G.R. No.

147589 June 25, 2003

ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS;
Doctrine:

Supreme Court established the guidelines to determine the qualification of

political parties:

GUIDELINES:

1. Party must truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors

2. Major political parties are allowed but they must still represent the marginalized

3. Religious sector may not be represented but a religious leader may be a nominee

4. Must not be disqualified under Sec 6 RA 7941

5. Must be independent of the government (not adjunct, not funded, not assisted)

6. Nominees must themselves be qualified (age, residence, citizenship)

7. Nominees must belong to the marginalized/underrepresented

8. Nominee must be able to contribute to appropriate legislation

Facts:

Akbayan and Ang Bagong Bayani filed their MOTIONS before Comelec to have
some party-list groups DELETED FROM THE OFFICIAL LIST OF PARTIES.
(for the 2001 elections) They contend that there are SOME POLITICAL PARTIES
(PMP, LAKAS-NUCD, NPC, LDP, AKSYON DEMOCRATICO, PDP-LABAN,
NATIONALISTA) included in the party-list system. They argue that the party-list
system is for the marginalized and underrepresented.

Issue:

Whether or not the COMELEC was correct in including some of these

political parties in the Party-List Election.

Supreme Court Ruling:

SC: THEY ARE QUALIFIED. These political parties cannot be disqualified

from the party-list election merely on the ground that they are political parties. The
Constitution provides that the members of the House may be elected through a
party list system of REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL
PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS.

Under the Party List Law RA 7941, a PARTY is defined as either a political
party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties. A political party is also defined as
a 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. Thus, political parties, even the major
ones, may participate in the party-list elections.

While RA 7941 mentions the labor, peasants, fisherfolk, urban poor, ICCs,
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, OFWs, and professionals as
marginalized and underrepresented, the ENUMERATION IS NOT EXCLUSIVE.

Looking into the Policy behind RA 7941, it is not enough for a candidate to
claim representation among these enumerated groups because representation is
easy to claim and feign. The party-list group (even political parties) must factually
and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented.
Again, the POLICY OF THE LAW: To enable Filipinos belonging to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors who lack well-defined political
constituencies but who could contribute to legislation.

G.R. No. 179271 April 21, 2009

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND

TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (sitting
as the National Board of Canvassers)
Doctrine:

The three-seat cap provided prevents the mandatory allocation of all

available seats. The filling up of all available party list seats thus is not mandatory
and is subject to the number of participants in the party list election. The fixed 2%
vote requirement is no long viable due to the increases in both party list allotment
and the creation of additional legislative districts. The 2% vote requirement
cannot be given effect as the 20% of party list seats in the membership of the
House of Representatives as provided in the constitution would be mathematically
impossible to fill up.

Facts:

Petitioner in G.R. No. 179271 Barangay Association for National Advancement

and Transparency (BANAT) in a petition for certiorari and mandamus, assails the
Resolution promulgated on 3 August 2007 by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). The COMELEC’s 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.

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,
assails NBC Resolution No. 07-60 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 party-list
results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning party,
organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v.
COMELEC (Veterans).
 
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. On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to
Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the
Constitution. The (2%) threshold can be pegged at three hundred thirty four
thousand four hundred sixty-two (334,462). 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.

Veterans vs. Comelec formula:

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
 
In determining the additional seats for the other qualified parties, organizations
and coalitions, the correct formula as expressed in Veterans and reiterated
in CIBAC.

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
As a result:
Party List Additional Seats
BUHAY 2
BAYAN MUNA 1
CIBAC 1
GABRIELA 1
APEC 1

Acting on BANATs petition, the NBC promulgated that the petition of

Banat is now moot and academic. 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.

Banat filed a petition for certiorari assailing the above resolution. On the
other hand, Bayan Muna asked the Comelec to reconsider it’s decision in using the
Veteran’s case formula since it is violative of the Constitution and of R.A. 7941.
But the Comelec denied said petition.

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), Anak Mindanao (AMIN), and An
Waray.

Issue/s:

Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives

in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely
a ceiling?

Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

 Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 to
qualify for one seat constitutional?

How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated?

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?

Supreme Court Ruling:

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.

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 party-list
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.

Number of seats   Number of seats available

available to legislative x .20 = to
districts party-list representatives
.80    
 
R.A. 7941, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 two-percenters. 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.

Participation of Major Political Parties in 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. n 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. 

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. 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 attainsthe age of thirty (30)
during his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of his term.
 
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.

Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list
organizations nominee wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity 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, 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 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.

Petition partially granted. 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. 

G.R. No. 203766 April 2, 2013

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot,
Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
Doctrine:

In determining who may participate in party-list elections, the COMELEC

shall adhere to the following parameters:

a. 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.

b. 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.
c. 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.

d. 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.

e. 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.

f. 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.

Facts:

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. 280 groups and
organizations registered and manifested their desire to participate in the 13 May
2013 party-list elections.

COMELEC En Banc affirmed the COMELEC Second Division’s resolution to

grant Partido ng Bayan ng Bida’s (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."

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 issued a Resolution
and excluded the names of these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot
for the May 2013 party-list elections.

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.

39 petitioners (AKB, Atong Paglaum, ARAL, ARC, UNIMAD, 1BRO-PGBI,

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.

Issue:
 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 the cancellation of their existing
registration and accreditation as party-list organizations.

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.

Supreme Court Ruling:

No. However, since the Court adopts in this Decision new parameters in the
qualification of national, regional, and sectoral parties under the party-list 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.

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.

The party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation.

Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-list 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."

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.

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.

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. (the sectors shall include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers,
and professionals.")

R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to
represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Disqualification of petitioners, and their nominees, under such circumstances is

contrary to the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941. 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. All 54 petitions are hereby granted.
G.R. No. 132875-76 February 3, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ROMEO G.
JALOSJOS, accused-appellant.

Facts:

The accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, is a full-fledged member of

Congress who is confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for
statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness is pending appeal. The accused-appellant
filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a
Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings
despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense on
the basis of popular sovereignty and the need for his constituents to be represented.

Issue:

Does membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes and rules

which apply to validly incarcerated persons in general?

Supreme Court Ruling:

The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the

House of Representatives arises from a provision of the Constitution. The privilege
has always been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an
exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning
of its terms. It may not be extended by intendment, implication, or equitable
considerations. The accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be
exempted from the operation of Sec. 11, Art. VI of the Constitution. The members
of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the
absence is a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a
crime punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized
by law, it has constitutional foundations. To allow accused-appellant to attend
congressional sessions and committee meetings for 5 days or more in a week will
virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position.
Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a
special class, but it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction
system.

G.R. No. 141489 November 29, 2002

SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. et al petitioners, vs. HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, et al, respondent

Doctrine:

The House of Representatives has the power under the Constitution to

choose from among its district and party-list representatives those who may occupy
the seats allotted to the House in the HRET and the CA. If party-list representatives
desire to be represented in these bodies, the primary recourse is the House, not the
Court.

Facts:

On 3 March 1995, the Party-List System Act took effect.

On 11 May 1998, in accordance with the Party-List System Act, national

elections were held which included, for the first time, the election through popular
vote of party-list groups and organizations whose nominees would become
members of the House.

Subsequently, the House constituted its HRET and CA contingent by

electing its representatives to these two constitutional bodies. In practice, the
procedure involves the nomination by the political parties of House members who
are to occupy seats in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and
the Commission on Appointments (CA). From available records, it does not appear
that after the 11 May 1998 elections the party-list groups in the House nominated
any of their representatives to the HRET or the CA. As of the date of filing of the
present petitions for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction, the House contingents to the HRET and the CA were composed solely
of district representatives belonging to the different political parties.
 On 18 January 2000, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. wrote two letters to
Senate President Ople and Justice Melo, requesting them to cause the restructuring
of the CA and the HRET, respectively, to include party-list representatives to
conform to Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. In its meeting
of 20 January 2000, the HRET resolved to direct the Secretary of the Tribunal to
refer Senator Pimentel’s letter to the Secretary-General of the House of
Representatives. On the same day, HRET Secretary Daisy B. Panga-Vega, in an
Indorsement of even date, referred the letter to House of Representatives Secretary
General Roberto P. Nazareno.

On 2 February 2000, Eballe, et al. filed with this Court their petitions, contending
that, under the Constitution and the Party-List System Act, party-list
representatives should have 1.2 or at least 1 seat in the HRET, and 2.4 seats in the
CA. They charge that the HRET, CA, et al. committed grave abuse of discretion in
refusing to act positively on the letter of Senator Pimentel.

Issues:

Whether or not the present composition of the House Electoral Tribunal

violates the constitutional requirement of proportional representation because there
are no party-list representatives in the HRET

Whether he refusal of the HRET and the CA to reconstitute themselves to

include party-list representatives constitutes grave abuse of discretion

Supreme Court Ruling:

NO. The Constitution expressly grants to the House of Representatives the

prerogative, within constitutionally defined limits, to choose from among its
district and party-list representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to
the House in the HRET and the CA. However, under the doctrine of separation of
powers, the Court may not interfere with the exercise by the House of this
constitutionally mandated duty, absent a clear violation of the Constitution or
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The petitions are bereft of any allegation that respondents prevented the
party-list groups in the House from participating in the election of members of the
HRET and the CA. Neither does it appear that after the 11 May 1998 elections, the
House barred the party-list representatives from seeking membership in the HRET
or the CA. Rather, it appears from the available facts that the party-list groups in
the House at that time simply refrained from participating in the election process.

As the primary recourse of the party-list representatives lies with the House
of Representatives, the Court cannot resolve the issues presented by petitioners at
this time.

o NO. There is no grave abuse in the action or lack of action by the HRET
and the CA in response to the letters of Senator Pimentel. Under Sections 17 and
18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and their internal rules, the HRET and
the CA are bereft of any power to reconstitute themselves.

G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA vs. HONORABLE EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA

Doctrine:

No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an

appropriation made by law.

Facts:

Belgica, et al filed an Urgent Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition With

Prayer For The Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction seeking that the annual "Pork Barrel System," presently
embodied in the provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided for the 2013
PDAF, and the Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds, such as the Malampaya
Funds and the Presidential Social Fund, be declared unconstitutional and null and
void for being acts constituting grave abuse of discretion. Also, they pray that the
Court issue a TRO against respondents

Issue:
 Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork
Barrel Laws similar thereto are unconstitutional considering that they violate the
principles of/constitutional provisions on (a) separation of powers; (b) non-
delegability of legislation

Supreme Court Decision:

Yes, the PDAF article is unconstitutional. The post-enactment measures which

govern the areas of project identification, fund release and fund realignment are not
related to functions of congressional oversight and, hence, allow legislators to
intervene and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget
execution. This violates the principle of separation of powers. Congress’ role must
be confined to mere oversight that must be confined to: (1) scrutiny and (2)
investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws. Any action or step
beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
constitution. Thus, the court declares the 2013 pdaf article as well as all other
provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of post-
enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of the budget, unrelated
to congressional oversight, as violative of the separation of powers principle and
thus unconstitutional.

G.R. No. 163783 June 22, 2004

Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Joint Committee of Congress to Canvass the Votes
Cast for President and Vice-President in the May 10, 2004 Elections.

Doctrine:

The legislative function of the 12th Congress may come to a close upon the
final adjournment of the regular session but this does not affect its non-legislative
functions, such as that of being the National BOC.

Facts:

Sen. Pimentel, Jr. seeks a judgment declaring null and void thecontinued
existence of the Joint Committee of Congress to determine the authenticity and due
execution of the certificates of canvass and preliminarily canvass the votes cast for
Presidential and Vice- Presidential candidates in the May 10, 2004 elections
following the ajournment of Congress sine die on June 11, 2004.

He prays for the issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Joint

Committee to cease and desist from conducting any further proceedings pursuant
to the Rules of the Joint Public Session of Congress on Canvassing.

With the adjournment sine die on June 11, 2004 by the Twelfth Congress, all
its pending matters and proceedings terminate upon its expiration (citing Section
15, Art. VI of the Constitution).

The precedents set by the 1992 and 1998 Presidential Elections do not
support the move to stop the ongoing canvassing by the Joint Committee.

Issue:

Whether or not the continued existence of the Joint Committee of Congress

to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President upon its ajournment sine die
is null and void.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Supreme Court: The instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED.

1. The Petition has no basis under the Constitution.

2. The term of the present Twelfth Congress did not terminate and expire upon
the ajournment sine die of the regular session of both Houses on June 11, 2004.
Section 15, Art. VI of the Constitution does not pertain to the term of Congress,
but to its regular annual legislative sessions.

3. The legislative functions of the Twelfth Congress may have come to a close
upon the final ajournment of its regular sessions on June 11, 2004, but this does
not affect its non-legislative functions, such as being the National Board of
Canvassers.
4. The joint public session cannot ajourn sine die until it has accomplished its
constitutionally mandated task.