PALER, CHANTAL SUE P.

Article VI, Sec. 5 I. Party List Representation

Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC - GR 136781, October 6, 2001 (par. 2;
standards for apportioning seats for party-list representatives; not mandatory to
fill-in sits; reiterated in:
FACTS: Article VI, Sect. 5 provides for the number of members in the House of Representatives,
as well as the 20% allocation for the party-list representatives.
After the 1998 May elections, the COMELEC en banc proclaimed, from the 123 participating
party lists, only 13 party-list representatives from 12 parties and organizations, which had obtained
at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system. Petitioner APEC obtained
5.55% of the votes thus entitling them to have 2 representatives while the rest are given only one.
Party-list PAG-ASA filed a motion to proclaim the full number of representatives under the
Constitution, claiming that the filling up of the 20% allocation is mandatory under the Constitution
and that the 2% threshold defeats the purpose of the Constitution.
The determination of winners follow RA 7941 that has its requirement the following: (1) the
twenty percent allocation of seats in the House of Representatives for party-lists; (2) the two
percent threshold minimum for a seat; (3) the three-seat limit per party-list, one qualifying and two
additional seats; (4) additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in
proportion to their total number of votes.
The original 13 winners who managed to secure at least the 2% threshold also claim that RA 7941
clearly prohibits those who did not fulfill the threshold to be not declared as winner and that
COMELEC should provide additional seats instead, not exceeding 2 for each for those which had
garnered the 2% threshold in proportion to the number of votes cast for the winning parties.
The case was brought to COMELEC and through a judgment En Banc with a 3 concurring and 2
dissenting, the court upheld its original decision with no changes and also without expressly
declaring the 2% threshold as invalid or void. Thus the case was brought to Supreme Court of
review.
ISSUES: (1) Whether the 20% allocation for party-list representatives mentioned is
mandatory or merely a ceiling; and (2) Whether the 2% threshold requirement and the 3-seat limit
are constitutional and mandatory
HELD: (1) No, it does not have to be mandatory. The Court states that the Constitution
does not require all the allocated seats to be occupied. The intent of Congress is to provide a ceiling
for party-lists seats in Congress.
(2) Yes. The 2% threshold is mandatory. The fulfillment of the requirement will show that the said
party-list has a significant number of supporters to warrant a seat in the house. In the last election,
around 20 million voted and 2% of that will produce 400,000 voters. This shows that the party
represents a significant number of Filipinos. It also prevents nuisance representatives that
represent/accountable to little to no one. The Court held that the 3 seat per party limit is there
because it helps in opening up the political system to a pluralistic society through a multiparty

system. The system will enable sectoral groups, or maybe regional groups, to earn their seats
among the fifty.

PRIETO, MANUEL ANGELO

Article VI. Section 5 - Party-list representation (Par. 2)
Phil. Guardians v. COMELEC - GR 190529, April 29, 2009
FACTS: The case talks about law of COMELEC, which is Resolution no. 8679 that removed
the PGBI from the list of registered national, sectoral, organization or coalitions that are qualified
to run. The PGBI was removed due to the fact that they were not able to reach the minimum
percentage of votes, which is 2 percent in the last 2004 elections. In addition, they did not
participate in the 2007 elections.
It is provided in Republic Act 7941 section 6 (8) that a party-list may be removed from the list
if it was not able to participate in the last two preceding elections or has failed to reach 2 percent
of the votes in the last two preceding elections.
ISSUE: Does the removal of the Philippine Guardians Brotherhood Inc. from the list of
candidates have legal basis?
HELD: No. It does not have legal basis since even if PGBI was not able to reach 2 percent of
the votes in 2004, its absence during the 2007 elections does not constitute as not garnering 2
percent of the votes. The two provisions in that law is that if the person fails to participate in the
last two preceding elections or they were not able to reach 2 percent of the votes. The use of the
word or means that there are two separate ways of removing a party, which then further provides
that they cannot be combined or consolidated to get a decision.

RARUGAL, MAYELLE ERIKA N.

Article VI Section 26 Subject and Title of Bills General Prohibition of riders
BANAT v. COMELEC 595 SCRA 477 [2009] (practical construction)
FACTS: RA 9369 is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2231 and House Bill No. 5352
passed by the Senate on 7 December 2006 and the House of Representatives on 19 December
2006. On 7 May 2007, petitioner, a duly accredited multi-sectoral organization, filed a petition for
prohibition alleging that RA 9369 violated Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution. Petitioner
also assails the constitutionality of Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43 of RA 9369. According to petitioner,
these provisions are of questionable application and doubtful validity for failing to comply with
the provisions of the Constitution. Petitioner alleges that the title of RA 9369 is misleading because
it speaks of poll automation but contains substantial provisions dealing with the manual canvassing
of election returns. Petitioner also alleges that Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43 are neither embraced in
the title nor germane to the subject matter of RA 9369.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9369 violates section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution.
HELD: No. Both the COMELEC and the OSG maintain that the title of RA 9369 is broad
enough to encompass topics which deal not only with the automation process but with everything
related to its purpose encouraging a transparent, credible, fair, and accurate elections. The
constitutional requirement that every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof has always been given a practical rather than a
technical construction. The requirement is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough to include
subjects related to the general purpose which the statute seeks to achieve. The title of a law does
not have to be an index of its contents and will suffice if the matters embodied in the text are
relevant to each other and may be inferred from the title. Moreover, a title which declares a statute
to be an act to amend a specified code is sufficient and the precise nature of the amendatory act
need not be further stated.
RA 9369 is an amendatory act entitled An Act Amending Republic Act No. 8436, Entitled
An Act Authorizing the Commission on Elections to Use an Automated Election System in the
May 11, 1998 National or Local Elections and in Subsequent National and Local Electoral
Exercises, to Encourage Transparency, Credibility, Fairness and Accuracy of Elections, Amending
for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as Amended, Republic Act No. 7166 and Other Related
Election Laws, Providing Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes. Clearly, the subject matter of
RA 9369 covers the amendments to RA 8436, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (BP 881), Republic Act
No. 7166 (RA 7166), and other related election laws to achieve its purpose of promoting
transparency, credibility, fairness, and accuracy in the elections. The provisions of RA 9369
assailed by petitioner deal with amendments to specific provisions of RA 7166 and BP 881,
specifically: (1) Sections 34, 37 and 38 amend Sections 26, 30 and 15 of RA 7166, respectively;
and (2) Section 43 of RA 9369 amends Section 265 of BP 881. Therefore, the assailed provisions
are germane to the subject matter of RA 9369 which is to amend RA 7166 and BP 881, among
others.

RELOVA, ERMINIA THERESE A.

Art VI. Section 5 I. Apportionment and Representation
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010 (disapproval of Ladlad due to
moral issues)
FACTS: Ang Ladlad first applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006. The application
for accreditation was denied on the ground that the organization had no substantial membership
base. On August 17, 2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a Petition for registration with the COMELEC.
Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT community is a marginalized and underrepresented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender
identity; that LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and violence; that because of
negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation; and that Ang
Ladlad complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections. Ang Ladlad laid out its national membership base
consisting of individual members and organizational supporters, and outlined its platform of
governance.
On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioners evidence, the COMELEC (Second
Division) dismissed the Petition on moral grounds, stating that the petition is dismissible on moral
grounds. Petitioner defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)
Community, a marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged
because of their sexual orientation and gender identity and proceeded to define sexual orientation
as that which refers to a persons capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction
to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender, of the same gender, or
more than one gender.
When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration, three commissioners voted to overturn the First
Assailed Resolution, while three commissioners voted to deny Ang Ladlads Motion for
Reconsideration. On January 4, 2010, Ang Ladlad filed this Petition, praying that the Court annul
the Assailed Resolutions and direct the COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlads application for
accreditation. Ang Ladlad also sought the issuance ex parte of a preliminary mandatory injunction
against the COMELEC, which had previously announced that it would begin printing the final
ballots for the May 2010 elections by January 25, 2010.
ISSUE: Whether the Ang Ladlad partylist should be granted accreditation as a partylist.
HELD: The Court stated that Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the
legal requirements for accreditation. Indeed, aside from COMELECs moral objection and the
belated allegation of non-existence, nowhere in the records has the respondent ever found/ruled
that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to register as a party-list organization under any of the requisites
under RA 7941 or the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. The difference, COMELEC claims, lies
in Ang Ladlads morality, or lack thereof. The denial of Ang Ladlads registration on purely moral
grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool
to further any substantial public interest.Respondents blanket justifications give rise to the
inevitable conclusion that the COMELEC targets homosexuals themselves as a class, not because
of any particular morally reprehensible act. It is this selective targeting that implicates our equal

protection clause. Under our system of laws, every group has the right to promote its agenda and
attempt to persuade society of the validity of its position through normal democratic means. It is
in the public square that deeply held convictions and differing opinions should be distilled and
deliberated upon.

Sulit, Michelle Faye D.

Article VI. - Section 5. - I. Party-list representation (Par. 2)
Magdalo v. COMELEC 673 SCRA 651 [2012] (in re: to Art. IX-C, Section 2(5) and
qualification as regional political party)
FACTS: Petitioner Magdalo sa Pagbabago (MAGDALO), represented by its Chairperson,
Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV, filed its Petition for Registration with the COMELEC as a
regional political party based in the National Capital Region for participation in the May 10, 2010
National and Local Elections. The COMELEC-Second Division denied the Petition for
Registration in accordance with Article IX-C, Section 2(5) due to the participation of their
Chairman and some members in the take-over of the Oakwood Premier Apartments wherein
several innocent civilian personnel were held hostage. MAGDALO filed an instant Petition which
argued that the COMELEC Resolutions were not based on the record or evidence presented, that
the Resolutions preempted the decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 03-2784, in which
several members of the military are being tried for their involvement in the siege of the Oakwood
Premier Apartments, and that it has expressly renounced the use of force, violence and other forms
of unlawful means to achieve its goals. The court dismissed the instant Petition and declared that
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. However, in view of the subsequent
amnesty granted in favor of the members of MAGDALO, the event of the Oakwood incident can
no longer be interpreted as acts of violence in the context of disqualifications from party
registration.
ISSUE: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in basing its decision
on mere conjectures and baseless presuppositions rather than evidence on record.
HELD: No. The COMELEC has a constitutional and statutory mandate to ascertain the
eligibility of parties and organizations to participate in electoral contests. The Omnibus Election
Code states that a political party shall first be duly registered with the Commission on Elections to
acquire juridical personality, qualify it for subsequent accreditation, and to entitle it to the rights
and privileges herein granted to political parties. On the other hand, the Party-List System Act
requires the two-step process, which is Registration and Accreditation to be undergone by a party
or organization desiring to join electoral contests.
Also, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it treated the Oakwood
incident as public knowledge as the facts were widely known and extensively covered by the media
made it a proper subject of judicial notice. The incident was publicly announced to express the
MAGDALOs dissatisfaction with the administration and to divulge the alleged corruption in the
military. Hence, the disqualification is reiterated from the Section 61 of B.P. 881, which provides
that no political party which seeks to achieve its goal through violence shall be entitled to
accreditation.

TORRES, ROSETTE JOY DF.

Article VI. - Section 5 - I. Party-list representation (Par. 2)
Dayao v. COMELEC, GR 193643, Jan 29, 2013
(members not belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sector)
FACTS: LPGMA, a non-stock, non-profit association of consumers and small industry
players in the LPG and energy sector petitioned for a party-list accreditation with the COMELEC
as a sectoral organization for the purpose of participating in the May 2010 elections under Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act.
After being approved, Petitioners who are dealers of different brands of liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG), then lodged before the COMELEC a complaint for the cancellation of LPGMAs
registration as a party-list organization. They claimed that LPGMA does not represent a
marginalized sector of the society because its incorporators, officers and members are not
marginalized or underrepresented citizens since they are actually marketers and independent refillers of LPG that control 45% of the national LPG retail market and have significant ownership
interests in various LPG refilling plants.
In response, LPGMA countered that Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution does
not require that party-list representatives must be members of the marginalized and/or
underrepresented sector of the society.
The COMELEC dismissed the complaint for two reasons. First, the ground for cancellation
cited by the petitioners is not among the exclusive enumeration in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941.
Second, the complaint is actually a belated opposition to LPGMAs petition for registration which
has long been approved with finality on January 5, 2010.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
the petition for the cancellation of LPGMAs accreditation as a party-list organization.
HELD: Yes. It is the role of the COMELEC to ensure the realization of the intent of the
Constitution to give genuine power to those who have less in life by enabling them to become
veritable lawmakers themselves, by seeing to it that only those Filipinos who are marginalized and
underrepresented become members of Congress under the party-list system.35 To effectively
discharge this role, R.A. No. 7941 grants the COMELEC the power not only to register party-list
groups but also to review and cancel their registration.
In ruling that the finality of its Resolution dated January 5, 2010 stretched to the
accreditation of LPGMA, the COMELEC practically enfeebled and denied its own power to cancel
what it is exclusively empowered to grant.
Under paragraph 5 of Section 6, a party-list organization may be disqualified on the ground
that its officers and members do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector.

The allegation in the complaint for cancellation, that the incorporators, officers and
members of LPGMA do not belong to the marginalized or underrepresented sector, is within the
ambit of paragraph 5 of Section 6.
The party-list system of representation was crafted for the marginalized and
underrepresented and their alleviation is the ultimate policy of the law. In fact, there is no need to
categorically mention that "those who are not marginalized and underrepresented are disqualified."
As state policy, it must permeate every discussion of the qualification of political parties and other
organizations under the party-list system.
On August 2, 2012, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 951340 which subjected to
summary evidentiary hearings all existing and registered party-list groups, including LPGMA, to
assess their continuing compliance with the requirements of R.A. No. 7941 and the guidelines set
in Ang Bagong Bayani. The Resolution stated, among others, that the registration of all noncompliant groups shall be cancelled. LPGMA submitted to a factual and evidentiary hearing before
the COMELEC en banc on August 28, 2012.
On December 13, 2012, the COMELEC issued a Resolution identifying and listing the
party-list groups found to have complied with the qualifications set by law and jurisprudence. The
list of retained party-list groups included LPGMA.

VELOSO, RAFAEL LUIS MIGUEL N.

Article VI. - Section 5 - I. Party list representation / New guideline for Party list
Atong Paglaum et. al. v. COMELEC, GR 203766, April 2, 2013
FACTS: 54 Party lists, which were disqualified or were removed from the ballot in the 2013
Midterm elections, filed various cases to overturn the decision of the COMELEC from
disqualifying them from participating in the elections. Various Party lists were not credited as such
for various reasons, with not representing the underprivileged and marginalized being the most
common. Petitioners contend that the COMELEC erred in not recognizing the groups as Party lists
and abusing their discretion to deem them as such.
ISSUES: Whether the COMELEC erred in not recognizing the petitioners request to be accredited
as Party lists.
HELD: Yes. Although it is very important to note that Court held that the COMELEC DID NOT
commit grave abuse of discretion in relation to the naming of Party lists for the 2013 elections, the
Court did say that the requests be remanded to the COMELEC to be reviewed once more. Pertinent
to the discussion was the phrase representing the marginalized and underprivileged, where the
Court looked in the rationale of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution. Commissioner Monsod
stressed that Party lists were not necessarily Sectoral, but Sectoral could be recognized as a
Party list. Also, there were only three definitions of a party list: (1) national parties or
organizations; (2) regional parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or organizations. With
this being the case, the Court argued that the only elements needed to be accredited as a Party list
were that they represented an ideology or sector or platform that would be composed of those
people with the same advocacies that are well defined. With the requisites, the case was remanded
to the COMELEC to use these standards in determining the participants of the 2013 elections and
beyond.

YAPENDON, JOSEPH T.
Article VI Section 5 - I. Party-list representation (Par. 2)
Abang Lungkod v. COMELEC, GR 206952, October 22, 2013 (meaning of national,
regional, and sectoral)
FACTS: ABANG LINGKOD is a sectoral organization that represents the interests of peasant
farmers and fisherfolks, and was registered under the party-list system on December 22, 2009. It
participated in the May 2010 elections, but failed to obtain the number of votes needed for a seat
in the House of Representatives. The party manifested its intent to participate in the May 2013
elections and filed in compliance with the requirements under RA 7941 and the guidelines set
forth in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC. However, the COMELEC
pointed out that ABANG LINGKOD failed to establish its track record in supporting the cause
of the marginalized and underrepresented; The party just showed photographs of some alleged
activities it conducted after the May 2010 elections.
Following the guidelines of Atong Paglaum Inc. v. Commission on Elections, a majority of the
members of the 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 or must have a track record or
advocacy for their respective sectors.
ABANG LINGKOD claims that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed
the cancellation of its registration without a summary evidentiary hearing for that purpose,
asserting that the COMELEC should have allowed it to present evidence to prove its
qualification as a party-list group pursuant to Atong Paglaum. It claims that there was no valid
justification for the COMELEC to cancel its registration considering that it complied with the
six-point parameters screening party-list groups laid down in Atong Paglaum.
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ABANG
LINGKODs registration under the party-list system.
HELD: Yes, ABANG LINGKOD's registration was cancelled on the ground that it failed to
adduce evidence showing its track record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented.
Section 5 of RA 7941 provides the requirements for registration as: the partys constitution, bylaws, platform or program of government list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant
information as the COMELEC may require. R.A. No. 7941 did not require groups intending to
register under the party-list system to submit proof of their track record as a group. The track
record requirement was only imposed in Ang Bagong Bayani where the Court held that national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations seeking registration under the party-list system
must prove through their, inter alia track record that they truly represent the marginalized and
underrepresented. There is no logic in treating sectoral organizations differently from national
and regional parties or organizations as regards their bid for registration under the party-list
system. The nominee of a party-list groups may either be: first one who actually belongs to the

sector which the party-list group represents, in which case the track record requirement does not
apply; or second one who does not actually belong to the sector which the party-list group
represents but has a track record showing the nominee's active participation in activities aimed at
uplifting the cause of the sector which the group represents. In the case under consideration,
three of the five nominees of ABANG LINGKOD are farmers and, thus, are not required to
present a track record showing their active participation in activities aimed to promote the sector
which ABANG LINGKOD represents.
There is no logic in treating sectoral organizations differently from national and regional parties
or organizations as regards their bid for registration under the party-list system. The varying
track record requirement suggested by the dissent would unnecessarily put a premium on groups
intending to register as national and regional parties or organizations as against those intending
to register as sectoral organizations

APOLONIO, MARY FEI T.

Section 5 Composition of the House of Representatives
Mariano v. COMELEC 242 SCRA 211 [1995] (par. 2; reapportionment thru special law;
Mandaluyong City)
FACTS: Petitioners are assailing certain provisions of Republic Act No. 7854 as
unconstitutional. R.A. No. 7854 is entitled, "An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati Into a
Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati." Suing as taxpayers, they believe that
Section 52 of R.A. No. 7854 is unconstitutional for:
(a) It increased the legislative district of Makati only by special law (the Charter in violation of the
constitutional provision requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed by Congress within
three (3) years following the return of every census;
(b) The increase in legislative district, was not expressed in the title of the bill; and
(c) The addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Section 5 (3), Article
VI of the constitution for as of the latest survey (1990 census), the population of Makati stands at
only 450,000."
ISSUE: Whether RA 7854 is unconstitutional
HELD: No. In the recent case of Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994,
this Court ruled that reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law,
such as in the charter of a new city. The Constitution (Section 5(1), Article VI) clearly provides
that Congress shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250) members, unless
otherwise fixed by law. As thus worded, the Constitution did not preclude Congress from
increasing its membership by passing a law, other than a general reapportionment law. This is
exactly what Congress did in enacting R.A. No. 7854 and providing for an increase in Makati's
legislative district.
Moreover, to hold that reapportionment can only be made through a general apportionment law,
with a review of all the legislative districts allotted to each local government unit nationwide,
would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province created by Congress will be
denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time. That intolerable situation will
deprive the people of a new city or province a particle of their sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot
admit of any kind of subtraction. It is indivisible. It must be forever whole or it is not sovereignty.
Petitioners cannot insist that the addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord
with Section 5(3), Article VI 12 of the Constitution for as of the latest survey (1990 census), the
population of Makati stands at only four hundred fifty thousand (450,000). 13 Said section
provides, inter alia, that a city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand (250,000)
shall have at least one representative. Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990
census stood at four hundred fifty thousand (450,000), its legislative district may still be increased
since it has met the minimum population requirement of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000). In

fact, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides that a city whose population
has increased to more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) shall be entitled to at least one
congressional representative.

BELMONTE, ANTONINIA
Article VI. - Section 5.
Sema v. COMELEC 558 SCRA 700 [2008] (par. 3; ARMM RLA power)
FACTS: Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, vested the ARMM Regional Assembly the
power to create provinces thereby enacting Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 (MMA
Act 201). This act brought about the creation of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, which
composed of the eight municipalities in the first district of Maguindanao. Cotabato City,
although part of the first district of Maguindanao, does not belong to the ARMM. Thus, the
creation of the province of Shariff Kabunsuan confused the status of Cotabato City in regard to
which district it belongs to.
COMELEC then issued Resolution Nos. 07-0407 on 6 March 2007 "maintaining the
status quo with Cotabato City as part of Shariff Kabunsuan in the First Legislative District of
Maguindanao and 7902 renaming the legislative district in question as Shariff Kabunsuan
Province with Cotabato City (formerly First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City).
Sema, a congressional candidate of Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City prayed for the
nullification of COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 and the exclusion from canvassing of the votes
cast in Cotabato City for that office. He contends that Shariff Kabunsuan is entitled to one
representative in Congress under Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution.
ISSUES: Whether Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, delegating to the ARMM Regional
Assembly the power to create provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, is constitutional
and whether a province created by the ARMM Regional Assembly is entitled to one
representative in the House of Representatives.
HELD: No. The allowable membership in the House of Representatives, and to
reapportion legislative districts, is vested exclusively in Congress. Section 5 (4) empowers
Congress to reapportion legislative districts. The power to reapportion legislative districts
necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of existing ones. Congress
exercises these powers through a law that Congress itself enacts, and not through a law that
regional or local legislative bodies enact.
The creation of the ARMM, and the grant of legislative powers to its Regional Assembly
under its organic act, did not divest Congress of its exclusive authority to create legislative
districts. Section 20, Article X of the Constitution provides that the organic act for autonomous
regions shall provide for legislative powers such as administrative organization, creation of
sources of revenues, ancestral domain and natural resources, yet never mentioned the authority
of autonomous regions to create or reapportion legislative districts for Congress.
The legislative powers of a regional legislative body like the ARMM Regional Assembly
extend only to its regional territory. It is a self- evident inherent limitation on the legislative
powers of every local or regional legislative body that it can only create local or regional offices,
respectively, and it can never create a national office. The appointment of a district

representative to Shariff Kabunsuan therefore is incongruous, since his or her office would be
funded by national funds.

BELOSO, DARLENE MAE

Article VI Section 5 II.B.1. Rules on Appropriation In accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio (Pars. 3 and 4)
Montejo v. COMELEC 242 SCRA 415 [1995] (redistricting
Leyte; mere minor adjustments)
FACTS: The province of Leyte with the cities of Tacloban and Ormoc is composed of 5
districts. The 3rd district is composed of: Almeria, Biliran, Cabucgayan, Caibiran, Calubian,
Culaba, Kawayan, Leyte, Maripipi, Naval, San Isidro, Tabango and Villaba. Biliran, located in
the 3rd district of Leyte, was made its subprovince by virtue of Republic Act No. 2141 Section 1
enacted on 1959. Said section spelled out the municipalities comprising the subprovince: Almeria,
Biliran, Cabucgayan, Caibiran, Culaba, Kawayan, Maripipi and Naval and all the territories
comprised therein. On 1992, the Local Government Code took effect and the subprovince of
Biliran became a regular province. As a consequence of the conversion, eight municipalities of the
3rd district composed the new province of Biliran. A further consequence was to reduce the 3rd
district to five municipalities with a total population of 146,067 as per the 1990 census. To remedy
the resulting inequality in the distribution of inhabitants, voters, and municipalities in Leyte, the
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2736 where it transferred the municipality of Capoocan
of the second district and the municipality of Palompon of the fourth district to the third district of
Leyte.
Petitioner Cirilo Roy G. Montejo, representing the First District of Leyte, pleads for the
annulment of section 1 of Resolution No. 2736 of the COMELEC, redistricting certain
municipalities in Leyte, on the ground that it violates the principle of equality of representation.
He seeks to transfer the municipality of Tolosa from his district to the Second District of the
province.
ISSUE: Whether the unprecedented exercise by the COMELEC of the legislative power of
redistricting and reapportionment is valid.

HELD:
No. The COMELEC relies on the Ordinance entitled Apportioning the Seats of
the House of Representatives and of the Congress of the Philippines to the Different Legislative
Districts in Provinces and Cities and the Metropolitan Manila Area appended to the 1987
Constitution as the source of its power of redistricting which is traditionally regarded as part of the
power to make laws. But based on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, it denied
to the COMELEC the major power of legislative apportionment as it itself exercised the power.
Section 2 of the Ordinance only empowered the COMELEC to make minor adjustments of the
reapportionment made. The power only granted was to adjust the number of members. Consistent
with the limit of its power to make minor adjustments, Sec. 3 of the Ordinance did not also give
the COMELEC any authority to transfer municipalities from one legislative district to another
district.
It may well be that the conversion of Biliran from a sub-province to a regular province brought
about an imbalance in the distribution of voters and inhabitants in the 5 legislative districts of
Leyte. But the issue involves a problem of reapportionment of legislative districts and petitioners
remedy lies with Congress. Section 5(4), Art. VI of the Constitution categorically gives Congress
the power to reapportion. The Court held that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it promulgated a resolution transferring the municipality of
Capoocan of the second district and the municipality of Palompon of the fourth district to the third
district of Leyte.

Article VI. - Section 5 - II. Rules on Apportionment (Pars 1, 3, and 4) - B. Rules on Apportionment
- 1. In accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants and on the basis of a uniform
and progressive ratio (Pars. 3 and 4)

Herrera v. COMELEC GR 131499, November 17, 1999 (redistricting Province of

Guimaras; also in (3) population size
FACTS: In view of the addition of the two new municipalities to the Province of
Guimaras, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Guimaras decided to have the province subdivided
into two provincial districts Through secret balloting, a consensus was reached unanimously in
favor of a division.
In line with such reclassification, the Commission on Elections issued, on November 3,
1997, the Resolution No. 2950 under attack, which allotted eight (8) Sangguniang Panlalawigan
seats to the Province of Guimaras, dividing it into two provincial districts.
Petitioners question the manner in which the province was so divided into districts,
pointing out that: 1) the districts do not comprise a compact, contiguous and adjacent area; 2) the
"consultative meeting" upon which the districting was based did not express the true sentiment of
the voters of the province; 3) the apportionment of the province into two districts is not
equitable, and 4) there is disparity in the ratio of the number of voters that a Board Member
represents.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it
issued Resolution No. 2950
HELD: NO, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse. With regard to the first
contention, it was held that the municipalities which comprise each district embrace a compact,
contiguous and adjacent area. Contiguous and adjacent means adjoining, nearby, abutting,
having a common border, connected, and/or touching along boundaries often for considerable
distances. On its face, the map of Guimaras indicates that the municipalities of Buenavista and
San Lorenzo are "adjacent" or "contiguous.
The second argument is likewise without basis for it was certified that two consultative
meetings were held by the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor, one on August 21 and
another on October 2, 1996. All interested parties were duly notified and represented during the
two consultative meetings as required by Comelec Resolution No. 2313.
Lastly, in relation to the petitioners contention that the apportionment was not equitable, such
contention was also held untenable. Under R.A. 7166 and Comelec Resolution No. 2313, the basis
for division into districts shall be the number of inhabitants of the province concerned and not the
number of listed or registered voters as theorized upon by petitioners. Thus, Comelec did not act
with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution because clearly, the basis for the
districting is the number of inhabitants of the Province of Guimaras by municipality based on the

official 1995 Census of Population as certified to by Tomas P. Africa, Administrator of the

National Statistics Office.