Cases Poli 2ND Full PDF

G.R. No.
203766
April 2, 2013
x-----------------------x
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr.

Alan Igot, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 203958
vs.
KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA, INC.

(KAKUSA), Petitioner,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. Nos. 203818-19
x-----------------------x
AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY (AKB), Petitioner,
G.R. No. 203960
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
1st CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR RURAL ENERGY, INC. (1CARE), Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203922
x-----------------------x
ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES
(APEC),represented by its President Congressman
Ponciano D. Payuyo, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 203976
vs.
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION,

INC. (ARARO), Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203936
x-----------------------x
AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA,

represented by its President Michael Abas Kida,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 203981
vs.
ASSOCIATION FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON

LEADERSHIP (ARAL) PARTY-LIST, represented herein by
Ms. Lourdes L. Agustin, the partys Secretary General,
Petitioner,
vs.
1 GUARDIANS NATIONALIST
(1GANAP/GUARDIANS), Petitioner,
PHILIPPINES,
INC.,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC composed of SIXTO
S. BRILLANTES, JR., Chairman, RENE V. SARMIENTO,
Commissioner,LUCENITO
N.
TAGLE,
Commissioner,ARMANDO
C.
VELASCO,
Commissioner,ELIAS
R.
YUSOPH,
Commissioner,
andCHRISTIAN
ROBERT
S.
LIM,
Commissioner,
Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204002
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL CONCERNS, Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 204125
x-----------------------x
AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ALLIANCE, INC.
(A-IPRA), represented by its Secretary General,Ronald D.
Macaraig, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204094
vs.
ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD),
Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204126
G.R. No. 204100
KAAGAPAY NG NAGKAKAISANG AGILANG PILIPINONG

MAGSASAKA (KAP), formerly known as AKO AGILA NG
NAGKAKAISANG MAGSASAKA (AKO AGILA), represented by
its Secretary General, Leo R. San Buenaventura, Petitioner,
1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC.,

(1BRO-PGBI) formerly PGBI, Petitioner,
vs.
vs.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204139
G.R. No. 204122
ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), represented by Atty.
Berteni Catalua Causing, Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204174
x-----------------------x
AANGAT TAYO PARTY LIST-PARTY, represented by its

President Simeon T. Silva, Jr., Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204141

BANTAY PARTY LIST, represented by Maria Evangelina F.
Palparan, President, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204216
x-----------------------x
COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION,

INC., Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204153

PASANG MASDA NATIONWIDE PARTY by its President
Roberto "Ka Obet" Martin, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 204220
x-----------------------x
ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,

vs.
G.R. No. 204158
ABROAD PARTY LIST, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CHAIRMAN SIXTO S.
BRILLANTES, JR., COMMISSIONERS RENE V. SARMIENTO,
ARMANDO C. VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN
ROBERT S. LIM, MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA,
LUCENITO TAGLE, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING ON
THEIR BEHALF, Respondents.
G.R. No. 204236
FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204238

x-----------------------x
ALLIANCE OF BICOLNON PARTY (ABP), Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204318

UNITED MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS FOUNDATION
(UNIMAD) PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204239
x-----------------------x
GREEN FORCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SONS AND

DAUGHTERS OF MOTHER EARTH (GREENFORCE),
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204321
vs.
ANG AGRIKULTURA NATIN ISULONG (AANI), represented by

its Secretary General Jose C. Policarpio, Jr., Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204240

x-----------------------x
AGRI-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA MAGSASAKA NG
PILIPINAS MOVEMENT (AGRI), represented by its Secretary
General, Michael Ryan A. Enriquez, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204323
vs.
BAYANI PARTYLIST as represented byHomer Bueno, Fitrylin

Dalhani,Israel de Castro, Dante Navarroand Guiling
Mamondiong, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204263
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CHAIRMAN SIXTO S.

BRILLANTES, JR., COMMISSIONERS RENE V. SARMIENTO,
LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO C. VELASCO, ELIAS R.
YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, and MARIA GRACIA
CIELO M. PADACA, Respondents.
A BLESSED PARTY LIST A.K.A. BLESSEDFEDERATION OF

FARMERS AND FISHERMEN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204341
x-----------------------x
ACTION LEAGUE OF INDIGENOUS MASSES(ALIM) PARTYLIST, represented herein by its President Fatani S. Abdul
Malik, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204364
vs.
ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG-TAO, PARA SA

LUPA, PABAHAY, HANAPBUHAY AT KAUNLARAN (AKO
BUHAY), Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, SIXTO S.

BRILLANTES, JR., RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE,
ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA, in their
capacities as Commissioners thereof, Respondents.
G.R. No. 204356
BUTIL FARMERS PARTY, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204367
x-----------------------x
AKBAY KALUSUGAN INCORPORATION(AKIN), Petitioner,

vs.
G.R. No. 204358
ALLIANCE OF ADVOCATES IN MININGADVANCEMENT FOR

NATIONAL PROGRESS (AAMA), Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204370
x-----------------------x
AKO AN BISAYA (AAB), represented by itsSecretary General,

Rodolfo T. Tuazon, Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204359
SOCIAL
MOVEMENT
FOR
ACTIVEREFORM
AND
TRANSPARENCY (SMART), represented by its Chairman,
Carlito B. Cubelo, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204374
x-----------------------x
BINHI-PARTIDO NG MGA MAGSASAKA PARA SA MGA
MAGSASAKA, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204408
vs.
PILIPINO ASSOCIATION FOR COUNTRY-URBAN POOR

YOUTH ADVANCEMENT AND WELFARE (PACYAW),
Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204379
x-----------------------x
ALAGAD NG SINING (ASIN) represented by its President,

Faye Maybelle Lorenz, Petitioner,
vs.
G.R. No. 204410

1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK), Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204394

x-----------------------x
ASSOCIATION OF GUARD UTILITY HELPER, AIDER, RIDER,
DRIVER/DOMESTIC HELPER, JANITOR, AGENT AND NANNY
OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (GUARDJAN), Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204421
vs.
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. SENIOR CITIZEN PARTY-LIST, represented
herein by its 1st nominee and Chairman, Francisco G. Datol,
Jr., Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204402
x-----------------------x
KALIKASAN PARTY-LIST, represented by its President,

Clemente G. Bautista, Jr., and Secretary General, Frances Q.
Quimpo, Petitioner,
G.R. No. 204425
vs.
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE

PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANY OF ITS OFFICERS AND

AGENTS, ACTING FOR AND IN ITS BEHALF, INCLUDING THE
CHAIR AND MEMBERSOF THE COMMISSION, Respondents.
G.R. No. 204436
ABYAN ILONGGO PARTY (AI), represented byits Party

President, Rolex T. Suplico, Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204426
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL ATHLETICS ENTREPRENEURS AND

HOBBYISTS, INC. (ALA-EH), Petitioner,
x-----------------------x
vs.
G.R. No. 204455
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, SIXTO S.

BRILLANTES, JR., RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE,
ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA, in their
respective capacities as COMELEC Chairperson and
Commissioners, Respondents.
MANILA TEACHER SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204428
G.R. No. 204484
ANG GALING PINOY (AG), represented by its Secretary
General, Bernardo R. Corella, Jr., Petitioner,
PARTIDO NG BAYAN ANG BIDA (PBB), represented by its
Secretary General, Roger M. Federazo, Petitioner,
vs.
vs.
x-----------------------x
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204435
G.R. No. 204485
1 ALLIANCE ADVOCATING AUTONOMY PARTY (1AAAP),
Petitioner,
ALLIANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS, NETWORKS AND
ASSOCIATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALONA),
Petitioner,
vs.
vs.

This Court resolved to consolidate the 54 petitions in the
Resolutions dated 13 November 2012,2 20 November
2012,3 27 November 2012,4 4 December 2012,5 11
December 2012,6 and 19 February 2013.7
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204486

The Facts Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No.
7941 (R.A. No. 7941) and COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366
and 9531, approximately 280 groups and organizations
registered and manifested their desire to participate in the
13 May 2013 party-list elections.
1st KABALIKAT NG BAYAN GINHAWANG SANGKATAUHAN

(1st KABAGIS), Petitioner,
vs.
G.R.
No.
SPP
No.
Group
Grounds
Denial
for
A. Via the COMELEC En Bancs automatic review

of
the
COMELEC
Divisions resolutions approving registration of
groups/organizations
x-----------------------x
Resolution dated 23 November 20128
G.R. No. 204490
20437
9
PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY (PPP), Petitioner,
12Alagad
ng
099
Sining (ASIN)
(PLM
)
vs.
PERLAS-BERNABE,*
DECISION
- The "artists"
sector is not
considered
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed;
Failure
to
prove
track
record;
and
- Failure of the
nominees
to
qualify under RA
7941
and
Ang
Bagong
Bayani.
Omnibus Resolution dated 27 November 20129

CARPIO, J.:
20445
5
12041
(PLM
)
Manila
Teachers
Savings and
Loan
Association,
Inc.
(Manila
Teachers)
- A non-stock
savings
and
loan association
cannot
be
considered
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed;
and
- The first and
second
nominees
are
not teachers by
profession.
20442
6
12011
Association
of
Local
- Failure to show
that
its
members
The Cases
These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and

Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition1 filed by 52 partylist groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions
issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
disqualifying them from participating in the 13 May 2013
party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for
registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of
their registration and accreditation as party-list
organizations.
(PLM Athletics
)
Entrepreneur
s
and
Hobbyists,
Inc. (ALA-EH)
belong to the
marginalized;
and
- Failure of the
nominees
to
qualify.
farmers
peasants.
Resolution dated 4 December 201213
7
20443
6

4
20443
5
12057
(PLM
)
1
Alliance
Advocating
Autonomy
Party
(1AAAP)
- Failure of the
nominees
to
qualify: although
registering
as a regional
political party,
two
of
the
nominees
are
not
residents of the
region;
and
four of the five
nominees
do
not belong to the
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed.
20436
7
12104
(PL)
Akbay
Kalusugan
(AKIN), Inc.
- Failure of the
group to show
that
its
nominees
belong
to
the urban poor
sector.

6
20437
0
12011
(PP)
Ako
Bisaya
(AAB)
12Abyan
009
Ilonggo
(PP), Party (AI)
12165
(PLM
)
- Failure to show
that
the
party represents
a
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed sector, as
the Province of
Iloilo
has
district
representatives;
Untruthful
statements
in
the
memorandum;
and
- Withdrawal of
three
of
its
five nominees.

5
nor
An Failure
to
represent
a
marginalized
sector
of
society, despite
the
formation
of a sectoral
wing for the
benefit
of
farmers
of
Region
8;
- Constituency
has
district
representatives;
- Lack of track
record
in
representing
peasants
and
farmers;
and
- Nominees are
neither
20448
5
12175
(PL)
Alliance
of
Organization
s,
Networks and
Associations
of
the
Philippines,
Inc. (ALONA)
Failure
to
establish
that
the
group
can
represent
14
sectors; - The
sectors
of
homeowners
associations,
entrepreneurs
and
cooperatives
are
not
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed;
and
- The nominees
do not belong
to
the
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed.
B. Via the COMELEC En Bancs review on motion

for
reconsideration
of the COMELEC Divisions resolutions denying
registration
of
groups
and organizations
20413
9
12127
(PL)
Alab
ng
Mamamahay
ag
(ALAM)
Failure
to
prove
track
record as an
organization;
- Failure to show
that
the
group actually
represents the
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed;
and
Failure
to
establish
that
the
group
can
represent
all
sectors it seeks
to represent.
Helper,
Janitor, Agent
and
Nanny of the
Philippines,
Inc.
(GUARDJAN
)

1
2
20449
0
12Pilipinas Para
073
sa
(PLM Pinoy (PPP)
)

1
0
20440
2
12061
(PP)
Kalikasan
Party-List
(KALIKASAN
)
- The group
reflects
an
advocacy for the
environment,
and
is
not
representative
of
the
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed;
- There is no
proof
that
majority of its
members
belong to the
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed;
- The group
represents
sectors
with
conflicting
interests;
and
- The nominees
do not belong
to the sector
which the group
claims
to
represent.
20439
4
12145
(PL)
Association
of
Guard, Utility
Helper, Aider,
Rider, Driver/
Domestic
- Failure to show
that
the
group
represents
a
marginalized
and
underrepresent
ed sector, as
Region 12 has
district
representatives;
and
- Failure to show
a
track
record
of
undertaking
programs for the
welfare
of
the sector the
group seeks to
represent.
These 39 petitioners (AKB, Atong Paglaum, ARAL, ARC,

UNIMAD, 1BRO-PGBI, 1GANAP/GUARDIANS, A BLESSED
Party-List, 1-CARE, APEC, AT, ARARO, AGRI, AKMA-PTM,
KAP, AKO-BAHAY, BANTAY, PACYAW, PASANG MASDA,
KAKUSA, AG, ANAD, GREENFORCE, FIRM 24-K, ALIM, AAMA,
SMART, ABP, BAYANI, AANI, A-IPRA, COCOFED, ABANG
LINGKOD, ABROAD, BINHI, BUTIL, 1st KABAGIS, 1-UTAK,
SENIOR CITIZENS) were able to secure a mandatory
injunction from this Court, directing the COMELEC to
include the names of these 39 petitioners in the printing of
the official ballot for the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. This
Court issued Status Quo Ante Orders in all petitions. This
Decision governs only the 54 consolidated petitions that
were granted Status Quo Ante Orders, namely:

1
1
present
activities
that sufficiently
benefited
its
intended
constituency;
and
- The nominees
do not belong
to any of the
sectors
which
the group seeks
to represent.
Failure
to
prove
membership
base and track
record;
Failure
to
G.R. No.
10
SPP
No.
Group

20381819
204158
12-154 AKO Bicol Political Party (AKB)

(PLM)
12-177
(PLM)
12-223 1
Guardians
Nationalist
(PLM) Philippines,
Inc.
(1GANAP/GUARDIANS)
203766
12-161 Atong Paglaum, Inc. (Atong

(PLM) Paglaum)
204318
12-220 United
Movement
Against
(PLM) Drugs
Foundation
(UNIMAD)
204263
12-257 Blessed Federation of Farmers

(PLM) and
Fishermen
International, Inc. (A BLESSED
Party-List)
204174
12-232 Aangat Tayo Party-List Party

(PLM) (AT)
204126
12-263 Kaagapay ng Nagkakaisang

(PLM) Agilang
Pilipinong
Magsasaka (KAP)
204364
12-180 Adhikain
at
Kilusan
ng
(PLM) Ordinaryong Tao Para sa
Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at
Kaunlaran
(AKO-BAHAY)
204139
12-185 Alliance for Nationalism and

(PLM) Democracy
(ANAD)
12-127 Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM)

(PL)
204220
12-292 Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples

(PLM) Rights
Alliance,
Inc. (A-IPRA)
12-238 Abang
Lingkod
(PLM) (ABANG
LINGKOD)
204236
12-254 Firm 24-K Association, Inc.

(PLM) (FIRM 24-K)
204238
12-173 Alliance of Bicolnon Party (ABP)

(PLM)
204239
12-060 Green
Force
for
(PLM) Environment
Sons
Daughters of Mother
(GREENFORCE)
204321
12-252 Ang Agrikultura Natin Isulong

(PLM) (AANI)
204323
12-210 Bayani Party List (BAYANI)

(PLM)
204341
12-269 Action League of Indigenous

(PLM) Masses (ALIM)
204358
12-204 Alliance of Advocates in Mining

(PLM) Advancement
for National Progress (AAMA)
12-187 Association for Righteousness

(PLM) Advocacy
on
Leadership (ARAL)
204002
12-188 Alliance for Rural Concerns

(PLM) (ARC)
203922
12-201 Association
(PLM) Electric
(APEC)
203960
12-260 1st
(PLM) Consumers Alliance for Rural
Energy,
Inc.
(1-CARE)
203936
12-248 Aksyon
Magsasaka-Partido
(PLM) Tinig
ng
Masa
(AKMA-PTM)
12-015 Kapatiran ng mga Nakulong na
(PLM) Walang
Sala,
Inc. (KAKUSA)
203976
Resolutions dated 4 December 2012

204122
203981
203958
of
Philippine
Cooperatives
12-288 Alliance for Rural and Agrarian

(PLM) Reconstruction,
Inc. (ARARO)

204094
204125
204100
12-196 1-Bro Philippine

(PLM) Brotherhood,
(1BRO-PGBI)
Guardians
Inc.

204141
204240
204216
12-158 Action Brotherhood for Active

(PLM) Dreamer,
Inc.
(ABROAD)
12-229 The True Marcos Loyalist (for

(PLM) God,
Country
and People) Association of the
Philippines,
Inc.
(BANTAY)
12-279 Agri-Agra na Reporma Para sa
(PLM) Magsasaka
ng
Pilipinas Movement (AGRI)
12-202 Philippine Coconut Producers
(PLM) Federation,
Inc.
(COCOFED)
11
Party-List
the
and
Earth
204359
12-272 Social Movement for Active

(PLM) Reform
and
Transparency (SMART)
204356
12-136 Butil Farmers Party (BUTIL)

(PLM)
12-191
(PLM)
204436
12-009 Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI)

(PP),
12-165
(PLM)
204485
12-175 Alliance
of
Organizations,
(PL)
Networks
and
Associations of the Philippines,
Inc. (ALONA)
204484
11-002 Partido ng Bayan ng Bida (PBB)

204402
12-061 Kalikasan
(PL)
(KALIKASAN)
204394
12-145 Association of Guard, Utility

(PL)
Helper,
Aider,
Rider, Driver/Domestic Helper,
Janitor,
Agent
and Nanny of the Philippines,
Inc.
(GUARDJAN)
204408
Party-List

204153
12-217 Pilipino Association for Country

(PLM)
Urban
Poor
Youth
Advancement
and
Welfare (PACYAW)
204428
12-256 Ang Galing Pinoy (AG)

(PLM)
204490
12-073 Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP)

(PLM)
204379
12-099 Alagad ng Sining (ASIN)

(PLM)
204367
12-104 Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN)

(PL)
204426
12-011 Association of Local Athletics

(PLM) Entrepreneurs
and Hobbyists, Inc. (ALA-EH)
204455
12-041 Manila Teachers Savings and

(PLM) Loan
Association,
Inc. (Manila Teachers)
204374
12-228 Binhi-Partido
ng
(PLM) Magsasaka Para sa
Magsasaka (BINHI)
204370
12-011 Ako An Bisaya (AAB)

(PP)
204435
12-057 1
Alliance
(PLM) Autonomy
(1AAAP)
204486
12-194 1st
Kabalikat
ng
Bayan
(PLM) Ginhawang
Sangkatauhan (1st KABAGIS)
204410
12-198 1-United Transport Koalisyon

(PLM) (1-UTAK)
204421,
204425
12-157 Coalition of Senior Citizens in

(PLM) the
Philippines,
Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS)
12-277 Pasang Masda

(PLM) Party
MASDA)
Nationwide
(PASANG
he Issues
We rule upon two issues: first, whether the COMELEC

committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from
participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either
by denial of their new petitions for registration under the
party-list system, or by cancellation of their existing
registration and accreditation as party-list organizations;
and second, whether the criteria for participating in the
party-list system laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani and
Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency v. Commission on Elections49 (BANAT)
should be applied by the COMELEC in the coming 13 May
2013 party-list elections.
The Courts Ruling
mga
mga
We hold that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of

discretion in following prevailing decisions of this Court in
disqualifying petitioners from participating in the coming 13
May 2013 party-list elections. However, since the Court
adopts in this Decision new parameters in the qualification
of national, regional, and sectoral parties under the partylist system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions
applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, we
remand to the COMELEC all the present petitions for the
COMELEC to determine who are qualified to register under
the party-list system, and to participate in the coming 13
May 2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters
prescribed in this Decision.
Advocating
Party
12
The Party-List System
election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar

bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll
watchers in accordance with law.
The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list

system of representation. Simply put, the party-list system
is intended to democratize political power by giving political
parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a
chance to win seats in the House of Representatives.50 The
voter elects two representatives in the House of
Representatives: one for his or her legislative district, and
another for his or her party-list group or organization of
choice. The 1987 Constitution provides:
Commissioner Christian S. Monsod, the main sponsor of the

party-list system, stressed that "the party-list system is not
synonymous with that of the sectoral representation."51
The constitutional provisions on the party-list system
should be read in light of the following discussion among its
framers:
MR. MONSOD: x x x.
Section 5, Article VI
Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party,

organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this
Constitution.
I would like to make a distinction from the beginning that

the proposal for the party list system is not synonymous
with that of the sectoral representation. Precisely, the party
list system seeks to avoid the dilemma of choice of sectors
and who constitute the members of the sectors. In making
the proposal on the party list system, we were made aware
of the problems precisely cited by Commissioner Bacani of
which sectors will have reserved seats. In effect, a sectoral
representation in the Assembly would mean that certain
sectors would have reserved seats; that they will choose
among themselves who would sit in those reserved seats.
And then, we have the problem of which sector because as
we will notice in Proclamation No. 9, the sectors cited were
the farmers, fishermen, workers, students, professionals,
business, military, academic, ethnic and other similar
groups. So these are the nine sectors that were identified
here as "sectoral representatives" to be represented in this
Commission. The problem we had in trying to approach
sectoral representation in the Assembly was whether to
stop at these nine sectors or include other sectors. And we
went through the exercise in a caucus of which sector
should be included which went up to 14 sectors. And as we
all know, the longer we make our enumeration, the more
limiting the law become because when we make an
enumeration we exclude those who are not in the
enumeration. Second, we had the problem of who comprise
the farmers. Let us just say the farmers and the laborers.
These days, there are many citizens who are called
"hyphenated citizens." A doctor may be a farmer; a lawyer
may also be a farmer. And so, it is up to the discretion of the
person to say "I am a farmer" so he would be included in
that sector.
Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions

registered under the party-list system, shall not be
represented in the voters registration boards, boards of
The third problem is that when we go into a reserved seat

system of sectoral representation in the Assembly, we are,
in effect, giving some people two votes and other people
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not

more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number
of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided
by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty

per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party list. For three consecutive
terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of
the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be
filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the
labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may
be provided by law, except the religious sector.
Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C
13
one vote. We sought to avoid these problems by presenting

a party list system. Under the party list system, there are no
reserved seats for sectors. Let us say, laborers and farmers
can form a sectoral party or a sectoral organization that will
then register and present candidates of their party. How do
the mechanics go? Essentially, under the party list system,
every voter has two votes, so there is no discrimination.
First, he will vote for the representative of his legislative
district. That is one vote. In that same ballot, he will be
asked: What party or organization or coalition do you wish
to be represented in the Assembly? And here will be
attached a list of the parties, organizations or coalitions that
have been registered with the COMELEC and are entitled to
be put in that list. This can be a regional party, a sectoral
party, a national party, UNIDO, Magsasaka or a regional
party in Mindanao. One need not be a farmer to say that he
wants the farmers' party to be represented in the Assembly.
Any citizen can vote for any party. At the end of the day, the
COMELEC will then tabulate the votes that had been
garnered by each party or each organization one does
not have to be a political party and register in order to
participate as a party and count the votes and from there
derive the percentage of the votes that had been cast in
favor of a party, organization or coalition.
entitled to any representative. So, they will begin to think

that if they really have a common interest, they should band
together, form a coalition and get five percent of the vote
and, therefore, have two seats in the Assembly. Those are
the dynamics of a party list system.
We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of

sectoral representation while at the same time making sure
that those who really have a national constituency or
sectoral constituency will get a chance to have a seat in the
National Assembly. These sectors or these groups may not
have the constituency to win a seat on a legislative district
basis. They may not be able to win a seat on a district basis
but surely, they will have votes on a nationwide basis.
The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past

elections, we found out that there were certain groups or
parties that, if we count their votes nationwide; have about
1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always third
place or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have
no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they would have five
or six representatives in the Assembly even if they would
not win individually in legislative districts. So, that is
essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives of
the party list system.
When such parties register with the COMELEC, we are

assuming that 50 of the 250 seats will be for the party list
system. So, we have a limit of 30 percent of 50. That means
that the maximum that any party can get out of these 50
seats is 15. When the parties register they then submit a list
of 15 names. They have to submit these names because
these nominees have to meet the minimum qualifications
of a Member of the National Assembly. At the end of the
day, when the votes are tabulated, one gets the
percentages. Let us say, UNIDO gets 10 percent or 15
percent of the votes; KMU gets 5 percent; a womens party
gets 2 1/2 percent and anybody who has at least 2 1/2
percent of the vote qualifies and the 50 seats are
apportioned among all of these parties who get at least 2
1/2 percent of the vote.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, am I right in

interpreting that when we speak now of party list system
though we refer to sectors, we would be referring to
sectoral party list rather than sectors and party list?
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, if this body accepts the

party list system, we do not even have to mention sectors
because the sectors would be included in the party list
system. They can be sectoral parties within the party list
system.
What does that mean? It means that any group or party

who has a constituency of, say, 500,000 nationwide gets a
seat in the National Assembly. What is the justification for
that? When we allocate legislative districts, we are saying
that any district that has 200,000 votes gets a seat. There is
no reason why a group that has a national constituency,
even if it is a sectoral or special interest group, should not
have a voice in the National Assembly. It also means that,
let us say, there are three or four labor groups, they all
register as a party or as a group. If each of them gets only
one percent or five of them get one percent, they are not
xxxx
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
14
any single party that can sit within the 50 allocated under
the party list system. x x x.
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?
xxx
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. In other words, the Christian Democrats can

field district candidates and can also participate in the party
list system?
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. 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. 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. 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. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if

he shares that answer?
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Taada wants to run under

BAYAN group and says that he represents the farmers,
would he qualify?
MR. TADEO. The same.
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral

lines.
15
MR. MONSOD: Sino po ang magsasabi kung iyong kandidato

ng UNIDO ay hindi talagang labor leader or isang laborer?
Halimbawa, abogado ito.
centum of the total seats in Congress to be allocated to

party-list representatives half were to be reserved to
appointees from the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors. The proposal was opposed by some
Commissioners. Mr. Monsod expressed the difficulty in
delimiting the sectors that needed representation. He was
of the view that reserving seats for the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors would stunt their development
into full-pledged parties equipped with electoral machinery
potent enough to further the sectoral interests to be
represented. The Villacorta group, on the other hand, was
apprehensive that pitting the unorganized and lessmoneyed sectoral groups in an electoral contest would be
like placing babes in the lion's den, so to speak, with the
bigger and more established political parties ultimately
gobbling them up. R.A. 7941 recognized this concern when
it banned the first five major political parties on the basis of
party representation in the House of Representatives from
participating in the party-list system for the first party-list
elections held in 1998 (and to be automatically lifted
starting with the 2001 elections). The advocates for
permanent seats for sectoral representatives made an
effort towards a compromise that the party-list system
be open only to underrepresented and marginalized
sectors. This proposal was further whittled down by
allocating only half of the seats under the party-list system
to candidates from the sectors which would garner the
required number of votes. The majority was unyielding.
Voting 19-22, the proposal for permanent seats, and in the
alternative the reservation of the party-list system to the
sectoral groups, was voted down. The only concession the
Villacorta group was able to muster was an assurance of
reserved seats for selected sectors for three consecutive
terms after the enactment of the 1987 Constitution, by
which time they would be expected to gather and solidify
their electoral base and brace themselves in the multi-party
electoral contest with the more veteran political groups.54
(Emphasis supplied)
MR. TADEO: Iyong mechanics.
MR. MONSOD: Hindi po mechanics iyon because we are

trying to solve an inherent problem of sectoral
representation. My question is: Suppose UNIDO fields a
labor leader, would he qualify?
MR. TADEO: The COMELEC may look into the truth of

whether or not a political party is really organized along a
specific sectoral line. If such is verified or confirmed, the
political party may submit a list of individuals who are
actually members of such sectors. The lists are to be
published to give individuals or organizations belonging to
such sector the chance to present evidence contradicting
claims of membership in the said sector or to question the
claims of the existence of such sectoral organizations or
parties. This proceeding shall be conducted by the
COMELEC and shall be summary in character. In other
words, COMELEC decisions on this matter are final and
unappealable.52 (Emphasis supplied)
Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended

the party-list system to include not only sectoral parties but
also non-sectoral parties. The framers intended the sectoral
parties to constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the
party-list system. As explained by Commissioner Wilfredo
Villacorta, political parties can participate in the party-list
system "For as long as they field candidates who come from
the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in
this Constitution."53
Thus, in the end, the proposal to give permanent reserved

seats to certain sectors was outvoted. Instead, the
reservation of seats to sectoral representatives was only
allowed for the first three consecutive terms.55 There can
be no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the 1987
Constitution expressly rejected the proposal to make the
party-list system exclusively for sectoral parties only, and
that they clearly intended the party-list system to include
both sectoral and non-sectoral parties.
In fact, the framers voted down, 19-22, a proposal to

reserve permanent seats to sectoral parties in the House of
Representatives, or alternatively, to reserve the party-list
system exclusively to sectoral parties. As clearly explained
by Justice Jose C. Vitug in his Dissenting Opinion in Ang
Bagong Bayani:
The draft provisions on what was to become Article VI,

Section 5, subsection (2), of the 1987 Constitution took off
from two staunch positions the first headed by
Commissioner Villacorta, advocating that of the 20 per
The common denominator between sectoral and nonsectoral parties is that they cannot expect to win in
legislative district elections but they can garner, in
16
nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes

that winning candidates can garner in legislative district
elections. The party-list system will be the entry point to
membership in the House of Representatives for both these
non-traditional parties that could not compete in legislative
district elections.
organizations. National and regional parties or

organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines
and need not represent any particular sector.
Moreover, Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution

mandates that, during the first three consecutive terms of
Congress after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution,
"one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives
shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election
from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
be provided by law, except the religious sector." This
provision clearly shows again that the party-list system is
not exclusively for sectoral parties for two obvious reasons.
The indisputable intent of the framers of the 1987

Constitution to include in the party-list system both sectoral
and non-sectoral parties is clearly written in Section 5(1),
Article VI of the Constitution, which states:
Section 5. (1) The House of Representative shall be

composed of not more that two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected
through a party-list system of registered national, regional,
and sectoral parties or organizations. (Emphasis supplied)
First, the other one-half of the seats allocated to party-list

representatives would naturally be open to non-sectoral
party-list representatives, clearly negating the idea that the
party-list system is exclusively for sectoral parties
representing the "marginalized and underrepresented."
Second, the reservation of one-half of the party-list seats to
sectoral parties applies only for the first "three consecutive
terms after the ratification of this Constitution," clearly
making the party-list system fully open after the end of the
first three congressional terms. This means that, after this
period, there will be no seats reserved for any class or type
of party that qualifies under the three groups constituting
the party-list system.
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution is crystal-clear

that there shall be "a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations."
The commas after the words "national," and "regional,"
separate national and regional parties from sectoral parties.
Had the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended national
and regional parties to be at the same time sectoral, they
would have stated "national and regional sectoral parties."
They did not, precisely because it was never their intention
to make the party-list system exclusively sectoral.
Hence, the clear intent, express wording, and party-list

structure ordained in Section 5(1) and (2), Article VI of the
1987 Constitution cannot be disputed: the party-list system
is not for sectoral parties only, but also for non-sectoral
parties.
What the framers intended, and what they expressly wrote

in Section 5(1), could not be any clearer: the party-list
system is composed of three different groups, and the
sectoral parties belong to only one of the three groups. The
text of Section 5(1) leaves no room for any doubt that
national and regional parties are separate from sectoral
parties.
Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act, which is

the law that implements the party-list system prescribed in
the Constitution, provides:
Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a

mechanism of proportional representation in the election
of representatives to the House of Representatives from
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or organizations
of a coalition may participate independently provided the
Thus, the party-list system is composed of three different

groups: (1) national parties or organizations; (2) regional
parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations. National and regional parties or
organizations are different from sectoral parties or
17
coalition of which they form part does not participate in the

party-list system.
for a political and a sectoral party. Obviously, they are

separate and distinct from each other.
(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party

or a coalition of parties.
R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties
or organizations to represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sectors. To require all national and
regional parties under the party-list system to represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented" is to deprive and
exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented
parties from the party-list system. How will these ideologybased and cause-oriented parties, who cannot win in
legislative district elections, participate in the electoral
process if they are excluded from the party-list system? To
exclude them from the party-list system is to prevent them
from joining the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their
only option the armed struggle. To exclude them from the
party-list system is, apart from being obviously senseless,
patently contrary to the clear intent and express wording of
the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
(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.
Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or causeoriented political party is clearly different from a sectoral
party. A political party need not be organized as a sectoral
party and need not represent any particular sector. There is
no requirement in R.A. No. 7941 that a national or regional
political party must represent a "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector. It is sufficient that the political
party consists of citizens who advocate the same ideology
or platform, or the same governance principles and policies,
regardless of their economic status as citizens.
(d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens

belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5
hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special
interest and concerns of their sector.
(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.
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 states that "the sectors shall

include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,
veterans, overseas workers, and professionals."56 The
sectors mentioned in Section 5 are not all necessarily
"marginalized and underrepresented." For sure,
"professionals" are not by definition "marginalized and
underrepresented," not even the elderly, women, and the
youth. However, professionals, the elderly, women, and the
youth may "lack well-defined political constituencies," and
can thus organize themselves into sectoral parties in
advocacy of the special interests and concerns of their
respective sectors.
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered

national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for
political and/or election purposes. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party" as "either a

political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties."
Clearly, a political party is different from a sectoral party.
Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 7941 further provides that a
"political party refers to an organized group of citizens
advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies
for the general conduct of government." On the other hand,
Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that a "sectoral party
refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of
the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of
their sector." R.A. No. 7941 provides different definitions
Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides another compelling

reason for holding that the law does not require national or
regional parties, as well as certain sectoral parties in Section
5 of R.A. No. 7941, to represent the "marginalized and
18
underrepresented." Section 6 provides the grounds for the

COMELEC to refuse or cancel the registration of parties or
organizations after due notice and hearing.
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" appears

only once in R.A. No. 7941, in Section 2 on Declaration of
Policy.57 Section 2 seeks "to promote proportional
representation in the election of representatives to the
House of Representatives through the party-list system,"
which will enable Filipinos belonging to the "marginalized
and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties,
and who lack well-defined political constituencies," to
become members of the House of Representatives. While
the policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No. 7941 broadly
refers to "marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties," the specific implementing
provisions of R.A. No. 7941 do not define or require that the
sectors, organizations or parties must be "marginalized and
underrepresented." On the contrary, to even interpret that
all the sectors mentioned in Section 5 are "marginalized and
underrepresented" would lead to absurdities.
Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration.

The COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon verified
complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after
due notice and hearing, the registration of any national,
regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any
of the following grounds:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or

association organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
How then should we harmonize the broad policy

declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No. 7941 with its specific
implementing provisions, bearing in mind the applicable
provisions of the 1987 Constitution on the matter?
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government,

foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether
directly or through any of its officers or members or
indirectly through third parties for partisan election
purposes;
The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" should

refer only to the sectors in Section 5 that are, by their
nature,
economically
"marginalized
and
underrepresented." These sectors are: labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other similar
sectors. For these sectors, a majority of the members of the
sectoral party must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented." The nominees of the sectoral party
either must belong to the sector, or must have a track
record of advocacy for the sector represented. Belonging to
the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector does not
mean one must "wallow in poverty, destitution or
infirmity." It is sufficient that one, or his or her sector, is
below the middle class. More specifically, the economically
"marginalized and underrepresented" are those who fall in
the low income group as classified by the National
Statistical Coordination Board.58
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or

regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding

elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of
the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2)
preceding elections for the constituency in which it has
registered.
The recognition that national and regional parties, as well

as sectoral parties of professionals, the elderly, women and
the youth, need not be "marginalized and
underrepresented" will allow small ideology-based and
cause-oriented parties who lack "well-defined political
constituencies" a chance to win seats in the House of
Representatives. On the other hand, limiting to the
None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel registration refers

to non-representation of the "marginalized and
underrepresented."
19
"marginalized and underrepresented" the sectoral parties

for labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas
workers, and other sectors that by their nature are
economically at the margins of society, will give the
"marginalized and underrepresented" an opportunity to
likewise win seats in the House of Representatives.
prohibited major political parties from participating in the

party-list system, even through their sectoral wings.
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 expressly prohibited the "first

five (5) major political parties on the basis of party
representation in the House of Representatives at the start
of the Tenth Congress" from participating in the May 1988
party-list elections.59 Thus, major political parties can
participate in subsequent party-list elections since the
prohibition is expressly limited only to the 1988 party-list
elections. However, major political parties should
participate in party-list elections only through their sectoral
wings. The participation of major political parties through
their sectoral wings, a majority of whose members are
"marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "welldefined political constituencies," will facilitate the entry of
the "marginalized and underrepresented" and those who
"lack well-defined political constituencies" as members of
the House of Representatives.
This interpretation will harmonize the 1987 Constitution

and R.A. No. 7941 and will give rise to a multi-party system
where those "marginalized and underrepresented," both in
economic and ideological status, will have the opportunity
to send their own members to the House of
Representatives. This interpretation will also make the
party-list system honest and transparent, eliminating the
need for relatively well-off party-list representatives to
masquerade as "wallowing in poverty, destitution and
infirmity," even as they attend sessions in Congress riding
in SUVs.
The major political parties are those that field candidates in

the legislative district elections. Major political parties
cannot participate in the party-list elections since they
neither lack "well-defined political constituencies" nor
represent "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors.
Thus, the national or regional parties under the party-list
system are necessarily those that do not belong to major
political parties. This automatically reserves the national
and regional parties under the party-list system to those
who "lack well-defined political constituencies," giving
them the opportunity to have members in the House of
Representatives.
The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 allow major

political parties to participate in party-list elections so as to
encourage them to work assiduously in extending their
constituencies to the "marginalized and underrepresented"
and to those who "lack well-defined political
constituencies." The participation of major political parties
in party-list elections must be geared towards the entry, as
members of the House of Representatives, of the
"marginalized and underrepresented" and those who "lack
well-defined political constituencies," giving them a voice in
law-making. Thus,to participate in party-list elections, a
major political party that fields candidates in the legislative
district elections must organize a sectoral wing, like a labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, professional, women or
youth wing, that can register under the party-list system.
To recall, Ang Bagong Bayani expressly declared, in its

second guideline for the accreditation of parties under the
party-list system, that "while even major political parties
are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to
participate in the party-list system, they must comply with
the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors
xxx to be elected to the House of Representatives.
"However, the requirement in Ang Bagong Bayani, in its
second guideline, that "the political party xxx must
represent the marginalized and underrepresented,"
automatically disqualified major political parties from
participating in the party-list system. This inherent
inconsistency in Ang Bagong Bayani has been compounded
by the COMELECs refusal to register sectoral wings
officially organized by major political parties. BANAT merely
formalized the prevailing practice when it expressly
Such sectoral wing of a major political party must have its

own constitution, by-laws, platform or program of
government, officers and members, a majority of whom
must belong to the sector represented. The sectoral wing is
in itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a
major political party through a coalition. This linkage is
allowed by Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941, which provides that
"component parties or organizations of a coalition may
participate independently (in party-list elections) provided
the coalition of which they form part does not participate in
the party-list system."
20
Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the qualifications of

party-list nominees. This provision prescribes a special
qualification only for the nominee from the youth sector.
xxxx
Third, x x x the religious sector may not be represented in

the party-list system. x x x.
Section 9. 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 election, able
to read and write, a 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.
xxxx
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified

under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds
for disqualification as follows:
"(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or

association, organized for religious purposes;
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 in
office until the expiration of his term.1wphi1
A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the

party or organization which he or she seeks to represent. In
the case of sectoral parties, to be a bona fide party-list
nominee one must either belong to the sector represented,
or have a track record of advocacy for such sector.

purposes;
In disqualifying petitioners, the COMELEC used the criteria

prescribed in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. Ang Bagong
Bayani laid down the guidelines for qualifying those who
desire to participate in the party-list system:


First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition
must represent the marginalized and underrepresented
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. x x x

registered."
Second, while even major political parties are expressly

allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in
the party-list system, they must comply with the declared
statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be
elected to the House of Representatives." x x x.
21
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of,

or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by,
the government. x x x.
The minority in BANAT, however, believed that major

political parties can participate in the party-list system
through their sectoral wings. The minority expressed that
"[e]xcluding 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."61 The experimentations in socio-political
engineering have only resulted in confusion and absurdity
in the party-list system. Such experimentations, in clear
contravention of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941,
must now come to an end.
xxxx
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the

requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so.
Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
"SEC 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. - No person

(1)year immediately preceding the day of the election, able
We cannot, however, fault the COMELEC for following

prevailing jurisprudence in disqualifying petitioners. In
following prevailing jurisprudence, the COMELEC could not
have committed grave abuse of discretion. However, for
the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, we must now
impose and mandate the party-list system actually
envisioned and authorized under the 1987 Constitution and
R.A. No. 7941. In BANAT, this Court devised a new formula
in the allocation of party-list seats, reversing the COMELEC's
allocation which followed the then prevailing formula in
Ang Bagong Bayani. In BANAT, however, the Court did not
declare that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion. Similarly, even as we acknowledge here that the
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, we
declare that it would not be in accord with the 1987
Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to apply the criteria in Ang
Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining who are qualified
to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list
elections. For this purpose, we suspend our rule62 that a
party may appeal to this Court from decisions or orders of
the COMELEC only if the COMELEC committed grave abuse
of discretion.

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 in office until the
expiration of his term."
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must

represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so
also must its nominees. x x x.
Eighth, x x x the nominee must likewise be able to

contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a
whole. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, we remand all the present petitions to the COMELEC.

In determining who may participate in the coming 13 May
2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the COMELEC
shall adhere to the following parameters:
In 2009, by a vote of 8-7 in BANAT, this Court stretched the

Ang Bagong Bayani ruling further. In BANAT, the majority
officially excluded major political parties from participating
in party-list elections,60 abandoning even the lip-service
that Ang Bagong Bayani accorded to the 1987 Constitution
and R.A.No. 7941 that major political parties can participate
in party-list elections.
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list

system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional
parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations.
22
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or

organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines
and do not need to represent any "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector.
The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May

2013 party-list elections those that did not satisfy these two
criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral groups or
organizations must represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must
belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector
they represent. Petitioners may have been disqualified by
the COMELEC because as political or regional parties they
are not organized along sectoral lines and do not represent
the "marginalized and underrepresented." Also,
petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the sectors
they represent may have been disqualified, although they
may have a track record of advocacy for their sectors.
Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties may have been
disqualified because they do not belong to any sector.
Moreover, a party may have been disqualified because one
or more of its nominees failed to qualify, even if the party
has at least one remaining qualified nominee. As discussed
above, the disqualification of petitioners, and their
nominees, under such circumstances is contrary to the 1987
Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections

provided they register under the party-list system and do
not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates
in legislative district elections can participate in party-list
elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately
register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by
itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a
political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be

"marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "welldefined political constituencies." It is enough that their
principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are "marginalized
and underrepresented" include labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban
poor,
indigenous
cultural
communities,
handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors
that lack "well-defined political constituencies" include
professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply

its provisions faithfully, and desist from engaging in socioeconomic or political experimentations contrary to what
the Constitution has ordained. Judicial power does not
include the power to re-write the Constitution. Thus, the
present petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC not
because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
in disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may
now possibly qualify to participate in the coming 13 May
2013 party-list elections under the new parameters
prescribed by this Court.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or

organizations that represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members of sectoral parties or
organizations
that
lack
"well-defined
political
constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent.
The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or
that represent those who lack "well-defined political
constituencies," either must belong to their respective
sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional
parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of
such parties or organizations.
WHEREFORE, all the present 54 petitions are GRANTED. The

13 petitions, which have been granted Status Quo Ante
Orders but without mandatory injunction to include the
names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are
remanded to the Commission on Elections only for
determination whether petitioners are qualified to register
under the party-list system under the parameters
prescribed in this Decision but they shall not participate in
the 13 May 2013 part-list elections. The 41 petitions, which
have been granted mandatory injunctions to include the
names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are
remanded to the Commission on Elections for
determination whether petitioners are qualified to register
under the party-list system and to participate in the 13 May
2013 party-list elections under the parameters prescribed
in this Decision. The Commission on Elections may conduct
summary evidentiary hearings for this purpose. This
Decision is immediately executory.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations

shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are
disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee
who remains qualified.
23
CERTIFICATION
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I

certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Chief Justice
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
JOSE C. MENDOZA
Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
(on leave)
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE*
Associate Justice
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Justice
24
G.R. No. 190582
April 8, 2010
viewpoints to live together, if not harmoniously, then, at

least, civilly.
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair,

DANTON REMOTO, Petitioner,
Factual Background
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent.
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of

Court, with an application for a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction, filed by Ang Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang
Ladlad) against the Resolutions of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) dated November 11, 20092 (the First
Assailed Resolution) and December 16, 20093 (the Second
Assailed Resolution) in SPP No. 09-228 (PL) (collectively, the
Assailed Resolutions). The case has its roots in the
COMELECs refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list
organization under Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise
known as the Party-List System Act.4
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
... [F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not

matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom.
The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things
that touch the heart of the existing order.
Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women

who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or
trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs). Incorporated in 2003,
Ang Ladlad first applied for registration with the COMELEC
in 2006. The application for accreditation was denied on the
ground that the organization had no substantial
membership base. On August 17, 2009, Ang Ladlad again
filed a Petition5 for registration with the COMELEC.
Justice Robert A. Jackson
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette1
One unavoidable consequence of everyone having the

freedom to choose is that others may make different
choices choices we would not make for ourselves, choices
we may disapprove of, even choices that may shock or
offend or anger us. However, choices are not to be legally
prohibited merely because they are different, and the right
to disagree and debate about important questions of public
policy is a core value protected by our Bill of Rights. Indeed,
our democracy is built on genuine recognition of, and
respect for, diversity and difference in opinion.
Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT

community is a marginalized and under-represented sector
that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual
orientation and gender identity; that LGBTs are victims of
exclusion, discrimination, and violence; that because of
negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are constrained to hide
their sexual orientation; and that Ang Ladlad complied with
the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court in Ang
Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections.6 Ang Ladlad laid out its national membership
base consisting of individual members and organizational
supporters, and outlined its platform of governance.7
Since ancient times, society has grappled with deep

disagreements about the definitions and demands of
morality. In many cases, where moral convictions are
concerned, harmony among those theoretically opposed is
an insurmountable goal. Yet herein lies the paradox
philosophical justifications about what is moral are
indispensable and yet at the same time powerless to create
agreement. This Court recognizes, however, that practical
solutions are preferable to ideological stalemates;
accommodation is better than intransigence; reason more
worthy than rhetoric. This will allow persons of diverse
On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioners

evidence, the COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the
Petition on moral grounds, stating that:
x x x This Petition is dismissible on moral grounds. Petitioner

defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
(LGBT) Community, thus:
25
670,000 (Genesis 19 is the history of Sodom and

Gomorrah).
x x x a marginalized and under-represented sector that is

particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual
orientation and gender identity.
Laws are deemed incorporated in every contract, permit,

license, relationship, or accreditation. Hence, pertinent
provisions of the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code are
deemed part of the requirement to be complied with for
accreditation.
and proceeded to define sexual orientation as that which:
x x x refers to a persons capacity for profound emotional,

affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual
relations with, individuals of a different gender, of the same
gender, or more than one gender."
ANG LADLAD collides with Article 695 of the Civil Code

which defines nuisance as Any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or anything
else which x x x (3) shocks, defies; or disregards decency or
morality x x x
This definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that

petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious
beliefs. In Romans 1:26, 27, Paul wrote:
It also collides with Article 1306 of the Civil Code: The

contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient,
provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy. Art 1409 of the Civil
Code provides that Contracts whose cause, object or
purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy are inexistent and void from the
beginning.
For this cause God gave them up into vile affections, for
even their women did change the natural use into that
which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving
the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one
toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of
their error which was meet.
Finally to safeguard the morality of the Filipino community,

the Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes Immoral
doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and
indecent shows as follows:
In the Koran, the hereunder verses are pertinent:
For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women

"ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."
(7.81) "And we rained down on them a shower (of
brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who
indulged in sin and crime!" (7:84) "He said: "O my Lord! Help
Thou me against people who do mischief" (29:30).
Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and

exhibitions, and indecent shows. The penalty of prision
mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve
thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall
be imposed upon:
As correctly pointed out by the Law Department in its

Comment dated October 2, 2008:
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines

openly contrary to public morals;
The ANG LADLAD apparently advocates sexual immorality

as indicated in the Petitions par. 6F: Consensual
partnerships or relationships by gays and lesbians who are
already of age. It is further indicated in par. 24 of the
Petition which waves for the record: In 2007, Men Having
Sex with Men or MSMs in the Philippines were estimated as
2. (a) The authors of obscene literature, published with

their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such
literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same;
26
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any

other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts
or shows, it being understood that the obscene literature or
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether
live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall
include those which: (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes;
(2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for
violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or
religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited
drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals,
good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees
and edicts.
Ladlad is applying for accreditation as a sectoral party in the

party-list system. Even assuming that it has properly proven
its under-representation and marginalization, it cannot be
said that Ladlads expressed sexual orientations per se
would benefit the nation as a whole.
Section 2 of the party-list law unequivocally states that the

purpose of the party-list system of electing congressional
representatives is to enable Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and under-represented sectors, organizations
and parties, and who lack well-defined political
constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation
and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit
the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of
Representatives.
3. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints,

engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to
morals.
If entry into the party-list system would depend only on the

ability of an organization to represent its constituencies,
then all representative organizations would have found
themselves into the party-list race. But that is not the
intention of the framers of the law. The party-list system is
not a tool to advocate tolerance and acceptance of
misunderstood persons or groups of persons. Rather, the
party-list system is a tool for the realization of aspirations
of marginalized individuals whose interests are also the
nations only that their interests have not been brought
to the attention of the nation because of their under
representation. Until the time comes when Ladlad is able to
justify that having mixed sexual orientations and
transgender identities is beneficial to the nation, its
application for accreditation under the party-list system will
remain just that.
Petitioner should likewise be denied accreditation not only

for advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being
truthful when it said that it "or any of its nominees/partylist representatives have not violated or failed to comply
with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the elections."
Furthermore, should this Commission grant the petition, we

will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not
conform to the teachings of our faith. Lehman Strauss, a
famous bible teacher and writer in the U.S.A. said in one
article that "older practicing homosexuals are a threat to
the youth." As an agency of the government, ours too is the
States avowed duty under Section 13, Article II of the
Constitution to protect our youth from moral and spiritual
degradation.8
II. No substantial differentiation

When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration,9 three
commissioners voted to overturn the First Assailed
Resolution (Commissioners Gregorio Y. Larrazabal, Rene V.
Sarmiento, and Armando Velasco), while three
commissioners voted to deny Ang Ladlads Motion for
Reconsideration (Commissioners Nicodemo T. Ferrer,
Lucenito N. Tagle, and Elias R. Yusoph). The COMELEC
Chairman, breaking the tie and speaking for the majority in
his Separate Opinion, upheld the First Assailed Resolution,
stating that:
In the United States, whose equal protection doctrine

pervades Philippine jurisprudence, courts do not recognize
lesbians, gays, homosexuals, and bisexuals (LGBT) as a
"special class" of individuals. x x x Significantly, it has also
been held that homosexuality is not a constitutionally
protected fundamental right, and that "nothing in the U.S.
Constitution discloses a comparable intent to protect or
promote the social or legal equality of homosexual
relations," as in the case of race or religion or belief.
I. The Spirit of Republic Act No. 7941

xxxx
27
Thus, even if societys understanding, tolerance, and

acceptance of LGBTs is elevated, there can be no denying
that Ladlad constituencies are still males and females, and
they will remain either male or female protected by the
same Bill of Rights that applies to all citizens alike.
begin printing the final ballots for the May 2010 elections
by January 25, 2010.
On January 6, 2010, we ordered the Office of the Solicitor

General (OSG) to file its Comment on behalf of COMELEC
not later than 12:00 noon of January 11, 2010.11 Instead of
filing a Comment, however, the OSG filed a Motion for
Extension, requesting that it be given until January 16, 2010
to Comment.12 Somewhat surprisingly, the OSG later filed
a Comment in support of petitioners application.13 Thus,
in order to give COMELEC the opportunity to fully ventilate
its position, we required it to file its own comment.14 The
COMELEC, through its Law Department, filed its Comment
on February 2, 2010.15
xxxx
IV. Public Morals
x x x There is no question about not imposing on Ladlad

Christian or Muslim religious practices. Neither is there any
attempt to any particular religious groups moral rules on
Ladlad. Rather, what are being adopted as moral
parameters and precepts are generally accepted public
morals. They are possibly religious-based, but as a society,
the Philippines cannot ignore its more than 500 years of
Muslim and Christian upbringing, such that some moral
precepts espoused by said religions have sipped [sic] into
society and these are not publicly accepted moral norms.
In the meantime, due to the urgency of the petition, we

issued a temporary restraining order on January 12, 2010,
effective immediately and continuing until further orders
from this Court, directing the COMELEC to cease and desist
from implementing the Assailed Resolutions.16
Also, on January 13, 2010, the Commission on Human

Rights (CHR) filed a Motion to Intervene or to Appear as
Amicus Curiae, attaching thereto its Comment-inIntervention.17 The CHR opined that the denial of Ang
Ladlads petition on moral grounds violated the standards
and principles of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR), and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). On January 19, 2010,
we granted the CHRs motion to intervene.
V. Legal Provisions
But above morality and social norms, they have become

part of the law of the land. Article 201 of the Revised Penal
Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor upon "Those
who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly
contrary to public morals." It penalizes "immoral doctrines,
obscene publications and exhibition and indecent shows."
"Ang Ladlad" apparently falls under these legal provisions.
This is clear from its Petitions paragraph 6F: "Consensual
partnerships or relationships by gays and lesbians who are
already of age It is further indicated in par. 24 of the
Petition which waves for the record: In 2007, Men Having
Sex with Men or MSMs in the Philippines were estimated as
670,000. Moreoever, Article 694 of the Civil Code defines
"nuisance" as any act, omission x x x or anything else x x x
which shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality x x
x." These are all unlawful.10
On January 26, 2010, Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr. filed his

Motion to Intervene18 which motion was granted on
February 2, 2010.19
The Parties Arguments
Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar

as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma,
violated the constitutional guarantees against the
establishment of religion. Petitioner also claimed that the
Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to
privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal
protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of the
Philippines international obligations against discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
On January 4, 2010, Ang Ladlad filed this Petition, praying

that the Court annul the Assailed Resolutions and direct the
COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlads application for
accreditation. Ang Ladlad also sought the issuance ex parte
of a preliminary mandatory injunction against the
COMELEC, which had previously announced that it would
28
not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but

whether a particular organization complies with the
requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.
The OSG concurred with Ang Ladlads petition and argued

that the COMELEC erred in denying petitioners application
for registration since there was no basis for COMELECs
allegations of immorality. It also opined that LGBTs have
their own special interests and concerns which should have
been recognized by the COMELEC as a separate
classification. However, insofar as the purported violations
of petitioners freedom of speech, expression, and
assembly were concerned, the OSG maintained that there
had been no restrictions on these rights.
Respondent also argues that Ang Ladlad made untruthful

statements in its petition when it alleged that it had
nationwide existence through its members and affiliate
organizations. The COMELEC claims that upon verification
by its field personnel, it was shown that "save for a few
isolated places in the country, petitioner does not exist in
almost all provinces in the country."21
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner

does not have a concrete and genuine national political
agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was
validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for the
first time that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors
enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941, and that
petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when
it alleged its national existence contrary to actual
verification reports by COMELECs field personnel.
This argument that "petitioner made untruthful statements

in its petition when it alleged its national existence" is a new
one; previously, the COMELEC claimed that petitioner was
"not being truthful when it said that it or any of its
nominees/party-list representatives have not violated or
failed to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to
the elections." Nowhere was this ground for denial of
petitioners accreditation mentioned or even alluded to in
the Assailed Resolutions. This, in itself, is quite curious,
considering that the reports of petitioners alleged nonexistence were already available to the COMELEC prior to
the issuance of the First Assailed Resolution. At best, this is
irregular procedure; at worst, a belated afterthought, a
change in respondents theory, and a serious violation of
petitioners right to procedural due process.
Our Ruling
We grant the petition.
Nonetheless, we find that there has been no

misrepresentation. A cursory perusal of Ang Ladlads initial
petition shows that it never claimed to exist in each
province of the Philippines. Rather, petitioner alleged that
the LGBT community in the Philippines was estimated to
constitute at least 670,000 persons; that it had 16,100
affiliates and members around the country, and 4,044
members in its electronic discussion group.22 Ang Ladlad
also represented itself to be "a national LGBT umbrella
organization with affiliates around the Philippines
composed of the following LGBT networks:"
Compliance with the Requirements of the Constitution and

Republic Act No. 7941
The COMELEC denied Ang Ladlads application for

registration on the ground that the LGBT sector is neither
enumerated in the Constitution and RA 7941, nor is it
associated with or related to any of the sectors in the
enumeration.
Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang

Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only those
sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said
sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be
registered under the party-list system. As we explicitly ruled
in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections,20 "the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive". The crucial element is
Abra Gay Association
Aklan Butterfly Brigade (ABB) Aklan
Albay Gay Association
29
Marikina Gay Association Metro Manila

Arts Center of Cabanatuan City Nueva Ecija
Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) Metro Manila
Boys Legion Metro Manila
Naga City Gay Association Naga City
Cagayan de Oro People Like Us (CDO PLUS)
ONE BACARDI
Cant Live in the Closet, Inc. (CLIC) Metro Manila
Order of St. Aelred (OSAe) Metro Manila
Cebu Pride Cebu City
PUP LAKAN
Circle of Friends
RADAR PRIDEWEAR
Dipolog Gay Association Zamboanga del Norte
Rainbow Rights Project (R-Rights), Inc. Metro Manila
Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Youth Association (GABAY)
San Jose del Monte Gay Association Bulacan
Gay and Lesbian Activists Network for Gender Equality
(GALANG) Metro Manila
Sining Kayumanggi Royal Family Rizal
Gay Mens Support Group (GMSG) Metro Manila
Society of Transexual Women of the Philippines (STRAP)

Metro Manila
Gay United for Peace and Solidarity (GUPS) Lanao del

Norte
Soul Jive Antipolo, Rizal
Iloilo City Gay Association Iloilo City
The Link Davao City
Kabulig Writers Group Camarines Sur
Tayabas Gay Association Quezon
Lesbian Advocates Philippines, Inc. (LEAP)
Womens Bisexual Network Metro Manila
LUMINA Baguio City
Zamboanga Gay Association Zamboanga City23
30
Since the COMELEC only searched for the names ANG

LADLAD LGBT or LADLAD LGBT, it is no surprise that they
found that petitioner had no presence in any of these
regions. In fact, if COMELECs findings are to be believed,
petitioner does not even exist in Quezon City, which is
registered as Ang Ladlads principal place of business.
the resulting policies and morals would require conformity

to what some might regard as religious programs or
agenda. The non-believers would therefore be compelled
to conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by a
religious belief, i.e., to a "compelled religion," anathema to
religious freedom. Likewise, if government based its actions
upon religious beliefs, it would tacitly approve or endorse
that belief and thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary
religious or non-religious views that would not support the
policy. As a result, government will not provide full religious
freedom for all its citizens, or even make it appear that
those whose beliefs are disapproved are second-class
citizens.1avvphi1
Against this backdrop, we find that Ang Ladlad has

sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal
requirements for accreditation. Indeed, aside from
COMELECs moral objection and the belated allegation of
non-existence, nowhere in the records has the respondent
ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to register
as a party-list organization under any of the requisites
under RA 7941 or the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. The
difference, COMELEC claims, lies in Ang Ladlads morality,
or lack thereof.
In other words, government action, including its

proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law like
concubinage, must have a secular purpose. That is, the
government proscribes this conduct because it is
"detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon
which depend the existence and progress of human
society" and not because the conduct is proscribed by the
beliefs of one religion or the other. Although admittedly,
moral judgments based on religion might have a compelling
influence on those engaged in public deliberations over
what actions would be considered a moral disapprobation
punishable by law. After all, they might also be adherents
of a religion and thus have religious opinions and moral
codes with a compelling influence on them; the human
mind endeavors to regulate the temporal and spiritual
institutions of society in a uniform manner, harmonizing
earth with heaven. Succinctly put, a law could be religious
or Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its deepest roots, but
it must have an articulable and discernible secular purpose
and justification to pass scrutiny of the religion clauses. x x
x Recognizing the religious nature of the Filipinos and the
elevating influence of religion in society, however, the
Philippine constitution's religion clauses prescribe not a
strict but a benevolent neutrality. Benevolent neutrality
recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals
and interests but at the same time strive to uphold religious
liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality
contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality
could allow for accommodation of morality based on
religion, provided it does not offend compelling state
interests.27
Religion as the Basis for Refusal to Accept Ang Ladlads

Petition for Registration
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that "[n]o

law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." At bottom, what
our non-establishment clause calls for is "government
neutrality in religious matters."24 Clearly, "governmental
reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this
policy of neutrality."25 We thus find that it was grave
violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC
to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of
Ang Ladlad.
Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the

Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether
the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its
rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine.
Otherwise stated, government must act for secular
purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects. As
we held in Estrada v. Escritor:26
x x x The morality referred to in the law is public and

necessarily secular, not religious as the dissent of Mr.
Justice Carpio holds. "Religious teachings as expressed in
public debate may influence the civil public order but public
moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable
in secular terms." Otherwise, if government relies upon
religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals,
Public Morals as a Ground to Deny Ang Ladlads Petition for

Registration
31
Respondent suggests that although the moral

condemnation of homosexuality and homosexual conduct
may be religion-based, it has long been transplanted into
generally accepted public morals. The COMELEC argues:
to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society. We, of

course, do not suggest that the state is wholly without
authority to regulate matters concerning morality,
sexuality, and sexual relations, and we recognize that the
government will and should continue to restrict behavior
considered detrimental to society. Nonetheless, we cannot
countenance advocates who, undoubtedly with the loftiest
of intentions, situate morality on one end of an argument
or another, without bothering to go through the rigors of
legal reasoning and explanation. In this, the notion of
morality is robbed of all value. Clearly then, the bare
invocation of morality will not remove an issue from our
scrutiny.
Petitioners accreditation was denied not necessarily

because their group consists of LGBTs but because of the
danger it poses to the people especially the youth. Once it
is recognized by the government, a sector which believes
that there is nothing wrong in having sexual relations with
individuals of the same gender is a bad example. It will bring
down the standard of morals we cherish in our civilized
society. Any society without a set of moral precepts is in
danger of losing its own existence.28
We also find the COMELECs reference to purported

violations of our penal and civil laws flimsy, at best;
disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines
a nuisance as "any act, omission, establishment, condition
of property, or anything else which shocks, defies, or
disregards decency or morality," the remedies for which are
a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local
ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial
proceedings.32 A violation of Article 201 of the Revised
Penal Code, on the other hand, requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt to support a criminal conviction. It hardly
needs to be emphasized that mere allegation of violation of
laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invocation of public
morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal
proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or
culpability.
We are not blind to the fact that, through the years,

homosexual conduct, and perhaps homosexuals
themselves, have borne the brunt of societal disapproval. It
is not difficult to imagine the reasons behind this censure
religious beliefs, convictions about the preservation of
marriage, family, and procreation, even dislike or distrust of
homosexuals themselves and their perceived lifestyle.
Nonetheless, we recall that the Philippines has not seen fit
to criminalize homosexual conduct. Evidently, therefore,
these "generally accepted public morals" have not been
convincingly transplanted into the realm of law.29
The Assailed Resolutions have not identified any specific

overt immoral act performed by Ang Ladlad. Even the OSG
agrees that "there should have been a finding by the
COMELEC that the groups members have committed or are
committing immoral acts."30 The OSG argues:
As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is

not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of
homosexuals from participation in the party-list system.
The denial of Ang Ladlads registration on purely moral
grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and
disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to further
any substantial public interest. Respondents blanket
justifications give rise to the inevitable conclusion that the
COMELEC targets homosexuals themselves as a class, not
because of any particular morally reprehensible act. It is this
selective targeting that implicates our equal protection
clause.
x x x A person may be sexually attracted to a person of the

same gender, of a different gender, or more than one
gender, but mere attraction does not translate to immoral
acts. There is a great divide between thought and action.
Reduction ad absurdum. If immoral thoughts could be
penalized, COMELEC would have its hands full of
disqualification cases against both the "straights" and the
gays." Certainly this is not the intendment of the law.31
Equal Protection
Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are

sought to be prevented, or why special protection is
required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC
condescended to justify its position that petitioners
admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as
Despite the absolutism of Article III, Section 1 of our

Constitution, which provides "nor shall any person be
denied equal protection of the laws," courts have never
32
interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on

classification. "Equality," said Aristotle, "consists in the
same treatment of similar persons."33 The equal protection
clause guarantees that no person or class of persons shall
be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed
by other persons or other classes in the same place and in
like circumstances.34
It bears stressing that our finding that COMELECs act of

differentiating LGBTs from heterosexuals insofar as the
party-list system is concerned does not imply that any other
law
distinguishing
between
heterosexuals
and
homosexuals under different circumstances would similarly
fail. We disagree with the OSGs position that homosexuals
are a class in themselves for the purposes of the equal
protection clause.38 We are not prepared to single out
homosexuals as a separate class meriting special or
differentiated treatment. We have not received sufficient
evidence to this effect, and it is simply unnecessary to make
such a ruling today. Petitioner itself has merely demanded
that it be recognized under the same basis as all other
groups similarly situated, and that the COMELEC made "an
unwarranted and impermissible classification not justified
by the circumstances of the case."
Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither

burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we
will uphold the classification as long as it bears a rational
relationship to some legitimate government end.35 In
Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Banko Sentral
ng Pilipinas,36 we declared that "[i]n our jurisdiction, the
standard of analysis of equal protection challenges x x x
have followed the rational basis test, coupled with a
deferential attitude to legislative classifications and a
reluctance to invalidate a law unless there is a showing of a
clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution."37
Freedom of Expression and Association
Under our system of laws, every group has the right to

promote its agenda and attempt to persuade society of the
validity of its position through normal democratic means.39
It is in the public square that deeply held convictions and
differing opinions should be distilled and deliberated upon.
As we held in Estrada v. Escritor:40
The COMELEC posits that the majority of the Philippine

population considers homosexual conduct as immoral and
unacceptable, and this constitutes sufficient reason to
disqualify the petitioner. Unfortunately for the respondent,
the Philippine electorate has expressed no such belief. No
law exists to criminalize homosexual behavior or
expressions or parties about homosexual behavior. Indeed,
even if we were to assume that public opinion is as the
COMELEC describes it, the asserted state interest here
that is, moral disapproval of an unpopular minority is not
a legitimate state interest that is sufficient to satisfy rational
basis review under the equal protection clause. The
COMELECs differentiation, and its unsubstantiated claim
that Ang Ladlad cannot contribute to the formulation of
legislation that would benefit the nation, furthers no
legitimate state interest other than disapproval of or dislike
for a disfavored group.
In a democracy, this common agreement on political and

moral ideas is distilled in the public square. Where citizens
are free, every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration,
and every moral discernment has access to the public
square where people deliberate the order of their life
together. Citizens are the bearers of opinion, including
opinion shaped by, or espousing religious belief, and these
citizens have equal access to the public square. In this
representative democracy, the state is prohibited from
determining which convictions and moral judgments may
be proposed for public deliberation. Through a
constitutionally designed process, the people deliberate
and decide. Majority rule is a necessary principle in this
democratic governance. Thus, when public deliberation on
moral judgments is finally crystallized into law, the laws will
largely reflect the beliefs and preferences of the majority,
i.e., the mainstream or median groups. Nevertheless, in the
very act of adopting and accepting a constitution and the
limits it specifies including protection of religious freedom
"not only for a minority, however small not only for a
majority, however large but for each of us" the majority
imposes upon itself a self-denying ordinance. It promises
not to do what it otherwise could do: to ride roughshod
over the dissenting minorities.
From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgender have the same interest in
participating in the party-list system on the same basis as
other political parties similarly situated. State intrusion in
this case is equally burdensome. Hence, laws of general
application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and
they deserve to participate in the party-list system on the
same basis as other marginalized and under-represented
sectors.
33
democratic means and the changes it proposes are

consistent with democratic principles. The ECHR has
emphasized that political ideas that challenge the existing
order and whose realization is advocated by peaceful
means must be afforded a proper opportunity of expression
through the exercise of the right of association, even if such
ideas may seem shocking or unacceptable to the authorities
or the majority of the population.44 A political group should
not be hindered solely because it seeks to publicly debate
controversial political issues in order to find solutions
capable of satisfying everyone concerned.45 Only if a
political party incites violence or puts forward policies that
are incompatible with democracy does it fall outside the
protection of the freedom of association guarantee.46
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential

foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom
applies not only to those that are favorably received but
also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction
imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued. Absent any compelling state
interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose
its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC
is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better
reason than promoting an approved message or
discouraging a disfavored one.
This position gains even more force if one considers that

homosexual conduct is not illegal in this country. It follows
that both expressions concerning ones homosexuality and
the activity of forming a political association that supports
LGBT individuals are protected as well.
We do not doubt that a number of our citizens may believe

that homosexual conduct is distasteful, offensive, or even
defiant. They are entitled to hold and express that view. On
the other hand, LGBTs and their supporters, in all likelihood,
believe with equal fervor that relationships between
individuals of the same sex are morally equivalent to
heterosexual relationships. They, too, are entitled to hold
and express that view. However, as far as this Court is
concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or
moral views of one part of the community to exclude from
consideration the values of other members of the
community.
Other jurisdictions have gone so far as to categorically rule

that even overwhelming public perception that homosexual
conduct violates public morality does not justify
criminalizing same-sex conduct.41 European and United
Nations judicial decisions have ruled in favor of gay rights
claimants on both privacy and equality grounds, citing
general privacy and equal protection provisions in foreign
and international texts.42 To the extent that there is much
to learn from other jurisdictions that have reflected on the
issues we face here, such jurisprudence is certainly
illuminating. These foreign authorities, while not formally
binding on Philippine courts, may nevertheless have
persuasive influence on the Courts analysis.
Of course, none of this suggests the impending arrival of a

golden age for gay rights litigants. It well may be that this
Decision will only serve to highlight the discrepancy
between the rigid constitutional analysis of this Court and
the more complex moral sentiments of Filipinos. We do not
suggest that public opinion, even at its most liberal, reflect
a clear-cut strong consensus favorable to gay rights claims
and we neither attempt nor expect to affect individual
perceptions of homosexuality through this Decision.
In the area of freedom of expression, for instance, United

States courts have ruled that existing free speech doctrines
protect gay and lesbian rights to expressive conduct. In
order to justify the prohibition of a particular expression of
opinion, public institutions must show that their actions
were caused by "something more than a mere desire to
avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always
accompany an unpopular viewpoint."43
The OSG argues that since there has been neither prior
restraint nor subsequent punishment imposed on Ang
Ladlad, and its members have not been deprived of their
right to voluntarily associate, then there has been no
restriction on their freedom of expression or association.
The OSG argues that:
With respect to freedom of association for the

advancement of ideas and beliefs, in Europe, with its
vibrant human rights tradition, the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly stated that a political
party may campaign for a change in the law or the
constitutional structures of a state if it uses legal and
There was no utterance restricted, no publication censored,

or any assembly denied. [COMELEC] simply exercised its
authority to review and verify the qualifications of
petitioner as a sectoral party applying to participate in the
34
party-list system. This lawful exercise of duty cannot be said

to be a transgression of Section 4, Article III of the
Constitution.
legal systems so that such norms may become actual, rather

than ideal, standards of conduct.
Our Decision today is fully in accord with our international

obligations to protect and promote human rights. In
particular, we explicitly recognize the principle of nondiscrimination as it relates to the right to electoral
participation, enunciated in the UDHR and the ICCPR.
xxxx
A denial of the petition for registration x x x does not

deprive the members of the petitioner to freely take part in
the conduct of elections. Their right to vote will not be
hampered by said denial. In fact, the right to vote is a
constitutionally-guaranteed right which cannot be limited.
The principle of non-discrimination is laid out in Article 26

of the ICCPR, as follows:
As to its right to be elected in a genuine periodic election,

petitioner contends that the denial of Ang Ladlads petition
has the clear and immediate effect of limiting, if not
outrightly nullifying the capacity of its members to fully and
equally participate in public life through engagement in the
party list elections.
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled
without any discrimination to the equal protection of the
law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination
and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection
against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, property, birth or other status.
This argument is puerile. The holding of a public office is not

a right but a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law.
x x x47
In this context, the principle of non-discrimination requires

that laws of general application relating to elections be
applied equally to all persons, regardless of sexual
orientation. Although sexual orientation is not specifically
enumerated as a status or ratio for discrimination in Article
26 of the ICCPR, the ICCPR Human Rights Committee has
opined that the reference to "sex" in Article 26 should be
construed to include "sexual orientation."48 Additionally, a
variety of United Nations bodies have declared
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be
prohibited under various international agreements.49
The OSG fails to recall that petitioner has, in fact,

established its qualifications to participate in the party-list
system, and as advanced by the OSG itself the moral
objection offered by the COMELEC was not a limitation
imposed by law. To the extent, therefore, that the
petitioner has been precluded, because of COMELECs
action, from publicly expressing its views as a political party
and participating on an equal basis in the political process
with other equally-qualified party-list candidates, we find
that there has, indeed, been a transgression of petitioners
fundamental rights.
The UDHR provides:

Non-Discrimination and International Law
Article 21.
In an age that has seen international law evolve
geometrically in scope and promise, international human
rights law, in particular, has grown dynamically in its
attempt to bring about a more just and humane world
order. For individuals and groups struggling with
inadequate structural and governmental support,
international human rights norms are particularly
significant, and should be effectively enforced in domestic
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of

his country, directly or through freely chosen
representatives.
35
Likewise, the ICCPR states:
Any restrictions on the right to stand for election, such as

minimum age, must be justifiable on objective and
reasonable criteria. Persons who are otherwise eligible to
stand for election should not be excluded by unreasonable
or discriminatory requirements such as education,
residence or descent, or by reason of political affiliation. No
person should suffer discrimination or disadvantage of any
kind because of that person's candidacy. States parties
should indicate and explain the legislative provisions which
exclude any group or category of persons from elective
office.50
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity,

without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and
without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or

through freely chosen representatives;
We stress, however, that although this Court stands willing

to assume the responsibility of giving effect to the
Philippines international law obligations, the blanket
invocation of international law is not the panacea for all
social ills. We refer now to the petitioners invocation of the
Yogyakarta Principles (the Application of International
Human Rights Law In Relation to Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity),51 which petitioner declares to reflect
binding principles of international law.
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections

which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be
held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of
the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public

service in his country.
At this time, we are not prepared to declare that these
Yogyakarta Principles contain norms that are obligatory on
the Philippines. There are declarations and obligations
outlined in said Principles which are not reflective of the
current state of international law, and do not find basis in
any of the sources of international law enumerated under
Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice.52 Petitioner has not undertaken any objective and
rigorous analysis of these alleged principles of international
law to ascertain their true status.
As stated by the CHR in its Comment-in-Intervention, the

scope of the right to electoral participation is elaborated by
the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No.
25 (Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to Vote) as
follows:
1. Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the

right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public
affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to
have access to public service. Whatever form of
constitution or government is in force, the Covenant
requires States to adopt such legislative and other
measures as may be necessary to ensure that citizens have
an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects.
Article 25 lies at the core of democratic government based
on the consent of the people and in conformity with the
principles of the Covenant.
xxxx
We also hasten to add that not everything that society or

a certain segment of society wants or demands is
automatically a human right. This is not an arbitrary human
intervention that may be added to or subtracted from at
will. It is unfortunate that much of what passes for human
rights today is a much broader context of needs that
identifies many social desires as rights in order to further
claims that international law obliges states to sanction
these innovations. This has the effect of diluting real human
rights, and is a result of the notion that if "wants" are
couched in "rights" language, then they are no longer
controversial.1avvphi1
15. The effective implementation of the right and the

opportunity to stand for elective office ensures that
persons entitled to vote have a free choice of candidates.
Using even the most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta

Principles, consisting of a declaration formulated by various
international law professors, are at best de lege ferenda
36
and do not constitute binding obligations on the

Philippines. Indeed, so much of contemporary international
law is characterized by the "soft law" nomenclature, i.e.,
international law is full of principles that promote
international cooperation, harmony, and respect for human
rights, most of which amount to no more than wellmeaning desires, without the support of either State
practice or opinio juris.53
As a final note, we cannot help but observe that the social

issues presented by this case are emotionally charged,
societal attitudes are in flux, even the psychiatric and
religious communities are divided in opinion. This Courts
role is not to impose its own view of acceptable behavior.
Rather, it is to apply the Constitution and laws as best as it
can, uninfluenced by public opinion, and confident in the
knowledge that our democracy is resilient enough to
withstand vigorous debate.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The

Resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated
November 11, 2009 and December 16, 2009 in SPP No. 09228 (PL) are hereby SET ASIDE. The Commission on
Elections is directed to GRANT petitioners application for
party-list accreditation.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
37
38
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the

acronym OFW), represented herein by its secretarygeneral, 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 PEOPLES 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.
The Case
Before us are two Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of

Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785[1] issued
by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on March 26,
2001. This Resolution approved the participation of 154
organizations and parties, including those herein
impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners seek
the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly
that the party-list system was intended to benefit the
marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream
political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented.
The Factual Antecedents
With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received

several Petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties,
organizations and political parties. According to the
Comelec, [v]erifications were made as to the status and
capacity of these parties and organizations and hearings
were scheduled day and night until the last party w[as]
heard. With the number of these petitions and the
observance of the legal and procedural requirements,
review of these petitions as well as deliberations takes a
longer process in order to arrive at a decision and as a result
the two (2) divisions promulgated a separate Omnibus
Resolution and individual resolution on political parties.
These numerous petitions and processes observed in the
disposition of these petition[s] hinder the early release of
the Omnibus Resolutions of the Divisions which were
promulgated only on 10 February 2001.[2]
[G.R. No. 147613. June 26, 2001]
BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS; NATIONALIST PEOPLES 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.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 deadline

prescribed under Comelec Resolution No. 3426 dated
December 22, 2000, the registered parties and
organizations filed their respective Manifestations, stating
their intention to participate in the party-list elections.
Other sectoral and political parties and organizations whose
registrations were denied also filed Motions for
Reconsideration, together with Manifestations of their
intent to participate in the party-list elections. Still other
registered parties filed their Manifestations beyond the
deadline.
The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not

only to give more law to the great masses of our people who
have less in life, but also to enable them to become
veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate
directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them.
It intends to make the marginalized and the
underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the
States benevolence, but active participants in the
mainstream of representative democracy. Thus, allowing all
individuals and groups, including those which now
dominate district elections, to have the same opportunity
to participate in party-list elections would desecrate this
lofty objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanism
into an atrocious veneer for traditional politics.
The Comelec gave due course or approved the

Manifestations (or accreditations) of 154 parties and
organizations, but denied those of several others in its
39
assailed March 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785,

which we quote:
Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the Comelec, Ang

Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party filed a Petition[9] before
this Court on April 16, 2001. This Petition, docketed as GR
No. 147589, assailed Comelec Omnibus Resolution No.
3785. In its Resolution dated April 17, 2001,[10] the Court
directed respondents to comment on the Petition within a
non-extendible period of five days from notice.[11]
We carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in

mind that this system of proportional representation
scheme will encourage multi-partisan [sic] and enhance the
inability of small, new or sectoral parties or organization to
directly participate in this electoral window.
On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna also filed before

this Court a Petition,[12] docketed as GR No. 147613, also
challenging Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its
Resolution dated May 9, 2001,[13] the Court ordered the
consolidation of the two Petitions before it; directed
respondents named in the second Petition to file their
respective Comments on or before noon of May 15, 2001;
and called the parties to an Oral Argument on May 17, 2001.
It added that the Comelec may proceed with the counting
and canvassing of votes cast for the party-list elections, but
barred the proclamation of any winner therein, until further
orders of the Court.
It will be noted that as defined, 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.
However, in the course of our review of the matters at bar,

we must recognize the fact that there is a need to keep the
number of sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions,
down to a manageable level, keeping only those who
substantially comply with the rules and regulations and
more importantly the sufficiency of the Manifestations or
evidence on the Motions for Reconsiderations or
Oppositions.[3]
Thereafter, Comments[14] on the second Petition were

received by the Court and, on May 17, 2001, the Oral
Argument was conducted as scheduled. In an Order given
in open court, the parties were directed to submit their
respective Memoranda simultaneously within a nonextendible period of five days.[15]
On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed

before the Comelec a Petition praying that the names of
[some of herein respondents] be deleted from the Certified
List
of
Political
Parties/Sectoral
Parties/Organizations/Coalitions Participating in the Party
List System for the May 14, 2001 Elections and that said
certified list be accordingly amended. It also asked, as an
alternative, that the votes cast for the said respondents not
be counted or canvassed, and that the latters nominees not
be proclaimed.[4] On April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and
Bayan Muna-Youth also filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Registration and Nomination against some of herein
respondents.[5]
Issues:
During the hearing on May 17, 2001, the Court directed the
parties to address the following issues:
1. Whether or not recourse under Rule 65 is proper under

the premises. More specifically, is there no other plain,
speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law?
2. Whether or not political parties may participate in the

party-list elections.
On April 18, 2001, the Comelec required the respondents in

the two disqualification cases to file Comments within three
days from notice. It also set the date for hearing on April 26,
2001,[6] but subsequently reset it to May 3, 2001.[7] During
the hearing, however, Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion
merely directed the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.[8]
3. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to

marginalized and underrepresented sectors and
organizations.
40
4. Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of

discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution No.
3785.[16]
Petitioner Bayan Muna sought succor from this Court, for

there was no other adequate recourse at the time.
Subsequent events have proven the urgency of petitioners
action; to this date, the Comelec has not yet formally
resolved the Petition before it. But a resolution may just be
a formality because the Comelec, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, has made its position on the matter quite
clear.
The Courts Ruling
The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be

remanded to the Comelec which will determine, after
summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus
Resolution satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and
RA 7941, as specified in this Decision.
In any event, this case presents an exception to the rule that

certiorari shall lie only in the absence of any other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy.[23] It has been held that
certiorari is available, notwithstanding the presence of
other remedies, where the issue raised is one purely of law,
where public interest is involved, and in case of
urgency.[24] Indeed, the instant case is indubitably imbued
with public interest and with extreme urgency, for it
potentially involves the composition of 20 percent of the
House of Representatives.
First Issue:
Recourse Under Rule 65
Respondents contend that the recourse of both petitioners

under Rule 65 is improper because there are other plain,
speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of
law.[17] The Office of the Solicitor General argues that
petitioners should have filed before the Comelec a petition
either for disqualification or for cancellation of registration,
pursuant to Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Comelec
Resolution No. 3307-A[18]dated November 9, 2000.[19]
Moreover, this case raises transcendental constitutional

issues on the party-list system, which this Court must
urgently resolve, consistent with its duty to formulate
guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts,
doctrines, or rules.[25]
Finally, procedural requirements may be glossed over to

prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the
principle of social justice x x x when the decision sought to
be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is
extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and
speedy remedy available.[26]
We disagree. At bottom, petitioners attack the validity of

Comelec Omnibus Resolution 3785 for having been issued
with grave abuse of discretion, insofar as it allowed
respondents to participate in the party-list elections of
2001. Indeed, under both the Constitution[20] and the
Rules of Court, such challenge may be brought before this
Court in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Second Issue:
Participation of Political Parties
Moreover, the assailed Omnibus Resolution was

promulgated by Respondent Commission en banc; hence,
no motion for reconsideration was possible, it being a
prohibited pleading under Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of the
Comelec Rules of Procedure.[21]
In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party

contends that the inclusion of political parties in the partylist system is the most objectionable portion of the
questioned Resolution.[27] For its part, Petitioner Bayan
Muna objects to the participation of major political
parties.[28] On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor
General, like the impleaded political parties, submits that
the Constitution and RA No. 7941 allow political parties to
participate in the party-list elections. It argues that the
party-list system is, in fact, open to all registered national,
regional and sectoral parties or organizations.[29]
The Court also notes that Petitioner Bayan Muna had filed
before the Comelec a Petition for Cancellation of
Registration and Nomination against some of herein
respondents.[22] The Comelec, however, did not act on
that Petition. In view of the pendency of the elections,
41
Congress.[34] He explained: The purpose of this is to open

the system. In the past elections, we found out that there
were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes
nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But
they were always third or fourth place in each of the
districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this
way, they would have five or six representatives in the
Assembly even if they would not win individually in
legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the
purpose and objectives of the party-list system.
We now rule on this issue. Under the Constitution and RA

7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified from the
party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are
political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution
provides that members of the House of Representatives
may be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the

Constitution, political parties may be registered under the
party-list system.
For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for a partylist system of registered national, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x x. Section
3 expressly states that a party is either a political party or a
sectoral party or a coalition of parties. More to the point,
the law defines political party as an organized group of
citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and
policies for the general conduct of government and which,
as the most immediate means of securing their adoption,
regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and
members as candidates for public office.
Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party,

organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this
Constitution.
Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions

registered under the party-list system, shall not be
represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of
election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar
bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll
watchers in accordance with law.[30]
Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as to

the participation of political parties in the party-list system.
We quote the pertinent provision below:
xxxxxxxxx
During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission,

Comm. Christian S. Monsod pointed out that the
participants in the party-list system may be a regional party,
a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO,[31] Magsasaka,
or a regional party in Mindanao."[32] This was also clear
from the following exchange between Comms. Jaime Tadeo
and Blas Ople:[33]
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5)
major political parties on the basis of party representation
in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth
Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to
participate in the party-list system.
MR. TADEO. Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay

pwedeng paghati-hatian ng UNIDO, PDP-Laban, PNP,
Liberal at Nacionalista?
xxxxxxxxx
Indubitably, therefore, political parties even the major ones

-- may participate in the party-list elections.
MR. OPLE. Maaari yan sapagkat bukas ang party list system
sa lahat ng mga partido.
Third Issue:
Indeed, Commissioner Monsod stated that the purpose of

the party-list provision was to open up the system, in order
to give a chance to parties that consistently place third or
fourth in congressional district elections to win a seat in
Marginalized and Underrepresented
42
That political parties may participate in the party-list

elections does not mean, however, that any political party - or any organization or group for that matter -- may do so.
The requisite character of these parties or organizations
must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list
system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941.
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides as follows:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The State shall promote

proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of Representatives through a
party-list system of registered national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof,
which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who
could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
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.
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not

more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number
of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided
by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
The Marginalized and Underrepresented to Become

Lawmakers Themselves
(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
be provided by law, except the religious sector. (Emphasis
supplied.)
The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of

promoting proportional representation by means of the
Filipino-style party-list system, which will enable the
election to the House of Representatives of Filipino citizens,
1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented

sectors, organizations and parties; and
Notwithstanding the sparse language of the provision, a

distinguished member of the Constitutional Commission
declared that the purpose of the party-list provision was to
give genuine power to our people in Congress. Hence, when
the provision was discussed, he exultantly announced: On
this first day of August 1986, we shall, hopefully, usher in a
new chapter to our national history, by giving genuine
power to our people in the legislature.[35]
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment

of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a
whole.
The key words in this policy are proportional

representation, marginalized and underrepresented, and
lack [of] well-defined constituencies.
The foregoing provision on the party-list system is not selfexecutory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like in
accordance with law or as may be provided by law; it was
thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective
of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted. It laid out
the statutory policy in this wise:
Proportional representation here does not refer to the

number of people in a particular district, because the partylist election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to
numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group.
Rather, it refers to the representation of the marginalized
43
and underrepresented as exemplified by the enumeration

in Section 5 of the law; namely, labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers,
and professionals.
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 sector shall
include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim

representation of the marginalized and underrepresented,
because representation is easy to claim and to feign. The
party-list organization or party must factually and truly
represent the marginalized and underrepresented
constituencies mentioned in Section 5.[36] Concurrently,
the persons nominated by the party-list candidateorganization must be Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations
and parties.
While the enumeration of marginalized and

underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates
the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be
represented under the party-list system. It is a fundamental
principle of statutory construction that words employed in
a statute are interpreted in connection with, and their
meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the
phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the
meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified or
specialized by those in immediate association.[38]
Finally, lack of well-defined constituenc[y] refers to the

absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group, like
voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of
government. Rather, it points again to those with disparate
interests identified with the marginalized or
underrepresented.
The Party-List System Desecrated by the OSG Contentions

In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only
those Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented
become members of Congress under the party-list system,
Filipino-style.
Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy, the

Office of the Solicitor General submits that RA No. 7941
does not limit the participation in the party-list system to
the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of
society.[39] In fact, it contends that any party or group that
is not disqualified under Section 6[40]of RA 7941 may
participate in the elections. Hence, it admitted during the
Oral Argument that even an organization representing the
super rich of Forbes Park or Dasmarias Village could
participate in the party-list elections.[41]
The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine

power to the people, not only by giving more law to those
who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to
become veritable lawmakers themselves. Consistent with
this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we repeat,
is likewise clear: to enable Filipino citizens belonging to
and parties, x x x, to become members of the House of
Representatives. Where the language of the law is clear, it
must be applied according to its express terms.[37]
The declared policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position of

the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). We stress that the
party-list system seeks to enable certain Filipino citizens
specifically those belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties to be
elected to the House of Representatives. The assertion of
the OSG that the party-list system is not exclusive to the
marginalized and underrepresented disregards the clear
statutory policy. Its claim that even the super-rich and
overrepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of the
party-list system.
The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be

represented under the party-list system are enumerated in
Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:
SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized group of persons may

register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of
44
between the congressional district elections and the partylist elections.
Indeed, the law crafted to address the peculiar

disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be
appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park. The
interests of these two sectors are manifestly disparate;
hence, the OSGs position to treat them similarly defies
reason and common sense. In contrast, and with admirable
candor, Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan[42] admitted during
the Oral Argument that a group of bankers, industrialists
and sugar planters could not join the party-list system as
representatives of their respective sectors.[43]
As earlier noted, the purpose of the party-list provision was

to open up the system,[44] in order to enhance the chance
of sectoral groups and organizations to gain representation
in the House of Representatives through the simplest
scheme possible.[45] Logic shows that the system has been
opened to those who have never gotten a foothold within
it -- those who cannot otherwise win in regular elections
and who therefore need the simplest scheme possible to do
so. Conversely, it would be illogical to open the system to
those who have long been within it -- those privileged
sectors that have long dominated the congressional district
elections.
While the business moguls and the mega-rich are,

numerically speaking, a tiny minority, they are neither
marginalized nor underrepresented, for the stark reality is
that their economic clout engenders political power more
awesome than their numerical limitation. Traditionally,
political power does not necessarily emanate from the size
of ones constituency; indeed, it is likely to arise more
directly from the number and amount of ones bank
accounts.
The import of the open party-list system may be more

vividly understood when compared to a student dormitory
open house, which by its nature allows outsiders to enter
the facilities. Obviously, the open house is for the benefit of
outsiders only, not the dormers themselves who can enter
the dormitory even without such special privilege. In the
same vein, the open party-list system is only for the
outsiders who cannot get elected through regular elections
otherwise; it is not for the non-marginalized or
overrepresented who already fill the ranks of Congress.
It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized and

underrepresented in our midst are the majority who wallow
in poverty, destitution and infirmity. It was for them that
the party-list system was enacted -- to give them not only
genuine hope, but genuine power; to give them the
opportunity to be elected and to represent the specific
concerns of their constituencies; and simply to give them a
direct voice in Congress and in the larger affairs of the State.
In its noblest sense, the party-list system truly empowers
the masses and ushers a new hope for genuine change.
Verily, it invites those marginalized and underrepresented
in the past the farm hands, the fisher folk, the urban poor,
even those in the underground movement to come out and
participate, as indeed many of them came out and
participated during the last elections. The State cannot now
disappoint and frustrate them by disabling and desecrating
this social justice vehicle.
Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and overrepresented

to vie for the remaining seats under the party-list system
would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the
marginalized and underrepresented, contrary to the
intention of the law to enhance it. The party-list system is a
tool for the benefit of the underprivileged; the law could
not have given the same tool to others, to the prejudice of
the intended beneficiaries.
This Court, therefore, cannot allow the party-list system to

be sullied and prostituted by those who are neither
marginalized nor underrepresented. It cannot let that
flicker of hope be snuffed out. The clear state policy must
permeate every discussion of the qualification of political
parties and other organizations under the party-list system.
Because the marginalized and underrepresented had not

been able to win in the congressional district elections
normally dominated by traditional politicians and vested
groups, 20 percent of the seats in the House of
Representatives were set aside for the party-list system. In
arguing that even those sectors who normally controlled 80
percent of the seats in the House could participate in the
party-list elections for the remaining 20 percent, the OSG
and the Comelec disregard the fundamental difference
Refutation of the Separate Opinions
45
The Separate Opinions of our distinguished colleagues,

Justices Jose C. Vitug and Vicente V. Mendoza, are anchored
mainly on the supposed intent of the framers of the
Constitution as culled from their deliberations.
representatives was designed to enable underrepresented

sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack welldefined political constituencies but who could contribute to
the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation
that will benefit the nation as a whole x x x. The criteria for
participation is well defined. Thus, there is no need for
recourse to constitutional deliberations, not even to the
proceedings of Congress. In any event, the framers
deliberations merely express their individual opinions and
are, at best, only persuasive in construing the meaning and
purpose of the constitution or statute.
The fundamental principle in constitutional construction,

however, is that the primary source from which to ascertain
constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the
provision itself. The presumption is that the words in which
the constitutional provisions are couched express the
objective sought to be attained.[46] In other words, verba
legis still prevails. Only when the meaning of the words used
is unclear and equivocal should resort be made to
extraneous aids of construction and interpretation, such as
the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission or
Convention, in order to shed light on and ascertain the true
intent or purpose of the provision being construed.[47]
Be it remembered that the constitutionality or validity of

Sections 2 and 5 of RA 7941 is not an issue here. Hence, they
remain parts of the law, which must be applied plainly and
simply.
Fourth Issue:
Indeed, as cited in the Separate Opinion of Justice
Mendoza, this Court stated in Civil Liberties Union v.
Executive Secretary[48] that the debates and proceedings
of the constitutional convention [may be consulted] in
order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting
Constitution x x x only when other guides fail as said
proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the
Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates in the
constitutional convention are of value as showing the views
of the individual members, and as indicating the reason for
their votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the
large majority who did not talk, much less of the mass or
our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that
instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it safer
to construe the constitution from what appears upon its
face. The proper interpretation therefore depends more on
how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the
framers understanding thereof.
Grave Abuse of Discretion
From its assailed Omnibus Resolution, it is manifest that the

Comelec failed to appreciate fully the clear policy of the law
and the Constitution. On the contrary, it seems to have
ignored the facet of the party-list system discussed above.
The OSG as its counsel admitted before the Court that any
group, even the non-marginalized and overrepresented,
could field candidates in the party-list elections.
When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the

Commission on Elections, violates or ignores the
Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down by this
Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.[49]
Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasi-judicial
instrumentalities is to apply the law as they find it, not to
reinvent or second-guess it.[50]
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, relative to the

party-list system, is couched in clear terms: the mechanics
of the system shall be provided by law. Pursuant thereto,
Congress enacted RA 7941. In understanding and
implementing party-list representation, we should
therefore look at the law first. Only when we find its
provisions ambiguous should the use of extraneous aids of
construction be resorted to.
In its Memorandum, Petitioner Bayan Muna passionately

pleads for the outright disqualification of the major political
parties Respondents Lakas-NUCD, LDP, NPC, LP and PMP on
the ground that under Comelec Resolution No. 4073, they
have been accredited as the five (six, including PDP-Laban)
major political parties in the May 14, 2001 elections. It
argues that because of this, they have the advantage of
getting official Comelec Election Returns, Certificates of
Canvass, preferred poll watchers x x x. We note, however,
that this accreditation does not refer to the party-list
election, but, inter alia, to the election of district
But, as discussed earlier, the intent of the law is obvious and

clear from its plain words. Section 2 thereof unequivocally
states that the party-list system of electing congressional
46
representatives for the purpose of determining which

parties would be entitled to watchers under Section 26 of
Republic Act No. 7166.
Second, while even major political parties are expressly

allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in
the party-list system, they must comply with the declared
statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be
elected to the House of Representatives. In other words,
while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that
they are political parties, they must show, however, that
they represent the interests of the marginalized and
underrepresented. The counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko and
other similarly situated political parties admitted as much
during the Oral Argument, as the following quote shows:
What is needed under the present circumstances, however,

is a factual determination of whether respondents herein
and, for that matter, all the 154 previously approved
groups, have the necessary qualifications to participate in
the party-list elections, pursuant to the Constitution and
the law.
Bayan Muna also urges us to immediately rule out

Respondent Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD), because it
is a government entity using government resources and
privileges. This Court, however, is not a trier of facts.[51] It
is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the
truth of such factual allegations.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN: I am not disputing that in my

question. All I am saying is, the political party must claim to
represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors?
ATTY. KAPUNAN: Yes, Your Honor, the answer is yes.[52]
Basic rudiments of due process require that respondents

should first be given an opportunity to show that they
qualify under the guidelines promulgated in this Decision,
before they can be deprived of their right to participate in
and be elected under the party-list system.
Third, in view of the objections[53] directed against the

registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, which is
allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express
constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be
represented in the party-list system. The extent of the
constitutional proscription is demonstrated by the
following discussion during the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission:
Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants
The Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand the case

to the Comelec for the latter to determine, after summary
evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
organizations allowed to participate in the party-list
elections comply with the requirements of the law. In this
light, the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the
following guidelines, culled from the law and the
Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its work.
MR. OPLE. x x x
In the event that a certain religious sect with nationwide

and even international networks of members and
supporters, in order to circumvent this prohibition, decides
to form its own political party in emulation of those parties
I had mentioned earlier as deriving their inspiration and
philosophies from well-established religious faiths, will that
also not fall within this prohibition?
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition

must represent the marginalized and underrepresented
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 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.
MR. MONSOD. If the evidence shows that the intention is

to go around the prohibition, then certainly the Comelec
can pierce through the legal fiction.[54]
The following discussion is also pertinent:
47

MR. VILLACORTA. When the Commissioner proposed
EXCEPT RELIGIOUS GROUPS, he is not, of course, prohibiting
priests, imams or pastors who may be elected by, say, the
indigenous community sector to represent their group.

registered.[59]
REV. RIGOS. Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who

represents the Iglesia ni Kristo, the Catholic Church, the
Protestant Church et cetera.[55]
Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a

party or group for violation of or failure to comply with
election laws and regulations. These laws include Section 2
of RA 7941, which states that the party-list system seeks to
enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties x x x to
become members of the House of Representatives. A party
or an organization, therefore, that does not comply with
this policy must be disqualified.
Furthermore, the Constitution provides that religious

denominations and sects shall not be registered.[56] The
prohibition was explained by a member[57] of the
Constitutional Commission in this wise: [T]he prohibition is
on any religious organization registering as a political party.
I do not see any prohibition here against a priest running as
a candidate. That is not prohibited here; it is the registration
of a religious sect as a political party.[58]
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of,

or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by,
the government. By the very nature of the party-list system,
the party or organization must be a group of citizens,
organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It must be
independent of the government. The participation of the
government or its officials in the affairs of a party-list
candidate is not only illegal[60] and unfair to other parties,
but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented
sectors and organizations to be elected to the House of
Representatives.
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified

under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds
for disqualification as follows:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or

association organized for religious purposes;
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the

requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so.
Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:

purposes;
SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person

(1) year immediately preceding the day of the election, able

48

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 in office until the
expiration of his term.
Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions

of the Comelec and the other respondents that the partylist system is, without any qualification, open to all. Such
position does not only weaken the electoral chances of the
marginalized and underrepresented; it also prejudices
them. It would gut the substance of the party-list system.
Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage.
Instead of enabling the marginalized, it would further
weaken them and aggravate their marginalization.
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must

represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so
also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA
7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens who belong to
and parties. Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be
fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the
urban poor or the working class, by an industrialist. To allow
otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine
representation to the marginalized and underrepresented.
In effect, the Comelec would have us believe that the partylist provisions of the Constitution and RA 7941 are nothing
more than a play on dubious words, a mockery of noble
intentions, and an empty offering on the altar of people
empowerment. Surely, this could not have been the
intention of the framers of the Constitution and the makers
of RA 7941.
Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-defined

political constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to
contribute to the formulation and enactment of
whole. Senator Jose Lina explained during the bicameral
committee proceedings that the nominee of a party,
national or regional, is not going to represent a particular
district x x x.[61]
WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the Comelec, which

is hereby DIRECTED to immediately 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.
Epilogue
The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the
law: to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who
could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
whole, to become members of the House of
Representatives.
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.
This Decision is immediately executory upon the

Commission on Elections receipt thereof. No
pronouncement as to costs.
Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental

social justice principle that those who have less in life
should have more in law. The party-list system is one such
tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It gives
the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine
power. It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced,
and even to those in the underground, that change is
possible. It is an invitation for them to come out of their
limbo and seize the opportunity.
SO ORDERED.
49
G.R. No. 179817
June 27, 2008
"Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to be Allowed to

Attend Senate Sessions and Related Requests"4 (Omnibus
Motion). Among his requests were:
ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV, petitioner,

vs.
(a) To be allowed to go to the Senate to attend all official

functions of the Senate (whether at the Senate or
elsewhere) particularly when the Senate is in session, and
to attend the regular and plenary sessions of the Senate,
committee hearings, committee meetings, consultations,
investigations and hearings in aid of legislation, caucuses,
staff meetings, etc., which are normally held at the Senate
of the Philippines located at the GSIS Financial Center,
Pasay City (usually from Mondays to Thursdays from 8:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m.);
HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL, SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS

PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT- BRANCH 148,
MAKATI CITY; GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, VICE ADM.
ROGELIO I. CALUNSAG, MGEN. BENJAMIN DOLORFINO,
AND LT. COL. LUCIARDO OBEA, respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
(b) To be allowed to set up a working area at his place of

detention at the Marine Brig, Marine Barracks Manila, Fort
Bonifacio, Taguig City, with a personal desktop computer
and the appropriate communications equipment (i.e., a
telephone line and internet access) in order that he may be
able to work there when there are no sessions, meetings or
hearings at the Senate or when the Senate is not in session.
The costs of setting up the said working area and the related
equipment and utility costs can be charged against the
budget/allocation of the Office of the accused from the
Senate;
At the wee hours of July 27, 2003, a group of more than 300
heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood
Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded
the resignation of the President and key national officials.
Later in the day, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued

Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 declaring a
state of rebellion and calling out the Armed Forces to
suppress the rebellion.1 A series of negotiations quelled the
teeming tension and eventually resolved the impasse with
the surrender of the militant soldiers that evening.
(c) To be allowed to receive members of his staff at the said

working area at his place of detention at the Marine Brig,
Marine Barracks Manila, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, at
reasonable times of the day particularly during working
days for purposes of meetings, briefings, consultations
and/or coordination, so that the latter may be able to
assists (sic) him in the performance and discharge of his
duties as a Senator of the Republic;
In the aftermath of this eventful episode dubbed as the

"Oakwood Incident," petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV was
charged, along with his comrades, with coup detat defined
under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. The case was docketed
as Criminal Case No. 03-2784, "People v. Capt. Milo D.
Maestrecampo, et al."
(d) To be allowed to give interviews and to air his

comments, reactions and/or opinions to the press or the
media regarding the important issues affecting the country
and the public while at the Senate or elsewhere in the
performance of his duties as Senator to help shape public
policy and in the light of the important role of the Senate in
maintaining the system of checks and balance between the
three (3) co-equal branches of Government;
Close to four years later, petitioner, who has remained in

detention,2 threw his hat in the political arena and won a
seat in the Senate with a six-year term commencing at noon
on June 30, 2007.3
(e) With prior notice to the Honorable Court and to the

accused and his custodians, to be allowed to receive, on
Before the commencement of his term or on June 22, 2007,

petitioner filed with the RTC, Makati City, Branch 148, an
50
Tuesdays and Fridays, reporters and other members of the

media who may wish to interview him and/or to get his
comments, reactions and/or opinion at his place of
confinement at the Marine Brig, Marine Barracks Manila,
Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, particularly when there are no
sessions, meetings or hearings at the Senate or when the
Senate is not in session; and
Such change in circumstances thus dictates the

discontinuation of the action as against the above-named
military officers-respondents. The issues raised in relation
to them had ceased to present a justiciable controversy, so
that a determination thereof would be without practical
value and use. Meanwhile, against those not made parties
to the case, petitioner cannot ask for reliefs from this
Court.11 Petitioner did not, by way of substitution, implead
the police officers currently exercising custodial
responsibility over him; and he did not satisfactorily show
that they have adopted or continued the assailed actions of
the former custodians.12
(f) To be allowed to attend the organizational meeting and

election of officers of the Senate and related activities
scheduled in the morning (9:00 or 10:00 a.m.) of 23 July
2007 at the Senate of the Philippines located at the GSIS
Financial Center, Pasay City.5
Petitioner reiterates the following grounds which mirror

those previously raised in his Motion for Reconsideration
filed with the trial court:
By Order of July 25, 2007,6 the trial court denied all the
requests in the Omnibus Motion. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration in which he waived his requests in
paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) to thus trim them down to three.7
The trial court just the same denied the motion by Order of
September 18, 2007.8
I.
THE JURISPRUDENCE CITED BY THE HONORABLE COURT A

QUO IS CLEARLY INAPPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE
BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Hence, the present petition for certiorari to set aside the

two Orders of the trial court, and for prohibition and
mandamus to (i) enjoin respondents from banning the
Senate staff, resource persons and guests from meeting
with him or transacting business with him in his capacity as
Senator; and (ii) direct respondents to allow him access to
the Senate staff, resource persons and guests and permit
him to attend all sessions and official functions of the
Senate. Petitioner preliminarily prayed for the maintenance
of the status quo ante of having been able hitherto to
convene his staff, resource persons and guests9 at the
Marine Brig.
A.
UNLIKE IN THIS CASE, THE ACCUSED IN THE JALOSJOS CASE

WAS ALREADY CONVICTED AT THE TIME HE FILED HIS
MOTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ACCUSED/PETITIONER HAS
NOT BEEN CONVICTED AND, THEREFORE, STILL ENJOYS THE
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE;
B.
Impleaded as co-respondents of Judge Oscar Pimentel, Sr.

are AFP Chief of Staff, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon (Esperon);
Philippine Navys Flag Officer-in-Command, Vice Admiral
Rogelio Calunsag; Philippine Marines Commandant, Major
Gen. Benjamin Dolorfino; and Marine Barracks Manila
Commanding Officer, Lt. Col. Luciardo Obea (Obea).
THE ACCUSED IN THE JALOJOS (SIC) CASE WAS CHARGED

WITH TWO (2) COUNTS OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SIX (6)
COUNTS OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, CRIMES INVOLVING
MORAL TURPITUDE. HEREIN ACCUSED/PETITIONER IS
CHARGED WITH THE OFFENSE OF "COUP DETAT", A
CHARGE WHICH IS COMMONLY REGARDED AS A POLITICAL
OFFENSE;
Petitioner later manifested, in his Reply of February 26,

2008, that he has, since November 30, 2007, been in the
custody of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial
Center following the foiled take-over of the Manila
Peninsula Hotel10 the day before or on November 29, 2007.
C.
51
THE ACCUSED IN THE JALOSJOS CASE ATTEMPTED TO FLEE

PRIOR TO BEING ARRESTED. THE ACCUSED/ PETITIONER
VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED TO THE AUTHORITIES AND
AGREED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTS AT
OAKWOOD;
Further, petitioner illustrates that Jalosjos was charged with

crimes involving moral turpitude, i.e., two counts of
statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness,
whereas he is indicted for coup detat which is regarded as
a "political offense."
II.
Furthermore, petitioner justifies in his favor the presence of
noble causes in expressing legitimate grievances against the
rampant and institutionalized practice of graft and
corruption in the AFP.
GEN.
ESPERON
DID
NOT
OVERRULE
THE
RECOMMENDATION
OF
THE
MARINE
BRIGS
COMMANDING OFFICER TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO
ATTEND THE SENATE SESSIONS;
III.
In sum, petitioners first ground posits that there is a world

of difference between his case and that of Jalosjos
respecting the type of offense involved, the stage of filing
of the motion, and other circumstances which demonstrate
the inapplicability of Jalosjos.14
ACCUSED/PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE FACT THAT THE

PEOPLE, IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, ELECTED HIM TO
THE POSITION OF SENATOR OF THE REPUBLIC PROVIDES
THE PROPER LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ALLOW HIM TO
WORK AND SERVE HIS MANDATE AS A SENATOR;
A plain reading of. Jalosjos suggests otherwise, however.
The distinctions cited by petitioner were not elemental in

the pronouncement in Jalosjos that election to Congress is
not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement
as the functions and duties of the office are not substantial
distinctions which lift one from the class of prisoners
interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of
movement.15
- AND -
IV.
MOREOVER, THERE ARE ENOUGH PRECEDENTS TO ALLOW

LIBERAL TREATMENT OF DETENTION PRISONERS WHO ARE
HELD WITHOUT BAIL AS IN THE CASE OF FORMER
PRESIDENT JOSEPH "ERAP" ESTRADA AND FORMER ARMM
GOV. NUR MISUARI.13
It cannot be gainsaid that a person charged with a crime is

taken into custody for purposes of the administration of
justice. No less than the Constitution provides:
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable

by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or
be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The
right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required.16 (Underscoring supplied)
The petition is bereft of merit.
In attempting to strike a distinction between his case and

that of Jalosjos, petitioner chiefly points out that former
Rep. Romeo Jalosjos (Jalosjos) was already convicted, albeit
his conviction was pending appeal, when he filed a motion
similar to petitioners Omnibus Motion, whereas he
(petitioner) is a mere detention prisoner. He asserts that he
continues to enjoy civil and political rights since the
presumption of innocence is still in his favor.
The Rules also state that no person charged with a capital

offense,17 or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when
52
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the

criminal action.18
These inherent limitations, however, must be taken into

account only to the extent that confinement restrains the
power of locomotion or actual physical movement. It bears
noting that in Jalosjos, which was decided en banc one
month after Maceda, the Court recognized that the accused
could somehow accomplish legislative results.27
That the cited provisions apply equally to rape and coup

detat cases, both being punishable by reclusion
perpetua,19 is beyond cavil. Within the class of offenses
covered by the stated range of imposable penalties, there
is clearly no distinction as to the political complexion of or
moral turpitude involved in the crime charged.
The trial court thus correctly concluded that the

presumption of innocence does not carry with it the full
enjoyment of civil and political rights.
In the present case, it is uncontroverted that petitioners

application for bail and for release on recognizance was
denied.20 The determination that the evidence of guilt is
strong, whether ascertained in a hearing of an application
for bail21 or imported from a trial courts judgment of
conviction,22 justifies the detention of an accused as a valid
curtailment of his right to provisional liberty. This
accentuates the proviso that the denial of the right to bail
in such cases is "regardless of the stage of the criminal
action." Such justification for confinement with its
underlying rationale of public self-defense23 applies
equally to detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted
prisoners-appellants like Jalosjos.
Petitioner is similarly situated with Jalosjos with respect to

the application of the presumption of innocence during the
period material to the resolution of their respective
motions. The Court in Jalosjos did not mention that the
presumption of innocence no longer operates in favor of
the accused pending the review on appeal of the judgment
of conviction. The rule stands that until a promulgation of
final conviction is made, the constitutional mandate of
presumption of innocence prevails.28
In addition to the inherent restraints, the Court notes that

petitioner neither denied nor disputed his agreeing to a
consensus with the prosecution that media access to him
should cease after his proclamation by the Commission on
Elections.29
As the Court observed in Alejano v. Cabuay,24 it is

impractical to draw a line between convicted prisoners and
pre-trial detainees for the purpose of maintaining jail
security; and while pre-trial detainees do not forfeit their
constitutional rights upon confinement, the fact of their
detention makes their rights more limited than those of the
public.
Petitioner goes on to allege that unlike Jalosjos who

attempted to evade trial, he is not a flight risk since he
voluntarily surrendered to the proper authorities and such
can be proven by the numerous times he was allowed to
travel outside his place of detention.
The Court was more emphatic in People v. Hon. Maceda:25
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is

arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law.
He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense.
He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case
against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be
released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that
all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving
final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage
in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or
appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary
consequence of arrest and detention.26 (Underscoring
supplied)
Subsequent events reveal the contrary, however. The

assailed Orders augured well when on November 29, 2007
petitioner went past security detail for some reason and
proceeded from the courtroom to a posh hotel to issue
certain statements. The account, dubbed this time as the
"Manila Pen Incident,"30 proves that petitioners argument
bites the dust. The risk that he would escape ceased to be
neither remote nor nil as, in fact, the cause for foreboding
became real.
53
Moreover, circumstances indicating probability of flight

find relevance as a factor in ascertaining the reasonable
amount of bail and in canceling a discretionary grant of
bail.31 In cases involving non-bailable offenses, what is
controlling is the determination of whether the evidence of
guilt is strong. Once it is established that it is so, bail shall
be denied as it is neither a matter of right nor of
discretion.32
Third, petitioner posits that his election provides the legal

justification to allow him to serve his mandate, after the
people, in their sovereign capacity, elected him as Senator.
He argues that denying his Omnibus Motion is tantamount
to removing him from office, depriving the people of proper
representation, denying the peoples will, repudiating the
peoples choice, and overruling the mandate of the people.
Petitioner cannot find solace in Montano v. Ocampo33 to

buttress his plea for leeway because unlike petitioner, the
therein petitioner, then Senator Justiniano Montano, who
was charged with multiple murder and multiple frustrated
murder,34 was able to rebut the strong evidence for the
prosecution. Notatu dignum is this Courts pronouncement
therein that "if denial of bail is authorized in capital cases,
it is only on the theory that the proof being strong, the
defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than
face the verdict of the jury."35 At the time Montano was
indicted, when only capital offenses were non-bailable
where evidence of guilt is strong,36 the Court noted the
obvious reason that "one who faces a probable death
sentence has a particularly strong temptation to flee."37
Petitioners petition for bail having earlier been denied, he
cannot rely on Montano to reiterate his requests which are
akin to bailing him out.
Petitioners contention hinges on the doctrine in

administrative law that "a public official can not be
removed for administrative misconduct committed during
a prior term, since his re-election to office operates as a
condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the
extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor."42
The assertion is unavailing. The case against petitioner is

not administrative in nature. And there is no "prior term" to
speak of. In a plethora of cases,43 the Court categorically
held that the doctrine of condonation does not apply to
criminal cases. Election, or more precisely, re-election to
office, does not obliterate a criminal charge. Petitioners
electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the
voters elected him to the Senate, "they did so with full
awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action [and]
x x x with the knowledge that he could achieve only such
legislative results which he could accomplish within the
confines of prison."44
Second, petitioner posits that, contrary to the trial courts

findings,
Esperon
did
not
overrule
Obeas
recommendation to allow him to attend Senate sessions.
Petitioner cites the Comment38 of Obea that he
interposed no objection to such request but recommended
that he be transported by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms
with adequate Senate security. And petitioner faults the
trial court for deeming that Esperon, despite professing
non-obstruction to the performance of petitioners duties,
flatly rejected all his requests, when what Esperon only
disallowed was the setting up of a political office inside a
military installation owing to AFPs apolitical nature.39
In once more debunking the disenfranchisement

argument,45 it is opportune to wipe out the lingering
misimpression that the call of duty conferred by the voice
of the people is louder than the litany of lawful restraints
articulated in the Constitution and echoed by
jurisprudence. The apparent discord may be harmonized by
the overarching tenet that the mandate of the people yields
to the Constitution which the people themselves ordained
to govern all under the rule of law.
The effective management of the detention facility has

been recognized as a valid objective that may justify the
imposition of conditions and restrictions of pre-trial
detention.40 The officer with custodial responsibility over a
detainee may undertake such reasonable measures as may
be necessary to secure the safety and prevent the escape of
the detainee.41 Nevertheless, while the comments of the
detention officers provide guidance on security concerns,
they are not binding on the trial court in the same manner
that pleadings are not impositions upon a court.
The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by

public officers has never been an excuse to free a person
validly in prison. The duties imposed by the "mandate of the
people" are multifarious. The accused-appellant asserts
that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of
government. The accused-appellant is only one of 250
members of the House of Representatives, not to mention
the 24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of
legislation. Congress continues to function well in the
54
physical absence of one or a few of its members. x x x Never

has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a
different classification from those others who are validly
restrained by law.46 (Underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Lastly, petitioner pleads for the same liberal treatment
accorded certain detention prisoners who have also been
charged with non-bailable offenses, like former President
Joseph Estrada and former Governor Nur Misuari who were
allowed to attend "social functions." Finding no rhyme and
reason in the denial of the more serious request to perform
the duties of a Senator, petitioner harps on an alleged
violation of the equal protection clause.
In arguing against maintaining double standards in the

treatment of detention prisoners, petitioner expressly
admits that he intentionally did not seek preferential
treatment in the form of being placed under Senate custody
or house arrest,47 yet he at the same time, gripes about the
granting of house arrest to others.
Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from

imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners, at the discretion
of the authorities or upon court orders.48 That this
discretion was gravely abused, petitioner failed to establish.
In fact, the trial court previously allowed petitioner to
register as a voter in December 2006, file his certificate of
candidacy in February 2007, cast his vote on May 14, 2007,
be proclaimed as senator-elect, and take his oath of
office49 on June 29, 2007. In a seeming attempt to bind or
twist the hands of the trial court lest it be accused of taking
a complete turn-around,50 petitioner largely banks on
these prior grants to him and insists on unending
concessions and blanket authorizations.
Petitioners position fails. On the generality and

permanence of his requests alone, petitioners case fails to
compare with the species of allowable leaves. Jaloslos
succinctly expounds:
x x x Allowing accused-appellant to attend congressional

sessions and committee meetings for five (5) days or more
in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the
privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant
situation not only elevates accused-appellants status to
that of a special class, it also would be a mockery of the
purposes of the correction system.51
55

Cases Poli 2ND Full PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases Poli 2ND Full PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr.

G.R. No. 203958

KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA, INC.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 203818-19

AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY (AKB), Petitioner,

G.R. No. 203960

1st CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR RURAL ENERGY, INC. (1CARE), Petitioner,

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.

G.R. No. 203976

ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION,

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 203936

AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA,

G.R. No. 203981

ASSOCIATION FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204002

ALLIANCE FOR RURAL CONCERNS, Petitioner,

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204094

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204126

G.R. No. 204100

KAAGAPAY NG NAGKAKAISANG AGILANG PILIPINONG

1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC.,

G.R. No. 204174

AANGAT TAYO PARTY LIST-PARTY, represented by its

G.R. No. 204141

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204216

COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION,

G.R. No. 204153

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204220

ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204158

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.

ABROAD PARTY LIST, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204236

FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204238

G.R. No. 204318

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204239

GREEN FORCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SONS AND

G.R. No. 204321

ANG AGRIKULTURA NATIN ISULONG (AANI), represented by

G.R. No. 204240

G.R. No. 204323

BAYANI PARTYLIST as represented byHomer Bueno, Fitrylin

G.R. No. 204263

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CHAIRMAN SIXTO S.

A BLESSED PARTY LIST A.K.A. BLESSEDFEDERATION OF

G.R. No. 204341

G.R. No. 204364

ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG-TAO, PARA SA

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, SIXTO S.