Mastura vs COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner Michael Mastura and respondent Digagen Dilangen were congressional
candidates for 1st district of Maguindanao during May 1995 elections. Digaden objected to
the certificate of canvass of Municipality of Matanog on the ground that the same was
allegedly tampered. COMELEC 2nd division ordered the examination of the election returns –
4 boxes were opened:
Ballot 1 – MTC judge copy
Ballot 2 – Provincioal Board of Canvassers copy
Ballot 3 – COMELEC copy of election returns
Ballot 4 – Provincial copy of election returns with statement of votes
COMELEC 2nddecision – Certificate of Canvass had been tampered with, annulled the
certificate of canvass of Matanog. The New Municipal Board of Canvassers convened and
recanvassed the votes. Mastura objected to the inclusion of 50 out of 57 election returns on
the ground that it was not reflective of the copy of the ORIGINAL Municipal Board of
Canvassers.
Issue: W/N COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction?
Held: NO. It is settled jurisprudence that COMELEC can suspend the canvass of votes pending
its inquiry whether there exists a discrepancy between the various copies of election returns
from the disputed voting centers. once the election returns were found to be falsified or
tampered with, the COMELEC can annul the illegal canvass and order the Board of Canvassers
to reconvene and proclaim the winners on the basis of the genuine returns or, if it should
refuse, replace the members of the board or proclaim the winners itself. COMELEC has broad
powers to ascertain the true results of the election by means available to it; For the
attainment of that end, it is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence. The COMELEC
exercises direct supervision and control over the proceedings before the Board of
Canvassers.—Pursuant to its administrative functions, the COMELEC exercises direct
supervision and control over the proceedings before the Board of Canvassers.
Hayudini vs COMELEC
Facts: Oct. 2012, Hayudini filed his COC for Mayor of South Ubian, Tawi – Tawi for the 2013
elections held in ARMM. Mustapha Omar filed a petition to deny due course or cancel
hayudinid COC for making false representation regarding his residence. Claiming that
Hayudinin declared in his COC that he is a resident of the Municipality of South Ubian, when
in fact he resides in Zamboanga City. Nov. 2012, Hayudini filed a petiton for inclusion in the
permanent list of voters in Brgy. Bintawlan, South Ubian before the MCTC. Despite the
opposition of Ignacio Baki, MCTC granted hayudini’s petition. Oppositor Baki, elevated the
case to the Bongao Regional Trial Court – reversed MCTC decision. Omar filed before the
COMELEC a Petition to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Gamal Hayudini . hayudini
appealed to the CA but was denied.
Hayudini filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc which the SC denied
for lack of merit
Note: Gamal Hayudini was proclaimed but is now annulled by the decisioj of COMELEC en
banc , considering the doctrine laid down by the case Aratea v. Comelec that a cancelled CoC
cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less, to a valid vote.
Issue:
Held: Settled is the rule that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal
construction. The COMELEC has the power to liberally interpret or even suspend its rules of
procedure in the interest of justice, including obtaining a speedy disposition of all matters
pending before it. This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient
implementation of its objectives — ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful,
and credible elections, as well as achieving just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination
and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the COMELEC. Unlike an
ordinary civil action, an election contest is imbued with public interest. It involves not only
the adjudication of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also the
paramount need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real choice of the
electorate. And the tribunal has the corresponding duty to ascertain, by all means within its
command, whom the people truly chose as their rightful leader. A candidate who falsifies a
material fact cannot run; if he runs and is elected, cannot serve; in both cases, he or she can
be prosecuted for violation of the election laws.—The false representation mentioned in
these provisions must pertain to a material fact, not to a mere innocuous mistake. A
candidate who falsifies a material fact cannot run; if he runs and is elected, cannot serve; in
both cases, he or she can be prosecuted for violation of the election laws. These facts pertain
to a candidate’s qualification for elective office, such as his or her citizenship and residence.
Similarly, the candidate’s status as a registered voter falls under this classification as it is a
legal requirement which must be reflected in the CoC. The reason for this is obvious: the
candidate, if he or she wins, will work for and represent the local government under which
he or she is running. Even the will of the people, as expressed through the ballot, cannot cure
the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in the instant case, that the
candidate was qualified.
If a candidate is not actually eligible because he is not a registered voter in the municipality
where he intends to be elected, but still he states under oath in his certificate of candidacy
that he is eligible to run for public office, then the candidate clearly makes a false material
representation, a ground to support a petition under Section 78.—Section 74 requires the
candidate to state under oath in his CoC “that he is eligible for said office.” A candidate is
eligible if he has a right to run for the public office. If a candidate is not actually eligible
because he is not a registered voter in the municipality where he intends to be elected, but
still he states under oath in his certificate of candidacy that he is eligible to run for public
office, then the candidate clearly makes a false material representation, a ground to support
a petition under Section 78. It is interesting to note that Hayudini was, in fact, initially
excluded by the ERB as a voter. On November 30, 2012, the ERB issued a certificate
confirming the disapproval of Hayudini’s petition for registration. This is precisely the reason
why he needed to file a Petition for Inclusion in the Permanent List of Voters
in Barangay Bintawlan before the MCTC. Thus, when he stated in his CoC that “he is eligible
for said office,” Hayudini made a clear and material misrepresentation as to his eligibility,
because he was not, in fact, registered as a voter in Barangay Bintawlan. Same;
Disqualification of Candidates; A Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) cancellation proceeding
essentially partakes of the nature of a disqualification case.—A CoC cancellation proceeding
essentially partakes of the nature of a disqualification case. The cancellation of a CoC
essentially renders the votes cast for the candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been
cancelled as stray votes. If the disqualification or CoC cancellation or denial case is not
resolved before the election day, the proceedings shall continue even after the election and
the proclamation of the winner. Meanwhile, the candidate may be voted for and even be
proclaimed as the winner, but the COMELEC’s jurisdiction to deny due course and cancel his
or her CoC continues. This rule likewise applies even if the candidate facing disqualification
has already taken his oath of office. The only exception to this rule is in the case of
congressional and senatorial candidates where the COMELEC ipso jure loses jurisdiction in
favor of either the Senate or the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal after the
candidates have been proclaimed, taken the proper oath, and also assumed office.
Typoco vs COMELEC
Facts: May 2007 elections, petitioner Jesus Typoco and respondent Edgardo Tallado vied for
the position of Governor of Camarines Norte. Petitioner was proclaimed winner with 80,830
votes vs Edgardo’s 78,827 votes. Respondent tallado filed before the COMELEC a petition for
correction of manifest error, claiming that after he reviewed and examined the figures in the
Statement of Votes by Precinct, he founds that in tye Municipality of Lobo and Jose
panganiban, errors were committed in the transposition of votes.
In Labo – SOVP shows that Edgardo’s were 13,714 then it became 11,490
In Panganiban – 6,186 then it became 5,460
Petitioner asserted that respondent filed his petition for correction of manifest error and was
guilty of forum shopping. COMELEC 1st division – granted Edgardo’s petition. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration but was denied by the COMELEC en banc.
Issue: W/N COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
Ruling: NO. COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in the instant case ratiocinating
that the appreciation of election documents involves a question of fact that is best left to the
determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections
all over the country. Further, it says that the findings of fact of such agency, when supported
by substantial evidence, are final and cannot be reviewed by courts of justice. While such is
the general rule, the principle admits of certain exceptions. In Life Assurance Company Ltd. v.
Court of Appeals, this Court enumerated the exceptions, to wit:
“It is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of review, the Court
is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence
presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings
of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court. However, the Court had
recognized several exceptions to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely
on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when
in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; x x x (10) when the
findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record.
As stated at the outset, the appreciation of election documents involves a question of fact
best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the
supervision of elections all over the country. The findings of fact of administrative bodies,
when supported by substantial evidence, are final and nonreviewable by courts of justice.
This principle is applied with greater force when the case concerns the COMELEC, because
the framers of the Constitution intended to place the poll body—created and explicitly made
independent by the Constitution itself—on a level higher than statutory administrative
organs.
Philippine Press Institute Inc. vs COMELEC
Facts: PPI assails the constitutionality of Resolution 2772 issued by COMELEC dated March
22, 1995. PPI is a non-stock, non-profit organization of newspaper and magazine publishers.
COMELEC’s Resolution 2772:
Sec. 2. Comelec Space. — The Commission shall procure free  print space of not less than one
half (1/2) page in at least one newspaper of general circulation in every province or city for
use as "Comelec Space"  from March 6, 1995 in the case of candidates for senator and from
March 21, 1995 until May 12, 1995. In the absence of said newspaper, "Comelec Space" shall
be obtained from any magazine or periodical of said province or city.
Sec. 3. Uses of Comelec Space. — "Comelec Space" shall be allocated by the
Commission,  free of charge, among all candidates  within the area in which the newspaper,
magazine or periodical is circulated to enable the candidates to make known their
qualifications, their stand on public issues and their platforms and programs of government.
"Comelec Space" shall also be used by the Commission for dissemination of vital election
information.
Sec. 4. Allocation of Comelec Space. — (a) "Comelec Space" shall also be available to
all candidates during the periods stated in Section 2 hereof. Its allocation shall be equal and
impartial among all candidates for the same office. All candidates concerned shall be
furnished a copy of the allocation of "Comelec Space" for their information, guidance and
compliance.
(b) Any candidate desiring to avail himself of "Comelec Space" from newspapers or
publications based in the Metropolitan Manila Area shall submit an application therefor, in
writing, to the Committee on Mass Media of the Commission. Any candidate desiring to avail
himself of "Comelec Space" in newspapers or publications based in the provinces shall submit
his application therefor, in writing, to the Provincial Election Supervisor concerned.
Applications for availment of "Comelec Space" maybe filed at any time from the date of
effectivity of this Resolution.
(c) The Committee on Mass Media and the Provincial Election Supervisors shall allocate
available  "Comelec Space" among the candidates  concerned by lottery of which said
candidates shall be notified in advance, in writing, to be present personally or by
representative to witness the lottery at the date, time and place specified in the notice. Any
party objecting to the result of the lottery may appeal to the Commission.
(d) The candidates concerned shall be notified by the Committee on Mass Media or the
Provincial Election Supervisor, as the case maybe, sufficiently in advance and in writing of the
date of issue and the newspaper or publication allocated to him, and the time within which
he must submit the written material for publication in the "Comelec Space".
Sec. 8. Undue Reference to Candidates/Political Parties in Newspapers. — No newspaper or
publication shall allow to be printed or published in the news, opinion, features, or other
sections of the newspaper or publication accounts or comments which manifestly favor or
oppose any candidate or political party by unduly or repeatedly referring to or including
therein said candidate or political party. However, unless the facts and circumstances clearly
indicate otherwise, the Commission will respect the determination by the publisher and/or
editors of the newspapers or publications that the accounts or views published are
significant, newsworthy and of public interest.
In Imprelentation of this resolution COMELEC sent letters to various publishers (Business
World, Philstar, Malay and Philippines Times Journal – all members of PPI)
This is to advise you that pursuant to Resolution No. 2772 of the Commission on Elections,
you are directed to provide free print space  of not less than one half (1/2) page for use as
"Comelec Space" or similar to the print support which you have extended during the May 11,
1992 synchronized elections which was 2 full pages for each political party fielding senatorial
candidates, from March 6, 1995 to May 6, 1995, to make known their qualifications, their
stand on public issues and their platforms and programs of government.
We shall be informing the  political parties and candidates to submit directly to
you their pictures, biographical data, stand on key public issues  and  platforms of
government  either as raw data or in the form of positives or camera-ready materials.
Please be reminded that the political parties/candidates may be accommodated in your
publication any day upon receipt of their materials until May 6, 1995 which is the last day for
campaigning.
PPI askes the SC to declare COMELEC resolution 2772 unconstitutional and void for violation
of prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government, and any of its agencies,
against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Petitioner
also contends that the 22 March 1995 letter directives of Comelec requiring publishers to
give free "Comelec Space" and at the same time process raw data to make it camera-ready,
constitute impositions of involuntary servitude, contrary to the provisions of Section 18 (2),
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Finally, PPI argues that Section 8 of Comelec Resolution
No. 2772 is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press and
of expression.
The Court issued a TRO , the SolGen filed his comment alleging that the resolution does not
impose upon the publishers any obligation to provide free print space in the newspapers as it
does not provide for any CRIMINAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION for non-compliance –
merly establishes guidelines to be followed in the procurement of COMELEC SPACE .
*KAHIT DAW MANDATORY –POLICE POWER DAW YUN
Issue: W/N Resolution 2772 is valid?
Held: Resolution 2772 is NOT valid. A written communication officially directing a print
media company to supply free print space, dispatched by a government agency and signed
by a member of the Commission presumably legally authorized to do so, is bound to in Resolution No. 2772. Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 does not, however, provide a
produce a coercive effect upon the company so addressed.—That Resolution No. 2772 does constitutional basis for compelling publishers, against their will, in the kind of factual context
not, in express terms, threaten publishers who would disregard it or its implementing letters here present, to provide free print space for Comelec purposes. Section 2 does not constitute
with some criminal or other sanction, does not by itself demonstrate that the Comelec’s a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.
original intention was simply to solicit or request voluntary donations of print space from
publishers. A written communication officially directing a print media company to supply free
print space, dispatched by a government (here a constitutional) agency and signed by a
member of the Commission presumably legally authorized to do so, is bound to produce a
coercive effect upon the company so addressed. That the agency may not be legally
authorized to impose, or cause the imposition of, criminal or other sanctions for disregard of
such directions, only aggravates the constitutional difficulties inhering in the present
situation. The enactment or addition of such sanctions by the legislative authority itself
would be open to serious constitutional objection.
To compel print media companies to donate “Comelec space” of the dimensions specified in
Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 (not less than one-half page), amounts to “taking” of private
personal property for public use or purposes. Section 2 failed to specify the
intended frequency of such compulsory “donation:” only once during the period from 6
March 1995 (or 21 March 1995) until 12 May 1995? or everyday or once a week? or as often
as Comelec may direct during the same period? The extent of the taking or deprivation is not
insubstantial; this is not a case of a de minimis temporary limitation or restraint upon the use
of private property.
The monetary value of the compulsory “donation,” measured by the advertising rates
ordinarily charged by newspaper publishers whether in cities or in non-urban areas, may be
very substantial indeed.

The element of necessity for the taking has not been shown by respondent Comelec.
—The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use need to be
examined here: one is the necessity for the taking; another is the legal authority to effect the
taking. The element of necessity for the taking has not been shown by respondent Comelec.
It has not been suggested that the members of PPI are unwilling to sellprint space at their
normal rates to Comelec for election purposes. Indeed, the unwillingness or reluctance of
Comelec to buy print space lies at the heart of the problem. Similarly, it has not been
suggested, let alone demonstrated, that Comelec has been granted the power of eminent
domain either by the Constitution or by the legislative authority. A reasonable relationship
between that power and the enforcement and administration of election laws by Comelec
must be sho

The taking of private property for public use is authorized by the Constitution, but
not without payment of “just compensation.”—The taking of private property for public use
is, of course, authorized by the Constitution, but not without payment of “just
compensation” (Article III, Section 9). And apparently the necessity of paying compensation
for “Comelec space” is precisely what is sought to be avoided by respondent Commission,
whether Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is read as petitioner PPI reads it, as an assertion of
authority to require newspaper publishers to “donate” free print space for Comelec
purposes, or as an exhortation, or perhaps an appeal, to publishers to donate free print
space, as Section 1 of Resolution No. 2772-A attempts to suggest.
Same;  Same; Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of
the power of eminent domain.—There is nothing at all to prevent newspaper and magazine
publishers from voluntarily giving free print space to Comelec for the purposes contemplated
Ang Ladlad vs COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner is an organizatio of LGBT, applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006.
The application was denied on the ground no substantial membership base. Aug. 2009,
Ladlad again filed a petiton for registrtaion with the COMELEC
Petitioner’s arguments
1. Marginalized and under-represented sector, disadvantaged due to gender identity
2. Victims of discrimination, violence
3. Complied with the 8 point guideline in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW vs COMELEC
COMELEC dismissed the petition on moral grounds - a marginalized and under-represented
sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender
identity. The definition makes it clear that petitioner tolerates immorality which offends
religious beliefs.
Petitioner’s arguments: The denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion by
using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of
religion. Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional
rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as
constituted violations of the Philippines’ international obligations against discrimination
based on sexual orientation. OSG- concurred since COMELEC has no basis for immorality.
COMELEC should recognize Ladlad concerns and interests.
COMELEC’s arguments: petitioner does not have genuine national political agenda that the
nation can benefit, and was validly dismissed on moral grounds. LGBT was not among those
sectors enumerated by the Consti and RA 7951.
Ruling: Petition granted. Pwede ang Ladlad “the enumeration of marginalized and under-
represented sectors is not exclusive.” The crucial element is not whether a sector is
specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with the
requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.
Religion as the Basis for Refusal  pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are
to Accept Ang Ladlad’s Petition
for Registration -“governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this
policy of neutrality.”25 We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment
clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang
Ladlad.
Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions should
depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its rulings
beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act for
secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects.
Atong Paglaum vs COMELEC
Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified by the Commission on Elections in
the May 2013 party-list elections for various reasons but primarily for not being qualified as
representatives for marginalized or underrepresented sectors.
Atong Paglaum et al then filed a petition for certiorari against COMELEC alleging grave abuse
of discretion on the part of COMELEC in disqualifying them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the
said party-lists.
HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set in the cases of Ang Bagong
Bayani and BANAT. However, the Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the COMELEC
as the Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines which abandoned some principles
established in the two aforestated cases. The new guidelines are as follows:
I. Parameters. In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC must use the following parameters:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or
organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to
organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the
party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party,
whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in
party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-
list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a
political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and underrepresented” or
lacking in “well-defined political constituencies.” It is enough that their principal advocacy
“marginalized and underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors
that lack “well-defined political constituencies” include professionals, the elderly, women,
and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral
parties or organizations that lack “well-defined political constituencies” must belong to the
sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent those who lack “well-defined
political constituencies,” either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track
record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties
or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of
their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains
qualified.
II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are disallowed, as has always been the practice,
from participating in the party-list elections. But, since there’s really no constitutional
prohibition nor a statutory prohibition, major political parties can now participate in the
party-list system provided that they do so through their bona fide sectoral wing (see
parameter 3 above).
Allowing major political parties to participate, albeit indirectly, in the party-list elections will
encourage them to work assiduously in extending their constituencies to the “marginalized
and underrepresented” and to those who “lack well-defined political constituencies.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave weight to the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission when they were drafting the party-list system provision of the Constitution. The
Commissioners deliberated that it was their intention to include all parties into the party-list
elections in order to develop a political system which is pluralistic and multiparty. (In the
BANAT case, Justice Puno emphasized that the will of the people should defeat the intent of
the framers; and that the intent of the people, in ratifying the 1987 Constitution, is that the
party-list system should be reserved for the marginalized sectors.)
III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list system is NOT RESERVED for the
“marginalized and underrepresented” or for parties who lack “well-defined political
constituencies”. It is also for national or regional parties. It is also for small ideology-based
and cause-oriented parties who lack “well-defined political constituencies”. The common
denominator however is that all of them cannot, they do not have the machinery – unlike
major political parties, to field or sponsor candidates in the legislative districts but they can
acquire the needed votes in a national election system like the party-list system of elections.
If the party-list system is only reserved for marginalized representation, then the system
itself unduly excludes other cause-oriented groups from running for a seat in the lower
house.
As explained by the Supreme Court, party-list representation should not be understood to
include only labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other sectors that by their nature are
economically at the margins of society. It should be noted that Section 5 of Republic Act 7941
includes, among others, in its provision for sectoral representation groups of professionals,
which are not per se economically marginalized but are still qualified as “marginalized,
underrepresented, and do not have well-defined political constituencies” as they are
ideologically marginalized.
Notes: The Party-List System
The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system of representation. Simply
put, the party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving political parties
that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of
Representatives.50 The voter elects two representatives in the House of Representatives: one
for his or her legislative district, and another for his or her party-list group or organization of
choice. The 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 5, Article VI
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred
and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on
the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and
sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
number of representatives including those under the party list. For three
consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law,
except the religious sector.
Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C
Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid,
except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system,
shall not be represented in the voters’ registration boards, boards of election inspectors,
boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll
watchers in accordance with law.
Commissioner Christian S. Monsod, the main sponsor of the party-list system, stressed that
"the party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation."51 The
constitutional provisions on the party-list system should be read in light of the following
discussion among its framers:
Frivaldo vs COMELEC

3 candidates

Juan Frivaldo – obtained highest number of votes BUT disqualified due to his alien citizenship

Raul Lee – 2nd placer, claiming that voptes for Frivaldo should be void

Oscar Deri – incumbernt Vice Gov. , must succeed the governor.

GR No. 123555 – March 1995, Afrivaldo diled his COC for Gov. of Sorsogon in the May 1995
elections. Raul Lee filed a petition with Comelec praying that Frivaldo should be disqualified
from seeking or holding any public office for not yet being a citizen of the Philippines.
Comelec 2nd – granted the petitiion. Motion for Reconsideration filed by Frivaldo remained
unacted until after may 8 1995, his candidacy continued and he was voted for during the
elections helkd on said date. May 11 – Comelec en banc affirmed the resolution

The Provincial Board of Canvassers completed the canvass of the election returns – showing
Frivakdo won by 73k votes. Raul Lee filed a petition praying his proclamation as elected
Governor. Raul Lee was proclaimed but Frivaldoi filed with the COMELEC for annulment of
Raul Lee, alleging that he took his oath of allegiance as a citizen June 30, 1995 2pm. So no
more impediment

Comelec 1st – Lee not having the highest number of votes, not entitled to be governor. And
Frivaldo having reacquired his citizenship is qualified to hold office.

Lee filed a motion for reconsideration at COMELEC em banc but was denied

Issue: