MARIANE PEARL G.

DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1

JD1C
1. LIBAN ET AL V. GORDON
GR No. 175352, JULY 15, 2009

FACT:
Richard J. Gordon was elected Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC)
Board of Governors while he was serving as a senator, and the petitioners Liban, et al., who
were members of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter's Board of Directors, filed a petition
asking the Supreme Court to declare Gordon to have forfeited his seat in the Senate.
A petition to declare Gordon's Senate seat forfeited was submitted by Liban and other
parties. They claim that by accepting the PNRC Board of Governors chairmanship as permitted
by Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution, the respondent ceased to be a senator.
The petitioners reference Camporedondo v. NLRC, which determined that the PNRC is a
company that is owned or managed by the government.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the PNRC Chairman's office qualifies as a government office or an office
in a business that is owned or controlled by the government for the purposes of the ban in
Section 13 of the Constitution.

RULING:
No. The PNRC cannot be owned or under the authority of the government in order to
guarantee and maintain its independence, neutrality, and autonomy. Indeed, the PNRC is not
owned by the Philippine government. The PNRC does not possess any assets belonging to the
government and does not get any funding from the Philippine Congress. The PNRC's primary
sources of funding are private contributions received through solicitation efforts run by its
Board of Governor.
The PNRC cannot be owned or under the authority of the government in order to
guarantee and maintain its independence, neutrality, and autonomy. Indeed, the PNRC is not
owned by the Philippine government. The PNRC does not possess any assets belonging to the
government and does not get any funding from the Philippine Congress. The PNRC's primary
sources of funding are private contributions received through solicitation efforts run by its
Board of Governor.

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
2. ATONG PAGLAUM,IN. V. COMELEC
GR No. 203766

FACTS:
52 party-list organizations and groups filed petitions for review, prohibition, and
certiorari against the Commission on Elections after the latter disqualified them from the May
2013 party-list elections. Denying registration petitions under the party-list system or revoking
an organization's registration and accreditation as a party-list organization are grounds for
disqualification.
The Comelec disqualified anyone who did not meet these two requirements from the
May 2013 party-list elections: 1.) All national, regional, and sectoral organizations or
organizations must represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and 2.) each
nominee must be a member of the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they are
claiming to represent.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not sectoral parties are the only ones allowed to use the party-list system.
2. Whether or not participation in party-list elections by major political parties is forbidden.
3. whether or not party-list candidates must be members of the sector.

RULING:
1. No. According to Section 5(1) of Article VI of the Constitution, there are three categories
that make up the party-list system, and sectoral parties can only be a part of one of
those groupings. These organizations include national parties or groups, regional parties
or groups, and sectoral parties or groups.
National and local parties and organizations are not required by R.A. No. 7941 to
represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. By mandating that all national
and local parties in the party-list system represent the "marginalized and underrepresented,"
ideology-based and cause-focused parties are denied access to and excluded from the party-
list system. They are prevented from joining the parliamentary struggle by excluding them
from the party-list system, leaving them with no choice but to engage in violent conflict.
Aside from being blatantly nonsensical, excluding them from the party-list system is clearly
against the exact wording and evident intent of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
An ideology-based or cause-oriented political party is obviously distinct from a
sectoral party under the party-list system. A political party is not required to be set up as a
sectoral party or to represent any specific sector. In R.A., there is no requirement. No. 7941,
which states that a political party at the national or local level must represent a "marginalized
and underrepresented" group. Regardless of their economic situation as citizens, it is
sufficient that the political party is made up of people who share the same ideology,
platform, or set of beliefs and policies.
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" should only be used to
describe the sectors in Section 5 that are, by their very nature, "marginalized and
underrepresented" in terms of the economy. These sectors include: labor, peasantry,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, oversea
workers, and other similar sectors. A majority of the sectoral party's members must be from
the "marginalized and underrepresented" in these sectors.
Article 6 of R.A. Another strong argument in No. 7941 supports the conclusion
that national, regional, and some sectoral parties are not required by Section 5 of R.A.
Section 6 outlines the justifications for the COMELEC to reject or revoke the registration of
parties or groups with due notice and a hearing to represent the "marginalized and

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
underrepresented." The lack of representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented" is
not included in any of the eight grounds for refusing or canceling registration.

2. No. The Constitution of 1987 and R.A.No. 7941 allows major political parties to participate
in party-list elections.  In order to motivate them to work diligently on expanding their
constituencies to the "marginalized and underrepresented" and to those who "lack well-
defined political constituencies,"  The participation of major political parties in party-list
elections must be geared towards the entry, as members of the House of Representatives, of
the "marginalized and underrepresented" and those who "lack well-def Therefore, in order to
participate in party-list elections, a major political party that fields candidates in legislative
district elections must put together a sectoral wing that can register under the party-list system,
such as a labor, peasant, fisher folk, urban poor, professional, women, or youth wing.
A major political party's sectoral wing must have its own charter, bylaws,
platform or program of government, officers, and members, the majority of whom must come
from the sector being represented. The sectoral wing functions independently as a sectoral
party and is connected to a significant political party via a partnership. In   Section 3 of the R.A.  
No. 7941 states that parties or organizations that make up a coalition "may participate
independently (in party-list elections) if the coalition of which they are a part does not engage
in the party-list syste,." allowed this linkage.

3. No. Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 defines the requirements for party-list nominees.
This clause specifies a unique qualification that is solely required of the nominee from the
youth sector. A party-list candidate must be an actual member of the party or group they are
running to represent. In the case of sectoral parties, one must either be a member of the sector
represented or have a history of advocating on behalf of that sector in order to be a legitimate
party-list nominee. The sectoral party's nominees must either be from the sector represented
or have a history of advocating on its behalf.
The party-list system truly envisioned and approved under the 1987 Constitution
and RA 7491 is imposed and mandated by the Court for the party-list elections taking place in
May 2013. The COMELEC strictly comply by the following criteria in determining who may
participate in the 2013 and subsequent party-list elections:
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 pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The
sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented" include labor, peasant, fisher folk,
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.

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
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.

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
4. PGBI V. COMELEC
GR No. 190529, APRIL 29, 2010

FACTS:
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) was removed by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) from the list of recognized national, regional, or sectoral parties,
coalitions, or organizations under the party-list system on the grounds that it received less
than 2% of the vote in 2004 and did not run in the 2007 elections.
Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party-List
System Act, provides: “Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration.
Any national, regional, or sectoral party, organization, or coalition may have its
registration removed or canceled by the COMELEC on its own initiative or in response to a
verified complaint from any interested party on any of the following grounds: (8) It has failed to
participate in the two most recent elections or has failed to receive at least two percent (2%) of
the votes cast using the party-list system in the two most recent elections for the constituency
in which it is running.
Comelec's defense is that since PGBI did not participate in the 2007 elections and only
received 2% of the vote in 2004, it is inevitable that it did not receive at least 2% of the votes
cast in those two elections.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is legal basis for delisting PGBI.

RULING:
There isn't any. In the upcoming elections in May 2010, PGBI is eligible to be voted on as
a party-list group or organization. The Comelec may remove or cancel, after due notice and
hearing, the registration of any national, regional, or sectoral party, organization, or coalition if
it fails to do any of the following: (a) participate in the two most recent elections; or (b) receive
at least two percent (2%) of the votes cast using the party-list system in the two most recent
elections for the constituency in which it is running.
The word "or" is a disjunctive term that denotes independence and disassociation of
one thing from the other things listed; as a general rule, it should be interpreted as a disjunctive
word. Thus, two (2) distinct grounds for delisting are provided by the law's simple, clear, and
unambiguous language.

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
4.SEMA V. COMELEC
GR No. 177597, JULY 16, 2008

FACTS:
ARMM includes the Province of Maguindanao. Maguindanao has two legislative
districts. Cotabato City is a part of the province of Maguindanao, but it is not a part of ARMM
because Cotabato City rejected its inclusion in a plebiscite in 1989. Eight additional
municipalities join Cotabato City in the first legislative district.
A statute (RA 9054) was enacted that amended the Organic Act of the ARMM and gave
it the authority to establish provinces, municipalities, cities, and barangays. Shariff Kabunsuan
(Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act 201) was founded by the ARMM Regional Assembly in
accordance with this law, and it consists of all municipalities in the first district of Maguindanao
with the exception of Cotabato City.
COMELEC initially declared that Cotabato City was the sole constituent of the 1st district
for the purposes of the 2007 elections (because of MMA 201). But it later amended this, stating
that the status quo should be maintained but that the first district should be known as Shariff
Kabunsuan with Cotabato City just for the purposes of the elections. This is also while waiting
for Congress to make a clear decision regarding Cotabato's status as a legislative district (or part
of any).
Sema ran for office as a Republican in the S legislative district. Cotabato and Kabunsuan
(1stdistrict). Later on, Sema was arguing that Cotabato City should be a distinct legislative
district and that votes cast there should not count (perhaps because her opponent Dilangalen
was from there and was winning; in fact, he won). According to her argument, Cotabato is
effectively being denied a representative in the HOR because Shariff Kabunsuan excludes
Cotabato City, a province that is created under the Constitution automatically receives
legislative representation.
The legislative district, according to COMELEC, still exists and remains unaffected by
Shariff Kabunsuan, the legislative district and its representation are unaffected.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 9054 is unconstitutional. Whether or not ARMM can create validly
LGUs.

RULING:
RA 9054 violates the constitution. Section 10, Article X of the Constitution governs the
formation of local governmental entities and states:
Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria
established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
Therefore, in order to be created, a province, city, municipality, or barrio must satisfy
three requirements. First, the conditions outlined in the Local Government Code must be
followed while creating a local government entity. Second, no provision of the Constitution may
be in contradiction with such a creation. Third, a vote must be taken in the impacted political
units.
The Constitution does not expressly forbid or authorize Congress to grant regional or
local legislative bodies the ability to establish local government units. However, subject to
reasonable requirements and provided there is no conflict with any provision of the
Constitution, Congress may grant local legislative bodies the authority to construct local
government units as part of its plenary legislative authority. In fact, subject to adherence to the
requirements set forth in the Local Government Code and the plebiscite requirement in Section

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
10, Article X of the Constitution, Congress has granted provincial boards, city councils, and
municipal councils the authority to establish barangays within their respective jurisdictions.
Therefore, the creation of Shariff Kabunsuan Province is invalid for ARMM.
Consider the fact that once a province is established, it must have at least one
representative in the HOR and that there must be at least 250k people living there in order to
develop a city. Also keep in mind that a parliamentary district cannot exist without a population
of at least 250k. Sema's argument is unsupportable because Cotabato City did not achieve the
population criterion. On the other side, without first establishing a legislative district, ARMM is
unable to lawfully establish the province of Shariff Kabunsuan. However, since Congress alone
has the authority to define congressional districts, this is never legally feasible. What ARMM
can build are barangays, not cities or regions, at most.

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
5. BONDOC V. PINEDA
201 SCRA 792

FACTS:
The petitioner (NP) and Pineda (LDP) were competing candidates on May 11, 1987, for
the position of congressman for Pampanga's Fourth District. Pineda received 31,700 votes
overall, compared to Bondoc's 28,400, and was declared the winner. The petitioner
submitted a protest to the HRET, which is made up of 9 members, 3 Supreme Court Justices,
and 6 House Members chosen based on their proportional representation among political
parties. It was decided that Bondoc had won by 23 votes, but the LDP members of the
tribunal insisted on another recount, which boosted Bondoc's lead against Pineda to 107
votes. The Justices and Congressman Camasura (LDP) voted to declare Bondoc the
winner.Congressman Camasura then received a letter informing him that he had been kicked
out of the LDP for allegedly aiding in the organization of Eduardo Cojuangco's Partido Pilipino
and asking LDP members to join. The House supported Cong. the dismissal of Camasura from
the HRET and the withdrawal of his vote.

ISSUE:
Whether the House of Representatives has the authority to intervene in HRET election
protests by changing which party represents the majority there?

RULING:
No, as per Section 17 of Art. In terms of elections, returns, and member qualifications,
the HRET is the only arbiter of all disputes. It was established as a nonpartisan court to serve
as an impartial and independent body for the adjudication of disputes. The political
component cannot simply be moved around and manipulated for the House's interests.
Cong. is accused of "party disloyalty." Camasura cited his vote in favor of Bondoc as the basis
for his expulsion from the party, which jeopardized the HRET's independence. These HRET
members enjoy tenure security. Only when a person dies, becomes permanently disabled, or
resigns from the party may they be replaced. Disloyalty is not a legal reason to fire someone.

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
6. ARROYO V. DE VENECIA
GR No. 127255

FACTS:
The legality of RA 8240, which modifies some sections of the National Internal Revenue
Code, has been contested in a petition. Members of the House of Representatives who filed the
petition allege that the House's rules are being broken, and that this amounts to a breach of the
Constitution because the rules are allegedly mandated by the Constitution.
The House of Representatives is where the law was first passed. It was adopted by the
Senate with several modifications. In order to harmonize the divergent elements of the House
and Senate versions of the bill, a bipartisan conference committee was established. The House
received the report from the bipartisan committee. Rep. Arroyo interrupted the interpellations
and moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. However, the Chair announced that there was a
quorum present following a roll call. The interpellation continued after that. Majority Leader
Albano moved for the acceptance and ratification of the conference committee report after
Rep. Arroyo questioned the committee report's sponsor.The Chair requested comments about
the motion. There being none, approved, the Chair then pronounced. At this point, Rep. Arroyo
interrupted the Chair, asking, "What is that...Mr. Speaker? Rep. Arroyo and the Chair were both
speaking at the same time. As a result, even though Rep. Arroyo later opposed to the Majority
Leader's motion, the Chair had already announced that the conference committee report was
approved.
The law was certified by the respective secretaries of both Houses of Congress on the
same day that it was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President
of the Senate. President Ramos officially signed the enrolled measure into law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 8240 is invalid because it was passed in a way that went against
House rules.

RULING:
The nature of the rules in each House of Congress is scarcely ever-lasting. Since they are
essentially procedural, they may be revoked, modified, or waived at the body's discretion.
Courts often are not concerned about their observance. The legislative body may waive them or
disregard them. Thus, if the necessary number of members have approved a certain action,
merely failing to comply with them will not render the act taken invalid. But there are
limitations to this. When a rule's interpretation impacts people other than members of the
legislative body, the issue at hand is unavoidably one of law. In a situation involving private
rights, its very legitimacy is up for debate.
No private citizens' rights are at issue in this case; just those of a member who opted to
take the disagreement to court rather than seek remedy in the House.
The complaint relates to a question of House internal procedure that the Court should
not be involved in. Rep. Arroyo was allegedly barred from effectively challenging the existence
of a quorum, not that there was no quorum. The roll call determined that there was a quorum,
therefore rejecting Rep. Arroyo's earlier motion to adjourn for lack of a quorum. The quorum
issue cannot be brought up repeatedly, especially when a quorum is clearly present to prolong
the House's agenda.

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
7. PEOPLE V. JALOSJOS
GR No 132875, FEBRUARY 3, 2000

FACTS:
Romeo G. Jalosjos, a full-fledged member of Congress, is currently in prison in the
correctional facility while an appeal is being filed over his conviction for statutory rape on two
charges and acts of lasciviousness on six counts. The accused-appellant filed this motion to
request that, despite having been found guilty in the first instance of a non-bailable offense, he
be permitted to carry out the obligations of a Congressman, including attendance at committee
meetings and legislative sessions.

ISSUE:
Whether or not being a congressman is a significant distinction that exempts the
accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same category as everyone else who is rightfully
imprisoned under the law.

RULING:
The fact that the accused-appellant is a congressman does not significantly distinguish
him from other prisoners who are lawfully incarcerated. While the Constitution promises that
"nor shall any individual be denied the equal protection of laws," this just implies that all people
who are in a similar situation will be treated equally with regard to the rights they enjoy and the
obligations they are required to fulfill. The "mandate of the people" imposes a variety of
obligations. The Court cannot uphold insignia of inequality. Even while certain groups may
credibly claim that their interests are being ignored, the requirements of the public good may
justify the use of governmental power to regulate. The election of a congressman in this
instance does not fall under the purview of criminal law enforcement.

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
8. ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY V. COMELEC
GR No. 190582, APRIL 8, 2010

FACTS:
The Ang Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad) filed this petition for review under Rule 65 of
the court's rules of procedure in opposition to the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC's)
decisions dated November 11, 2009 (the First Assailed Resolution), and December 16, 2009 (the
Second Assailed Resolution) in SPP No. 09-228 (PL) (collectively, the Assailed Resolutions). The
COMELEC's rejection to recognize Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization under Republic Act
(RA) No. 7941, also known as the Party-List System Act, is the basis of the dispute.
The petitioner claimed before the COMELEC that the LGBT community is a marginalized
and underrepresented sector that is particularly disadvantaged due to their sexual orientation
and gender identity; that LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and violence; that due
to unfavorable societal attitudes, LGBTs are forced to conceal their sexual orientation; and that
Ang Ladlad complied with the 8-point guidelines established by this Court in Ang Bagong
Bayani-OFW. Ang Ladlad highlighted its nationwide membership base, which consists of
individual members and organizational backers, as well as its governance framework.
The petition was denied for moral reasons by the COMELEC (Second Division).
In his Separate Opinion, the COMELEC Chairman, who broke the tie and spoke for the
majority, supported the First Assailed Resolution and stated the following:
Ladlad is requesting authorization to operate under the party-list system as a sectoral
party. It cannot be stated that Ladlad's expressed sexual orientations in and of themselves
would be advantageous to the country as a whole, even supposing that it has adequately
demonstrated its under-representation and marginalization.
There can be no doubting that Ladlad constituency are still males and females, and they
will stay either male or female protected by the same Bill of Rights that applies to all citizens
alike. This is true even if society's awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of LGBT people
increases.
Regarding not imposing Christian or Muslim religious customs on the Ladlad people,
there is no doubt. Additionally, Ladlad makes no attempt to adhere to the moral standards of
any specific religious denomination. Instead, prevailing public values are being taken as moral
standards and precepts.
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor upon
"Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals." It penalizes "immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibition and
indecent shows." "Ang Ladlad" apparently falls under these legal provisions. This is
clear from its Petition’s paragraph 6F: "Consensual partnerships or relationships by
gays and lesbians who are already of age’ It is further indicated in par. 24 of the Petition
which waves for the record: ‘In 2007, Men Having Sex with Men or MSMs in the
Philippines were estimated as 670,000. Moreoever, Article 694 of the Civil Code defines
"nuisance" as any act, omission xor anything else which shocks, defies or disregards
decency or morality." These are all unlawful.

ISSUE:
1. Is  ang Ladlad a legitimate party list?
2. Is the decision of the COMELEC a breach of human rights?

RULING:
1. Yes, Ang Ladlad is legitimate as a party-list.

CASE DIGEST
MARIANE PEARL G. DAEL CONSTITUTIOAL LAW 1
JD1C
According to the Supreme Court's decision, beneficent neutrality acknowledges that
while the government must pursue its secular objectives and interests, it must also work
to safeguard religious freedom to the greatest extent possible within its constitutional
bounds. Thus, even though laws only consider secular morality, accommodating
morality based on religion may be possible under the benign neutrality principle, so long
as it does not conflict with vital state interests. There is no law that makes homosexual
expressions, actions, or gatherings illegal. Every group is free to further its goals and
make attempts to convince society of the legitimacy of its stance under the laws that
govern our society.
In this case, the respondent has not clarified what social problems are being sought to
be avoided or why special protection for children is necessary. The COMELEC hasn't even
bothered to explain why it thinks the petitioner's inclusion in the party-list system would be so
detrimental as to irreversibly undermine society's moral fiber. Without more, moral disapproval
alone is insufficient for a government interest to support barring homosexuals from party-list
participation. Lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people have the same interest in
taking part in the party-list system from the perspective of the political process as other
political parties in a comparable situation. In this instance, governmental interference is also
burdensome. Therefore, LGBT people should be treated equally under rules that apply to
everyone, and they should be allowed to join party lists on the same terms as other groups that
are disadvantaged or underrepresented.
As a result, ang Ladlad is eligible to be a party-list.

2. Yes, there is a violation of human rights.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly stated that a political party
may campaign for a change in the law or the constitutional structures of a state if it uses legal
and democratic means and the changes it proposes are consistent with democratic principles,
the court ruled. This is because Europe has a vibrant human rights tradition.
In addition, the UDHR and the ICCPR both enunciate the principle of non-discrimination
as it relates to the right to vote.

CASE DIGEST