Qualifications of Party-List Nominees

[NRR – AB25]
1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. Registered voter;
3. Resident of the Philippines for at least one year immediately preceding the day of
the election;
4. Able to read and write;
5. Bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at
least 90 days preceding the day of the election; and
6. At least 25 years of age on the day of the election.

◈ (For the youth sector- 25-30 years of age on the day of the election.)
How is a Party-List Representative chosen?

◈ Party-list representatives are proclaimed by the

COMELEC based on the list of names submitted by the
respective parties, organizations or coalitions to the
COMELEC according to their ranking in the list.
What is the effect if there’s a change of affiliation?
◈ Any elected party-list representative who changes his
political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of
office shall forfeit his seat; provided that if he changes
his political party or sectoral affiliation within 6 months
before an election, he shall not be eligible for
nomination as party-list representative under his new
party or organization.
How is the manner of voting?
Every voter shall be entitled to two votes:

(1) A vote for the candidate for member of the House of

Representatives in his legislative district;

(2) 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.
Vacancy
◈ In case of vacancy in the seats reserved for party- list
representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled
by the next representative from the list of nominees in the
order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party,
organization or coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired
term. If the list is exhausted, the party, organization or
coalition concerned shall submit additional nominees.
 Milagros Amores v. HRET
6
◈ FACTS:
Milagros E. Amores (petitioner) seeks the ouster of private respondent
Villanueva, alleging that, among other things,

(1) Private Respondent assumed office without a formal proclamation issued

by the COMELEC;
(2) He was disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since at
the time of the filing of his certificates of nomination and acceptance, he
was already 31 years old, beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to Section 9
of RA No. 7941 (Party-List System Act); and
(3) his change of affiliation from CIBAC’s
youth sector to its Overseas Filipino Workers
and their families sector was not effected at
least six months prior to the May 2007
elections so as to be qualified to represent the
new sector under Section 15 of RA No. 7941.

7
 “
ISSUE:
Whether Sections 9 and 15
of RA No. 7941 was violated
by Private Respondent?

8
RULING: YES. The law states that a nominee of the youth sector must
at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on
the day of the election, so it must be that a candidate who is more than
30 on election day is not qualified to be a youth sector nominee.
10
◈ In the case at bar, the Court ruled that private respondent was not
qualified to be a nominee of either the youth sector or the
overseas Filipino workers and their families sector in the May
2007 elections.
◈ A party-list organization’s ranking of its nominees is a mere
indication of preference, their qualifications according to law are a
different matter.
COALITION OF
ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR
CITIZENS VS. COMELEC
G.R. 206844-45 JULY 23, 2013

11
 FACTS:
12
◈ COMELEC accredited SENIOR CITIZENS as a party-list
organization. Senior Citizen was allowed to participate in
the May 2010 elections. After the conduct of the May 2010
elections, SENIOR CITIZENS ranked second among all the
party-list candidates and was allocated two seats in the
House of Representatives. The first seat was occupied by its
first nominee, Rep. Arquiza, while the second was given to
its second nominee, David L. Kho (Rep. Kho).
13
Later, David Kho tendered his resignation letter as representative
which was followed by a board resolution of Senior Citizen accepting
such resignation in accordance with the term-sharing agreement made
between the nominees of the party-list. COMELEC, however, did not
recognize the resignation saying that it is against public policy.
COMELEC resolved to cancel the registration of the Senior Citizens as
party-list.
 ISSUE:
14
◈ Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when it issued the assailed
Omnibus Resolution cancelling the registration
of SENIOR CITIZENS on account of its
purported violation of the prohibition against
term-sharing?
Ruling: YES. The term-sharing agreement was entered into in 2010 or two years
prior to the promulgation of said resolution on February 21, 2012.Article 4 of the
Civil Code states that "laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is
provided." Even if COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 expressly provided for its
retroactive application, the Court finds that the COMELEC En Banc indeed
erred in cancelling the registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS.

The reason for this is that the ground invoked by the COMELEC En Banc, i.e.,
the term-sharing agreement among the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS, was not
implemented. In its Resolution dated June 27, 2012 in E.M. No. 12-040, the
COMELEC En Banc itself refused to recognize the term-sharing agreement and
the tender of resignation of Rep. Kho.

15
The COMELEC even declared that no vacancy was created despite the
execution of the said agreement. Subsequently, there was also no indication
that the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS still tried to implement, much less
succeeded in implementing, the term-sharing agreement.

16
Due process violation was committed when they were not apprised of the fact that
the term-sharing agreement entered into by the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS
in 2010 would be a material consideration in the evaluation of the organizations
qualifications as a party-list group for the May 13, 2013 elections. As it were, both
factions of SENIOR CITIZENS were not able to answer this issue squarely.

17
Main point:

Since the term-sharing agreement was not actually implemented by the parties
thereto, the SENIOR CITIZENS, as a party-list organization, had been
unfairly and arbitrarily penalized by the COMELEC En Banc.

18