Atong Paglaum v COMELEC Laws/Concepts
 Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941) and
 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”.
 RA 7491 – A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or
a coalition of parties. 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.
Can political parties participate in the party-list elections?
Yes, except for the major political parties. Major political parties are
those that field candidate in the legislative district election. They cannot
participate as they neither lack “well-defined political constituencies”
nor represent “marginalized and underrepresented sectors” which are
included in the declared policy of the Party List System Act. However,
they can participate through their “sectoral wings”, majority of whose
members are marginalized and underrepresented or lacking well-
defined political constituencies.
How does sectoral wings qualify?
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
Facts:
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
 Pursuant to paragraph 2 22 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.
COMELEC 23 (Ang Bagong Bayani) . The COMELEC disqualified various
party lists. Most of the grounds for denial are:
a. Failure to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector.
b. The nominees are not marginalized and underrepresented.
c. The nominees do not represent the sectors which the party represents
Issues:
1. W/N 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;
2. W/N 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 Elections 49 (BANAT) should be applied by
the COMELEC in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
Ruling: The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following
prevailing decisions of the Court in disqualifying the petitioners. However, the Court
is now adopting new set of parameters.
Ratio:
 The party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral
representation
 [Deliberations] 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. Political parties may field
sectoral candidates. Party list system is open to all.
 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
 elections) provided the coalition of which they form part does not question the claims of the existence of such sectoral organizations or
participate in the party-list system. parties. This proceeding shall be conducted by the COMELEC and shall be
summary in character.

 Intention of the 1987 Constitutional Commission

The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-list system to
Should all party lists represent the marginalized and include not only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral parties. The
underrepresented? framers intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the
No. RA No. 7491 does not require national and regional parties or entirety, of the party-list system. As explained by Commissioner Wilfredo
organizations to represent the marginalized and underrepresented Villacorta, political parties can participate in the party-list system " [F]or as
sectors. It is sufficient that the political party consists of citizens who long as they field candidates who come from the different marginalized
advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same governance sectors that we shall designate in this Constitution."
principles and policies, regardless of their economic status as citizens.
 “National, Regional or Sectoral” – National and regional parties are separate
from sectoral parties. Intention was to have 3 groups.
Who are the sectors? The sectors shall include labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals. These are not necessarily marginalized.

“Marginalized and Underrepresented” – stated in the policy but does

not necessarily require or limit party lists to be dedicated to the
marginalized and underrepresented. The phrase "marginalized and
underrepresented" should refer only to the sectors in Section 5 that are,
by their nature , economically "marginalized and underrepresented”
(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.

 Definition of the three groups under RA No. 7491

a. National Party - when its constituency is spread over the

geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions
b. Regional Party - when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and
provinces comprising the region.
c. 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.

 Qualifications Party-List Nominees under Section 9 of RA No. 7491

 1. Natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. Registered Voter
3. Resident of the Philippines for a period not less than one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of election
4. Able to Read and Write
5. Bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to
represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of the election.
6. At least 25 years of age on the day of election.**

**For youth sectors: The nominee must at least be 25 years but not more
than 30 years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral
representative who attains the age of 30 during his term shall be allowed
to continue in office until the expiration of his term.

What does “bona-fide member” means?

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.

Summary of the Changes:

1. Ang Bagong Bayani Decision/Doctrine

It was ruled 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 statutory policy of enabling the
“marginalized and underrepresented” to become members of Congress.
This effectively disqualified major political parties from participating in
the system.

2. BANAT Decision

The major political parties were officially excluded from participating,

even their sectoral wings.

The Court finds these rulings contrary to law, in that RA 7941 Sec 11 prohibits
such major political parties (first five) from participating ONLY in the May 1988
elections and not perpetually. After which, they can already participate through
their “sectoral wings,” an independent sectoral party that is linked to the major
political party through a coalition.
 
The Court promulgates new guidelines/parameters in the determination of the
qualification of a party-list group:
 
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 partylist 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.
It is clear from the foregoing that a new rule has been set: not all parties in the
party-list system have to represent a sector that is marginalized and
underrepresented.
Navarro v Executive Laws/Concepts
Secretary
Local Government Code
Local Government Code - IRR
Facts:
•October 2006 – President approved RA 9355 – An Act Creating the Province of
Dinagat
•December 3, 2006 – COMELEC conducted the mandatory plebiscite for the
ratification of the creation of the province under the Local Government Code (LGC)
which yielded 69,943 affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes.
•With the approval of the people from both the mother province of Surigao del Norte
and the Province of Dinagat Islands (Dinagat), the President appointed the interim
set of provincial officials who took their oath of office on January 26, 2007. Later,
during the May 14, 2007 synchronized elections, the Dinagatnons elected their new
set of provincial officials who assumed office on July 1, 2007.
•November 10, 2006 – Navarro and Medina, former political leaders of Surigao del
Norte, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of RA No. 9355. They alleged
that the creation of Dinagat as a new province, if uncorrected, would perpetuate an
illegal act of Congress, and would unjustly deprive the people of Surigao del Norte of a
large chunk of the provincial territory, Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA), and rich
resources from the area. They pointed out that when the law was passed, Dinagat had
a land area of 802.12 square kilometers only and a population of only 106,951, failing
to comply with Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and of Section 461 of the LGC,
on both counts.
•February 10, 2010 – The Court granted the petition and declared R.A. No 9355 as
unconstitutional for failure to comply with the requirements on population and land
area in the creation of a province under LGC. Consequently, it declared the
proclamation of Dinagat and the election of its officials as null and void.
• The Decision likewise declared as null and void the provision on Article 9 (2) of the
Rules and Regulations Implementing the LGC (LGC-IRR), stating that, "[t]he land area
requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or
more islands" for being beyond the ambit of Article 461 of the LGC, inasmuch as such
exemption is not expressly provided in the law.
Issue:
A. Proper interpretation of the 2,000 sqm requirement – see discussion
B. Uphold validity due to the plebiscite

Section 7, Chapter 2 of the LGC:
As a general rule, the creation of a local government unit or its conversion from
one level to another level shall be based on verifiable indicators of viability and
projected capacity to provide services, to wit:
a) Income. — It must be sufficient, based on acceptable standards, to provide for
all essential government facilities and services and special functions
commensurate with the size of its population, as expected of the local government
unit concerned;
(b) Population. — It shall be determined as the total number of inhabitants
within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned; and
(c) Land area. — It must be contiguous, unless it comprises two (2) or more
islands or is separated by a local government unit independent of the others;
properly identified by metes and bounds with technical descriptions; and
sufficient to provide for such basic services and facilities to meet the
requirements of its populace.
Compliance with the foregoing indicators shall be attested to by the Department
of Finance (DOF), the National Statistics Office (NSO), and the Lands Management
Bureau (LMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Difference between the LGC and the LGC IRR
There are two requirements for land area: (1) The land area must be contiguous;
and (2) the land area must be sufficient to provide for such basic services and
The contention does not persuade. The validity of R.A. No. 9355 reating the
province of Dinagat Islands depends on its compliance with Section 10,
Article X of the Constitution.
Initial Ruling: Although the political units directly affected by the creation of the
Province of Dinagat Islands approved the creation of the said province, R.A. No. 9355
failed to comply with the criteria for the creation of the province contained in Section
461 of the Local Government Code; hence, it was declared unconstitutional.
Moreover, the initial ruling declared that the provision of the IRR particularly on the
exception to the 2,000 sq km land requirement is void as it is not aligned with the
provision of the LGC.
Reversal of the Initial Ruling:
There appears neither rhyme nor reason why this exemption should apply to cities
and municipalities, but not to provinces. In fact, considering the physical
configuration of the Philippine archipelago, there is a greater likelihood that islands
or group of islands would form part of the land area of a newly-created province than
in most cities or municipalities. It is, therefore, logical to infer that the genuine
legislative policy decision was expressed in Section 442 (for municipalities) and
Section 450 (for component cities) of the LGC, but was inadvertently omitted in
Section 461 (for provinces). Thus, when the exemption was expressly provided in
Article 9 (2) of the LGC-IRR, the inclusion was intended to correct the congressional
oversight in Section 461 of the LGC — and to reflect the true legislative intent. It
would, then, be in order for the Court to uphold the validity of Article 9 (2) of the LGC-
IRR.
Legislative Intent
The above interpretation is consistent with the policy of the LGC.
Consistent with the declared policy to provide local government units genuine and
facilities to meet the requirements of its populace. A sufficient land area in the
creation of a province is at least 2,000 square kilometers, as provided by Section
461 of the Local Government Code.
However, paragraph (b) of Section 461 provides two instances of exemption from
the requirement of territorial contiguity. It clearly states that the requirement of
territorial contiguity may be dispensed with in the case of a province (1)
comprising two or more islands or (2) is separated by a chartered city or cities
which do not contribute to the income of the province.
Nowhere in paragraph (b) is it expressly stated or may it be implied that when a
province is composed of two or more islands or when the territory of a province
is separated by a chartered city or cities, such province need not comply with the
land area requirement of at least 2,000 square kilometers or the requirement in
paragraph (a) (i) of Section 461 of the Local Government Code.
(The above issue was clarified in the final ruling. See discussion on the right
regarding the reversal.)
Application of Statutory Construction
The IRR as a supplement to the LGC
Elementary is the principle that, if the literal application of the law results in
absurdity, impossibility, or injustice, then courts may resort to extrinsic aids of
statutory construction, such as the legislative history of the law, or may consider
the implementing rules and regulations and pertinent executive issuances in the
nature of executive and/or legislative construction.
Pursuant to this principle, Article 9 (2) of the LGC-IRR should be deemed
incorporated in the basic law, the LGC. It is well to remember that the LGC-IRR
was formulated by the Oversight Committee consisting of members of both the
Executive and Legislative departments, pursuant to Section 533 32 of the LGC. As
Section 533 provides, the Oversight Committee shall formulate and issue the
appropriate rules and regulations necessary for the efficient and effective
implementation of any and all provisions of this Code, thereby ensuring
compliance with the principles of local autonomy as defined under the
Constitution.
In this case, the main policy of the creation of LGU’s preceded the inconsistencies
in the LGC and the IRR.
meaningful local autonomy, contiguity and minimum land area requirements for
prospective local government units should be liberally construed in order to achieve
the desired results. The strict interpretation adopted by the February 10, 2010
Decision could prove to be counterproductive, if not outright absurd, awkward, and
impractical.
The component cities and municipalities which consist of islands are exempt from the
minimum land area requirement, pursuant to Sections 450 and 442, respectively, of
the LGC. Yet, the province would be made to comply with the minimum land area
criterion of 2,000 square kilometers, even if it consists of several islands. This would
mean that Congress has opted to assign a distinctive preference to create a province
with contiguous land area over one composed of islands — and negate the greater
imperative of development of self-reliant communities, rural progress, and the
delivery of basic services to the constituency. This preferential option would prove
more difficult and burdensome if the 2,000-square-kilometer territory of a province
is scattered because the islands are separated by bodies of water, as compared to one
with a contiguous land mass.
Application of the main policy re: 3 verifiable indicators of viability and
projected capacity to provide services:
The land area, while considered as an indicator of viability of a local government unit,
is not conclusive in showing that Dinagat cannot become a province, taking into
account its average annual income of P82,696,433.23 at the time of its creation, as
certified by the Bureau of Local Government Finance, which is four times more than
the minimum requirement of P20,000,000.00 for the creation of a province. The
delivery of basic services to its constituents has been proven possible and
sustainable.
Policy:
Economic Viability – economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the
people in the community.
Capacity of Development
Decentralization/Local Autonomy/Administrative Convenience
Ratio legis est anima. The spirit rather than the letter of the law. A statute must be
read according to its spirit or intent, for what is within the spirit is within the
statute although it is not within its letter, and that which is within the letter but
not within the spirit is not within the statute. Put a bit differently, that which is
within the intent of the lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the
letter, and that which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute
unless within the intent of the lawmakers. Withal, courts ought not to interpret
and should not accept an interpretation that would defeat the intent of the law
and its legislators.

So as it is exhorted to pass on a challenge against the validity of an act of Congress,

a co-equal branch of government, it behooves the Court to have at once one
principle in mind: the presumption of constitutionality of statutes.

This presumption finds its roots in the tripartite system of government and the
corollary separation of powers, which enjoins the three great departments of the
government to accord a becoming courtesy for each other's acts, and not to
interfere inordinately with the exercise by one of its official functions. Towards
this end, courts ought to reject assaults against the validity of statutes, barring of
course their clear unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain, the theory in context
being that the law is the product of earnest studies by Congress to ensure that no
constitutional prescription or concept is infringed. Consequently, before a law
duly challenged is nullified, an unequivocal breach of, or a clear conflict with, the
Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative one, must be demonstrated
in such a manner as to leave no doubt in the mind of the Court.