INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM (RA 6735)

INITIATIVE
It is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation.

THREE (3) KINDS OF INITIATIVE UNDER R.A. 6735

1. Initiative on the Constitution—refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution
2. Initiative on statutes—refers to a petition to enact a national legislation
3. Initiative on local legislation—refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, municipal, city, or barangay law, resolution or
ordinance (Section 2 [a], R.A. 6735)

Section 2 (b) of R.A. 6735 provides for:

1. Indirect Initiative‐ exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative body for action
2. Direct Initiative‐ the people themselves filed the petition with the COMELEC and not with Congress.

RULE ON LOCAL INITIATIVE

In case of:
1. Autonomous regions ‐ not less than 2,000 registered voters
2. Provinces and Cities – not less than 1,000 registered voters
3. Municipalities – not less than 100 registered voters
4. Barangays – not less than 50

may file a petition with the Regional Assembly or local legislative body, respectively, proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or amendment, of
any law, ordinance or resolution. (Sec. 13 RA 6735)

LIMITATIONS ON LOCAL INITIATIVE

1. The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year;
2. Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal matters which are within the legal powers of the local legislative
bodies to enact; and
3. If any time before the initiative is held, the local legislative body shall adopt in toto the proposition presented, the initiative shall be cancelled.
However, those against such action may if they so desire, apply for initiative.

IS THE INITIATIVE TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION APPLICABLE TO REVISION?

No. An initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment. Revision broadly implies a change that alters basic principle in the
Constitution like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks and balance. The initiative of the petitioners is a revision and
not merely an amendment. (Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, 25 October 2006)

REFERENDUM
It is the power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through an election called for that purpose.

TWO (2) CLASSES OF REFERENDUM

1. Referendum on Statutes‐ refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, or part thereof, passed by Congress
2. Referendum on Local Law‐ refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local
legislative bodies.

The following cannot be subject of an initiative or referendum:

1. Petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the electorate.
2. Statutes involving emergency measures, the enactment of which is specifically vested in Congress by the Constitution, cannot be subject to
referendum until 90 days after their effectivity. (Sec. 10 RA 6735)

REPUBLIC ACT No. 7941

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR

Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the "Party-List System Act."

Section 2. Declaration of part y. The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives
through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and under-represented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but
who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the
House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadcast
possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats

http://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/20272745_16126884443…h=1a0905436a0815fcb88648b453a9ffab&oe=598C9903&dl=1 09/08/2017, 11F07 AM

Page 1 of 8
 in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.

Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House
of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). Component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently provided the coalition of which they form part does
not participate in the party-list system.

(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.

(c) A political party refers to 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.

It 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.

(d) A sectoral party 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,

(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics,
employment, interests or concerns.

(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes.

Section 4. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List System. Any party, organization, or coalition already registered with the Commission need
not register anew. However, such party, organization, or coalition shall file with the Commission, not later than ninety (90) days before the election, a
manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system.

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

The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for decision but in no
case not later than sixty (60) days before election.

Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The COMELEC may, motu propio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse
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:

(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes;

(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

(3) It is a foreign party or organization;

(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its
officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;

(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;

(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;

(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or

(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list

http://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/20272745_16126884443…h=1a0905436a0815fcb88648b453a9ffab&oe=598C9903&dl=1 09/08/2017, 11F07 AM

Page 2 of 8
 system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.

Section 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a certified list of national,
regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions which have applied or who have manifested their desire to participate under the party-list
system and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for posting in the polling places on election day. The names of the part y-list nominees shall not
be shown on the certified list.

Section 8. Nomination of Party-List Representatives. 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 for 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 shall 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.

Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)year immediately preceding the day of the election,
able to read and write, a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of
the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.

In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any
youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term.

Section 10. Manner of Voting. Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes: the first is a vote for candidate for member of the House of
Representatives in his legislative district, and the second, a vote for the party, organizations, or coalition he wants represented in the house of
Representatives: Provided, That a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted: Provided,
finally, That the first election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998.

The COMELEC shall undertake the necessary information campaign for purposes of educating the electorate on the matter of the party-list system.

Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the
members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list.

For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at
the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system.

In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure shall be observed:

(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections.

(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one
seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of votes : Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives. The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or
coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately
according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list
system.

Section 13. How Party-List Representatives are Chosen. Party-list representatives shall be proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list of names
submitted by the respective parties, organizations, or coalitions to the COMELEC according to their ranking in said list.

Section 14. Term of Office. Party-list representatives shall be elected for a term of three (3) years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by
law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No party-list representatives shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity his service for the full
term for which he was elected.

Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect. Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term
of office shall forfeit his seat: Provided, That if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall
not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization.

http://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/20272745_16126884443…h=1a0905436a0815fcb88648b453a9ffab&oe=598C9903&dl=1 09/08/2017, 11F07 AM

Page 3 of 8
 Section 16. Vacancy. In case of vacancy in the seats reserved for party-list representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next
representative from the list of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party, organization, or coalition, who shall serve for the
unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party, organization coalition concerned shall submit additional nominees.

Section 17. Rights of Party-List Representatives. Party-List Representatives shall be entitled to the same salaries and emoluments as regular members
of the House of Representatives.

Section 18. Rules and Regulations. The COMELEC shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes of this Act.

Section 19. Appropriations. The amount necessary for the implementation of this Act shall be provided in the regular appropriations for the
Commission on Elections starting fiscal year 1996 under the General Appropriations Act.

Starting 1995, the COMELEC is hereby authorized to utilize savings and other available funds for purposes of its information campaign on the party-
list system.

Section 20. Separability Clause. If any part of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts or provisions thereof shall remain valid and
effective.

Section 21. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
are hereby repealed.

Section 22. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

Approved, March 3, 1995.

Tobias vs Abalos
Gr No. L-114783. December 8, 1994

Facts:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 7675, “An Act Converting the municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be
known as the City of Mandaluyong”.
Prior to the enactment of the assailed statute, the Munnicipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district. Hon.
Ronaldo Zamora, the incumbent congressional representative of this legislative district, sponsored the bill which eventually became RA 7675,
President Ramis signed it into law.
Pursuant to Local Government Code of 1991, a plebiscite was held. The people of Mandaluyong were asked whether they approved the
conversion. The turnout at the plebiscite was only 14.41% of the voting population. Nevertheless, 18,621 voted “yes” whereas 7, 911 voted “no”. By
virtue of these results, RA 7675 was deemed ratified in effect.
Petitioners contention were that RA 7675, specifically Article VIII, Section 46 thereof, is unconstitutional. They alleged that it contravenes the
“one subject – one bill” rule. They also alleged that the subject law embraced two principal subjects, namely: 1. the conversion of Mandaluyong into
a highly urbanized city; and 2. the division of the congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts.
Petitioners argue that the division has resulted in an increase in the composition of the House of Representative beyond that provided in the
Constitution. Furthermore, petitioners contend that said division was not made pursuant to any census showing that the subject municipalities have
attained the minimum population requirements.

Issue:
1. Whether or not RA 7675 is unconstitutional.
2. Whether or not the number of the members of the House of Representative may increase.
3. Whether or not the subject law has resulted in gerrymandering.

Ruling:
1. No.
The conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city with a population of not less than 250, 000 indubitably ordains compliance with the
“one city – one representative” as provided in Article VI, Section 5, par.3 of the Constitution.
The creation of separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion into a highly
urbanized city but is a natural ang logical consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. It should be given a practical rather than a
technical construction. It should be sufficient compliance with such requirement if the title expresses the general subject and all provisions are
germane to that general subject. It suffices if the title should serve the purpose of the constitutional demand that it inform the legislators, the persons
interested in the subject of the bill and the public, of the nature, scope and consequence of the proposed law and its operation.

2. Yes.
The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by
law. The present composition of the Congress may be increased, if Congress itself so mandates through a legislative enactment.

http://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/20272745_16126884443…h=1a0905436a0815fcb88648b453a9ffab&oe=598C9903&dl=1 09/08/2017, 11F07 AM

Page 4 of 8
 3. No.
Gerrymandering is the practice of creating legislative districts to favor a particular candidate or party. It should be noted that Rep. Zamora, the author
of the assailed law, is the incumbent representative of the former San Juan/Mandaluyong district, having consistently won in both localities. By
dividing San Juan/Mandaluyong, Rep. Zamora’s constituency has in fact been diminished, which development could hardly be considered as
favorable to him.

Petition dismissed.
Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC
[G.R. No. 136781. October 6, 2000]

Facts:
COMELEC proclaimed 14 party-list representatives from 13 parties which obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for the party-list
system as members of the House of Representatives. Upon petition for respondents, who were party-list organizations, it proclaimed 38 additional
party-list representatives although they obtained less than 2% of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system on the ground that under the
Constitution, it is mandatory that at least 20% of the members of the House of Representatives come from the party-list representatives.

Issue:
Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a
ceiling? In other words, should the twenty percent allocation for party-list solons be filled up completely and all the time?

Held:
It is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for the party-list seats in the House of Representatives. The Constitution vested Congress with the
broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representatives. In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative,
Congress deemed it necessary to require parties participating in the system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party list system to be
entitled to a party-list seat. Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of representation
are actually represented in Congress.

FORMULA FOR

determination of total number of party-list representatives = #district representatives/.80 x .20

additional representatives of first party = # of votes of first party/ # of votes of party list system

additional seats for concerned party = # of votes of concerned party/ # votes of first party x additional seats for concerned party

Issue:
Are the two percent threshold requirement and the three-seat limit provided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

Held:
Yes. In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties, organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number
of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. This intent can be gleaned from the deliberations on the proposed
bill. The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the law, but with the very essence of
"representation." Under a republican or representative state, all government authority emanates from the people, but is exercised by representatives
chosen by them. But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of people. Otherwise, in a
legislature that features the party-list system, the result might be the proliferation of small groups which are incapable of contributing significant
legislation, and which might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even legislative districts are apportioned according to "the number
of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure meaningful local representation.

Issue:
How should the additional seats of a qualified party be determined?

Held:
Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners, the public and the private respondents, as well as the members of this Court that the initial step
is to rank all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they each received.
Then the ratio for each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the parties participating in the system. All parties with at
least two percent of the total votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties shall be considered in the computation of additional seats. The
party receiving the highest number of votes shall thenceforth be referred to as the “first” party.
Step Two. The next step is to determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to be able to compute that for the other parties. Since
the distribution is based on proportional representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the
first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes.
Step Three The next step is to solve for the number of additional seats that the other qualified parties are entitled to, based on proportional
representation.

http://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/20272745_16126884443…h=1a0905436a0815fcb88648b453a9ffab&oe=598C9903&dl=1 09/08/2017, 11F07 AM

Page 5 of 8
 Bagong Bayani Labor Party v COMELEC
G.R. No. 147589. June 26, 2001

Facts:
On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed before the COMELEC a Petition praying that "the names of [some of herein respondents] be
deleted from the 'Certified List of Political Parties/Sectoral Parties/Organizations/Coalitions Participating in the Party List System for the May 14,
2001 Elections' and that said certified list be accordingly amended." It also asked, as an alternative, that the votes cast for the said respondents not be
counted or canvassed, and that the latter's nominees not be proclaimed. On April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth also filed a Petition
for Cancellation of Registration and Nomination against some of herein respondents.

On April 18, 2001, the COMELEC required the respondents in the two disqualification cases to file Comments within three days from notice. It
also set the date for hearing on April 26, 2001, but subsequently reset it to May 3, 2001. During the hearing, however, Commissioner Ralph C.
Lantion merely directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the COMELEC, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party filed a Petition before this Court on April 16,
2001. This Petition, docketed as GR No. 147589, assailed COMELEC Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated April 17, 2001, the
Court directed respondents to comment on the Petition within a non-extendible period of five days from notice.

On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna also filed before this Court a Petition, docketed as GR No. 147613, also challenging COMELEC
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated May 9, 2001, the Court ordered the consolidation of the two Petitions before it; directed
respondents named in the second Petition to file their respective Comments on or before noon of May 15, 2001; and called the parties to an Oral
Argument on May 17, 2001. It added that the COMELEC may proceed with the counting and canvassing of votes cast for the party-list elections, but
barred the proclamation of any winner therein, until further orders of the Court.

Issues: During the hearing on May 17, 2001, the Court directed the parties to address the following issues:
1. Whether or not recourse under Rule 65 is proper under the premises. More specifically, is there no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law?
2. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections.
3. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to 'marginalized and underrepresented' sectors and organizations.
4. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. 3785."

Held:
WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the COMELEC, which is hereby DIRECTED to immediately conduct summary evidentiary hearings on
the qualifications of the party-list participants in the light of the guidelines enunciated in this Decision. Considering the extreme urgency of
determining the winners in the last party-list elections, the COMELEC is directed to begin its hearings for the parties and organizations that appear to
have garnered such number of votes as to qualify for seats in the House of Representatives. The COMELEC is further DIRECTED to submit to this
Court its compliance report within 30 days from notice hereof.

The Resolution of this Court dated May 9, 2001, directing the COMELEC "to refrain from proclaiming any winner" during the last party-list
election, shall remain in force until after the COMELEC itself will have complied and reported its compliance with the foregoing disposition.

This Decision is immediately executory upon the Commission on Elections' receipt thereof. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

In view of standing on COMELEC OR 3785

Petitioners attack the validity of COMELEC Omnibus Resolution 3785 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, insofar as it allowed
respondents to participate in the party-list elections of 2001. Indeed, under both the Constitution and the Rules of Court, such challenge may be
brought before this Court in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Moreover, the assailed Omnibus Resolution was promulgated by Respondent Commission en banc; hence, no motion for reconsideration was
possible, it being a prohibited pleading under Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

The Court also notes that Petitioner Bayan Muna had filed before the COMELEC a Petition for Cancellation of Registration and Nomination
against some of herein respondents. The COMELEC, however, did not act on that Petition.

In view of the pendency of the elections, Petitioner Bayan Muna sought succor from this Court, for there was no other adequate recourse at the
time. Subsequent events have proven the urgency of petitioner's action; to this date, the COMELEC has not yet formally resolved the Petition before

http://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/20272745_16126884443…h=1a0905436a0815fcb88648b453a9ffab&oe=598C9903&dl=1 09/08/2017, 11F07 AM

Page 6 of 8
 it. But a resolution may just be a formality because the COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has made its position on the matter
quite clear.

In any event, this case presents an exception to the rule that certiorari shall lie only in the absence of any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
It has been held that certiorari is available, notwithstanding the presence of other remedies, "where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public
interest is involved, and in case of urgency." Indeed, the instant case is indubitably imbued with public interest and with extreme urgency, for it
potentially involves the composition of 20 percent of the House of Representatives.

Moreover, this case raises transcendental constitutional issues on the party-list system, which this Court must urgently resolve, consistent with its
duty to "formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules."

Finally, when the decision sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and
speedy remedy available."

In view of the participation of political parties

In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party contends that "the inclusion of political parties in the party-list system is the most
objectionable portion of the questioned Resolution." For its part, Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the participation of "major political parties."

For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof, . . .." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." More to the
point, the law defines "political party" as "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."

In view of terms marginalized and underrepresented

That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean, however, that any political party — or any organization or group for
that matter — may do so. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid
down in the Constitution and RA 7941.

"Proportional representation" here does not refer to the number of people in a particular district, because the party-list election is national in scope.
Neither does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the "marginalized and
underrepresented" as exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals."

However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the marginalized and underrepresented, because representation is easy to
claim and to feign. The party-list organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies
mentioned in Section 5. Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must be "Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties."

Finally, "lack of well-defined constituency" refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group, like voters of a congressional
district or territorial unit of government. Rather, it points again to those with disparate interests identified with the "marginalized or
underrepresented."

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

While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors
can be represented under the party-list system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted
in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the
meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association.

In view of OSG contention

Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that any party or group that is not disqualified
under Section 6 of RA 7941 may participate in the elections. Hence, it admitted during the Oral Argument that even an organization representing the
super rich of Forbes Park or Dasmariñas Village could participate in the party-list elections.

Indeed, the law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes
Park. The interests of these two sectors are manifestly disparate; hence, the OSG's position to treat them similarly defies reason and common sense.

It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized and underrepresented in our midst are the majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity. It
was for them that the party-list system was enacted — to give them not only genuine hope, but genuine power; to give them the opportunity to be
elected and to represent the specific concerns of their constituencies; and simply to give them a direct voice in Congress and in the larger affairs of
the State.

http://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/20272745_16126884443…h=1a0905436a0815fcb88648b453a9ffab&oe=598C9903&dl=1 09/08/2017, 11F07 AM

Page 7 of 8
 In view of COMELEC’s grave abuse of discretion
When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the Commission on Elections, violates or ignores the Constitution or the law, its action can be
struck down by this Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasi-judicial instrumentalities is to
apply the law as they find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it.

In view of the Courts assistance

The Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand the case to the COMELEC for the latter to determine, after summary evidentiary hearings,
whether the 154 parties and organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections comply with the requirements of the law. In this light, the
Court finds it appropriate to lay down the following guidelines, culled from the law and the Constitution, to assist the COMELEC in its work.

In view of the 2 systems of representation (Mendoza, J.)

Indeed, the two systems of representation are not identical. Party list representation is a type of proportional representation designed to give those
who otherwise cannot win a seat in the House of Representatives in district elections a chance to win if they have sufficient strength on a nationwide
basis. (In this sense, these groups are considered "marginalized and underrepresented.") Under the party-list system, representatives are elected from
multi-seat districts in proportion to the number of votes received in contrast to the "winner-take-all" single-seat district in which, even if a candidate
garners 49.9% of the votes, he gets no seat.

Thus, under the party-list system, a party or candidate need not come in first in order to win seats in the legislature. On the other hand, in the
"winner-take-all" single-seat district, the votes cast for a losing candidate are wasted as only those who vote for the winner are represented.

What the advocates of sectoral representation wanted was permanent reserved seats for "marginalized sectors" by which they mean the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth sectors. Under Art. VI, §5(2), these sectors were given only one-half of the
seats in the House of Representatives and only for three terms. On the other hand, the "third or fourth placers" in district elections, for whom the
party-list system was intended, refer to those who may not win seats in the districts but nationwide may be sufficiently strong to enable them to be
represented in the House. They may include Villacorta's "marginalized" or "underprivileged" sectors, but they are not limited to them. There would
have been no need to give the "marginalized sectors" one-half of the seats for the party-list system for three terms if the two systems are identical.

In sum, a problem was placed before the Constitutional Commission that the existing "winner-take-all" one-seat district system of election leaves
blocks of voters underrepresented. To this problem of underrepresentation two solutions were proposed: sectoral representation and party-list system
or proportional representation. The Constitutional Commission chose the party-list system.

Thus, neither textual nor historical consideration yields support for the view that the party-list system is designed exclusively for labor, peasant,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth sectors.

For while the representation of "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors is a basic purpose of the law, it is not its only purpose. As already
explained, the aim of proportional representation is to enable those who cannot win in the "winner-take-all" district elections a chance of winning.
These groups are not necessarily limited to the sectors mentioned in §5, i.e., labor, peasants, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
the elderly, the handicapped, women, the youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals. These groups can possibly include other sectors.

http://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/20272745_16126884443…h=1a0905436a0815fcb88648b453a9ffab&oe=598C9903&dl=1 09/08/2017, 11F07 AM

Page 8 of 8