1

Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc vs COMELEC

G.R. No. 190529
Ponente: Justice Brion

less than 2% of the party-list votes. To be sure, this is a confused

interpretation of the law, given the law's clear and categorical
language and the legislative intent to treat the two scenarios
differently. A delisting based on a mixture or fusion of these two
different and separate grounds for delisting is therefore a strained
application of the law - in jurisdictional terms, it is an
interpretation not within the contemplation of the framers of the
law and hence is a gravely abusive interpretation of the law.

Facts:
The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) files a petition
for review and a motion for reconsideration to nullify Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13,
2009 insofar as it relates to PGBI and the Resolution dated
December 9, 2009. These resolutions delisted PGBI from the
roster of registered national, regional or sectoral parties,
organizations or coalitions under the party-list system.

Instead, what should be taken into account is the ruling in BANAT

vs COMELEC where the 2% party-list vote requirement provided
in RA 7941 is partly invalidated.
The Court rules that, in computing the allocation of additional
seats, the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of
Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional; it finds that the
two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to
achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when
the number of available party list seats exceeds 50.The continued
operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the
additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling
that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall
consist of party-list representatives.

According to Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941, known as

Party-List System Act, COMELEC, upon verified complaint of
any interested party, may remove or cancel, after due notice and
hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition if: (1) it fails to participate in the last two
preceding elections or (2)fails to obtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two
preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
For May 2010 Elections, the COMELEC en banc issued
Resolution No. 8679 deleting several party-list groups or
organizations from the list of registered national, regional or
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions.
Among the party-list organizations affected was PGBI; it was
delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 and it
did not participate in the 2007 elections.

To reiterate, Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate

grounds for delisting; these grounds cannot be mixed or combined
to support delisting; and the disqualification for failure to garner
2% party-list votes in two preceding elections should now be
understood, in light of the BANAT ruling, to mean failure to
qualify for a party-list seat in two preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered. This is how Section 6(8) of
RA 7941 should be understood and applied under the authority of
the Supreme Court to state what the law is and as an exception to
the application of the principle of stare decisis (to adhere to
precedents and not to unsettle things which are established).

PGBI filed its opposition to Resolution No. 8679 and likewise,

sought for accreditation as a party-list organization. One of the
arguments cited is that the Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No.
177548 MINERO (Philippine Mines Safety Environment
Association) vs COMELEC cannot apply in the instant
controversy.
One of the reasons is because the factual milieu of the cited case is
removed from PGBI's. Additionally, the requirement of Section
6(8) has been relaxed by the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 179271 BANAT (Barangay Association for Advancement and National
Transparency) vs COMELEC.

The most compelling reason to abandon MINERO and strike it out

from ruling case law is that it was clearly an erroneous application
of the law - an application that the principle of stability or
predictability of decisions alone cannot sustain. MINERO did
unnecessary violence to the language of the law, the intent of the
legislature and to the rule of law in general.

COMELEC denied the motion and in response, pointed out that

the MINERO ruling is squarely in point, as MINERO failed to get
2% of the votes in 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004
elections.

Issue:
Whether the MINERO ruling can be use as a legal basis in
delisting PGBI.

Held:
According to the Court, the MINERO ruling is an erroneous
application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941; hence, it cannot sustain
PGBI's delisting from the roster of registered national, regional or
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list
system.

First the law is clear in that the word "or" is a disjunctive term
signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from the
other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in the
sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word. Thus,
the plain, clear and unmistakable language of the law provides for
two separate reasons for delisting.
Second, MINERO is diametrically opposed to the legislative intent
of Section 6(8) of RA 7941 and therefore, simply cannot stand. Its
basic defect lies in its characterization of the non-participation of a
party-list organization in an election as similar to a failure to
garner the 2% threshold party-list vote.
What MINERO effectively holds is that a party list organization
that does not participate in an election necessarily gets, by default,

Therefore, the Supreme Court grants PGBIs petition and

accordingly, annul COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 dated October
13, 2009 insofar as the petitioner PGBI is concerned and the
Resolution dated December 9, 2009 which denied PGBI's motion
for reconsideration. PGBI is qualified to be voted upon as a partylist group or organization in the May 2010 elections.

Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 1136781 (October 6, 2000)
FACTS: On May 11, 1998, the first election for the party-list
scheme was held simultaneously with the national elections. One
hundred and twenty-three parties, organizations and coalitions
participated.
On June 26, 1998, the COMELEC en banc
proclaimed thirteen party-list representatives from twelve parties
and organizations, which had obtained at least two percent of the
total number of votes cast for the party-list system.
Thirty-eight defeated parties and organizations promptly filed suit
in the COMELEC, pleading for their own proclamations. Hence,
COMELEC ordered the proclamation of the 38 parties. Such move
filled up the 52 seats allotted for the party-list reps. Aggrieved, the
proclaimed parties asked the SC to annul the COMELEC action
and instead to proclaim additional seats, so that each of them
would have three party-list reps.
HELD:

1. Is the 20% allocation for party-list representatives mandatory

or is it merely a ceiling? SC: The 20% allocation is only a ceiling
and not mandatory.
2.
Are the 2% threshold requirement and the three-seat limit
provided in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional? SC: Yes.
Congress was vested with the broad power to define and prescribe
the mechanics of the party-list system.
3.
How then should the additional seats of a qualified party be
determined? SC: As to the method of allocating additional seats,
the first step is to rank all the participating parties according to the
votes they each obtained. The percentage of their respective votes
as against the total number of votes cast for the party-list system is
then determined. All those that garnered at least two percent of the
total votes cast have an assured or guaranteed seat in the House of
Representatives. Thereafter, those garnering more than two percent
of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to
their total number of votes. The formula for additional seats of
other qualified parties is: no.of votes of concerned party divided
by no.of votes of first party multiplied by no. of additional seats
allocated to the first party. As for the first party, just take it at face
value. ( 5% = 2 seats )
Domino vs COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for the
position of Representative of the lone legislative district of the
Province of Sarangani indicating that he has resided in the
constituency where he seeks to be elected for 1 year and 2 months.
Private respondents filed a petition seeking to cancel the certificate
of candidacy of Domino, alleging that Domino, contrary to his
declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not a resident, much
less a registered voter, of the province of Sarangani where he seeks
election. Thereafter, the COMELEC promulgated a resolution
declaring Domino disqualified as candidate for the position of
representative of the lone district of Sarangani in the May 11, 1998
polls for lack of the one-year residency requirement and likewise
ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy based on
his own Voters Registration Record and his address indicated as
24 Bonifacio St., Ayala Hts., Old Balara, Quezon City.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner has resided in Sarangani Province
for at least 1 year immediately preceding the May 11, 1998
elections
Held: The term residence, as used in the law prescribing the
qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means the same
thing as domicile, which imports not only an intention to reside
in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled
with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a
fixed permanent residence to which, whenever absent for business,
pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to return.
Records show that petitioners domicile of origin was Candon,
Ilocos Sur and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile
of choice in Quezon City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy
for the position of representative of the Third District of Quezon
City in the May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he
had effectively abandoned his residence in Quezon City and has
established a new domicile of choice in the Province of Sarangani.
A persons domicile, once established, is considered to continue
and will not be deemed lost until a new one is established. To
successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate an
actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide
intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the
purpose.

The contract of lease of a house and lot entered into sometime in

January 1997 does not adequately support a change of domicile.
The lease contract may be indicative of Dominos intention to
reside in Sarangani, but it does not engender the kind of
permanency required to prove abandonment of ones original
domicile. The mere absence of individual from his permanent
residence, no matter how long, without the intention to abandon it
does not result in loss or change of domicile. Thus, the date of the
contract of lease of a house and lot in Sarangani cannot be used, in
the absence of other circumstances, as the reckoning period of the
one-year residence requirement. Further, Dominos lack of
intention to abandon his residence in Quezon City is strengthened
by his act of registering as voter in Quezon City. While voting is
not conclusive of residence, it does give rise to a strong
presumption of residence especially in this case where Domino
registered in his former barangay.
BENGSON vs. HRET and CRUZ
G.R. No. 142840
May 7, 2001
FACTS: The citizenship of respondent Cruz is at issue in this case,
in view of the constitutional requirement that no person shall be a
Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a naturalborn citizen.
Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in
Tarlac in 1960 of Filipino parents. In 1985, however, Cruz enlisted
in the US Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of
the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the USA. As a
Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under CA No. 63
[(An Act Providing for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship
May Be Lost or Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a Filipino citizen
may lose his citizenship by, among other, rendering service to or
accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country.
Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of Philippine
citizenship was erased by his naturalization as a U.S. citizen in
1990, in connection with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps.
In 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through
repatriation under RA 2630 [(An Act Providing for Reacquisition
of Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such Citizenship
by Rendering Service To, or Accepting Commission In, the Armed
Forces of the United States (1960)]. He ran for and was elected as
the Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan in the 1998
elections. He won over petitioner Bengson who was then running
for reelection.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad
Cautelam with respondent HRET claiming that Cruz was not
qualified to become a member of the HOR since he is not a
natural-born citizen as required under Article VI, section 6 of the
Constitution.
HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition for quo
warranto and declaring Cruz the duly elected Representative in the
said election.
ISSUE: WON Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an
American citizen, can still be considered a natural-born Filipino
upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
HELD: petition dismissed
YES
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however
reacquire the same in the manner provided by law. C.A. No. 63
enumerates the 3 modes by which Philippine citizenship may be
reacquired by a former citizen:
1. by naturalization,
2. by repatriation, and
3. by direct act of Congress.
**
Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those who lost
their citizenship due to:
1. desertion of the armed forces;
2. services in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War II;

3. service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other

time,
4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
5. political economic necessity
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality This
means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be
restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the
other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he
lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former
status as a natural-born Filipino.
Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic
and having registered the same in the Civil Registry of
Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited
provision, Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as
a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son
of a Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation
allows him to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost
his Philippine citizenship.
MITRA versus COMELEC
(G.R. No. 191938)
Facts:
When his COC for the position of Governor of Palawan was
declared cancelled, Mitra was the incumbent Representative of the
Second District of Palawan. This district then included, among
other territories, the Municipality of Aborlan and Puerto Princesa
City. He was elected Representative as a domiciliary of Puerto
Princesa City, and represented the legislative district for three (3)
terms immediately before the elections of 2010.
On March 26, 2007 (or before the end of Mitras second term as
Representative), Puerto Princesa City was reclassified as a "highly
urbanized city" and thus ceased to be a component city of the
Province of Palawan. The direct legal consequence of this new
status was the ineligibility of Puerto Princesa City residents from
voting for candidates for elective provincial officials.
On March 20, 2009, with the intention of running for the position
of Governor, Mitra applied for the transfer of his Voters
Registration Record from Precinct No. 03720 of Brgy. Sta.
Monica, Puerto Princesa City, to Sitio Maligaya,Brgy. Isaub,
Municipality of Aborlan, Province of Palawan. He subsequently
filed his COC for the position of Governor of Palawan as a
resident of Aborlan.
Soon thereafter, respondents Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R.
Balbon, Jr. (the respondents) filed a petition to deny due course or
to cancel Mitras COC.
Issue:
Whether or not Mitra is qualified to run for Governor of Palawan.
Held:
YES. Mitra is qualified to rum for the position as Governor of
Palawan. The Supreme Court ruled that Mitra did not misrepresent
himself and that he met the residency requirement as mandated by
the Constitution.
The election of Abraham Kahlil Mitra as governor of Palawan in
the May 10, 2010 elections was upheld in a vote of 11-3. The
respondents were not able to present a convincing case sufficient
to overcome Mitras evidence of effective transfer to and residence
in Aborlan and the validity of his representation on this point in his
COC. Likewise, the "COMELEC could not present any legally
acceptable basis to conclude that Mitras statement in his COC
regarding his residence was a misrepresentation.