Additional Case - Legislative

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 203766 April 2, 2013
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. Nos. 203818-19
AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY (AKB), Petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203922
ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES (APEC),represented by its

President Congressman Ponciano D. Payuyo, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203936
AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA, represented by its President

Michael Abas Kida,Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203958
KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA, INC. (KAKUSA), Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203960

1st CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR RURAL ENERGY, INC. (1-CARE), Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203976
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, INC.

(ARARO), Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203981
ASSOCIATION FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON LEADERSHIP (ARAL) PARTY-

LIST, represented herein by Ms. Lourdes L. Agustin, the party’s Secretary
General, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204002
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL CONCERNS, Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204094
ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD), Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204100
1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC., (1BRO-PGBI) formerly

PGBI, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204122
1 GUARDIANS NATIONALIST PHILIPPINES, INC., (1GANAP/GUARDIANS), Petitioner,

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. 204125
AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ALLIANCE, INC. (A-IPRA), represented

by its Secretary General,Ronald D. Macaraig, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204126
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,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204139
ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), represented by Atty. Berteni Cataluña

Causing, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204141
BANTAY PARTY LIST, represented by Maria Evangelina F. Palparan,

President, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204153

PASANG MASDA NATIONWIDE PARTY by its President Roberto "Ka Obet"
Martin, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204158
ABROAD PARTY LIST, Petitioner,

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.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204174
AANGAT TAYO PARTY LIST-PARTY, represented by its President Simeon T. Silva,

Jr., Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204216
COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204220
ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204236
FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204238
ALLIANCE OF BICOLNON PARTY (ABP), Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204239
GREEN FORCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF MOTHER

EARTH (GREENFORCE),Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204240
AGRI-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA MAGSASAKA NG PILIPINAS MOVEMENT

(AGRI), represented by its Secretary General, Michael Ryan A. Enriquez, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204263
A BLESSED PARTY LIST A.K.A. BLESSEDFEDERATION OF FARMERS AND

FISHERMEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204318
UNITED MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS FOUNDATION (UNIMAD) PARTY-

LIST, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204321
ANG AGRIKULTURA NATIN ISULONG (AANI), represented by its Secretary General

Jose C. Policarpio, Jr.,Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204323
BAYANI PARTYLIST as represented byHomer Bueno, Fitrylin Dalhani,Israel de Castro,

Dante Navarroand Guiling Mamondiong, Petitioner,
vs.
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.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204341
ACTION LEAGUE OF INDIGENOUS MASSES(ALIM) PARTY-LIST, represented herein

by its President Fatani S. Abdul Malik, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204356
BUTIL FARMERS PARTY, Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204358
ALLIANCE OF ADVOCATES IN MININGADVANCEMENT FOR NATIONAL PROGRESS

(AAMA), Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204359
SOCIAL MOVEMENT FOR ACTIVEREFORM AND TRANSPARENCY (SMART),

represented by its Chairman, Carlito B. Cubelo, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204364

ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG-TAO, PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY,
HANAPBUHAY AT KAUNLARAN (AKO BUHAY), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., RENE V.
SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO C. VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH,
CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA, in their capacities
as Commissioners thereof, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204367
AKBAY KALUSUGAN INCORPORATION(AKIN), Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204370
AKO AN BISAYA (AAB), represented by itsSecretary General, Rodolfo T.

Tuazon, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204374
BINHI-PARTIDO NG MGA MAGSASAKA PARA SA MGA MAGSASAKA, Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204379
ALAGAD NG SINING (ASIN) represented by its President, Faye Maybelle

Lorenz, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204394
ASSOCIATION OF GUARD UTILITY HELPER, AIDER, RIDER, DRIVER/DOMESTIC

HELPER, JANITOR, AGENT AND NANNY OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
(GUARDJAN), Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204402
KALIKASAN PARTY-LIST, represented by its President, Clemente G. Bautista, Jr., and

Secretary General, Frances Q. Quimpo, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204408
PILIPINO ASSOCIATION FOR COUNTRY-URBAN POOR YOUTH ADVANCEMENT AND

WELFARE (PACYAW),Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204410
1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK), Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204421
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,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204425
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES,

INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANY OF ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS, ACTING
FOR AND IN ITS BEHALF, INCLUDING THE CHAIR AND MEMBERSOF THE
COMMISSION, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204426

ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL ATHLETICS ENTREPRENEURS AND HOBBYISTS, INC.
(ALA-EH), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., RENE V.
SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO C. VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH,
CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, and MA. GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA, in their respective
capacities as COMELEC Chairperson and Commissioners, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204428
ANG GALING PINOY (AG), represented by its Secretary General, Bernardo R. Corella,
Jr., Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204435
1 ALLIANCE ADVOCATING AUTONOMY PARTY (1AAAP), Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204436
ABYAN ILONGGO PARTY (AI), represented byits Party President, Rolex T.

Suplico, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204455
MANILA TEACHER SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204484
PARTIDO NG BAYAN ANG BIDA (PBB), represented by its Secretary General, Roger
M. Federazo, Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204485
ALLIANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS, NETWORKS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF THE

PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALONA),Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204486
1st KABALIKAT NG BAYAN GINHAWANG SANGKATAUHAN (1st

KABAGIS), Petitioner,
vs.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 204490
PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY (PPP), Petitioner,

vs.
PERLAS-BERNABE,*
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Cases
These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and
Prohibition1 filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions issued
by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating in the 13
May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the
party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list
organizations.
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
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.
G.R. No. SPP No. Group Grounds for Denial

A. Via the COMELEC En Banc’s automatic review of the COMELEC
Division’s resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations
Resolution dated 23 November 20128
1 204379 12-099 Alagad ng - The "artists" sector is not

(PLM) Sining (ASIN) considered marginalized and
underrepresented;
- 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
2 204455 12-041 Manila Teachers - A non-stock savings and

(PLM) Savings and loan association cannot be
Loan considered marginalized and
Association, Inc. underrepresented; and
(Manila - The first and second
Teachers) nominees are not teachers by
profession.
3 204426 12-011 Association of - Failure to show that its

(PLM) Local Athletics members belong to the
Entrepreneurs marginalized; and
and Hobbyists, - Failure of the nominees to
Inc. (ALA-EH) qualify.
4 204435 12-057 1 Alliance - Failure of the nominees to

(PLM) Advocating qualify: although registering
Autonomy Party as a regional political party,
(1AAAP) two of the nominees are not
residents of the region; and
four of the five nominees do
not belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented.
5 204367 12-104 (PL) Akbay - Failure of the group to show

Kalusugan that its nominees belong to
(AKIN), Inc. the urban poor sector.
6 204370 12-011 (PP) Ako An Bisaya - Failure to represent a

(AAB) 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
farmers nor peasants.
Resolution dated 4 December 201213
7 204436 12-009 (PP), Abyan Ilonggo - Failure to show that the

12-165 Party (AI) party represents a
(PLM) marginalized and
underrepresented sector, as
the Province of Iloilo has
district representatives;
- Untruthful statements in the
memorandum; and
- Withdrawal of three of its
five nominees.
8 204485 12-175 (PL) Alliance of - Failure to establish that the

Organizations, group can represent 14
Networks and Associations of sectors; - The sectors of homeowners’
the Philippines, associations, entrepreneurs
Inc. (ALONA) and cooperatives are not
marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The nominees do not belong
to the marginalized and
underrepresented.
B. Via the COMELEC En Banc’s review on motion for reconsideration

of the COMELEC Division’s resolutions denying registration of groups
and organizations
9 204139 12-127 (PL) Alab ng - Failure to prove track

Mamamahayag record as an organization;
(ALAM) - Failure to show that the
group actually represents the
marginalized and
- Failure to establish that the
group can represent all
sectors it seeks to represent.
10 204402 12-061 (PP) Kalikasan Party-List - The group reflects an

(KALIKASAN) advocacy for the
environment, and is not
representative of the
marginalized and
underrepresented;
- There is no proof that
majority of its members
belong to the marginalized
and underrepresented;
- The group represents
sectors with conflicting
interests; and
to the sector which the group
claims to represent.
11 204394 12-145 (PL) Association of - Failure to prove

Guard, Utility membership base and track
Helper, Aider, record;
Rider, Driver/ - Failure to present activities
Domestic that sufficiently benefited its
Helper, intended constituency; and
Janitor, Agent - The nominees do not belong
and to any of the sectors which
Nanny of the the group seeks to represent.
Philippines, Inc.
(GUARDJAN)
12 204490 12-073 Pilipinas Para sa - Failure to show that the

(PLM) Pinoy (PPP) group represents a
marginalized and
underrepresented 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.
In a Resolution dated 5 December 2012,19 the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the COMELEC
Second Division’s resolution to grant Partido ng Bayan ng Bida’s (PBB) registration and
accreditation as a political party in the National Capital Region. However, PBB was denied
participation in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections because PBB does not represent any
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector; PBB failed to apply for registration as a party-
list group; and PBB failed to establish its track record as an organization that seeks to uplift
the lives of the "marginalized and underrepresented."20
These 13 petitioners (ASIN, Manila Teachers, ALA-EH, 1AAAP, AKIN, AAB, AI, ALONA,
ALAM, KALIKASAN, GUARDJAN, PPP, and PBB) were not able to secure a mandatory
injunction from this Court. The COMELEC, on 7 January 2013 issued Resolution No.
9604,21 and excluded the names of these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for
the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
Pursuant to paragraph 222 of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC En Banc scheduled
summary evidentiary hearings to determine whether the groups and organizations that filed
manifestations of intent to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections have continually
complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party
v. COMELEC23 (Ang Bagong Bayani). The COMELEC disqualified the following groups and
organizations from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections:
G.R. No. SPP No. Group Grounds for Denial
Resolution dated 10 October 201224
1 203818-19 12-154 AKO Bicol Retained registration and

(PLM) Political Party accreditation as a political
12-177 (AKB) party, but denied participation
(PLM) in the May 2013 party-list
elections
- Failure to represent any
marginalized and
underrepresented sector;
- The Bicol region already
has representatives in
Congress; and
- The nominees are not
marginalized and
underrepresented.
Omnibus Resolution dated 11 October 201225
2 203766 12-161 Atong Paglaum, Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Inc. (Atong accreditation
Paglaum) - The nominees do not belong
to the sectors which the party
represents; and
- The party failed to file its
Statement of Contributions
and Expenditures for the
2010 Elections.
3 203981 12-187 Association for Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Righteousness accreditation
Advocacy on - Failure to comply, and for
Leadership violation of election laws;
(ARAL) - The nominees do not
represent the sectors which
the party represents; and
- There is doubt that the party
is organized for religious
purposes.
4 204002 12-188 Alliance for Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Rural Concerns accreditation
(ARC) - Failure of the nominees to
qualify; and
- Failure of the party to prove
that majority of its members
belong to the sectors it seeks
to represent.
5 204318 12-220 United Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Movement accreditation
Against Drugs - The sectors of drug
Foundation counsellors and lecturers,
(UNIMAD) veterans and the youth, are
not marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to establish track
record; and
- Failure of the nominees to
qualify as representatives of
the youth and young urban
professionals.
6 204100 12-196 1-Bro Philippine Cancelled registration

(PLM) Guardians - Failure to define the sector
Brotherhood, it seeks to represent; and
Inc. (1BRO-PGBI) - The nominees do not belong
to a marginalized and
underrepresented sector.
7 204122 12-223 1 Guardians Cancelled registration

(PLM) Nationalist - The party is a military
Philippines, Inc. fraternity;
(1GANAP/ - The sector of community
GUARDIANS) volunteer workers is too
broad to allow for meaningful
representation; and
- The nominees do not appear
to belong to the sector of
community volunteer
workers.
8 20426 12-257 Blessed Cancelled registration

(PLM) Federation of - Three of the seven
Farmers and nominees do not belong to
Fishermen the sector of farmers and
International, fishermen, the sector sought
Inc. (A to be represented; and
BLESSED - None of the nominees are
Party-List) registered voters of Region
XI, the region sought to be
represented.
9 203960 12-260 1st Cancelled registration

(PLM) Consumers - The sector of rural energy
Alliance for consumers is not
Rural Energy, marginalized and
Inc. (1-CARE) underrepresented;
- The party’s track record is
related to electric
cooperatives and not rural
energy consumers; and
to the sector of rural energy
consumers.
10 203922 12-201 Association of Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Philippine accreditation
Electric - Failure to represent a
Cooperatives marginalized and
(APEC) underrepresented sector; and
to the sector that the party
claims to represent.
11 204174 12-232 Aangat Tayo Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Party-List Party accreditation
( AT ) - The incumbent
representative in Congress
failed to author or sponsor
bills that are beneficial to the
sectors that the party
represents (women, elderly,
youth, urban poor); and
to the marginalized sectors
that the party seeks to
represent.

(PLM) Rural and accreditation
Agrarian - The interests of the peasant
Reconstruction, and urban poor sectors that
Inc. (ARARO) the party represents differ;
to the sectors that the party
seeks to represent;
- Failure to show that three of
the nominees are bona fide
party members; and
- Lack of a Board resolution
to participate in the party-list
elections.
13 204240 12-279 Agri-Agra na Cancelled registration

(PLM) Reporma Para sa - The party ceased to exist for
Magsasaka ng more than a year immediately
Pilipinas after the May 2010 elections;
Movement - The nominees do not belong
(AGRI) to the sector of peasants and
farmers that the party seeks to
represent;
- Only four nominees were
submitted to the COMELEC;
and
- Failure to show meaningful
activities for its constituency.
14 203936 12-248 Aksyon Cancelled registration

(PLM) Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng - Failure to show that
Masa (AKMA-PTM) majority of its members are
marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to prove that four of
its nine nominees actually
belong to the farmers sector;
and
- Failure to show that five of
its nine nominees work on
uplifting the lives of the
members of the sector.
15 204126 12-263 Kaagapay ng Cancelled registration

(PLM) Nagkakaisang - The Manifestation of Intent
Agilang and Certificate of Nomination
Pilipinong were not signed by an
Magsasaka appropriate officer of the
(KAP) party;
- Failure to show track record
for the farmers and peasants
sector; and
- Failure to show that
nominees actually belong to
the sector, or that they have
undertaken meaningful
activities for the sector.
16 204364 12-180 Adhikain at Cancelled registration

(PLM) Kilusan ng - Failure to show that
Ordinaryong nominees actually belong to
Tao Para sa the sector, or that they have
Lupa, Pabahay, undertaken meaningful
Hanapbuhay at activities for the sector.
Kaunlaran
(AKO-BAHAY)
17 204141 12-229 The True Cancelled registration

(PLM) Marcos Loyalist - Failure to show that
(for God, majority of its members are
Country and marginalized and
People) underrepresented; and
Association of - Failure to prove that two of
the Philippines, its nominees actually belong
Inc. (BANTAY) to the marginalized and
underrepresented.
18 204408 12-217 Pilipino Cancelled registration

(PLM) Association for - Change of sector (from
Country – Urban urban poor youth to urban
Poor Youth poor) necessitates a new
Advancement application;
and Welfare - Failure to show track record
( PA C YAW ) for the marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to prove that
majority of its members and
officers are from the urban
poor sector; and
members of the urban poor
sector.
19 204153 12-277 Pasang Masda Cancelled registration

(PLM) Nationwide - The party represents drivers
Party (PASANG and operators, who may have
MASDA) conflicting interests; and
- Nominees are either
operators or former operators.
20 203958 12-015 Kapatiran ng Cancelled registration

(PLM) mga Nakulong - Failure to prove that
na Walang Sala, na Walang Sala,
Inc. (KAKUSA) Inc. (KAKUSA)
majority of its officers and
members belong to the
marginalized and
underrepresented;
- The incumbent
representative in Congress
failed to author or sponsor
bills that are beneficial to the
sector that the party
represents (persons
imprisoned without proof of
guilt beyond reasonable
doubt);
for the marginalized and
- The nominees did not
appear to be marginalized and
underrepresented.
21 204428 12-256 Ang Galing Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Pinoy (AG) accreditation
- Failure to attend the
summary hearing;
for the marginalized and
- The nominees did not
appear to be marginalized and
underrepresented.

(PLM) Nationalism and accreditation
Democracy - Failure to represent an
(ANAD) identifiable marginalized and
underrepresented sector;
- Only three nominees were
submitted to the COMELEC;
- The nominees do not
belong to the marginalized
and underrepresented; and
- Failure to submit its
Statement of Contribution
and Expenditures for the
2007 Elections.
Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 201234
23 204239 12-060 Green Force for Cancelled registration and

(PLM) the Environment accreditation
Sons and - The party is an advocacy
Daughters of group and does not represent
Mother Earth the marginalized and
(GREENFORCE) underrepresented;
- Failure to comply with the
track record requirement; and
marginalized citizens.
24 204236 12-254 Firm 24-K Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Association, Inc. accreditation
(FIRM 24-K) - The nominees do not
belong to the sector that the
party seeks to represent
(urban poor and peasants of
the National Capital Region);
- Only two of its nominees
reside in the National Capital
Region; and
- Failure to comply with the
track record requirement.
25 204341 12-269 Action League Cancelled registration and

(PLM) of Indigenous accreditation
Masses (ALIM) - Failure to establish that its
nominees are members of the
indigenous people in the
Mindanao and Cordilleras
sector that the party seeks to
represent;
- Only two of the party’s
nominees reside in the
Mindanao and Cordilleras;
and
- Three of the nominees do
not appear to belong to the
marginalized.
26 204358 12-204 Alliance of Cancelled registration

(PLM) Advocates in - The sector it represents is a
Mining specifically defined group
Advancement which may not be allowed
for National registration under the party-list system; and
Progress - Failure to establish that the
(AAMA) nominees actually belong to
the sector.
27 204359 12-272 Social Cancelled registration

(PLM) Movement for - The nominees are
Active Reform disqualified from
and representing the sectors that
Transparency the party represents;
(SMART) - Failure to comply with the
track record requirement; and
- There is doubt as to whether
majority of its members are
marginalized and
underrepresented.
28 204238 12-173 Alliance of Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Bicolnon Party accreditation
(ABP) - Defective registration and
accreditation dating back to
2010;
- Failure to represent any
sector; and
nominees are employed in the construction industry, the
sector it claims to represent.
29 204323 12-210 Bayani Party Cancelled registration and

(PLM) List (BAYANI) accreditation
- Failure to prove a track
record of trying to uplift the
marginalized and
underrepresented sector of
professionals; and
- One nominee was declared
unqualified to represent the
sector of professionals.
30 204321 12-252 Ang Agrikultura Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Natin Isulong accreditation
(AANI) - Failure to establish a track
record of enhancing the lives
of the marginalized and
underrepresented farmers
which it claims to represent;
and
- More than a majority of the
party’s nominees do not
belong to the farmers sector.
31 204125 12-292 Agapay ng Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Indigenous accreditation
Peoples Rights - Failure to prove that its five
Alliance, Inc. nominees are members of the
(A-IPRA) indigenous people sector;
- Failure to prove that its five
nominees actively
participated in the
undertakings of the party; and
- Failure to prove that its five nominees are bona fide
members.
32 204216 12-202 Philippine Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Coconut accreditation
Producers - The party is affiliated with
Federation, Inc. private and government
(COCOFED) agencies and is not
marginalized;
- The party is assisted by the
government in various
projects; and
members of the marginalized
sector of coconut farmers and
producers.
33 204220 12-238 Abang Lingkod Cancelled registration

(PLM) Party-List - Failure to establish a track
(ABANG record of continuously
LINGKOD) representing the peasant
farmers sector;
- Failure to show that its
members actually belong to
the peasant farmers sector;
and
- Failure to show that its
nominees are marginalized
and underrepresented, have
actively participated in
programs for the
advancement of farmers, and
adhere to its advocacies.
34 204158 12-158 Action Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Brotherhood for Active accreditation - Failure to show that the
Dreamers, Inc. party is actually able to
(ABROAD) represent all of the sectors it
claims to represent;
- Failure to show a complete
track record of its activities
since its registration; and
- The nominees are not part
of any of the sectors which
the party seeks to represent.
35 204374 12-228 Binhi-Partido ng Cancelled registration and

(PLM) mga Magsasaka accreditation
Para sa mga - The party receives
Magsasaka assistance from the
(BINHI) government through the
Department of Agriculture;
and
- Failure to prove that the
group is marginalized and
underrepresented.
36 204356 12-136 Butil Farmers Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Party (BUTIL) accreditation
agriculture and cooperative
sectors are marginalized and
- The party’s nominees
neither appear to belong to
the sectors they seek to
represent, nor to have
actively participated in the
undertakings of the party.
37 204486 12-194 1st Cancelled registration and

(PLM) Kabalikat ng accreditation
Bayan - Declaration of untruthful
Ginhawang statements;
Sangkatauhan - Failure to exist for at least
(1st one year; and
KABAGIS) - None of its nominees
belong to the labor,
fisherfolk, and urban poor
indigenous cultural
communities sectors which it
seeks to represent.
38 204410 12-198 1-United Cancelled accreditation

(PLM) Transport - The party represents drivers
Koalisyon (1-UTAK) and operators, who may have
conflicting interests; and
- The party’s nominees do not
belong to any marginalized
and underrepresented sector.
39 204421, 12-157 Coalition of Cancelled registration

204425 (PLM), Senior Citizens - The party violated election
12-191 in the laws because its nominees
(PLM) Philippines, Inc. had a term-sharing
(SENIOR agreement.
CITIZENS)
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:
G.R. No. SPP No. Group
203818-19 12-154 AKO Bicol Political Party (AKB)

(PLM)
12-177
(PLM)
203981 12-187 Association for Righteousness Advocacy on

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

(PLM)
203922 12-201 Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives

(PLM) (APEC)
203960 12-260 1st

(PLM) Consumers Alliance for Rural Energy, Inc.
(1-CARE)
203936 12-248 Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa

(PLM) (AKMA-PTM)
203958 12-015 Kapatiran ng mga Nakulong na Walang Sala,

(PLM) Inc. (KAKUSA)
203976 12-288 Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction,

(PLM) Inc. (ARARO)
204094 12-185 Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy

(PLM) (ANAD)
204125 12-292 Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance,

(PLM) Inc. (A-IPRA)
204100 12-196 1-Bro Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc.
(PLM) (1BRO-PGBI)
204141 12-229 The True Marcos Loyalist (for God, Country

(PLM) and People) Association of the Philippines, Inc.
(BANTAY)
204240 12-279 Agri-Agra na Reporma Para sa Magsasaka ng

(PLM) Pilipinas Movement (AGRI)
204216 12-202 Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc.

(PLM) (COCOFED)
204158 12-158 Action Brotherhood for Active Dreamer, Inc.

(PLM) (ABROAD)
Resolutions dated 4 December 2012
204122 12-223 1 Guardians Nationalist Philippines, Inc.

(PLM) (1GANAP/GUARDIANS)
203766 12-161 Atong Paglaum, Inc. (Atong Paglaum)

(PLM)
204318 12-220 United Movement Against Drugs Foundation

(PLM) (UNIMAD)
204263 12-257 Blessed Federation of Farmers and Fishermen

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

(PLM)
204126 12-263 Kaagapay ng Nagkakaisang Agilang Pilipinong

(PLM) Magsasaka (KAP)
204364 12-180 Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong Tao Para sa

(PLM) Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at Kaunlaran
(AKO-BAHAY)
204139 12-127 (PL) Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM)
204220 12-238 Abang Lingkod Party-List (ABANG

(PLM) LINGKOD)
204236 12-254 Firm 24-K Association, Inc. (FIRM 24-K)

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

(PLM)
204239 12-060 Green Force for the Environment Sons and

(PLM) Daughters of Mother Earth (GREENFORCE)
204321 12-252 Ang Agrikultura Natin Isulong (AANI)
(PLM)
204323 12-210 Bayani Party List (BAYANI)

(PLM)
204341 12-269 Action League of Indigenous Masses (ALIM)

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

(PLM) for National Progress (AAMA)
204359 12-272 Social Movement for Active Reform and

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

(PLM)
204402 12-061 (PL) Kalikasan Party-List (KALIKASAN)
204394 12-145 (PL) Association of Guard, Utility Helper, Aider,

Rider, Driver/Domestic Helper, Janitor, Agent
and Nanny of the Philippines, Inc.
(GUARDJAN)
204408 12-217 Pilipino Association for Country – Urban Poor

(PLM) 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 (PL) Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN)
204426 12-011 Association of Local Athletics Entrepreneurs

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

(PLM) Inc. (Manila Teachers)
204374 12-228 Binhi-Partido ng mga Magsasaka Para sa mga

(PLM) Magsasaka (BINHI)
204370 12-011 (PP) Ako An Bisaya (AAB)
204435 12-057 1 Alliance Advocating Autonomy Party

(PLM) (1AAAP)
204486 12-194 1st Kabalikat ng Bayan Ginhawang

(PLM) Sangkatauhan (1st KABAGIS)
204410 12-198 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK)

(PLM)
204421, 12-157 Coalition of Senior Citizens in the Philippines,

204425 (PLM) Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS)
12-191
(PLM)
204436 12-009 (PP), Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI)

12-165
(PLM)
204485 12-175 (PL) Alliance of Organizations, Networks and

Associations of the Philippines, Inc. (ALONA)
204484 11-002 Partido ng Bayan ng Bida (PBB)
204153 12-277 Pasang Masda Nationwide Party (PASANG

(PLM) MASDA)
The 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 Court’s Ruling
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 party-list system, thereby
abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners,
we remand to the COMELEC all the present petitions for the COMELEC to determine who
are qualified to register under the party-list system, and to participate in the coming 13 May
2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this Decision.
The Party-List System
The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system of representation. Simply
put, the party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving political parties
that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of
Representatives.50 The voter elects two representatives in the House of Representatives:
one for his or her legislative district, and another for his or her party-list group or organization
of choice. The 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 5, Article VI
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred
and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be
elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive
terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-
list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from
the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and
such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C
Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid,
except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system,
shall not be represented in the voters’ registration boards, boards of election inspectors,
boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll
watchers in accordance with law.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 women’s 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.
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
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.
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.
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 any single party that can sit within the
50 allocated under the party list system. x x x.
xxx
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats is not limited to
political parties. My question is this: Are we going to classify for example Christian
Democrats and Social Democrats as political parties? Can they run under the party
list concept or must they be under the district legislation side of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these parties that the Commissioner
mentioned can field candidates for the Senate as well as for the House of
Representatives. Likewise, they can also field sectoral candidates for the 20 percent
or 30 percent, whichever is adopted, of the seats that we are allocating under the party
list system.
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field district candidates
and can also participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the party list system, they will be
fielding only sectoral candidates.
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO participate in the party list
system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field candidates who come from
the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Tañada wants to run under BAYAN group and says that
he represents the farmers, would he qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Tañada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party list system and say Juan
dela Cruz is a farmer. Who would pass on whether he is a farmer or not?
MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang linawin ito. Political parties,
particularly minority political parties, are not prohibited to participate in the party list
election if they can prove that they are also organized along sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all political parties can participate
because it is precisely the contention of political parties that they represent the broad base of
citizens and that all sectors are represented in them. Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO na isang political
party, it will dominate the party list at mawawalang saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin mismo
ng political parties ang party list system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan ng diin ang "reserve." Hindi
ito reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198 seats, reserved din
ito sa political parties.
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run there. But my question to
Commissioner Villacorta and probably also to Commissioner Tadeo is that under this
system, would UNIDO be banned from running under the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral candidates. On that
condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed to register for the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares that answer?
MR. TADEO. The same.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD: Sino po ang magsasabi kung iyong kandidato ng UNIDO ay hindi talagang
labor leader or isang laborer? Halimbawa, abogado ito.
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
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 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 less-moneyed 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)
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.
The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that they cannot
expect to win in legislative district elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at
least the same number of votes that winning candidates can garner in legislative district
elections. The party-list system will be the entry point to membership in the House of
Representatives for both these non-traditional parties that could not compete in legislative
district elections.
The indisputable intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution to include in the party-list
system both sectoral and non-sectoral parties is clearly written in Section 5(1), Article VI of
the Constitution, which states:
Section 5. (1) The House of Representative shall be composed of not more that two hundred
and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform
and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations. (Emphasis supplied)
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.
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.
Thus, the party-list system is composed of three different groups: (1) national parties or
organizations; (2) regional parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
National and regional parties or organizations are different from sectoral parties or
organizations. National and regional parties or organizations need not be organized along
sectoral lines and need not represent any particular sector.
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 communities,
women, youth, and such other sectors as may 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.
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.
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.
Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act, which is the law that implements the
party-list system prescribed in the Constitution, provides:
Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional

representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or organizations of a coalition
may participate independently provided the coalition of which they form part does not
participate in the party-list system.
(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of

parties.
(c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an

ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of
government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their
adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members
as candidates for public office.
It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of
at least a majority of the regions. It is a regional party when its constituency is spread
over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces
comprising the region.
(d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of

the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains
to the special interest and concerns of their sector.
(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of

citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics, employment,
interests or concerns.
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral

parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes. (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
for a political and a sectoral party. Obviously, they are separate and distinct from each other.
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 ideology-based 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.
Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or cause-oriented 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.
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."56The 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.
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 underrepresented." Section 6 provides the
grounds for the COMELEC to refuse or cancel the registration of parties or organizations
after due notice and hearing.
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;
(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;
(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.
None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel registration refers to non-representation of the

"marginalized and underrepresented."
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.
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?
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
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 "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.
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.
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
COMELEC’s refusal to register sectoral wings officially organized by major political parties.
BANAT merely formalized the prevailing practice when it expressly 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 "well-defined 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
1âwphi1
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.
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
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.
xxxx
Third, x x x the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. x x x.
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;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(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;
(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."
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.
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 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.
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."
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)
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.
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.
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.
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:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties
or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need

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

underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is enough
that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their
sector. The sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented" include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,
veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political
constituencies" include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the

"marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies" must
belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or that
represent those who lack "well-defined political constituencies," either must belong to
their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective
sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be
bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if

some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified.
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.
This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its provisions faithfully, and desist
from engaging in socio-economic 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.
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.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE C. MENDOZA

(on leave)
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE*
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
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.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 189793 April 7, 2010
SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III and MAYOR JESSE

ROBREDO, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS represented by its Chairman JOSE A.R. MELO and its
Commissioners, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, LUCENITO N. TAGLE,
ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH AND GREGORIO
LARRAZABAL, Respondents.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This case comes before this Court by way of a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In this original action, petitioners Senator Benigno Simeon C.
Aquino III and Mayor Jesse Robredo, as public officers, taxpayers and citizens, seek the
nullification as unconstitutional of Republic Act No. 9716, entitled "An Act Reapportioning the
Composition of the First (1st) and Second (2nd) Legislative Districts in the Province of
Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating a New Legislative District From Such
Reapportionment." Petitioners consequently pray that the respondent Commission on
Elections be restrained from making any issuances and from taking any steps relative to the
implementation of Republic Act No. 9716.
Republic Act No. 9716 originated from House Bill No. 4264, and was signed into law by
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on 12 October 2009. It took effect on 31 October 2009,
or fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Manila Standard, a newspaper of general
circulation.1 In substance, the said law created an additional legislative district for the
Province of Camarines Sur by reconfiguring the existing first and second legislative districts
of the province.
Prior to Republic Act No. 9716, the Province of Camarines Sur was estimated to have a
population of 1,693,821,2distributed among four (4) legislative districts in this wise:
District Municipalities/Cities Population
1st District Del Gallego Libmanan 417,304

Ragay Minalabac
Lupi Pamplona
Sipocot Pasacao
Cabusao San Fernando
2nd District Gainza Canaman 474,899

Milaor Camaligan
Naga Magarao
Pili Bombon
Ocampo Calabanga
3rd District Caramoan Sangay 372,548

Garchitorena San Jose
Goa Tigaon
Lagonoy Tinamba
Presentacion Siruma
4th District Iriga Buhi 429,070

Baao Bula
Balatan Nabua
Bato
Following the enactment of Republic Act No. 9716, the first and second districts of
Camarines Sur were reconfigured in order to create an additional legislative district for the
province. Hence, the first district municipalities of Libmanan, Minalabac, Pamplona,
Pasacao, and San Fernando were combined with the second district municipalities of Milaor
and Gainza to form a new second legislative district. The following table3 illustrates the
reapportionment made by Republic Act No. 9716:
District Municipalities/Cities Population
1st District Del Gallego 176,383

Ragay
Lupi
Sipocot
Cabusao
2nd District Libmanan San Fernando 276,777

Minalabac Gainza
Pamplona Milaor
Pasacao
3rd District (formerly 2nd District) Naga Camaligan 439,043

Pili Magarao
Ocampo Bombon
Canaman Calabanga
4th District (formerly 3rd District) Caramoan Sangay 372,548

Garchitorena San Jose
Goa Tigaon
Lagonoy Tinamba
Presentacion Siruma
5th District (formerly 4th District) Iriga Buhi 429,070

Baao Bula
Balatan Nabua
Bato
Republic Act No. 9716 is a well-milled legislation. The factual recitals by both parties of the
origins of the bill that became the law show that, from the filing of House Bill No. 4264 until
its approval by the Senate on a vote of thirteen (13) in favor and two (2) against, the process
progressed step by step, marked by public hearings on the sentiments and position of the
local officials of Camarines Sur on the creation of a new congressional district, as well as
argumentation and debate on the issue, now before us, concerning the stand of the
oppositors of the bill that a population of at least 250,000 is required by the Constitution for
such new district.4
Petitioner Aquino III was one of two senators who voted against the approval of the Bill by
the Senate. His co-petitioner, Robredo, is the Mayor of Naga City, which was a part of the
former second district from which the municipalities of Gainza and Milaor were taken for
inclusion in the new second district. No other local executive joined the two; neither did the
representatives of the former third and fourth districts of the province.
Petitioners contend that the reapportionment introduced by Republic Act No. 9716, runs
afoul of the explicit constitutional standard that requires a minimum population of two
hundred fifty thousand (250,000) for the creation of a legislative district.5 The petitioners
claim that the reconfiguration by Republic Act No. 9716 of the first and second districts of
Camarines Sur is unconstitutional, because the proposed first district will end up with a
population of less than 250,000 or only 176,383.
Petitioners rely on Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution as basis for the cited
250,000 minimum population standard.6 The provision reads:
Article VI
Section 5. (1) x x x x
(2) x x x x
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,

compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred
fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.
(4) x x x x (Emphasis supplied).
The petitioners posit that the 250,000 figure appearing in the above-cited provision is the
minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative district.7 The petitioners
theorize that, save in the case of a newly created province, each legislative district created
by Congress must be supported by a minimum population of at least 250,000 in order to be
valid.8 Under this view, existing legislative districts may be reapportioned and severed to
form new districts, provided each resulting district will represent a population of at least
250,000. On the other hand, if the reapportionment would result in the creation of a
legislative seat representing a populace of less than 250,000 inhabitants, the
reapportionment must be stricken down as invalid for non-compliance with the minimum
population requirement.
In support of their theory, the petitioners point to what they claim is the intent of the framers
of the 1987 Constitution to adopt a population minimum of 250,000 in the creation of
additional legislative seats.9 The petitioners argue that when the Constitutional Commission
fixed the original number of district seats in the House of Representatives to two hundred
(200), they took into account the projected national population of fifty five million
(55,000,000) for the year 1986.10 According to the petitioners, 55 million people represented
by 200 district representatives translates to roughly 250,000 people for every one (1)
representative.11 Thus, the 250,000 population requirement found in Section 5(3), Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution is actually based on the population constant used by the
Constitutional Commission in distributing the initial 200 legislative seats.
Thus did the petitioners claim that in reapportioning legislative districts independently from
the creation of a province, Congress is bound to observe a 250,000 population threshold, in
the same manner that the Constitutional Commission did in the original apportionment.
Verbatim, the submission is that:

1. Republic Act 9716 is unconstitutional because the newly apportioned first district
of Camarines Sur failed to meet the population requirement for the creation of the
legislative district as explicitly provided in Article VI, Section 5, Paragraphs (1) and
(3) of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended thereto; and
2. Republic Act 9716 violates the principle of proportional representation as provided

in Article VI, Section 5 paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) of the Constitution.12
The provision subject of this case states:
Article VI
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area
in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform
and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-
list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) x x x x
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,

compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred
fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make
a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this
section.
On the other hand, the respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, seek the
dismissal of the present petition based on procedural and substantive grounds.
On procedural matters, the respondents argue that the petitioners are guilty of two (2) fatal
technical defects: first, petitioners committed an error in choosing to assail the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716 via the remedy of Certiorari and Prohibition under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; and second, the petitioners have no locus standi to question
the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716.
On substantive matters, the respondents call attention to an apparent distinction between

cities and provinces drawn by Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The
respondents concede the existence of a 250,000 population condition, but argue that a plain
and simple reading of the questioned provision will show that the same has no application
with respect to the creation of legislative districts in provinces.13 Rather, the 250,000
minimum population is only a requirement for the creation of a legislative district in a city.
In sum, the respondents deny the existence of a fixed population requirement for the
reapportionment of districts in provinces. Therefore, Republic Act No. 9716, which only
creates an additional legislative district within the province of Camarines Sur, should be
sustained as a perfectly valid reapportionment law.
We first pass upon the threshold issues.

The respondents assert that by choosing to avail themselves of the remedies of Certiorari
and Prohibition, the petitioners have committed a fatal procedural lapse. The respondents
cite the following reasons:
1. The instant petition is bereft of any allegation that the respondents had acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
1avvphi1
2. The remedy of Certiorari and Prohibition must be directed against a tribunal,

board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
functions. Respondents maintain that in implementing Republic Act No. 9716, they
were not acting as a judicial or quasi-judicial body, nor were they engaging in the
performance of a ministerial act.
3. The petitioners could have availed themselves of another plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Considering that the main thrust of
the instant petition is the declaration of unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716,
the same could have been ventilated through a petition for declaratory relief, over
which the Supreme Court has only appellate, not original jurisdiction.
The respondents likewise allege that the petitioners had failed to show that they had
sustained, or is in danger of sustaining any substantial injury as a result of the
implementation of Republic Act No. 9716. The respondents, therefore, conclude that the
petitioners lack the required legal standing to question the constitutionality of Republic Act
No. 9716.
This Court has paved the way away from procedural debates when confronted with issues
that, by reason of constitutional importance, need a direct focus of the arguments on their
content and substance.
The Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion, tempered the application of procedural
rules,14 as well as relaxed the requirement of locus standi whenever confronted with an
important issue of overreaching significance to society.15
Hence, in Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)16 and
Jaworski v. PAGCOR,17 this Court sanctioned momentary deviation from the principle of the
hierarchy of courts, and took original cognizance of cases raising issues of paramount public
importance. The Jaworski case ratiocinates:
Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly treated as a petition for
prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case warrants that
we set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One
cannot deny that the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive influence on the social
and moral well being of this nation, specially the youth; hence, their proper and just
determination is an imperative need. This is in accordance with the well-entrenched principle
that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate
and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result
in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
eschewed. (Emphasis supplied)
Anent the locus standi requirement, this Court has already uniformly ruled in Kilosbayan v.
Guingona,18 Tatad v. Executive Secretary,19 Chavez v. Public Estates Authority20 and Bagong
Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora,21 just to name a few, that absence of direct injury on the
part of the party seeking judicial review may be excused when the latter is able to craft an
issue of transcendental importance. In Lim v. Executive Secretary,22 this Court held that in
cases of transcendental importance, the cases must be settled promptly and definitely, and
so, the standing requirements may be relaxed. This liberal stance has been echoed in the
more recent decision on Chavez v. Gonzales.23
Given the weight of the issue raised in the instant petition, the foregoing principles must
apply. The beaten path must be taken. We go directly to the determination of whether or not
a population of 250,000 is an indispensable constitutional requirement for the creation of a
new legislative district in a province.
We deny the petition.
We start with the basics. Any law duly enacted by Congress carries with it the presumption of
constitutionality.24Before a law may be declared unconstitutional by this Court, there must be
a clear showing that a specific provision of the fundamental law has been violated or
transgressed. When there is neither a violation of a specific provision of the Constitution nor
any proof showing that there is such a violation, the presumption of constitutionality will
prevail and the law must be upheld. To doubt is to sustain.25
There is no specific provision in the Constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum population
that must compose a legislative district.
As already mentioned, the petitioners rely on the second sentence of Section 5(3), Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution, coupled with what they perceive to be the intent of the framers of
the Constitution to adopt a minimum population of 250,000 for each legislative district.
The second sentence of Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution, succinctly provides:
"Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall
have at least one representative."
The provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city to a district
on one hand, and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other. For while a province
is entitled to at least a representative, with nothing mentioned about population, a city must
first meet a population minimum of 250,000 in order to be similarly entitled.
The use by the subject provision of a comma to separate the phrase "each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand" from the phrase "or each province" point to
no other conclusion than that the 250,000 minimum population is only required for a city, but
not for a province. 26
Plainly read, Section 5(3) of the Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population only for
a city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province.
The 250,000 minimum population requirement for legislative districts in cities was, in turn,
the subject of interpretation by this Court in Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC.27
In Mariano, the issue presented was the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7854, which
was the law that converted the Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City. As it
happened, Republic Act No. 7854 created an additional legislative district for Makati, which
at that time was a lone district. The petitioners in that case argued that the creation of an
additional district would violate Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution, because the
resulting districts would be supported by a population of less than 250,000, considering that
Makati had a total population of only 450,000. The Supreme Court sustained the
constitutionality of the law and the validity of the newly created district, explaining the
operation of the Constitutional phrase "each city with a population of at least two hundred
fifty thousand," to wit:
Petitioners cannot insist that the addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in
accord with section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution for as of the latest survey (1990
census), the population of Makati stands at only four hundred fifty thousand (450,000). Said
section provides, inter alia, that a city with a population of at least two hundred fifty
thousand (250,000) shall have at least one representative. Even granting that the population
of Makati as of the 1990 census stood at four hundred fifty thousand (450,000), its legislative
district may still be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of two
hundred fifty thousand (250,000). In fact, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the
Constitution provides that a city whose population has increased to more than two hundred
fifty thousand (250,000) shall be entitled to at least one congressional
representative.28 (Emphasis supplied)
The Mariano case limited the application of the 250,000 minimum population requirement for
cities only to its initial legislative district. In other words, while Section 5(3), Article VI of the
Constitution requires a city to have a minimum population of 250,000 to be entitled to a
representative, it does not have to increase its population by another 250,000 to be entitled
to an additional district.
There is no reason why the Mariano case, which involves the creation of an additional district
within a city, should not be applied to additional districts in provinces. Indeed, if an additional
legislative district created within a city is not required to represent a population of at least
250,000 in order to be valid, neither should such be needed for an additional district in a
province, considering moreover that a province is entitled to an initial seat by the mere fact of
its creation and regardless of its population.
Apropos for discussion is the provision of the Local Government Code on the creation of a
province which, by virtue of and upon creation, is entitled to at least a legislative district.
Thus, Section 461 of the Local Government Code states:
Requisites for Creation. – (a) A province may be created if it has an average annual income,
as certified by the Department of Finance, of not less than Twenty million pesos
(P20,000,000.00) based on 1991 constant prices and either of the following requisites:
(i) a contiguous territory of at least two thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as

certified by the Lands Management Bureau; or
(ii) a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) inhabitants as
certified by the National Statistics Office.
Notably, the requirement of population is not an indispensable requirement, but is merely

an alternative addition to the indispensable income requirement.
Mariano, it would turn out, is but a reflection of the pertinent ideas that ran through the
deliberations on the words and meaning of Section 5 of Article VI.
The whats, whys, and wherefores of the population requirement of "at least two hundred fifty
thousand" may be gleaned from the records of the Constitutional Commission which, upon
framing the provisions of Section 5 of Article VI, proceeded to form an ordinance that would
be appended to the final document. The Ordinance is captioned "APPORTIONING THE
SEATS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES TO THE DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS IN PROVINCES AND
CITIES AND THE METROPOLITAN MANILA AREA." Such records would show that the
250,000 population benchmark was used for the 1986 nationwide apportionment of
legislative districts among provinces, cities and Metropolitan Manila. Simply put, the
population figure was used to determine how many districts a province, city, or Metropolitan
Manila should have. Simply discernible too is the fact that, for the purpose, population had to
be the determinant. Even then, the requirement of 250,000 inhabitants was not taken as an
absolute minimum for one legislative district. And, closer to the point herein at issue, in the
determination of the precise district within the province to which, through the use of the
population benchmark, so many districts have been apportioned, population as a factor
was not the sole, though it was among, several determinants.
From its journal,29 we can see that the Constitutional Commission originally divided the entire
country into two hundred (200) districts, which corresponded to the original number of district
representatives. The 200 seats were distributed by the Constitutional Commission in this
manner: first, one (1) seat each was given to the seventy-three (73) provinces and the ten
(10) cities with a population of at least 250,000;30 second, the remaining seats were then
redistributed among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Area "in accordance with the
number of their inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio."31 Commissioner
Davide, who later became a Member and then Chief Justice of the Court, explained this in
his sponsorship remark32 for the Ordinance to be appended to the 1987 Constitution:
Commissioner Davide: The ordinance fixes at 200 the number of legislative seats which are,
in turn, apportioned among provinces and cities with a population of at least 250, 000 and
the Metropolitan Area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. The population is based on the 1986 projection,
with the 1980 official enumeration as the point of reckoning. This projection indicates that our
population is more or less 56 million. Taking into account the mandate that each city with at
least 250, 000 inhabitants and each province shall have at least one representative, we first
allotted one seat for each of the 73 provinces, and each one for all cities with a population of
at least 250, 000, which are the Cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Cebu, Iloilo,
Bacolod, Cagayan de Oro, Davao and Zamboanga. Thereafter, we then proceed[ed] to
increase whenever appropriate the number of seats for the provinces and cities in
accordance with the number of their inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ratio. (Emphasis supplied).
Thus was the number of seats computed for each province and city. Differentiated from this,
the determination of the districts within the province had to consider "all protests and
complaints formally received" which, the records show, dealt with determinants other than
population as already mentioned.
Palawan is a case in point. Journal No. 107 of the Constitutional Commission narrates:
INTERPELLATION OF MR. NOLLEDO:
Mr. Nolledo inquired on the reason for including Puerto Princesa in the northern towns when
it was more affinity with the southern town of Aborlan, Batarasa, Brooke’s Point, Narra,
Quezon and Marcos. He stated that the First District has a greater area than the Second
District. He then queried whether population was the only factor considered by the
Committee in redistricting.
Replying thereto, Mr. Davide explained that the Committee took into account the standards
set in Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative Department, namely: 1) the legislative seats
should be apportioned among the provinces and cities and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with their inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio; and 2) the
legislative district must be compact, adjacent and contiguous.
Mr. Nolledo pointed out that the last factor was not met when Puerto Princesa was included
with the northern towns. He then inquired what is the distance between Puerto Princesa from
San Vicente.
xxxx
Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo stated that Puerto Princesa has a population of 75,480 and based
on the apportionment, its inclusion with the northern towns would result in a combined
population of 265,000 as against only 186,000 for the south. He added that Cuyo and Coron
are very important towns in the northern part of Palawan and, in fact, Cuyo was the capital of
Palawan before its transfer to Puerto Princesa. He also pointed out that there are more
potential candidates in the north and therefore if Puerto Princesa City and the towns of Cuyo
and Coron are lumped together, there would be less candidates in the south, most of whose
inhabitants are not interested in politics. He then suggested that Puerto Princesa be included
in the south or the Second District.
Mr. Davide stated that the proposal would be considered during the period of amendments.
He requested that the COMELEC staff study said proposal.33
"PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. NOLLEDO
On the districting of Palawan, Mr. Nolledo pointed out that it was explained in the
interpellations that District I has a total population of 265,358 including the City of Puerto
Princesa, while the Second District has a total population of 186,733. He proposed, however,
that Puerto Princesa be included in the Second District in order to satisfy the contiguity
requirement in the Constitution considering that said City is nearer the southern towns
comprising the Second District.
In reply to Mr. Monsod’s query, Mr. Nolledo explained that with the proposed transfer of
Puerto Princesa City to the Second District, the First District would only have a total
population of 190,000 while the Second District would have 262,213, and there would be no
substantial changes.
Mr. Davide accepted Mr. Nolledo’s proposal to insert Puerto Princesa City before the
Municipality of Aborlan.
There being no objection on the part of the Members the same was approved by the Body.
APPROVAL OF THE APPORTIONMENT AND DISTRICTING OF PALAWAN

There being no other amendment, on motion of Mr. Davide, there being no objection, the
apportionment and districting for the province of Palawan was approved by the Body.34
The districting of Palawan disregarded the 250,000 population figure. It was decided by the
importance of the towns and the city that eventually composed the districts.
Benguet and Baguio are another reference point. The Journal further narrates:
At this juncture, Mr. Davide informed the Body that Mr. Regalado made a reservation with
the Committee for the possible reopening of the approval of Region I with respect to Benguet
and Baguio City.
REMARKS OF MR. REGALADO
Mr. Regalado stated that in the formulation of the Committee, Baguio City and Tuba are
placed in one district. He stated that he was toying with the idea that, perhaps as a special
consideration for Baguio because it is the summer capital of the Philippines, Tuba could be
divorced from Baguio City so that it could, by itself, have its own constituency and Tuba
could be transferred to the Second District together with Itogon. Mr. Davide, however,
pointed out that the population of Baguio City is only 141,149.
Mr. Regalado admitted that the regular population of Baguio may be lower during certain
times of the year, but the transient population would increase the population substantially
and, therefore, for purposes of business and professional transactions, it is beyond question
that population-wise, Baguio would more than qualify, not to speak of the official business
matters, transactions and offices that are also there.
Mr. Davide adverted to Director de Lima’s statement that unless Tuba and Baguio City are
united, Tuba will be isolated from the rest of Benguet as the place can only be reached by
passing through Baguio City. He stated that the Committee would submit the matter to the
Body.
Upon inquiry of the Chair whether he is insisting on his amendment, Mr. Regalado stated
that the Body should have a say on the matter and that the considerations he had given are
not on the demographic aspects but on the fact that Baguio City is the summer capital, the
venue and situs of many government offices and functions.
On motion of Mr. Davide, there being no objection, the Body approved the reconsideration of
the earlier approval of the apportionment and districting of Region I, particularly Benguet.
Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Davide, there being no objection, the amendment of Mr.
Regalado was put to a vote. With 14 Members voting in favor and none against, the
amendment was approved by the Body.
Mr. Davide informed that in view of the approval of the amendment, Benguet with Baguio
City will have two seats. The First District shall comprise of the municipalities of Mankayan,
Buguias, Bakun, Kabayan, Kibungan, Bokod, Atok, Kapangan, Tublay, La Trinidad, Sablan,
Itogon and Tuba. The Second District shall comprise of Baguio City alone.
There being no objection, the Body approved the apportionment and districting of Region I.35
Quite emphatically, population was explicitly removed as a factor.
It may be additionally mentioned that the province of Cavite was divided into districts based
on the distribution of its three cities, with each district having a city: one district "supposed to
be a fishing area; another a vegetable and fruit area; and the third, a rice growing area,"
because such consideration "fosters common interests in line with the standard of
compactness."36 In the districting of Maguindanao, among the matters discussed were
"political stability and common interest among the people in the area" and the possibility of
"chaos and disunity" considering the "accepted regional, political, traditional and sectoral
leaders."37 For Laguna, it was mentioned that municipalities in the highland should not be
grouped with the towns in the lowland. For Cebu, Commissioner Maambong proposed that
they should "balance the area and population."38
Consistent with Mariano and with the framer deliberations on district apportionment, we
stated in Bagabuyo v. COMELEC39 that:
x x x Undeniably, these figures show a disparity in the population sizes of the districts. The
Constitution, however, does not require mathematical exactitude or rigid equality as a
standard in gauging equality of representation. x x x. To ensure quality representation
through commonality of interests and ease of access by the representative to the
constituents, all that the Constitution requires is that every legislative district should
comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. (Emphasis
supplied).
This 2008 pronouncement is fresh reasoning against the uncompromising stand of petitioner
that an additional provincial legislative district, which does not have at least a 250,000
population is not allowed by the Constitution.
The foregoing reading and review lead to a clear lesson.
Neither in the text nor in the essence of Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution can, the
petition find support. And the formulation of the Ordinance in the implementation of the
provision, nay, even the Ordinance itself, refutes the contention that a population of 250,000
is a constitutional sine qua non for the formation of an additional legislative district in a
province, whose population growth has increased beyond the 1986 numbers.
Translated in the terms of the present case:
1. The Province of Camarines Sur, with an estimated population of 1,693,821 in 2007

is ─ based on the formula and constant number of 250,000 used by the
Constitutional Commission in nationally apportioning legislative districts among
provinces and cities ─ entitled to two (2) districts in addition to the four (4) that it was
given in the 1986 apportionment. Significantly, petitioner Aquino concedes this
point.40 In other words, Section 5 of Article VI as clearly written allows and does not
prohibit an additional district for the Province of Camarines Sur, such as that
provided for in Republic Act No. 9786;
2. Based on the pith and pitch of the exchanges on the Ordinance on the protests
and complaints against strict conformity with the population standard, and more
importantly based on the final districting in the Ordinance on considerations other
than population, the reapportionment or the recomposition of the first and second
legislative districts in the Province of Camarines Sur that resulted in the creation of a
new legislative district is valid even if the population of the new district is 176,383 and
not 250,000 as insisted upon by the petitioners.
3. The factors mentioned during the deliberations on House Bill No. 4264, were:
(a) the dialects spoken in the grouped municipalities;
(b) the size of the original groupings compared to that of the regrouped
municipalities;
(c) the natural division separating the municipality subject of the discussion
from the reconfigured District One; and
(d) the balancing of the areas of the three districts resulting from the
redistricting of Districts One and Two.41
Each of such factors and in relation to the others considered together, with the increased
population of the erstwhile Districts One and Two, point to the utter absence of abuse of
discretion, much less grave abuse of discretion,42 that would warrant the invalidation of
Republic Act No. 9716.
To be clear about our judgment, we do not say that in the reapportionment of the first and
second legislative districts of Camarines Sur, the number of inhabitants in the resulting
additional district should not be considered. Our ruling is that population is not the only factor
but is just one of several other factors in the composition of the additional district. Such
settlement is in accord with both the text of the Constitution and the spirit of the letter, so
very clearly given form in the Constitutional debates on the exact issue presented by this
petition.
1avv phi 1
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Republic Act No. 9716 entitled "An Act
Reapportioning the Composition of the First (1st) and Second (2nd) Legislative Districts in
the Province of Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating a New Legislative District From Such
Reapportionment" is a VALID LAW.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

(On Official Leave)

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
ROBERTO A. ABAD*
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Supreme Court
Baguio City
EN BANC
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY G.R. No. 190582

represented herein by its Chair,
DANTON REMOTO,
Petitioner, Present:
PUNO, C. J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
- versus - BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated:

Respondent. April 8, 2010
x--------------------------------------------------------x
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.
Justice Robert A. Jackson

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette[1]
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.
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 viewpoints to live together, if not
harmoniously, then, at least, civilly.
Factual Background
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, 2009[2] (the First Assailed
Resolution) and December 16, 2009[3] (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]
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 Ladladfirst 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 Petition[5] for registration with the COMELEC.
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]
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:
x x x a marginalized and under-represented sector that is

particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual
orientation and gender identity.
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.
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:
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.
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).
As correctly pointed out by the Law Department in its Comment

dated October 2, 2008:
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 670,000 (Genesis 19 is
the history of Sodom and Gomorrah).
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.
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
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.
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:
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:
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim

doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
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;
(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.
3. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films,

prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are
offensive to morals.
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/party-list 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]
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:
I. The Spirit of Republic Act No. 7941
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.
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.
II. No substantial differentiation
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.
xxxx
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.
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.
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 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 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]
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-in-Intervention.[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.
On January 26, 2010, Epifanio D. Salonga, Jr. filed his Motion to

Intervene[18] 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.
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.
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.
Our Ruling
We grant the petition.
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 cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, 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 under-represented sectors is not
exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated,
but whether a particular organization complies with the requirements of the
Constitution and RA 7941.
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]
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 non-existence 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.
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:
Abra Gay Association

Aklan Butterfly Brigade (ABB) Aklan
Albay Gay Association
Arts Center of Cabanatuan City Nueva Ecija
Boys Legion Metro Manila
Cagayan de Oro People Like Us (CDO PLUS)
Cant Live in the Closet, Inc. (CLIC) Metro Manila
Cebu Pride Cebu City
Circle of Friends
Dipolog Gay Association Zamboanga del Norte
Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Youth Association (GABAY)
Gay and Lesbian Activists Network for Gender Equality
(GALANG) Metro Manila
Gay Mens Support Group (GMSG) Metro Manila
Gay United for Peace and Solidarity (GUPS) Lanao del Norte
Iloilo City Gay Association Iloilo City
Kabulig Writers Group Camarines Sur
Lesbian Advocates Philippines, Inc. (LEAP)
LUMINA Baguio City
Marikina Gay Association Metro Manila
Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) Metro Manila
Naga City Gay Association Naga City
ONE BACARDI
Order of St. Aelred (OSAe) Metro Manila
PUP LAKAN
RADAR PRIDEWEAR
Rainbow Rights Project (R-Rights), Inc. Metro Manila
San Jose del Monte Gay Association Bulacan
Sining Kayumanggi Royal Family Rizal
Society of Transexual Women of the Philippines (STRAP)
Metro Manila
Soul Jive Antipolo, Rizal
The Link Davao City
Tayabas Gay Association Quezon
Womens Bisexual Network Metro Manila
Zamboanga Gay Association Zamboanga City[23]
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.
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.
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, 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.
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]
Public Morals as a Ground to Deny

Ang Ladlads Petition for Registration
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:
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 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:
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]
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 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.
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.
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.
Equal Protection
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 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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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. Theseforeign authorities, while not formally binding on
Philippine courts, may nevertheless have persuasive influence on the Courts
analysis.
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]
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
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]
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.
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.
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:
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 party-list system. This lawful exercise of duty cannot
be said to be a transgression of Section 4, Article III of the Constitution.
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.
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.
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 x[47]
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.
Non-Discrimination and International

Law
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 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 non-discrimination as it relates to the right to electoral participation,
enunciated in the UDHR and the ICCPR.
The principle of non-discrimination is laid out in Article 26 of the ICCPR, as
follows:
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.
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 UDHR provides:
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his
country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Likewise, the ICCPR states:
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;
(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.
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
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. 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]
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.
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.
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.
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 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 well-meaning 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. 09-228 (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:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO


LUCAS P. BERSAMIN ROBERTO A. ABAD

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE P. PEREZ

JOSE C. MENDOZA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
E N B A NC
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR G.R. No. 179271

NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT
AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT),
Petitioner,
- versus -
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers),
Respondent.
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE

PROFESSIONALS,
Intervenor.
AANGAT TAYO,
Intervenor.
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS
OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR
CITIZENS),
Intervenor.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR G.R. No. 179295
TEACHER EMPOWERMENT
THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION Present:
AND HARMONY TOWARDS
EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., PUNO, C.J.,
and ABONO, QUISUMBING,
Petitioners, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA, and
BERSAMIN, JJ.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated:

Respondent.
_______________________
x---------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Petitioner in G.R. No. 179271 Barangay Association for National

Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) in a petition for certiorari and
mandamus,[1] assails the Resolution[2]promulgated on 3 August 2007 by the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). The
COMELECs resolution in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) approved the
recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the National Board of
Canvassers (NBC) Legal Group, to deny the petition of BANAT for being
moot. BANAT filed before the COMELEC En Banc, acting as NBC,
a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives
Provided by the Constitution.
The following are intervenors in G.R. No. 179271: Arts Business and
Science Professionals (ABS), Aangat Tayo (AT), and Coalition of
Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizens).
Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295 Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for
Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony
Towards Educational Reforms (A Teacher)in a petition for certiorari with
mandamus and prohibition,[3] assails NBC Resolution No. 07-
60[4] promulgated on 9 July 2007. NBC No. 07-60 made a partial
proclamation of parties, organizations and coalitions that obtained at least
two percent of the total votes cast under the Party-List System. The
COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the party-list
results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning party,
organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v.
COMELEC[5] (Veterans).
Estrella DL Santos, in her capacity as President and First Nominee of the

Veterans Freedom Party, filed a motion to intervene in both G.R. Nos.
179271 and 179295.
The Facts
The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list
representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93
parties under the Party-List System.[6]
On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of
Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC
No. 07-041 (PL) before the NBC.BANAT filed its petition because [t]he
Chairman and the Members of the [COMELEC] have recently been quoted
in the national papers that the [COMELEC] is duty bound to and shall
implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban formula
in allocating party-list seats.[7] There were no intervenors in BANATs
petition before the NBC. BANAT filed a memorandum on 19 July 2007.
On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated NBC
Resolution No. 07-60. NBC Resolution No. 07-60 proclaimed thirteen (13)
parties as winners in the party-list elections, namely: Buhay Hayaan
Yumabong (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens Battle Against Corruption
(CIBAC), Gabrielas Women Party (Gabriela), Association of Philippine
Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan! Citizens Action Party
(AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL), Cooperative-Natco
Network Party (COOP-NATCCO), Anak Pawis, Alliance of Rural Concerns
(ARC), and Abono. We quote NBC Resolution No. 07-60 in its entirety
below:
WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections sitting en banc as

National Board of Canvassers, thru its Sub-Committee for Party-
List, as of 03 July 2007, had officially canvassed, in open and
public proceedings, a total of fifteen million two hundred eighty
three thousand six hundred fifty-nine (15,283,659) votes under
the Party-List System of Representation, in connection with the
National and Local Elections conducted last 14 May 2007;
WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation
Groups of the National Board of Canvassers reveals that the
projected/maximum total party-list votes cannot go any higher
than sixteen million seven hundred twenty three thousand one
hundred twenty-one (16,723,121) votes given the following
statistical data:
Projected/Maximum Party-List Votes for May 2007 Elections
i. Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated 15,283,659

ii. Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/
untabulated (i.e. canvass deferred) 1,337,032
iii. Maximum party-list votes (based on 100%
outcome) from areas not yet submitted for canvass
(Bogo, Cebu; Bais City; Pantar, Lanao del Norte; and
Pagalungan, Maguindanao) 102,430
Maximum Total Party-List Votes 16,723,121
WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List

System Act) provides in part:
The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at

least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the
party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each:
provided, that those garnering more than two percent
(2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats
in proportion to their total number of votes: provided,
finally, that each party, organization, or coalition shall
be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based on the above projected
total of party-list votes, the presumptive two percent (2%)
threshold can be pegged at three hundred thirty four thousand
four hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes;
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, in Citizens Battle Against
Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its ruling
in Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC adopting a
formula for the additional seats of each party, organization or
coalition receving more than the required two percent (2%) votes,
stating that the same shall be determined only after all party-list
ballots have been completely canvassed;
WHEREAS, the parties, organizations, and coalitions that have

thus far garnered at least three hundred thirty four thousand
four hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes are as follows:
RANK PARTY/ORGANIZATION/ VOTES

COALITION RECEIVED
1 BUHAY 1,163,218
2 BAYAN MUNA 972,730
3 CIBAC 760,260
4 GABRIELA 610,451
5 APEC 538,971
6 A TEACHER 476,036
7 AKBAYAN 470,872
8 ALAGAD 423,076
9 BUTIL 405,052
10 COOP-NATCO 390,029
11 BATAS 386,361
12 ANAK PAWIS 376,036
13 ARC 338,194
14 ABONO 337,046
WHEREAS, except for Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng

Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an URGENT
PETITION FOR CANCELLATION/REMOVAL OF
REGISTRATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF PARTY-LIST
NOMINEE (With Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining
Order) has been filed before the Commission, docketed as SPC
No. 07-250, all the parties, organizations and coalitions included
in the aforementioned list are therefore entitled to at least one seat
under the party-list system of representation in the meantime.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the

Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No.
144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941, and other election laws,
the Commission on Elections, sitting en banc as the National
Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVES to PARTIALLY
PROCLAIM, subject to certain conditions set forth below, the
following parties, organizations and coalitions participating under
the Party-List System:
1 Buhay Hayaan Yumabong BUHAY

2 Bayan Muna BAYAN MUNA
3 Citizens Battle Against Corruption CIBAC
4 Gabriela Womens Party GABRIELA
5 Association of Philippine Electric APEC
Cooperatives
6 Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment A TEACHER
Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony
Towards Educational Reforms, Inc.
7 Akbayan! Citizens Action Party AKBAYAN
8 Alagad ALAGAD
9 Luzon Farmers Party BUTIL
10 Cooperative-Natco Network Party COOP-NATCCO
11 Anak Pawis ANAKPAWIS
12 Alliance of Rural Concerns ARC
13 Abono ABONO
This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties,

organizations, or coalitions which may later on be established to
have obtained at least two percent (2%) of the total actual votes
cast under the Party-List System.
The total number of seats of each winning party, organization or

coalition shall be determined pursuant to Veterans Federation
Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass
of the party-list results.
The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng

Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS) is hereby deferred until final
resolution of SPC No. 07-250, in order not to render the
proceedings therein moot and academic.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties,

organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise
be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
Let the Clerk of the Commission implement this Resolution,

furnishing a copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.[8] (Emphasis in the original)
Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60, the COMELEC, acting as NBC,

promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-72, which declared the additional seats
allocated to the appropriate parties.We quote from the COMELECs
interpretation of the Veterans formula as found in NBC Resolution No. 07-
72:
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, the Commission on Elections
sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers proclaimed
thirteen (13) qualified parties, organization[s] and coalitions based
on the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold of 334,462 votes
from the projected maximum total number of party-list votes of
16,723,121, and were thus given one (1) guaranteed party-list seat
each;
WHEREAS, per Report of the Tabulation Group and Supervisory
Committee of the National Board of Canvassers, the projected
maximum total party-list votes, as of July 11, 2007, based on the
votes actually canvassed, votes canvassed but not included in
Report No. 29, votes received but uncanvassed, and maximum
votes expected for Pantar, Lanao del Norte, is 16,261,369; and
that the projected maximum total votes for the thirteen (13)
qualified parties, organizations and coalition[s] are as follows:
Party-List Projected total number of votes

1 BUHAY 1,178,747
2 BAYAN MUNA 977,476
3 CIBAC 755,964
4 GABRIELA 621,718
5 APEC 622,489
6 A TEACHER 492,369
7 AKBAYAN 462,674
8 ALAGAD 423,190
9 BUTIL 409,298
10 COOP-NATCO 412,920
11 ANAKPAWIS 370,165
12 ARC 375,846
13 ABONO 340,151
WHEREAS, based on the above Report, Buhay Hayaan

Yumabong (Buhay) obtained the highest number of votes among
the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalitions,
making it the first party in accordance with Veterans Federation
Party versus COMELEC, reiterated in Citizens Battle Against
Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC;
WHEREAS, qualified parties, organizations and coalitions
participating under the party-list system of representation that
have obtained one guaranteed (1) seat may be entitled to an
additional seat or seats based on the formula prescribed by the
Supreme Court in Veterans;
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the first party,
the correct formula as expressed in Veterans, is:
Number of votes of first party Proportion of votes of first

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = party relative to total votes for
Total votes for party-list system party-list system
wherein the proportion of votes received by the first party

(without rounding off) shall entitle it to additional seats:
Proportion of votes received Additional seats

by the first party
Equal to or at least 6% Two (2) additional seats
Equal to or greater than 4% but less than 6% One (1) additional seat
Less than 4% No additional seat
WHEREAS, applying the above formula, Buhay obtained the

following percentage:
1,178,747
- - - - - - - - = 0.07248 or 7.2%
16,261,369
which entitles it to two (2) additional seats.
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the other

qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, the correct formula
as expressed in Veterans and reiterated in CIBAC is, as follows:
No. of votes of
concerned party No. of additional
Additional seats for = ------------------- x seats allocated to
a concerned party No. of votes of first party
first party
WHEREAS, applying the above formula, the results are as

follows:
Party List Percentage Additional Seat

BAYAN MUNA 1.65 1
CIBAC 1.28 1
GABRIELA 1.05 1
APEC 1.05 1
A TEACHER 0.83 0
AKBAYAN 0.78 0
ALAGAD 0.71 0
BUTIL 0.69 0
COOP-NATCO 0.69 0
ANAKPAWIS 0.62 0
ARC 0.63 0
ABONO 0.57 0
NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the

Constitution, Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144,
Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941 and other elections laws, the
Commission on Elections en banc sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers, hereby RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to
proclaim the following parties, organizations or coalitions as
entitled to additional seats, to wit:
Party List Additional Seats

BUHAY 2
BAYAN MUNA 1
CIBAC 1
GABRIELA 1
APEC 1
This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties,

organizations or coalitions which may later on be established to
have obtained at least two per cent (2%) of the total votes cast
under the party-list system to entitle them to one (1) guaranteed
seat, or to the appropriate percentage of votes to entitle them to
one (1) additional seat.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties,
organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise
be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
Let the National Board of Canvassers Secretariat implement this

Resolution, furnishing a copy hereof to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Acting on BANATs petition, the NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No.

07-88 on 3 August 2007, which reads as follows:
This pertains to the Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-

List Representatives Provided by the Constitution filed by the
Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT).
Acting on the foregoing Petition of the Barangay Association for

National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) party-list,
Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, National Board of Canvassers
Legal Group submitted his comments/observations and
recommendation thereon [NBC 07-041 (PL)], which reads:
COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS:
Petitioner Barangay Association for National

Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), in its
Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List
Representatives Provided by the Constitution prayed
for the following reliefs, to wit:
1. That the full number -- twenty percent (20%) -- of

Party-List representatives as mandated by Section 5,
Article VI of the Constitution shall be proclaimed.
2. Paragraph (b), Section 11 of RA 7941 which

prescribes the 2% threshold votes, should be
harmonized with Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution and with Section 12 of the same RA
7941 in that it should be applicable only to the first
party-list representative seats to be allotted on the
basis of their initial/first ranking.
3. The 3-seat limit prescribed by RA 7941 shall be

applied; and
4. Initially, all party-list groups shall be given the

number of seats corresponding to every 2% of the
votes they received and the additional seats shall be
allocated in accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941,
that is, in proportion to the percentage of votes
obtained by each party-list group in relation to the
total nationwide votes cast in the party-list election,
after deducting the corresponding votes of those
which were allotted seats under the 2% threshold
rule. In fine, the formula/procedure prescribed in the
ALLOCATION OF PARTY-LIST SEATS, ANNEX
A of COMELEC RESOLUTION 2847 dated 25 June
1996, shall be used for [the] purpose of determining
how many seats shall be proclaimed, which party-list
groups are entitled to representative seats and how
many of their nominees shall seat [sic].
5. In the alternative, to declare as unconstitutional

Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 and that the
procedure in allocating seats for party-list
representative prescribed by Section 12 of RA 7941
shall be followed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The petition of BANAT is now moot and academic.
The Commission En Banc in NBC Resolution No. 07-

60 promulgated July 9, 2007 re In the Matter of the
Canvass of Votes and Partial Proclamation of the
Parties, Organizations and Coalitions Participating
Under the Party-List System During the May 14,
2007 National and Local Elections resolved among
others that the total number of seats of each winning
party, organization or coalition shall be determined
pursuant to the Veterans Federation
Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion of
the canvass of the party-list results.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the National Board of
Canvassers RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve
and adopt the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head,
NBC Legal Group, to DENY the herein petition of BANAT for
being moot and academic.
Let the Supervisory Committee implement this resolution.
SO ORDERED.[10]
BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in
NBC Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file a motion for
reconsideration of NBC Resolution No. 07-88.
On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC,
acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use the Veterans formula as
stated in its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 because the Veterans formula is
violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No.
7941). On the same day, the COMELEC denied reconsideration during the
proceedings of the NBC.[11]
Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations proclaimed on 9 July 2007,

the COMELEC proclaimed three other party-list organizations as qualified
parties entitled to one guaranteed seat under the Party-List
System: Agricultural Sector Alliance of the Philippines, Inc.
(AGAP),[12] Anak Mindanao (AMIN),[13] and An Waray.[14] Per the
certification[15] by COMELEC, the following party-list organizations have
been proclaimed as of 19 May 2008:
Party-List No. of Seat(s)

1.1 Buhay 3
1.2 Bayan Muna 2
1.3 CIBAC 2
1.4 Gabriela 2
1.5 APEC 2
1.6 A Teacher 1
1.7 Akbayan 1
1.8 Alagad 1
1.9 Butil 1
1.10 Coop-Natco [sic] 1
1.11 Anak Pawis 1
1.12 ARC 1
1.13 Abono 1
1.14 AGAP 1
1.15 AMIN 1
The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing

Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an Urgent Petition for
Cancellation/Removal of Registration and Disqualification of Party-list
Nominee (with Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has been filed
before the COMELEC, was deferred pending final resolution of SPC No.
07-250.
Issues
BANAT brought the following issues before this Court:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list

representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA

7941 constitutional?
3. Is the two percent threshold and qualifier votes prescribed by

the same Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
4. How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?[16]
Bayan Muna, A Teacher, and Abono, on the other hand, raised the following
issues in their petition:
I. Respondent Commission on Elections, acting as National Board

of Canvassers, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it promulgated NBC
Resolution No. 07-60 to implement the First-Party Rule in the
allocation of seats to qualified party-list organizations as said rule:
A. Violates the constitutional principle of

proportional representation.
B. Violates the provisions of RA 7941 particularly:
1. The 2-4-6 Formula used by the First Party Rule in allocating

additional seats for the First Party violates the principle of
proportional representation under RA 7941.
2. The use of two formulas in the allocation of additional seats,

one for the First Party and another for the qualifying parties,
violates Section 11(b) of RA 7941.
3. The proportional relationships under the First Party Rule are

different from those required under RA 7941;
C. Violates the Four Inviolable Parameters of the Philippine party-
list system as provided for under the same case of Veterans
Federation Party, et al. v. COMELEC.
II. Presuming that the Commission on Elections did not commit

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it implemented the First-Party Rule in the
allocation of seats to qualified party-list organizations, the same
being merely in consonance with the ruling in Veterans
Federations Party, et al. v. COMELEC, the instant Petition is a
justiciable case as the issuesinvolved herein are constitutional in
nature, involving the correct interpretation and implementation of
RA 7941, and are of transcendental importance to our nation.[17]
Considering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the parties
in these cases, we defined the following issues in our advisory for the oral
arguments set on 22 April 2008:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives

in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or
merely a ceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941

constitutional?
3. Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of

RA 7941 to qualify for one seat constitutional?
4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated?
5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties

from participating in the party-list elections? If not, can the
major political parties be barred from participating in the party-
list elections?[18]
The Ruling of the Court

The petitions have partial merit. We maintain that a Philippine-style party-
list election has at least four inviolable parameters as clearly stated
in Veterans. For easy reference, these are:
First, the twenty percent allocation the combined number

of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of
the total membership of the House of Representatives, including
those elected under the party list;
Second, the two percent threshold only those parties garnering a

minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-
list system are qualified to have a seat in the House of
Representatives;
Third, the three-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of the

number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of
three seats; that is, one qualifying and two additional seats;
Fourth, proportional representation the additional seats which a

qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to
their total number of votes.[19]
However, because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical

interpretation of the term proportional representation, this Court is
compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to
party-list organizations.
Number of Party-List Representatives:

The Formula Mandated by the Constitution
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of

not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per

centum of the total number of representatives including those
under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The party-list

representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the
total number of the members of the House of Representatives
including those under the party-list.
xxx
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the House of

Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law.The House of Representatives shall
be composed of district representatives and party-list representatives. The
Constitution allows the legislature to modify the number of the members of
the House of Representatives.
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the
ratio of party-list representatives to the total number of representatives. We
compute the number of seats available to party-list representatives from the
number of legislative districts. On this point, we do not deviate from the first
formula in Veterans, thus:
Number of seats available Number of seats available to

to legislative districts x .20 = party-list representatives
.80
This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats
available for party-list representatives whenever a legislative district is
created by law. Since the 14th Congress of the Philippines has 220 district
representatives, there are 55 seats available to party-list representatives.
220 x .20 = 55
.80
After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to the

total number of representatives, the Constitution left the manner of
allocating the seats available to party-list representatives to the wisdom
of the legislature.
Allocation of Seats for Party-List Representatives:

The Statutory Limits Presented by the Two Percent Threshold
and the Three-Seat Cap
All parties agree on the formula to determine the maximum number of seats
reserved under the Party-List System, as well as on the formula to determine
the guaranteed seats to party-list candidates garnering at least two-percent of
the total party-list votes. However, there are numerous interpretations of the
provisions of R.A. No. 7941 on the allocation of additional seats under the
Party-List System. Veterans produced the First Party Rule,[20] and Justice
Vicente V. Mendozas dissent in Veterans presented Germanys Niemeyer
formula[21] as an alternative.
The Constitution left to Congress the determination of the manner

of allocating the seats for party-list representatives. Congress enacted
R.A. No. 7941, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 11 and Section 12 of which
provide:
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. x x x
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote,[22] the

following procedure shall be observed:
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from

the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they
garnered during the elections.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two

percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall
be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering
more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to
additional seats in proportion to their total number of
votes: Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or
coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List

Representatives. The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the
parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank
them according to the number of votes received and allocate
party-list representatives proportionately according to the
percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or
coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-
list system. (Emphasis supplied)
In G.R. No. 179271, BANAT presents two interpretations through three

formulas to allocate party-list representative seats.
The first interpretation allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section 11(b)

on the 2% requirement with Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT
described this procedure as follows:
(a) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent

(20%) of the total Members of the House of Representatives
including those from the party-list groups as prescribed by Section
5, Article VI of the Constitution, Section 11 (1st par.) of RA 7941
and Comelec Resolution No. 2847 dated 25 June 1996. Since
there are 220 District Representatives in the 14th Congress, there
shall be 55 Party-List Representatives. All seats shall have to be
proclaimed.
(b) All party-list groups shall initially be allotted one (1) seat for
every two per centum (2%) of the total party-list votes they
obtained; provided, that no party-list groups shall have more than
three (3) seats (Section 11, RA 7941).
(c) The remaining seats shall, after deducting the seats obtained
by the party-list groups under the immediately preceding
paragraph and after deducting from their total the votes
corresponding to those seats, the remaining seats shall be allotted
proportionately to all the party-list groups which have not secured
the maximum three (3) seats under the 2% threshold rule, in
accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941.[23]
Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be awarded under BANATs first

interpretation.
The second interpretation presented by BANAT assumes that the 2% vote

requirement is declared unconstitutional, and apportions the seats for party-
list representatives by following Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT
states that the COMELEC:
(a) shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or
coalitions on a nationwide basis;
(b) rank them according to the number of votes received; and,
(c) allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to
the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization
or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-
list system.[24]
BANAT used two formulas to obtain the same results: one is based on the
proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against the
total nationwide party-list votes, and the other is by making the votes of a
party-list with a median percentage of votes as the divisor in computing the
allocation of seats.[25] Thirty-four (34) party-list seats will be awarded under
BANATs second interpretation.
In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both the
COMELECs original 2-4-6 formula and the Veterans formula for
systematically preventing all the party-list seats from being filled up. They
claim that both formulas do not factor in the total number of seats alloted for
the entire Party-List System. Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher reject the
three-seat cap, but accept the 2% threshold. After determining the qualified
parties, a second percentage is generated by dividing the votes of a qualified
party by the total votes of all qualified parties only. The number of seats
allocated to a qualified party is computed by multiplying the total party-list
seats available with the second percentage. There will be a first round of seat
allocation, limited to using the whole integers as the equivalent of the
number of seats allocated to the concerned party-list. After all the qualified
parties are given their seats, a second round of seat allocation
is conducted. The fractions, or remainders, from the whole integers are
ranked from highest to lowest and the remaining seats on the basis of this
ranking are allocated until all the seats are filled up.[26]
We examine what R.A. No. 7941 prescribes to allocate seats for party-list
representatives.
Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the ranking of the participating
parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they
garnered during the elections.
Table 1. Ranking of the participating parties from the highest to

the lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the
elections.[27]
Votes Votes
Rank Party Rank Party
Garnered Garnered
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 48 KALAHI 88,868
2 BAYAN 979,039 49 APOI 79,386
MUNA
3 CIBAC 755,686 50 BP 78,541
4 GABRIELA 621,171 51 AHONBAYAN 78,424
5 APEC 619,657 52 BIGKIS 77,327
6 A TEACHER 490,379 53 PMAP 75,200
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 54 AKAPIN 74,686
8 ALAGAD 423,149 55 PBA 71,544
9 COOP- 409,883 56 GRECON 62,220
NATCCO
10 BUTIL 409,160 57 BTM 60,993
11 BATAS 385,810 58 A SMILE 58,717
12 ARC 374,288 59 NELFFI 57,872
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 60 AKSA 57,012
14 ABONO 339,990 61 BAGO 55,846
15 AMIN 338,185 62 BANDILA 54,751
16 AGAP 328,724 63 AHON 54,522
17 AN WARAY 321,503 64 ASAHAN MO 51,722
18 YACAP 310,889 65 AGBIAG! 50,837
19 FPJPM 300,923 66 SPI 50,478
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 67 BAHANDI 46,612
21 ABS 235,086 68 ADD 45,624
22 KAKUSA 228,999 69 AMANG 43,062
23 KABATAAN 228,637 70 ABAY PARAK 42,282
24 ABA-AKO 218,818 71 BABAE KA 36,512
25 ALIF 217,822 72 SB 34,835
26 SENIOR 213,058 73 ASAP 34,098
CITIZENS
27 AT 197,872 74 PEP 33,938
28 VFP 196,266 75 ABA 33,903
ILONGGO
29 ANAD 188,521 76 VENDORS 33,691
30 BANAT 177,028 77 ADD-TRIBAL 32,896
31 ANG 170,531 78 ALMANA 32,255
KASANGGA
32 BANTAY 169,801 79 AANGAT KA 29,130
PILIPINO
33 ABAKADA 166,747 80 AAPS 26,271
34 1-UTAK 164,980 81 HAPI 25,781
35 TUCP 162,647 82 AAWAS 22,946
36 COCOFED 155,920 83 SM 20,744
37 AGHAM 146,032 84 AG 16,916
38 ANAK 141,817 85 AGING PINOY 16,729
39 ABANSE! 130,356 86 APO 16,421
PINAY
40 PM 119,054 87 BIYAYANG 16,241
BUKID
41 AVE 110,769 88 ATS 14,161
42 SUARA 110,732 89 UMDJ 9,445
43 ASSALAM 110,440 90 BUKLOD 8,915
FILIPINA
44 DIWA 107,021 91 LYPAD 8,471
45 ANC 99,636 92 AA-KASOSYO 8,406
46 SANLAKAS 97,375 93 KASAPI 6,221
47 ABC 90,058 TOTAL 15,950,900
The first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 states that parties,
organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total
votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each. This
clause guarantees a seat to the two-percenters. In Table 2 below, we use the
first 20 party-list candidates for illustration purposes. The percentage of
votes garnered by each party is arrived at by dividing the number of votes
garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for all
party-list candidates.
Table 2. The first 20 party-list candidates and their respective

percentage of votes garnered over the total votes for the party-
list.[28]
Votes Garnered
Votes over Total Guaranteed
Rank Party
Garnered Votes for Party- Seat
List, in %
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1
2 BAYAN MUNA 979,039 6.14% 1
3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1
4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1
5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1
6 A TEACHER 490,379 3.07% 1
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1
8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1
9 COOP-NATCCO 409,883 2.57% 1
10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1
11 BATAS[29] 385,810 2.42% 1
12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 2.32% 1
14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1
15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% 1
16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1
17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% 1
Total 17
18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0
19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% 0
From Table 2 above, we see that only 17 party-list candidates received at

least 2% from the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates. The 17
qualified party-list candidates, or the two-percenters, are the party-list
candidates that are entitled to one seat each, or the guaranteed seat. In this
first round of seat allocation, we distributed 17 guaranteed seats.
The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that those
garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to
additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes. This is where
petitioners and intervenors problem with the formula
in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets the clause in proportion to their total
number of votes to be in proportion to the votes of the first party. This
interpretation is contrary to the express language of R.A. No. 7941.
We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued

operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional
seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941
is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it
mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available
party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The
continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the
additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20%
of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list
representatives.
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are 50
million votes cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections. A party
that has two percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed
seat. Let us further assume that the first 50 parties all get one million
votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of 55 seats.Because
of the operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will repeat itself
even if we increase the available party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we
increase the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of
parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is always impossible
for the number of occupied party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the
two percent threshold is present.
We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section
11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted
obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution and prevents the attainment of the broadest possible
representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of
Representatives.[30]
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under

Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the

highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two

percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled
to one guaranteed seat each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking

in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more
than three (3) seats.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be

included because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every
two-percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as
additional seats are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System
less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a
provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats.
In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional, we do not limit our

allocation of additional seats in Table 3 below to the two-percenters. The
percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate is arrived at by
dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total
number of votes cast for party-list candidates. There are two steps in the
second round of seat allocation. First, the percentage is multiplied by the
remaining available seats, 38, which is the difference between the 55
maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the 17 guaranteed
seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer of the product of the
percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a partys share
in the remaining available seats. Second, we assign one party-list seat to
each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely
distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round
of seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the
number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is entitled. Thus:
Table 3. Distribution of Available Party-List Seats
Rank Party Votes Votes Guaranteed Additional (B) plus Applying

Garnered Garnered Seat Seats (C), in the three
over whole seat cap
Total integers
Votes for
Party List,
in %
(First (Second
Round) Round)
(E)
(A) (B) (C) (D)
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1 2.79 3 N.A.
2 BAYAN 979,039 6.14% 1 2.33 3 N.A.

MUNA
3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1 1.80 2 N.A.
4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
6 A Teacher 490,379 3.07% 1 1.17 2 N.A.
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1 1.11 2 N.A.
8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1 1.01 2 N.A.
9[31] COOP- 409,883 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.

NATCCO
10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
11 BATAS 385,810 2.42% 1 1 2 N.A.
12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1 1 2 N.A.
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 2.32% 1 1 2 N.A.
14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1 1 2 N.A.
15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% 1 1 2 N.A.
16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1 1 2 N.A.
17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% 1 1 2 N.A.
18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0 1 1 N.A.

19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0 1 1 N.A.
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% 0 1 1 N.A.
21 ABS 235,086 1.47% 0 1 1 N.A.
22 KAKUSA 228,999 1.44% 0 1 1 N.A.
23 KABATAAN 228,637 1.43% 0 1 1 N.A.
24 ABA-AKO 218,818 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
25 ALIF 217,822 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
26 SENIOR 213,058 1.34% 0 1 1 N.A.

CITIZENS
27 AT 197,872 1.24% 0 1 1 N.A.
28 VFP 196,266 1.23% 0 1 1 N.A.
29 ANAD 188,521 1.18% 0 1 1 N.A.
30 BANAT 177,028 1.11% 0 1 1 N.A.
31 ANG 170,531 1.07% 0 1 1 N.A.

KASANGGA
32 BANTAY 169,801 1.06% 0 1 1 N.A.
33 ABAKADA 166,747 1.05% 0 1 1 N.A.
34 1-UTAK 164,980 1.03% 0 1 1 N.A.
35 TUCP 162,647 1.02% 0 1 1 N.A.
36 COCOFED 155,920 0.98% 0 1 1 N.A.
Total 17 55
Applying the procedure of seat allocation as illustrated in Table 3 above,

there are 55 party-list representatives from the 36 winning party-list
organizations. All 55 available party-list seats are filled. The additional seats
allocated to the parties with sufficient number of votes for one whole seat, in
no case to exceed a total of three seats for each party, are shown in column
(D).
Participation of Major Political Parties in Party-List Elections
The Constitutional Commission adopted a multi-party system that allowed

all political parties to participate in the party-list elections. The
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission clearly bear this out, thus:
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we

suggested or proposed the party list system because we wanted to
open up the political system to a pluralistic society through a
multiparty system. x x x We are for opening up the system, and
we would like very much for the sectors to be there. That is
why one of the ways to do that is to put a ceiling on the
number of representatives from any single party that can sit
within the 50 allocated under the party list system. x x x.
xxx
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198

seats is not limited to political parties. My question is this: Are we
going to classify for example Christian Democrats and Social
Democrats as political parties? Can they run under the party list
concept or must they be under the district legislation side of it
only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these parties

that the Commissioner mentioned can field candidates for the
Senate as well as for the House of Representatives. Likewise,
they can also field sectoral candidates for the 20 percent or 30
percent, whichever is adopted, of the seats that we are
allocating under the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field

district candidates and can also participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the party

list system, they will be fielding only sectoral candidates.
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO

participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field
candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors
that we shall designate in this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Taada wants to run under

BAYAN group and says that he represents the farmers, would he
qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party
list system and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who would pass on
whether he is a farmer or not?
MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang

linawin ito. Political parties, particularly minority political
parties, are not prohibited to participate in the party list
election if they can prove that they are also organized along
sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all

political parties can participate because it is precisely the
contention of political parties that they represent the broad base of
citizens and that all sectors are represented in them. Would the
Commissioner agree?
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang

UNIDO na isang political party, it will dominate the party list at
mawawalang saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin mismo ng
political parties ang party list system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan ng
diin ang reserve. Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized
sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198 seats, reserved din ito sa
political parties.
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run

there. But my question to Commissioner Villacorta and probably
also to Commissioner Tadeo is that under this system, would
UNIDO be banned from running under the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral
candidates. On that condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed
to register for the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he

shares that answer?
MR. TADEO. The same.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral

lines.
xxxx
MR. OPLE. x x x In my opinion, this will also create the stimulus

for political parties and mass organizations to seek common
ground. For example, we have the PDP-Laban and the UNIDO. I
see no reason why they should not be able to make common goals
with mass organizations so that the very leadership of these
parties can be transformed through the participation of mass
organizations. And if this is true of the administration parties, this
will be true of others like the Partido ng Bayan which is now
being formed. There is no question that they will be attractive to
many mass organizations. In the opposition parties to which we
belong, there will be a stimulus for us to contact mass
organizations so that with their participation, the policies of such
parties can be radically transformed because this amendment will
create conditions that will challenge both the mass organizations
and the political parties to come together. And the party list
system is certainly available, although it is open to all the
parties. It is understood that the parties will enter in the roll of the
COMELEC the names of representatives of mass organizations
affiliated with them. So that we may, in time, develop this
excellent system that they have in Europe where labor
organizations and cooperatives, for example, distribute themselves
either in the Social Democratic Party and the Christian
Democratic Party in Germany, and their very presence there has a
transforming effect upon the philosophies and the leadership of
those parties.
It is also a fact well known to all that in the United States, the
AFL-CIO always vote with the Democratic Party. But the
businessmen, most of them, always vote with the Republican
Party, meaning that there is no reason at all why political parties
and mass organizations should not combine, reenforce, influence
and interact with each other so that the very objectives that we set
in this Constitution for sectoral representation are achieved in a
wider, more lasting, and more institutionalized way. Therefore, I
support this [Monsod-Villacorta] amendment. It installs sectoral
representation as a constitutional gift, but at the same time, it
challenges the sector to rise to the majesty of being elected
representatives later on through a party list system; and even
beyond that, to become actual political parties capable of
contesting political power in the wider constitutional arena for
major political parties.
x x x [32] (Emphasis supplied)

R.A. No. 7941 provided the details for the concepts put forward by the
Constitutional Commission. Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:
Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of

proportional representation in the election of representatives to the
House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or
organizations of a coalition may participate independently
provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate
in the party-list system.
(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a

coalition of parties.
(c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens

advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the
general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate
means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and
supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for
public office.
It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the

geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a
regional party when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and
provinces comprising the region.
(d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens

belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof
whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and
concerns of their sector,
(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a

coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical
attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns.
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national,

regional, sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or
election purposes.
Congress, in enacting R.A. No. 7941, put the three-seat cap to prevent any
party from dominating the party-list elections.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political parties
from participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of
the Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to participate in
party-list elections through their sectoral wings. In fact, the members of the
Constitutional Commission voted down, 19-22, any permanent sectoral
seats, and in the alternative the reservation of the party-list system to the
sectoral groups.[33] In defining a party that participates in party-list elections
as either a political party or a sectoral party, R.A. No. 7941 also clearly
intended that major political parties will participate in the party-list
elections. Excluding the major political parties in party-list elections is
manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional
Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot engage in socio-
political engineering and judicially legislate the exclusion of major political
parties from the party-list elections in patent violation of the Constitution
and the law.
Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission state that major political parties are allowed to establish, or
form coalitions with, sectoral organizations for electoral or political
purposes. There should not be a problem if, for example, the Liberal Party
participates in the party-list election through the Kabataang Liberal ng
Pilipinas (KALIPI), its sectoral youth wing. The other major political parties
can thus organize, or affiliate with, their chosen sector or sectors. To further
illustrate, the Nacionalista Party can establish a fisherfolk wing to participate
in the party-list election, and this fisherfolk wing can field its fisherfolk
nominees. Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (KAMPI) can do the same for the
urban poor.
The qualifications of party-list nominees are prescribed in Section 9 of R.A.

No. 7941:
Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be

nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural born
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the elections, able to read and write, bona
fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to
represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the
election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of
the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be

twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the
day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who
attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to
continue until the expiration of his term.
Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list
organizations nominee wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity[34] as
there is no financial status required in the law. It is enough that the nominee
of the sectoral party/organization/coalition belongs to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors,[35] that is, if the nominee represents the fisherfolk,
he or she must be a fisherfolk, or if the nominee represents the senior
citizens, he or she must be a senior citizen.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates the filling-up of the
entire 20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the
Constitution. The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI, left
the determination of the number of the members of the House of
Representatives to Congress: The House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, x x x. The 20% allocation of party-list
representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more
than 20% of the members of the House of Representatives. However, we
cannot allow the continued existence of a provision in the law which will
systematically prevent the constitutionally allocated 20% party-list
representatives from being filled. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the
number of seats that a qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains
a valid statutory device that prevents any party from dominating the party-
list elections. Seats for party-list representatives shall thus be allocated in
accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 above.
However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling

in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the
party-list elections, directly or indirectly.Those who voted to continue
disallowing major political parties from the party-list elections joined Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno in his separate opinion. On the formula to
allocateparty-list seats, the Court is unanimous in concurring with
this ponencia.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We SET

ASIDE the Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August 2007 in NBC No.
07-041 (PL) as well as the Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC No. 07-
60. We declare unconstitutional the two percent threshold in the distribution
of additional party-list seats. The allocation of additional seats under the
Party-List System shall be in accordance with the procedure used in Table 3
of this Decision. Major political parties are disallowed from participating in
party-list elections. This Decision is immediately executory. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ RENATO C. CORONA

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES DANTE O. TINGA

Associate Justic Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justic Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Additional Case - Legislative

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Additional Case - Legislative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 203766 April 2, 2013

G.R. Nos. 203818-19

AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY (AKB), Petitioner,

G.R. No. 203922

ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES (APEC),represented by its

G.R. No. 203936

AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA, represented by its President

G.R. No. 203958

KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA, INC. (KAKUSA), Petitioner,

G.R. No. 203960

G.R. No. 203976

ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, INC.

G.R. No. 203981

ASSOCIATION FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON LEADERSHIP (ARAL) PARTY-

G.R. No. 204002

ALLIANCE FOR RURAL CONCERNS, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204094

ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD), Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204100

1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC., (1BRO-PGBI) formerly

1 GUARDIANS NATIONALIST PHILIPPINES, INC., (1GANAP/GUARDIANS), Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204125

AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ALLIANCE, INC. (A-IPRA), represented

G.R. No. 204126

KAAGAPAY NG NAGKAKAISANG AGILANG PILIPINONG MAGSASAKA (KAP),

G.R. No. 204139

ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), represented by Atty. Berteni Cataluña

G.R. No. 204141

BANTAY PARTY LIST, represented by Maria Evangelina F. Palparan,

G.R. No. 204153

G.R. No. 204158

ABROAD PARTY LIST, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204174

AANGAT TAYO PARTY LIST-PARTY, represented by its President Simeon T. Silva,

G.R. No. 204216

COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC., Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204220

ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204236

FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,

ALLIANCE OF BICOLNON PARTY (ABP), Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204239

GREEN FORCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF MOTHER

G.R. No. 204240

AGRI-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA MAGSASAKA NG PILIPINAS MOVEMENT

G.R. No. 204263

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

G.R. No. 204318

UNITED MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS FOUNDATION (UNIMAD) PARTY-

G.R. No. 204321

ANG AGRIKULTURA NATIN ISULONG (AANI), represented by its Secretary General

G.R. No. 204323

BAYANI PARTYLIST as represented byHomer Bueno, Fitrylin Dalhani,Israel de Castro,

G.R. No. 204341

ACTION LEAGUE OF INDIGENOUS MASSES(ALIM) PARTY-LIST, represented herein

G.R. No. 204356

BUTIL FARMERS PARTY, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 204358

ALLIANCE OF ADVOCATES IN MININGADVANCEMENT FOR NATIONAL PROGRESS

G.R. No. 204359

SOCIAL MOVEMENT FOR ACTIVEREFORM AND TRANSPARENCY (SMART),

G.R. No. 204364

G.R. No. 204367