MACIAS VS.

COMELEC
According to the Constitution, "the Congress shall by law, make an apportionment (of
Members of the House) within three years after the return of every enumeration, and not
otherwise." It is admitted that the bill, which later became Republic Act 3040, was based
upon a report submitted to the President by the Director of the Census on November
23, 1960. Petitioners maintain that the apportionment could not legally rest on this
report since it is merely "preliminary" and "may be subject to revision." On the other
hand, respondents point out that the above letter says the report should be considered
"official for all purposes." They also point out that the ascertainment of what constitutes
a return of an enumeration is a matter for Congress action. This issue does not clearly
favor petitioners, because there are authorities sustaining the view that although not
final, and still subject to correction, a census enumeration may be considered official, in
the sense that Governmental action may be based thereon even in matters of
apportionment of legislative districts.

The Constitution directs that the one hundred twenty Members of the House of
Representatives "shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may
be according to the number of their respective inhabitants." In our resolution on August
23, we held that this provision was violated by Republic Act 3040 because (a) it gave
Cebu seven members, while Rizal with a bigger number of inhabitants got four only; (b)
it gave Manila four members, while Cotabato with a bigger population got three only; (c)
Pangasinan with less inhabitants than both Manila and Cotabato got more than both five
members having been assigned to it; (d) Samar (with 871,857) was allotted four
members while Davao with 903,224 got three only; (e) Bulacan vs. with 557,691 got two
only, while Albay with less inhabitants (515,691) got three, and (f) Misamis Oriental with
387,839 was given one member only, while Cavite with less inhabitants (379,904) got
two. These were not the only instances of unequal apportionment. We see that
Mountain Province has 3 whereas Isabela, Laguna and Cagayan with more inhabitants
have 2 each. And then Capiz, La Union and Ilocos Norte got 2 each, whereas, Sulu that
has more inhabitants got 1 only. And Leyte with 967,323 inhabitants got 4 only, whereas
Iloilo with less inhabitants (966,145) was given 5.For all the foregoing, we hereby
reiterate our resolution declaring that Republic Act 3040 infringed the provisions of the
Constitution and is therefore void.

VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY VS. COMELEC

We rule that a simple reading of Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, easily conveys
the equally simple message that Congress was vested with the broad power to define
and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. The Constitution
explicitly sets down only the percentage of the total membership in the House of
Representatives reserved for party-list
representatives. In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress enacted RA
7941. As said earlier, Congress declared therein a policy to promote "proportional
representation" in the election of party-list representatives in order to enable Filipinos
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation
that would benefit them. It however deemed
it necessary to require parties, organizations and coalitions participating in the system to
obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system in order to be
entitled to a party-list seat. Those garnering more than this percentage could have
"additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes." Furthermore, no winning
party, organization or coalition can have more than three seats in the House of
Representatives. In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that
only those parties, organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number of
constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. This
intent can be gleaned from the deliberations on the proposed bill. The two percent
threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the
law, but with the very essence of "representation." Under a republican or representative
state, all
government authority emanates from the people, but is exercised by representatives
chosen by them. But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons must have
the mandate of a sufficient number of people. Otherwise, in a legislature features the
party-list system, the result might be the proliferation of small groups which are
incapable of contributing significant legislation, and which might even pose a threat to
the stability of Congress.
Thus, even legislative districts are apportioned according to "the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure
meaningful local representation. The three-seat limit ensures the entry of various
interestrepresentations into the legislature; thus, no single group, no
matter how large its membership, would dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire
House.

ANG BAGONG BAYANI VS. COMELEC

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."
For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list
system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof, . . .." Section 3 expressly states
that a "party" is "either a political party or a sectoral party or a
coalition of parties." More to the point, the law defines "political
party" as "an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of
government and which, as the most immediate means of securing
their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its
leaders and members as candidates for public office."
Sec. 2 of RA 7941 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, who belong to marginalized
and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and who
lack well-defined constituencies; but who could contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole. "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 candidateorganization
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."
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, . . ., 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.