G.R. No. 134015 July 19, 1999
Dema-ala,
JUAN DOMINO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NARCISO Ra. GRAFILO, JR., EDDY B.
JAVA, JUAN P. BAYONITO, JR., ROSARIO SAMSON and DIONISIO P. LIM, SR., respondent, LUCILLE
CHIONGBIAN-SOLON, intervenor.
 DAVIDE, JR., CJ.:
Challenged in this case for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction are the Resolution of 6 May
1998  of the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (hereafter COMELEC), declaring petitioner Juan
1 stub was issued to Carlito Engcong on September 5, 1997, while
Domino (hereafter DOMINO) disqualified as candidate for representative of the Lone Legislative District of the
Province of Sarangani in the 11 May 1998 elections, and the Decision of 29 May 1998  of the COMELEC en2
banc denying DOMINO's motion for reconsideration.
The antecedents are not disputed.
1âwphi1.nêt
On 25 March 1998, DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the Lone
Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani indicating in item nine (9) of his certificate that he had resided
in the constituency where he seeks to be elected for one (1) year and two (2) months immediately preceding
the election.
3 Deputy Provincial Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer of Alabel,
On 30 March 1998, private respondents Narciso Ra. Grafilo, Jr., Eddy B. Java, Juan P. Bayonito, Jr., Rosario
Samson and Dionisio P. Lim, Sr., fied with the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel
Certificate of Candidacy, which was docketed as SPA No. 98-022 and assigned to the Second Division of the
COMELEC. Private respondents alleged that DOMINO, contrary to his declaration in the certificate of
candidacy, is not a resident, much less a registered voter, of the province of Sarangani where he seeks
election. To substantiate their allegations, private respondents presented the following evidence:
1. Annex "A" — the Certificate of Candidacy of respondent for the position
of Congressman of the Lone District of the Province of Sarangani filed
with the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Sarangani on
March 25, 1998, where in item 4 thereof he wrote his date of birth as
December 5, 1953; in item 9, he claims he have resided in the
constituency where he seeks election for one (1) year and two (2)
months; and, in item 10, that he is registered voter of Precinct No. 14A-1,
Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani;
2. Annex "B" — Voter's Registration Record with SN 31326504 dated
June 22, 1997 indicating respondent's registration at Precinct No. 4400-A,
Old Balara, Quezon City;
3. Annex "C" — Respondent's Community Tax Certificate No. 11132214C
dated January 15, 1997;
4. Annex "D" — Certified true copy of the letter of Herson D.
Deputy Provincial & Municipal Treasurer of Alabel, Sarangani, dated
February 26, 1998, addressed to Mr. Conrado G. Butil, which reads:
In connection with your letter of even date, we are furnishing you herewith
certified xerox copy of the triplicate copy of COMMUNITY TAX
CERTIFICATE NO. 11132214C in the name of Juan Domino.
Furthermore, Community Tax Certificate No. 11132212C of the same
Certificate No. 11132213C was also issued to Mr. Juan Domino but was
cancelled and serial no. 11132215C was issued in the name of Marianita
Letigio on September 8, 1997.
5. Annex "E" — The triplicate copy of the Community Tax Certificate No.
11132214C in the name of Juan Domino dated September 5, 1997;
6. Annex "F" — Copy of the letter of Provincial Treasurer Lourdes P.
Riego dated March 2, 1998 addressed to Mr. Herson D. Dema-ala,
Sarangani, which states:
For easy reference, kindly turn-over to the undersigned for safekeeping,
the stub of Community Tax Certificate containing Nos. 11132201C-
11132250C issued to you on June 13, 1997 and paid under Official
Receipt No. 7854744.
Upon request of Congressman James L. Chiongbian.
7. Annex "G" — Certificate of Candidacy of respondent for the position of
Congressman in the 3rd District of Quezon City for the 1995 elections
filed with the Office of the Regional Election Director, National Capital
Region, on March 17, 1995, where, in item 4 thereof, he wrote his birth
date as December 22, 1953; in item 8 thereof his "residence in the
constituency where I seek to be elected immediately preceding the
election" as 3 years and 5 months; and, in item 9, that he is a registered
voter of Precinct No. 182, Barangay Balara, Quezon City;
8. Annex "H" — a copy of the APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF
REGISTRATION RECORDS DUE TO CHANGE OF RESIDENCE of
respondent dated August 30, 1997 addressed to and received by Election
Officer Mantil Alim, Alabel, Sarangani, on September 22, 1997, stating
among others, that "[T]he undersigned's previous residence is at 24
Bonifacio Street, Ayala Heights, Quezon City, III District, Quezon City;
wherein he is a registered voter" and "that for business and residence
 purposes, the undersigned has transferred and conducts his business
and reside at Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Province of Sarangani prior to
this application;"
9. Annex "I" — Copy of the SWORN APPLICATION FOR OF
CANCELLATION OF THE VOTER'S [TRANSFER OF] PREVIOUS
REGISTRATION of respondent subscribed and sworn to on 22 October
1997 before Election Officer Mantil Allim at Alabel, Sarangani. 
4
For his defense, DOMINO maintains that he had complied with the one-year residence requirement and that
he has been residing in Sarangani since January 1997. In support of the said contention, DOMINO presented
before the COMELEC the following exhibits, to wit:
1. Annex "1" — Copy of the Contract of Lease between Nora Dacaldacal
as Lessor and Administrator of the properties of deceased spouses
Maximo and Remedios Dacaldacal and respondent as Lessee executed
on January 15, 1997, subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public
Johnny P. Landero;
2. Annex "2" — Copy of the Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate with
Absolute Deed of sale executed by and between the heirs of deceased
spouses Maximo and Remedios Dacaldacal, namely: Maria Lourdes,
Jupiter and Beberlie and the respondent on November 4, 1997,
subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Jose A. Alegario;
3. Annex "3" — True Carbon Xerox copy of the Decision dated January
19, 1998, of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro Manila, Branch 35,
Quezon City, in Election Case NO. 725 captioned as "In the Matter of the
Petition for the Exclusion from the List of voters of Precinct No. 4400-A
Brgy. Old Balara, Quezon City, Spouses Juan and Zorayda Domino,
Petitioners, -versus- Elmer M. Kayanan, Election Officer, Quezon City,
District III, and the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct No. 4400-A,
Old Balara, Quezon City, Respondents." The dispositive portion of which
reads:
1. Declaring the registration of petitioners as voters of
Precinct No. 4400-A, Barangay Old Balara, in District III
Quezon City as completely erroneous as petitioners
were no longer residents of Quezon City but of Alabel,
Sarangani where they have been residing since
December 1996;
2. Declaring this erroneous registration of petitioners in
Quezon City as done in good faith due to an honest
mistake caused by circumstances beyond their control
and without any fault of petitioners;
3. Approving the transfer of registration of voters of
petitioners from Precint No. 4400-A of Barangay Old
Balara, Quezon City to Precinct No. 14A1 of Barangay
Poblacion of Alabel, Sarangani; and
4. Ordering the respondents to immediately transfer
and forward all the election/voter's registration records
of the petitioners in Quezon City to the Election Officer,
the Election Registration Board and other Comelec
Offices of Alabel, Sarangani where the petitioners are
obviously qualified to excercise their respective rights of
suffrage.
4. Annex "4" — Copy of the Application for Transfer of Registration
Records due to Change of Residence addressed to Mantil Alim,
COMELEC Registrar, Alabel, Sarangani, dated August 30, 1997.
5. Annex "5" — Certified True Copy of the Notice of Approval of
Application, the roster of applications for registration approved by the
Election Registration Board on October 20, 1997, showing the spouses
Juan and Zorayda Bailon Domino listed as numbers 111 and 112 both
under Precinct No. 14A1, the last two names in the slate indicated as
transferees without VRR numbers and their application dated August 30,
1997 and September 30, 1997, respectively.
6. Annex "6" — same as Annex "5"
7. Annex "6-a" — Copy of the Sworn Application for Cancellation of
Voter's Previous Registration (Annex "I", Petition);
8. Annex "7" — Copy of claim card in the name of respondent showing his
VRR No. 31326504 dated October 20, 1997 as a registered voter of
Precinct No. 14A1, Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani;
9. Annex "7-a" — Certification dated April 16, 1998, issued by Atty. Elmer
M. Kayanan, Election Officer IV, District III, Quezon City, which reads:
This is to certify that the spouses JUAN and ZORAYDA DOMINO are no
longer registered voters of District III, Quezon City. Their registration
records (VRR) were transferred and are now in the possession of the
Election Officer of Alabel, Sarangani.
This certification is being issued upon the request of Mr. JUAN DOMINO.
 10. Annex "8" — Affidavit of Nora Dacaldacal and Maria Lourdes
Dacaldacal stating the circumstances and incidents detailing their alleged
acquaintance with respondent.
11. Annexes "8-a", "8-b", "8-c" and "8-d" — Copies of the uniform
affidavits of witness Myrna Dalaguit, Hilario Fuentes, Coraminda Lomibao
and Elena V. Piodos subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public
Bonifacio F. Doria, Jr., on April 18, 1998, embodying their alleged
personal knowledge of respondent's residency in Alabel, Sarangani;
12. Annex "8-e" — A certification dated April 20, 1998, subscribed and
sworn to before Notary Public Bonifacio, containing a listing of the names
of fifty-five (55) residents of Alabel, Sarangani, declaring and certifying
under oath that they personally know the respondent as a permanent
resident of Alabel, Sarangani since January 1997 up to present;
13. Annexes "9", "9-a" and "9-b" — Copies of Individual Income Tax
Return for the year 1997, BIR form 2316 and W-2, respectively, of
respondent; and,
14. Annex "10" — The affidavit of respondent reciting the chronology of
events and circumstances leading to his relocation to the Municipality of
Alabel, Sarangani, appending Annexes "A", "B", "C", "D", "D-1", "E", "F",
"G" with sub-markings "G-1" and "G-2" and "H" his CTC No. 111`32214C
dated September 5, 1997, which are the same as Annexes "1", "2", "4",
"5", "6-a", "3", "7", "9" with sub-markings "9-a" and "9-b" except Annex
"H".5
On 6 May 1998, the COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated a resolution declaring DOMINO disqualified as
candidate for the position of representative of the lone district of Sarangani for lack of the one-year residence
requirement and likewise ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy, on the basis of the following
findings:
What militates against respondent's claim that he has met the residency requirement for the
position sought is his own Voter's Registration Record No. 31326504 dated June 22, 1997
[Annex "B", Petition] and his address indicated as 24 Bonifacio St., Ayala Heights, Old
Balara, Quezon City. This evidence, standing alone, negates all his protestations that he
established residence at Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani, as early as January 1997.
It is highly improbable, nay incredible, for respondent who previously ran for the same
position in the 3rd Legislative District of Quezon City during the elections of 1995 to
unwittingly forget the residency requirement for the office sought.
Counting, therefore, from the day after June 22, 1997 when respondent registered at
Precinct No. 4400-A, up to and until the day of the elections on May 11, 1998, respondent
clearly lacks the one (1) year residency requirement provided for candidates for Member of
the House of Representatives under Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution.
All told, petitioner's evidence conspire to attest to respondent's lack of residence in the
constituency where he seeks election and while it may be conceded that he is a registered
voter as contemplated under Section 12 of R.A. 8189, he lacks the qualification to run for
the position of Congressman for the Lone District of the Province of Sarangani.
6
On 11 May 1998, the day of the election, the COMELEC issued Supplemental Omnibus Resolution No. 3046,
ordering that the votes cast for DOMINO be counted but to suspend the proclamation if winning, considering
that the Resolution disqualifying him as candidate had not yet become final and executory.7
The result of the election, per Statement of Votes certified by the Chairman of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers,  shows that DOMINO garnered the highest number of votes over his opponents for the position
8
of Congressman of the Province of Sarangani.
On 15 May 1998, DOMINO filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated 6 May 1998, which was
denied by the COMELEC en banc in its decision dated 29 May 1998. Hence, the present Petition
for Certiorari with prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction alleging, in the main, that the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it ruled that he did not
meet the one-year residence requirement.
On 14 July 1998, acting on DOMINO's Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, the Court
directed the parties to maintain the status quo prevailing at the time of the filing of the instant petition.
9
On 15 September 1998, Lucille L. Chiongbian-Solon, (hereafter INTERVENOR), the candidate receiving the
second highest number of votes, was allowed by the Court to Intervene.  INTERVENOR in her Motion for
10
Leave to Intervene and in her Comment in Intervention   is asking the Court to uphold the disqualification of
11
petitioner Juan Domino and to proclaim her as the duly elected representative of Sarangani in the 11 May
1998 elections.
Before us DOMINO raised the following issues for resolution, to wit:
a. Whether or not the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
City declaring petitioner as resident of Sarangani and not of Quezon City
is final, conclusive and binding upon the whole world, including the
Commission on Elections.
b. Whether or not petitioner herein has resided in the subject
congressional district for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the
May 11, 1998 elections; and
c. Whether or not respondent COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petition
a quo for the disqualification of petitioner.
12

The first issue.
The contention of DOMINO that the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City in the exclusion
proceedings declaring him a resident of the Province of Sarangani and not of Quezon City is final and
conclusive upon the COMELEC cannot be sustained.
The COMELEC has jurisdiction as provided in Sec. 78, Art. IX of the Omnibus Election Code, over a petition
to deny due course to or cancel certificate of candidacy. In the exercise of the said jurisdiction, it is within the
competence of the COMELEC to determine whether false representation as to material facts was made in the
certificate of candidacy, that will include, among others, the residence of the candidate.
The determination of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City in the exclusion proceedings as to the right
of DOMINO to be included or excluded from the list of voters in the precinct within its territorial jurisdicton,
does not preclude the COMELEC, in the determination of DOMINO's qualification as a candidate, to pass
upon the issue of compliance with the residency requirement.
The proceedings for the exclusion or inclusion of voters in the list of voters are summary in character. Thus,
the factual findings of the trial court and its resultant conclusions in the exclusion proceedings on matters
other than the right to vote in the precinct within its territorial jurisdiction are not conclusive upon the
COMELEC. Although the court in inclusion or exclusion proceedings may pass upon any question necessary
to decide the issue raised including the questions of citizenship and residence of the challenged voter, the
authority to order the inclusion in or exclusion from the list of voters necessarily caries with it the power to
inquire into and settle all matters essential to the exercise of said authority. However, except for the right to
remain in the list of voters or for being excluded therefrom for the particular election in relation to which the
proceedings had been held, a decision in an exclusion or inclusion proceeding, even if final and unappealable,
does not acquire the nature of res judicata.  In this sense, it does not operate as a bar to any future action that
13
a party may take concerning the subject passed upon in the proceeding.  Thus, a decision in an exclusion
14
proceeding would neither be conclusive on the voter's political status, nor bar subsequent proceedings on his
right to be registered as a voter in any other election.
15
Thus, in Tan Cohon v. Election Registrar  we ruled that:
16
. . . It is made clear that even as it is here held that the order of the City Court in question
has become final, the same does not constitute res adjudicata as to any of the matters
therein contained. It is ridiculous to suppose that such an important and intricate matter of
citizenship may be passed upon and determined with finality in such a summary and
peremptory proceeding as that of inclusion and exclusion of persons in the registry list of
voters. Even if the City Court had granted appellant's petition for inclusion in the permanent
list of voters on the allegation that she is a Filipino citizen qualified to vote, her alleged
Filipino citizenship would still have been left open to question.
Moreover, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City in its 18 January decision exceeded its jurisdiction
when it declared DOMINO a resident of the Province of Sarangani, approved and ordered the transfer of his
voter's registration from Precinct No. 4400-A of Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City to precinct 14A1 of
Barangay Poblacion, Alabel, Sarangani. It is not within the competence of the trial court, in an exclusion
proceedings, to declare the challenged voter a resident of another municipality. The jurisdiction of the lower
court over exclusion cases is limited only to determining the right of voter to remain in the list of voters or to
declare that the challenged voter is not qualified to vote in the precint in which he is registered, specifying the
ground of the voter's disqualification. The trial court has no power to order the change or transfer of
registration from one place of residence to another for it is the function of the election Registration Board as
provided under Section 12 of R.A. No. 8189.   The only effect of the decision of the lower court excluding the
17
challenged voter from the list of voters, is for the Election Registration Board, upon receipt of the final
decision, to remove the voter's registration record from the corresponding book of voters, enter the order of
exclusion therein, and thereafter place the record in the inactive file.
18
Finally, the application of the rule on res judicata is unavailing. Identity of parties, subject matter and cause of
action are indispensable requirements for the application of said doctrine. Neither herein Private Respondents
nor INTERVENOR, is a party in the exclusion proceedings. The Petition for Exclusion was filed by DOMINDO
himself and his wife, praying that he and his wife be excluded from the Voter's List on the ground of erroneous
registration while the Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy was filed by private
respondents against DOMINO for alleged false representation in his certificate of candidacy. For the decision
to be a basis for the dismissal by reason of res judicata, it is essential that there must be between the first and
the second action identity of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of causes of action.  In the present
19
case, the aforesaid essential requisites are not present. In the case of Nuval v.  Guray, et al.,   the Supreme
20
Court in resolving a similar issue ruled that:
The question to be solved under the first assignment of error is whether or not the judgment
rendered in the case of the petition for the exclusion of Norberto Guray's name from the
election list of Luna, is res judicata, so as to prevent the institution and prosecution of an
action in quo warranto, which is now before us.
The procedure prescribed by section 437 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act
No. 3387, is of a summary character and the judgment rendered therein is not appealable
except when the petition is tried before the justice of the peace of the capital or the circuit
judge, in which case it may be appealed to the judge of first instance, with whom said two
lower judges have concurrent jurisdiction.
The petition for exclusion was presented by Gregorio Nuval in his dual capacity as qualified
voter of the municipality of Luna, and as a duly registered candidate for the office of
president of said municipality, against Norberto Guray as a registered voter in the election
list of said municipality. The present proceeding of quo warranto was interposed by
Gregorio Nuval in his capacity as a registered candidate voted for the office of municipal
president of Luna, against Norberto Guray, as an elected candidate for the same office.
Therefore, there is no identity of parties in the two cases, since it is not enough that there be
an identity of persons, but there must be an identity of capacities in which said persons
litigate. (Art. 1259 of the Civil Code; Bowler vs. Estate of Alvarez, 23 Phil., 561; 34 Corpus
Juris, p. 756, par. 1165)
 In said case of the petition for the exclusion, the object of the litigation, or the litigious matter
was the exclusion of Norberto Guray as a voter from the election list of the municipality of
Luna, while in the present que warranto proceeding, the object of the litigation, or the
litigious matter is his exclusion or expulsion from the office to which he has been elected.
Neither does there exist, then, any identity in the object of the litigation, or the litigious
matter.
In said case of the petition for exclusion, the cause of action was that Norberto Guray had
not the six months' legal residence in the municipality of Luna to be a qualified voter thereof,
while in the present proceeding of quo warranto, the cause of action is that Norberto Guray
has not the one year's legal residence required for eligibility to the office of municipal
president of Luna. Neither does there exist therefore, identity of causes of action.
In order that res judicata may exist the following are necessary: (a) identity of parties; (b)
identity of things; and (c) identity of issues (Aquino v. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 850). And
as in the case of the petition for excluision and in the present quo warranto proceeding, as
there is no identity of parties, or of things or litigious matter, or of issues or causes of action,
there is no res judicata.
The Second Issue.
Was DOMINO a resident of the Province of Sarangani for at least one year immediately preceding the 11 May
1998 election as stated in his certificate of candidacy?
We hold in the negative.
It is doctrinally settled that the term "residence," as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage
and for elective office, means the same thing as "domicile," which imports not only an intention to reside in a
fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention.  "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, whenever absent for business, pleasure,
21
or some other reasons, one intends to return.  "Domicile" is a question of intention and circumstances. In the
22
consideration of circumstances, three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that a man must have a
residence or domicile somewhere; (2) when once established it remains until a new one is acquired; and (3) a
man can have but one residence or domicile at a time. 23
Records show that petitioner's domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos
Sur   and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice at 24 Bonifacio St. Ayala Heights, Old
24
Balara, Quezon City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy for the position of representative of the 3rd
District of Quezon City in the May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he had effectively abandoned
his "residence" in Quezon City and has established a new "domicile" of choice at the Province of Sarangani.
A person's "domicile" once established is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one
is established.   To successfully effect a change of domicile one must demonstrate an actual removal or an
25
actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing
a new one and definite acts which correspond with the
purpose.   In other words, there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The
26
purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of
residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual. 27
It is the contention of petitioner that his actual physical presence in Alabel, Sarangani since December 1996
was sufficiently established by the lease of a house and lot located therein in January 1997 and by the
affidavits and certifications under oath of the residents of that place that they have seen petitioner and his
family residing in their locality.
While this may be so, actual and physical is not in itself sufficient to show that from said date he had
transferred his residence in that place. To establish a new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place
must be coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. While "residence" simply requires bodily presence in
a given place, "domicile" requires not only such bodily presence in that place but also a declared and probable
intent to make it one's fixed and permanent place of abode, one's home. 28
As a general rule, the principal elements of domicile, physical presence in the locality involved and intention to
adopt it as a domicile, must concur in order to establish a new domicile. No change of domicile will result if
either of these elements is absent. Intention to acquire a domicile without actual residence in the locality does
not result in acquisition of domicile, nor does the fact of physical presence without intention.
29
The lease contract entered into sometime in January 1997, does not adequately support a change of domicile.
The lease contract may be indicative of DOMINO's intention to reside in Sarangani but it does not engender
the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of one's original domicile. The mere absence of
individual from his permanent residence, no matter how long, without the intention to abandon it does not
result in loss or change of
domicile.   Thus the date of the contract of lease of a house and lot located in the province of Sarangani, i.e.,
30
15 January 1997, cannot be used, in the absence of other circumstances, as the reckoning period of the one-
year residence requirement.
Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his residence in Quezon City is further strengthened by his act
of registering as voter in one of the precincts in Quezon City. While voting is not conclusive of residence, it
does give rise to a strong presumption of residence especially in this case where DOMINO registered in his
former barangay. Exercising the right of election franchise is a deliberate public assertion of the fact of
residence, and is said to have decided preponderance in a doubtful case upon the place the elector claims as,
or believes to be, his residence.  The fact that a party continously voted in a particular locality is a strong
31
factor in assisting to determine the status of his domicile. 32
His claim that his registration in Quezon City was erroneous and was caused by events over which he had no
control cannot be sustained. The general registration of voters for purposes of the May 1998 elections was
scheduled for two (2) consecutive weekends, viz.: June 14, 15, 21, and 22. 33
While, Domino's intention to establish residence in Sarangani can be gleaned from the fact that be bought the
house he was renting on November 4, 1997, that he sought cancellation of his previous registration in Qezon
City on 22 October 1997,  and that he applied for transfer of registration from Quezon City to Sarangani by
34
reason of change of residence on 30 August 1997,  DOMINO still falls short of the one year residency
35
requirement under the Constitution.
In showing compliance with the residency requirement, both intent and actual presence in the district one
intends to represent must satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental law.  Domino's failure to do
36
so rendered him ineligible and his election to office null and void.
37
The Third Issue.
DOMINO's contention that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction in the present petition is bereft of merit.
As previously mentioned, the COMELEC, under Sec. 78, Art. IX of the Omnibus Election Code, has
jurisdiction over a petition to deny due course to or cancel certificate of candidacy. Such jurisdiction continues
even after election, if for any reason no final judgment of disqualification is rendered before the election, and
the candidate facing disqualification is voted for and receives the highest number of votes  and provided
38
further that the winning candidate has not been proclaimed or has taken his oath of office. 39
It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases, that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's sole
and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of
Congress as provided under Section 17 of Article VI of the Constitution begins only after a candidate has
become a member of the House of Representatives.  40
The fact of obtaining the highest number of votes in an election does not automatically vest the position in the
winning candidate.  A candidate must be proclaimed and must have taken his oath of office before he can be
41
considered a member of the House of Representatives.
In the instant case, DOMINO was not proclaimed as Congressman-elect of the Lone Congressional District of
the Province of Sarangani by reason of a Supplemental Omnibus Resolution issued by the COMELEC on the
day of the election ordering the suspension of DOMINO's proclamation should he obtain the winning number
of votes. This resolution was issued by the COMELEC in view of the non-finality of its 6 May 1998 resolution
disqualifying DOMINO as candidate for the position.
Cosidering that DOMINO has not been proclaimed as Congressman-elect in the Lone Congressional District
of the Province of Sarangani he cannot be deemed a member of the House of Representatives. Hence, it is
the COMELEC and not the Electoral Tribunal which has jurisdiction over the issue of his ineligibility as a
candidate.42
Issue raised by INTERVENOR.
After finding that DOMINO is disqualified as candidate for the position of representative of the province of
Sarangani, may INTERVENOR, as the candidate who received the next highest number of votes, be
proclaimed as the winning candidate?
It is now settled doctrine that the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be
proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified.  In every election, the people's choice is the
43
paramount consideration and their expressed will must, at all times, be given effect. When the majority speaks
and elects into office a candidate by giving the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, no
one can be declared elected in his place. 44
It would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a
candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as the
representative of a constituency, the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they
do not choose him.  To simplistically assume that the second placer would have received the other votes
45
would be to substitute our judgment for the mind of the voters. He could not be considered the first among
qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the qualified candidate, the conditions would have
substantially changed. 46
Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of
votes cast in the election for that office, and it is fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that
no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or
plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. 47
The effect of a decision declaring a person ineligible to hold an office is only that the election fails entirely, that
the wreath of victory cannot be transferred  from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the
48
law then as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality of
votes  and does not entitle the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. In
49
such case, the electors have failed to make a choice and the election is a nullity.  To allow the defeated and
50
repudiated candidate to take over the elective position despite his rejection by the electorate is to
disenfranchise the electorate without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance and meaning of
democracy and the people's right to elect officials of their choice. 51
INTERVENOR's plea that the votes cast in favor of DOMINO be considered stray votes cannot be sustained.
INTERVENOR's reliance on the opinion made in the Labo, Jr. case  to wit: if the electorate, fully aware in fact
52
and in law of a candidate's disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety, would
nevertheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate, the electorate may be said to have waived the
validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their franchise or throwing away their votes, in
which case, the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected, is
misplaced.
Contrary to the claim of INTERVENOR, petitioner was not notoriously known by the public as an ineligible
candidate. Although the resolution declaring him ineligible as candidate was rendered before the election,
however, the same is not yet final and executory. In fact, it was no less than the COMELEC in its
Supplemental Omnibus Resolution No. 3046 that allowed DOMINO to be voted for the office and ordered that
the votes cast for him be counted as the Resolution declaring him ineligible has not yet attained finality. Thus
the votes cast for DOMINO are presumed to have been cast in the sincere belief that he was a qualified
candidate, without any intention to misapply their franchise. Thus, said votes can not be treated as stray, void,
or meaningless. 53
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The resolution dated 6 May 1998 of the COMELEC 2nd
Division and the decision dated 29 May 1998 of the COMELEC En Banc, are hereby AFFIRMED. 1âwphi1.nêt
SO ORDERED.

A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056       May 21, 2001
DATU INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ, JR., respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint filed by Datu Inocencio Siawan against Judge Aquilino. A. Inopiquez, Jr. of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Kananga-Matag-ob, Leyte, for gross ignorance of the law, gross abuse of power, and
misconduct in connection with the latter's handling of a criminal case and two election cases for inclusion of
voters. Originally, two identical complaints against respondent were filed. The first was referred to this Court
by the Department of Justice, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Commission on Elections, and the
Government Service Insurance System, while the second one, O.C.A. I.P.I. No. 95-54-MTJ, was referred to
this Court by the Office of the President.
O.C.A. I.P.I. No. 95-54-MTJ was dismissed by the First Division on October 25, 1995, 1 On the other hand,
O.C.A. I.P.I. No. 95-25-MTJ was redocketed as Administrative Matter No. MTJ-95-1056 and referred by the
Second Division to Acting Executive Judge Fortunato 2 L. Madrona of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City,
Leyte, for investigation, report, and recommendation on October 16, 1996.3
On September 15, 1997, Investigating Judge Fortunito L. Madrona submitted his report.4 With respect to
Criminal Case No. 584, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Julia Enriqua Seco," the Investigating Judge
found the following facts:
(1) In Crim. Case No. 584 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Julia Enriqua Seco . . ., the accused
then was charged of Usurpation of Authority and Official Functions under Art. 177 of the Revised
Penal Code, involving, as the complaint states, a "paquiao" contract in which the accused Julia Seco
allegedly signed as the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Cansuso, Matag-ob, Leyte;
(2) In the course of the proceedings after the prosecution had already presented its witnesses, the
complaint was dismissed on the basis of an Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainant
Restituto C. Pedrano which was prepared and executed before Provincial Prosecutor Rosario D.
Beleta on June 4, 1992 (Exh. "R"). This Affidavit of Desistance is opposite to the earlier affidavit of
the same complainant dated March 17, 1997 ... which was made the basis of the Complaint;
(3) On the basis of the Affidavit of Desistance the respondent issued the Order dated December 22,
1992 dismissing the case (Exh. "S");
(4) Prior to the issuance of the Affidavit of Desistance that is on May 20, 1987, accused Julia Enriqua
Seco had filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court a Motion for Inhibition of the Presiding Judge
now respondent in this case (Exh. "Q"). The meat of this motion for inhibition is that the father-in-law
of the Presiding Judge, herein respondent, was conspicuously present in the proceedings during
which time he gave consultation to the complainant who was reportedly his political leader and
protegee. The accused herself signed the motion with "conforme" of a certain Atty. Camilo Superable
acting as counsel;
(5) The Motion for Inhibition was denied by the Presiding Judge, herein respondent;
(6) The accused after the dismissal of the case sued Restituto C. Pedrano in a separate civil action
for damages (docketed as Civil Case No. 3167-0 before the RTC, Ormoc City and now elevated to
the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 51495), as a result of which the latter, through an Omnibus
Motion (Exh. "T") dated November 4, 1993 or about a year after the dismissal of Criminal Case No.
584, filed by Atty. Eusebio Otadoy, Jr. who acted as counsel and private prosecutor, wanted to revive
the case against accused Julia Enriqua Seco;
(7) Then accused Seco herself filed Opposition to Omnibus Motion dated November 26, 1993 (Exh.
"U") stating, among others, the grounds that (a) the lower court has no more jurisdiction as the
assailed order was long final and (b) the motion was only signed by the private prosecutor with no
authority from the public prosecutor to file such kind of pleading;
(8) Respondent as Presiding Judge issued the Order dated January 20, 1994 (Exh. "V") ordering the
withdrawal from the records of the affidavit of Restituto Pedrano dated June 4, 1992 (the desistance)
and recalling the Order of the Court dated December 22, 1992 (which is for dismissal) and reinstating
the case in the court's calendar;
(9) Because of the reinstatement, the accused through her daughter, Mrs. Lilia Tordillo, requested
the fixing of the bail bond, which in the Order of the Court dated February 24, 1994 (Exh. "W") was
fixed at P4,000.00;
(10) The Order of respondent (Exh. "W") shows a warrant of arrest must have been issued against
complainant, then accused Seco in connection with Criminal Case No. 584. This was testified to by
her during the hearing (TSN of April 29, 1997, pp. 56-57) although respondent through counsel
stated that the record of the case is "bereft of warrant of arrest" (Ibid, p. 65);
(11) Respondent reconsidered the previous Order by issuing the Order dated March 29, 1994 (Exh.
"X"). In this latter Order, he voluntarily inhibited himself from further taking cognizance of the case for
reasons of delicadeza;
(12) Obviously because of the statement in respondent's Order of March 29, 1994 (see last
sentence, first paragraph, page 2 thereof) herein quoted as follows:
If ever the private complainant wants to [revive], the case he should refile the case [anew].
Anyway the crime has not yet [prescribed] and double jeopardy will not come in for the
accused in the instant case had not been [arraigned].
 a complaint denominated as Criminal Case No. 1181 (Exh. "Y") was filed by the same complainant,
Restituto Pedrano, before the same Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kananga-Matag-ob, Leyte of
respondent judge against the same accused and involving the same offense.
(13) The complaint in Criminal Case No. 1181 (Exh. "Y") in substance, is the same as the complaint
in Criminal Case No. 584 (Exh. "O") . . . All supporting affidavits except the complaint affidavit of
Pedrano, were all reproduced from the previous complaint in Criminal Case No. 584 (TSN of June
16, 1997, pp. 28-29);
(14) The new complaint re Criminal Case No. 1181 was filed April 21, 1994 (supra, p. 30). About a
week later, or on April 28, 1994, respondent Judge issued the Order . . . inhibiting himself from trying
the case (Exh. "6") on the ground that "the counsel for the offended party is related to the Presiding
Judge";
(15) The Order of inhibition, however, was denied by the Regional Trial Court, Ormoc City in an
Order dated September 1, 1994 (Exh. "7") and soon thereafter, respondent judge in an Order dated
September 5, 1994 dismissed Criminal Case No. 1181. The principal reason given for the dismissal
is the admission by respondent that the case "had been filed by the offended party without however
the intervention of the public prosecutor or the station commander. The crime of Usurpation of
Authority and Official Function is a public offense and the offended party is the People of the
Philippines. It appears that the instant case has been instituted not by the proper party." (Exh. "VV"
and Exh. "9").
(16) A Motion For Reconsideration re the Order of dismissal was filed by the private complainant to
which the respondent judge directed accused's counsel, to file comment to the motion despite the
fact she was not yet arrested or that the Court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over her body (TSN,
supra, p. 34 et seq. Cf. P. 37);
(17) The respondent judge issued the Order of November 14, 1994 (Exh. "8") denying the motion for
reconsideration;
(18) A second motion for reconsideration was again filed by the private complainant and the
respondent in an Order dated December 23, 1994 (Exh. "SS") directed anew the accused's counsel
for another comment;
(19) Atty. Custodio Cañete complied and filed his comment dated December 26, 1994 and a
supplemental comment dated February 6, 1995 (Exh. "TT") stating among others that the counsel is
not the lawyer representing the then accused (herein complainant) in Criminal Case No. 1181 whom
the Court had not yet acquired jurisdiction in the first place;
(20) Criminal Case No. 1181 was finally laid to rest on February 17, 1995 as per admission of
complainant (TSN, April 29, 1997, pp. 57-58).5
As regards the election cases decided by respondent, the Investigating Judge found the following:
(1) Respondent is the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kananga-Matag-ob,
Leyte, residing in Brgy. Riverside, Matag-ob, Leyte (TSN of June 3, 1997, p. 19).
(2) Respondent has had relatives who ran for public office while he assumed as such presiding
judge. His brother-in-law Edgardo Laurente ran for Mayor during the January 18, 1988 elections but
lost to complainant Michael L. Torrevillas (TSN of April 15, 1997, pp. 63-64). His son, Van Russel,
ran for SK Chairman of Brgy. Riverside and won on the December 4, 1992 election. His daughter,
Cheri May, also ran for the position of Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan of Brgy. Riverside on
May complainant. The fact thus stands out that there was no such petition for inhibition filed against
the respondent in the inclusion and exclusion cases filed in the latter's sala.6
On the basis of these facts, Judge Madrona found respondent guilty of grave abuse of official functions and/or
oppression and recommended that he be fined the sum of P15,000.00 and/or suspended for a period of six
months.7 On March 15, 1999, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its report likewise finding that
respondent judge mishandled Criminal Case No. 584 and recommended that respondent judge be fined
P15,000.00, with warning that repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely.8
We find both recommendations to be well taken.
Re Criminal Case No. 584
Complainant's counsel in Criminal Case No. 584 was Atty. Eusebio Otadoy, Jr. 9 Respondent admits that he is
related to Atty. Otadoy whose maternal surname is in fact Inopiquez, but respondent claims he could not trace
who among their forefathers were related. He claims that he and counsel are not even second cousins.10
Although respondent is not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to Atty Otadoy, the
evidence shows that because of his relationship not only to Atty Otadoy but also to those helping the
complainant, Restituto Pedrano, one of whom, Guillermo Laurente, is respondent's father-in-law, while the
other one, Atty. Felix Sun, is his brother-in-law, respondent judge acted with obvious partiality for complainant
in the criminal case. It must be recalled that the accused Julia Enriqua Seco, who was charged on March 19,
1987 with usurpation of authority and official functions, moved on May 20, 1987 for the disqualification of
respondent on the ground that Atty. Sun, respondent's brother-in-law, was actively participating in the
prosecution of the case, while Guillermo Laurente, respondent's father-in-law, was often present during the
trial because the complainant therein, Restituto Pedrano, was his political protégée.11
Without addressing the issues raised by accused Seco, respondent denied her motion for inhibition in his
order, dated May 22, 1987, on the pretext that the motion was filed with the assistance of Atty. Camilo A.
Superable, who was then not the counsel of record of accused Seco. 12 Apparently realizing that the motion for
disqualification was meritorious, respondent, after partially hearing the case, dismissed it on the basis of an
affidavit of desistance of the complainant, Restituto Pedrano. But, as Seco sued Pedrano for damages for
filing the criminal case, respondent judge ordered the withdrawal of Pedrano's affidavit of desistance from the
record and recalled his order dismissing the criminal case. Respondent then revived Criminal Case No. 584
only to dismiss it again, saying the complainant in the criminal case could always refile it. He then inhibited
himself on the ground of delicadeza citing his relationship to counsel for the private prosecutor. 13 When
Criminal Case No. 1181 was filed against accused Seco, based on the same facts as Criminal Case No. 584,
respondent, to whom the case was again assigned, issued an order, dated April 28, 1994, inhibiting himself,
reiterating that he is related to the private prosecutor.14
Thus, respondent could have recused himself from the moment his disqualification was sought by the accused
Julia Enriqua Seco in Criminal Case No. 594. Apparently, he later realized it was untenable for him to continue
hearing the criminal case not only because of his relationship to Atty. Otadoy but also to Atty. Felix Sun and
Edgardo Laurente, both of whom were his brothers-in-law, 15 who were actively participating in the prosecution
of the criminal case. Respondent hung on to the case as long as he could until this case was filed against him.
It is noteworthy that the order of respondent finally inhibiting himself from trying Criminal Case No. 584was
issued only on March 29, 1994, after the herein letter-complaint of Datu Siawan, dated March 24, 1994, had
already been prepared and drafted. Indeed, it is too much of a coincidence that respondent judge's decision to
recuse himself in Criminal Case No. 584 and Criminal Case No. 1181 came only after the filing of this case
against him.
Indeed, although the disqualification of judges is limited only to cases where the judge is related to counsel
within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, the Rules nonetheless provide that a judge may, in the
exercise of his discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons. 16 A judge
should not handle a case where he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible to bias and
impartiality, which axiom is intended to preserve and promote public confidence in the integrity and respect for
the judiciary.17 In this case, the refusal of respondent to inhibit himself from the conduct of the case and his
doing so only after being threatened with an administrative case could not but create the impression that he
had ulterior motives in wanting to try the case.
Indeed, it was even error for him to dismiss Criminal Case No. 584 on the basis of the affidavit of desistance
of Restituto Pedrano without determining whether the affidavit was voluntarily executed. Then, as already
stated, because Seco sued Pedrano for damages, respondent reinstated the criminal case based on the
latter's omnibus motion even if it had already been almost a year after he had dismissed it, because allegedly
such would not anyway constitute double jeopardy as the accused Seco had not yet been arraigned.
However, respondent admits that when he dismissed the case, the prosecution had already presented its
evidence.18 This means that the accused Seco had been already arraigned at the time the case against her
was dismissed, so that its refiling subsequently placed her in jeopardy of being twice punished for the same
offense.
It is obvious that respondent got entangled in his own maneuverings in his desire to favor and protect the
complainant Restituto Pedrano and those helping the latter. As the Court Administrator well observed in his
memorandum to the Court:
Indeed, respondent's bias towards the private complainant showed when he allowed his father-in-law
to advise the private complainant, who is said to be his political leader during the proceedings held in
Crim. Case No. 584. It must have been disconcerting on the part of the accused to see the private
complainant openly consulting the father-in-law of the person sitting in judgment of his case.
To maintain the appearance of impartiality in his court, at the first instance, respondent should have
stopped his father-in-law from meddling in the proceedings. If he did not want to offend or displease
him, he should have outrightly inhibited himself from further trying the case. However, he even
denied the motion for inhibition filed by the accused.
It may also be added that a well-meaning judge may not just order the reopening of an already
dismissed criminal case or direct the removal of a vital evidence on record without first going over the
record of the case. But, a judge whose mind is set to favor a party-litigant may literally turn a blind
eye to the proceedings which already transpired and the applicable law and jurisprudence on the
case before him.
We are referring to the irregular actuations of respondent in the same Crim. Case No. 584 wherein
he granted the motion of the private prosecutor to withdraw or detach the Affidavit of Desistance
executed by the private complainant 1) without the approval of the private prosecutor; 2) despite the
fact that the dismissal of the case was already final; and 3) stating in the order that the accused was
not yet arraigned, when the truth is the prosecution has already rested when the case was dismissed
on December 22, 1992. It cannot be said that respondent overlooked these facts because the
accused filed a timely opposition to the motion.
Respondent's apparent irregular actuations were calculated to give the private complainant a
leverage in the civil action for damages filed by the accused Seco before the Regional Trial Court –
on the basis of the affidavit of desistance executed by the private complainant.
Respondent's deliberate mishandling of the case erodes the people's faith in the judiciary. There
being nothing on record showing that complainant was deprived of her liberty as a consequence of
respondent's indiscretions, a fine imposed upon him may be appropriate under the premises.19
Re Election Case Nos. 333 and 292
The first case was a petition for inclusion of a voter in the voter's list. Respondent judge admits that the
petitioner, retired Judge Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr., is his uncle. 20 Nonetheless, he justifies his failure to
recuse himself on the ground that the petition of Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr. was meritorious. Respondent
claims that a hearing was conducted on February 28, 1992 during which Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr. testified
to prove that he was a resident of Brgy. Talisay, Matag-ob, Leyte.21
Respondent judge's contention is without merit. Rule 137, §1 of the Rules of Court provides:
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the
sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according
to the rules of civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel,
or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review,
without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just
or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
Similarly, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
 A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings where:
....
(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to
counsel within the fourth degree;
....
In every instance the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.
Under these provisions, respondent judge was disqualified from hearing the petition of his uncle and it was
immaterial that the petition was meritorious. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of
interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of a judge. A judge should take no part in a
proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned and he should administer justice impartially
and without delay.22 The failure of respondent judge to inhibit himself constitutes an abuse of his authority and
undermines public confidence in the impartiality of judges.
Nor is it true respondent decided the election cases solely on the basis of their merits. The records show that
he disregarded the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881).
In Election Case No. 333, the petitioner, respondent's uncle, Ponciano C. Inopiquez, alleged that he was a
resident of Barangay. Talisay, Matag-ob, Leyte; that he had the qualifications of a voter and none of the
disqualifications; that he had not voted for two consecutive elections in Metro Manila; that he was unable to
register in Barangay Talisay, Matag-ob, Leyte, because he could not book a plane for Leyte on that day; and
that it was his intention to vote in Leyte as he was already retired as judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
4, of Manila.23 In Election Case No. 292, on the other hand, the seven petitioners, all surnamed Herbas,
alleged that they had been residents of Barangay San Sebastian, Matag-ob, Leyte for two years at the time of
the petition; that they were refused registration on February 1, 1992 at Brgy. San Sebastian, Matag-ob, Leyte
by the Board of Election Inspectors; and that they have not voted for two consecutive elections.24
The Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), as amended by P.D. No. 1896, provides, however, that:
Sec. 139. Petition for inclusion of voters in the list. – Any person whose application for registration
has been disapproved by the board of election inspectors or whose name has been stricken out from
the list may apply, within twenty days after the last registration days, to the proper municipal or
metropolitan trial court, for an order directing the board of election inspectors to include or reinstate
his name in the list, together with the certificate of the board of elections inspectors regarding his
case and proof of service of notice of his petition upon a member of the board of election inspectors
with indication of the time, place, and court before which the petition is to be heard.
Thus, under the law, a petition for inclusion may be filed only by a person (a) whose application for registration
has been disapproved by the board of election inspectors or (b) whose name has been stricken out from the
list of voters. No exception is provided by the law. The petition of former Judge Ponciano C. Inopiquez does
not fall within the coverage of the law, since he was neither refused registration by the board nor his name
ordered stricken from the list of voters of Barangay Talisay, Matag-ob, Leyte. Whether or not Ponciano
Inopiquez had good reason for his failure to register as a voter was irrelevant. Otherwise, every person who is
unable to register for whatever reason, i.e., he or she was working in another province or was out of the
country during the registration period, could simply file a petition for inclusion in order to be able to vote.
The Omnibus Election Code further provides:
Section 143. Common rules governing judicial proceedings in the matter of inclusion, exclusion, and
correction of names of voters.  --- (a) Outside of regular office hours, no petition for inclusion,
exclusion, or correction of names of voters shall be received.
(b) Notices to the members of the board of election inspectors and to challenged voters shall state
the place, day and hour in which such petition shall be heard, and such notice may be made by
sending a copy thereof by registered mail or by personal delivery or by leaving it in the possession of
a person of sufficient discretion in the residence of the said person or, in the event that the foregoing
procedure is not practicable, by posting a copy in a conspicuous place in the city hall or municipal
building and in two other conspicuous places within the city or municipality, at least ten days prior to
the day set for the hearing.
(c) Each petition shall refer to only one precinct.
(d) No costs shall be assessed in these proceedings. However, if the court should be satisfied that
the application has been filed for the sole purpose of molesting the adverse party and causing him to
incur expenses, it may condemn the culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses.
(e) Any candidate who may be affected by the proceedings may intervene and present his evidence.
(f) The decision shall be based on the evidence presented. If the question is whether or not the voter
is real or fictitious, his non-appearance on the day set for hearing shall be prima facie evidence that
the registered voter is fictitious. In no case shall a decision be rendered upon a stipulation of facts.
(g) These applications shall be heard and decided without delay. The decision shall be rendered
within six hours after the hearing and within ten days from the date of its filing in court. Cases
appealed to the regional trial court shall be decided within ten days from receipt of the appeal in the
office of the clerk of court. In any case, the court shall decide these petitions not later than the day
before the election and the decision rendered thereon shall be immediately final and executory,
notwithstanding the provision of Section 138 on the finality of decisions.
The records show that neither of the petition in Election Case No. 333 25 and Election Case No. 29226 named
the board of election inspectors a party to the proceedings. Nor is there any showing that the board of election
inspectors was ever notified of hearings to be conducted on such inclusion proceedings either by registered
mail or by personal delivery, or by notice posted in a conspicuous place in the city hall or municipal building
and in two other conspicuous places within the city or municipality at least 10 days prior to the day set for the
hearing as required in paragraph (b) of the above provision.
The failure of respondent to observe the requirements of the Election Code is inexcusable. As a judge of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court vested with the jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for inclusion or exclusion
of voters, he is expected to be familiar with these requirements because it can be assumed that these election
cases were not the first cases he has decided.

In Villaluz v. Mijares,27 a judge was fined P10,000.00 for trying and deciding the petition for correction of entry
filed by her grandson. On the other hand, in the case of Pacris  v. Pagalilauan,28 the respondent judge therein
was found guilt of gross ignorance of the law for having violated or failed to apply relevant provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code and was fined P10,000.00. In this case, however, respondent did not simply fail to
recuse himself from cases in which his relatives were either involved or interested, the record shows he did so
to favor or protect the parties. Considering that respondent was previously censured and warned by this Court
for grave abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of the law, we hold that a fine of P20,000.00 and
suspension for three (3) months without pay would be an appropriate penalty in view of respondent's violation
of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and his abuse of authority.29

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of P20,000.00
for violation of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and is SUSPENDED without pay for a period of three months for
abuse of authority and ignorance of the law. 1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.
 Datudacula "to conduct ocular inspection on the alleged twelve (12) ghost barangays in the Municipality of
Madalum, Lanao Del Sur."  7

On June 18, 1998, an ocular inspection was conducted on the alleged ghost precincts yielding the following
results —

G.R. No. 135927              June 26, 2000 At 12:10 pm, the Task Force Investigation Team from the COMELEC accompanied by traditional
leaders, political leaders, many concerned residents of this town, a representative from the Lanao del
SULTAN USMAN SARANGANI, SORAIDA M. SARANGANI and HADJI NOR HASSAN, petitioners, vs. Sur Provincial Statistics Office, Mr. Lacson Abdullah, and a Team from the DILG-ARMM, Lanao del
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HADJI ABOLAIS R. OMAR, MANAN OSOP and ATTY. NASIB D. Sur, arrived in the area supposedly Barangay Padian Torogan with these comments and
YASSIN, respondents. observations:

BUENA, J.:
Way back in the 1950's and during the martial law era, it has been said that even the dead, the birds and the
bees voted in Lanao. This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which seeks to nullify the
Order issued by the Commission on Elections [COMELEC, for brevity] dated June 29, 1998, finding Padian
Torogan in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur as "ghost precinct," is an illustrative case.
The facts are as follows:
On September 15, 1997, a petition for annulment of several precincts and annulment of book of voters in
Madalum, Lanao Del Sur was filed with the COMELEC by, among others, Hadji Oblais R. Omar thru counsel
Atty. Nasib D. Yasin, herein private respondents. Among the precincts sought to be annulled was Padian
Torogan, subject matter of the present petition for certiorari.
1
It appears that in this area there are only two structures: One is a concrete house with no roof, and
the other is a wooden structure without walls and roof. This obviously mean that no single human
being could possibly reside in these two structures.
Also, it came out that the name Padian-Torogan means a cemetery not a residential place. So this
contradicts the records being brought by the COMELEC Team from the Census saying that the area
has 45 households with a total population of 285. (Ref. Municipal census Report as of September 1,
1995).
Besides, no less than the Chairman of the COMELEC Investigating Team asked the people around
who among them is a resident or a registered voter in the so-called Barangay Padian-Torogan, and
no one answered affirmatively.

Then at 12:50 PM, the COMELEC Investigating Team still with the people mentioned above are in
Barangay Lumbac to look for the other supposed Barangay named Rakutan, and found this
On September 18, 1997, the COMELEC, thru the Clerk of the Commission sent telegrams to the respective observations.
Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) of the questioned precincts in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, including Padian
Torogan, to file their answer to the petition for abolition of precincts and annulment of book of voters.
2

x x x           x x x          x x x
On October 31, 1997, the incumbent mayor of Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, Usman T. Sarangani, herein
petitioner, together with other oppositors who were allegedly barangay chairmen of the twenty three (23) By the way, unfortunately, at the peak of this ocular inspection, the Madalum Municipal Chief of
barangays the "Books of Voters" and precincts of which were sought to be annulled and abolished, Police Mahdi Mindalano, armed with UZI pistolized Machine Gun, arrived at the scene at exactly
respectively, filed an "Answer in Opposition" which included the affidavits of the barangay chairmen of the
3  12:55 pm boarding an orange Mitsubishi car with four armed bodyguards, the (sic) confronted the
affected precincts attesting to the fact that the move to annul the book of voters and abolish the questioned Team Leader of the COMELEC Investigating Group and angrily insisted to stop the ocular inspection.
election precincts were for the purpose of diminishing the bailiwicks of the incumbent mayor of Madalum,
Lanao del Sur.  4
This STACOM Mindalano, in warning a photographer not to take a shot on him, pointed his pistolized
Rifle to this man when the photographer positioned his camera to take a picture of him while he is
After hearing and submission of formal offer of exhibits and memoranda by the parties, the COMELEC issued arguing with the investigating leader, Mr. CASAN MACADATO.
an Order  dated February 11, 1998, referring the case to its Law Department for appropriate investigation. The
5 

COMELEC Law Department conformably issued a memorandum dated April 29, 1998 directing Atty.
Muslemin Tahir, the Provincial Election Supervisor of Marawi City, Lanao del Sur "to conduct a rigorous
incisive investigation on the alleged ghost precincts and thereafter submit a report on the investigation
conducted." Consequently, Atty. Tahir created a TASK FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM by virtue of a
6 
Moving camera film and several pictures are added hereto for further information and as exhibits.
Also attached hereof are the names and signatures of among the more-or-less one hundred people
who observed the conduct of this ocular inspection.

memorandum dated June 13, 1998 directing Election Officers Casan Macadato, Sacrain Guro and Anuar
 (NOTE: This writer, Mr. Khalil Y. Alawi, is a member of the five (5) man Committee from the DILG-
ARMM, Lanao del Sur created in respect to the Memo/Invitation from the COMELEC Provincial
Office of Lanao del Sur dated June 15, 1998 signed by Mr. CASAN MACADATO, EO II, Chief
Investigation Team. Mr. Macadato designated verbally and in public Mr. ALAWI to be his Secretary
during this investigation, and of course, the (sic) with the consent of the DILG Team). 1âwphi1.nêt
I hereby certify that the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Prepared by: (sgd) Khalil Y. Alawi
Member, DILG Team
Submitted by: (sgd) Casan Macadato
Election Officer II
Chairman, Task Force Investigation Team 8
On the basis of the foregoing, Election Officer Casan Macadato submitted to the Provincial Election
Supervisor of COMELEC in Marawi City its 1st Indorsement dated June 19, 1998 reporting the results of the
ocular inspection that Padian Torogan and Rakutan were uninhabited. 9
On June 29, 1998, the COMELEC issued the assailed Order finding "Padian Torogan as ghost precinct." The
dispositive portion of the COMELEC Order reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the Commission En Banc:
(1) resolves to GRANT the request and hereby:
(a) DIRECTS the Task Force Investigating Team created pursuant to the Order of
the Commission en banc dated February 11, 1998, to continue the conduct of
ocular inspection and investigation as contained in the original directive of the Law
Department dated April 29, 1998;
(b) RECOMMENDS to the PNP Director and the Regional Director of the Philippine
National police, (1) to immediately relieve and transfer Chief of Police Mahdi
Mindalano of Madalum, Lanao del Sur and transfer him to an area where it will be
extremely difficult for him to return to Mandalum and do further damage to effort of
the Commission to investigate ghost precincts in said area considering the urgency
of said investigation. (2) to look into the possibility of involvement of other
policement (sic) in Madalum in the aforestated criminal mischief of the Police
Station Commander or their possible partisanship.
(c) RECOMMENDS to AFP Regional Command, Armed Forces of the Philippines,
to immediately assign sufficient number of men to maintain peace and order in the
Municipality of Madalum, Lanao del Sur, and to escort and secure the safety of the
COMELEC Investigating Team during the conduct of ocular inspections and
investigations.
(2) finds Padain Togoran as ghost precinct and shall be excluded from the special election
to be conducted in Madalum.
(3) Order the Investigating Team, thru Madatu, to immediately resume the investigation, the
remaining ghost precincts in Madalum and to submit its findings to the Commission with
dispatch, allowing it to submit partial findings if necessary.
The Law Department of this Commission is hereby directed to implement this order.
SO ORDERED. (emphasis supplied)  10
On November 3, 1998, Sultan Usman Sarangani, Soraida M. Sarangani and Hadji Nor Hassan, in their
respective capacity as former Municipal Mayor, incumbent Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Madalum filed the instant
petition for certiorari and mandamus urging us to nullify the Order issued by the COMELEC, for having been
issued with grave abuse of discretion. Likewise, petitioners moved to consolidate this case with G.R. No.
134456 entitled "Sultan Sarangani, et.  al vs. COMELEC, et. al" alleging that G.R. No. 134456 also involves a
COMELEC decision declaring the precinct corresponding to eight (8) barangays in Madalum, Lanao del Sur
as ghosts precincts.
In a resolution  issued by this Court on January 19, 1999, we denied the motion to consolidate, considering
11 
that G.R. No. 134456 had already been dismissed in our resolutions of August 4, 1998 and August 18, 1998.
The basic issue to be resolved in this petition is whether or not the respondent COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion in declaring Padian-Torogan as ghost precinct.  12
On a preliminary matter, though not clear, it appears from the records that Padian Torogan is a barangay in
Madalum, Lanao del Sur and it was erroneous for the COMELEC to consider Padian-Torogan as a ghost
precinct. In any case, the court is not tasked to determine whether the so-called Padian Torogan is a
barangay or a mere election. The petition states that precinct No. 27A located in Barangay Padian Torogan
was the one declared as a ghost precinct by the COMELEC although the assailed Order did not mention any
specific precinct but simply declared "Padian Torogan as ghost precinct." To be clear, what was necessarily
contemplated by the assailed Order would be the election precinct in the said place.
It must be noted that under the Omnibus Election Code, there should be at least one precinct per
barangay. 1 In designating election precincts, the COMELEC usually refers to them by number. Nevertheless,
the determination of whether a certain election precinct actually exists or not and whether the voters
registered in said precinct are real voters is a factual matter. On such issue, it is a time-honored precept that
factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly supported by evidence, are
conclusive upon this Court, more so, in the absence of a substantiated attack on the validity of the
same.  Upon review of the records, the Court finds that the COMELEC had exerted efforts to investigate the
14 

facts and verified that there were no public or private buildings in the said place, hence its conclusion that
there were no inhabitants. If there were no inhabitants, a fortiori, there can be no registered voters, or the
registered voters may have left the place. It is not impossible for a certain barangay not to actually have
inhabitants considering that people migrate. A barangay may officially exist on record and the fact that nobody
resides in the place does not result in its automatic cessation as a unit of local government. Under the Local
Government Code of 1991, the abolition of a local government unit (LGU) may be done by Congress in the
case of a province, city, municipality, or any other political subdivision.  In the case of a barangay, except in
15 

Metropolitan Manila area and in cultural communities, it may be done by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or
Sangguniang Panglunsod concerned subject to the mandatory requirement of a plebiscite  conducted for the
16 

purpose in the political units affected. 1awphil

The findings of the administrative agency cannot be reversed on appeal or certiorari particularly when no
significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when
considered would have substantially affected the outcome of the case. The COMELEC has broad powers to
ascertain the true results of an election by means available to it.  The assailed order having been issued
17 

pursuant to COMELEC's administrative powers and in the absence of any finding of grave abuse of discretion
in declaring a precinct as non-existent, said order shall stand. Judicial interference is unnecessary and
uncalled for.  No voter is disenfranchised because no such voter exist. The sacred right of suffrage
18 

guaranteed by the Constitution  is not tampered when a list of fictitious voters is excluded from an electoral
19 

exercise. Suffrage is conferred by the Constitution only on citizens who are qualified to vote and are not
otherwise disqualified by law. On the contrary, such exclusion of non-existent voters all the more protects the
validity and credibility of the electoral process as well as the right of suffrage because the "electoral will" would
not be rendered nugatory by the inclusion of some ghost votes. Election laws should give effect to, rather than
frustrate the will of the people. 
20

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the assailed Order dated June 29, 1998 of the
Commission on Elections is UPHELD. No pronouncement as to costs. 1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 147589               June 25, 2003
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the acronym OFW), represented herein by its
Secretary-General, MOHAMMAD OMAR FAJARDO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS;
CITIZENS DRUG WATCH; MAMAMAYAN AYAW SA DROGA; 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 25, 2003
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.
RESOLUTION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Before the Court are Motions for proclamation filed by various party-list participants. The ultimate question
raised is this: Aside from those already validly proclaimed pursuant to earlier Resolutions of this Court, are
1 
there other party-list candidates that should be proclaimed winners? The answer to this question is
circumscribed by the eight-point guideline given in our June 26, 2001 Decision in these consolidated cases, as
well as by the four unique parameters of the Philippine party-list system:
"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." 2
The Antecedents
To fully understand the matter on hand, we deem it wise to recapitulate some relevant antecedents.
On June 26, 2001, the Court promulgated in these consolidated cases its Decision requiring Comelec to do
the following:
"x x x [I]mmediately 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.
"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." 3
Comelec’s First Partial
Compliance Report
In its First Partial Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001, Comelec recommended that the following party-list
participants be deemed to have hurdled the eight-point guideline referred to in the aforementioned Court
Decision:
1. BAYAN MUNA (BAYAN MUNA)
 2. AKBAYAN! CITIZENS ACTION PARTY (AKBAYAN!)
3. LUZON FARMERS PARTY (BUTIL)
4. ANAK MINDANAO (AMIN)
5. ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN
MANGINGISDA (ABA)
In another Resolution dated August 24, 2001, the Court again partially lifted its May 9, 2001 TRO to enable
the Comelec to proclaim Akbayan and Butil "as winning party-list groups, in accordance not only with the
Decision of the Court in the instant case but also with Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec, GR Nos.
136781, 136786, and 136795, October 6, 2000."
In its Consolidated Reply dated October 15, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the
Comelec, recommended that -- "except for the modification that the APEC, BUHAY, COCOFED and CIBAC
NG MGA MAGSASAKA, MANGGAGAWANG BUKID AT be declared as having complied with the guidelines set forth in the June 26, 2001 Decision in the instant cases
[--] the Partial Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001 be affirmed." But because of (1) the conflicting
4 

Comelec reports regarding the qualifications of APEC and CIBAC and (2) the disparity in the percentage of
6. PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA (PM) votes obtained by AMIN, the Court in a Resolution dated November 13, 2001, required the parties to file within
20 days from notice their respective final position papers on why APEC, CIBAC, and/or AMIN should or
7. SANLAKAS should not be proclaimed winners in the last party-list elections.

It also recommended the disqualification of the following party-list participants for their failure to pass the Thereafter, in another Resolution dated January 29, 2002, the Court agreed to qualify APEC and CIBAC,
5 

guidelines: which had previously been disqualified by Comelec in its First Compliance Report.

Thus, in the same Resolution, the Court once more lifted its May 9, 2001 TRO to enable the Comelec to
 MAMAMAYAN AYAW SA DROGA (MAD) proclaim APEC and CIBAC as winners in the party-list elections. The Court said:
 ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES (APEC)
 VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY (VFP) "we accept Comelec’s submission, per the OSG, that APEC and CIBAC have sufficiently met the 8-point
 ABAG PROMDI (PROMDI) guidelines of this Court and have garnered sufficient votes to entitle them to seats in Congress. Since these
 NATIONALIST PEOPLE’S COALITION (NPC) issues are factual in character, we are inclined to adopt the Commission’s findings, absent any patent
 LAKAS NUCD-UMDP (LAKAS) arbitrariness or abuse or negligence in its action. There is no substantial proof that CIBAC is merely an arm of
 CITIZENS BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC) JIL, or that APEC is an extension of PHILRECA. The OSG explained that these are separate entities with
separate memberships. Although APEC’s nominees are all professionals, its membership is composed not
 LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP)
only of professionals but also of peasants, elderly, youth and women. Equally important, APEC addresses the
 BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG (BUHAY) issues of job creation, poverty alleviation and lack of electricity. Likewise, CIBAC is composed of the
 COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. (COCOFED) underrepresented and marginalized and is concerned with their welfare. CIBAC is particularly interested in the
 COOPERATIVE NATCCO NETWORK PARTY (COOP-NATCCO) youth and professional sectors."6

 NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION (NCIA)

 ASOSASYON PARA SA KAUNLARAN NG INDUSTRIYA NG AKLAT, INC. (AKLAT) To summarize, after the Court had accepted and approved the First Partial Compliance Report and its
 THE TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST (FOR GOD, COUNTRY, AND PEOPLE) ASSOCIATION OF THE amendments, the following nominees were validly proclaimed winners: BAYAN MUNA (Satur C. Ocampo,
PHILIPPINES (MARCOS LOYALIST) Crispin B. Beltran and Liza L. Maza), AKBAYAN (Loretta Ann P. Rosales), BUTIL (Benjamin A. Cruz), APEC
 CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CREBA) (Ernesto C. Pablo) and CIBAC (Joel J. Villanueva).
 BIGKIS PINOY FOUNDATION (BIGKIS)
Comelec’s Second Partial Compliance Report
 AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO (AKSYON)

In its Second Compliance Report dated August 22, 2001 and received by this Court on August 28, 2001,
In response to this Report, the Court issued its August 14, 2001 Resolution which partially lifted its May 9,
Comelec recommended that the following party-list participants be deemed qualified under the Court’s
7 

2001 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The Court did so to enable Comelec to proclaim Bayan Muna as
guidelines:
the first "winner in the last party-list election, with the caveat that all proclamations should be made in
accordance not only with the Decision of the Court in the instant case but also with Veterans Federation Party
v. Comelec, GR Nos. 136781, 136786, and 136795, October 6, 2000, on how to determine and compute the 10. ABANSE! PINAY
winning parties and nominees in the party-list elections."
 11. ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY, AT  PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (PMA)
HANAPBUHAY (AKO)  ALLIANCE TO ALLEVIATE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ORDER, INC. (AASENSO KA)
 PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKO SOSYALISTA NG PILIPINAS (PDSP)
12. ALAGAD  COOPERATIVE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES (CUP)
 ATIN (FORMERLY ABANTE BISAYA)
13. SENIOR CITIZENS/ELDERY SECTORAL PARTY (ELDERLY)  VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION (VACC)
 ASSOCIATION OF BUILDERS CONSULTANTS AND DESIGNERS, INC. (ABCD)
14. ALL TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (ATUCP)  LIBERAL PARTY (LP)
 CITIZEN’S DRUGWATCH FOUNDATION, INC. (DRUGWATCH)
15. MARITIME PARTY (MARITIME)  ALAY SA BAYAN PARA SA KALAYAAN AT DEMOKRASYA (ABAKADA)
 ASOSASYON NG MGA TAGA INSURANCE SA PILIPINAS, INC. (ATIP)
16. ANG BAGONG BAYANI – OFW LABOR PARTY (OFW)  ANG LAKAS NG OVERSEAS CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW)
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR PLANTERS (NFSP)
17. ANIBAN NG MGA MAGSASAKA, MANGINGISDA, AT MANGGAGAWA SA AGRIKULTURA –  KABALIKAT NG BAYAN PARTY (KABALIKAT)
KATIPUNAN (AMMMA)
 PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO LAKAS NG BAYAN (PDP-LABAN)
 BANTAY BAYAN FOUNDATION PARTY, INC. (BANTAY-BAYAN)
18. ALYANSA NG NAGKAKAISANG KABATAAN NG SAMBAYANAN PARA SA KAUNLARAN
(ANAKBAYAN)  ABANTE KILUSANG KOOPERATIBA SA GITNANG LUZON [AKK COALITION]
 GREEN PHILIPPINES (GREEN)
19. ALYANSA NG MGA MAY KAPANSANAN SA PILIPINAS (AKAP)  PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENCY OPERATORS
(PADPAO)
 ALLIANCE FOR GREATER ACHIEVEMENTS IN PEACE AND PROSPERITY (AGAP)
20. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF SMALL COCONUT FARMERS’ ORGANIZATION, INC. (MSCFO)
 ALYANSA NG KOOPERATIBANG PANGKABUHAYAN PARTY (ANGKOP)
 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY (NAD)
21. WOMENPOWER, INC. (WPI)
 PEOPLE POWER PARTY (PEOPLE POWER)
 PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGICAL COUNCIL (PTC)
22. AGGRUPATION AND ALLIANCE OF FARMERS AND FISHERFOLKS OF THE PHILIPPINES
(AAAFPI)  PHILIPPINE LOCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT, INC. (PLAM)
 PROFESSIONAL CRIMINOLOGIST ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PCAP)
23. ALL WORKERS ALLIANCE TRADE UNIONS (AWATU)  CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT, AND PEACE (JEEP)

In the same Compliance Report, the poll body classified the following party-list groups as unqualified: Comelec’s Final Partial Compliance Report

 GREEN PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION (GREEN PHIL) In its Final Partial Compliance Report dated September 27, 2001 and received by the Court a day later,
Comelec recommended that the following be considered as qualified party-list participants:
 PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO (PMP)
 ANG LAKAS NG BAGONG KOOPERATIBA (ALAB)
24. NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF TRICYCLE OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION
 PARTIDO NG MARALITANG PILIPINO – PINATUBO PARTY (PMP-PINATUBO) OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACTODAP)
 REBOLUSYONARYONG ALYANSANG MAKABANSA (RAM)
 BAYAN NG NAGTATAGUYOD NG DEMOKRATIKONG IDEOLOGIYA AT LAYUNIN, INC. 25. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SMALL COCONUT FARMERS ORGANIZATION, INC. (SCFO)
(BANDILA)
 BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION (BAGONG BAYANI)
26. TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (TRICAP)
 KABATAAN NG MASANG PILIPINO (KAMPIL)
 AARANGKADA ANG MGA HANDA ORAS-ORAS (AHOY)
 27. PILIPINONG MAY KAPANSANAN (PINOY MAY K)
28. VETERANS CARE AND WELFARE ORGANIZATION (VETERANS CARE)
29. UNION OF THE FILIPINO OVERSEAS WORKERS, INC. (OCW-UNIFIL)
30. DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE (DA)
31. PILIPINO WORKERS PARTY (PWP)
32. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS (PARP)
33. ALLIANCE OF RETIRED POSTAL EMPLOYEES AND SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. (ARPES)
34. AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION, INC. (ARBA)
35. FEDERATION OF JEEPNEY OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES (FEJODAP)
36. GABAY NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO PARTY (GABAY-OFW)
37. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES OF SETTLERS (AASAHAN)
38. ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH SOLIDARITY (AYOS)
39. PARTY FOR OVERSEAS WORKERS AND EMPOWERMENT AND RE-INTEGRATION
(POWER)
40. KILOS KABATAAN PILIPINO (KILOS)
41. KALOOB-KA ISANG LOOB PARA SA MARANGAL NA PANINIRAHAN (KALOOB)
42. ALYANSA NG MGA MAMAMAYAN AT MANDARAGAT SA LAWA NG LAGUNA, INC.
(ALYANSA)
43. DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (DFP)
44. PARTIDO KATUTUBONG PILIPINO (KATUTUBO)
Further, the Comelec recommended the disqualification of the following party-list groups:
 AALAGAHAN ANG ATING KALIKASAN (ALAS)
 PHILIPPINE SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS (PSAE)
 PARTIDO PARA SA DEMOKRATIKONG REPORMA (PDR)
 CONSUMERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES (CONSUMERS)
 CONFEDERATION OF NON-STOCK SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC. (CONSLA)
 PEOPLE’S PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE FOR PEACE AND GOOD GOVERNMENT TOWARDS
ALLEVIATION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL ADVANCEMENT (PAG-ASA)
 AHONBAYAN, INC. (AHONBAYAN)
 ANGAT
 SAMA-SAMA KAYA NATIN ‘TO FOUNDATION, INC. (KASAMA)
 A PEACEFUL ORGANIZATION LEADERSHIP, FRIENDSHIP, SERVICE MOVEMENT (APO)
 PHILIPPINE DENTAL ASSOCIATION (PDA)
 PUSYON (BISAYA) PILIPINO (PUSYON)
 SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS)
 CITIZEN’S ANTI-CRIME ASSISTANCE GROUP, INC. (CAAG)
 ASA AT SAMAHAN NG KARANIWANG PILIPINO (ASAKAPIL)
 BUSINESSMEN AND ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION, INC. (BEA)
 UNITED ARCHITECTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (UAP)
 ABAY PAMILYA FOUNDATION, INC. (ABAY PAMILYA)
 PEOPLE’S REFORM PARTY (PRP)
 COALITION FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION AND WELFARE (COALITION 349)
 RIZALIST PARTY (RP)
 NATIONAL URBAN POOR ASSEMBLY (NUPA)
 ALLIANCE FOR MERITOCRACY (AFM)
 BALIKATAN SA KABUHAYAN BUHAY COALITION (BSK)
 BANTAY DAGAT, INC. (BDI)
 CONFEDERATION OF HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR REFORMS IN GOVERNANCE AND
ENVIRONMENT, INC. (HOMEOWNERS)
 PORT USERS CONFEDERATION, INC. (PUC)
 LABAN PARA SA KAPAYAPAAN, KATARUNGAN, AT KAUNLARAN (KKK)
 BONDING IDEALISM FOR NATIONAL HUMAN INITIATIVE (BINHI)
 KATIPUNAN NG MGA BANTAY BAYAN SA PILIPINAS (KABAYAN)
 FEDERATION OF SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF PHIL. VETERANS, INC. (LAHING VETERANO)
 PRIME MOVERS FOR PEACE AND PROGRESS (PRIMO)
 PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE OF CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY (PACD)
 COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS (CAP)
 TAPAT FOUNDATION, INC. (TAPAT)
 ALLIANCE FOR ALLEVIATION OF NATIONAL GOVERNANCE AND TRUST PARTY (AKA)
 ANG IPAGLABAN MO FOUNDATION (AIM)
 PHILIPPINE MINE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT (PMSEA)
 BICOL SARO PARTY (BSP)
  AABANTE KA PILIPINAS PARTY (SAGIP BAYAN MOVEMENT) (APIL)
 PHILIPPINE PEOPLE’S PARLIAMENT (PPP-YOUTH)
 SPORTS AND HEALTH ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (SHAF)
 KILUSAN TUNGO SA PAMBANSANG TANGKILIKAN, INC. (KATAPAT)
 CITIZENS’ FOUNDATION FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIMES AND INJUSTICES, INC.
(CITIZEN)
 NACIONALISTA PARTY (NP) (Withdrew participation in the party-list election)
 SANDIGANG MARALITA (SM)
 ONEWAY PRINTING TECHNICAL FOUNDATION, INC. (ONEWAY PRINT)
 PHILIPPINE JURY MOVEMENT (JURY)
 ALTERNATIVE ACTION (AA)
 DEMOCRATIC WORKERS’ PARTY (DWP)
 SECURITY UNITED LEAGUE NATIONWIDE GUARDS, INC. (SULONG)
 ORGANISASYONG KAUGNAYAN NASYONAL SA PAG-UNLAD (O.K. NAPU)
 PAMBANSANG SANGGUNIANG KATIPUNAN NG BARANGAY KAGAWAD SA PILIPINAS
(KATIPUNAN)
 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZER (NCCO)
 NATIONWIDE ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMERS, INC. (NACI)
 LUZVIMINDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (LEDFI)
 TINDOG PARA HAN KABUBUWASON HAN WARAYNON (TINDOG WARAY)
 FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (FLRF)
 KATRIBU MINDANAO, INC. (KATRIBU)
 DEMOKRATIKONG UGNAYAN TAPAT SA SAMBAYANAN (DUGTUNGAN)
 KATARUNGAN SA BAYAN TAGAPAGTANGGOL NG SAMBAYANAN (KABATAS)
 GO! GO! PHILIPPINES MOVEMENT
 PAMBANSANG SAMAHANG LINGKOD NG BAYAN, INC. (PASALBA)
 PHILIPPINE REFORMIST SOCIETY (PRS)
 GABAYBAYAN (GAD)
 ALUHAY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. (ALUHAI)
 ORGANIZED SUPPORT FOR THE MOVEMENT TO ENHANCE THE NATIONAL AGENDA
(OSMEÑA)
All these Compliance Reports have already been affirmed by this Court except that, in regard to the First
Compliance Report, it agreed -- as earlier stated -- to add APEC and CIBAC to the list of qualified groups.
Other Significant Orders and Pleadings
Under its Resolution No. NBC-02-001, Comelec motu proprio amended its Compliance Reports by, inter alia,
8 
adding four more party-list participants (BUHAY, COCOFED, NCIA and BAGONG BAYANI) to the list of
qualified candidates for the May 14, 2001 elections.
In its Comment dated November 15, 2002, the OSG opined that "Comelec acted correctly in revising its Party-
List Canvass Report No. 26, so as to reflect the correct number of votes cast in favor of qualified party-list
parties and organizations." Consequently, it moved to lift our TRO with respect to COCOFED, BUHAY,
9 
SANLAKAS and PM, because "[a]s shown in the revised COMELEC Party-list Canvass Report No. 26,
movants BUHAY, COCOFED, SANLAKAS and PM received 4.25%, 3.35%, 2.21% and 3.17%, respectively,
of the total votes cast in the May 14, 2001 party-list election."
10  11
It added that "the proclamation by the COMELEC of BUHAY, COCOFED, SANLAKAS and PM (as well as all
other qualified parties and organizations which received at least 2% of the total votes cast in the same party-
list election) as winners in the said party-list is in order."
12
However, in its November 25, 2002 Comment, the OSG contended that NCIA, "which is not a qualified party
or organization per the Comelec [First] Partial Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001, cannot be proclaimed
as winner in the last party-list elections." It also recommended that ABA’s Motion to lift the TRO with respect
13 
to its proclamation should be likewise granted, because it is a "qualified party or organization that hurdled the
2% threshold in the last party-list elections. For, ABA received 3.54% of the votes cast in the said party-list
elections, as shown in COMELEC Resolution No. NBC-02-001. ABA’s proclamation as winner is therefore in
order."
14
Preparatory to resolving the present Motions and in observance of due process, the Court resolved on
February 18, 2003 to require the parties, including the OSG, to submit their respective Position Papers on the
following issues:
1) Whether Labo v. Comelec, Grego v. Comelec and related cases should be deemed applicable to
15  16 
the determination of winners in party-list elections
2) Whether the votes cast for parties/organizations that were subsequently disqualified for having
failed to meet the eight-point guideline contained in our June 26, 2001 Decision should be deducted
from the "total votes cast for the party-list system" during the said elections
The Court’s Ruling
At the outset, the Court needs to pass upon the claims of the OSG that the initial recommendation contained
in Comelec’s First Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001, regarding BUHAY and COCOFED should be
reconsidered, and that these two party-list groups should be deemed qualified.
Qualification of BUHAY and COCOFED
In recommending the disqualification of BUHAY for being "most probably merely an extension of the El
Shaddai," a religious group, Comelec said in the above-mentioned Report:
"Upon hearing the case for BUHAY, the Commission determined that, based upon BUHAY’s declarations of
intent in its constitution, upon its avowed platform of government – which both mirror the sentiments of the El
Shaddai Movement – and upon the circumstances surrounding its relationship with the El Shaddai Movement,
BUHAY is most probably merely an extension of the El Shaddai. In this light, it is very likely that the
relationship between the leader of the El Shaddai, and the nominee of BUHAY is less a matter of serendipity
than an attempt to circumvent the statutory prohibition against sects or denominations from participating in the
party-list elections."
17
In the same Report, Comelec also stated that COCOFED did not deserve a seat in the House of
Representatives, because it was allegedly an "adjunct of the government." Explained the Commission:
"COCOFED is a sectoral party representing the peasantry. It is a non-stock, non-profit organization of coconut
farmers and producers, established in 1947. It has no religious affiliations. However, the records indicate that
it is an adjunct of the government.
"COCOFED’s Amended By-Laws specifically provides that:
‘The Chairman of the Philippine Coconut Authority or his duly authorized representative shall automatically be
a member of the National Board.’
The Philippine Coconut Authority is an administrative agency of the government which receives support and
funding from the national government. Thus, to have the Chairman of the Philippine Coconut Authority sit on
the National Board of COCOFED clearly amounts to ‘participation of the government in the affairs of
candidate’ which, as this Court has said, would be ‘unfair to the other parties,’ and ‘deleterious to the
objectives of the law.’
"Furthermore, in the Articles of Incorporation of COCOFED, it declared, as one of its primary purposes, the
obtaining of ‘possible technical and financial assistance for industry development from private or governmental
sources.’"18
On the other hand, in its Consolidated Reply dated October 15, 2001, the OSG -- in representation of the poll
agency -- argued that the above findings of the Comelec in regard, inter alia, to BUHAY and COCOFED are
"not supported by substantial evidence" and, thus, "should be modified accordingly." This opinion is
buttressed by the OSG’s Comment dated November 15, 2002. 19
The OSG stressed that the Comelec report on BUHAY was "merely anchored on conjectures or speculations."
On COCOFED, the OSG explained that the bylaws making the chairman of the Philippine Coconut Authority
an automatic member of the COCOFED National Board "has already been deleted as early as May, 1988."
It added that while the primary purposes of COCOFED’s Articles of Incorporation authorize the organization
"to help explore and obtain possible technical and financial assistance for industry development from private
or governmental sources x x x," this statement does not "by itself constitute such substantial evidence to
support a conclusion that the COCOFED is an entity funded or assisted by the government."
We are convinced. For the same reasons that we concurred in the earlier accreditation of APEC and CIBAC,
we accept the OSG’s position that indeed Comelec erred in disqualifying BUHAY and COCOFED. 20
Therefore, we now add these two groups to the list of 44 qualified groups earlier mentioned and thereby
increase the total to 46.
We shall now take up the main question of which parties/organizations won during the last party-list election.
Legal Effect of the Disqualifications on the "Total Votes Cast"
The instant Motions for proclamation contend that the disqualification of many party-list organizations has
reduced the "total number of votes cast for the party-list elections." Because of this reduction, the two-percent
benchmark required by law has now been allegedly attained by movants. Hence, they now pray for their
proclamation as winners in the last party-list elections.
Recall that under Section 11(b) of RA 7941 (the Party-List Act), only those parties garnering a minimum of
21 
two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system are entitled to have a seat in the House of
Representatives. The critical question now is this: To determine the "total votes cast for the party-list system,"
should the votes tallied for the disqualified candidates be deducted? Otherwise stated, does the clause "total
votes cast for the party-list system" include only those ballots cast for qualified party-list candidates?
To answer this question, there is a need to review related jurisprudence on the matter, especially Labo v.
Comelec and Grego v. Comelec, which were mentioned in our February 18, 2003 Resolution.
22  23 
Labo  and  Grego  Not Applicable
In Labo, the Court declared that "the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the
eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated
candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office." In other words, the votes cast for an ineligible or
24 
disqualified candidate cannot be considered "stray."
However, "this rule would be different if the electorate, fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s
disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety, would nonetheless cast their votes
in favor of the ineligible candidate. In such case, the electorate may be said to have waived the validity and
efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their franchise or throwing away their votes, in which case,
the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected." In short, the votes
25 
cast for a "notoriously disqualified" candidate may be considered "stray" and excluded from the canvass.
The foregoing pronouncement was reiterated in Grego, which held that the exception mentioned in Labo v.
Comelec "is predicated on the concurrence of two assumptions, namely: (1) the one who obtained the highest
number of votes is disqualified; and (2) the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s
disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their
votes in favor of the ineligible candidate." 26
Note, however, that the foregoing pronouncements (1) referred to regular elections for local offices and (2)
involved the interpretation of Section 6 of RA 6646. They were not meant to cover party-list elections, which
27 
are specifically governed by RA 7941. Section 10 of this latter law clearly provides that the votes cast for a
party, a sectoral organization or a coalition "not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted":
"SEC. 10. Manner of Voting. – Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes: the first vote is a vote for
candidate for membership of the House of Representatives in his legislative district, and the second, a vote for
the party, organization, or coalition he wants represented in the House of Representatives: Provided, That a
vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted:
Provided, finally, That the first election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998." (Emphasis
supplied)
The language of the law is clear; hence, there is room, not for interpretation, but merely for
application. Likewise, no recourse to extrinsic aids is warranted when the language of the law is plain and
28 
unambiguous. 29
Another reason for not applying Labo and Grego is that these cases involve single elective posts, while the
present controversy pertains to the acquisition of a number of congressional seats depending on the total
election results -- such that even those garnering second, third, fourth or lesser places could be proclaimed
winners depending on their compliance with other requirements.
RA 7941 is a special statute governing the elections of party-list representatives and is the controlling law in
matters pertaining thereto. Since Labo and Section 6 of RA 6646 came into being prior to the enactment of RA
7941, the latter is a qualification of the former ruling and law. On the other hand, Grego and other related
cases that came after the enactment of RA 7941 should be construed as inapplicable to the latter. 30
Subtracting the votes garnered by these disqualified party-list groups from the total votes cast under the party-
list system will reduce the base figure to 6,523,185. This means that the two-percent threshold can be more
easily attained by the qualified marginalized and under-represented groups. Hence, disregarding the votes of
disqualified party-list participants will increase and broaden the number of representatives from these sectors.
Doing so will further concretize and give flesh to the policy declaration in RA 7941, which we reproduce thus:
"SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of
representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of
registered, national 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
well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the 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."
Need for Patience and Perseverance
BAYAN MUNA contends that the deduction of votes obtained by party-list candidates disqualified after the
holding of the party-list elections will result in the instability of the system. The reason is that qualified party-list
candidates would be encouraged to seek the disqualification of the other candidates for the sole purpose of
attaining the needed percentage of the votes cast. Although such scenario may be possible, we believe that
the perceived "instability" can be alleviated because, (1) unlike in the past elections, Comelec now has the
herein qualified and disqualified participants’ list, which can be used for future elections; and (2) in the light of
recent jurisprudential developments, Comelec will now be guided accordingly when accrediting new
candidates for the next party-list elections and will be able to set the period for accreditation in such time and
manner as to enable it to determine their qualifications long before the elections are held.
Indeed, it takes patience and perseverance to have the marginalized and under-represented sectors ably
represented in Congress. The controversies churned during the 1998 and the 2001 party-list elections should
further embolden, not distract, the nation in the process of implementing a genuine and sound Philippine-style
party-list system. At this point, the Court needs to stress what it said in Veterans:
"[T]he dismal result of the first election for party-list representatives should serve as a challenge to our
sectoral parties and organizations. It should stir them to be more active and vigilant in their campaign for
representation in the State’s lawmaking body. It should also serve as a clarion call for innovation and creativity
in adopting this novel system of popular democracy.
"With adequate information and dissemination to the public and more active sectoral parties, we are confident
our people will be more responsive to future party-list elections. Armed with patience, perseverance and
perspicacity, our marginalized sectors, in time, will fulfill the Filipino dream of full representation in Congress
under the aegis of the party-list system, Philippine style."
31
We also take this opportunity to emphasize that the formulas devised in Veterans for computing the number of
nominees that the party-list winners are entitled to cannot be disregarded by the concerned agencies of
government, especially the Commission on Elections. These formulas ensure that the number of seats
allocated to the winning party-list candidates conform to the principle of proportional representation mandated
by the law.
The Party-List Winners
As discussed earlier, the votes obtained by disqualified party-list candidates are not to be counted in
determining the total votes cast for the party-list system. In the present cases, the votes they obtained should
be deducted from the canvass of the total number of votes cast during the May 14, 2001 elections.
Consequently, following Section 12 of RA 7941, a new tally and ranking of qualified party-list candidates is
now in order, according to the percentage of votes they obtained as compared with the total valid votes cast
nationwide.
Accordingly, we will now tally and rank the qualified party-list participants during the last elections, pursuant to
the approved Comelec Compliance Reports and our various Resolutions in these consolidated cases. Based
32 
on our foregoing discussion, we will deduct the votes obtained by the 116 disqualified candidates from the
33 
total votes cast for the May 14, 2001 elections. The votes for these disqualified groups total 8,595,630.
Subtracting this figure from 15,118,815 (the total votes cast as reported in the Compliance Reports) will result
in a new total of 6,523,185 valid votes cast for the May 14, 2001 party-list elections. This new figure
representing the votes cast for the 46 qualified party-list participants will now be the basis for computing the
two-percent threshold for victory and the number of seats the winners are entitled to.
To repeat, there are only 46 qualified party-list participants. Be it remembered that the Commission
recommended for qualification only 42 party-list candidates in its three Compliance Reports. To this figure
should be added the two participants we approved in our January 29, 2002 Resolution, plus another two
(BUHAY and COCOFED) per our earlier discussion in this ruling. Table No. 1 below-lists the 46 qualified 39 AASAHAN 16,787 0.26
parties. 40 AYOS 15,871 0.24
41 POWER 13,050 0.20
Table No. 1 34 42 KILOS 11,170 0.17
43 KALOOB 9,137 0.14
44 ALYANSA 7,882 0.12
Rank Party-List Votes Cast Percentage
Group to Total Votes 45 KATUTUBO 6,602 0.10
Cast (%) 46 DFP 6,600 0.10
1 BAYAN MUNA 1,708,253 26.19 Total 6,523,185
2 APEC 802,060 12.29
3 AKBAYAN! 377,852 5.79 The Winners and
4 BUTIL 330,282 5.06 Their Nominees
5 CIBAC 323,810 4.96
6 BUHAY 290,760 4.46
Using simple mathematics, we find that only 12 of the 46 qualified parties obtained at least two percent of the
7 AMIN 252,051 3.86 6,523,185 total valid votes cast. Two percent of this number is 130,464. Hence, only those qualified parties
8 ABA 242,199 3.71 that obtained at least 130,464 votes may be declared winners. On this basis, the winners are as follows:
9 COCOFED 229,165 3.51
10 PM 216,823 3.32
11 SANLAKAS 151,017 2.31 Table No. 2
12 ABANSE! PINAY 135,211 2.07
13 AKO 126,012 1.93 Rank Party-List Votes Cast Percentage
14 ALAGAD 117,161 1.80 Group to Total Votes
15 ELDERLY 106,496 1.63 Cast (%)
16 ATUCP 103,273 1.58 1 BAYAN MUNA 1,708,253 26.19
17 MARITIME 98,946 1.52 2 APEC 802,060 12.29
18 OFW 97,085 1.49 3 AKBAYAN! 377,852 5.79
19 AMMMA 65,735 1.01 4 BUTIL 330,282 5.06
20 ANAKBAYAN 63,312 0.97 5 CIBAC 323,810 4.96
21 AKAP 54,925 0.84 6 BUHAY 290,760 4.46
22 MSCFO 49,914 0.76 7 AMIN 252,051 3.86
23 WPI 46,831 0.72 8 ABA 242,199 3.71
24 AAAFPI 43,882 0.67 9 COCOFED 229,165 3.51
25 AWATU 42,149 0.65 10 PM 216,823 3.32
26 NACTODAP 38,898 0.60 11 SANLAKAS 151,017 2.31
27 SCFO 37,470 0.57 12 ABANSE! PINAY 135,211 2.07
28 TRICAP 35,807 0.55
29 PINOY MAY K 32,151 0.49 We shall now determine the number of nominees each winning party is entitled to, in accordance with the
30 VETERANS CARE 31,694 0.49 formula in Veterans. For purposes of determining the number of its nominees, BAYAN MUNA (the party that
31 OCW-UNIFIL 29,400 0.45 obtained the highest number of votes) is considered the first party. The applicable formula is as follows:
35 

32 PWP 24,182 0.37

33 DA 24,029 0.37
34 PARP 23,297 0.36 Number of votes of first party
Proportion of votes of first party relative to
35 ARPES 22,497 0.34 =
total votes for party-list system
36 ARBA 22,345 0.34 Total votes for party-list system
37 FEJODAP 21,335 0.33
38 GABAY OFW 17,777 0.27
Applying this formula, we arrive at 26.19 percent:
1,708,253

1,708,253 = 0.51
= 26.19%
6,523,185 Since 0.51 is less than one, BUHAY is not entitled to any additional seat. It is entitled to only one qualifying
37 

seat like all the other qualified parties that are ranked below it, as shown in Table No. 3:

Having obtained 26.19 percent, BAYAN MUNA is entitled to three (3) seats.  This finding is pursuant to our
Table No. 3
1âwphi1

ruling in Veterans, the pertinent portions of which we reproduce as follows:

"If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off is equal to at least six percent of the Rank Party-List Votes Percentage(% Additional
total valid votes cast for all the party list groups, then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a ) Seats 38

total of three seats overall. If the proportion of votes without a rounding off is equal to or greater than four 2 APEC 802,060 12.29 n/c
percent, but less than six percent, then the first party shall have one additional or a total of two seats. And if 3 AKBAYAN! 377,852 5.79 n/c
the proportion is less than four percent, then the first party shall not be entitled to any additional seat." 4 BUTIL 330,282 5.06 n/c
5 CIBAC 323,810 4.96 n/c
6 BUHAY 290,760 4.46 0.51
x x x           x x x          x x x
7 AMIN 252,051 3.86 0.44
8 ABA 242,199 3.71 0.42
"Note that the above formula will be applicable only in determining the number of additional seats the first 9 COCOFED 229,165 3.51 0.40
party is entitled to. It cannot be used to determine the number of additional seats of the other qualified parties. 10 PM 216,823 3.32 0.38
As explained earlier, the use of the same formula for all would contravene the proportional representation 11 SANLAKAS 151,017 2.31 0.26
parameter. For example, a second party obtains six percent of the total number of votes cast. According to the 12 ABANSE! PINAY 135,211 2.07 0.24
above formula, the said party would be entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats overall.
However, if the first party received a significantly higher amount of votes -- say, twenty percent -- to grant it the
same number of seats as the second party would violate the statutory mandate of proportional representation, In sum, the above-named party-list winners, excluding those with a separate pending challenge, are entitled to
since a party getting only six percent of the votes will have an equal number of representatives as the one the following congressional seats:
obtaining twenty percent. The proper solution, therefore, is to grant the first party a total of three seats; and
the party receiving six percent, additional seats in proportion to those of the first party."  36
1. BAYAN MUNA – three (3) seats [one qualifying and two additional seats]

As adverted to earlier, the issue of whether additional seats should be allocated to APEC, AKBAYAN, BUTIL 2. BUHAY – one qualifying seat only
and CIBAC will not be addressed in this Resolution; a separate Motion (with Supplemental Motion)
challenging their entitlement thereto has been filed by BAYAN MUNA and is still pending completion as of this
3. AMIN – one qualifying seat only
writing. Hence, we shall compute only the additional seat or seats to be allocated, if any, to the other qualified
parties – BUHAY, AMIN, ABA, COCOFED, PM, SANLAKAS and ABANSE! PINAY.
4. ABA – one qualifying seat only
Applying the relevant formula in Veterans to BUHAY, we arrive at 0.51:
5. COCOFED – one qualifying seat only

Votes Cast for Qualified Party 6. PM – one qualifying seat only

Additional Seats = x Allotted Seats for First Party
Votes Cast for First Party 7. SANLAKAS – one qualifying seat only
= 290,760 x 3
8. ABANSE! PINAY – one qualifying seat only
Epilogue
The determination of the winners in the last party-list elections has been neither easy nor simple. The novelty
of the party-list system in our country necessarily demanded careful study and deliberation by the Court.
Principles and precedents in other democracies of the world have not been very helpful, because our party-list
law (RA 7941) has earmarked unique parameters, giving rise to an equally distinctive Philippine-style party-list
system. Our difficulties have also been aggravated by the less than firm actions of the Commission on
Elections referred to earlier, which had to be reversed based on the OSG’s later submissions.
To help all concerned, especially the Commission on Elections, speed up the process of determining the
party-list winners in the future, we deem it wise to summarize the implementing process we followed in this
Resolution, as follows:
IN THE FUTURE, the determination of the winners can truly be made much more expeditiously, now that
there are precedents to guide all concerned, especially the Commission on Elections. For one thing, Comelec
already has the herein base list of 46 qualified parties. For another, given the lessons and experiences in
these proceedings, it can now more speedily, more carefully and more prudently pass upon the qualifications
of new candidates. Such process can even be done in advance under such rules and regulations it may issue,
consistent with the law and with our Decisions and Resolutions here and in Veterans, to pre-qualify
participants well in advance of the elections.
In closing, the Court hopes that, with each bit of wisdom they learned and after the arduous journey they
experienced in our one-of-a-kind Philippine-style party-list system, the marginalized and under-represented
sectors of our country will be accorded ever-widening opportunities to participate in nation-building, so that
they can help develop -- in peace and harmony -- a society that is just, humane, progressive and free.

1. After the promulgation of our Decision on June 26, 2001, we directed Comelec to conduct a factual
determination as to which of the various party-list candidates had passed the eight-point guideline we
instituted in that Decision. Although we gave Comelec only 30 days to undertake the work, it was
able to submit its Final Compliance Report only on September 27, 2001.
2. Of the various parties and organizations which Comelec allowed to participate in the 2001 party-
39 
WHEREFORE, we HOLD that, having obtained at least two percent of the total valid votes cast in the last
party-list elections, the following qualified participants are DECLARED elected with one nominee each:
BUHAY, AMIN, ABA, COCOFED, PM, SANLAKAS and ABANSE! PINAY. To enable the Commission on
Elections to proclaim -- upon finality of this Resolution -- these winners and their respective nominees, we
hereby partially LIFT our Temporary Restraining Order dated May 9, 2001, in regard to them only. It is made
permanent in regard to the rest that did not qualify and win.

list elections, it recommended -- in its three Compliance Reports to the Court -- 42 to be qualified.
Later on, four more groups were added, for a total of 46. SO ORDERED.

3. Next, we determined which of the 46 qualified parties garnered at least two percent of the total
votes cast for the party-list system. To do so, we subtracted the votes obtained by the disqualified
candidates from the "total votes cast." Those parties, organizations and coalitions that had obtained
at least two percent of this balance were declared winners.

4. After identifying the winners, we determined, by using the formulas mandated in Veterans v.
Comelec, how many nominees each winning party was entitled to.

5. The foregoing process would have been finished long ago and the winners proclaimed before the
end of the year 2002, had Comelec been more resolute and exacting in the factual determinations
contained in its Compliance Reports.

6. In the interest of due process, the Court required Position Papers on the issue of whether the
votes of disqualified candidates should be deducted from the "total votes cast" nationwide.

7. The two rollos of these two consolidated cases contain about 14,000 pages, because almost all of
the original party-list participants filed -- some repeatedly -- motions, pleas, position papers and so
on, which all needed attention. Thus, the Court had to devote an enormous amount of time and effort
poring over, understanding, and ruling upon these submissions.

8. In the interest of speedy justice, this matter was deliberated upon; and this Resolution was
discussed, finalized and promulgated by the Court within weeks after it had received the last Position
Paper mentioned in item 6 above.

G.R. No. 162203             April 14, 2004
AKLAT-ASOSASYON PARA SA KAUNLARAN NG LIPUNAN AT ADHIKAIN PARA SA TAO,
INC., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), respondent.
RESOLUTION
TINGA, J.:
For resolution is the Petition1 for certiorari and mandamus filed by Aklat-Asosasyon Para Sa Kaunlaran Ng
Lipunan At Adhikain Para Sa Tao, Inc. (Aklat) assailing the Commission on Elections
(Comelec) Resolution2 dated January 8, 2004, which dismissed its Petition3 for re-qualification as a party-list
organization, and the Resolution4 dated February 13, 2004, which denied its Motion for Reconsideration.5
Briefly, the facts are as follows:
On November 20, 2003, Aklat filed a Petition for declaration of re-qualification as a party-list
organization for purposes of the May 2004 elections. It alleged in its petition that it participated in the
2001 elections but was disqualified by the Comelec as it was found not to have complied with the
guidelines set by the Court in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v.
Comelec  (Bagong Bayani case)6 for party-list organizations to qualify and participate as such in the
party-list elections. Accordingly, Aklat "re-organized itself in order that it will comply with the 8-point
guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court"7 in the said case.
In its assailed Resolution  dated January 8, 2004, the Comelec dismissed the petition stating that Aklat cannot
be considered as an organization representing the marginalized and underrepresented groups as identified
under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. 7941). According to the Comelec, Aklat’s statement that it has
re-organized itself does not cure this defect as "there is nothing in the petition which will help us identify what
particular marginalized and underrepresented group AKLAT is now representing." 8 Further, the Comelec held
that "AKLAT lumped all the sectoral groups imaginable under the classification of regular members just to
convince us that it is now cured of its defect."9
On January 15, 2004, Aklat filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated January 14, 2004, substantially averring
that it has reorganized itself and taken the necessary steps to make it an organization of, by and for the
marginalized and underrepresented groups of society, particularly the indigenous cultural communities and
the youth. To this end, it has allegedly effected a fundamental change in its purposes as an organization,
nature of its membership and focus of its programs.10
The Comelec denied the motion in its questioned Resolution dated February 13, 2004, on three grounds,
namely: the petition was filed beyond the deadline set by the Comelec in Resolution No. 6320 for registration
of party-list organizations; the petition was not one for re-qualification as Aklat was never a registered party-list
organization having failed to meet the eight-point guidelines set by the Court in the Bagong Bayani case; and
that its decision not to extend the deadline for registration of party-list organizations is valid, the Comelec
being in the best position to make such a determination.11
In the instant Petition, Aklat asserts that under Section 5 of R.A. 7941, petitions for registration as a party-list
organization may be filed not later than ninety (90) days before the elections. It therefore had until February
10, 2004, the ninetieth (90th) day before the elections on May 10, 2004, within which to file its petition. Hence,
its petition, which was filed on November 20, 2003, was filed within the allowed period. Section 5 of Resolution
No. 632012 which requires the filing of such petitions not later than September 30, 2003, is null and void as it
amends R.A. 7941.
It further maintains that it has complied with the eight-point guidelines set in the Bagong Bayani case.
Allegedly, Aklat has a total membership of over 4,000 persons who belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented groups. It has established information and coordination centers throughout the country for
the benefit and in representation of indigenous cultural communities, farm and factory workers including
fisherfolk and the youth. Aklat also asserts that it is different from Asosasyon Para sa Kaunlaran ng Industria
ng Aklat (A.K.L.A.T.) which was previously de-registered by the Comelec. Because of all these, Aklat
contends that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it denied its petition for re-qualification.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment dated March 26, 2004, stating that the Comelec
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolutions.  According to the OSG,
Resolution No. 6320 is not in conflict with and is, in fact, germane to the purpose of R.A. 7941. It was within
the scope of the authority granted to the Comelec that it issued Resolution No. 6320 setting the deadline for
filing petitions for registration under the party-list system on September 30, 2003. In line with the purpose of
R.A. 7941 to enable marginalized sectors to actively participate in legislation, the Comelec must be given
sufficient time to evaluate all petitions for registration, at the same time allowing oppositions to be filed to the
end that only those truly qualified may be accredited under the party-list system. Besides, Republic Act No.
843613 allows the Comelec to change the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts to
ensure their accomplishment.
The OSG further maintains that the petition for re-qualification failed to comply with the provisions of
Resolution No. 6320. According to the OSG, the petition was not properly verified there being no showing that
Mr. Dominador Buhain, the signatory of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, was duly
authorized by Aklat to verify or cause the preparation and filing of the petition on its behalf. Moreover, Aklat
was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission only on October 20, 2003, a month before it
filed its petition for re-qualification. Hence, it has not existed for a period of at least one (1) year prior to the
filing of the petition as required by Section 6 of Resolution No. 6320. The OSG also points out that Aklat failed
to support its petition with the documents required under Section 7 of Resolution No. 6320, namely: a list of its
officers and members particularly showing that the majority of its membership belongs to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors it seeks to represent, and a track record or summary showing that it represents and
seeks to uplift the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society.
Moreover, the OSG notes that the incorporators and directors of Aklat are invariably known as pillars of the
book publishing industry or authors. Hence, even as re-organized, Aklat remains to be an association of
authors, book publishers, and publishing companies, rather than the organization of indigenous cultural
communities, farm and factory workers, fisherfolk and youth it claims to be.
For its part, the Comelec filed a Comment  dated March 29, 2004, stating that the period of ninety (90) days
prescribed in R.A. 7941 refers to the prohibitive period beyond which petitions for registration may no longer
be filed. Furthermore, the documents submitted by Aklat do not prove that its members belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society.
Aklat’s contention that Resolution No. 6320 is null and void as it amends and amplifies R.A. 7941 deserves
scant consideration. R.A. 7941 provides:
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 sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers,
and professionals…[Italics supplied.]
By its wording, R.A. 7941 itself supports the Comelec’s position that the period stated therein refers to the
prohibitive period beyond which petitions for registration should no longer be filed nor entertained. Put
elsewise, it is simply the minimum countback period which is not subject to reduction since it is prescribed by
law, but it is susceptible of protraction on account of administrative necessities and other exigencies perceived
by the poll body.
Verily, the Comelec has the power to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to enforce and
administer election laws. This power includes the determination, within the parameters fixed by law, of
appropriate periods for the accomplishment of certain pre-election acts like filing petitions for registration
under the party-list system. This is exactly what the Comelec did when it issued its Resolution No. 6320
declaring September 30, 2003, as the deadline for filing petitions for registration under the party-list system.
Considering these, as well as the multifarious pre-election activities that the Comelec is mandated to
undertake, the issuance of its Resolution No. 6320 cannot be considered tainted with grave abuse of
discretion.
Neither is there grave abuse of discretion in the Comelec’s denial of Aklat’s petition on the ground that it failed
to substantiate its claim that it represents the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society. It should
be noted that it was Aklat which asserted in its petition before the poll body that it has re-organized and is now
applying for re-qualification after its de-registration for failure to comply with the guidelines set forth in
the Bagong Bayani  case. Thus, the Comelec cannot be faulted for relying on its earlier finding, absent any
evidence in Aklat’s petition to the contrary, that Aklat is not an organization representing the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, but is actually a business interest or economic lobby group which seeks the
promotion and protection of the book publishing industry.
Significantly, Aklat and A.K.L.A.T. have substantially the same incorporators. In fact, four (4) of Aklat’s six (6)
incorporators14 are also incorporators of A.K.L.A.T.15 This substantial similarity is hard to ignore and bolsters
the conclusion that the supposed re-organization undertaken by Aklat is plain window-dressing as it has not
really changed its character as a business interest of persons in the book publishing industry.
The Court observes that Aklat’s articles of incorporation and document entitled The Facts About Aklat  which
were attached to its petition for re-qualification contain general averments that it supposedly represents
marginalized groups such as the youth, indigenous communities, urban poor and farmers/fisherfolk. These
general statements do not measure up to the first guideline set by the Bagong Bayani case for screening
party-list participants, i.e., that "the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of R.A. 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."16
In this regard, the Court notes with approval the OSG’s contention that Aklat has no track record to speak of
concerning its representation of marginalized and underrepresented constituencies considering that it has
been in existence for only a month prior to the filing of its petition for re-qualification.
It should finally be emphasized that the findings of fact by the Comelec, or any other administrative agency x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on the Supreme Court.17
G.R. No. 179295               April 21, 2009
In view of the foregoing, the Comelec can, by no means, be held to have committed grave abuse of discretion
to justify the setting aside of the assailed Resolutions. BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR TEACHER EMPOWERMENT THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION
AND HARMONY TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., and ABONO, Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DISMISSED. ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

SO ORDERED. 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 Resolution2 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.

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. 07-604 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. COMELEC5 (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.
G.R. No. 179271               April 21, 2009

The Facts
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY
(BANAT), Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers), Respondent. The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list representatives. The COMELEC counted
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS, Intervenor. 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties under the Party-List System.6
AANGAT TAYO, Intervenor.
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided
CITIZENS), Intervenor. 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 WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, in Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated
formula in allocating party-list seats."7 There were no intervenors in BANAT’s petition before the NBC. BANAT its ruling in  Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC  adopting a formula for the additional seats of each
filed a memorandum on 19 July 2007. 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;
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 WHEREAS, the parties, organizations, and coalitions that have thus far garnered at least three hundred
Yumabong (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), Gabriela’s Women Party thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes are as follows:
(Gabriela), Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan! Citizen’s Action
Party (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL), Cooperative-Natco Network Party (COOP- RANK PARTY/ORGANIZATION/ VOTES
NATCCO), Anak Pawis, Alliance of Rural Concerns (ARC), and Abono. We quote NBC Resolution No. 07-60 COALITION RECEIVED
in its entirety below:
1 BUHAY 1,163,218
2 BAYAN MUNA 972,730
WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections sitting en banc as National Board of Canvassers, thru its Sub- 3 CIBAC 760,260
Committee for Party-List, as of 03 July 2007, had officially canvassed, in open and public proceedings, a total 4 GABRIELA 610,451
of fifteen million two hundred eighty three thousand six hundred fifty-nine (15,283,659) votes under the 5 APEC 538,971
Party-List System of Representation, in connection with the National and Local Elections conducted last 14 6 A TEACHER 476,036
May 2007; 7 AKBAYAN 470,872
8 ALAGAD 423,076
WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation Groups of the National Board of Canvassers 9 BUTIL 405,052
reveals that the projected/maximum total party-list votes cannot go any higher than sixteen million seven 10 COOP-NATCO 390,029
hundred twenty three thousand one hundred twenty-one (16,723,121) votes given the following statistical 11 BATAS 386,361
data: 12 ANAK PAWIS 376,036
13 ARC 338,194
Projected/Maximum Party-List Votes for May 2007 Elections 14 ABONO 337,046

i. Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated 15,283,659 WHEREAS, except for Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS), against
ii. Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/ untabulated 1,337,032 which an URGENT PETITION FOR CANCELLATION/REMOVAL OF REGISTRATION AND
(i.e. canvass deferred) DISQUALIFICATION OF PARTY-LIST NOMINEE (With Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has
iii. Maximum party-list votes (based on 100% outcome) from 102,430 been filed before the Commission, docketed as SPC No. 07-250, all the parties, organizations and coalitions
areas not yet submitted for canvass (Bogo, Cebu; Bais City; included in the aforementioned list are therefore entitled to at least one seat under the party-list system of
Pantar, Lanao del Norte; and Pagalungan, Maguindanao) representation in the meantime.
Maximum Total Party-List Votes 16,723,121
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
WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) provides in part:
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
The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the participating under the Party-List System:
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,
1 Buhay Hayaan Yumabong BUHAY
that each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
2 Bayan Muna BAYAN MUNA
3 Citizens Battle Against Corruption CIBAC
WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based on the above projected total of party-list votes, the presumptive two 4 Gabriela Women’s Party GABRIELA
percent (2%) threshold can be pegged at three hundred thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-two 5 Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives APEC
(334,462) votes; 6 Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, A TEACHER
Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational
 Reforms, Inc.   Party-List Projected total number of
7 Akbayan! Citizen’s Action Party AKBAYAN votes
8 Alagad ALAGAD 1 BUHAY 1,178,747
9 Luzon Farmers Party BUTIL 2 BAYAN MUNA 977,476
10 Cooperative-Natco Network Party COOP-NATCCO 3 CIBAC 755,964
11 Anak Pawis ANAKPAWIS 4 GABRIELA 621,718
12 Alliance of Rural Concerns ARC 5 APEC 622,489
13 Abono ABONO 6 A TEACHER 492,369
7 AKBAYAN 462,674
This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations, or coalitions which may later on 8 ALAGAD 423,190
be established to have obtained at least two percent (2%) of the total actual votes cast under the Party-List 9 BUTIL 409,298
System. 1 COOP-NATCO 412,920
0
1 ANAKPAWIS 370,165
The total number of seats of each winning party, organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant 1
to Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list
1 ARC 375,846
results.
2
1 ABONO 340,151
The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS) is hereby 3
deferred until final resolution of SPC No. 07-250, in order not to render the proceedings therein moot and
academic.
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
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, organizations and coalitions with pending accordance with Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC, reiterated in Citizen’s Battle Against
disputes shall likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases. Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC;

Let the Clerk of the Commission implement this Resolution, furnishing a copy thereof to the Speaker of the WHEREAS, qualified parties, organizations and coalitions participating under the party-list system of
House of Representatives of the Philippines. 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;
SO ORDERED.8 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the "first party", the correct formula as expressed
Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60, the COMELEC, acting as NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07- in Veterans, is:
72, which declared the additional seats allocated to the appropriate parties. We quote from the COMELEC’s
interpretation of the Veterans formula as found in NBC Resolution No. 07-72:
Number of votes of first party Proportion of votes of first
= party relative to total votes for
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 Total votes for party-list system party-list system
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;
wherein the proportion of votes received by the first party (without rounding off) shall entitle it to additional
seats:
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 Proportion of votes received Additional seats
maximum votes expected for Pantar, Lanao del Norte, is 16,261,369; and that the projected maximum total by the first party
votes for the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalition[s] are as follows:
Equal to or at least 6% Two (2) additional seats
 Equal to or greater than 4% but less than 6% One (1) additional seat BUTIL 0.69 0

Less than 4% No additional seat COOP-NATCO 0.69 0

ANAKPAWIS 0.62 0
WHEREAS, applying the above formula, Buhay obtained the following percentage:
ARC 0.63 0
1,178,747
ABONO 0.57 0
= 0.07248 or 7.2%
16,261,369
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
which entitles it to two (2) additional seats. 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:
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:
Party List Additional Seats

No. of votes of BUHAY 2

concerned party No. of additional
Additional seats for
= x seats allocated BAYAN MUNA 1
a concerned party
No. of votes of to first party
first party CIBAC 1

GABRIELA 1
WHEREAS, applying the above formula, the results are as follows:
APEC 1
Party List Percentage Additional Seat
This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations or coalitions which may later on be
BAYAN MUNA 1.65 1 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)
CIBAC 1.28 1 additional seat.

GABRIELA 1.05 1 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.
APEC 1.05 1
Let the National Board of Canvassers Secretariat implement this Resolution, furnishing a copy hereof to the
A TEACHER 0.83 0
Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
AKBAYAN 0.78 0
SO ORDERED.9
ALAGAD 0.71 0
Acting on BANAT’s 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:
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."
1awphi1

COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS:
Petitioner Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), in its Petition to
Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution prayed for the following
reliefs, to wit:
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.

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
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

4. Initially, all party-list groups shall be given the number of seats corresponding to every 2% of the Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations proclaimed on 9 July 2007, the COMELEC proclaimed three
votes they received and the additional seats shall be allocated in accordance with Section 12 of RA other party-list organizations as qualified parties entitled to one guaranteed seat under the Party-List System:
7941, that is, in proportion to the percentage of votes obtained by each party-list group in relation to Agricultural Sector Alliance of the Philippines, Inc. (AGAP), 12 Anak Mindanao (AMIN),13 and An Waray.14 Per
the total nationwide votes cast in the party-list election, after deducting the corresponding votes of the certification15 by COMELEC, the following party-list organizations have been proclaimed as of 19 May
those which were allotted seats under the 2% threshold rule. In fine, the formula/procedure 2008:
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 Party-List No. of Seat(s)
proclaimed, which party-list groups are entitled to representative seats and how many of their 1.1 Buhay 3
nominees shall seat [sic]. 1.2 Bayan Muna 2
1.3 CIBAC 2
5. In the alternative, to declare as unconstitutional Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 and that the 1.4 Gabriela 2
procedure in allocating seats for party-list representative prescribed by Section 12 of RA 7941 shall 1.5 APEC 2
be followed. 1.6 A Teacher 1
1.7 Akbayan 1
1.8 Alagad 1
1.9 Butil 1
1.1 Coop-Natco [sic] 1
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N:
0
1.1 Anak Pawis 1
The petition of BANAT is now moot and academic. 1
1.1 ARC 1
2
 1.1 Abono 1 3. The proportional relationships under the First Party Rule are different from those
3 required under RA 7941;
1.1 AGAP 1
4 C. Violates the "Four Inviolable Parameters" of the Philippine party-list system as provided
1.1 AMIN 1 for under the same case of Veterans Federation Party, et al. v. COMELEC.
5
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 party-list
organizations as said rule:
A. Violates the constitutional principle of proportional representation.
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.
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
Number of seats
obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two additional seats;
available to legislative districts Number of seats available to
x .20 = party-list representatives
Fourth, proportional representation— the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall
.80
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 This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats available for party-list
"proportional representation," this Court is compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats representatives whenever a legislative district is created by law. Since the 14th Congress of the Philippines
to party-list organizations. has 220 district representatives, there are 55 seats available to party-list representatives.

Number of Party-List Representatives: The Formula Mandated by the Constitution

22
0
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides: x .20 = 55
.80
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 After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to the total number of
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be representatives, the Constitution left the manner of allocating the seats available to party-list
elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. representatives to the wisdom of the legislature.

(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.
xxx
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 System. Veterans produced the First
Party Rule,20 and Justice Vicente V. Mendoza’s dissent in Veterans presented Germany’s Niemeyer
formula21 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 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the "House of Representatives shall be composed of not Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. — x x x
more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law." The House of Representatives shall
be composed of district representatives and party-list representatives. The Constitution allows the legislature In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote,22 the following procedure shall be observed:
to modify the number of the members of the House of Representatives. 1avvphi1 .zw+

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:
(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).
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 BANAT’s second interpretation.
In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both the COMELEC’s 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

(c) The remaining seats shall, after deducting the seats obtained by the party-list groups under the Rank Party Votes Rank Party Votes
immediately preceding paragraph and after deducting from their total the votes corresponding to Garnered Garnered
those seats, the remaining seats shall be allotted proportionately to all the party-list groups which 1 BUHAY 1,169,234 48 KALAHI 88,868
have not secured the maximum three (3) seats under the 2% threshold rule, in accordance with 2 BAYAN MUNA 979,039 49 APOI 79,386
Section 12 of RA 7941.23 3 CIBAC 755,686 50 BP 78,541
4 GABRIELA 621,171 51 AHONBAYAN 78,424
Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be awarded under BANAT’s first interpretation. 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
The second interpretation presented by BANAT assumes that the 2% vote requirement is declared 8 ALAGAD 423,149 55 PBA 71,544
unconstitutional, and apportions the seats for party-list representatives by following Section 12 of R.A. No. 9 COOP-NATCCO 409,883 56 GRECON 62,220
7941. BANAT states that the COMELEC:
10 BUTIL 409,160 57 BTM 60,993
11 BATAS 385,810 58 A SMILE 58,717
(a) shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis; 12 ARC 374,288 59 NELFFI 57,872
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 60 AKSA 57,012
(b) rank them according to the number of votes received; and, 14 ABONO 339,990 61 BAGO 55,846
15 AMIN 338,185 62 BANDILA 54,751
(c) allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained 16 AGAP 328,724 63 AHON 54,522
by each party, organization or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list 17 AN WARAY 321,503 64 ASAHAN MO 51,722
system.24 18 YACAP 310,889 65 AGBIAG! 50,837
 19 FPJPM 300,923 66 SPI 50,478 4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 67 BAHANDI 46,612 5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1
21 ABS 235,086 68 ADD 45,624 6 A TEACHER 490,379 3.07% 1
22 KAKUSA 228,999 69 AMANG 43,062 7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1
23 KABATAAN 228,637 70 ABAY PARAK 42,282 8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1
24 ABA-AKO 218,818 71 BABAE KA 36,512 9 COOP-NATCCO 409,883 2.57% 1
25 ALIF 217,822 72 SB 34,835 10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1
26 SENIOR CITIZENS 213,058 73 ASAP 34,098 11 BATAS29 385,810 2.42% 1
27 AT 197,872 74 PEP 33,938 12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1
28 VFP 196,266 75 ABA ILONGGO 33,903 13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 2.32% 1
29 ANAD 188,521 76 VENDORS 33,691 14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1
30 BANAT 177,028 77 ADD-TRIBAL 32,896 15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% 1
31 ANG KASANGGA 170,531 78 ALMANA 32,255 16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1
32 BANTAY 169,801 79 AANGAT KA PILIPINO 29,130 17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% 1
33 ABAKADA 166,747 80 AAPS 26,271   Total     17
34 1-UTAK 164,980 81 HAPI 25,781 18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0
35 TUCP 162,647 82 AAWAS 22,946 19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0
36 COCOFED 155,920 83 SM 20,744 20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% 0
37 AGHAM 146,032 84 AG 16,916
38 ANAK 141,817 85 AGING PINOY 16,729 From Table 2 above, we see that only 17 party-list candidates received at least 2% from the total number of
39 ABANSE! PINAY 130,356 86 APO 16,421 votes cast for party-list candidates. The 17 qualified party-list candidates, or the two-percenters, are the party-
40 PM 119,054 87 BIYAYANG BUKID 16,241 list candidates that are "entitled to one seat each," or the guaranteed seat. In this first round of seat allocation,
41 AVE 110,769 88 ATS 14,161 we distributed 17 guaranteed seats.
42 SUARA 110,732 89 UMDJ 9,445
43 ASSALAM 110,440 90 BUKLOD FILIPINA 8,915 The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that "those garnering more than two percent
44 DIWA 107,021 91 LYPAD 8,471 (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes." This is
45 ANC 99,636 92 AA-KASOSYO 8,406 where petitioners’ and intervenors’ problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets the clause
46 SANLAKAS 97,375 93 KASAPI 6,221 "in proportion to their total number of votes" to be in proportion to the votes of the first party. This
47 ABC 90,058 TOTAL 15,950,900 interpretation is contrary to the express language of R.A. No. 7941.

The first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 states that "parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the two percent
at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each." threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No.
This clause guarantees a seat to the two-percenters. In Table 2 below, we use the first 20 party-list candidates 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible
for illustration purposes. The percentage of votes garnered by each party is arrived at by dividing the number to achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party list seats
of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for all party-list candidates. 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.
Table 2. The first 20 party-list candidates and their respective percentage of votes garnered over the total
votes for the party-list.28
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
Rank Party Votes Votes Garnered over Guaranteed Seat a guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the first 50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get
Garnered Total Votes for Party-
a seat despite the availability of 55 seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this situation
List, in % will repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1 cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of parties get two percent of the votes for every party,
2 BAYAN MUNA 979,039 6.14% 1 it is always impossible for the number of occupied party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two
3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1 percent threshold is present.
We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as Votes for (B) (C) (D)
found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an Party List,
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the in %
attainment of "the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of (A)
Representatives."30 1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1 2.79 3 N.A.
2 BAYAN 979,039 6.14% 1 2.33 3 N.A.
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the MUNA
following procedure shall be observed: 3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1 1.80 2 N.A.
4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on 5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
the number of votes they garnered during the elections. 6 A Teacher 490,379 3.07% 1 1.17 2 N.A.
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1 1.11 2 N.A.
8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1 1.01 2 N.A.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast 931 COOP- 409,883 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each. NATCCO
10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be 11 BATAS 385,810 2.42% 1 1 2 N.A.
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are 12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1 1 2 N.A.
allocated. 13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 2.32% 1 1 2 N.A.
14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1 1 2 N.A.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats. 15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% 1 1 2 N.A.
16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1 1 2 N.A.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included because they have 17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% 1 1 2 N.A.
already been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for 18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0 1 1 N.A.
allocation as "additional seats" are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System less the 19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0 1 1 N.A.
guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for 20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% 0 1 1 N.A.
a rounding off of fractional seats. 21 ABS 235,086 1.47% 0 1 1 N.A.
22 KAKUSA 228,999 1.44% 0 1 1 N.A.
In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional, we do not limit our allocation of additional seats in 23 KABATAAN 228,637 1.43% 0 1 1 N.A.
Table 3 below to the two-percenters. The percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate is arrived 24 ABA-AKO 218,818 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for 25 ALIF 217,822 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
party-list candidates. There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation. First, the percentage is 26 SENIOR 213,058 1.34% 0 1 1 N.A.
multiplied by the remaining available seats, 38, which is the difference between the 55 maximum seats CITIZENS
reserved under the Party-List System and the 17 guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer 27 AT 197,872 1.24% 0 1 1 N.A.
of the product of the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a party’s share in the 28 VFP 196,266 1.23% 0 1 1 N.A.
remaining available seats. Second, we assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all 29 ANAD 188,521 1.18% 0 1 1 N.A.
available seats are completely distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of 30 BANAT 177,028 1.11% 0 1 1 N.A.
seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list 31 ANG 170,531 1.07% 0 1 1 N.A.
candidate is entitled. Thus: KASANGGA
32 BANTAY 169,801 1.06% 0 1 1 N.A.
Table 3. Distribution of Available Party-List Seats 33 ABAKADA 166,747 1.05% 0 1 1 N.A.
34 1-UTAK 164,980 1.03% 0 1 1 N.A.
35 TUCP 162,647 1.02% 0 1 1 N.A.
Rank Party Votes Votes Guaranteed Additional (B) plus Applying
36 COCOFED 155,920 0.98% 0 1 1 N.A.
Garnered Garnered Seat Seats (C), in the three
over (First (Second whole seat cap Total 17 55
Total Round) Round) integers (E)
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 Tañada wants to run under BAYAN group and says that he represents the
farmers, would he qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Tañada 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.
x x x 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 organization’s 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.