Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 147589

June 26, 2001

ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the acronym OFW),

represented herein by its secretary-general, MOHAMMAD OMAR
FAJARDO, petitioner,
vs.
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY GO! GO! PHILIPPINES;
THE TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES;
PHILIPPINE LOCAL AUTONOMY; CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR
JUSTICE, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE; CHAMBER OF
REAL ESTATE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; SPORTS & HEALTH
ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; ANG LAKAS NG OVERSEAS
CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW); BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION and
others under "Organizations/Coalitions" of Omnibus Resolution No.
3785; PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO; LAKAS NUCD-UMDP;
NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION; LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG
PILIPINO; AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO; PDP-LABAN; LIBERAL PARTY;
NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG; and
others under "Political Parties" of Omnibus Resolution No.
3785. respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001
BAYAN MUNA, petitioner,
vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION

(NPC); LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP); PARTIDO NG
MASANG PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP; LIBERAL PARTY;
MAMAMAYANG AYAW SA DROGA; CREBA; NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS; JEEP; and BAGONG BAYANI
ORGANIZATION, respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give
more law to the great masses of our people who have less in life, but also
to enable them to become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to
participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It
intends to make the marginalized and the underrepresented not merely
passive recipients of the State's benevolence, but active participants in
the mainstream of representative democracy. Thus, allowing all
individuals and groups, including those which now dominate district
elections, to have the same opportunity to participate in party-list
elections would desecrate this lofty objective and mongrelize the social
justice mechanism into an atrocious veneer for traditional politics.
The Case
Before us are two Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 1 issued by the Commission
on Elections (Comelec) on March 26, 2001. This Resolution approved the
participation of 154 organizations and parties, including those herein
impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners seek the
disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the party-list
system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented;
not the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or
overrepresented.

The Factual Antecedents

With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received several
Petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties, organizations and
political parties. According to the Comelec, "[v]erifications were made as
to the status and capacity of these parties and organizations and
hearings were scheduled day and night until the last party w[as] heard.
With the number of these petitions and the observance of the legal and
procedural requirements, review of these petitions as well as
deliberations takes a longer process in order to arrive at a decision and
as a result the two (2) divisions promulgated a separate Omnibus
Resolution and individual resolution on political parties. These
numerous petitions and processes observed in the disposition of these
petition[s] hinder the early release of the Omnibus Resolutions of the
Divisions which were promulgated only on 10 February 2001." 2
Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 deadline prescribed under
Comelec Resolution No. 3426 dated December 22, 2000, the registered
parties and organizations filed their respective Manifestations, stating
their intention to participate in the party-list elections. Other sectoral
and political parties and organizations whose registrations were denied
also filed Motions for Reconsideration, together with Manifestations of
their intent to participate in the party-list elections. Still other registered
parties filed their Manifestations beyond the deadline.
The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manifestations (or
accreditations) of 154 parties and organizations, but denied those of
several others in its assailed March 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No.
3785, which we quote:
"We carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in mind that this
system of proportional representation scheme will encourage multi-

partisan [sic] and enhance the inability of small, new or sectoral parties
or organization to directly participate in this electoral window.
"It will be noted that as defined, 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.
"However, in the course of our review of the matters at bar, we must
recognize the fact that there is a need to keep the number of sectoral
parties, organizations and coalitions, down to a manageable level,
keeping only those who substantially comply with the rules and
regulations and more importantly the sufficiency of the Manifestations or
evidence on the Motions for Reconsiderations or Oppositions." 3
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. 4 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. 5
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, 6 but subsequently reset
it to May 3, 2001.7 During the hearing, however, Commissioner Ralph C.

Lantion merely directed the parties to submit their respective

memoranda. 8
Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the Comelec, Ang Bagong
Bayani-OFW Labor Party filed a Petition 9 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, 10 the Court directed respondents to comment on the Petition
within a non-extendible period of five days from notice. 11
On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna also filed before this Court a
Petition, 12 docketed as GR No. 147613, also challenging Comelec
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated May 9,
2001, 13 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.
Thereafter, Comments 14 on the second Petition were received by the
Court and, on May 17, 2001, the Oral Argument was conducted as
scheduled. In an Order given in open court, the parties were directed to
submit their respective Memoranda simultaneously within a nonextendible period of five days. 15
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." 16
The Court's Ruling
The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded to
the Comelec which will determine, after summary evidentiary hearings,
whether the 154 parties and organizations enumerated in the assailed
Omnibus Resolution satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and RA
7941, as specified in this Decision.
First Issue:
Recourse Under Rule 65
Respondents contend that the recourse of both petitioners under Rule 65
is improper because there are other plain, speedy and adequate remedies
in the ordinary course of law. 17 The Office of the Solicitor General argues
that petitioners should have filed before the Comelec a petition either for
disqualification or for cancellation of registration, pursuant to Sections
19, 20, 21 and 22 of Comelec Resolution No. 3307-A 18 dated November
9, 2000.19

We disagree. At bottom, 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 partylist elections of 2001. Indeed, under both the Constitution 20 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. 21
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. 22 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 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. 23 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." 24 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." 25
Finally, procedural requirements "may be glossed over to prevent a
miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the principle of social
justice x x x 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." 26
Second Issue:
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." 27 For its part,
Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the participation of "major political
parties." 28 On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, like the
impleaded political parties, submits that the Constitution and RA No.
7941 allow political parties to participate in the party-list elections. It
argues that the party-list system is, in fact, open to all "registered
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations." 29
We now rule on this issue. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private
respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely
on the ground that they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives may
"be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional,
and sectoral parties or organizations."

Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution,

political parties may be registered under the party-list system.
"Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or
coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the partylist system as provided in this Constitution.
"Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered
under the party-list system, shall not be represented in the voters'
registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of
canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled
to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law." 30
During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Comm.
Christian S. Monsod pointed out that the participants in the party-list
system may "be a regional party, a sectoral party, a national party,
UNIDO, 31Magsasaka, or a regional party in Mindanao." 32 This was also
clear from the following exchange between Comms. Jaime Tadeo and
Blas Ople: 33
"MR. TADEO. Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay pwedeng paghatihatian ng UNIDO, PDP-Laban, PNP, Liberal at Nacionalista?
MR. OPLE. Maaari yan sapagkat bukas ang party list system sa lahat ng
mga partido."
Indeed, Commissioner Monsod stated that the purpose of the party-list
provision was to open up the system, in order to give a chance to parties
that consistently place third or fourth in congressional district elections
to win a seat in Congress. 34 He explained: "The purpose of this is to open
the system. In the past elections, we found out that there were certain
groups or parties that, if we count their votes nationwide, have about
1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always third or fourth place

in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this
way, they would have five or six representatives in the Assembly even if
they would not win individually in legislative districts. So, that is
essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives of the party-list
system."
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, x x x." 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."
Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as to the
participation of political parties in the party-list system. We quote the
pertinent provision below:
"x x x
"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.
x x x"
Indubitably, therefore, political parties even the major ones -- may
participate in the party-list elections.
Third Issue:

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. Section 5, Article
VI of the Constitution, provides as follows:
"(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more
than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by
law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and
on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those
under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Notwithstanding the sparse language of the provision, a distinguished
member of the Constitutional Commission declared that the purpose of
the party-list provision was to give "genuine power to our people" in
Congress. Hence, when the provision was discussed, he exultantly

announced: "On this first day of August 1986, we shall, hopefully, usher
in a new chapter to our national history, by giving genuine power to our
people in the legislature." 35
The foregoing provision on the party-list system is not self-executory. It
is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in accordance with law" or "as
may be provided by law"; it was thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite
the lofty objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted. It
laid out the statutory policy in this wise:
"SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- 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
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack welldefined 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 broadest possible representation
of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by
enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature,
and shall provide the simplest scheme possible."
The Marginalized and Underrepresented to Become Lawmakers
Themselves
The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting
proportional representation by means of the Filipino-style party-list
system, which will "enable" the election to the House of Representatives
of Filipino citizens,

1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,

organizations and parties; and
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
The key words in this policy are "proportional representation,"
"marginalized and underrepresented," and "lack ofwell-defined
constituencies."
"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. 36 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 constituenc[y] " 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.
The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the
people, not only by giving more law to those who have less in life, but
more so by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves.
Consistent with this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we
repeat, is likewise clear: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, x
x x, to become members of the House of Representatives." Where the
language of the law is clear, it must be applied according to its express
terms. 37
The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under
the party-list system are enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941, which
states:
"SEC. 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 sector
shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural

communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas

workers, and professionals."
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. 38
The Party-List System Desecrated by the OSG Contentions
Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy, the Office of the
Solicitor General submits that RA No. 7941 "does not limit the
participation in the party-list system to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors of society."39 In fact, it contends that any party
or group that is not disqualified under Section 6 40 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
Dasmarias Village could participate in the party-list elections. 41
The declared policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position of the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG). We stress that the party-list system seeks to
enable certain Filipino citizens specifically those belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties
to be elected to the House of Representatives. The assertion of the OSG
that the party-list system is not exclusive to the marginalized and
underrepresented disregards the clear statutory policy. Its claim that
even the super-rich and overrepresented can participate desecrates the
spirit of the party-list system.

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. In contrast, and with admirable candor, Atty. Lorna PatajoKapunan 42 admitted during the Oral Argument that a group of bankers,
industrialists and sugar planters could not join the party-list system as
representatives of their respective sectors. 43
While the business moguls and the mega-rich are, numerically speaking,
a tiny minority, they are neither marginalized nor underrepresented, for
the stark reality is that their economic clout engenders political power
more awesome than their numerical limitation. Traditionally, political
power does not necessarily emanate from the size of one's constituency;
indeed, it is likely to arise more directly from the number and amount of
one's bank accounts.
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. In its noblest sense, the party-list system truly empowers the
masses and ushers a new hope for genuine change. Verily, it invites
those marginalized and underrepresented in the past the farm hands,
the fisher folk, the urban poor, even those in the underground movement
to come out and participate, as indeed many of them came out and
participated during the last elections. The State cannot now disappoint
and frustrate them by disabling and desecrating this social justice
vehicle.

Because the marginalized and underrepresented had not been able to

win in the congressional district elections normally dominated by
traditional politicians and vested groups, 20 percent of the seats in the
House of Representatives were set aside for the party-list system. In
arguing that even those sectors who normally controlled 80 percent of
the seats in the House could participate in the party-list elections for the
remaining 20 percent, the OSG and the Comelec disregard the
fundamental difference between the congressional district elections and
the party-list elections.
As earlier noted, the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up
the system, 44 in order to enhance the chance of sectoral groups and
organizations to gain representation in the House of Representatives
through the simplest scheme possible. 45 Logic shows that the system
has been opened to those who have never gotten a foothold within it -those who cannot otherwise win in regular elections and who therefore
need the "simplest scheme possible" to do so. Conversely, it would be
illogical to open the system to those who have long been within it -- those
privileged sectors that have long dominated the congressional district
elections.
The import of the open party-list system may be more vividly understood
when compared to a student dormitory "open house," which by its nature
allows outsiders to enter the facilities. Obviously, the "open house" is for
the benefit of outsiders only, not the dormers themselves who can enter
the dormitory even without such special privilege. In the same vein, the
open party-list system is only for the "outsiders" who cannot get elected
through regular elections otherwise; it is not for the non-marginalized or
overrepresented who already fill the ranks of Congress.
Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and overrepresented to vie for the
remaining seats under the party-list system would not only dilute, but

also prejudice the chance of the marginalized and underrepresented,

contrary to the intention of the law to enhance it. The party-list system is
a tool for the benefit of the underprivileged; the law could not have given
the same tool to others, to the prejudice of the intended beneficiaries.
This Court, therefore, cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied and
prostituted by those who are neither marginalized nor underrepresented.
It cannot let that flicker of hope be snuffed out. The clear state policy
must permeate every discussion of the qualification of political parties
and other organizations under the party-list system.
Refutation of the Separate Opinions
The Separate Opinions of our distinguished colleagues, Justices Jose C.
Vitug and Vicente V. Mendoza, are anchored mainly on the supposed
intent of the framers of the Constitution as culled from their
deliberations.
The fundamental principle in constitutional construction, however, is
that the primary source from which to ascertain constitutional intent or
purpose is the language of the provision itself. The presumption is that
the words in which the constitutional provisions are couched express the
objective sought to be attained. 46 In other words, verba legis still
prevails. Only when the meaning of the words used is unclear and
equivocal should resort be made to extraneous aids of construction and
interpretation, such as the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission
or Convention, in order to shed light on and ascertain the true intent or
purpose of the provision being construed. 47
Indeed, as cited in the Separate Opinion of Justice Mendoza, this Court
stated in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary 48 that "the debates
and proceedings of the constitutional convention [may be consulted] in

order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution x

x x only when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless to vary
the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates in the
constitutional convention 'are of value as showing the views of the
individual members, and as indicating the reason for their votes, but
they give us no light as to the views of the large majority who did not
talk, much less of the mass or our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls
gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it safer to
construe the constitution from what appears upon its face.' The proper
interpretation therefore depends more on how it was understood by the
people adopting it than in the framers' understanding thereof."
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, relative to the party-list system,
is couched in clear terms: the mechanics of the system shall be provided
by law. Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted RA 7941. In understanding
and implementing party-list representation, we should therefore look at
the law first. Only when we find its provisions ambiguous should the use
of extraneous aids of construction be resorted to.
But, as discussed earlier, the intent of the law is obvious and clear from
its plain words. Section 2 thereof unequivocally states that the party-list
system of electing congressional representatives was designed to "enable
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack welldefined political constituencies but who could contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
nation as a whole x x x." The criteria for participation is well defined.
Thus, there is no need for recourse to constitutional deliberations, not
even to the proceedings of Congress. In any event, the framers'
deliberations merely express their individual opinions and are, at best,
only persuasive in construing the meaning and purpose of the
constitution or statute.

Be it remembered that the constitutionality or validity of Sections 2 and

5 of RA 7941 is not an issue here. Hence, they remain parts of the law,
which must be applied plainly and simply.
Fourth Issue:
Grave Abuse of Discretion
From its assailed Omnibus Resolution, it is manifest that the Comelec
failed to appreciate fully the clear policy of the law and the Constitution.
On the contrary, it seems to have ignored the facet of the party-list
system discussed above. The OSG as its counsel admitted before the
Court that any group, even the non-marginalized and overrepresented,
could field candidates in the party-list elections.
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. 49 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. 50
In its Memorandum, Petitioner Bayan Muna passionately pleads for the
outright disqualification of the major political parties Respondents
Lakas-NUCD, LDP, NPC, LP and PMP on the ground that under
Comelec Resolution No. 4073, they have been accredited as the five (six,
including PDP-Laban) major political parties in the May 14, 2001
elections. It argues that because of this, they have the "advantage of
getting official Comelec Election Returns, Certificates of Canvass,
preferred poll watchers x x x." We note, however, that this accreditation
does not refer to the party-list election, but, inter alia, to the election of

district representatives for the purpose of determining which parties

would be entitled to watchers under Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166.
What is needed under the present circumstances, however, is a factual
determination of whether respondents herein and, for that matter, all the
154 previously approved groups, have the necessary qualifications to
participate in the party-list elections, pursuant to the Constitution and
the law.
Bayan Muna also urges us to immediately rule out Respondent
Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD), because "it is a government entity
using government resources and privileges." This Court, however, is not
a trier of facts. 51 It is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the
truth of such factual allegations.
Basic rudiments of due process require that respondents should first be
given an opportunity to show that they qualify under the guidelines
promulgated in this Decision, before they can be deprived of their right to
participate in and be elected under the party-list system.
Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants
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.
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent
the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of
RA 7941. In other words, it must show -- through its constitution,
articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and

track record -- that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and

underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should
belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. And it must
demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or is likely to
choose the interest of such sectors.
Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA
7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they
must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to
be elected to the House of Representatives." In other words, while they
are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political parties,
they must show, however, that they represent the interests of the
marginalized and underrepresented. The counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko
and other similarly situated political parties admitted as much during
the Oral Argument, as the following quote shows:
"JUSTICE PANGANIBAN: I am not disputing that in my question. All I am
saying is, the political party must claim to represent the marginalized
and underrepresented sectors?
ATTY. KAPUNAN: Yes, Your Honor, the answer is yes."52
Third, in view of the objections53 directed against the registration of Ang
Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the
Court notes the express constitutional provision that the religious sector
may not be represented in the party-list system. The extent of the
constitutional proscription is demonstrated by the following discussion
during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission:
"MR. OPLE. x x x

In the event that a certain religious sect with nationwide and even
international networks of members and supporters, in order to
circumvent this prohibition, decides to form its own political party in
emulation of those parties I had mentioned earlier as deriving their
inspiration and philosophies from well-established religious faiths, will
that also not fall within this prohibition?
MR. MONSOD. If the evidence shows that the intention is to go around
the prohibition, then certainly the Comelec can pierce through the legal
fiction."54
The following discussion is also pertinent:
"MR. VILLACORTA. When the Commissioner proposed "EXCEPT
RELIGIOUS GROUPS," he is not, of course, prohibiting priests, imams or
pastors who may be elected by, say, the indigenous community sector to
represent their group.
REV. RIGOS. Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who represents
the Iglesia ni Kristo, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church et
cetera."55
Furthermore, the Constitution provides that "religious denominations
and sects shall not be registered."56 The prohibition was explained by a
member57 of the Constitutional Commission in this wise: "[T] he
prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a political
party. I do not see any prohibition here against a priest running as a
candidate. That is not prohibited here; it is the registration of a religious
sect as a political party."58
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under
Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for disqualification
as follows:

"(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 system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered."59
Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a party or group
for violation of or failure to comply with election laws and regulations.
These laws include Section 2 of RA 7941, which states that the party-list
system seeks to "enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties x x x to become
members of the House of Representatives." A party or an organization,
therefore, that does not comply with this policy must be disqualified.
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project
organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. By the very

nature of the party-list system, the party or organization must be a group

of citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It must be
independent of the government. The participation of the government or
its officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal60 and
unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to
enable citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors
and organizations to be elected to the House of Representatives.
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law;
its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
"SEC. 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."
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent
marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees.
To repeat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino
citizens "who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties." Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be
fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or the

working class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the

State policy to give genuine representation to the marginalized and
underrepresented.
Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-defined political
constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
nation as a whole. Senator Jose Lina explained during the bicameral
committee proceedings that "the nominee of a party, national or regional,
is not going to represent a particular district x x x."61
Epilogue
The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the law: "to
enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented
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."
Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice
principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. The
party-list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have less
in life. It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine
power. It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced, and even to
those in the underground, that change is possible. It is an invitation for
them to come out of their limbo and seize the opportunity.
Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions of the
Comelec and the other respondents that the party-list system is, without
any qualification, open to all. Such position does not only weaken the
electoral chances of the marginalized and underrepresented; it also

prejudices them. It would gut the substance of the party-list system.

Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage. Instead of enabling
the marginalized, it would further weaken them and aggravate their
marginalization.
In effect, the Comelec would have us believe that the party-list provisions
of the Constitution and RA 7941 are nothing more than a play on
dubious words, a mockery of noble intentions, and an empty offering on
the altar of people empowerment. Surely, this could not have been the
intention of the framers of the Constitution and the makers of RA 7941.
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.1wphi1.nt
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.

EN BANC

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR G.R. No. 179271

NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT
AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT),
Petitioner,
- versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers),
Respondent.
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE
PROFESSIONALS,
Intervenor.
AANGAT TAYO,
Intervenor.
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS
OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR
CITIZENS),
Intervenor.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR G.R. No. 179295
TEACHER EMPOWERMENT
THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION Present:
AND HARMONY TOWARDS
EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., PUNO, C.J.,
and ABONO, QUISUMBING,
Petitioners, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA, and
BERSAMIN, JJ.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated:

Respondent.
_______________________
x---------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Petitioner in G.R. No. 179271 Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) in a petition for certiorari and
mandamus,[1] assails the Resolution[2] promulgated on 3 August 2007 by
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). The
COMELECs resolution in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) approved the
recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the National Board of
Canvassers (NBC) Legal Group, to deny the petition of BANAT for being
moot. BANAT filed before the COMELEC En Banc, acting as NBC,
a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives
Provided by the Constitution.

The following are intervenors in G.R. No. 179271: Arts Business and
Science Professionals (ABS), Aangat Tayo (AT), and Coalition of
Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizens).
Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295 Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for
Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony
Towards Educational Reforms (A Teacher) in a petition for certiorari with
mandamus and prohibition,[3] assails NBC Resolution No. 0760[4] promulgated on 9 July 2007. NBC No. 07-60 made a partial
proclamation of parties, organizations and coalitions that obtained at
least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party-List System. The
COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the partylist results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning
party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation
Party v. COMELEC[5] (Veterans).
Estrella DL Santos, in her capacity as President and First Nominee of the
Veterans Freedom Party, filed a motion to intervene in both G.R. Nos.
179271 and 179295.
The Facts
The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list
representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93
parties under the Party-List System.[6]
On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of
Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC
No. 07-041 (PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because [t]he
Chairman and the Members of the [COMELEC] have recently been
quoted in the national papers that the [COMELEC] is duty bound to and
shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban
formula in allocating party-list seats.[7] There were no intervenors in
BANATs petition before the NBC. BANAT filed a memorandum on 19 July
2007.
On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated NBC
Resolution No. 07-60. NBC Resolution No. 07-60 proclaimed thirteen (13)

parties as winners in the party-list elections, namely: Buhay Hayaan

Yumabong (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens Battle Against Corruption
(CIBAC), Gabrielas Women Party (Gabriela), Association of Philippine
Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan! Citizens Action Party
(AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL), Cooperative-Natco
Network Party (COOP-NATCCO), Anak Pawis, Alliance of Rural Concerns
(ARC), and Abono.We quote NBC Resolution No. 07-60 in its entirety
below:
WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections sitting en banc as
National Board of Canvassers, thru its Sub-Committee for
Party-List, as of 03 July 2007, had officially canvassed, in
open and public proceedings, a total of fifteen million two
hundred eighty three thousand six hundred fifty-nine
(15,283,659) votes under the Party-List System of
Representation, in connection with the National and Local
Elections conducted last 14 May 2007;
WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation
Groups of the National Board of Canvassers reveals that the
projected/maximum total party-list votes cannot go any
higher than sixteen million seven hundred twenty three
thousand one hundred twenty-one (16,723,121) votes
given the following statistical data:
Projected/Maximum
Elections
i. Total
party-list
canvassed/tabulated

Party-List

votes

Votes

for

May

2007

already

15,283,659

ii.
Total
party-list
votes
remaining
uncanvassed/ untabulated (i.e. canvass
deferred)

1,337,032

iii. Maximum party-list votes (based on

100% outcome) from areas not yet
submitted for canvass (Bogo, Cebu; Bais
City; Pantar, Lanao del Norte; and
Pagalungan, Maguindanao)
Maximum Total Party-List Votes

102,430
16,723,121

WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List

System Act) provides in part:
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.
WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based on the above
projected total of party-list votes, the presumptive two
percent (2%) threshold can be pegged at three hundred
thirty
four
thousand
four
hundred
sixty-two
(334,462)votes;
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, in Citizens Battle Against
Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its ruling
in Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC adopting a
formula for the additional seats of each party, organization
or coalition receving more than the required two percent (2%)
votes, stating that the same shall be determined only after all
party-list ballots have been completely canvassed;
WHEREAS, the parties, organizations, and coalitions that
have thus far garnered at least three hundred thirty four
thousand four hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes are as
follows:
RANK

PARTY/ORGANIZATION/
COALITION

VOTES
RECEIVED

BUHAY

1,163,218

BAYAN MUNA

972,730

CIBAC

760,260

GABRIELA

610,451

APEC

538,971

A TEACHER

476,036

AKBAYAN

470,872

ALAGAD

423,076

BUTIL

405,052

10

COOP-NATCO

390,029

11

BATAS

386,361

12

ANAK PAWIS

376,036

13

ARC

338,194

14

ABONO

337,046

WHEREAS, except for Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng

Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an URGENT
PETITION
FOR
CANCELLATION/REMOVAL
OF
REGISTRATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF PARTY-LIST
NOMINEE (With Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining
Order) has been filed before the Commission, docketed as
SPC No. 07-250, all the parties, organizations and coalitions
included in the aforementioned list are therefore entitled to
at least one seat under the party-list system of
representation in the meantime.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by
the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Executive
Order No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941, and
other election laws, the Commission on Elections, sitting en
banc as the National Board of Canvassers, hereby
RESOLVES to PARTIALLY PROCLAIM, subject to certain
conditions set forth below, the following parties,
organizations and coalitions participating under the PartyList System:
1 Buhay Hayaan Yumabong

BUHAY

2 Bayan Muna

BAYAN MUNA

3 Citizens Battle Against Corruption

4 Gabriela Womens Party
5 Association of
Cooperatives

Philippine

CIBAC
GABRIELA

Electric

6 Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment

APEC
A TEACHER

Through Action, Cooperation and

Harmony
Towards
Educational
Reforms, Inc.
7 Akbayan! Citizens Action Party
8 Alagad
9 Luzon Farmers Party
10 Cooperative-Natco Network Party
11 Anak Pawis
12 Alliance of Rural Concerns
13 Abono

AKBAYAN
ALAGAD
BUTIL
COOP-NATCCO
ANAKPAWIS
ARC
ABONO

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other

parties, organizations, or coalitions which may later on be
established to have obtained at least two percent (2%) of the
total actual votes cast under the Party-List System.
The total number of seats of each winning party,
organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant
to Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC formula upon
completion of the canvass of the party-list results.
The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng
Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS) is hereby deferred until
final resolution of SPC No. 07-250, in order not to render the
proceedings therein moot and academic.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned
parties, organizations and coalitions with pending disputes
shall likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of
their respective cases.
Let the Clerk of the Commission implement this Resolution,
furnishing a copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.[8] (Emphasis in the original)

Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60, the COMELEC, acting as NBC,

promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-72, which declared the additional
seats allocated to the appropriate parties. We quote from the COMELECs
interpretation of the Veterans formula as found in NBC Resolution No.
07-72:

WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, the Commission on Elections

sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers
proclaimed thirteen (13) qualified parties, organization[s] and
coalitions based on the presumptive two percent (2%)
threshold of 334,462 votes from the projected maximum
total number of party-list votes of 16,723,121, and were thus
given one (1) guaranteed party-list seat each;
WHEREAS, per Report of the Tabulation Group and
Supervisory Committee of the National Board of Canvassers,
the projected maximum total party-list votes, as of July 11,
2007, based on the votes actually canvassed, votes
canvassed but not included in Report No. 29, votes received
but uncanvassed, and maximum votes expected for Pantar,
Lanao del Norte, is 16,261,369; and that the projected
maximum total votes for the thirteen (13) qualified parties,
organizations and coalition[s] are as follows:
Party-List

Projected total number of

votes

BUHAY

1,178,747

BAYAN MUNA

977,476

CIBAC

755,964

GABRIELA

621,718

APEC

622,489

A TEACHER

492,369

AKBAYAN

462,674

ALAGAD

423,190

BUTIL

409,298

10

COOP-NATCO

412,920

11

ANAKPAWIS

370,165

12

ARC

375,846

13

ABONO

340,151

WHEREAS, based on the above Report, Buhay Hayaan

Yumabong (Buhay) obtained the highest number of votes
among the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and
coalitions, making it the first party in accordance
with Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC, reiterated
in Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) versus
COMELEC;
WHEREAS, qualified parties, organizations and coalitions
participating under the party-list system of representation
that have obtained one guaranteed (1) seat may be entitled
to an additional seat or seats based on the formula
prescribed by the Supreme Court in Veterans;
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the first
party, the correct formula as expressed in Veterans, is:
Number of votes of first party Proportion of votes of first
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = party relative to total votes
for
Total votes for party-list system party-list system
wherein the proportion of votes received by the first party
(without rounding off) shall entitle it to additional seats:
Proportion of votes received
by the first party
Equal to or at least 6%

Additional seats
Two (2)
seats

Equal to or greater than 4% but less One

than 6%
seat
Less than 4%

(1)

additional
additional

No additional seat

WHEREAS, applying the above formula, Buhay obtained the

following percentage:
1,178,747
- - - - - - - - = 0.07248 or 7.2%

16,261,369
which entitles it to two (2) additional seats.
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the other
qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, the correct
formula as expressed in Veterans and reiterated in CIBAC is,
as follows:
No. of votes of
concerned party No. of additional
Additional seats for = ------------------- x seats allocated to
a concerned party No. of votes of first party
first party
WHEREAS, applying the above formula, the results are as
follows:
Party List

Percentage

Additional Seat

BAYAN MUNA

1.65

CIBAC

1.28

GABRIELA

1.05

APEC

1.05

A TEACHER

0.83

AKBAYAN

0.78

ALAGAD

0.71

BUTIL

0.69

COOP-NATCO

0.69

ANAKPAWIS

0.62

ARC

0.63

ABONO

0.57

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by

the Constitution, Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order
No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941 and other
elections laws, the Commission on Elections en banc sitting
as the National Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVED, as

it hereby RESOLVES, to proclaim the following parties,

organizations or coalitions as entitled to additional seats, to
wit:

Party List

Additional Seats

BUHAY

BAYAN MUNA

CIBAC

GABRIELA

APEC

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other

parties, organizations or coalitions which may later on be
established to have obtained at least two per cent (2%) of the
total votes cast under the party-list system to entitle them to
one (1) guaranteed seat, or to the appropriate percentage of
votes to entitle them to one (1) additional seat.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned
parties, organizations and coalitions with pending disputes
shall likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of
their respective cases.
Let the National Board of Canvassers Secretariat implement
this Resolution, furnishing a copy hereof to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Acting on BANATs petition, the NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No.
07-88 on 3 August 2007, which reads as follows:

This pertains to the Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of

Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution filed
by the Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT).
Acting on the foregoing Petition of the Barangay Association
for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) party-

list, Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, National Board of

Canvassers
Legal
Group
submitted
his
comments/observations and recommendation thereon [NBC
07-041 (PL)], which reads:
COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS:
Petitioner Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), in its
Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of PartyList
Representatives
Provided
by
the
Constitution prayed for the following reliefs, to
wit:
1. That the full number -- twenty percent (20%) - of Party-List representatives as mandated by
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution shall be
proclaimed.
2. Paragraph (b), Section 11 of RA 7941 which
prescribes the 2% threshold votes, should be
harmonized with Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution and with Section 12 of the same RA
7941 in that it should be applicable only to the
first party-list representative seats to be allotted
on the basis of their initial/first ranking.
3. The 3-seat limit prescribed by RA 7941 shall
be applied; and
4. Initially, all party-list groups shall be given
the number of seats corresponding to every 2%
of the votes they received and the additional
seats shall be allocated in accordance with
Section 12 of RA 7941, that is, in proportion to
the percentage of votes obtained by each partylist group in relation to the total nationwide
votes cast in the party-list election, after
deducting the corresponding votes of those
which were allotted seats under the 2%
threshold rule. In fine, the formula/procedure
prescribed in the ALLOCATION OF PARTY-LIST
SEATS, ANNEX A of COMELEC RESOLUTION
2847 dated 25 June 1996, shall be used for [the]
purpose of determining how many seats shall be
proclaimed, which party-list groups are entitled

to representative seats and how many of their

nominees shall seat [sic].
5. In
the
alternative,
to
declare
as
unconstitutional Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7941 and that the procedure in allocating seats
for party-list representative prescribed by
Section 12 of RA 7941 shall be followed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The petition of BANAT is now moot and academic.
The Commission En Banc in NBC Resolution No.
07-60 promulgated July 9, 2007 re In the Matter
of the Canvass of Votes and Partial Proclamation
of the Parties, Organizations and Coalitions
Participating Under the Party-List System
During the May 14, 2007 National and Local
Elections resolved among others that the total
number of seats of each winning party,
organization or coalition shall be determined
pursuant
to
the Veterans
Federation
Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion
of the canvass of the party-list results.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the National Board of
Canvassers RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve
and adopt the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig,
Head, NBC Legal Group, to DENY the herein petition of
BANAT for being moot and academic.
Let the Supervisory Committee implement this resolution.
SO ORDERED.[10]

BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling
in NBC Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file a motion for
reconsideration of NBC Resolution No. 07-88.
On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the
COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use
the Veterans formula as stated in its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 because
the Veterans formula is violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act

No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941). On the same day, the COMELEC denied
reconsideration during the proceedings of the NBC.[11]
Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations proclaimed on 9 July
2007, the COMELEC proclaimed three other party-list organizations as
qualified parties entitled to one guaranteed seat under the Party-List
System: Agricultural Sector Alliance of the Philippines, Inc.
(AGAP),[12] Anak Mindanao (AMIN),[13] and An Waray.[14] Per the
certification[15] by COMELEC, the following party-list organizations have
been proclaimed as of 19 May 2008:
Party-List

No. of Seat(s)

1.1

Buhay

1.2

Bayan Muna

1.3

CIBAC

1.4

Gabriela

1.5

APEC

1.6

A Teacher

1.7

Akbayan

1.8

Alagad

1.9

Butil

1.10

Coop-Natco [sic]

1.11

Anak Pawis

1.12

ARC

1.13

Abono

1.14

AGAP

1.15

AMIN

The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing

Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an Urgent Petition for
Cancellation/Removal of Registration and Disqualification of Party-list

Nominee (with Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has been
filed before the COMELEC, was deferred pending final resolution of
SPC No. 07-250.
Issues
BANAT brought the following issues before this Court:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list
representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA
7941 constitutional?
3. Is the two percent threshold and qualifier votes prescribed
by the same Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
4. How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?[16]
Bayan Muna, A Teacher, and Abono, on the other hand, raised the
following issues in their petition:
I. Respondent Commission on Elections, acting as National
Board of Canvassers, committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60 to implement the
First-Party Rule in the allocation of seats to qualified partylist organizations as said rule:
A. Violates
the
constitutional
proportional representation.

principle

of

B. Violates the provisions of RA 7941 particularly:

1. The 2-4-6 Formula used by the First Party Rule
in allocating additional seats for the First Party violates the
principle of proportional representation under RA 7941.
2. The use of two formulas in the allocation of additional
seats, one for the First Party and another for the qualifying
parties, violates Section 11(b) of RA 7941.

3. The proportional relationships under the First Party Rule

are different from those required under RA 7941;
C. Violates the Four Inviolable Parameters of the
Philippine party-list system as provided for under the same
case of Veterans Federation Party, et al. v. COMELEC.
II. Presuming that the Commission on Elections did not
commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it implemented the First-Party
Rule in the allocation of seats to qualified party-list
organizations, the same being merely in consonance with the
ruling in Veterans Federations Party, et al. v. COMELEC, the
instant Petition is a justiciable case as the issues involved
herein are constitutional in nature, involving the
correct interpretation and implementation of RA 7941, and
are of transcendental importance to our nation.[17]
Considering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the
parties in these cases, we defined the following issues in our advisory for
the oral arguments set on 22 April 2008:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list
representatives in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution
mandatory or merely a ceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941
constitutional?
3. Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of
RA 7941 to qualify for one seat constitutional?
4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated?
5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties
from participating in the party-list elections? If not, can the
major political parties be barred from participating in the
party-list elections?[18]

The Ruling of the Court

The petitions have partial merit. We maintain that a Philippine-style

party-list election has at least four inviolable parameters as clearly stated
in Veterans. For easy reference, these are:
First, the twenty percent allocation the combined number
of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent
of the total membership of the House of Representatives,
including those elected under the party list;
Second, the two percent threshold only those parties
garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes
cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in
the House of Representatives;
Third, the three-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of
the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
maximum of three seats; that is, one qualifying and two
additional seats;
Fourth, proportional representation the additional seats
which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in
proportion to their total number of votes.[19]

However, because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical

interpretation of the term proportional representation, this Court is
compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to
party-list organizations.
Number of Party-List Representatives:
The Formula Mandated by the Constitution

Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:

Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities,
and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a

uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by

law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including
those under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after
the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as
provided by law, by selection or election from the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided
by law, except the religious sector.

The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:

Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The partylist 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.
xxx

Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the House of

Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and
fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law. The House of
Representatives shall be composed of district representatives and partylist representatives. The Constitution allows the legislature to modify the
number of the members of the House of Representatives.
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the
ratio of party-list representatives to the total number of
representatives. We compute the number of seats available to party-list
representatives from the number of legislative districts. On this point, we
do not deviate from the first formula in Veterans, thus:
Number of seats
available to legislative
districts

x .20 =

Number of seats available

to
party-list representatives

.80

This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of

seats available for party-list representatives whenever a legislative
district is created by law. Since the 14th Congress of the Philippines has
220 district representatives, there are 55 seats available to party-list
representatives.
220

x .20 =

55

.80
After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to
the total number of representatives, the Constitution left the manner
of allocating the seats available to party-list representatives to the
wisdom of the legislature.
Allocation of Seats for Party-List Representatives:
The Statutory Limits Presented by the Two Percent Threshold
and the Three-Seat Cap

All parties agree on the formula to determine the maximum number of

seats reserved under the Party-List System, as well as on the formula to
determine the guaranteed seats to party-list candidates garnering at
least two-percent of the total party-list votes. However, there are
numerous interpretations of the provisions of R.A. No. 7941 on the
allocation
of additional
seats under
the
Party-List
[20]
System.Veterans produced the First Party Rule,
and Justice Vicente V.
Mendozas
dissent
in Veterans presented
Germanys
Niemeyer
[21]
formula
as an alternative.
The Constitution left to Congress the determination of the manner
of allocating the seats for party-list representatives. Congress enacted

R.A. No. 7941, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 11 and Section 12 of
which provide:
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. x x x
In determining the allocation of seats for the second
vote,[22] 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. (Emphasis supplied)

In G.R. No. 179271, BANAT presents two interpretations through three

formulas to allocate party-list representative seats.
The first interpretation allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section
11(b) on the 2% requirement with Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT
described this procedure as follows:
(a) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty
percent (20%) of the total Members of the House of
Representatives including those from the party-list groups as
prescribed by Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution,

Section 11 (1st par.) of RA 7941 and Comelec Resolution No.

2847 dated 25 June 1996. Since there are 220 District
Representatives in the 14th Congress, there shall be 55
Party-List Representatives. All seats shall have to be
proclaimed.
(b) All party-list groups shall initially be allotted one (1) seat
for every two per centum (2%) of the total party-list votes
they obtained; provided, that no party-list groups shall have
more than three (3) seats (Section 11, RA 7941).
(c) The remaining seats shall, after deducting the seats
obtained by the party-list groups under the immediately
preceding paragraph and after deducting from their total the
votes corresponding to those seats, the remaining seats shall
be allotted proportionately to all the party-list groups which
have not secured the maximum three (3) seats under the 2%
threshold rule, in accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941.[23]

Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be awarded under BANATs first

interpretation.
The second interpretation presented by BANAT assumes that the 2% vote
requirement is declared unconstitutional, and apportions the seats for
party-list representatives by following Section 12 of R.A. No.
7941. BANAT states that the COMELEC:
(a) shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or
coalitions on a nationwide basis;
(b) rank them according to the number of votes received;
and,
(c) 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.[24]
BANAT used two formulas to obtain the same results: one is based on
the proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against
the total nationwide party-list votes, and the other is by making the votes
of a party-list with a median percentage of votes as the divisor in

computing the allocation of seats.[25] Thirty-four (34) party-list seats will

be awarded under BANATs second interpretation.
In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both
the COMELECs original 2-4-6 formula and the Veterans formula for
systematically preventing all the party-list seats from being filled
up. They claim that both formulas do not factor in the total number of
seats alloted for the entire Party-List System. Bayan Muna, Abono, and A
Teacher reject the three-seat cap, but accept the 2% threshold.After
determining the qualified parties, a second percentage is generated by
dividing the votes of a qualified party by the total votes of all qualified
parties only. The number of seats allocated to a qualified party is
computed by multiplying the total party-list seats available with the
second percentage. There will be a first round of seat allocation, limited
to using the whole integers as the equivalent of the number of seats
allocated to the concerned party-list. After all the qualified parties are
given their seats, a second round of seat allocation is conducted. The
fractions, or remainders, from the whole integers are ranked from highest
to lowest and the remaining seats on the basis of this ranking are
allocated until all the seats are filled up.[26]
We examine what R.A. No. 7941 prescribes to allocate seats for party-list
representatives.
Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the ranking of the participating
parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they
garnered during the elections.

Table 1. Ranking of the participating parties from the highest

to the lowest based on the number of votes garnered during
the elections.[27]

Rank

Party

Votes

Rank

Party

Votes

Garnered
1 BUHAY

1,169,234

2 BAYAN
MUNA

Garnered
48 KALAHI

88,868

979,039

49 APOI

79,386

3 CIBAC

755,686

50 BP

78,541

4 GABRIELA

621,171

51 AHONBAYAN

78,424

5 APEC

619,657

52 BIGKIS

77,327

6 A TEACHER

490,379

53 PMAP

75,200

7 AKBAYAN

466,112

54 AKAPIN

74,686

8 ALAGAD

423,149

55 PBA

71,544

9 COOPNATCCO

409,883

56 GRECON

62,220

10 BUTIL

409,160

57 BTM

60,993

11 BATAS

385,810

58 A SMILE

58,717

12 ARC

374,288

59 NELFFI

57,872

13 ANAKPAWIS

370,261

60 AKSA

57,012

14 ABONO

339,990

61 BAGO

55,846

15 AMIN

338,185

62 BANDILA

54,751

16 AGAP

328,724

63 AHON

54,522

17 AN WARAY

321,503

64 ASAHAN MO

51,722

18 YACAP

310,889

65 AGBIAG!

50,837

19 FPJPM

300,923

66 SPI

50,478

20 UNI-MAD

245,382

67 BAHANDI

46,612

21 ABS

235,086

68 ADD

45,624

22 KAKUSA

228,999

69 AMANG

43,062

23 KABATAAN

228,637

70 ABAY PARAK

42,282

24 ABA-AKO

218,818

71 BABAE KA

36,512

25 ALIF

217,822

72 SB

34,835

26 SENIOR
CITIZENS

213,058

73 ASAP

34,098

27 AT

197,872

74 PEP

33,938

28 VFP

196,266

75 ABA
ILONGGO

33,903

29 ANAD

188,521

76 VENDORS

33,691

30 BANAT

177,028

77 ADD-TRIBAL

32,896

31 ANG
KASANGGA

170,531

78 ALMANA

32,255

32 BANTAY

169,801

79 AANGAT KA
PILIPINO

29,130

33 ABAKADA

166,747

80 AAPS

26,271

34 1-UTAK

164,980

81 HAPI

25,781

35 TUCP

162,647

82 AAWAS

22,946

36 COCOFED

155,920

83 SM

20,744

37 AGHAM

146,032

84 AG

16,916

38 ANAK

141,817

85 AGING
PINOY

16,729

39 ABANSE!
PINAY

130,356

86 APO

16,421

40 PM

119,054

87 BIYAYANG
BUKID

16,241

41 AVE

110,769

88 ATS

14,161

42 SUARA

110,732

89 UMDJ

9,445

43 ASSALAM

110,440

90 BUKLOD
FILIPINA

8,915

44 DIWA

107,021

91 LYPAD

8,471

92 AA-

8,406

45 ANC

99,636

KASOSYO
46 SANLAKAS

97,375

47 ABC

90,058

93 KASAPI
TOTAL

6,221
15,950,900

The first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 states that 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. This clause guarantees a seat to the two-percenters. In Table 2
below, we use the first 20 party-list candidates for illustration
purposes. The percentage of votes garnered by each party is arrived at by
dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the
total number of votes cast for all party-list candidates.
Table 2. The first 20 party-list candidates and their
respective percentage of votes garnered over the total votes
for the party-list.[28]

Rank

Party

1 BUHAY

Votes
Garnered
Votes
over Total Guaranteed
Garnered
Votes for
Seat
Party-List, in
%
1,169,234

7.33%

2 BAYAN MUNA

979,039

6.14%

3 CIBAC

755,686

4.74%

4 GABRIELA

621,171

3.89%

5 APEC

619,657

3.88%

6 A TEACHER

490,379

3.07%

7 AKBAYAN

466,112

2.92%

8 ALAGAD

423,149

2.65%

9 COOP-NATCCO

409,883

2.57%

10 BUTIL

409,160

2.57%

11 BATAS[29]

385,810

2.42%

12 ARC

374,288

2.35%

13 ANAKPAWIS

370,261

2.32%

14 ABONO

339,990

2.13%

15 AMIN

338,185

2.12%

16 AGAP

328,724

2.06%

17 AN WARAY

321,503

2.02%

Total

17

18 YACAP

310,889

1.95%

19 FPJPM

300,923

1.89%

20 UNI-MAD

245,382

1.54%

From Table 2 above, we see that only 17 party-list candidates received at

least 2% from the total number of votes cast for party-list
candidates. The 17 qualified party-list candidates, or the two-percenters,
are the party-list candidates that are entitled to one seat each, or the
guaranteed seat. In this first round of seat allocation, we distributed 17
guaranteed seats.
The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides 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.This is
where petitioners and intervenors problem with the formula
in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets the clause in proportion to their total
number of votes to be in proportion to the votes of the first
party. This interpretation is contrary to the express language of R.A. No.
7941.
We rule 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. This Court 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.
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are
50 million votes cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections. A
party that has two percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a
guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the first 50 parties all get
one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of 55
seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this
situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list seats
to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast to 100 million. Thus,
even if the maximum number of parties get two percent of the votes for
every party, it is always impossible for the number of occupied party-list
seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present.
We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of
Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article
VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of the broadest
possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House
of Representatives.[30]
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:
1.
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.

2.
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 guaranteed seat each.
3.
Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to
the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in
proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are
allocated.
4.
Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to
not more than three (3) seats.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer
be included because they have already been allocated, at one seat each,
to every two-percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation
as additional seats are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List
System less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the
absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of
fractional seats.
In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional, we do not limit
our allocation of additional seats in Table 3 below to the twopercenters. The percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate
is arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by
15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for party-list
candidates. There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation.
First, the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats, 38,
which is the difference between the 55 maximum seats reserved under
the Party-List System and the 17 guaranteed seats of the twopercenters. The whole integer of the product of the percentage and of the
remaining available seats corresponds to a partys share in the remaining
available seats. Second, we assign one party-list seat to each of the
parties next in rank until all available seats are completely
distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second
round of seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to

determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is

entitled. Thus:

Table 3. Distribution of Available Party-List Seats

Ran
k

Party

Votes
(B)
Addition
Applyi
Garner Guarante
plus
al
ng the
ed over ed Seat
(C), in
Seats
three
Total
whole
seat
Votes
intege
cap
Votes
for
rs
Garnere Party
d
List, in
%
(First
(Second
Round)
Round)
(B)

(C)

(A)

(E)

(D)

BUHAY

1,169,2
34

7.33%

2.79

N.A.

BAYAN
MUNA

979,039

6.14%

2.33

N.A.

CIBAC

755,686

4.74%

1.80

N.A.

GABRIEL
A

621,171

3.89%

1.48

N.A.

APEC

619,657

3.88%

1.48

N.A.

A Teacher

490,379

3.07%

1.17

N.A.

AKBAYAN

466,112

2.92%

1.11

N.A.

ALAGAD

423,149

2.65%

1.01

N.A.

9[31] COOPNATCCO

409,883

2.57%

N.A.

10 BUTIL

409,160

2.57%

N.A.

11 BATAS

385,810

2.42%

N.A.

12 ARC

374,288

2.35%

N.A.

13 ANAKPAW 370,261
IS

2.32%

N.A.

14 ABONO

339,990

2.13%

N.A.

15 AMIN

338,185

2.12%

N.A.

16 AGAP

328,724

2.06%

N.A.

17 AN
WARAY

321,503

2.02%

N.A.

18 YACAP

310,889

1.95%

N.A.

19 FPJPM

300,923

1.89%

N.A.

20 UNI-MAD

245,382

1.54%

N.A.

21 ABS

235,086

1.47%

N.A.

22 KAKUSA

228,999

1.44%

N.A.

23 KABATAA
N

228,637

1.43%

N.A.

24 ABA-AKO

218,818

1.37%

N.A.

25 ALIF

217,822

1.37%

N.A.

26 SENIOR
CITIZENS

213,058

1.34%

N.A.

27 AT

197,872

1.24%

N.A.

28 VFP

196,266

1.23%

N.A.

29 ANAD

188,521

1.18%

N.A.

30 BANAT

177,028

1.11%

N.A.

31 ANG
170,531
KASANGG
A

1.07%

N.A.

32 BANTAY

169,801

1.06%

N.A.

33 ABAKADA 166,747

1.05%

N.A.

34 1-UTAK

164,980

1.03%

N.A.

35 TUCP

162,647

1.02%

N.A.

36 COCOFE
D

155,920

0.98%

N.A.

Tot
al

17

55

Applying the procedure of seat allocation as illustrated in Table 3 above,

there are 55 party-list representatives from the 36 winning party-list
organizations. All 55 available party-list seats are filled. The additional
seats allocated to the parties with sufficient number of votes for one
whole seat, in no case to exceed a total of three seats for each party, are
shown in column (D).
Participation of Major Political Parties in Party-List Elections
The Constitutional Commission adopted a multi-party system
that allowed all political parties to participate in the party-list
elections. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission clearly
bear this out, thus:
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we
suggested or proposed the party list system because we
wanted to open up the political system to a pluralistic society
through a multiparty system. x x x We are for opening up
the system, and we would like very much for the sectors
to be there. That is why one of the ways to do that is to
put a ceiling on the number of representatives from any

single party that can sit within the 50 allocated under

the party list system. x x x.
xxx
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198
seats is not limited to political parties. My question is this:
Are we going to classify for example Christian Democrats
and Social Democrats as political parties?Can they run
under the party list concept or must they be under the
district legislation side of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these
parties that the Commissioner mentioned can field
candidates for the Senate as well as for the House of
Representatives. Likewise, they can also field sectoral
candidates for the 20 percent or 30 percent, whichever
is adopted, of the seats that we are allocating under the
party list system.
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can
field district candidates and can also participate in the party
list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the
party list system, they will be fielding only sectoral
candidates.
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO
participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field
candidates who come from the different marginalized
sectors that we shall designate in this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Taada wants to run under
BAYAN group and says that he represents the farmers,
would he qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the
party list system and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who
would pass on whether he is a farmer or not?

MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang

linawin ito. Political parties, particularly minority
political parties, are not prohibited to participate in the
party list election if they can prove that they are also
organized along sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all
political parties can participate because it is precisely the
contention of political parties that they represent the broad
base of citizens and that all sectors are represented in
them. Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo
ang UNIDO na isang political party, it will dominate the
party list at mawawalang saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin
mismo ng political parties ang party list system.Gusto ko
lamang bigyan ng diin ang reserve. Hindi ito reserve seat sa
marginalized sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198 seats,
reserved din ito sa political parties.
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run
there. But my question to Commissioner Villacorta and
probably also to Commissioner Tadeo is that under this
system, would UNIDO be banned from running under the
party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral
candidates. On that condition alone, UNIDO may be
allowed to register for the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he
shares that answer?
MR. TADEO. The same.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral
lines.
xxxx
MR. OPLE. x x x In my opinion, this will also create the
stimulus for political parties and mass organizations to seek
common ground. For example, we have the PDP-Laban and
the UNIDO. I see no reason why they should not be able to
make common goals with mass organizations so that the
very leadership of these parties can be transformed through

the participation of mass organizations. And if this is true of

the administration parties, this will be true of others like the
Partido ng Bayan which is now being formed. There is no
question that they will be attractive to many mass
organizations. In the opposition parties to which we belong,
there will be a stimulus for us to contact mass organizations
so that with their participation, the policies of such parties
can be radically transformed because this amendment will
create conditions that will challenge both the mass
organizations and the political parties to come together. And
the party list system is certainly available, although it is
open to all the parties. It is understood that the parties will
enter in the roll of the COMELEC the names of
representatives of mass organizations affiliated with
them. So that we may, in time, develop this excellent system
that they have in Europe where labor organizations and
cooperatives, for example, distribute themselves either in the
Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Party
in Germany, and their very presence there has a
transforming effect upon the philosophies and the leadership
of those parties.
It is also a fact well known to all that in the United States,
the AFL-CIO always vote with the Democratic Party. But the
businessmen, most of them, always vote with the Republican
Party, meaning that there is no reason at all why political
parties and mass organizations should not combine,
reenforce, influence and interact with each other so that the
very objectives that we set in this Constitution for sectoral
representation are achieved in a wider, more lasting, and
more institutionalized way. Therefore, I support this
[Monsod-Villacorta]
amendment. It
installs
sectoral
representation as a constitutional gift, but at the same time,
it challenges the sector to rise to the majesty of being elected
representatives later on through a party list system; and
even beyond that, to become actual political parties capable
of contesting political power in the wider constitutional arena
for major political parties.
xxx

[32]

(Emphasis supplied)

R.A. No. 7941 provided the details for the concepts put forward by the
Constitutional Commission. Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:
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
interests 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.
Congress, in enacting R.A. No. 7941, put the three-seat cap to prevent
any party from dominating the party-list elections.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political
parties from participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the
framers of the Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to

participate in party-list elections through their sectoral wings. In fact,

the members of the Constitutional Commission voted down, 19-22, any
permanent sectoral seats, and in the alternative the reservation of the
party-list system to the sectoral groups.[33] In defining a party that
participates in party-list elections as either a political party or a sectoral
party, R.A. No. 7941 also clearly intended that major political parties will
participate in the party-list elections. Excluding the major political
parties in party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the
intent of the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court
cannot engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the
exclusion of major political parties from the party-list elections in patent
violation of the Constitution and the law.
Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission state that major political parties are allowed to establish, or
form coalitions with, sectoral organizations for electoral or political
purposes. There should not be a problem if, for example, the Liberal
Party participates in the party-list election through the Kabataang
Liberal ng Pilipinas (KALIPI), its sectoral youth wing. The other major
political parties can thus organize, or affiliate with, their chosen sector or
sectors. To further illustrate, the Nacionalista Party can establish a
fisherfolk wing to participate in the party-list election, and this
fisherfolk wing can field its fisherfolk nominees. Kabalikat ng Malayang
Pilipino (KAMPI) can do the same for the urban poor.
The qualifications of party-list nominees are prescribed in Section 9 of
R.A. No. 7941:

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 elections, able to read
and write, 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 until the expiration of his term.
Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list
organizations nominee wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity[34] as
there is no financial status required in the law. It is enough that the
nominee of the sectoral party/organization/coalition belongs to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors,[35] that is, if the nominee
represents the fisherfolk, he or she must be a fisherfolk, or if the
nominee represents the senior citizens, he or she must be a senior
citizen.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates the filling-up of the
entire 20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the
Constitution. The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI,
left the determination of the number of the members of the House of
Representatives to Congress: The House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, x x x. The 20% allocation of party-list
representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be
more than 20% of the members of the House of Representatives.However,
we cannot allow the continued existence of a provision in the law which
will systematically prevent the constitutionally allocated 20% party-list
representatives from being filled. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to
the number of seats that a qualified party-list organization may occupy,
remains a valid statutory device that prevents any party from dominating
the party-list elections. Seats for party-list representatives shall thus be
allocated in accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 above.
However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling
in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the

party-list elections, directly or indirectly. Those who voted to continue

disallowing major political parties from the party-list elections joined
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno in his separate opinion. On the formula to
allocate party-list seats, the Court is unanimous in concurring with
this ponencia.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the
Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August 2007 in NBC No. 07-041
(PL) as well as the Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC No. 07-60. We
declare unconstitutional the two percent threshold in the distribution of
additional party-list seats. The allocation of additional seats under the
Party-List System shall be in accordance with the procedure used in
Table 3 of this Decision. Major political parties are disallowed from
participating in party-list elections. This Decision is immediately
executory. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR G.R. No. 179271

NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT
AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT),
Petitioner,
- versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers),
Respondent.
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE
PROFESSIONALS,
Intervenor.
AANGAT TAYO,
Intervenor.

COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS
OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR
CITIZENS),
Intervenor.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR G.R. No. 179295

TEACHER EMPOWERMENT
THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION Present:
AND HARMONY TOWARDS
EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., PUNO, C.J.,
and ABONO, QUISUMBING,
Petitioners, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA, and
BERSAMIN, JJ.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated:

Respondent.
July 8, 2009
x---------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION
CARPIO, J.:
The House of Representatives, represented by Speaker Prospero C.
Nograles, filed a motion for leave to intervene in G.R. Nos. 179271 and
179295. The House of Representatives filed a motion for clarification in
intervention and enumerated the issues for clarification as follows:

A. There are only 219 legislative districts and not

220. Accordingly,
the
alloted
seats
for
party-list
representation should only be 54 and not 55. The House of
Representatives seeks clarification on which of the party-list
representatives shall be admitted to the Roll of Members
considering that the Court declared as winners 55 party-list
representatives.
B. The House of Representatives wishes to be guided on
whether it should enroll in its Roll of Members the 32 named
party-list representatives enumerated in Table 3 or only such
number of representatives that would complete the 250
member maximum prescribed by Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the
Constitution. In the event that it is ordered to admit all 32,
will this act not violate the above-cited Constitutional
provision considering that the total members would now rise
to 270.
C. The Court declared as unconstitutional the 2% threshold
only in relation to the distribution of additional seats as
found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No.
7941. Yet, it distributed first seats to party-list groups which
did not attain the minimum number of votes that will entitle
them to one seat. Clarification is, therefore, sought whether
the term additional seats refer to 2nd and 3rd seats only or all
remaining available seats. Corollary thereto, the House of
Representatives wishes to be clarified whether there is no
more minimum vote requirement to qualify as a party-list
representative.
D. For the guidance of the House of Representatives,
clarification is sought as to whether the principle laid down

in Veterans that the filling up of the allowable seats for

party-list representatives is not mandatory, has been
abandoned.[1]

On the other hand, Armi Jane Roa-Borje (Roa-Borje), third nominee of

Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), filed a motion for leave for
partial reconsideration-in-intervention, alleging that:
The Supreme Court, in ruling on the procedure for
distribution of seats, has deprived without due process and
in violation of the equal protection clause, parties with more
significant constituencies, such as CIBAC, Gabriela and
APEC, in favor of parties who did not even meet the 2%
threshold.[2]

Following the Courts Decision of 21 April 2009, the Commission on

Elections (COMELEC) submitted to this Court on 27 April 2009 National
Board of Canvassers (NBC) Resolution No. 09-001. NBC Resolution No.
09-001 updated the data used by this Court in its Decision of 21 April
2009. The total votes for party-list is now 15,723,764 following the
cancellation of the registration of party-list group Filipinos for Peace,
Justice and Progress Movement (FPJPM). Moreover, the total number of
legislative districts is now 219 following the annulment of Muslim
Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating the province of Shariff
Kabunsuan. Thus, the percentage and ranking of the actual winning
party-list groups are different from Table 3 of the Decision in G.R. Nos.
179271 and 179295.
The Number of Members of the House of Representatives
in the 2007 Elections

Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more

than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of
their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform
and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(Emphasis supplied)

The 1987 Constitution fixes the maximum number of members of the

House of Representatives at 250. However, the 1987 Constitution
expressly allows for an increase in the number of members of the House
of Representatives provided a law is enacted for the purpose. This is clear
from the phrase unless otherwise provided by law in Section 5(1),
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The Legislature has the option to
choose whether the increase in the number of members of the House of
Representatives is done by piecemeal legislation or by enactment of a law
authorizing a general increase. Legislation that makes piecemeal
increases of the number of district representatives is no less valid than
legislation that makes a general increase.

In 1987, there were only 200 legislative districts. Twenty legislative

districts were added by piecemeal legislation after the ratification of the
1987 Constitution:

Republic
Act

Year
Signed
into Law

Legislative District

7160

1992

Biliran

7675

1994

Mandaluyong City

7854

1994

Makati (2nd District)

7878

1995

Apayao

7896
7897

and 1995

7926

1995

Muntinlupa City

8470

1998

Compostela Valley

8487

1998

Taguig City (2nd District)

8526

1998

Valenzuela
(2nd District)

10

9229

2003

Paraaque (2nd District)

11

9230

2003

San Jose del Monte City

12

8508
9232

and 1998 and

2003

Antipolo (1st District)

13

9232

2003

Antipolo (2nd District)

14

9269

2004

Zamboanga
(2nd District)

15

9355

2006

Dinagat Island

16

9357

2006

Sultan
(2nd District)

Kudarat

17

9360

2006

Zamboanga
(2nd District)

Sibugay

18

9364

2006

Marikina City (2nd District)

19

9371

2007

Cagayan
(2nd District)

20

9387

2007

Navotas City

Guimaras

City

City

de

Oro

Thus, for purposes of the 2007 elections, there were only 219 district
representatives. Navotas City became a separate district on 24 June
2007, more than a month after the 14 May 2007 elections.
The Number of Party-List Seats

in the 2007 Elections

Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads in part:
The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including
those under the party-list. x x x
The 1987 Constitution fixes the ratio of party-list representatives to
district representatives. This ratio automatically applies whenever the
number of district representatives is increased by law. The mathematical
formula for determining the number of seats available to party-list
representatives is
Number of
seats available x .20 =
to legislative
districts

Number of seats available

to
party-list representatives.

.80
As we stated in our Decision of 21 April 2009, [t]his formula allows for
the corresponding increase in the number of seats available for
party-list representatives whenever a legislative district is created
by law. Thus, for every four district representatives, the 1987
Constitution
mandates
that
there
shall
be
one
party-list
representative. There is no need for legislation to create an additional
party-list seat whenever four additional legislative districts are created by
law. Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution automatically
creates such additional party-list seat.
We use the table below to illustrate the relationship between the number
of legislative districts and the number of party-list seats for every election
year after 1987.

Election
Year

Number of
Legislative
Districts

Number of
Party-List
Seats

Total Number
of Members of
the House of
Representatives

1992

200

50

250

1995

206
New Districts:
Biliran
Mandaluyong City
Makati
(2nd District)
Apayao
Guimaras
Muntinlupa City

51

257

1998

209
New Districts:
Compostela Valley
Taguig City
(2ndDistrict)
Valenzuela City
(2ndDistrict)

52

261

2001

209

52

261

53

267

2004

214
New Districts:
Paraaque City
(2ndDistrict)
San Jose del
Monte City
Antipolo
(1st District)
Antipolo
(2nd District)
Zamboanga City
(2ndDistrict)

2007

219
New Districts:
Dinagat Island
Sultan Kudarat
(2ndDistrict)
Zamboanga
Sibugay
(2nd District)
Marikina City
(2ndDistrict)
Cagayan de Oro
(2ndDistrict)

54

273

2010

220
New District:
Navotas City
(assuming no
additional
districts are
created)

55

275

We see that, as early as the election year of 1995, the total number
of members of the House of Representatives is already beyond the initial
maximum of 250 members as fixed in the 1987 Constitution.
Any change in the number of legislative districts brings a corresponding
change in the number of party-list seats. However, the increase in the
number of members of the House of Representatives went unnoticed as
the available seats for party-list representatives have never been filled up
before. As of the oral arguments in G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295, there
were 220 legislative districts. Fifty-five party-list seats were thus
allocated. However, the number of legislative districts was subsequently
reduced to 219 with our ruling on 16 July 2008 declaring void the
creation of the Province of Sharif Kabunsuan.[3] Thus, in the 2007

elections, the number of party-list seats available for distribution should

be correspondingly reduced from 55 to 54.
The filling-up of all available party-list seats is not mandatory. Actual
occupancy of the party-list seats depends on the number of participants
in the party-list election. If only ten parties participated in the 2007
party-list election, then, despite the availability of 54 seats, the
maximum possible number of occupied party-list seats would only be 30
because of the three-seat cap. In such a case, the three-seat cap
prevents the mandatory allocation of all the 54 available seats.
Under Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941, garnering 2% of the total votes cast
guarantees a party one seat. This 2% threshold for the first round of seat
allocation does not violate any provision of the 1987 Constitution. Thus,
the Court upholds this 2% threshold for the guaranteed seats as a valid
exercise of legislative power.
In the second round allocation of additional seats, there is no minimum
vote requirement to obtain a party-list seat because the Court has struck
down the application of the 2% threshold in the allocation of additional
seats. Specifically, the provision in Section 11(b) of the Party-List Act
stating that those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes
shall be entitled to additional seats in the proportion to their total
number of votes can no longer be given any effect. Otherwise, the 20
percent party-list seats in the total membership of the House of
Representatives as provided in the 1987 Constitution will mathematically
be impossible to fill up.
However, a party-list organization has to obtain a sufficient number of
votes to gain a seat in the second round of seat allocation. What is
deemed a sufficient number of votes is dependent upon the
circumstances of each election, such as the number of participating
parties, the number of available party-list seats, and the number of
parties with guaranteed seats received in the first round of seat
allocation. To continue the example above, if only ten parties participated
in the 2007 party-list election and each party received only one thousand

votes, then each of the ten parties would receive 10% of the votes
cast. All are guaranteed one seat, and are further entitled to receive two
more seats in the second round of seat allocation.
Similarly, a presidential candidate may win the elections even if he
receives only one thousand votes as long as all his opponents receive less
than one thousand votes. A winning presidential candidate only needs to
receive more votes than his opponents. The same policy applies in
every election to public office, from the presidential to the barangay
level. Except for the guaranteed party-list seat, there is no minimum vote
requirement before a candidate in any election, for any elective office, can
be proclaimed the winner. Of course, the winning candidate must receive
at least one vote, assuming he has no opponents or all his opponents do
not receive a single vote.
In the absence of a minimum vote requirement in the second round of
party-list seat allocation, there is no need to belabor the disparity
between the votes obtained by the first and last ranked winning parties
in the 2007 party-list elections. In the same manner, no one belabors the
disparity between the votes obtained by the highest and lowest ranked
winners in the senatorial elections. However, for those interested in
comparing the votes received by party-list representatives vis-a-vis the
votes received by district representatives, the 162,678 votes cast in favor
of TUCP, the last party to obtain a party-list seat, is significantly higher
than the votes received by 214 of the 218 elected district
representatives.[4]

The Actual Number of Party-List Representatives

in the 2007 Elections

The data used in Table 3 of our Decision promulgated on 21 April 2009

was based on the submissions of the parties. We used the figures from
Party-List Canvass Report No. 32, as of 6:00 p.m. of 31 August
2007. The NBC issued NBC Report No. 33 on 11 June 2008, updating
the 31 August 2007 report. The parties did not furnish this Court
with a copy of NBC Report No. 33. In any case, we stated in the
dispositive portion of our Decision that [t]he allocation of additional seats
under the Party-List System shall be in accordance with the
procedure used in Table 3 of this decision. Party-List Canvass Report
No. 32 is not part of the procedure.
The computation of the COMELEC in NBC No. 09-001 applying the
procedure laid down in our Decision requires correction for purposes of
accuracy. Instead of multiplying the percentage of votes garnered over
the total votes for party-list by 36, the COMELEC multiplied the
percentage by 37. Thirty-six is the proper multiplier as it is the difference
between 54, the number of available party-list seats, and 18, the number
of guaranteed seats. Only the figures in column (C) are affected. The
allocation of seats to the winning party-list organizations, however,
remains the same as in NBC No. 09-001.Our modification of the
COMELECs computation in NBC No. 09-001 is shown below:

Ran
k

Party

Votes
Addition
(B)
Applyi
Guarante
Garner
al
plus
ng the
ed Seat
ed over
Seats
(C), in three
Total
whole
seat
Votes
intege
cap
Votes
for
rs
Garnere
Party
d
(First
List, in
(Second
Round)
%
Round)

(B)

(C)

(A)

(D)

(E)

BUHAY

1,169,3
38

7.44%

2.68

N.A.

BAYAN
MUNA

979,189

6.23%

2.24

N.A.

CIBAC

755,735

4.81%

1.73

N.A.

GABRIEL
A

621,266

3.95%

1.42

N.A.

APEC

619,733

3.94%

1.42

N.A.

A Teacher

490,853

3.12%

1.12

N.A.

AKBAYAN

466,448

2.97%

1.07

N.A.

423,165

2.69%

N.A.

COOPNATCCO

409,987

2.61%

N.A.

10

BUTIL

409,168

2.60%

N.A.

11

BATAS

385,956

2.45%

N.A.

12

ARC

374,349

2.38%

N.A.

13

ANAKPAW 370,323
IS

2.36%

N.A.

14

AMIN

347,527

2.21%

N.A.

15

ABONO

340,002

2.16%

N.A.

16

YACAP

331,623

2.11%

N.A.

17

AGAP

328,814

2.09%

N.A.

18

AN
WARAY

321,516

2.04%

N.A.

19

UNI-MAD

251,804

1.60%

N.A.

20

ABS

235,152

1.50%

N.A.

21

ALIF

229,267

1.46%

N.A.

8[5] ALAGAD
9

22

KAKUSA

229,036

1.46%

N.A.

23

KABATAA
N

228,700

1.45%

N.A.

24

ABA-AKO

219,363

1.40%

N.A.

25

SENIOR
CITIZENS

213,095

1.36%

N.A.

26

AT

200,030

1.27%

N.A.

27

VFP

196,358

1.25%

N.A.

28

ANAD

188,573

1.20%

N.A.

29

BANAT

177,068

1.13%

N.A.

30

ANG
170,594
KASANGG
A

1.08%

N.A.

31

BANTAY

169,869

1.08%

N.A.

32

ABAKADA 166,897

1.06%

N.A.

33

1-UTAK

165,012

1.05%

N.A.

34

TUCP

162,678

1.03%

N.A.

35

COCOFED 156,007

0.99%

N.A.

Tot
al

18

54

Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS)

and Ang Laban ng Indiginong Filipino (ALIF) both have pending cases
before the COMELEC. The COMELEC correctly deferred the proclamation
of both BATAS and ALIF as the outcome of their cases may affect the
final composition of party-list representatives. The computation and
allocation of seats may still be modified in the event that the COMELEC
decides against BATAS and/or ALIF.
To address Roa-Borjes motion for partial reconsideration-in-intervention
and for purposes of computing the results in future party-list elections,

we reiterate that in the second step of the second round of seat

allocation, the preference in the distribution of seats should be in
accordance with the higher percentage and higher rank, without limiting
the distribution
to parties receiving two-percent of the votes.[6] To limit the distribution of
seats to the two-percenters would mathematically prevent the filling up
of all the available party-list seats.
In the table above, CIBAC cannot claim a third seat from the seat
allocated to TUCP, the last ranked party allocated with a seat. CIBAC's
2.81% (from the percentage of 4.81% less the 2% for its guaranteed seat)
has a lower fractional seat value after the allocation of its second seat
compared to TUCP's 1.03%. CIBAC's fractional seat after receiving two
seats is only 0.03 compared to TUCP's 0.38 fractional seat. Multiplying
CIBAC's 2.81% by 37, the additional seats for distribution in the second
round, gives 1.03 seat, leaving 0.03 fractional seat. Multiplying TUCP's
1.03% by 37 gives a fractional seat of 0.38, higher than CIBAC's
fractional seat of 0.03. The fractional seats become material only in the
second step of the second round of seat allocation to determine the
ranking of parties. Thus, for purposes of the second step in the second
round of seat allocation,[7] TUCP has a higher rank than CIBAC.
Roa-Borjes position stems from the perceived need for absolute
proportionality in the allocation of party-list seats. However, the
1987 Constitution does not require absolute proportionality in the
allocation of party-list seats. Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution provides:
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not
more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number
of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided
by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of

registered national, regional, and sectoral parties

organizations. (Boldfacing and italicization supplied)

and

The phrase legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities,

and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ratio in Section 5(1) of Article VI requires that legislative districts shall
be apportioned according to proportional representation. However, this
principle of proportional representation applies only to legislative
districts, not to the party-list system. The allocation of seats under the
party-list system is governed by the last phrase of Section 5(1), which
states that the party-list representatives shall be those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system, giving
the Legislature wide discretion in formulating the allocation of party-list
seats. Clearly, there is no constitutional requirement for absolute
proportional representation in the allocation of party-list seats in the
House of Representatives.
Section 2, on Declaration of Policy, of R.A. No. 7941 provides that 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 x x x. However, this proportional
representation in Section 2 is qualified by Section 11(b)[8] of the same
lawwhich mandates a three-seat cap, which is intended to bar any single
party-list organization from dominating the party-list system. Section
11(b) also qualifies this proportional representation by imposing a two
percent cut-off for those entitled to the guaranteed seats. These statutory
qualifications are valid because they do not violate the Constitution,
which does not require absolute proportional representation for the
party-list system.
To summarize, there are four parameters in a Philippine-style party-list
election system:

1.

Twenty percent of the total number of the membership of the

House of Representatives is the maximum number of seats
available to party-list organizations, such that there is
automatically one party-list seat for every four existing legislative
districts.

2.

Garnering two percent of the total votes cast in the party-list

elections guarantees a party-list organization one seat. The
guaranteed seats shall be distributed in a first round of seat
allocation to parties receiving at least two percent of the total
party-list votes.

3.

The additional seats, that is, the remaining seats after allocation
of the guaranteed seats, shall be distributed to the party-list
organizations including those that received less than two percent
of the total votes. The continued operation of the two percent
threshold as it applies to the allocation of the additional seats is
now unconstitutional because this threshold mathematically and
physically prevents the filling up of the available party-list
seats. The additional seats shall be distributed to the parties in a
second round of seat allocation according to the two-step
procedure laid down in the Decision of 21 April 2009 as clarified in
this Resolution.

4.

The three-seat cap is constitutional. The three-seat cap is

intended by the Legislature to prevent any party from dominating
the party-list system. There is no violation of the Constitution
because the 1987 Constitution does not require absolute
proportionality for the party-list system. The well-settled rule is
that courts will not question the wisdom of the Legislature as long
as it is not violative of the Constitution.

These four parameters allow the mathematical and practical fulfillment

of the Constitutional provision that party-list representatives shall
comprise twenty percent of the members of the House of

Representatives. At the same time, these four parameters uphold as

much as possible the Party-List Act, striking down only that provision of
the Party-List Act that could not be reconciled anymore with the 1987
Constitution.

WHEREFORE, the Courts Decision of 21 April 2009 in the present case

is clarified accordingly.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Baguio City
EN BANC
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY
represented herein by its Chair,
DANTON REMOTO,
Petitioner,

- versus -

G.R. No. 190582

Present:
PUNO, C. J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Promulgated:
Respondent.
April 8, 2010
x-------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
... [F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter
much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its
substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of
the existing order.
Justice Robert A. Jackson

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette[1]

One unavoidable consequence of everyone having the freedom to choose is

that others may make different choices choices we would not make for
ourselves, choices we may disapprove of, even choices that may shock or
offend or anger us. However, choices are not to be legally prohibited merely
because they are different, and the right to disagree and debate about
important questions of public policy is a core value protected by our Bill of
Rights. Indeed, our democracy is built on genuine recognition of, and respect
for, diversity and difference in opinion.
Since ancient times, society has grappled with deep disagreements
about the definitions and demands of morality. In many cases, where moral
convictions are concerned, harmony among those theoretically opposed is an
insurmountable goal. Yet herein lies the paradox philosophical justifications
about what is moral are indispensable and yet at the same time powerless to
create agreement. This Court recognizes, however, that practical solutions are
preferable to ideological stalemates; accommodation is better than
intransigence; reason more worthy than rhetoric. This will allow persons of
diverse viewpoints to live together, if not harmoniously, then, at least, civilly.
Factual Background

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with
an application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, filed by Ang
Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad) against the Resolutions of the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) dated November 11, 2009[2] (the First Assailed
Resolution) and December 16, 2009[3] (the Second Assailed Resolution) in SPP
No. 09-228 (PL) (collectively, the Assailed Resolutions). The case has its roots
in the COMELECs refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization
under Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System
Act.[4]
Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who
identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals
(LGBTs). Incorporated in 2003, 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[5] for registration with
the COMELEC.
Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT community is a
marginalized and under-represented 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 Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections.[6] Ang Ladlad laid out its national membership base consisting of
individual members and organizational supporters, and outlined its platform
of governance.[7]
On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioners evidence, the
COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the Petition on moral grounds, stating
that:
x x x This Petition is dismissible on moral grounds.
Petitioner defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender (LGBT) Community, thus:

x x x 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:
x x x 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.
This definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that
petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs. In
Romans 1:26, 27, Paul wrote:
For this cause God gave them up into vile affections,
for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature: And likewise also
the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with
men working that which is unseemly, and receiving
in themselves that recompense of their error which
was meet.
In the Koran, the hereunder verses are pertinent:
For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to
women ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond
bounds. (7.81) And we rained down on them a
shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of
those who indulged in sin and crime! (7:84) He said:
O my Lord! Help Thou me against people who do
mischief (29:30).
As correctly pointed out by the Law Department in its Comment
dated October 2, 2008:
The ANG LADLAD apparently advocates sexual
immorality as indicated in the Petitions par. 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
(Genesis 19 is the history of Sodom and Gomorrah).

Laws are deemed incorporated in every contract,

permit, license, relationship, or accreditation.
Hence, pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and
the Revised Penal Code are deemed part of the
requirement to be complied with for accreditation.
ANG LADLAD collides with Article 695 of the Civil
Code which defines nuisance as Any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which x x x (3) shocks, defies; or
disregards decency or morality x x x
It also collides with Article 1306 of the Civil Code:
The contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they
may deem convenient, provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order
or public policy. Art 1409 of the Civil Code provides
that Contracts whose cause, object or purpose is
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order
or public policy are inexistent and void from the
beginning.
Finally to safeguard the morality of the Filipino community, the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes Immoral doctrines,
obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows as
follows:
Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications
and exhibitions, and indecent shows. The penalty of
prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to
twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment
and fine, shall be imposed upon:
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim
doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
2. (a) The authors of obscene literature, published
with their knowledge in any form; the editors
publishing
such
literature;
and
the
owners/operators of the establishment selling the
same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or
any other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts or shows, it being understood that the

obscene literature or indecent or immoral plays,

scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which
are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those
which: (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2)
serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for
violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or
religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of
prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public
order, morals, good customs, established policies,
lawful orders, decrees and edicts.
3. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films,
prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are
offensive to morals.
Petitioner should likewise be denied accreditation not only for
advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful
when it said that it or any of its nominees/party-list
representatives have not violated or failed to comply with laws,
rules, or regulations relating to the elections.
Furthermore, should this Commission grant the petition, we will be
exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to
the teachings of our faith. Lehman Strauss, a famous bible
teacher and writer in the U.S.A. said in one article that older
practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth. As an agency of
the government, ours too is the States avowed duty under
Section 13, Article II of the Constitution to protect our youth from
moral and spiritual degradation.[8]

When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration,[9] three commissioners voted

to overturn the First Assailed Resolution (Commissioners Gregorio Y.
Larrazabal, Rene V. Sarmiento, and Armando Velasco), while three
commissioners
voted
to
deny Ang
Ladlads Motion
for
Reconsideration (Commissioners Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Lucenito N. Tagle, and
Elias R. Yusoph). The COMELEC Chairman, breaking the tie and speaking for
the majority in his Separate Opinion, upheld the First Assailed Resolution,
stating that:
I.

The Spirit of Republic Act No. 7941

Ladlad is applying for accreditation as a sectoral party in the

party-list system. Even assuming that it has properly proven its
under-representation and marginalization, it cannot be said
that Ladlads expressed sexual orientations per se would benefit
the nation as a whole.
Section 2 of the party-list law unequivocally states that the
purpose of the party-list system of electing congressional
representatives is to 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.
If entry into the party-list system would depend only on the
ability of an organization to represent its constituencies, then all
representative organizations would have found themselves into
the party-list race. But that is not the intention of the framers of
the law. The party-list system is not a tool to advocate tolerance
and acceptance of misunderstood persons or groups of persons.
Rather, the party-list system is a tool for the realization of
aspirations of marginalized individuals whose interests are
also the nations only that their interests have not been brought
to the attention of the nation because of their under
representation. Until the time comes when Ladlad is able to
justify that having mixed sexual orientations and
transgender identities is beneficial to the nation, its
application for accreditation under the party-list system will
remain just that.
II.

No substantial differentiation

In the United States, whose equal protection doctrine pervades

Philippine jurisprudence, courts do not recognize lesbians, gays,
homosexuals, and bisexuals (LGBT) as a special class of
individuals. x x x Significantly, it has also been held that
homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected fundamental
right, and that nothing in the U.S. Constitution discloses a
comparable intent to protect or promote the social or legal
equality of homosexual relations, as in the case of race or religion
or belief.
xxxx

Thus, even if societys understanding, tolerance, and acceptance

of LGBTs is elevated, there can be no denying
that Ladlad constituencies are still males and females, and they
will remain either male or female protected by the same Bill
of Rights that applies to all citizens alike.
xxxx
IV. Public Morals
x x x There is no question about not imposing
on Ladlad Christian or Muslim religious practices. Neither is
there any attempt to any particular religious groups moral rules
on Ladlad. Rather, what are being adopted as moral parameters
and precepts are generally accepted public morals. They are
possibly religious-based, but as a society, the Philippines
cannot ignore its more than 500 years of Muslim and
Christian upbringing, such that some moral precepts
espoused by said religions have sipped [sic] into society and
these are not publicly accepted moral norms.
V.

Legal Provisions

But above morality and social norms, they have become part of
the law of the land. 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 Petitions
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 x x x or anything else x x x which
shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality x x x. These are
all unlawful.[10]

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.
On January 6, 2010, we ordered the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) to file its Comment on behalf of COMELEC not later
than 12:00 noon of January 11, 2010.[11] Instead of filing a Comment,
however, the OSG filed a Motion for Extension, requesting that it be given
until January 16, 2010 to Comment.[12] Somewhat surprisingly, the OSG later
filed a Comment in support of petitioners application.[13] Thus, in order to give
COMELEC the opportunity to fully ventilate its position, we required it to file
its own comment.[14] The COMELEC, through its Law Department, filed its
Comment on February 2, 2010.[15]
In the meantime, due to the urgency of the petition, we issued a
temporary restraining order on January 12, 2010, effective immediately and
continuing until further orders from this Court, directing the COMELEC to
cease and desist from implementing the Assailed Resolutions.[16]
Also, on January 13, 2010, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
filed a Motion to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus Curiae, attaching thereto
its Comment-in-Intervention.[17] The CHR opined that the denial of Ang
Ladlads petition on moral grounds violated the standards and principles of the
Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). On January 19,
2010, we granted the CHRs motion to intervene.
On January 26, 2010, Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr. filed his Motion to
Intervene[18] which motion was granted on February 2, 2010.[19]
The Parties Arguments
Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified
the exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees
against the establishment of religion. Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed
Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech
and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of

the Philippines international obligations against discrimination based on

sexual orientation.
The OSG concurred with Ang Ladlads petition and argued that the COMELEC
erred in denying petitioners application for registration since there was no
basis for COMELECs allegations of immorality. It also opined that LGBTs have
their own special interests and concerns which should have been recognized
by the COMELEC as a separate classification. However, insofar as the
purported violations of petitioners freedom of speech, expression, and
assembly were concerned, the OSG maintained that there had been no
restrictions on these rights.
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not have
a concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and that
the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for the
first time that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the
Constitution and RA 7941, and that petitioner made untruthful statements in
its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification
reports by COMELECs field personnel.
Our Ruling
We grant the petition.
Compliance with the Requirements
of the Constitution and Republic
Act No. 7941

The COMELEC denied Ang Ladlads application for registration on the

ground that the LGBT sector is neither enumerated in the Constitution and
RA 7941, nor is it associated with or related to any of the sectors in the
enumeration.
Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong
Bayani stands for the proposition that only those sectors specifically
enumerated in the law or related to said sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk,

urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women,

youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be registered under
the party-list system. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor
Party v. Commission on Elections,[20] the enumeration of marginalized and
under-represented sectors is not exclusive. The crucial element is not whether
a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization
complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.
Respondent also argues that Ang Ladlad made untruthful statements
in its petition when it alleged that it had nationwide existence through its
members and affiliate organizations. The COMELEC claims that upon
verification by its field personnel, it was shown that save for a few isolated
places in the country, petitioner does not exist in almost all provinces in the
country.[21]
This argument that petitioner made untruthful statements in its
petition when it alleged its national existence is a new one; previously, the
COMELEC claimed that petitioner was not being truthful when it said that it
or any of its nominees/party-list representatives have not violated or failed to
comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the elections. Nowhere was
this ground for denial of petitioners accreditation mentioned or even alluded to
in the Assailed Resolutions. This, in itself, is quite curious, considering that
the reports of petitioners alleged non-existence were already available to the
COMELEC prior to the issuance of the First Assailed Resolution. At best, this
is irregular procedure; at worst, a belated afterthought, a change in
respondents theory, and a serious violation of petitioners right to procedural
due process.
Nonetheless, we find that there has been no misrepresentation. A
cursory perusal of Ang Ladlads initial petition shows that it never claimed to
exist in each province of the Philippines. Rather, petitioner alleged that the
LGBT community in the Philippines was estimated to constitute at least
670,000 persons; that it had 16,100 affiliates and members around the
country, and 4,044 members in its electronic discussion group.[22] Ang
Ladlad also represented itself to be a national LGBT umbrella organization
with affiliates around the Philippines composed of the following LGBT
networks:

Abra Gay Association

Aklan Butterfly Brigade (ABB) Aklan
Albay Gay Association
Arts Center of Cabanatuan City Nueva Ecija
Boys Legion Metro Manila
Cagayan de Oro People Like Us (CDO PLUS)
Cant Live in the Closet, Inc. (CLIC) Metro Manila
Cebu Pride Cebu City
Circle of Friends
Dipolog Gay Association Zamboanga del Norte
Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Youth Association
(GABAY)

Gay and Lesbian Activists Network for Gender

Equality (GALANG) Metro Manila
Gay Mens Support Group (GMSG) Metro Manila
Gay United for Peace and Solidarity (GUPS) Lanao
del Norte
Iloilo City Gay Association Iloilo City
Kabulig Writers Group Camarines Sur
Lesbian Advocates Philippines, Inc. (LEAP)
LUMINA Baguio City
Marikina Gay Association Metro Manila
Metropolitan Community Church (MCC)
Metro Manila
Naga City Gay Association Naga City
ONE BACARDI
Order of St. Aelred (OSAe) Metro Manila
PUP LAKAN
RADAR PRIDEWEAR
Rainbow
Rights
Project
(R-Rights),
Inc.
Metro Manila
San Jose del Monte Gay Association Bulacan
Sining Kayumanggi Royal Family Rizal
Society
of
Transexual
Women
of
the Philippines (STRAP) Metro Manila
Soul Jive Antipolo, Rizal
The Link Davao City
Tayabas Gay Association Quezon
Womens Bisexual Network Metro Manila
Zamboanga Gay Association Zamboanga City[23]

Since the COMELEC only searched for the names ANG LADLAD LGBT
or LADLAD LGBT, it is no surprise that they found that petitioner had no
presence in any of these regions. In fact, if COMELECs findings are to be

believed, petitioner does not even exist in Quezon City, which is registered
as Ang Ladlads principal place of business.
Against this backdrop, we find 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.
Religion as the Basis for Refusal to
Accept Ang Ladlads Petition for
Registration

Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that [n]o law shall be
made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is government
neutrality in religious matters.[24] Clearly, governmental reliance on religious
justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.[25] We thus find that it
was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to
utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed
Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to
advance some justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious
doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act for secular purposes and in
ways that have primarily secular effects. As we held in Estrada v. Escritor:[26]
x x x The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily
secular, not religious as the dissent of Mr. Justice Carpio holds.
"Religious teachings as expressed in public debate may influence
the civil public order but public moral disputes may be resolved
only on grounds articulable in secular terms." Otherwise, if
government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public
policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would
require conformity to what some might regard as religious

programs or agenda. The non-believers would therefore be

compelled to conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by a
religious belief, i.e., to a "compelled religion," anathema to
religious freedom. Likewise, if government based its actions upon
religious beliefs, it would tacitly approve or endorse that belief
and thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary religious or nonreligious views that would not support the policy. As a result,
government will not provide full religious freedom for all its
citizens, or even make it appear that those whose beliefs are
disapproved are second-class citizens.
In other words, government action, including its proscription of
immorality as expressed in criminal law like concubinage, must
have a secular purpose. That is, the government proscribes this
conduct because it is "detrimental (or dangerous) to those
conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of
human society" and not because the conduct is proscribed by the
beliefs of one religion or the other. Although admittedly, moral
judgments based on religion might have a compelling influence
on those engaged in public deliberations over what actions would
be considered a moral disapprobation punishable by law. After
all, they might also be adherents of a religion and thus have
religious opinions and moral codes with a compelling influence
on them; the human mind endeavors to regulate the temporal
and spiritual institutions of society in a uniform manner,
harmonizing earth with heaven. Succinctly put, a law could be
religious or Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its deepest roots,
but it must have an articulable and discernible secular purpose
and justification to pass scrutiny of the religion clauses. x x x
Recognizing the religious nature of the Filipinos and the elevating
influence of religion in society, however, the Philippine
constitution's religion clauses prescribe not a strict but a
benevolent neutrality. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that
government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at
the same time strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest
extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus,
although the morality contemplated by laws is secular,
benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality
based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state
interests.[27]
Public Morals as a Ground to Deny
Ang
Ladlads
Petition
for
Registration

Respondent suggests that although the moral condemnation of

homosexuality and homosexual conduct may be religion-based, it has long
been transplanted into generally accepted public morals. The COMELEC
argues:
Petitioners accreditation was denied not necessarily because their
group consists of LGBTs but because of the danger it poses to
the people especially the youth. Once it is recognized by the
government, a sector which believes that there is nothing wrong
in having sexual relations with individuals of the same gender is
a bad example. It will bring down the standard of morals we
cherish in our civilized society. Any society without a set of moral
precepts is in danger of losing its own existence.[28]

We are not blind to the fact that, through the years, homosexual
conduct, and perhaps homosexuals themselves, have borne the brunt of
societal disapproval. It is not difficult to imagine the reasons behind this
censure religious beliefs, convictions about the preservation of marriage,
family, and procreation, even dislike or distrust of homosexuals themselves
and their perceived lifestyle. Nonetheless, we recall that the Philippineshas not
seen fit to criminalize homosexual conduct. Evidently, therefore, these
generally accepted public morals have not been convincingly transplanted into
the realm of law.[29]
The Assailed Resolutions have not identified any specific overt immoral act
performed by Ang Ladlad. Even the OSG agrees that there should have been a
finding by the COMELEC that the groups members have committed or are
committing immoral acts.[30] The OSG argues:
x x x A person may be sexually attracted to a person of the same
gender, of a different gender, or more than one gender, but mere
attraction does not translate to immoral acts. There is a great
divide between thought and action. Reduction ad absurdum. If
immoral thoughts could be penalized, COMELEC would have its
hands full of disqualification cases against both the straights and
the gays. Certainly this is not the intendment of the law.[31]

Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be

prevented, or why special protection is required for the youth. Neither has the
COMELEC condescended to justify its position that petitioners admission into
the party-list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral
fabric of society. We, of course, do not suggest that the state is wholly without
authority to regulate matters concerning morality, sexuality, and sexual
relations, and we recognize that the government will and should continue to
restrict behavior considered detrimental to society. Nonetheless, we cannot
countenance advocates who, undoubtedly with the loftiest of intentions,
situate morality on one end of an argument or another, without bothering to
go through the rigors of legal reasoning and explanation. In this, the notion of
morality is robbed of all value. Clearly then, the bare invocation of morality will
not remove an issue from our scrutiny.
We also find the COMELECs reference to purported violations of our
penal and civil laws flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the
Civil Code defines a nuisance as any act, omission, establishment, condition of
property, or anything else which shocks, defies, or disregards decency or
morality, the remedies for which are a prosecution under the Revised Penal
Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial
proceedings.[32] A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, on the
other hand, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal
conviction. It hardly needs to be emphasized that mere allegation of violation
of laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invocation of public morals cannot
replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings and a judicial
determination of liability or culpability.
As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is not a
sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from
participation in the party-list system. 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.

Equal Protection
Despite the absolutism of Article III, Section 1 of our Constitution,
which provides nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws,
courts have never interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on
classification. Equality, said Aristotle, consists in the same treatment of
similar persons.[33] The equal protection clause guarantees that no person or
class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is
enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances.[34]
Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither burdens a
fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the classification
as long as it bears a rational relationship to some legitimate government
end.[35] In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Banko Sentral ng
Pilipinas,[36] we declared that [i]n our jurisdiction, the standard of analysis of
equal protection challenges x x x have followed the rational basis test, coupled
with a deferential attitude to legislative classifications and a reluctance to
invalidate a law unless there is a showing of a clear and unequivocal breach of
the Constitution.[37]
The COMELEC posits that the majority of the Philippine population
considers homosexual conduct as immoral and unacceptable, and this
constitutes sufficient reason to disqualify the petitioner. Unfortunately for the
respondent, the Philippine electorate has expressed no such belief. No law
exists to criminalize homosexual behavior or expressions or parties about
homosexual behavior. Indeed, even if we were to assume that public opinion is
as the COMELEC describes it, the asserted state interest here that is, moral
disapproval of an unpopular minority is not a legitimate state interest that is
sufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the equal protection
clause. The COMELECs differentiation, and its unsubstantiated claim
that Ang Ladlad cannot contribute to the formulation of legislation that would
benefit the nation, furthers no legitimate state interest other than disapproval
of or dislike for a disfavored group.

From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender have the same interest in participating in the party-list
system on the same basis as other political parties similarly situated. State
intrusion in this case is equally burdensome. Hence, laws of general
application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to
participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized
and under-represented sectors.
It bears stressing that our finding that COMELECs act of differentiating
LGBTs from heterosexuals insofar as the party-list system is concerned does
not imply that any other law distinguishing between heterosexuals and
homosexuals under different circumstances would similarly fail. We disagree
with the OSGs position that homosexuals are a class in themselves for the
purposes of the equal protection clause.[38] We are not prepared to single out
homosexuals as a separate class meriting special or differentiated
treatment. We have not received sufficient evidence to this effect, and it is
simply unnecessary to make such a ruling today. Petitioner itself has merely
demanded that it be recognized under the same basis as all other groups
similarly situated, and that the COMELEC made an unwarranted and
impermissible classification not justified by the circumstances of the case.
Freedom
of
Association

Expression

and

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.[39] It is in the public square that deeply held
convictions and differing opinions should be distilled and deliberated upon. As
we held in Estrada v. Escritor:[40]
In a democracy, this common agreement on political and moral
ideas is distilled in the public square. Where citizens are free,
every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, and every moral
discernment has access to the public square where people
deliberate the order of their life together. Citizens are the bearers
of opinion, including opinion shaped by, or espousing religious
belief, and these citizens have equal access to the public square.
In this representative democracy, the state is prohibited from

determining which convictions and moral judgments may be

proposed for public deliberation. Through a constitutionally
designed process, the people deliberate and decide. Majority rule
is a necessary principle in this democratic governance. Thus,
when public deliberation on moral judgments is finally
crystallized into law, the laws will largely reflect the beliefs and
preferences of the majority, i.e., the mainstream or median
groups. Nevertheless, in the very act of adopting and accepting a
constitution and the limits it specifies including protection of
religious freedom "not only for a minority, however small not only
for a majority, however large but for each of us" the majority
imposes upon itself a self-denying ordinance. It promises not to
do what it otherwise could do: to ride roughshod over the
dissenting minorities.

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a

democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are
favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any
restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim
pursued. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or
this Court to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the
COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason
than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one.
This position gains even more force if one considers that homosexual
conduct is not illegal in this country. It follows that both expressions
concerning ones homosexuality and the activity of forming a political
association that supports LGBT individuals are protected as well.
Other jurisdictions have gone so far as to categorically rule that even
overwhelming public perception that homosexual conduct violates public
morality does not justify criminalizing same-sex conduct.[41] European and
United Nations judicial decisions have ruled in favor of gay rights claimants on
both privacy and equality grounds, citing general privacy and equal protection
provisions in foreign and international texts.[42] To the extent that there is
much to learn from other jurisdictions that have reflected on the issues we
face here, such jurisprudence is certainly illuminating. These foreign
authorities, while not formally binding on Philippine courts, may nevertheless
have persuasive influence on the Courts analysis.

In the area of freedom of expression, for instance, United States courts

have ruled that existing free speech doctrines protect gay and lesbian rights to
expressive conduct. In order to justify the prohibition of a particular
expression of opinion, public institutions must show that their actions were
caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and
unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.[43]
With respect to freedom of association for the advancement of ideas and
beliefs, in Europe, with its vibrant human rights tradition, 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 ECHR has emphasized that political ideas that
challenge the existing order and whose realization is advocated by peaceful
means must be afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the
exercise of the right of association, even if such ideas may seem shocking or
unacceptable to the authorities or the majority of the population.[44] A political
group should not be hindered solely because it seeks to publicly debate
controversial political issues in order to find solutions capable of satisfying
everyone concerned.[45] Only if a political party incites violence or puts forward
policies that are incompatible with democracy does it fall outside the
protection of the freedom of association guarantee.[46]
We do not doubt that a number of our citizens may believe that
homosexual conduct is distasteful, offensive, or even defiant. They are entitled
to hold and express that view. On the other hand, LGBTs and their
supporters, in all likelihood, believe with equal fervor that relationships
between individuals of the same sex are morally equivalent to heterosexual
relationships. They, too, are entitled to hold and express that view.However, as
far as this Court is concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or
moral views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the
values of other members of the community.
Of course, none of this suggests the impending arrival of a golden age for gay
rights litigants. It well may be that this Decision will only serve to highlight the

discrepancy between the rigid constitutional analysis of this Court and the
more complex moral sentiments of Filipinos. We do not suggest that public
opinion, even at its most liberal, reflect a clear-cut strong consensus favorable
to gay rights claims and we neither attempt nor expect to affect individual
perceptions of homosexuality through this Decision.
The OSG argues that since there has been neither prior restraint nor
subsequent punishment imposed on Ang Ladlad, and its members have not
been deprived of their right to voluntarily associate, then there has been no
restriction on their freedom of expression or association. The OSG argues
that:
There was no utterance restricted, no publication censored, or
any assembly denied. [COMELEC] simply exercised its authority
to review and verify the qualifications of petitioner as a sectoral
party applying to participate in the party-list system. This lawful
exercise of duty cannot be said to be a transgression of Section 4,
Article III of the Constitution.
xxxx
A denial of the petition for registration x x x does not deprive the
members of the petitioner to freely take part in the conduct of
elections. Their right to vote will not be hampered by said denial.
In fact, the right to vote is a constitutionally-guaranteed right
which cannot be limited.
As to its right to be elected in a genuine periodic election,
petitioner contends that the denial of Ang Ladlads petition has
the clear and immediate effect of limiting, if not outrightly
nullifying the capacity of its members to fully and equally
participate in public life through engagement in the party list
elections.
This argument is puerile. The holding of a public office is
not a right but a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. x
x x[47]
The OSG fails to recall that petitioner has, in fact, established its
qualifications to participate in the party-list system, and as advanced by the
OSG itself the moral objection offered by the COMELEC was not a limitation
imposed by law. To the extent, therefore, that the petitioner has been

precluded, because of COMELECs action, from publicly expressing its views

as a political party and participating on an equal basis in the political process
with other equally-qualified party-list candidates, we find that there has,
indeed, been a transgression of petitioners fundamental rights.
Non-Discrimination
International Law

and

In an age that has seen international law evolve geometrically in scope

and promise, international human rights law, in particular, has grown
dynamically in its attempt to bring about a more just and humane world
order. For individuals and groups struggling with inadequate structural and
governmental support, international human rights norms are particularly
significant, and should be effectively enforced in domestic legal systems so
that such norms may become actual, rather than ideal, standards of conduct.
Our Decision today is fully in accord with our international obligations
to protect and promote human rights. In particular, we explicitly recognize the
principle of non-discrimination as it relates to the right to electoral
participation, enunciated in the UDHR and the ICCPR.
The principle of non-discrimination is laid out in Article 26 of the ICCPR, as
follows:
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect,
the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all
persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on
any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.

In this context, the principle of non-discrimination requires that laws of

general application relating to elections be applied equally to all persons,
regardless of sexual orientation. Although sexual orientation is not specifically

enumerated as a status or ratio for discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR,

the ICCPR Human Rights Committee has opined that the reference to sex in
Article 26 should be construed to include sexual orientation.[48] Additionally, a
variety of United Nations bodies have declared discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation to be prohibited under various international agreements.[49]
The UDHR provides:
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government
of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Likewise, the ICCPR states:
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity,
without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and
without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or
through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections
which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held
by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the
electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public
service in his country.

As stated by the CHR in its Comment-in-Intervention, the scope of the right to

electoral participation is elaborated by the Human Rights Committee in its
General Comment No. 25 (Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to Vote)
as follows:
1. Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the
right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs,
the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to
public service. Whatever form of constitution or government is in
force, the Covenant requires States to adopt such legislative and
other measures as may be necessary to ensure that citizens have

an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects. Article 25

lies at the core of democratic government based on the consent of
the people and in conformity with the principles of the Covenant.
xxxx
15. The effective implementation of the right and the
opportunity to stand for elective office ensures that persons
entitled to vote have a free choice of candidates. Any restrictions
on the right to stand for election, such as minimum age, must be
justifiable on objective and reasonable criteria. Persons who are
otherwise eligible to stand for election should not be excluded by
unreasonable or discriminatory requirements such as education,
residence or descent, or by reason of political affiliation. No
person should suffer discrimination or disadvantage of any kind
because of that person's candidacy. States parties should
indicate and explain the legislative provisions which exclude any
group or category of persons from elective office.[50]
We stress, however, that although this Court stands willing to assume
the responsibility of giving effect to the Philippines international law
obligations, the blanket invocation of international law is not the panacea for
all social ills. We refer now to the petitioners invocation of the Yogyakarta
Principles (the Application of International Human Rights Law In Relation to
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity),[51] which petitioner declares to reflect
binding principles of international law.
At this time, we are not prepared to declare that these Yogyakarta
Principles contain norms that are obligatory on the Philippines. There are
declarations and obligations outlined in said Principles which are not reflective
of the current state of international law, and do not find basis in any of the
sources of international law enumerated under Article 38(1) of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice.[52] Petitioner has not undertaken any
objective and rigorous analysis of these alleged principles of international law
to ascertain their true status.
We also hasten to add that not everything that society or a certain
segment of society wants or demands is automatically a human right. This is
not an arbitrary human intervention that may be added to or subtracted from

at will. It is unfortunate that much of what passes for human rights today is a
much broader context of needs that identifies many social desires as rights in
order to further claims that international law obliges states to sanction these
innovations. This has the effect of diluting real human rights, and is a result of
the notion that if wants are couched in rights language, then they are no
longer controversial.
Using even the most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta Principles,
consisting of a declaration formulated by various international law professors,
are at best de lege ferenda and do not constitute binding obligations on the
Philippines. Indeed, so much of contemporary international law is
characterized by the soft law nomenclature, i.e., international law is full of
principles that promote international cooperation, harmony, and respect for
human rights, most of which amount to no more than well-meaning desires,
without the support of either State practice or opinio juris.[53]
As a final note, we cannot help but observe that the social issues
presented by this case are emotionally charged, societal attitudes are in flux,
even the psychiatric and religious communities are divided in opinion.This
Courts role is not to impose its own view of acceptable behavior. Rather, it is to
apply the Constitution and laws as best as it can, uninfluenced by public
opinion, and confident in the knowledge that our democracy is resilient
enough to withstand vigorous debate.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions of the
Commission on Elections dated November 11, 2009 and December 16,
2009 in SPP No. 09-228 (PL) are hereby SET ASIDE. The Commission on
Elections is directed to GRANT petitioners application for party-list
accreditation.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 203766

April 2, 2013

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan

Igot, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. Nos. 203818-19
AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY (AKB), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203922

ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES

(APEC),represented by its President Congressman Ponciano D.
Payuyo, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203936
AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA, represented by its
President Michael Abas Kida,Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203958
KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA, INC.
(KAKUSA), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203960
1st CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR RURAL ENERGY, INC. (1CARE), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203976
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, INC.
(ARARO), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203981

ASSOCIATION FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON LEADERSHIP

(ARAL) PARTY-LIST, represented herein by Ms. Lourdes L. Agustin,
the partys Secretary General, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204002
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL CONCERNS, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204094
ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204100
1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC., (1BRO-PGBI)
formerly PGBI, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204122
1 GUARDIANS NATIONALIST PHILIPPINES, INC.,
(1GANAP/GUARDIANS), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC composed of SIXTO S.
BRILLANTES, JR., Chairman, RENE V. SARMIENTO,
Commissioner,LUCENITO N. TAGLE, Commissioner,ARMANDO C.
VELASCO, Commissioner,ELIAS R. YUSOPH, Commissioner,
andCHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, Commissioner,Respondents.
x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 204125

AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ALLIANCE, INC. (AIPRA), represented by its Secretary General,Ronald D.
Macaraig, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204126
KAAGAPAY NG NAGKAKAISANG AGILANG PILIPINONG MAGSASAKA
(KAP), formerly known as AKO AGILA NG NAGKAKAISANG
MAGSASAKA (AKO AGILA), represented by its Secretary General, Leo
R. San Buenaventura, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204139
ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), represented by Atty. Berteni
Catalua Causing, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204141
BANTAY PARTY LIST, represented by Maria Evangelina F. Palparan,
President, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204153
PASANG MASDA NATIONWIDE PARTY by its President Roberto "Ka
Obet" Martin, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204158
ABROAD PARTY LIST, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES,
JR., COMMISSIONERS RENE V. SARMIENTO, ARMANDO C.
VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, MARIA
GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA, LUCENITO TAGLE, AND ALL OTHER
PERSONS ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF,Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204174
AANGAT TAYO PARTY LIST-PARTY, represented by its President
Simeon T. Silva, Jr., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204216
COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION,
INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204220
ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204236
FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204238
ALLIANCE OF BICOLNON PARTY (ABP), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204239
GREEN FORCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF
MOTHER EARTH (GREENFORCE),Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204240
AGRI-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA MAGSASAKA NG PILIPINAS
MOVEMENT (AGRI), represented by its Secretary General, Michael
Ryan A. Enriquez, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204263
A BLESSED PARTY LIST A.K.A. BLESSEDFEDERATION OF FARMERS
AND FISHERMEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204318
UNITED MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS FOUNDATION (UNIMAD)
PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 204321

ANG AGRIKULTURA NATIN ISULONG (AANI), represented by its
Secretary General Jose C. Policarpio, Jr.,Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204323
BAYANI PARTYLIST as represented byHomer Bueno, Fitrylin
Dalhani,Israel de Castro, Dante Navarroand Guiling
Mamondiong, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES,
JR., COMMISSIONERS RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE,
ARMANDO C. VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S.
LIM, and MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204341
ACTION LEAGUE OF INDIGENOUS MASSES(ALIM) PARTY-LIST,
represented herein by its President Fatani S. Abdul Malik, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204356
BUTIL FARMERS PARTY, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204358
ALLIANCE OF ADVOCATES IN MININGADVANCEMENT FOR
NATIONAL PROGRESS (AAMA), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.

x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204359
SOCIAL MOVEMENT FOR ACTIVEREFORM AND TRANSPARENCY
(SMART), represented by its Chairman, Carlito B. Cubelo, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204364
ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG-TAO, PARA SA LUPA,
PABAHAY, HANAPBUHAY AT KAUNLARAN (AKO BUHAY), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.,
RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO C. VELASCO,
ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA
CIELO M. PADACA, in their capacities as Commissioners
thereof, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204367
AKBAY KALUSUGAN INCORPORATION(AKIN), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204370
AKO AN BISAYA (AAB), represented by itsSecretary General, Rodolfo
T. Tuazon, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204374
BINHI-PARTIDO NG MGA MAGSASAKA PARA SA MGA
MAGSASAKA, Petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204379
ALAGAD NG SINING (ASIN) represented by its President, Faye
Maybelle Lorenz, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204394
ASSOCIATION OF GUARD UTILITY HELPER, AIDER, RIDER,
DRIVER/DOMESTIC HELPER, JANITOR, AGENT AND NANNY OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. (GUARDJAN), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204402
KALIKASAN PARTY-LIST, represented by its President, Clemente G.
Bautista, Jr., and Secretary General, Frances Q. Quimpo, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204408
PILIPINO ASSOCIATION FOR COUNTRY-URBAN POOR YOUTH
ADVANCEMENT AND WELFARE (PACYAW),Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204410

1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK), Petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204421
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. SENIOR CITIZEN PARTY-LIST, represented herein
by its 1st nominee and Chairman, Francisco G. Datol, Jr., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204425
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANY OF ITS OFFICERS AND
AGENTS, ACTING FOR AND IN ITS BEHALF, INCLUDING THE CHAIR
AND MEMBERSOF THE COMMISSION, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204426
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL ATHLETICS ENTREPRENEURS AND
HOBBYISTS, INC. (ALA-EH), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.,
RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO C. VELASCO,
ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA
CIELO M. PADACA, in their respective capacities as COMELEC
Chairperson and Commissioners, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204428
ANG GALING PINOY (AG), represented by its Secretary General,
Bernardo R. Corella, Jr., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204435
1 ALLIANCE ADVOCATING AUTONOMY PARTY (1AAAP), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204436
ABYAN ILONGGO PARTY (AI), represented byits Party President,
Rolex T. Suplico, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204455
MANILA TEACHER SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION,
INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204484
PARTIDO NG BAYAN ANG BIDA (PBB), represented by its Secretary
General, Roger M. Federazo, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204485
ALLIANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS, NETWORKS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF
THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALONA),Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 204486

1st KABALIKAT NG BAYAN GINHAWANG SANGKATAUHAN (1st
KABAGIS), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204490
PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY (PPP), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
PERLAS-BERNABE,*
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Cases
These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions
for Certiorari and Prohibition1 filed by 52 party-list groups and
organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating in the 13
May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for
registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of their
registration and accreditation as party-list organizations.
This Court resolved to consolidate the 54 petitions in the Resolutions
dated 13 November 2012,2 20 November 2012,3 27 November 2012,4 4
December 2012,5 11 December 2012,6 and 19 February 2013.7
The Facts Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No.
7941) and COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531, approximately
280 groups and organizations registered and manifested their desire to
participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
G.R. No.

SPP No.

Group

Grounds for Denial

A. Via the COMELEC En Bancs automatic review of the COMELEC

Divisions resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations

Resolution dated 23 November 20128

1

204379

12-099
(PLM)

Alagad ng
Sining (ASIN)

- The "artists" sector is not

considered marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to prove track
record; and
- Failure of the nominees to
qualify under RA 7941 and
Ang Bagong Bayani.

Omnibus Resolution dated 27 November 20129

2

204455

12-041
(PLM)

Manila Teachers
Savings and
Loan
Association, Inc.
(Manila
Teachers)

- A non-stock savings and

loan association cannot be
considered marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The first and second
nominees are not teachers by
profession.

204426

12-011
(PLM)

Association of
Local Athletics
Entrepreneurs
and Hobbyists,
Inc. (ALA-EH)

- Failure to show that its

members belong to the
marginalized; and
- Failure of the nominees to
qualify.

Resolution dated 27 November 201210

4

204435

12-057
(PLM)

1 Alliance
Advocating
Autonomy Party
(1AAAP)

- Failure of the nominees to

qualify: although registering
as a regional political party,
two of the nominees are not
residents of the region; and
four of the five nominees do
not belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented.

Resolution dated 27 November 201211

5

204367

12-104 (PL)

Akbay
Kalusugan
(AKIN), Inc.

- Failure of the group to show

that its nominees belong to
the urban poor sector.

Resolution dated 29 November 201212

6

204370

12-011 (PP)

Ako An Bisaya
(AAB)

- Failure to represent a
marginalized sector of

society, despite the formation

of a sectoral wing for the
benefit of farmers of Region
8;
- Constituency has district
representatives;
- Lack of track record in
representing peasants and
farmers; and
- Nominees are neither
farmers nor peasants.
Resolution dated 4 December 201213
7

204436

12-009 (PP),
12-165
(PLM)

Abyan Ilonggo
Party (AI)

- Failure to show that the

party represents a
marginalized and
underrepresented sector, as
the Province of Iloilo has
district representatives;
- Untruthful statements in the
memorandum; and
- Withdrawal of three of its
five nominees.

Resolution dated 4 December 201214

8

204485

12-175 (PL)

Alliance of
Organizations,
Networks and Associations of
the Philippines,
Inc. (ALONA)

- Failure to establish that the

group can represent 14
sectors; - The sectors of homeowners
associations, entrepreneurs
and cooperatives are not
marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The nominees do not belong
to the marginalized and
underrepresented.

B. Via the COMELEC En Bancs review on motion for reconsideration

of the COMELEC Divisions resolutions denying registration of groups
and organizations
Resolution dated 7 November 201215
9

204139

12-127 (PL)

Alab ng
Mamamahayag
(ALAM)

- Failure to prove track

record as an organization;
- Failure to show that the

group actually represents the

marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- Failure to establish that the
group can represent all
sectors it seeks to represent.
Resolution dated 7 November 201216
10 204402

12-061 (PP)

Kalikasan Party-List
(KALIKASAN)

- The group reflects an

advocacy for the
environment, and is not
representative of the
marginalized and
underrepresented;
- There is no proof that
majority of its members
belong to the marginalized
and underrepresented;
- The group represents
sectors with conflicting
interests; and
- The nominees do not belong
to the sector which the group
claims to represent.

Resolution dated 14 November 201217

11 204394

12-145 (PL)

Association of
Guard, Utility
Helper, Aider,
Rider, Driver/
Domestic
Helper,
Janitor, Agent
and
Nanny of the
Philippines, Inc.
(GUARDJAN)

- Failure to prove
membership base and track
record;
- Failure to present activities
that sufficiently benefited its
intended constituency; and
- The nominees do not belong
to any of the sectors which
the group seeks to represent.

Resolution dated 5 December 201218

12 204490

12-073
(PLM)

Pilipinas Para sa
Pinoy (PPP)

- Failure to show that the

group represents a
marginalized and
underrepresented sector, as
Region 12 has district

representatives; and
- Failure to show a track
record of undertaking
programs for the welfare of
the sector the group seeks to
represent.
In a Resolution dated 5 December 2012,19 the COMELEC En Banc
affirmed the COMELEC Second Divisions resolution to grant Partido ng
Bayan ng Bidas (PBB) registration and accreditation as a political party
in the National Capital Region. However, PBB was denied participation in
the 13 May 2013 party-list elections because PBB does not represent any
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector; PBB failed to apply for
registration as a party-list group; and PBB failed to establish its track
record as an organization that seeks to uplift the lives of the
"marginalized and underrepresented."20
These 13 petitioners (ASIN, Manila Teachers, ALA-EH, 1AAAP, AKIN,
AAB, AI, ALONA, ALAM, KALIKASAN, GUARDJAN, PPP, and PBB) were
not able to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court. The
COMELEC, on 7 January 2013 issued Resolution No. 9604,21 and
excluded the names of these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official
ballot for the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
Pursuant to paragraph 222 of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC En
Banc scheduled summary evidentiary hearings to determine whether the
groups and organizations that filed manifestations of intent to participate
in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections have continually complied with
the requirements of R.A. No. 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor
Party v. COMELEC23 (Ang Bagong Bayani). The COMELEC disqualified
the following groups and organizations from participating in the 13 May
2013 party-list elections:
G.R. No.

SPP
No.

Group

Grounds for Denial

Resolution dated 10 October 201224

1

20381819

12-154
(PLM)
12-177
(PLM)

AKO Bicol
Political Party
(AKB)

Retained registration and

accreditation as a political
party, but denied participation
in the May 2013 party-list
elections
- Failure to represent any
marginalized and
underrepresented sector;
- The Bicol region already

has representatives in
Congress; and
- The nominees are not
marginalized and
underrepresented.
Omnibus Resolution dated 11 October 201225
2

203766

12-161
(PLM)

Atong Paglaum,
Inc. (Atong
Paglaum)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- The nominees do not belong
to the sectors which the party
represents; and
- The party failed to file its
Statement of Contributions
and Expenditures for the
2010 Elections.

203981

12-187
(PLM)

Association for
Righteousness
Advocacy on
Leadership
(ARAL)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure to comply, and for
violation of election laws;
- The nominees do not
represent the sectors which
the party represents; and
- There is doubt that the party
is organized for religious
purposes.

204002

12-188
(PLM)

Alliance for
Rural Concerns
(ARC)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure of the nominees to
qualify; and
- Failure of the party to prove
that majority of its members
belong to the sectors it seeks
to represent.

204318

12-220
(PLM)

United
Movement
Against Drugs
Foundation
(UNIMAD)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- The sectors of drug
counsellors and lecturers,
veterans and the youth, are
not marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to establish track

record; and
- Failure of the nominees to
qualify as representatives of
the youth and young urban
professionals.
Omnibus Resolution dated 16 October 201226
6

204100

12-196
(PLM)

1-Bro Philippine
Guardians
Brotherhood,
Inc. (1BRO-PGBI)

Cancelled registration
- Failure to define the sector
it seeks to represent; and
- The nominees do not belong
to a marginalized and
underrepresented sector.

204122

12-223
(PLM)

1 Guardians
Nationalist
Philippines, Inc.
(1GANAP/
GUARDIANS)

Cancelled registration
- The party is a military
fraternity;
- The sector of community
volunteer workers is too
broad to allow for meaningful
representation; and
- The nominees do not appear
to belong to the sector of
community volunteer
workers.

20426

12-257
(PLM)

Blessed
Federation of
Farmers and
Fishermen
International,
Inc. (A
BLESSED
Party-List)

Cancelled registration
- Three of the seven
nominees do not belong to
the sector of farmers and
fishermen, the sector sought
to be represented; and
- None of the nominees are
registered voters of Region
XI, the region sought to be
represented.

Resolution dated 16 October 201227

9

203960

12-260
(PLM)

1st
Consumers
Alliance for
Rural Energy,
Inc. (1-CARE)

Cancelled registration
- The sector of rural energy
consumers is not
marginalized and
underrepresented;
- The partys track record is
related to electric

cooperatives and not rural

energy consumers; and
- The nominees do not belong
to the sector of rural energy
consumers.
Resolution dated 16 October 201228
10 203922

12-201
(PLM)

Association of
Philippine
Electric
Cooperatives
(APEC)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure to represent a
marginalized and
underrepresented sector; and
- The nominees do not belong
to the sector that the party
claims to represent.

Resolution dated 23 October 201229

11 204174

12-232
(PLM)

Aangat Tayo
Party-List Party
( AT )

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- The incumbent
representative in Congress
failed to author or sponsor
bills that are beneficial to the
sectors that the party
represents (women, elderly,
youth, urban poor); and
- The nominees do not belong
to the marginalized sectors
that the party seeks to
represent.

Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201230

12 203976

12-288
(PLM)

Alliance for
Rural and
Agrarian
Reconstruction,
Inc. (ARARO)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- The interests of the peasant
and urban poor sectors that
the party represents differ;
- The nominees do not belong
to the sectors that the party
seeks to represent;
- Failure to show that three of
the nominees are bona fide
party members; and
- Lack of a Board resolution

to participate in the party-list

elections.
Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201231
13 204240

12-279
(PLM)

Agri-Agra na
Reporma Para sa
Magsasaka ng
Pilipinas
Movement
(AGRI)

Cancelled registration
- The party ceased to exist for
more than a year immediately
after the May 2010 elections;
- The nominees do not belong
to the sector of peasants and
farmers that the party seeks to
represent;
- Only four nominees were
submitted to the COMELEC;
and
- Failure to show meaningful
activities for its constituency.

14 203936

12-248
(PLM)

Aksyon
Magsasaka-Partido Tinig
ng
Masa (AKMA-PTM)

Cancelled registration
- Failure to show that
majority of its members are
marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to prove that four of
its nine nominees actually
belong to the farmers sector;
and
- Failure to show that five of
its nine nominees work on
uplifting the lives of the
members of the sector.

15 204126

12-263
(PLM)

Kaagapay ng
Nagkakaisang
Agilang
Pilipinong
Magsasaka
(KAP)

Cancelled registration
- The Manifestation of Intent
and Certificate of Nomination
were not signed by an
appropriate officer of the
party;
- Failure to show track record
for the farmers and peasants
sector; and
- Failure to show that
nominees actually belong to
the sector, or that they have
undertaken meaningful

activities for the sector.

16 204364

12-180
(PLM)

Adhikain at
Kilusan ng
Ordinaryong
Tao Para sa
Lupa, Pabahay,
Hanapbuhay at
Kaunlaran
(AKO-BAHAY)

Cancelled registration
- Failure to show that
nominees actually belong to
the sector, or that they have
undertaken meaningful
activities for the sector.

17 204141

12-229
(PLM)

The True
Marcos Loyalist
(for God,
Country and
People)
Association of
the Philippines,
Inc. (BANTAY)

Cancelled registration
- Failure to show that
majority of its members are
marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- Failure to prove that two of
its nominees actually belong
to the marginalized and
underrepresented.

18 204408

12-217
(PLM)

Pilipino
Association for
Country Urban
Poor Youth
Advancement
and Welfare
( PA C YAW )

Cancelled registration
- Change of sector (from
urban poor youth to urban
poor) necessitates a new
application;
- Failure to show track record
for the marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to prove that
majority of its members and
officers are from the urban
poor sector; and
- The nominees are not
members of the urban poor
sector.

19 204153

12-277
(PLM)

Pasang Masda
Nationwide
Party (PASANG
MASDA)

Cancelled registration
- The party represents drivers
and operators, who may have
conflicting interests; and
- Nominees are either
operators or former operators.

20 203958

12-015
(PLM)

Kapatiran ng
mga Nakulong

Cancelled registration
- Failure to prove that

na Walang Sala,
Inc. (KAKUSA)

na Walang Sala,
Inc. (KAKUSA)
majority of its officers and
members belong to the
marginalized and
underrepresented;
- The incumbent
representative in Congress
failed to author or sponsor
bills that are beneficial to the
sector that the party
represents (persons
imprisoned without proof of
guilt beyond reasonable
doubt);
- Failure to show track record
for the marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The nominees did not
appear to be marginalized and
underrepresented.

Resolution dated 30 October 201232

21 204428

12-256
(PLM)

Ang Galing
Pinoy (AG)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure to attend the
summary hearing;
- Failure to show track record
for the marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The nominees did not
appear to be marginalized and
underrepresented.

Resolution dated 7 November 201233

22 204094

12-185
(PLM)

Alliance for
Nationalism and
Democracy
(ANAD)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure to represent an
identifiable marginalized and
underrepresented sector;
- Only three nominees were
submitted to the COMELEC;
- The nominees do not
belong to the marginalized

and underrepresented; and

- Failure to submit its
Statement of Contribution
and Expenditures for the
2007 Elections.
Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 201234
23 204239

12-060
(PLM)

Green Force for

the Environment
Sons and
Daughters of
Mother Earth
(GREENFORCE)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- The party is an advocacy
group and does not represent
the marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to comply with the
track record requirement; and
- The nominees are not
marginalized citizens.

24 204236

12-254
(PLM)

Firm 24-K
Association, Inc.
(FIRM 24-K)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- The nominees do not
belong to the sector that the
party seeks to represent
(urban poor and peasants of
the National Capital Region);
- Only two of its nominees
reside in the National Capital
Region; and
- Failure to comply with the
track record requirement.

25 204341

12-269
(PLM)

Action League
of Indigenous
Masses (ALIM)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure to establish that its
nominees are members of the
indigenous people in the
Mindanao and Cordilleras
sector that the party seeks to
represent;
- Only two of the partys
nominees reside in the
Mindanao and Cordilleras;
and
- Three of the nominees do
not appear to belong to the

marginalized.
Resolution dated 7 November 201235
26 204358

12-204
(PLM)

Alliance of
Advocates in
Mining
Advancement
for National
Progress
(AAMA)

Cancelled registration
- The sector it represents is a
specifically defined group
which may not be allowed
registration under the party-list system; and
- Failure to establish that the
nominees actually belong to
the sector.

Resolution dated 7 November 201236

27 204359

12-272
(PLM)

Social
Movement for
Active Reform
and
Transparency
(SMART)

Cancelled registration
- The nominees are
disqualified from
representing the sectors that
the party represents;
- Failure to comply with the
track record requirement; and
- There is doubt as to whether
majority of its members are
marginalized and
underrepresented.

Resolution dated 7 November 201237

28 204238

12-173
(PLM)

Alliance of
Bicolnon Party
(ABP)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Defective registration and
accreditation dating back to
2010;
- Failure to represent any
sector; and
- Failure to establish that the
nominees are employed in the construction
industry, the
sector it claims to represent.

Resolution dated 7 November 201238

29 204323

12-210
(PLM)

Bayani Party
List (BAYANI)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure to prove a track
record of trying to uplift the

marginalized and
underrepresented sector of
professionals; and
- One nominee was declared
unqualified to represent the
sector of professionals.
Resolution dated 7 November 201239
30 204321

12-252
(PLM)

Ang Agrikultura
Natin Isulong
(AANI)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure to establish a track
record of enhancing the lives
of the marginalized and
underrepresented farmers
which it claims to represent;
and
- More than a majority of the
partys nominees do not
belong to the farmers sector.

Resolution dated 7 November 201240

31 204125

12-292
(PLM)

Agapay ng
Indigenous
Peoples Rights
Alliance, Inc.
(A-IPRA)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure to prove that its five
nominees are members of the
indigenous people sector;
- Failure to prove that its five
nominees actively
participated in the
undertakings of the party; and
- Failure to prove that its five nominees are
bona fide
members.

Resolution dated 7 November 201241

32 204216

12-202
(PLM)

Philippine
Coconut
Producers
Federation, Inc.
(COCOFED)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- The party is affiliated with
private and government
agencies and is not
marginalized;
- The party is assisted by the
government in various
projects; and

- The nominees are not

members of the marginalized
sector of coconut farmers and
producers.
Resolution dated 7 November 201242
33 204220

12-238
(PLM)

Abang Lingkod
Party-List
(ABANG
LINGKOD)

Cancelled registration
- Failure to establish a track
record of continuously
representing the peasant
farmers sector;
- Failure to show that its
members actually belong to
the peasant farmers sector;
and
- Failure to show that its
nominees are marginalized
and underrepresented, have
actively participated in
programs for the
advancement of farmers, and
adhere to its advocacies.

Resolution dated 14 November 201243

34 204158

12-158
(PLM)

Action
Brotherhood for Active
Dreamers, Inc.
(ABROAD)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation - Failure to show that the
party is actually able to
represent all of the sectors it
claims to represent;
- Failure to show a complete
track record of its activities
since its registration; and
- The nominees are not part
of any of the sectors which
the party seeks to represent.

Resolution dated 28 November 201244

35 204374

12-228
(PLM)

Binhi-Partido ng
mga Magsasaka
Para sa mga
Magsasaka
(BINHI)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- The party receives
assistance from the
government through the
Department of Agriculture;
and

- Failure to prove that the

group is marginalized and
underrepresented.
Resolution dated 28 November 201245
36 204356

12-136
(PLM)

Butil Farmers
Party (BUTIL)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Failure to establish that the
agriculture and cooperative
sectors are marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The partys nominees
neither appear to belong to
the sectors they seek to
represent, nor to have
actively participated in the
undertakings of the party.

Resolution dated 3 December 201246

37 204486

12-194
(PLM)

1st
Kabalikat ng
Bayan
Ginhawang
Sangkatauhan
(1st
KABAGIS)

Cancelled registration and

accreditation
- Declaration of untruthful
statements;
- Failure to exist for at least
one year; and
- None of its nominees
belong to the labor,
fisherfolk, and urban poor
indigenous cultural
communities sectors which it
seeks to represent.

Resolution dated 4 December 201247

38 204410

12-198
(PLM)

1-United
Transport
Koalisyon (1-UTAK)

Cancelled accreditation
- The party represents drivers
and operators, who may have
conflicting interests; and
- The partys nominees do not
belong to any marginalized
and underrepresented sector.

Resolution dated 4 December 201248

39 204421,

12-157

Coalition of

Cancelled registration

204425

(PLM),
12-191
(PLM)

Senior Citizens
in the
Philippines, Inc.
(SENIOR
CITIZENS)

- The party violated election

laws because its nominees
had a term-sharing
agreement.

These 39 petitioners (AKB, Atong Paglaum, ARAL, ARC, UNIMAD, 1BROPGBI, 1GANAP/GUARDIANS, A BLESSED Party-List, 1-CARE, APEC, AT,
ARARO, AGRI, AKMA-PTM, KAP, AKO-BAHAY, BANTAY, PACYAW,
PASANG MASDA, KAKUSA, AG, ANAD, GREENFORCE, FIRM 24-K,
ALIM, AAMA, SMART, ABP, BAYANI, AANI, A-IPRA, COCOFED, ABANG
LINGKOD, ABROAD, BINHI, BUTIL, 1st KABAGIS, 1-UTAK, SENIOR
CITIZENS) were able to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court,
directing the COMELEC to include the names of these 39 petitioners in
the printing of the official ballot for the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction. This Court issued Status Quo Ante
Orders in all petitions. This Decision governs only the 54 consolidated
petitions that were granted Status Quo Ante Orders, namely:
G.R. No.

SPP No.

Group

Resolution dated 13 November 2012

203818-19

12-154
(PLM)
12-177
(PLM)

AKO Bicol Political Party (AKB)

203981

12-187
(PLM)

Association for Righteousness Advocacy on

Leadership (ARAL)

204002

12-188
(PLM)

Alliance for Rural Concerns (ARC)

203922

12-201
(PLM)

Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives

(APEC)

203960

12-260
(PLM)

1st
Consumers Alliance for Rural Energy, Inc.
(1-CARE)

203936

12-248
(PLM)

Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa

(AKMA-PTM)

203958

12-015

Kapatiran ng mga Nakulong na Walang Sala,

203976

(PLM)

Inc. (KAKUSA)

12-288
(PLM)

Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction,

Inc. (ARARO)

Resolution dated 20 November 2012

204094

12-185
(PLM)

Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy

(ANAD)

204125

12-292
(PLM)

Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance,

Inc. (A-IPRA)

204100

12-196
(PLM)

1-Bro Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc.

(1BRO-PGBI)

Resolution dated 27 November 2012

204141

12-229
(PLM)

The True Marcos Loyalist (for God, Country

and People) Association of the Philippines, Inc.
(BANTAY)

204240

12-279
(PLM)

Agri-Agra na Reporma Para sa Magsasaka ng

Pilipinas Movement (AGRI)

204216

12-202
(PLM)

Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc.

(COCOFED)

204158

12-158
(PLM)

Action Brotherhood for Active Dreamer, Inc.

(ABROAD)

Resolutions dated 4 December 2012

204122

12-223
(PLM)

1 Guardians Nationalist Philippines, Inc.

(1GANAP/GUARDIANS)

203766

12-161
(PLM)

Atong Paglaum, Inc. (Atong Paglaum)

204318

12-220
(PLM)

United Movement Against Drugs Foundation

(UNIMAD)

204263

12-257
(PLM)

Blessed Federation of Farmers and Fishermen

International, Inc. (A BLESSED Party-List)

204174

12-232
(PLM)

Aangat Tayo Party-List Party (AT)

204126

12-263
(PLM)

Kaagapay ng Nagkakaisang Agilang Pilipinong

Magsasaka (KAP)

204364

12-180
(PLM)

Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong Tao Para sa

Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at Kaunlaran
(AKO-BAHAY)

204139

12-127 (PL)

Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM)

204220

12-238
(PLM)

Abang Lingkod Party-List (ABANG

LINGKOD)

204236

12-254
(PLM)

Firm 24-K Association, Inc. (FIRM 24-K)

204238

12-173
(PLM)

Alliance of Bicolnon Party (ABP)

204239

12-060
(PLM)

Green Force for the Environment Sons and

Daughters of Mother Earth (GREENFORCE)

204321

12-252
(PLM)

Ang Agrikultura Natin Isulong (AANI)

204323

12-210
(PLM)

Bayani Party List (BAYANI)

204341

12-269
(PLM)

Action League of Indigenous Masses (ALIM)

204358

12-204
(PLM)

Alliance of Advocates in Mining Advancement

for National Progress (AAMA)

204359

12-272
(PLM)

Social Movement for Active Reform and

Transparency (SMART)

204356

12-136
(PLM)

Butil Farmers Party (BUTIL)

Resolution dated 11 December 2012

204402

12-061 (PL)

Kalikasan Party-List (KALIKASAN)

204394

12-145 (PL)

Association of Guard, Utility Helper, Aider,

Rider, Driver/Domestic Helper, Janitor, Agent
and Nanny of the Philippines, Inc.
(GUARDJAN)

204408

12-217
(PLM)

Pilipino Association for Country Urban Poor

Youth Advancement and Welfare (PACYAW)

204428

12-256

Ang Galing Pinoy (AG)

(PLM)
204490

12-073
(PLM)

Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP)

204379

12-099
(PLM)

Alagad ng Sining (ASIN)

204367

12-104 (PL)

Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN)

204426

12-011
(PLM)

Association of Local Athletics Entrepreneurs

and Hobbyists, Inc. (ALA-EH)

204455

12-041
(PLM)

Manila Teachers Savings and Loan Association,

Inc. (Manila Teachers)

204374

12-228
(PLM)

Binhi-Partido ng mga Magsasaka Para sa mga

Magsasaka (BINHI)

204370

12-011 (PP)

Ako An Bisaya (AAB)

204435

12-057
(PLM)

1 Alliance Advocating Autonomy Party

(1AAAP)

204486

12-194
(PLM)

1st Kabalikat ng Bayan Ginhawang

Sangkatauhan (1st KABAGIS)

204410

12-198
(PLM)

1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK)

204421,
204425

12-157
(PLM)
12-191
(PLM)

Coalition of Senior Citizens in the Philippines,

Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS)

204436

12-009 (PP),
12-165
(PLM)

Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI)

204485

12-175 (PL)

Alliance of Organizations, Networks and

Associations of the Philippines, Inc. (ALONA)

204484

11-002

Partido ng Bayan ng Bida (PBB)

Resolution dated 11 December 2012

204153

12-277
(PLM)

Pasang Masda Nationwide Party (PASANG

MASDA)

The Issues
We rule upon two issues: first, whether the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
disqualifying petitioners from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list
elections, either by denial of their new petitions for registration under the
party-list system, or by cancellation of their existing registration and
accreditation as party-list organizations; and second, whether the criteria
for participating in the party-list system laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani
and Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v.
Commission on Elections49 (BANAT) should be applied by the COMELEC
in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
The Courts Ruling
We hold that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
following prevailing decisions of this Court in disqualifying petitioners
from participating in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
However, since the Court adopts in this Decision new parameters in the
qualification of national, regional, and sectoral parties under the partylist system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied by
the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, we remand to the COMELEC
all the present petitions for the COMELEC to determine who are qualified
to register under the party-list system, and to participate in the coming
13 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters prescribed
in this Decision.
The Party-List System
The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system of
representation. Simply put, the party-list system is intended to
democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in
legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of
Representatives.50 The voter elects two representatives in the House of
Representatives: one for his or her legislative district, and another for his
or her party-list group or organization of choice. The 1987 Constitution
provides:
Section 5, Article VI
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more
than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by
law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and
on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as

provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of

registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those
under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C
Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or
coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the party-list
system as provided in this Constitution.
Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under
the party-list system, shall not be represented in the voters registration
boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other
similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in
accordance with law.
Commissioner Christian S. Monsod, the main sponsor of the party-list
system, stressed that "the party-list system is not synonymous with
that of the sectoral representation."51 The constitutional provisions on
the party-list system should be read in light of the following discussion
among its framers:
MR. MONSOD: x x x.
I would like to make a distinction from the beginning that the proposal
for the party list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral
representation. Precisely, the party list system seeks to avoid the
dilemma of choice of sectors and who constitute the members of the
sectors. In making the proposal on the party list system, we were made
aware of the problems precisely cited by Commissioner Bacani of which
sectors will have reserved seats. In effect, a sectoral representation in the
Assembly would mean that certain sectors would have reserved seats;
that they will choose among themselves who would sit in those reserved
seats. And then, we have the problem of which sector because as we will
notice in Proclamation No. 9, the sectors cited were the farmers,
fishermen, workers, students, professionals, business, military,
academic, ethnic and other similar groups. So these are the nine sectors
that were identified here as "sectoral representatives" to be represented

in this Commission. The problem we had in trying to approach sectoral

representation in the Assembly was whether to stop at these nine sectors
or include other sectors. And we went through the exercise in a caucus of
which sector should be included which went up to 14 sectors. And as we
all know, the longer we make our enumeration, the more limiting the law
become because when we make an enumeration we exclude those who
are not in the enumeration. Second, we had the problem of who comprise
the farmers. Let us just say the farmers and the laborers. These days,
there are many citizens who are called "hyphenated citizens." A doctor
may be a farmer; a lawyer may also be a farmer. And so, it is up to the
discretion of the person to say "I am a farmer" so he would be included in
that sector.
The third problem is that when we go into a reserved seat system of
sectoral representation in the Assembly, we are, in effect, giving some
people two votes and other people one vote. We sought to avoid these
problems by presenting a party list system. Under the party list system,
there are no reserved seats for sectors. Let us say, laborers and farmers
can form a sectoral party or a sectoral organization that will then register
and present candidates of their party. How do the mechanics go?
Essentially, under the party list system, every voter has two votes, so
there is no discrimination. First, he will vote for the representative of his
legislative district. That is one vote. In that same ballot, he will be asked:
What party or organization or coalition do you wish to be represented in
the Assembly? And here will be attached a list of the parties,
organizations or coalitions that have been registered with the COMELEC
and are entitled to be put in that list. This can be a regional party, a
sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO, Magsasaka or a regional party in
Mindanao. One need not be a farmer to say that he wants the farmers'
party to be represented in the Assembly. Any citizen can vote for any
party. At the end of the day, the COMELEC will then tabulate the votes
that had been garnered by each party or each organization one does
not have to be a political party and register in order to participate as a
party and count the votes and from there derive the percentage of the
votes that had been cast in favor of a party, organization or coalition.
When such parties register with the COMELEC, we are assuming that 50
of the 250 seats will be for the party list system. So, we have a limit of 30
percent of 50. That means that the maximum that any party can get out
of these 50 seats is 15. When the parties register they then submit a list
of 15 names. They have to submit these names because these nominees
have to meet the minimum qualifications of a Member of the National
Assembly. At the end of the day, when the votes are tabulated, one gets
the percentages. Let us say, UNIDO gets 10 percent or 15 percent of the
votes; KMU gets 5 percent; a womens party gets 2 1/2 percent and
anybody who has at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote qualifies and the 50

seats are apportioned among all of these parties who get at least 2 1/2
percent of the vote.
What does that mean? It means that any group or party who has a
constituency of, say, 500,000 nationwide gets a seat in the National
Assembly. What is the justification for that? When we allocate legislative
districts, we are saying that any district that has 200,000 votes gets a
seat. There is no reason why a group that has a national constituency,
even if it is a sectoral or special interest group, should not have a voice in
the National Assembly. It also means that, let us say, there are three or
four labor groups, they all register as a party or as a group. If each of
them gets only one percent or five of them get one percent, they are not
entitled to any representative. So, they will begin to think that if they
really have a common interest, they should band together, form a
coalition and get five percent of the vote and, therefore, have two seats in
the Assembly. Those are the dynamics of a party list system.
We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of sectoral
representation while at the same time making sure that those who really
have a national constituency or sectoral constituency will get a chance to
have a seat in the National Assembly. These sectors or these groups may
not have the constituency to win a seat on a legislative district basis.
They may not be able to win a seat on a district basis but surely, they
will have votes on a nationwide basis.
The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past elections, we found
out that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes
nationwide; have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were
always third place or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have
no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they would have five or six
representatives in the Assembly even if they would not win individually
in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose
and objectives of the party list system.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, am I right in interpreting that when
we speak now of party list system though we refer to sectors, we would
be referring to sectoral party list rather than sectors and party list?
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, if this body accepts the party list
system, we do not even have to mention sectors because the sectors
would be included in the party list system. They can be sectoral parties
within the party list system.
xxxx

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we suggested or

proposed the party list system because we wanted to open up the
political system to a pluralistic society through a multiparty system. x x
x We are for opening up the system, and we would like very much
for the sectors to be there. That is why one of the ways to do that is
to put a ceiling on the number of representatives from any single
party that can sit within the 50 allocated under the party list
system. x x x.
xxx
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats is
not limited to political parties. My question is this: Are we going to
classify for example Christian Democrats and Social Democrats as
political parties? Can they run under the party list concept or must
they be under the district legislation side of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these parties that
the Commissioner mentioned can field candidates for the Senate as
well as for the House of Representatives. Likewise, they can also
field sectoral candidates for the 20 percent or 30 percent, whichever
is adopted, of the seats that we are allocating under the party list
system.
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field
district candidates and can also participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the party list
system, they will be fielding only sectoral candidates.
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO participate in
the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field candidates
who come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall
designate in this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Taada wants to run under BAYAN
group and says that he represents the farmers, would he qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party list
system and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who would pass on whether
he is a farmer or not?

MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang linawin

ito. Political parties, particularly minority political parties, are not
prohibited to participate in the party list election if they can prove
that they are also organized along sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all political
parties can participate because it is precisely the contention of political
parties that they represent the broad base of citizens and that all sectors
are represented in them. Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO
na isang political party, it will dominate the party list at mawawalang
saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang party
list system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan ng diin ang "reserve." Hindi ito
reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198
seats, reserved din ito sa political parties.
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run there. But
my question to Commissioner Villacorta and probably also to
Commissioner Tadeo is that under this system, would UNIDO be banned
from running under the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral candidates.
On that condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed to register for the
party list system.
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares
that answer?
MR. TADEO. The same.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD: Sino po ang magsasabi kung iyong kandidato ng UNIDO
ay hindi talagang labor leader or isang laborer? Halimbawa, abogado ito.
MR. TADEO: Iyong mechanics.
MR. MONSOD: Hindi po mechanics iyon because we are trying to solve
an inherent problem of sectoral representation. My question is: Suppose
UNIDO fields a labor leader, would he qualify?
MR. TADEO: The COMELEC may look into the truth of whether or
not a political party is really organized along a specific sectoral line.
If such is verified or confirmed, the political party may submit a list
of individuals who are actually members of such sectors. The lists

are to be published to give individuals or organizations belonging to

such sector the chance to present evidence contradicting claims of
membership in the said sector or to question the claims of the
existence of such sectoral organizations or parties. This proceeding
shall be conducted by the COMELEC and shall be summary in
character. In other words, COMELEC decisions on this matter are
final and unappealable.52 (Emphasis supplied)
Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the partylist system to include not only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral
parties. The framers intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part,
but not the entirety, of the party-list system. As explained by
Commissioner Wilfredo Villacorta, political parties can participate in
the party-list system "For as long as they field candidates who come
from the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in
this Constitution."53
In fact, the framers voted down, 19-22, a proposal to reserve permanent
seats to sectoral parties in the House of Representatives, or alternatively,
to reserve the party-list system exclusively to sectoral parties. As clearly
explained by Justice Jose C. Vitug in his Dissenting Opinion in Ang
Bagong Bayani:
The draft provisions on what was to become Article VI, Section 5,
subsection (2), of the 1987 Constitution took off from two staunch
positions the first headed by Commissioner Villacorta, advocating that
of the 20 per centum of the total seats in Congress to be allocated to
party-list representatives half were to be reserved to appointees from the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors. The proposal was opposed
by some Commissioners. Mr. Monsod expressed the difficulty in
delimiting the sectors that needed representation. He was of the view
that reserving seats for the marginalized and underrepresented sectors
would stunt their development into full-pledged parties equipped with
electoral machinery potent enough to further the sectoral interests to be
represented. The Villacorta group, on the other hand, was apprehensive
that pitting the unorganized and less-moneyed sectoral groups in an
electoral contest would be like placing babes in the lion's den, so to
speak, with the bigger and more established political parties ultimately
gobbling them up. R.A. 7941 recognized this concern when it banned the
first five major political parties on the basis of party representation in the
House of Representatives from participating in the party-list system for
the first party-list elections held in 1998 (and to be automatically lifted
starting with the 2001 elections). The advocates for permanent seats for
sectoral representatives made an effort towards a compromise that the
party-list system be open only to underrepresented and marginalized
sectors. This proposal was further whittled down by allocating only half

of the seats under the party-list system to candidates from the sectors
which would garner the required number of votes. The majority was
unyielding. Voting 19-22, the proposal for permanent seats, and in the
alternative the reservation of the party-list system to the sectoral groups,
was voted down. The only concession the Villacorta group was able to
muster was an assurance of reserved seats for selected sectors for three
consecutive terms after the enactment of the 1987 Constitution, by
which time they would be expected to gather and solidify their electoral
base and brace themselves in the multi-party electoral contest with the
more veteran political groups.54 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, in the end, the proposal to give permanent reserved seats to
certain sectors was outvoted. Instead, the reservation of seats to sectoral
representatives was only allowed for the first three consecutive
terms.55 There can be no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the 1987
Constitution expressly rejected the proposal to make the party-list
system exclusively for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly
intended the party-list system to include both sectoral and non-sectoral
parties.
The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is
that they cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but they
can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes
that winning candidates can garner in legislative district elections. The
party-list system will be the entry point to membership in the House of
Representatives for both these non-traditional parties that could not
compete in legislative district elections.
The indisputable intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution to
include in the party-list system both sectoral and non-sectoral parties
is clearly written in Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution, which
states:
Section 5. (1) The House of Representative shall be composed of not more
that two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who
shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with
the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform
and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be
elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional,
and sectoral parties or organizations. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution is crystal-clear that there shall
be "a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations." The commas after the words "national," and
"regional," separate national and regional parties from sectoral parties.

Had the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended national and regional
parties to be at the same time sectoral, they would have stated "national
and regional sectoral parties." They did not, precisely because it was
never their intention to make the party-list system exclusively sectoral.
What the framers intended, and what they expressly wrote in Section
5(1), could not be any clearer: the party-list system is composed of three
different groups, and the sectoral parties belong to only one of the three
groups. The text of Section 5(1) leaves no room for any doubt that
national and regional parties are separate from sectoral parties.
Thus, the party-list system is composed of three different groups: (1)
national parties or organizations; (2) regional parties or organizations;
and (3) sectoral parties or organizations. National and regional parties or
organizations are different from sectoral parties or organizations.
National and regional parties or organizations need not be organized
along sectoral lines and need not represent any particular sector.
Moreover, Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates
that, during the first three consecutive terms of Congress after the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution, "one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection
or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided
by law, except the religious sector." This provision clearly shows again
that the party-list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties for two
obvious reasons.
First, the other one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives
would naturally be open to non-sectoral party-list representatives, clearly
negating the idea that the party-list system is exclusively for sectoral
parties representing the "marginalized and underrepresented." Second,
the reservation of one-half of the party-list seats to sectoral parties
applies only for the first "three consecutive terms after the ratification of
this Constitution," clearly making the party-list system fully open after
the end of the first three congressional terms. This means that, after this
period, there will be no seats reserved for any class or type of party that
qualifies under the three groups constituting the party-list system.
Hence, the clear intent, express wording, and party-list structure
ordained in Section 5(1) and (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
cannot be disputed: the party-list system is not for sectoral parties
only, but also for non-sectoral parties.

Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act, which is the law that
implements the party-list system prescribed in the Constitution,
provides:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party" as "either a political
party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." Clearly, a political
party is different from a sectoral party. Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 7941
further provides that a "political party refers to an organized group of
citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies

for the general conduct of government." On the other hand, Section

3(d) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that 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." R.A. No. 7941 provides different
definitions for a political and a sectoral party. Obviously, they are
separate and distinct from each other.
R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or
organizations to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented"
sectors. To require all national and regional parties under the party-list
system to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" is to
deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented
parties from the party-list system. How will these ideology-based and
cause-oriented parties, who cannot win in legislative district elections,
participate in the electoral process if they are excluded from the party-list
system? To exclude them from the party-list system is to prevent them
from joining the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their only option the
armed struggle. To exclude them from the party-list system is, apart from
being obviously senseless, patently contrary to the clear intent and
express wording of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or cause-oriented political
party is clearly different from a sectoral party. A political party need not
be organized as a sectoral party and need not represent any particular
sector. There is no requirement in R.A. No. 7941 that a national or
regional political party must represent a "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector. It is sufficient that the political party consists
of citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same
governance principles and policies, regardless of their economic status
as citizens.
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 states that "the sectors shall include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals."56The sectors mentioned in Section 5 are
not all necessarily "marginalized and underrepresented." For sure,
"professionals" are not by definition "marginalized and
underrepresented," not even the elderly, women, and the youth. However,
professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth may "lack well-defined
political constituencies," and can thus organize themselves into sectoral
parties in advocacy of the special interests and concerns of their
respective sectors.
Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides another compelling reason for
holding that the law does not require national or regional parties, as well

as certain sectoral parties in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941, to represent the

"marginalized and underrepresented." Section 6 provides the grounds for
the COMELEC to refuse or cancel the registration of parties or
organizations after due notice and hearing.
Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The COMELEC
may, motu proprio 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 system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered.
None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel registration refers to nonrepresentation of the "marginalized and underrepresented."
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" appears only once in
R.A. No. 7941, in Section 2 on Declaration of Policy.57 Section 2 seeks "to
promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to
the House of Representatives through the party-list system," which will
enable Filipinos belonging to the "marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined
political constituencies," to become members of the House of
Representatives. While the policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No.

7941 broadly refers to "marginalized and underrepresented sectors,

organizations and parties," the specific implementing provisions of R.A.
No. 7941 do not define or require that the sectors, organizations or
parties must be "marginalized and underrepresented." On the contrary,
to even interpret that all the sectors mentioned in Section 5 are
"marginalized and underrepresented" would lead to absurdities.
How then should we harmonize the broad policy declaration in Section 2
of R.A. No. 7941 with its specific implementing provisions, bearing in
mind the applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution on the matter?
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" should refer only to
the sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically
"marginalized and underrepresented." These sectors are: labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other similar sectors. For
these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party must
belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented." The nominees of
the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or must have a
track record of advocacy for the sector represented. Belonging to the
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector does not mean one must
"wallow in poverty, destitution or infirmity." It is sufficient that one, or
his or her sector, is below the middle class. More specifically, the
economically "marginalized and underrepresented" are those who fall in
the low income group as classified by the National Statistical
Coordination Board.58
The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral
parties of professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, need not be
"marginalized and underrepresented" will allow small ideology-based and
cause-oriented parties who lack "well-defined political constituencies" a
chance to win seats in the House of Representatives. On the other hand,
limiting to the "marginalized and underrepresented" the sectoral parties
for labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other
sectors that by their nature are economically at the margins of society,
will give the "marginalized and underrepresented" an opportunity to
likewise win seats in the House of Representatives.
This interpretation will harmonize the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No.
7941 and will give rise to a multi-party system where those "marginalized
and underrepresented," both in economic and ideological status, will
have the opportunity to send their own members to the House of
Representatives. This interpretation will also make the party-list system
honest and transparent, eliminating the need for relatively well-off party-

list representatives to masquerade as "wallowing in poverty, destitution

and infirmity," even as they attend sessions in Congress riding in SUVs.
The major political parties are those that field candidates in the
legislative district elections. Major political parties cannot participate in
the party-list elections since they neither lack "well-defined political
constituencies" nor represent "marginalized and underrepresented"
sectors. Thus, the national or regional parties under the party-list
system are necessarily those that do not belong to major political
parties. This automatically reserves the national and regional parties
under the party-list system to those who "lack well-defined political
constituencies," giving them the opportunity to have members in the
House of Representatives.
To recall, Ang Bagong Bayani expressly declared, in its second guideline
for the accreditation of parties under the party-list system, that "while
even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the
Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply
with the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging
to marginalized and underrepresented sectors xxx to be elected to the
House of Representatives. "However, the requirement in Ang Bagong
Bayani, in its second guideline, that "the political party xxx must
represent the marginalized and underrepresented," automatically
disqualified major political parties from participating in the party-list
system. This inherent inconsistency in Ang Bagong Bayani has been
compounded by the COMELECs refusal to register sectoral wings
officially organized by major political parties. BANAT merely formalized
the prevailing practice when it expressly prohibited major political
parties from participating in the party-list system, even through their
sectoral wings.
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 expressly prohibited 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" from participating in
the May 1988 party-list elections.59 Thus, major political parties can
participate in subsequent party-list elections since the prohibition
is expressly limited only to the 1988 party-list elections. However,
major political parties should participate in party-list elections only
through their sectoral wings. The participation of major political parties
through their sectoral wings, a majority of whose members are
"marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political
constituencies," will facilitate the entry of the "marginalized and
underrepresented" and those who "lack well-defined political
constituencies" as members of the House of Representatives.

The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 allow major political parties to
participate in party-list elections so as to encourage them to work
assiduously in extending 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-defined political constituencies," giving them a voice in
law-making. Thus,to participate in party-list elections, a major political
party that fields candidates in the legislative district elections must
organize a sectoral wing, like a labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
professional, women or youth wing, that can register under the party-list
system.
Such sectoral wing of a major political party must have its own
constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, officers and
members, a majority of whom must belong to the sector represented. The
sectoral wing is in itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a
major political party through a coalition. This linkage is allowed by
Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941, which provides that "component parties or
organizations of a coalition may participate independently (in party-list
elections) provided the coalition of which they form part does not
participate in the party-list system."
Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the qualifications of party-list
nominees. This provision prescribes a special qualification only for the
nominee from the youth sector.
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.1wphi1
A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or
organization which he or she seeks to represent. In the case of sectoral

parties, to be a bona fide party-list nominee one must either belong

to the sector represented, or have a track record of advocacy for
such sector.
In disqualifying petitioners, the COMELEC used the criteria prescribed in
Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. Ang Bagong Bayani laid down the
guidelines for qualifying those who desire to participate in the party-list
system:
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must
represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified
in Section 5 of RA 7941. x x x
Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA
7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they
must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to
be elected to the House of Representatives." x x x.
xxxx
Third, x x x the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list
system. x x x.
xxxx
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under
Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for disqualification
as follows:
"(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 system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered."
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project
organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. x x x.
xxxx
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law;
its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
"SEC 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."
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must
represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must
its nominees. x x x.
Eighth, x x x the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
nation as a whole. (Emphasis supplied)
In 2009, by a vote of 8-7 in BANAT, this Court stretched the Ang Bagong
Bayani ruling further. In BANAT, the majority officially excluded major
political parties from participating in party-list elections,60 abandoning
even the lip-service that Ang Bagong Bayani accorded to the 1987
Constitution and R.A.No. 7941 that major political parties can
participate in party-list elections.

The minority in BANAT, however, believed that major political parties can
participate in the party-list system through their sectoral wings. The
minority expressed that "[e]xcluding the major political parties in partylist elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the
Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot
engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the exclusion
of major political parties from the party-list elections in patent violation
of the Constitution and the law."61 The experimentations in sociopolitical engineering have only resulted in confusion and absurdity in the
party-list system. Such experimentations, in clear contravention of the
1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941, must now come to an end.
We cannot, however, fault the COMELEC for following prevailing
jurisprudence in disqualifying petitioners. In following prevailing
jurisprudence, the COMELEC could not have committed grave abuse of
discretion. However, for the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, we
must now impose and mandate the party-list system actually
envisioned and authorized under the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No.
7941. In BANAT, this Court devised a new formula in the allocation of
party-list seats, reversing the COMELEC's allocation which followed the
then prevailing formula in Ang Bagong Bayani. In BANAT, however, the
Court did not declare that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion. Similarly, even as we acknowledge here that the COMELEC
did not commit grave abuse of discretion, we declare that it would not be
in accord with the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to apply the
criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining who are
qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list
elections. For this purpose, we suspend our rule62 that a party may
appeal to this Court from decisions or orders of the COMELEC only if the
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
Thus, we remand all the present petitions to the COMELEC. In
determining who may participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and
subsequent party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the
following parameters:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system:
(1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or
organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or
organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do
not need to represent any "marginalized and underrepresented"
sector.

3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided

they register under the party-list system and do not field
candidates in legislative district elections. A political party,
whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district
elections can participate in party-list elections only through its
sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list
system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral
party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized
and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political
constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains
to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors
that are "marginalized and underrepresented" include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that
lack "well-defined political constituencies" include professionals,
the elderly, women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations
that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" must
belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they
represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties
or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies"
must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented," or that represent those who lack "well-defined
political constituencies," either must belong to their respective
sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties
or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or
organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall
not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least one nominee who remains
qualified.
The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list
elections those that did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national,
regional, and sectoral groups or organizations must represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must
belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent.
Petitioners may have been disqualified by the COMELEC because as
political or regional parties they are not organized along sectoral lines
and do not represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." Also,

petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the sectors they represent

may have been disqualified, although they may have a track record of
advocacy for their sectors. Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties
may have been disqualified because they do not belong to any sector.
Moreover, a party may have been disqualified because one or more of its
nominees failed to qualify, even if the party has at least one remaining
qualified nominee. As discussed above, the disqualification of petitioners,
and their nominees, under such circumstances is contrary to the 1987
Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its provisions
faithfully, and desist from engaging in socio-economic or political
experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has ordained.
Judicial power does not include the power to re-write the Constitution.
Thus, the present petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC not
because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may now possibly
qualify to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections
under the new parameters prescribed by this Court.
WHEREFORE, all the present 54 petitions are GRANTED. The 13
petitions, which have been granted Status Quo Ante Orders but without
mandatory injunction to include the names of petitioners in the printing
of ballots, are remanded to the Commission on Elections only for
determination whether petitioners are qualified to register under the
party-list system under the parameters prescribed in this Decision but
they shall not participate in the 13 May 2013 part-list elections. The 41
petitions, which have been granted mandatory injunctions to include the
names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are remanded to the
Commission on Elections for determination whether petitioners are
qualified to register under the party-list system and to participate in the
13 May 2013 party-list elections under the parameters prescribed in this
Decision. The Commission on Elections may conduct summary
evidentiary hearings for this purpose. This Decision is immediately
executory.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO