted a list of five nominees from which its representatives would be chosen should CIBAC
obtain the number of qualifying votes. However, prior to the elections, the list of nominees was
amended: the nominations of the petitioner Lokin, Sherwin Tugna and Emil Galang were withdrawn;
Armi Jane Borje was substituted; and Emmanuel Joel Villanueva and Chinchona Cruz-Gonzales were
retained. Election results showed that CIBAC was entitled to a second seat and that Lokin, as second
nominee on the original list, to a proclamation, which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales.
The COMELEC resolved the matter on the validity of the amendment of the list of nominees and the
withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. The COMELEC en banc proclaimed Cruz-
Gonzales as the official second nominee of CIBAC. Cruz-Gonzales took her oath of office as a Party-
List Representative of CIBAC. Lokin filed a petition for mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC
to proclaim him as the official second nominee of CIBAC. Likewise, he filed another petition for
certiorari assailing Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 alleging that it expanded Section 8 of R.A. No.
7941 by allowing CIBAC to change its nominees.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 is unconstitutional and violates the Party-
List System Act
RULING: The Court held that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 was invalid. The COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 7804 as an implementing rules and regulations in accordance with the provisions of
the Omnibus Election Code and the Party-List System Act. As an administrative agency, it cannot
amend an act of Congress nor issue IRRs that may enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the law it
administers and enforces. Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 provides that: Each registered party,
organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-five (45) days before the
election a list of names, not less than five (5), from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in
case it obtains the required number of votes. A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only
persons who have given their consent in writing may be named in the list. The list shall not include
any candidate of any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the
immediately preceding election. No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shal be
allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee
dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the
substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of
Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned. The
above provision is clear and unambiguous and expresses a single and definite meaning, there is no
room for interpretation or construction but only for application. Section 8 clearly prohibits the change
of nominees and alteration of the order in the list of nominees’ names after submission of the list to
the COMELEC. It enumerates only three instances in which an organization can substitute another
person in place of the nominee whose name has been submitted to the COMELEC: (1) when the
nominee fies; (2) when the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination; and (3) when the nominee
becomes incapacitated. When the statute enumerates the exception to the application of the general
rule, the exceptions are strictly but reasonably construed. Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded
the exceptions under Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 when it provided four instances by adding
“nomination is withdrawn by the party” as statutory ground for substituting a nominee. COMELEC
had no authority to expand, extend, or add anything to law it seeks to implement. An IRR should
remain consistent with the law it intends to carry out not override, supplant or modify it. An IRR
adopted pursuant to the law is itself law but in case of conflict between the law and the IRR, the law
prevails.
G.R. No. 206987               September 10, 2013
ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
FACTS: ANAD failed to submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007
National and Local Elections as required by Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7166 ("R.A. No. 7166").
ANAD went before this Court challenging the above-mentioned resolution. In Atong Paglaum, Inc. v.
Comelec, the Court remanded the case to the COMELEC for re-evaluation in accordance with the
parameters prescribed in the aforesaid decision. In the assailed Resolution dated 11 May 2013, the
COMELEC affirmed the cancellation of petitioner’s Certificate of Registration and/or Accreditation
and disqualified it from participating in the 2013 Elections. The COMELEC held that while ANAD can
be classified as a sectoral party lacking in well-defined political constituencies, its disqualification still
subsists for violation of election laws and regulations, particularly for its failure to submit at least five
nominees, and for its failure to submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007
Elections. Hence, the present petition raising the issues of whether or not the COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion in promulgating the assailed Resolution without the benefit of a summary
evidentiary hearing mandated by the due process clause, and whether or not the COMELEC erred in
finding that petitioner submitted only three nominees and that it failed to submit its Statement of
Contributions and Expenditures in the 2007Elections.
ISSUE: Whether or not ANAD failed to comply with the above-mentioned requirements as the
exhibits submitted.
RULING: As empowered by law, the COMELEC may motu proprio cancel, after due notice and
hearing, the registration of any party-list organization if it violates or fails to comply with laws, rules
or regulations relating to elections. Thus, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
COMELEC when it issued the assailed Resolution dated 11 May 2013. In any event, the official tally
results of the COMELEC show that ANAD garnered 200,972 votes. As such, even if petitioner is
declared qualified and the votes cast for it are canvassed, statistics show that it will still fail to qualify
for a seat in the House of Representatives. As found by the COMELEC, ANAD, for unknown reasons,
submitted only three nominees instead of five, in violation of Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 7941 (An Act
Providing for the Election of Party-List Representatives through the Party-List System, and
Appropriating Funds Therefor). Such factual finding of the COMELEC was based on the Certificate of
Nomination presented and marked by petitioner during the 22 and 23 August 2012summary
hearings. Compliance with Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 is essential as the said provision is a safeguard
against arbitrariness.1âwphi1 Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941rids a party-list organization of the
prerogative to substitute and replace its nominees, or even to switch the order of the nominees, after
submission of the list to the COMELEC.
G.R. No. 222236
HARLIN C. ABAYON, Petitioner,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTOLRAL TRIBUNAL (HRET) and RAUL A.
DAZA, Respondents.
FACTS: Abayon and Daza were contenders for the position of Representative in the First Legislative
District of Northern Samar during the May 13, 2013 Elections. Abayon was declared as the winner.
However Daza filed his Election Protest challenging the elections results. He said that terrorism was
committed by the latter and his unidentified cohorts, agents and supporters. Abayon filed his Verified
Answer raising special and affirmative defenses as well as his Counter-Protest. In his Urgent
Manifestation and Omnibus Motion, dated September 3, 2015, Daza moved for the withdrawal of his
cause of action for the recount, revision and re-appreciation of the ballots in the clustered precincts in
the municipalities of Biri, Capul and San Isidro. He likewise prayed that the validity and legitimacy of
his separate and distinct cause of action for the annulment of election results in certain identified
precincts on the ground of terrorism be upheld. The HRET granted Daza's motion. Thereafter, Daza
filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion, dated November 4, 2015, praying that Abayon's counter-
protest be dismissed as a consequence of the withdrawal of his (Daza's) cause of action for the
recount, revision and re-appreciation in the concerned clustered precincts. The HRET granted Daza's
motion and dismissed Abayon's counter-protest. Abayon moved for reconsideration but his motion
was denied by the HRET in its January 21, 2016 Resolution. Aggrieved, Abayon filed a Petition for
Certiorari with prayer for the urgent issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a status
quo ante order and/or Preliminary injunction before the Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not HRET have jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of petitioners as
nominees of Aangat Tayo and Bantay party-list organizations, respectively, who took the seats at the
House of Representatives that such organizations won in the 2007 elections.
RULING: It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of this particular qualification of a nominee the
need for him or her to be a bona fide member or a representative of his party-list organization in the
context of the facts that characterize petitioners Abayon and Palparans relation to Aangat Tayo and
Bantay, respectively, and the marginalized and underrepresented interests that they presumably
embody. Parenthetically, although the Party-List System Act does not so state, the COMELEC seems
to believe, when it resolved the challenge to petitioner Abayon, that it has the power to do so as an
incident of its authority to approve the registration of party-list organizations. But the Court need not
resolve this question since it is not raised here and has not been argued by the parties. What is
inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the members of the House of
Representatives. Since, as pointed out above, party-list nominees are "elected members" of the House
of Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and
pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the party or
organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and
assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election
contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. Hence,
respondent HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion when it dismissed the petitions for quo
warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list and Bantay party-list but upheld its jurisdiction over the
question of the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan.

G.R. No. 190529               April 29, 2010

PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI), represented by its Secretary-
General GEORGE "FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
FACTS: Respondent delisted petitioner, a party list organization, from the roster of registered
national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list system through
its resolution, denying also the latter’s motion for reconsideration, in accordance with Section 6(8) of
Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, which provides:
Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. – The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon
verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the
following grounds:
x  x  x  x
(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. [Emphasis supplied.]
Petitioner was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate in
the 2007 elections.  Petitioner filed its opposition to the resolution citing among others the
misapplication in the ruling of MINERO v. COMELEC, but was denied for lack of merit. Petitioner
elevated the matter to SC showing the excerpts from the records of Senate Bill No. 1913 before it
became the law in question.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is legal basis in the delisting of PGBI.

RULING: No. 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 in the plain, clear and
unmistakable language of the law which provides for two (2) separate reasons for
delisting. Second, MINERO is diametrically opposed to the legislative intent of Section 6(8) of RA
7941, as PGBI’s cited congressional deliberations clearly show. MINERO therefore simply cannot
stand.
G.R. No. 189600               June 29, 2010
MILAGROS E. AMORES, Petitioner,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and EMMANUEL JOEL J.
VILLANUEVA, Respondents.
FACTS: Milagros E. Amores (petitioner) challenges the Decision of May 14, 2009 and Resolution No.
09-130 of August 6, 2009 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (public respondent),
which respectively dismissed petitioner’s Petition for Quo Warranto questioning the legality of the
assumption of office of Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva (private respondent) as representative of the
party-list organization Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives,
and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. In her Petition for Quo Warranto seeking the
ouster of private respondent, petitioner alleged that, among other things, private respondent assumed
office without a formal proclamation issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC); he was
disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since, at the time of the filing of his
certificates of nomination and acceptance, he was already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30
pursuant to Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act;
and his change of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Filipino workers and their
families sector was not effected at 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA No. 7941 is applicable to private respondent.
RULING: 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. 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. 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. It
not being contested, however, that private respondent was eventually proclaimed as a party-list
representative of CIBAC and rendered services as such, he is entitled to keep the compensation and
emoluments provided by law for the position until he is properly declared ineligible to hold the same.
G.R. No. 190582               April 8, 2010
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS 
FACTS: Comelec refused to recognize Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, an organization composed of men
and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals
(LGBTs), as a party list based on moral grounds. In the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court,
Comelec alleged that petitioner made misrepresentation in their application.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualifies for registration as party-list.
RULING: Ang Ladlad LGBT Party’s application for registration should be granted. Comelec’s citation
of the Bible and the Koran in denying petitioner’s application was a violation of the non-
establishment clause laid down in Article 3 section 5 of the Constitution. The proscription by law
relative to acts against morality must be for a secular purpose (that is, the conduct prohibited or
sought to be repressed is “detrimental or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the
existence and progress of human society"), rather than out of religious conformity. The Comelec failed
to substantiate their allegation that allowing registration to Ladlad would be detrimental to society.
The LGBT community is not exempted from the exercise of its constitutionally vested rights on the
basis of their sexual orientation. Laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs,
and they deserve to participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and
under-represented sectors. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not tolerated ---not by our
own laws nor by any international laws to which we adhere.
G.R. No. 136781               October 6, 2000
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY, ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN NG MGA MAGSASAKA,
MANGGAGAWANG BUKID AT MANGINGISDA, ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG
ORDINARYONG TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY AT KAUNLARAN, and LUZON
FARMERS PARTY, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PAG-ASA, SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP AKSYON,
PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PAG-ASA, MAHARLIKA, OCW-UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-
KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW, WOMEN-POWER,
INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU,
BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAKBAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN,
KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA PILIPINAS -- All Being Party-List
Parties/Organizations -- and Hon. MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR. in His Capacity as Speaker
of the House of Representatives, respondents.
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 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.
RULING: 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. 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.

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
FACTS: Petitioners challenged the Comelec’s Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which approved the
participation of 154 organizations and parties, including those herein impleaded, in the 2001 party-
list elections. Petitioners sought the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the
party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream
political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented. Unsatisfied with the pace by which
Comelec acted on their petition, petitioners elevated the issue to the Supreme Court. 
ISSUE: Whether or not political parties may participate in the party list elections.
RULING:  The Court may take cognizance of an issue notwithstanding the availability of other
remedies "where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved, and in case of
urgency." The facts attendant to the case rendered it justiciable. Political Parties -- even the major
ones -- may participate in the party-list elections subject to the requirements laid down in the
Constitution and RA 7941, which is the statutory law pertinent to the Party List System. 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 Representative may “be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations”. It is however, incumbent upon
the COMELEC to determine proportional representation of the marginalized and underrepresented”,
the criteria for participation in relation to the cause of the party list applicants so as to avoid
desecration of the noble purpose of the party-list system. The Court acknowledged that to determine
the propriety of the inclusion of respondents in the Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, a study of the
factual allegations was necessary which was beyond the pale of the Court. The Court not being a trier
of facts. However, seeing that the Comelec failed to appreciate fully the clear policy of the law and the
Constitution, the Court decided to set some guidelines culled from the law and the Constitution, to
assist the Comelec in its work. The Court ordered that the petition be remanded in the Comelec to
determine compliance by the party lists.
G.R. No. 162203             April 14, 2004
AKLAT-ASOSASYON PARA SA KAUNLARAN NG LIPUNAN AT ADHIKAIN PARA SA
TAO, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), respondent.
FACTS: On November 20, 2003, Aklat filed a Petition for declaration of re-qualification as a party-
list organization for purposes of the May 2004 elections. It alleged in its petition that it participated in
the 2001 elections but was disqualified by the Comelec as it was found not to have complied with the
guidelines set by the Court in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec for party-
list organizations to qualify and participate as such in the party-list elections. Accordingly, Aklat “re-
organized itself in order that it will comply with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by the Supreme
Court” in the said case. The Comelec dismissed the petition stating that Aklat cannot be considered as
an organization representing the marginalized and underrepresented groups as identified under
Section 5 R.A. 7941. Further, the Comelec held that “AKLAT lumped all the sectoral groups
imaginable under the classification of regular members just to convince us that itis now cured of its
defect.” Aklat filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Comelec denied the motion in its questioned
Resolution dated February 13,2004, on three grounds, namely: the petition was filed beyond the
deadline set by the Comelec in Resolution No. 6320for registration of party-list organizations; the
petition was not one for re-qualification as Aklat was never a registered party-list organization having
failed to meet the eight-point guidelines set by the Court in the Bagong Bayani  case; and that its
decision not to extend the deadline for registration of party-list organizations is valid, the Comelec
being in thebest position to make such a determination. In the instant Petition, Aklat asserts that
under Section 5 of R.A. 7941, petitions for registration as a party-list organization may be filed not
later than 90 days before the elections. It therefore had until February 10, 2004, the ninetieth (90th)
day before the elections on May 10, 2004, within which to file its petition. Hence, its petition, which
was filed on November 20, 2003, was filed within the allowed period. Section 5 of Resolution No.
6320 which requires the filing of such petitions not later than September 30, 2003, is null and void as
it amends R.A. 7941.It further maintains that it has complied with the eight-point guidelines set in the
Bagong Bayani case. Allegedly, Aklat has a total membership of over 4,000 persons who belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented groups. It has established information and coordination centers
throughout the country for the benefit and in representation of indigenous cultural communities,
farm and factory workers including fisher folk and the youth. Aklat also asserts that itis different from
Asosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran ng Industria ng Aklat (A.K.L.A.T.) which was previously de-registered
by the Comelec.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it denied its petition for re-
qualification.

RULING: The Office of the Solicitor General stated that the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions. According to the OSG, Resolution No. 6320 is not in
conflict with and is, in fact, germane to the purpose of R.A. 7941. It was within the scope of the
authority granted to the Comelec that it issued Resolution No. 6320setting the deadline for filing
petitions for registration under the party-list system on September 30, 2003. In line with the purpose
of R.A. 7941 to enable marginalized sectors to actively participate in legislation, the Comelec must be
given sufficient time to evaluate all petitions for registration, at the same time allowing oppositions to
be filed to the end that only those truly qualified may be accredited under the party-list system.
Besides, Republic Act No. 8436 allows the Comelec to change the periods and dates prescribed by law
for certain pre-election acts to ensure their accomplishment.
G.R. No. 177271             May 4, 2007
BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT OR BA-RA 7941, represented by MR. AMEURFINO E. CINCO,
Chairman, AND URBAN POOR FOR LEGAL REFORMS (UP-LR), represented by MRS.
MYRNA P. PORCARE, Secretary-General, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BIYAHENG PINOY, KAPATIRAN NG MGA
NAKAKULONG NA WALANG SALA (KAKUSA), BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR
NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), AHON PINOY,
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ALLIANCE OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (AGAP), PUWERSA
NG BAYANING ATLETA (PBA), ALYANSA NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG AGHAM AT
TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA MAMAMAYAN, INC. (AGHAM), BABAE PARA SA
KAUNLARAN (BABAE KA), AKSYON SAMBAYANAN (AKSA), ALAY SA BAYAN NG
MALAYANG PROPESYUNAL AT REPORMANG KALAKAL (ABAY-PARAK), AGBIAG
TIMPUYOG ILOCANO, INC. (AGBIAG!), ABANTE ILONGGO, INC. (ABA ILONGGO),
AANGAT TAYO (AT), AANGAT ANG KABUHAYAN (ANAK), BAGO NATIONAL
CULTURAL SOCIETY OF THE PHILIPPINES (BAGO), ANGAT ANTAS-KABUHAYAN
PILIPINO MOVEMENT (AANGAT KA PILIPINO), ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE
PROFESSIONAL (ABS), ASSOSASYON NG MGA MALILIIT NA NEGOSYANTENG
GUMAGANAP INC. (AMANG), SULONG BARANGAY MOVEMENT, KASOSYO
PRODUCERS CONSUMER EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION, INC. (KASOSYO), UNITED
MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS (UNI-MAD), PARENTS ENABLING PARENTS (PEP),
ALLIANCE OF NEO-CONSERVATIVES (ANC), FILIPINOS FOR PEACE, JUSTICE AND
PROGRESS MOVEMENT (FPJPM), BIGKIS PINOY MOVEMENT (BIGKIS), 1-UNITED
TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UNTAK), ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS (ABC),
BIYAYANG BUKID, INC., ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD),
AKBAY PINOY OFW-NATIONAL INC., (APOI), ALLIANCE TRANSPORT SECTOR (ATS),
KALAHI SECTORAL PARTY (ADVOCATES FOR OVERSEAS FILIPINO) AND
ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATORS, PROFESSIONALS AND SENIORS
(AAPS), Respondents.
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: Whether or not 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.
RULING: 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.
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.

G.R. No. 179271               April 21, 2009

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY
(BANAT), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers), Respondent.
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS, Intervenor.
AANGAT TAYO, Intervenor.
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
(SENIOR CITIZENS), Intervenor.
FACTS: In July and August 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, made
a partial proclamation of the winners in the party-list elections which was held in May 2007.
In proclaiming the winners and apportioning their seats, the COMELEC considered the following
rules:
1. In the lower house, 80% shall comprise the seats for legislative districts, while the remaining 20%
shall come from party-list representatives (Sec. 5, Article VI, 1987 Constitution);
2. Pursuant to Sec. 11b of R.A. 7941 or the Party-List System Act, a party-list which garners at least 2%
of the total votes cast in the party-list elections shall be entitled to one seat;
3. If a party-list garners at least 4%, then it is entitled to 2 seats; if it garners at least 6%, then it is
entitled to 3 seats – this is pursuant to the 2-4-6 rule or the Panganiban Formula from the case
of Veterans Federation Party vs COMELEC.
4. In no way shall a party be given more than three seats even if if garners more than 6% of the votes
cast for the party-list election (3 seat cap rule, same case).
The Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), a party-list
candidate, questioned the proclamation as well as the formula being used. BANAT averred that the
2% threshold is invalid; Sec. 11 of RA 7941 is void because its provision that a party-list, to qualify for
a congressional seat, must garner at least 2% of the votes cast in the party-list election, is not
supported by the Constitution. Further, the 2% rule creates a mathematical impossibility to meet the
20% party-list seat prescribed by the Constitution. BANAT also questions if the 20% rule is a mere
ceiling or is it mandatory. If it is mandatory, then with the 2% qualifying vote, there would be
instances when it would be impossible to fill the prescribed 20% share of party-lists in the lower
house. BANAT also proposes a new computation (which shall be discussed in the “HELD” portion of
this digest). On the other hand, BAYAN MUNA, another party-list candidate, questions the validity of
the 3 seat rule (Section 11a of RA 7941). It also raised the issue of whether or not major political
parties are allowed to participate in the party-list elections or is the said elections limited to sectoral
parties.
ISSUE: Whether or not major political parties are allowed to participate in the party-list elections.
RULING: No. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court continued to disallow major political parties (the
likes of UNIDO, LABAN, etc) from participating in the party-list elections. Although the ponencia
(Justice Carpio) did point out that there is no prohibition either from the Constitution or from RA
7941 against major political parties from participating in the party-list elections as the word “party”
was not qualified and that even the framers of the Constitution in their deliberations deliberately
allowed major political parties to participate in the party-list elections provided that they establish a
sectoral wing which represents the marginalized (indirect participation), Justice Puno, in his separate
opinion, concurred by 7 other justices, explained that the will of the people defeats the will of the
framers of the Constitution precisely because it is the people who ultimately ratified the Constitution
– and the will of the people is that only the marginalized sections of the country shall participate in
the party-list elections. Hence, major political parties cannot participate in the party-list elections,
directly or indirectly.
G.R. No. 207134 June 16, 2015
AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA (AKMA-PTM), Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT, ABANTE KATUTUBO (ABANTE KA),
FROILAN M. BACUNGAN AND HERMENEGILDO DUMLAO, Petitioners-in-
Intervention.
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. The petition was filed with this Court on May 30, 2013. The Court did not issue a
temporary restraining order. Subsequently, the Court admitted the petition-in-intervention4 filed by
Abante Katutubo (ABANTE KA), Froilan M. Bacungan and Hermenegildo Dumlao who claim to have
"demonstrable, legal, moral and compelling interest in the outcome of the case and the controversy.
ISSUE: Whether or not 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.
RULING: COMELEC is authorized by law to proclaim winning candidates if the remaining
uncanvassed election returns will not affect the result of the elections. An incomplete canvass of votes
is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass is not reflective of the true
vote of the electorate unless the board of canvassers considers all returns and omits none. However,
this is true only where the election returns missing or not counted will affect the results of the
election. Apparently, petitioner mistakenly assumed that the statement in BANAT disallowing
fractional seats insofar as the additional seats for the two-percenters in the second round should also
apply to those party-list groups with less than 2% votes. But as demonstrated in BANAT, the 20%
share in representation may never be filled up if the 2% threshold is maintained. In the same vein, the
maximum representation will not be achieved if those party-list groups obtaining less than one
percentage are disqualified from even one additional seat in the second round.