8th Recitation Legislative Dept Partylist

EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 203766, April 02, 2013 ]

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
MR. ALAN IGOT, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NOS. 203818-19]
AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY (AKB), PETITIONER, VS.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 203922]
ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES

(APEC), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT CONGRESSMAN
PONCIANO D. PAYUYO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
[G.R. NO. 203936]
AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MICHAEL ABAS KIDA,
PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 203958]
KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA, INC.

(KAKUSA), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 203960]
1ST CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR RURAL ENERGY, INC. (1-

CARE), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN
BANC, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 203976]
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION,

INC. (ARARO), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
[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. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204002]
ALLIANCE FOR RURAL CONCERNS, PETITIONER, VS.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204094]
ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD),

PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204100]
1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC.,

(1BRO-PGBI) FORMERLY PGBI, PETITIONER, VS.
[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, AND CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM,
COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 204125]
AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ALLIANCE, INC.

(A-IPRA), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL,
RONALD D. MACARAIG, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS EN BANC, RESPONDENT.
[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,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204139]
ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), REPRESENTED BY ATTY.

BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, PETITIONER, VS.
[G.R. NO. 204141]
BANTAY PARTY LIST, REPRESENTED BY MARIA EVANGELINA

F. PALPARAN, PRESIDENT, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204153]
PASANG MASDA NATIONWIDE PARTY REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRESIDENT ROBERTO “KA OBET” MARTIN, PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.
[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.
[G.R. NO. 204174]
AANGAT TAYO PARTY LIST-PARTY, REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRESIDENT SIMEON T. SILVA, JR., PETITIONER, VS.
[G.R. NO. 204216]
COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION,

INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204220]
ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST, PETITIONER, VS.

[G.R. NO. 204236]
FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS.

[G.R. NO. 204238]
ALLIANCE OF BICOLNON PARTY (ABP), PETITIONER, VS.

[G.R. NO. 204239]
GREEN FORCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SONS AND

DAUGHTERS OF MOTHER EARTH (GREENFORCE),
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204240]
AGRI-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA MAGSASAKA NG

PILIPINAS MOVEMENT (AGRI), REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY GENERAL, MICHAEL RYAN A. ENRIQUEZ,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204263]
A BLESSED PARTY LIST A.K.A. BLESSED FEDERATION OF

FARMERS AND FISHERMEN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204318]
UNITED MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS FOUNDATION

(UNIMAD) PARTY-LIST, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
[G.R. NO. 204321]
ANG AGRIKULTURA NATIN ISULONG (AANI), REPRESENTED

BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL JOSE C. POLICARPIO, JR.,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204323]
BAYANI PARTYLIST AS REPRESENTED BY HOMER BUENO,

FITRYLIN DALHANI, ISRAEL DE CASTRO, DANTE NAVARRO
AND 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.
[G.R. NO. 204341]
ACTION LEAGUE OF INDIGENOUS MASSES (ALIM) PARTY-

LIST, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PRESIDENT FATANI S.
ABDUL MALIK, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
[G.R. NO. 204356]
BUTIL FARMERS PARTY, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON

[G.R. NO. 204358]
ALLIANCE OF ADVOCATES IN MINING ADVANCEMENT FOR

NATIONAL PROGRESS (AAMA), PETITIONER, VS.
[G.R. NO. 204359]
SOCIAL MOVEMENT FOR ACTIVE REFORM AND

TRANSPARENCY (SMART), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
CARLITO B. CUBELO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
[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.
[G.R. NO. 204367]
AKBAY KALUSUGAN INCORPORATION (AKIN), PETITIONER,

VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204370]
AKO AN BISAYA (AAB), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

GENERAL, RODOLFO T. TUAZON, PETITIONER, VS.
[G.R. NO. 204374]
BINHI-PARTIDO NG MGA MAGSASAKA PARA SA MGA

MAGSASAKA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
EN BANC, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204379]
ALAGAD NG SINING (ASIN) REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRESIDENT, FAYE MAYBELLE LORENZ, PETITIONER, VS.
[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.
[G.R. NO. 204402]
KALIKASAN PARTY-LIST, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,

CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR., AND SECRETARY GENERAL,
FRANCES Q. QUIMPO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
[G.R. NO. 204408]

PILIPINO ASSOCIATION FOR COUNTRY-URBAN POOR YOUTH
ADVANCEMENT AND WELFARE (PACYAW), PETITIONER, VS.
[G.R. NO. 204410]
1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK), PETITIONER,

[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.
[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
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.
[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.
[G.R. NO. 204428]
ANG GALING PINOY (AG), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

GENERAL, BERNARDO R. CORELLA, JR., PETITIONER, VS.
[G.R. NO. 204435]
1 ALLIANCE ADVOCATING AUTONOMY PARTY (1AAAP),

RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204436]
ABYAN ILONGGO PARTY (AI), REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTY

PRESIDENT, ROLEX T. SUPLICO, PETITIONER, VS.
[G.R. NO. 204455]
MANILA TEACHER SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC.,

RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204484]
PARTIDO NG BAYAN ANG BIDA (PBB), REPRESENTED BY ITS

SECRETARY GENERAL, ROGER M. FEDERAZO, PETITIONER,
[G.R. NO. 204485]
ALLIANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS, NETWORKS AND

ASSOCIATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALONA),
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 204486]
1ST KABALIKAT NG BAYAN GINHAWANG SANGKATAUHAN

(1ST KABAGIS), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON
[G.R. NO. 204490]
PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY (PPP), PETITIONER, VS.

DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Cases
These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and

Prohibition[1] 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.
The COMELEC, however, denied the petitions for registration of the following groups
and organizations:

G.R. SPP No. Group Grounds for Denial
No.
A. Via the COMELEC En Banc’s automatic review of the COMELEC Division’s
resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations
Resolution dated 23 November 2012[8]
1 204379 12-099 (PLM) Alagad ng Sining (ASIN) - The “artists” sector is not
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 2012[9]
2 204455 12-041 (PLM) Manila Teachers Savings - A non-stock savings and
and Loan Association, Inc. loan association cannot be
(Manila Teachers) considered marginalized and
underrepresented; and
- The first and second
nominees are not teachers
by profession.
3 204426 12-011 (PLM) Association of Local - Failure to show that its
Athletics Entrepreneurs and members belong to the
Hobbyists, Inc. (ALA-EH) marginalized; and
qualify.
[10]
Resolution dated 27 November 2012
4 204435 12-057 (PLM) 1 Alliance - Failure of the nominees to
Advocating Autonomy qualify: although registering
Party (1AAAP) as a regional political party,
two of the nominees are not
residents of the region; and
four of the five nominees do
not belong to the
marginalized and
underrepresented.
[11]
5 204367 12-104 (PL) Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN), - Failure of the group to
Inc. show that its nominees
belong to the urban poor
sector.
[12]
6 204370 12-011 (PP) Ako An Bisaya (AAB) - Failure to represent a
marginalized sector of
society, despite the
formation of a sectoral wing
for the benefit of farmers of
Region 8;
- Constituency has district
representatives;
- Lack of track record in
representing peasants and
farmers; and
- Nominees are neither
farmers nor peasants.
[13]
Resolution dated 4 December 2012
7 204436 12-009 (PP), 12-165 Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI) - Failure to show that the
(PLM) party represents a
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.
Resolution dated 4 December 2012[14]
8 204485 12-175 (PL) Alliance of Organizations, - Failure to establish that the
Networks and Associations group can represent 14
of the Philippines, Inc. sectors;
(ALONA) - The sectors of
homeowners’ associations,
entrepreneurs and
cooperatives are not
marginalized 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 Mamamahayag - Failure to prove track
(ALAM) record as an organization;
- 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.
[16]
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
and underrepresented;
- The group represents
sectors with conflicting
interests; and
belong to the sector which
the group claims to
represent.
11 204394 12-145 (PL) Association of Guard, - Failure to prove
Utility Helper, Aider, Rider, membership base and track
Driver/Domestic Helper, record;
Janitor, Agent and Nanny of - Failure to present activities
the Philippines, Inc. that sufficiently benefited its
(GUARDJAN) intended constituency; and
belong to any of the sectors
which the group seeks to
represent.
12 204490 12-073 (PLM) Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy - Failure to show that the
(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 2[22] of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC En

Banc scheduled summary evidentiary hearings to determine whether the groups
and organizations that filed manifestations of intent to participate in the 13 May
2013 party-list elections have continually complied with the requirements of R.A.
No. 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC[23] (Ang Bagong
Bayani). The COMELEC disqualified the following groups and organizations from
participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections:
G.R. SPP No. Group Grounds for Denial

No.
Resolution dated 10 October 2012[24]
1 203818- 12-154 (PLM) AKO Bicol Political Party Retained registration and
19 12-177 (PLM) (AKB) accreditation as a political
party, but denied
participation 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 2012[25]
2 203766 12-161 (PLM) Atong Paglaum, Inc. (Atong Cancelled registration and
Paglaum) accreditation
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 (PLM) Association for Cancelled registration and
Righteousness Advocacy on accreditation
Leadership (ARAL) - Failure to comply, and for
violation of election laws;
represent the sectors which
the party represents; and
- There is doubt that the
party is organized for
religious purposes.
4 204002 12-188 (PLM) Alliance for Rural Concerns Cancelled registration and
(ARC) accreditation
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 (PLM) United Movement Against Cancelled registration and
Drugs Foundation accreditation
(UNIMAD) - The sectors of drug
counsellors and lecturers,
veterans and the youth, are
not marginalized and
underrepresented;
- Failure to establish track
record; and
qualify as representatives of
the youth and young urban
professionals.
6 204100 12-196 (PLM) 1-Bro Philippine Guardians Cancelled registration
Brotherhood, Inc. (1BRO- - Failure to define the sector
PGBI) it seeks to represent; and
belong to a marginalized
and underrepresented
sector.
7 204122 12-223 (PLM) 1 Guardians Nationalist Cancelled registration
Philippines, Inc. - The party is a military
(1GANAP/GUARDIANS) fraternity;
- The sector of community
volunteer workers is too
broad to allow for
meaningful representation;
and
appear to belong to the
sector of community
volunteer workers.
8 204263 12-257 (PLM) Blessed Federation of Cancelled registration
Farmers and Fishermen - Three of the seven
International, Inc. (A nominees do not belong to
BLESSED Party-List) the sector of farmers and
fishermen, the sector sought
to be represented; and
- None of the nominees are
registered voters of Region
XI, the region sought to be
represented.
9 203960 12-260 (PLM) 1st Consumers Alliance for Cancelled registration
Rural Energy, Inc. (1- - The sector of rural energy
CARE) consumers is not
marginalized and
underrepresented;
- The party’s track record is
related to electric
cooperatives and not rural
energy consumers; and
belong to the sector of rural
energy consumers.
10 203922 12-201 (PLM) Association of Philippine Cancelled registration and
Electric Cooperatives accreditation
(APEC) - Failure to represent a
marginalized and
underrepresented sector;
and
belong to the sector that the
party claims to represent.
11 204174 12-232 (PLM) Aangat Tayo Party-List Cancelled registration and
Party (AT) accreditation
- 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
sectors that the party seeks
to represent.
12 203976 12-288 (PLM) Alliance for Rural and Cancelled registration and
Agrarian Reconstruction, accreditation
Inc. (ARARO) - The interests of the
peasant and urban poor
sectors that the party
represents differ;
belong 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 (PLM) Agri-Agra na Reporma Para Cancelled registration
sa Magsasaka ng Pilipinas - The party ceased to exist
Movement (AGRI) for more than a year
immediately after the May
2010 elections;
belong 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 (PLM) Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Cancelled registration
Tinig ng Masa (AKMA- - Failure to show that
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 (PLM) Kaagapay ng Nagkakaisang Cancelled registration
Agilang Pilipinong - The Manifestation of
Magsasaka (KAP) Intent and Certificate of
Nomination were not signed
by an appropriate officer of
the 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 (PLM) Adhikain at Kilusan ng Cancelled registration
Ordinaryong Tao Para sa - Failure to show that
Lupa, Pabahay, nominees actually belong to
Hanapbuhay at Kaunlaran the sector, or that they have
(AKO-BAHAY) undertaken meaningful
activities for the sector.
17 204141 12-229 (PLM) The True Marcos Loyalist Cancelled registration
(for God, Country and - Failure to show that
People) Association of the majority of its members are
Philippines, Inc. marginalized and
(BANTAY) underrepresented; and
- Failure to prove that two
of its nominees actually
18 204408 12-217 (PLM) Pilipino Association for Cancelled registration
Country – Urban Poor - Change of sector (from
Youth Advancement and urban poor youth to urban
Welfare (PACYAW) poor) necessitates a new
application;
record for the marginalized
- 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 (PLM) Pasang Masda Nationwide Cancelled registration
Party (PASANG MASDA) - The party represents
drivers and operators, who
may have conflicting
interests; and
- Nominees are either
operators or former
operators.
20 203958 12-015 (PLM) Kapatiran ng mga Nakulong Cancelled registration
na Walang Sala, Inc. - Failure to prove that
(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);
and underrepresented; and
- The nominees did not
appear to be marginalized
21 204428 12-256 (PLM) Ang Galing Pinoy (AG) Cancelled registration and
accreditation
- Failure to attend the
summary hearing;
- The nominees did not
appear to be marginalized
[33]
22 204094 12-185 (PLM) Alliance for Nationalism Cancelled registration and
and Democracy (ANAD) accreditation
- Failure to represent an
identifiable marginalized
sector;
- Only three nominees were
submitted to the
COMELEC;
- Failure to submit its
Statement of Contribution
and Expenditures for the
2007 Elections.
Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 2012[34]
23 204239 12-060 (PLM) Green Force for the Cancelled registration and
Environment Sons and accreditation
Daughters of Mother Earth - The party is an advocacy
(GREENFORCE) group and does not
represent the marginalized
- Failure to comply with the
track record requirement;
and
marginalized citizens.
24 204236 12-254 (PLM) Firm 24-K Association, Inc. Cancelled registration and
(FIRM 24-K) accreditation
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
track record requirement.
25 204341 12-269 (PLM) Action League of Cancelled registration and
Indigenous Masses (ALIM) accreditation
- 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 (PLM) Alliance of Advocates in Cancelled registration
Mining Advancement for - The sector it represents is
National Progress (AAMA) a specifically defined group
which may not be allowed
registration under the party-
list system; and
nominees actually belong to
the sector.
27 204359 12-272 (PLM) Social Movement for Active Cancelled registration
Reform and Transparency - The nominees are
(SMART) disqualified from
representing the sectors that
the party represents;
track record requirement;
and
- There is doubt as to
whether majority of its
members are marginalized
28 204238 12-173 (PLM) Alliance of Bicolnon Party Cancelled registration and
(ABP) accreditation
- 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 (PLM) Bayani Party List Cancelled registration and
(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 (PLM) Ang Agrikultura Natin Cancelled registration and
Isulong (AANI) accreditation
- Failure to establish a track
record of enhancing the
lives of the marginalized
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 (PLM) Agapay ng Indigenous Cancelled registration and
Peoples Rights Alliance, accreditation
Inc. (A-IPRA) - Failure to prove that its
five nominees are members
of the 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 (PLM) Philippine Coconut Cancelled registration and
Producers Federation, Inc. accreditation
(COCOFED) - The party is affiliated with
private and government
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 (PLM) Abang Lingkod Party-List Cancelled registration
(ABANG LINGKOD) - Failure to establish a track
record of continuously
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 (PLM) Action Brotherhood for Cancelled registration and
Active Dreamers, Inc. accreditation
(ABROAD) - Failure to show that the
party is actually able to
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 (PLM) Binhi-Partido ng mga Cancelled registration and
Magsasaka Para sa mga accreditation
Magsasaka (BINHI) - The party receives
assistance from the
government through the
Department of Agriculture;
and
- Failure to prove that the
group is marginalized and
underrepresented.
36 204356 12-136 (PLM) Butil Farmers Party Cancelled registration and
(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 (PLM) 1st Kabalikat ng Bayan Cancelled registration and
Ginhawang Sangkatauhan accreditation
(1st KABAGIS) - Declaration of untruthful
statements;
- Failure to exist for at least
one year; and
- 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 (PLM) 1-United Transport Cancelled accreditation
Koalisyon (1-UTAK) - The party represents
drivers 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 (PLM), 12-191 Coalition of Senior Citizens Cancelled registration
204425 (PLM) in the Philippines, Inc. - The party violated election
(SENIOR CITIZENS) laws because its nominees
had a term-sharing
agreement.
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 (PLM) AKO Bicol Political Party (AKB)
12-177 (PLM)
203981 12-187 (PLM) Association for Righteousness Advocacy on Leadership
(ARAL)
204002 12-188 (PLM) Alliance for Rural Concerns (ARC)
203922 12-201 (PLM) Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC)
203960 12-260 (PLM) 1st Consumers Alliance for Rural Energy, Inc. (1-CARE)
203936 12-248 (PLM) Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-
PTM)
203958 12-015 (PLM) Kapatiran ng mga Nakulong na Walang Sala, Inc.
(KAKUSA)
203976 12-288 (PLM) Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, Inc.
(ARARO)
204094 12-185 (PLM) Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD)
204125 12-292 (PLM) Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance, Inc. (A-
IPRA)
204100 12-196 (PLM) 1-Bro Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (1BRO-
PGBI)
204141 12-229 (PLM) The True Marcos Loyalist (for God, Country and People)
Association of the Philippines, Inc. (BANTAY)
204240 12-279 (PLM) Agri-Agra na Reporma Para sa Magsasaka ng Pilipinas
Movement (AGRI)
204216 12-202 (PLM) Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc.
(COCOFED)
204158 12-158 (PLM) Action Brotherhood for Active Dreamer, Inc.
(ABROAD)
Resolutions dated 4 December 2012
204122 12-223 (PLM) 1 Guardians Nationalist Philippines, Inc.
(1GANAP/GUARDIANS)
203766 12-161 (PLM) Atong Paglaum, Inc. (Atong Paglaum)
204318 12-220 (PLM) United Movement Against Drugs Foundation
(UNIMAD)
204263 12-257 (PLM) Blessed Federation of Farmers and Fishermen
International, Inc. (A BLESSED Party-List)
204174 12-232 (PLM) Aangat Tayo Party-List Party (AT)
204126 12-263 (PLM) Kaagapay ng Nagkakaisang Agilang Pilipinong
Magsasaka (KAP)
204364 12-180 (PLM) Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong Tao Para sa Lupa,
Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at Kaunlaran (AKO-BAHAY)
204139 12-127 (PL) Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM)
204220 12-238 (PLM) Abang Lingkod Party-List (ABANG LINGKOD)
204236 12-254 (PLM) Firm 24-K Association, Inc. (FIRM 24-K)
204238 12-173 (PLM) Alliance of Bicolnon Party (ABP)
204239 12-060 (PLM) Green Force for the Environment Sons and Daughters of
Mother Earth (GREENFORCE)
204321 12-252 (PLM) Ang Agrikultura Natin Isulong (AANI)
204323 12-210 (PLM) Bayani Party List (BAYANI)
204341 12-269 (PLM) Action League of Indigenous Masses (ALIM)
204358 12-204 (PLM) Alliance of Advocates in Mining Advancement for
National Progress (AAMA)
204359 12-272 (PLM) Social Movement for Active Reform and Transparency
(SMART)
204356 12-136 (PLM) Butil Farmers Party (BUTIL)
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 (PLM) Pilipino Association for Country – Urban Poor Youth
Advancement and Welfare (PACYAW)
204428 12-256 (PLM) Ang Galing Pinoy (AG)
204490 12-073 (PLM) Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP)
204379 12-099 (PLM) Alagad ng Sining (ASIN)
204367 12-104 (PL) Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN)
204426 12-011 (PLM) Association of Local Athletics Entrepreneurs and
Hobbyists, Inc. (ALA-EH)
204455 12-041 (PLM) Manila Teachers Savings and Loan Association, Inc.
(Manila Teachers)
204374 12-228 (PLM) Binhi-Partido ng mga Magsasaka Para sa mga Magsasaka
(BINHI)
204370 12-011 (PP) Ako An Bisaya (AAB)
204435 12-057 (PLM) 1 Alliance Advocating Autonomy Party (1AAAP)
204486 12-194 (PLM) 1st Kabalikat ng Bayan Ginhawang Sangkatauhan (1st
KABAGIS)
204410 12-198 (PLM) 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK)
204421, 204425 12-157 (PLM) Coalition of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc.
12-191 (PLM) (SENIOR CITIZENS)
204436 12-009 (PP), 12- Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI)
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 (PLM) Pasang Masda Nationwide Party (PASANG 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 Elections [49] (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 “[F]or 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.”[56] The sectors mentioned in Section 5 are not all necessarily
“marginalized and underrepresented.” For sure, “professionals” are not by definition
“marginalized and underrepresented,” not even the elderly, women, and the youth.
However, professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth may “lack well-defined
political constituencies,” and can thus organize themselves into sectoral parties in
advocacy of the special interests and concerns of their respective sectors.
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.
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;
(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 rule[62] 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)
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) allnational, regional, and sectoral
groups or organizations must represent the “marginalized and underrepresented”
sectors, and (2) allnominees 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 party-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.
Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., and Perez, JJ. concur.

Sereno, C.J., I dissent; And Bagong Bayani should be upheld, not reversed. see
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 207026, August 06, 2013 ]
COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION,
INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the petition for certiorari,[1] with prayer for temporary restraining order

and/or status quo ante order, challenging the May 10, 2013 omnibus resolution
issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in In the Matter of the
Compliance of the Commission on Elections En Bane with the Directives of the
Supreme Court in Atong Paglaum, et al. v. Commission on Elections –COCOFED-
Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. [2]
Petitioner COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) is an

organization and sectoral party whose membership comes from the peasant sector,
particularly the coconut farmers and producers.[3] On May 29, 2012, COCOFED
manifested with the COMELEC its intent to participate in the party-list elections of
May 13, 2013 and submitted the names of only two nominees – Atty. Emerito S.
Calderon (first nominee) and Atty. Domingo P. Espina.[4]
On August 23, 2012, the COMELEC conducted a summary hearing, pursuant to

COMELEC Resolution No. 9513,[5] to determine whether COCOFED, among several
party-list groups that filed manifestations of intent to participate in the May 13,
2013 party-list elections, had continuously complied with the legal requirements.
In its November 7, 2012 resolution, the COMELEC cancelled COCOFED’s registration

and accreditation as a party-list organization on several grounds.[6] Notably, the
Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Christian Lim cited, as additional ground, that
since COCOFED submitted only two nominees, then it failed to comply with Section
8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941[7] that requires the party to submit to COMELEC a
list of not less than five nominees.
On December 4, 2012, COCOFED submitted the names of Charles R. Avila, in

substitution of Atty. Espina, as its second nominee and Efren V. Villaseñor as
its third nominee.[8]
COCOFED, among several others, questioned the COMELEC’s cancellation of its

registration and accreditation before this Court, with a prayer for the issuance of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. By reason of the status
quo ante order issued by the Court, COCOFED’s name was included in the printing
of the official ballots for the May 13, 2013 elections.
On April 2, 2013, the Court rendered its Decision in Atong Paglaum, Inc., etc., et al.
v. Commission on Elections.[9] The Court remanded all the petitions to the COMELEC
to determine their compliance with the new parameters and guidelines set by the
Court in that case. In Atong Paglaum, the Court ruled:
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:
xxxx
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.
On May 10, 2013, the COMELEC issued its assailed resolution, maintaining its
earlier ruling cancelling COCOFED’s registration and accreditation for its failure to
comply with the requirement of Section 8 of RA No. 7941, i.e., to submit a list of
not less than five nominees.
The COMELEC noted that all existing party-list groups or organizations were on
notice as early as February 8, 2012 (when Resolution No. 9359 was promulgated)
that upon submission of their respective manifestations of intent to participate, they
also needed to submit a list of five nominees.[10] During the hearing on August 23,
2012, the COMELEC pointed out to COCOFED that it had only two nominees.
WHEREFORE, the Commission En banc RESOLVES:
A. To DENY the Manifestations of Intent to Participate, and CANCEL the registration

and accreditation, of the following parties, groups, or organizations:

xxxx

(3) x x x – COCOFED – Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc.
Accordingly, the foregoing shall be REMOVED from the registry of party-list groups
and organizations of the Commission, and shall NOT BE ALLOWED to PARTICIPATE
as a candidate for the Party-List System of Representation for the 13 May 2013
Elections and subsequent elections thereafter.[11] (emphases ours)
COCOFED moved for reconsideration only to withdraw its motion later. Instead, on
May 20, 2013, COCOFED filed a Manifestation with Urgent Request to Admit
Additional Nominees with the COMELEC, namely: (i) Felino M. Gutierrez and (ii)
Rodolfo T. de Asis.[12]
On May 24, 2013, the COMELEC issued a resolution declaring the cancellation of
COCOFED’s accreditation final and executory.
THE PETITION
COCOFED argues that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the
assailed resolution on the following grounds:
First, the COMELEC’s issuance of the assailed resolution violated its right to due
process because the COMELEC did not even conduct a summary hearing, as
ordered by the Court in Atong Paglaum, to give it an opportunity to explain and
comply with the requirement. COCOFED submits that the requirement of submitting
the names of at least five nominees should not be strictly applied “in light of the
nature of party-list representation” which “look[s] to the party, and not [to] the
nominees per se.”[13]
Second, its failure to submit the required number of nominees was based on the
good faith belief that its submission was sufficient for purposes of the elections and
that it could still be remedied since COCOFED could simply submit the names of its
additional two nominees. COCOFED adds that the number of nominees becomes
significant only “when a party-list organization is able to attain a sufficient number
of votes which would qualify it for a seat in the House of Representatives.”[14]
Third, the COMELEC violated its right to equal protection of the laws since at least
two other party-list groups (ACT-CIS and MTM Phils.) which failed to submit five
nominees were included in the official list of party-list groups.
COCOFED prays for the following:
2. After giving due course to the instant Petition and after a consideration of the
issues, judgment be rendered:
a. ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE [the COMELEC’s assailed resolution];
b. DECLARING petitioner COCOFED x x x to be eligible to participate in

the Party-List System of Representation in the 2013 Elections; and
c. ORDERING [the COMELEC] x x x to COUNT and TALLY the votes

garnered by petitioner COCOFED[.][15]
RESPONDENT’S COMMENT
The petition is already moot and academic. Despite the issuance of the assailed
resolution three days before the elections, COCOFED remained in the ballot and its
votes were counted and tallied. As of 8:26:02 a.m. of May 29, 2013, the official
results showed that it only received 80,397 votes or 0.36% of the total number of
votes cast for the party-list elections. With the reliefs prayed for already performed,
nothing more remained for COCOFED to ask.
At any rate, the COMELEC claims that it did not abuse, much less gravely abuse its
discretion, when it maintained its earlier ruling cancelling COCOFED’s registration
and accreditation; it merely applied the clear requirement of Section 8, in relation
to Section 6, of RA No. 7941. The importance of a complete list of five nominees
cannot be overemphasized. Based on this list, the COMELEC checks a party’s
compliance with the other legal requirements, namely: (i) that a person is
nominated in only one list; and (ii) that the list shall not include any candidate for
any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the
immediately preceding election.
Additionally, the submission of a complete list is mandatory under the terms of

Section 8 of RA No. 7941. As we held in Lokin, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,
[16]
the submission of a complete list goes into the right of the voters to know and
make intelligent and informed choice.
Lastly, it is not mandatory for the COMELEC to conduct summary evidentiary

hearings under the ruling in Atong Paglaum.
COURT’S RULING
We DISMISS the petition.
The petition is not moot
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy
because of supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no
practical use or value.[17]
In the present case, while the COMELEC counted and tallied the votes in favor of
COCOFED showing that it failed to obtain the required number of votes,
participation in the 2013 elections was merely one of the reliefs COCOFED prayed
for. The validity of the COMELEC’s resolution, cancelling COCOFED’s registration,
remains a very live issue that is not dependent on the outcome of the elections.
Under Section 4 of RA No. 7941, a party-list group already registered “need not
register anew” for purposes of every subsequent election, but only needs to file
a manifestation of intent to participate with the COMELEC. These two acts are
different from each other.
Under Section 5 of RA No. 7941, an applicant for registration has to file with the
COMELEC, not later than ninety (90) days before the election, a verified petition
stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or
sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations.
The applicant is required to submit its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of

government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as
the COMELEC may require. Aside from these, the law requires the publication of the
applicant’s petition in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
The COMELEC then resolves the petition, determining whether the applicant has
complied with all the necessary requirements.
Under this legal reality, the fact that COCOFED did not obtain sufficient number of
votes in the elections does not affect the issue of the validity of the COMELEC’s
registration. A finding that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling
COCOFED’s registration would entitle it, if it is so minded, to participate in
subsequent elections without need of undergoing registration proceedings anew.
This brings us to the issue of whether the COMELEC indeed gravely abused its
discretion in issuing the assailed resolution. We hold that it did not.
Failure to submit the list of five nominees before the election warrants the
cancellation of its registration
The law expressly requires the submission of a list containing at least five qualified
nominees. Section 8 of RA No. 7941 reads:
Section 8. Nomination of Party-List Representatives. Each registered party,
organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-five
(45) days before the election a list of names, not less than five (5), from which
party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of
votes. [emphases and underscores ours; italics supplied]
As early as February 8, 2012, the COMELEC had informed, through Resolution No.
9359,[18] all registered parties who wished to participate in the May 2013 party-list
elections that they “shall file with the [COMELEC] a Manifestation of Intent to
participate in the part-list election together with its list of at least five (5)
nominees, no later than May 31, 2012[.]”
Under Section 6(5) of RA No. 7941, violation of or failure to comply with laws, rules
or regulations relating to elections is a ground for the cancellation of registration.
However, not every kind of violation automatically warrants the cancellation of a
party-list group’s registration. Since a reading of the entire Section 6 shows that all
the grounds for cancellation actually pertain to the party itself, then the laws, rules
and regulations violated to warrant cancellation under Section 6(5) must be one
that is primarily imputable to the party itself and not one that is chiefly confined to
an individual member or its nominee.
COCOFED’s failure to submit a list of five nominees, despite ample opportunity to

do so before the elections, is a violation imputable to the party under Section 6(5)
of RA No. 7941.
First, the language of Section 8 of RA No. 7941 does not only use the word “shall”
in connection with the requirement of submitting a list of nominees; it uses this
mandatory term in conjunction with the number of names to be submitted that is
couched negatively, i.e., “not less than five.” The use of these terms together is a
plain indication of legislative intent to make the statutory requirement mandatory
for the party to undertake.[19] With the date and manner of submission[20] of the list
having been determined by law – a condition precedent for the registration of new
party-list groups or for participation in the party-list elections in case of previously
registered party-list groups,[21]and was in fact reiterated by the COMELEC through
its resolutions – COCOFED cannot now claim good faith, much less dictate its own
terms of compliance.
Pursuant to the terms of Section 8 of RA No. 7941, the Court cannot leave to the
party the discretion to determine the number of nominees it would submit. A
contrary view overlooks the fact that the requirement of submission of a list of five
nominees is primarily a statutory requirement for the registration of party-list
groups and the submission of this list is part of a registered party’s continuing
compliance with the law to maintain its registration. A party-list group’s previous
registration with the COMELEC confers no vested right to the maintenance of its
registration. In order to maintain a party in a continuing compliance status, the
party must prove not only its continued possession of the requisite qualifications
but, equally, must show its compliance with the basic requirements of the law.
Second, while COCOFED’s failure to submit a complete list of nominees may not
have been among the grounds cited by the COMELEC in earlier cancelling its
registration, this is not sufficient to support a finding of grave abuse of discretion.
Apart from the clear letter of Section 8 of RA No. 7941 and the COMELEC
resolutions issued more or less a year before the 2013 elections, COCOFED’s
belated submission of a Manifestation with Urgent Request to Admit Additional
Nominees several days after the elections betrays the emptiness of COCOFED’s
formalistic plea for prior notice.
Section 6 of RA No. 7941 requires the COMELEC to afford “due notice and hearing”
before refusing or cancelling the registration of a party- list group as a matter of
procedural due process. The Court would have demanded an exacting compliance
with this requirement if the registration or continuing compliance proceeding were
strictly in the nature of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.[22] In several cases,
however, the Court had already ruled that the registration of party-list groups
involves the exercise of the COMELEC’s administrative power, particularly its power
to enforce and administer all laws related to elections.[23]
While COCOFED could have complied after the elections (as it in fact did), it should
have, at the very least, submitted an explanation justifying its inability to comply
prior to the elections. However, COCOFED simply chose to ignore the law; this, to
us, is a plain disregard of the administrative requirement warranting the
cancellation of its registration.
Third, the fact that a party-list group is entitled to no more than three seats in
Congress, regardless of the number of votes it may garner,[24] does not render
Section 8 of RA No. 7941 permissive in nature.
On February 21, 2012, the COMELEC, through Resolution No. 9366,[25] again

apprised registered party-list groups that its Manifestation of Intent to Participate
shall be accompanied by a list of at least five (5) nominees. Under Section 9, Rule 5
of this resolution, the Education and Information Department of the COMELEC shall
cause the immediate publication of this list in two national newspapers of general
circulation.
The publication of the list of nominees does not only serve as the reckoning period
of certain remedies and procedures under the resolution.[26] Most importantly, the
required publication satisfies the people’s constitutional right to information on
matters of public concern.[27] The need for submission of the complete list required
by law[28] becomes all the more important in a party-list election to apprise the
electorate of the individuals behind the party they are voting for. If only to give
meaning to the right of the people to elect their representatives on the basis of an
informed judgment, then the party-list group must submit a complete list of five
nominees because the identity of these five nominees carries critical bearing on the
electorate’s choice.[29] A post-election completion of the list of nominees defeats this
constitutional purpose.
Even if a party-list group can only have a maximum of three seats, the requirement
of additional two nominees actually addresses the contingencies that may happen
during the term of these party-list representatives. Section 16 of RA No. 7941
reads:
Section 16. Vacancy. In case of vacancy in the seats reserved for party-list
representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next representative
from the list of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same
party, organization, or coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list
is exhausted, the party, organization coalition concerned shall submit additional
nominees.
While the law allows the submission of additional nominees once the list is
exhausted, the exhaustion of the list presupposes prior compliance with the
requirement of Section 8 of RA No. 7941. Since the exhaustion of the list is an
event that can rarely happen under this interpretation, then the law effectively
upholds the people’s right to make informed electoral judgments. Again, it is a
basic rule of statutory construction that the provisions of the law must not be read
in isolation but as a whole, as the law must not be read in truncated parts; its
provisions in relation to the whole law and every part thereof must be considered in
fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole.[30]
Moreover, after the submission of a list of nominees to the COMELEC, the party

itself has no discretion to change the names or to alter the order of nomination in
the list it submitted.[31] While there are instances when a change of name or
alteration of the order is allowed, these circumstances focus on the nominee
himself, whether voluntary (the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination) or
involuntary (the nominee dies or becomes incapacitated). To allow COCOFED to
complete the list of its nominees beyond the deadline set by the law would allow
the party itself to do indirectly what it cannot do directly.[32]
Fourth, we cannot discern any valid reason why a party-list group cannot comply
with the statutory requirement. The party-list system is a constitutional innovation
that would expand opportunities for electoral participation to those who cannot
hope to win in the legislative district elections, but who may generate votes
nationwide equivalent to what a winner in the legislative district election would
garner.[33] In short, the party- list system operates on the theoretical assumption
that a party-list group has national constituency whose interests, concerns, or
ideologies call for representation in the House of Representatives. We quote with
approval the COMELEC’s observation:
If the party cannot even come up with a complete list of five names out of a
purported more than one million members, then it is highly doubtful that COCOFED
will meet this expectation [to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
legislation that is beneficial for the nation as a whole]; and if it cannot even name
at least three more people who belongs to, or with sufficient advocacy for, the
sector sought to be represented then as a sectoral party or organization, it has
already forsaken what it seeks to represent.[34]
Given this driving idea, a party is not allowed to simply refuse to submit a list
containing “not less than five nominees” and consider the deficiency as a waiver on
its part. Aside from colliding with the plain text of the law, this interpretation is not
in harmony with the statutory policy of enhancing the party-list-groups’ chances to
compete for and win seats in the legislature, and therefore does not serve as
incentive to Filipino citizens belonging to these groups to contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation.[35]
Fifth, while under the 6th parameter in Atong Paglaum, the Court said that the
disqualification of some of the nominees shall not result in the disqualification of the
party-list group "provided that they have at least one nominee who remains
qualified," the Court largely considered that -
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.
In fact, almost all of the petitioners in Atong Paglaum were disqualified on the
ground that the nominees failed to "qualify," as this word was interpreted by the
COMELEC.[36] In other words, the Court in no way authorized a party list group's
inexcusable failure, if not outright refusal, to comply with the clear letter of the law
on the submission of at least five nominees.
In sum, all these reasons negate a finding that the COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion in cancelling COCOFED's registration.[37]
WHEREFORE, we hereby DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad,
Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., no part because relative is a nominee of a part list organization.
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 206987, September 10, 2013 ]
ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD),
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Mandamus, seeking to compel the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to canvass the votes cast for petitioner
Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) in the recently held 2013 Party-List
Elections.
On 7 November 2012, the COMELEC En Banc promulgated a Resolution cancelling

petitioner’s Certificate of Registration and/or Accreditation on three grounds, to wit:
[1]
I.
Petitioner ANAD does not belong to, or come within the ambit of, the marginalized
and underrepresented sectors enumerated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 and
espoused in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission
on Electionsand Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections.
II.
There is no proof showing that nominees Arthur J. Tariman and Julius D. Labandria
are actually nominated by ANAD itself. The Certificate of Nomination, subscribed
and sworn to by Mr. Domingo M. Balang, shows that ANAD submitted only the
names of Pastor Montero Alcover, Jr., Baltaire Q. Balangauan and Atty. Pedro Leslie
B. Salva. It necessarily follows, that having only three (3) nominees, ANAD failed to
comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Section 4, Rule 3 of Resolution
No. 9366.
III.
ANAD failed to submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007
National and Local Elections as required by Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7166
(“R.A. No. 7166”).
ANAD went before this Court challenging the above-mentioned resolution. In Atong
Paglaum, Inc. v. Comelec,[2] the Court remanded the case to the COMELEC for re-
evaluation in accordance with the parameters prescribed in the aforesaid decision.
In the assailed Resolution dated 11 May 2013,[3] the COMELEC affirmed the

cancellation of petitioner’s Certificate of Registration and/or Accreditation and
disqualified it from participating in the 2013 Elections. The COMELEC held that while
ANAD can be classified as a sectoral party lacking in well-defined political
constituencies, its disqualification still subsists for violation of election laws and
regulations, particularly for its failure to submit at least five nominees, and for its
failure to submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007
Elections.
Hence, the present petition raising the issues of whether or not the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion in promulgating the assailed Resolution without the
benefit of a summary evidentiary hearing mandated by the due process clause, and
whether or not the COMELEC erred in finding that petitioner submitted only three
nominees and that it failed to submit its Statement of Contributions and
Expenditures in the 2007 Elections.[4]
We dismiss the petition.
The only question that may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Section 2,

Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. For a petition
for certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness
in the exercise of discretion.[5]
“Grave abuse of discretion,” under Rule 65, has a specific meaning. It is the
arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal
hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts
to an evasion or a refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all
in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with
grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.[6]
ANAD claims that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it promulgated
the assailed Resolution without giving ANAD the benefit of a summary evidentiary
hearing, thus violating its right to due process. It is to be noted, however, that
ANAD was already afforded a summary hearing on 23 August 2013, during which
Mr. Domingo M. Balang, ANAD’s president, authenticated documents and answered
questions from the members of the COMELEC pertinent to ANAD’s qualifications.[7]
ANAD, nonetheless, insists that the COMELEC should have called for another
summary hearing after this Court remanded the case to the COMELEC for re-
evaluation in accordance with the parameters laid down in Atong Paglaum, Inc. v.
Comelec. This is a superfluity.
ANAD was already given the opportunity to prove its qualifications during the
summary hearing of 23 August 2012, during which ANAD submitted documents and
other pieces of evidence to establish said qualifications. In re-evaluating ANAD’s
qualifications in accordance with the parameters laid down in Atong Paglaum, Inc.
v. COMELEC, the COMELEC need not have called another summary hearing. The
Comelec could, as in fact it did,[8] readily resort to documents and other pieces of
evidence previously submitted by petitioners in re-appraising ANAD’s qualifications.
After all, it can be presumed that the qualifications, or lack thereof, which were
established during the summary hearing of 23 August 2012 continued until election
day and even thereafter.
As to ANAD’s averment that the COMELEC erred in finding that it violated election
laws and regulations, we hold that the COMELEC, being a specialized agency tasked
with the supervision of elections all over the country, its factual findings,
conclusions, rulings and decisions rendered on matters falling within its competence
shall not be interfered with by this Court in the absence of grave abuse of discretion
or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law.[9]
As found by the COMELEC, ANAD, for unknown reasons, submitted only three
nominees instead of five, in violation of Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 7941 (An Act Providing
for the Election of Party-List Representatives through the Party-List System, and
Appropriating Funds Therefor).[10]Such factual finding of the COMELEC was based on
the Certificate of Nomination presented and marked by petitioner during the 22 and
23 August 2012 summary hearings.[11]
Compliance with Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 is essential as the said provision is a
safeguard against arbitrariness. Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 rids a party-list
organization of the prerogative to substitute and replace its nominees, or even to
switch the order of the nominees, after submission of the list to the COMELEC.
In Lokin, Jr. v. Comelec,[12] the Court discussed the importance of Sec. 8 of R.A. No.
7941 in this wise:
The prohibition is not arbitrary or capricious; neither is it without reason on the part
of lawmakers. The COMELEC can rightly presume from the submission of the list
that the list reflects the true will of the party-list organization. The COMELEC will
not concern itself with whether or not the list contains the real intended nominees
of the party-list organization, but will only determine whether the nominees pass all
the requirements prescribed by the law and whether or not the nominees possess
all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Thereafter, the names of the
nominees will be published in newspapers of general circulation. Although the
people vote for the party-list organization itself in a party-list system of election,
not for the individual nominees, they still have the right to know who the nominees
of any particular party-list organization are. The publication of the list of the party-
list nominees in newspapers of general circulation serves that right of the people,
enabling the voters to make intelligent and informed choices. In contrast, allowing
the party-list organization to change its nominees through withdrawal of their
nominations, or to alter the order of the nominations after the submission of the list
of nominees circumvents the voters’ demand for transparency. The lawmakers’
exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal has eliminated the possibility of such
circumvention.
Moreover, the COMELEC also noted ANAD’s failure to submit a proper Statement of
Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 Elections, in violation of COMELEC
Resolution No. 9476, viz:
Rule 8, Sec. 3. Form and contents of statements. – The statement required in next
preceding section shall be in writing, subscribed and sworn to by the candidate or
by the treasurer of the party. It shall set forth in detail the following:
a. The amount of contribution, the date of receipt, and the full name,
profession, business, taxpayer identification number (TIN) and exact home
and business address of the person or entity from whom the contribution was
received; (See Schedule of Contributions Received, Annex “G”)
b. The amount of every expenditure, the date thereof, the full name and exact
address of the person or entity to whom payment was made, and the
purpose of the expenditure; (See Schedule of Expenditures, Annex “H”)
A Summary Report of Lawful Expenditure categorized according to the list

specified above shall be submitted by the candidate or party treasurer within
thirty (30) days after the day of the election. The prescribed form for this
Summary Report is hereby attached to these Rules as Annex “H-1.”
c. Any unpaid obligation, its nature and amount, the full name and exact home
and business address of the person or entity to whom said obligation is
owing; and (See Schedule of Unpaid Obligations, Annex “I”)
d. If the candidate or treasurer of the party has received no contribution, made

no expenditure, or has no pending obligation, the statement shall reflect such
fact;
e. And such other information that the Commission may require.
The prescribed form for the Statement of Election Contributions and

Expenses is attached to these Rules as Annex “F.” The Schedules of
Contributions and Expenditures (Annexes “G” and “H”, respectively) should
be supported and accompanied by certified true copies of official receipts,
invoices and other similar documents.
An incomplete statement, or a statement that does not contain all the

required information and attachments, or does not conform to the prescribed
form, shall be considered as not filed and shall subject the candidate or party
treasurer to the penalties prescribed by law.
As found by the COMELEC, ANAD failed to comply with the above-mentioned

requirements as the exhibits submitted by ANAD consisted mainly of a list of total
contributions from other persons, a list of official receipts and amounts without
corresponding receipts, and a list of expenditures based on order slips and
donations without distinction as to whether the amounts listed were advanced
subject to reimbursement or donated.[13] This factual finding was neither contested
nor rebutted by ANAD.
We herein take the opportunity to reiterate the well-established principle that the
rule that factual findings of administrative bodies will not be disturbed by the courts
of justice except when there is absolutely no evidence or no substantial evidence in
support of such findings should be applied with greater force when it concerns the
COMELEC, as the framers of the Constitution intended to place the COMELEC –
created and explicitly made independent by the Constitution itself – on a level
higher than statutory administrative organs. The COMELEC has broad powers to
ascertain the true results of the election by means available to it. For the
attainment of that end, it is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence.[14]
As empowered by law, the COMELEC may motu proprio cancel, after due notice and
hearing, the registration of any party-list organization if it violates or fails to comply
with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections.[15] Thus, we find no grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it issued the assailed Resolution
dated 11 May 2013.
In any event, the official tally results of the COMELEC show that ANAD garnered
200,972 votes.[16] As such, even if petitioner is declared qualified and the votes cast
for it are canvassed, statistics show that it will still fail to qualify for a seat in the
House of Representatives.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court Resolves to DISMISS the Petition,

finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Abad, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., No part.
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 206952, October 22, 2013 ]
ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST (ABANG LINGKOD),
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of

Court filed by A bang Lingkod Party-List (ABANG LINGKOD) assailing the
Resolution[1] dated May 1 0, 2013 issued by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) En Banc in SPP No. 12-238 (PLM), which,inter alia, affirmed the
cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration as a party-list group.
The Facts
ABANG LINGKOD is a sectoral organization that represents the interests of peasant

farmers and fisherfolks, and was registered under the party-list system on
December 22, 2009. It participated in the May 2010 elections, but failed to obtain
the number of votes needed for a seat in the House of Representatives.
On May 31, 2012, ABANG LINGKOD manifested before the COMELEC its intent to
participate in the May 2013 elections. On August 2, 2012, the COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 9513,[2] which, inter alia, required previously registered party-list
groups that have filed their respective Manifestations of Intent to undergo summary
evidentiary hearing for purposes of determining their continuing compliance with
the requirements under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941[3] and the guidelines set forth
in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC.[4]
Accordingly, on August 9, 2012, the COMELEC issued a Resolution, which set the
summary evidentiary hearing of previously registered party-list groups. The
COMELEC scheduled three (3) dates August 17, 31 and September 3, 2012 for the
summary hearing of ABANG LINGKOD's Manifestation of Intent, to enable it to show
proof of its continuing qualification under the party-list system.
On August 16, 2012, ABANG LINGKOD, in compliance with the COMELEC's August
9, 2012 Resolution, filed with the COMELEC pertinent documents to prove its
continuing compliance with the requirements under R.A. No. 7941.
After due proceedings, the COMELEC En Banc, in a Resolution dated November 7,

2012, cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's registration as a party list group. The
COMELEC En Banc pointed out that ABANG LINGKOD failed to establish its track
record in uplifting the cause of the marginalized and underrepresented; that it
merely offered photographs of some alleged activities it conducted after the May
2010 elections. The COMELEC En Banc further opined that ABANG LINGKOD failed
to show that its nominees are themselves marginalized and underrepresented or
that they have been involved in activities aimed at improving the plight of the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors it claims to represent.
ABANG LINGKOD then filed with this Court a petition[5] for certiorari, alleging that
the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling its registration under the
party-list system. The said petition was consolidated with the separate petitions
filed by fifty-one (51) other party list groups whose registration were cancelled or
who were denied registration under the party-list system. The said party-list
groups, including ABANG LINGKOD, were able to obtain status quo ante orders
from this Court.
On April 2, 2013, the Court, in Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections,

[6]
laid down new parameters to be observed by the COMELEC in screening parties,
organizations or associations seeking registration and/or accreditation under the
party-list system, viz:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national
parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3)
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 interests 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 the 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 or 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.
Thus, the Court remanded to the COMELEC the cases of previously registered party-
list groups, including that of ABANG LINGKOD, to determine whether they are
qualified under the party-list system pursuant to the new parameters laid down by
the Court and, in the affirmative, be allowed to participate in the May 2013 party-
list elections.
On May 10, 2013, the COMELEC issued the herein assailed Resolution,7 which, inter
alia, affirmed the cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration under the party-list
system. The COMELEC issued the Resolution dated May 10, 2013 sans any
summary evidentiary hearing, citing the proximity of the May 13, 2013 elections as
the reason therefor.
In maintaining the cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration, the COMELEC

held that:
The Commission maintains its position in the previous en bane ruling cancelling the
registration of ABANG LINGKOD. To reiterate, it is not enough that the party-list
organization claim representation of the marginalized and underrepresented
because representation is easy to claim and to feign. It is but reasonable to require
from groups and organizations consistent participation and advocacy. in the sector
it seeks to represent, and not just seasonal and "sporadic" programs which are
unrelated to its sector.
ABANG LINGKOD submitted pictures showing a seminar held on
10 July 2010, Medical Mission on 11 November 2010, Disaster Management

Training on 21 October 2011, Book-giving on 28 June 2011, and Medical Mission on
1 December 2011.
And as if to insult the Commission, the photographs submitted appear to have been
edited to show in the banners that ABANG LINGKOD participated in the activities.
ABANG LINGKOD's name and logo was superimposed on some banners to feign
participation in the activities (Joint Medical Mission, Book-giving).
Under the party-list System Act, a group's registration may be cancelled for
declaring unlawful statements in its petition. Photoshopping images to establish a
fact that did not occur is tantamount to declaring unlawful statements. It is on this
ground that the Commission cancels ABANG LINGKOD's registration.[8]
On May 12, 2013, ABANG LINGKOD sought a reconsideration of the COMELEC's

Resolution dated May 10, 2013. However, on May 15, 2013, ABANG LINGKOD
withdrew the motion for reconsideration it filed with the COMELEC and, instead,
instituted the instant petition[9] with this Court, alleging that there may not be
enough time for the COMELEC to pass upon the merits of its motion for
reconsideration considering that the election returns were already being canvassed
and consolidated by the COMELEC.
In support of the instant petition, ABANG LINGKOD claims that the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the cancellation of its
registration sans a summary evidentiary hearing for that purpose, asserting that
the COMELEC should have allowed it to present evidence to prove its qualification
as a party-list group pursuant to Atong Paglaum. It claims that there was no valid
justification for the COMELEC to cancel its registration considering that it complied
with the six-point parameters m screening party-list groups laid down in Atong
Paglaum.
On the other hand, the COMELEC avers that the instant petition should be
dismissed for utter lack of merit. It asserts that ABANG LINGKOD was not denied
due process when the COMELEC affirmed the cancellation of its registration since it
was given every reasonable opportunity to be heard. The COMELEC further claims
that it did not abuse its discretion when it cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's registration
on the ground that it failed to establish a track record in representing the
marginalized and underrepresented. Further, the COMELEC alleges that its finding
of facts may not be passed upon by this Court as the same is supported by
substantial evidence.
The Issues
In sum, the issues presented for the Court's resolution are the following: first,
whether ABANG LINGKOD was denied due process when the COMELEC affirmed the
cancellation of its registration under the party list system sans any summary
evidentiary hearing; and second, whether the COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD's registration under the party-list system.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
First Issue: Due Process

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or as applied to
administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or
an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A
formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The
requirements are satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. What is frowned upon
is the absolute lack of notice or hearing.[10]
In the instant case, while the petitioner laments that it was denied due process, the
Court finds that the COMELEC had afforded ABANG LINGKOD sufficient opportunity
to present evidence establishing its qualification as a party-list group. It was
notified through Resolution No. 9513 that its registration was to be reviewed by the
COMELEC. That ABANG LINGKOD was able to file its Manifestation of Intent and
other pertinent documents to prove its continuing compliance with the
requirements under R.A. No. 7941, which the COMELEC set for summary hearing on
three separate dates, belies its claim that it was denied due process.
There was no necessity for the COMELEC to conduct further summary evidentiary
hearing to assess the qualification of ABANG LINGKOD pursuant to Atong Paglaum.
ABANG LINGKOD's Manifestation of Intent and all the evidence adduced by it to
establish its qualification as a party-list group are already in the possession of the
COMELEC. Thus, conducting further summary evidentiary hearing for the sole
purpose of determining ABANG LINGKOD's qualification under the party-list system
pursuant to Atong Paglaum would just be a superfluity.
Contrary to ABANG LINGKOD's claim, the Court, in Atong Paglaum, did not
categorically require the COMELEC to conduct a summary evidentiary hearing for
the purpose of determining the qualifications of the petitioners therein pursuant to
the new parameters for screening party-list groups. The dispositive portion of Along
Paglaum reads:
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 the 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 party-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.[11] (Emphasis ours)
Thus, the cases of previously registered party-list groups, including ABANG

LINGKOD, were remanded to the COMELEC so that it may reassess, based on the
evidence already submitted by the former, whether they are qualified to participate
in the party-list system pursuant to the new parameters laid down in Along
Paglaum. The Court did not require the COMELEC to conduct a hearing de novo in
reassessing the qualifications of said party-list groups. Nevertheless, the Court gave
the COMELEC the option to conduct further summary evidentiary hearing should it
deem appropriate to do so.
The records also disclose that ABANG LINGKOD was able to file with the COMELEC a
motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 10, 2013, negating its claim
that it was denied due process. As it has been held, deprivation of due process
cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given a chance to be heard on
his motion for reconsideration.[12]
Second Issue: Cancellation of

ABANG LINGKOD's Registration
However, after a careful perusal of the factual antecedents of this case, pinned
against the new parameters in screening party-list groups laid down in Along
Paglaum, the Court finds that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
cancelling the registration of ABANG LINGKOD under the party-list system.
The COMELEC affirmed the cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration on the

ground that it declared untruthful statement in its bid for accreditation as a party-
list group in the May 2013 elections, pointing out that it deliberately submitted
digitally altered photographs of activities to make it appear that it had a track
record in representing the marginalized and underrepresented. Essentially, ABANG
LINGKOD's registration was cancelled on the ground that it failed to adduce
evidence showing its track record in representing the marginalized and
underrepresented.
The flaw in the COMELEC's disposition lies in the fact that it insists on requiring
party-list groups to present evidence showing that they have a track record in
representing the marginalized and underrepresented.
Track record is a record of past performance often taken as an indicator of likely

future performance.[13] As a requirement imposed by Ang Bagong Bayani for groups
intending to participate in the party-list elections, track record pertains to the
actual activities undertaken by groups to uplift the cause of the sector/s,
which they represent.
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 however provides:
Sec. 5. Registration. Any organized group of persons may register as a party,

organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the
COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by
its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as
a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or
organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or
program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other
relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, That the sectors
shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers,
and professionals. (Emphasis ours)
R.A. No. 7941 did not require groups intending to register under the party-list
system to submit proof of their track record as a group. The track record
requirement was only imposed in Ang Bagong Bayani where the Court held that
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations seeking registration under
the party-list system must prove through their, inter alia, track record that they
truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented, thus:
x x x In this light, the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the following
guidelines, culled from the law and the Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its
work.
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In
other words, it must show -- through its constitution, articles of
incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track record --
that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented
sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has
chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such sectors. (Emphasis ours)
Track record is not the same as the submission or presentation of

"constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers, coalition
agreement, and other relevant information as may be required by the
COMELEC," which are but mere pieces of documentary evidence intended to
establish that the group exists and is a going concern. The said documentary
evidence presents an abstract of the ideals that national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations seek to achieve.
This is not merely a matter of semantics; the delineation of what constitutes a track
record has certain consequences in a group's bid for registration under the party-
list system. Under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941, groups intending to register under
the party-list system are not required to submit evidence of their track record; they
are merely required to attach to their verified petitions their "constitution, by-laws,
platform of government, list of officers, coalition agreement, and other relevant
information as may be required by the COMELEC."
In Atong Paglaum, the Court has modified to a great extent the jurisprudential
doctrines on who may register under the party-list system and the representation
of the marginalized and underrepresented. For purposes of registration under the
party-list system, national or regional parties or organizations need not
represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector; that
representation of the marginalized and underrepresented is only required
of sectoral organizations that represent the sectors stated under Section 5 of
R.A. No. 7941 that are, by their nature, economically marginalized and
underrepresented.
There was no mention that sectoral organizations intending to participate in the

party-list elections are still required to present a track record, viz:
x x x In determining who may participate in the coming 13 May
2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the
following parameters:
xxxx
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 interests 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. (Emphasis ours)
Contrary to the COMELEC's claim, sectoral parties or organizations, such as ABANG

LINGKOD, are no longer required to adduce evidence showing their track
record, i.e. proof of activities that they have undertaken to further the cause of the
sector they represent. Indeed, it is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to
the special interest and concerns of their sector. Otherwise stated, it is sufficient
that the ideals represented by the sectoral organizations are geared
towards the cause of the sector/s, which they represent.
If at all, evidence showing a track record in representing the marginalized and

underrepresented sectors is only required from nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented who do not
factually belong to the sector represented by their party or organization.
Dissenting, my esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Leonen, however, maintains that

parties or organizations intending to register under the party list system are still
required to present a track record notwithstanding the Court's pronouncement
in Atong Paglaum; that the track record that would have to be presented would
only differ as to the nature of their group/organization. He opines that sectoral
organizations must prove their links with the marginalized and underrepresented
while national or regional parties or organizations must show that they have been
existing as a bona fide organization.
To submit to the dissent's insistence on varying track records, which are required of
those intending to register under the party-list system, depending on the nature of
their group, would result into an absurd and unjust situation. Under the
"varying track record requirement," sectoral organizations must present evidence
showing their track record in representing the marginalized and
underrepresented, i.e. actual activities conducted by them to further uplift the
cause of the sector/s they represent. On the other hand, national and regional
parties or organizations need only prove that they exist as bona fide organizations
which, as the dissent suggests, may be done through the submission of their
constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers, coalition agreement,
and other relevant information required by the COMELEC.
However, submission of a group's constitution, by-laws, platform of government,

list of officers, coalition agreement, and other relevant information required by the
COMELEC, as explained earlier, is not synonymous with the track record
requirement. In such case, only sectoral organizations would be required to present
a track record (actual activities conducted by them to further the cause of the
marginalized and underrepresented); while national and regional organizations
need not present their track record as they are only required to submit
documentary evidence showing that they are bonafide organizations.
There is no logic in treating sectoral organizations differently from national and

regional parties or organizations as regards their bid for registration under the
party-list system. The "varying track record requirement" suggested by the dissent
would unnecessarily put a premium on groups intending to register as
national and regional parties or organizations as against those intending to
register as sectoral organizations. The imposition of an additional burden on
sectoral organizations, i.e. submission of their track record, would be plainly unjust
as it effectively deters the marginalized and underrepresented sectors from
organizing themselves under the party-list system.
Likewise, that there was no explicit reversal of the guidelines in Ang Bagong
Bayani in Atong Paglaum does not mean that groups intending to register under the
party-list system are still required to submit a track record. The track record of
groups intending to register under the party-list system was required under the first
guideline of Ang Bagong Bayani for a very specific purpose to show that the
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations that would be allowed to
participate in the party-list elections are truly representative of the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors. It was necessary- then to require
groups seeking registration under the party-list system since representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented, as understood in the context of Ang Bagong
Bayani, is easy to claim and feign.
There exists no reason to further require groups seeking registration under the
party-list system to submit evidence showing their track record. Pursuant to Atong
Paglaum, not all groups are required to represent the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors and, accordingly, there is no longer any incentive in
merely feigning representation of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
In the case of sectoral organizations, although they are still required to represent
the marginalized and underrepresented, they are likewise not required to show a
track record since there would be no reason for them to feign representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented as they can just register as a national or
regional party or organization. Thus, the Court, in Atong Paglaum, stated that, for
purposes of registration under the party list system, it is enough that the principal
advocacy of sectoral organizations pertains to the sector/s they represent.
There is thus no basis in law and established jurisprudence to insist that groups
seeking registration under the party-list system still comply with the track record
requirement. Indeed, nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is it mandated that groups seeking
registration thereunder must submit evidence to show their track record as a group.
The dissent likewise suggests that the deceit committed by ABANG LINGKOD goes
into its qualification as a party-list group since it seriously puts in question the
existence of ABANG LINGKOD as a group per se and the genuineness of its
representation of the farmers and fisherfolk.
It must be stressed that the COMELEC cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's

registration solely on the ground of the lack of its track record that it falsely
represented, by submitting digitally altered photographs of its supposed activities,
that it had a track record in representing the marginalized and
underrepresented. The existence of ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list
group per se and the genuineness of its representation of the farmers and
fisherfolks were never raised in the proceedings before the COMELEC. It
would thus be the height of injustice if the Court, in this certiorari action, would
scrutinize the legitimacy 0f ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list group and the
genuineness of its representation of the farmers and fisherfolk, and affirm the
cancellation of its registration, when the issue is limited only to the track record of
ABANG LINGKOD.
Moreover, ABANG LINGKOD had been previously registered as a party-list group, as

in fact it participated in the May 2010 party-list elections, and it was able to obtain
a sufficient number of votes in the May 2013 party list elections to obtain a seat in
the House of Representatives. These are circumstances, which clearly indicate that
ABANG LINGKOD is indeed a legitimate party-list group.
ABANG LINGKOD, notwithstanding the cancellation of its registration three days

prior to the May 13, 2013 elections, was able to obtain a total of 260,215 votes
out of the 26,722,131 votes that were cast for the party-list,[14] thus entitling
it to a seat in the House of Representatives. This is indicative of the fact that a
considerable portion of the electorate considers ABANG LINGKOD as truly
representative of peasant farmers and fisherfolk.
Anent the photographs submitted by ABANG LINGKOD, these only show book-
giving and medical missions, which are activities it conducted. Suffice it to state,
however, that said activities do not specifically or directly pertain to the interest or
advocacy espoused by ABANG LINGKOD. As such, the misrepresentation committed
by ABANG LINGKOD with regard to said activities would not necessarily militate
against its representation of the farmers and fisherfolk.
Lest it be misunderstood, the Court does not condone the deceit perpetrated by
ABANG LINGKOD in connection with its bid for continued registration under the
party-list system. That ABANG LINGKOD, to establish its track record, submitted
photographs that were edited to make it appear that it conducted activities aimed
at ameliorating the plight of the sectors it represents is a factual finding by the
COMELEC, which the Court, considering that it is supported by substantial evidence,
will not disturb. The Court does not tolerate ABANG LINGKOD's resort to chicanery
and its shabby treatment of the requirements for registration under the party-list
system.
Nevertheless, considering that track record is no longer a requirement, a group's

misrepresentation as to its track record cannot be used as a ground to deny or
cancel its registration - it is no longer material to its qualification under the party-
list system. In this case, ABANG LINGKOD's submission of digitally altered
photographs cannot be considered material to its qualification as a party-list group.
Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941, in part, reads:
Sec. 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. The COMELEC may, motu

propio 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:
xxxx
Declaration of an untruthful statement in a petition for registration, or in any other

document pertinent to the registration and/or accreditation under the party-list
system, as a ground for the refusal or cancellation of registration under Section
6(6) of R.A. No. 7941, is akin to material misrepresentation in the certificate of
candidacy filed by an individual candidate under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code. Both provisions disallow prospective candidates from participating in an
election for declaring false statements in their eligibility requirements. Section 78 of
the Omnibus Election Code reads:
Sec. 78. A verified petition seeking to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material
misrepresentation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false.
The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time
of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and
hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
Elucidating on what constitutes material misrepresentation in a certificate of

candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, the Court, in Lluz v.
Commission on Elections,[15] explained that:
From these two cases several conclusions follow. First, a misrepresentation in a
certificate of candidacy is material when it refers to a qualification for elective
office and affects the candidate's eligibility. x x x Third, a misrepresentation
of a non-material fact, or a non-material misrepresentation, is not a
ground to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under
Section 78. In other words, for a candidate's certificate of candidacy to be
denied due course or canceled by the COMELEC, the fact misrepresented
must pertain to a qualification for the office sought by the candidate.
[16]
(Emphasis ours)
In Velasco v. Commission on Elections,[17] the Court further clarified that a false

representation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, in order to be a
ground to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy, must consist of a
deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible. Thus:
The false representation that [Sections 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code]
mention must necessarily pertain to a material fact, not to a mere innocuous
mistake. This is emphasized by the consequences of any material falsity: a
candidate who falsifies a material fact cannot run; if he runs and is elected, cannot
serve; in both cases, he or she can be prosecuted for violation of the election laws.
Obviously, these facts are those that refer to a candidate's qualification for elective
office, such as his or her citizenship and residence. The candidate's status as a
registered voter similarly falls under this classification as it is a requirement that, by
law (the Local Government Code), must be reflected in the COC. The reason for this
is obvious: the candidate, if he or she wins, will work for and represent the local
government under which he is running.
Separately from the requirement of materiality, a false representation

under Section 78 must consist of a ''deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate
ineligible." In other words, it must be made with the intention to deceive
the electorate as to the would-be candidate's qualifications for public
office.[18] (Citation omitted and emphasis ours)
Similarly, a declaration of an untruthful statement in a petition for registration

under Section 6(6) ofR.A. No. 7941, in order to be a ground for the refusal and/or
cancellation of registration under the party-list system, must pertain to the
qualification of the party, organization or coalition under the party-list system. In
order to justify the cancellation or refusal of registration of a group, there must be
a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact, which would otherwise
render the group disqualified from participating in the party-list elections.
The digitally altered photographs of activities submitted by ABANG LINGKOD to

prove its continuing qualification under R.A. No. 7941 only pertain to its track
record, which, as already discussed, is no longer a requirement under the new
parameters laid down in Atong Paglaum. Simply put, they do not affect the
qualification of ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list group and, hence, could not
be used as a ground to cancel its registration under the party-list system.
Further, the Court notes that the COMELEC, in its Resolution dated November 7,
2012, asserted that ABANG LINGKOD failed to adduce evidence that would show
the track record of its five nominees, composed of a non-government organization
worker, an employee and three farmers, in uplifting the cause of the sector that the
group represents. The COMELEC opined that the failure of ABANG LINGKOD to
present a track record of its nominees justified the cancellation of its registration as
a party-list group.
The Court does not agree. Assuming arguendo that the nominees of ABANG

LINGKOD, as opined by the COMELEC, indeed do not have track records showing
their participation in activities aimed at improving the conditions of the sector that
the group represents, the same would not affect the registration of ABANG
LINGKOD as a party-list group.
To stress, in Atong Paglaum, the Court pointed out that "[t]he 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. Stated otherwise, the nominee of a party-list groups
may either be: first, one who actually belongs to the sector which the party-list
group represents, in which case the track record requirement does not apply;
or second, one who does not actually belong to the sector which the party-list
group represents but has a track record showing the nominee's active participation
in activities aimed at uplifting the cause of the sector which the group represents."
In the case under consideration, three of the five nominees of ABANG LINGKOD are
farmers and, thus, are not required to present a track record showing their active
participation in activities aimed to promote the sector which ABANG LINGKOD
represents, i.e. peasant farmers and fisherfolk. That two of ABANG LINGKOD's
nominees do not actually belong to the sector it represents is immaterial and would
not result in the cance1lation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration as a party-list
group. This is clear from the sixth parameter laid down by the Court in Atong
Paglaum, which states that "[n]ational, regional and sectoral organizations shall
not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that
they have at least one nominee who remains qualified." At the very least, ABANG
LINGKOD has three (3) qualified nominees, being farmers by occupation.
Indeed, the disqualification of one or some of the nominees of a party list group
should not automatically result in the disqualification of the group. Otherwise it
would accord the nominees the same significance, which the law holds for the
party-list groups; it is still the fact that the party-list group satisfied the
qualifications of the law that is material to consider. The disqualification of the
nominees must simply be regarded as failure to qualify for an office or position. It
should not, in any way, blemish the qualifications of the party-list group itself with
defect. The party-list group must be treated as separate and distinct from its
nominees such that qualifications of the latter must not be considered part and
parcel of the qualifications of the former.
In sum, that ABANG LINGKOD's registration must be cancelled due to its

misrepresentation is a conclusion derived from a simplistic reading of the provisions
of R.A. No. 7941 and the import of the Court's disposition in Atong Paglaum. Not
every misrepresentation committed by national, regional, and sectoral groups or
organizations would merit the denial or cancellation of their registration under the
party-list system. The misrepresentation must relate to their qualification as a
party-list group. In this regard, the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it
insisted on requiring ABANG LINGKOD to prove its track record notwithstanding
that a group's track record is no longer required pursuant to the Court's
pronouncement in Atong Paglaum.
Likewise, upholding the cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration,

notwithstanding that it was able to obtain sufficient number of votes for a
legislative seat, would serve no purpose other than to subvet1 the will of the
electorate who voted to give ABANG LINGKOD the privilege to represent them in
the House of Representatives.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petition is

hereby GRANTED. The Resolution dated May 10, 2013 issued by the Commission
on Elections in SPP Case No. 12-238 (PLM), insofar as it affirmed the cancellation of
ABANG LINGKOD's registration and disallowed it to participate in the May 13, 2013
elections is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Commission on Elections is hereby ORDERED to PROCLAIM ABANG LINGKOD

as one of the winning party-list groups during the May 13, 2013 elections with the
number of seats it may be entitled to based on the total number of votes it
garnered during the said elections.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
Mendoza, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo, J., on official leave.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, and Brion, JJ., joins the dissent of J. Leonen.
Leonen, J., see dissenting opinion.
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015 ]
ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO, RAFAEL A. PUENTESPINA, PROCULO
T. SARMEN, AMELITO L. REVUELTA, WILLIAM C. YBANEZ,
SILVERIO J. SANCHEZ, GLORIA G. FUTALAN, HILARIO DE
GUZMAN, EUGENE M. PABUALAN, RODOLFO E. PEREZ,
HIPOLITO R. QUILLAN, MARIO ARENAS, TIRSO C.
BUENAVENTURA, LYDIA B. TUBELLA, REYNALDO C. GOLO&
JONATHAN DEQUINA IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES,
AND AS LEGITIMATE MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF
ADHIKAING TINATAGUYOD NG KOOPERATIBA (ATING KOOP
PARTY LIST), PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS EN BANC AND THE SELF-STYLED SHAM ATING
KOOP PARTYLIST REPRESENTED BY AMPARO T. RIMAS,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
SERENO, C.J.:
The pivotal and interrelated issues before Us in this case involve the seemingly
elementary matter of the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) jurisdiction over the
expulsion of a sitting party-list representative: from the House of Representatives,
on the one hand; and from his party-list organization, on the other.
The instant case involves two rival factions of the same party-list organization, the
Adhikaing Tinataguyod ng Kooperatiba (Ating Koop). One group is headed by
petitioner Atty. Isidro Q. Lico (the Lico Group), who represents the organization in
the House of Representatives, and the other group by Amparo T. Rimas
(respondents herein, or the Rimas Group).
THE CASE
Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64[1] in relation to Rule 65,
[2]
seeking to annul the Resolutions in E.M. No. 12-039 dated 18 July 2012 and 31
January 2013 of the COMELEC.
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS

Ating Koop is a multi-sectoral party-list organization which was registered on 16
November 2009 under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, also known as the Party-List
System Act (Party-List Law).
Under Ating Koop's Constitution and By-Laws, its highest policymaking body is the
National Convention. The Central Committee, however, takes over when the
National Convention is not in session.[3]
On 30 November 2009, Ating Koop filed its Manifestation of Intent to Participate in

the Party-List System of Representation for the 10 May 2010 Elections.[4] On 6
March 2010, it filed with the COMELEC the list of its nominees, with petitioner Lico
as first nominee and Roberto Mascarina as second nominee.
On 8 December 2010, COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as one of the winning

party-list groups.[5] Based on the procedure provided in BANAT Party-List v.
COMELEC,[6] Ating Koop earned a seat in the House of Representatives. Petitioner
Lico subsequently took his oath of office on 9 December 2010 before the Secretary-
General of the House of Representatives,[7] and thereafter assumed office.
Several months prior to its proclamation as one of the winning party-list

organizations, or on 9 June 2010, Ating Koop issued Central Committee Resolution
2010-01, which incorporated a term-sharing agreement signed by its nominees.
[8]
Under the agreement, petitioner Lico was to serve as Party-list Representative
for the first year of the three-year term.[9]
On 14 May 2011, Ating Koop held its Second National Convention, during which it
introduced amendments to its Constitution and By-laws. Among the salient changes
was the composition of the Central Committee,[10] which would still be composed of
15 representatives but withfive each coming from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao (5-
5-5 equal representation).[11] The amendments likewise mandated the holding of an
election of Central Committee members within six months after the Second National
Convention.[12]
In effect, the amendments cut short the three-year term of the incumbent
members (referred to hereafter as the Interim Central Committee) of the Central
Committee.[13] The Interim Central Committee was dominated by members of the
Rimas Group.
On 5 December 2011, or almost one year after petitioner Lico had assumed office,
the Interim Central Committee expelled him from Ating Koop for disloyalty.[14] Apart
from allegations of malversation and graft and corruption, the Committee cited
petitioner Lico's refusal to honor the term-sharing agreement as factual basis for
disloyalty and as cause for his expulsion under Ating Koop's Amended Constitution
and By-laws.[15]
On 8 December 2011, Congressman Lico filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
Interim Central Committee,[16] which subsequently denied the same in a Resolution
dated 29 December 2011.[17]
While petitioner Lico's Motion for Reconsideration was pending, the Lico Group held
a special meeting in Cebu City (the Cebu meeting) on 19 December 2011. At the
said meeting, new members of the Central Committee, as well as a new set of
officers, were elected.[18] The election was purportedly held for the purpose of
implementing the 5-5-5 equal representation amendment made during the Second
National Convention.[19]
On 21 January 2012, the Rimas Group held a Special National Convention in

Parañaque City[20] (the Parañaque convention), at which a new Central Committee
and a new set of officers were constituted.[21] Members of the Rimas Group won the
election and occupied all the corresponding seats.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMELEC

SECOND DIVISION
On 16 March 2012, the Rimas Group, claiming to represent Ating Koop, filed with
COMELEC a Petition against petitioner Lico docketed as E.M. No. 12-039.[22] The
said Petition, which was subsequently raffled to the Second Division, prayed that
petitioner Lico be ordered to vacate the office of Ating Koop in the House of
Representatives, and for the succession of the second nominee, Roberto Mascarina
as Ating Koop's representative in the House.
The Rimas Group thereafter filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC on 14 May
2012, this time impleading not only petitioner Lico but the entire Lico Group. The
Amended Petition also prayed that the COMELEC nullify the election conducted at
the Cebu meeting and recognize the Paranaque convention.
In both the Petition and the Amended Petition, the Rimas Group alleged that Ating
Koop had expelled Congressman Lico for acts inimical to the party-list group, such
as malversation, graft and corruption, and that he had "boldly displayed his
recalcitrance to honor party commitment to be upright and consistently honest,
thus violating basic principles of the Ating Koop."[23] The Amended Petition stated
further that the Cebu meeting held by the Lico Group violated notice and quorum
requirements.[24]
In a Resolution dated 18 July 2012,[25] the COMELEC Second Division upheld the
expulsion of petitioner Lico from Ating Koop and declared Mascarina as the duly
qualified nominee of the party-list group.[26] The Second Division characterized the
issue of the validity of the expulsion of petitioner Lico from Ating Koop as an intra-
party leadership dispute, which it could resolve as an incident of its power to
register political parties.[27]
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMELEC

EN BANC
Consequently, the Lico Group filed a Motion for Reconsideration from the Second
Division's Resolution, which the COMELEC En Banc denied on 31 January 2013. The
dispositive portion of its Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (En Banc) RESOLVES, as it

hereby RESOLVED, to:
a. DISMISS the instant Petition to Expel Respondent Atty. Isidro Q. Lico in the
House of Representatives and to Sanction the Immediate Succession of the Second
Nominee of ATING KOOP Party List, Mr. Roberto C. Mascarina as its Party
Representative, for lack of jurisdiction;
b. UPHOLD the Expulsion of Respondent Atty. Isidro Lico from ATING KOOP Party-
list Group; [and]
c. UPHOLD the ATING KOOP Party-list Group represented by its President, Amparo

T. Rimas, as the legitimate Party-list Group accredited by the Commission on
Elections, to the exclusion of respondents Atty. Isidro Q. Lico, Rafael A.
Puentespina, Proculo T. Sarmen, Amelito L. Revuelta, William C. Ybanez, Silverio J.
Sanchez, Gloria G. Futalan, Hilario De Guzman, Eugene M. Pabualan, Rodolfo E.
Perez, Hipolito R. Quillan, Mario Arenas, Tirso C. Buenaventura, Lydia B. Tubella,
and Jonathan Dequina.[28]
In arriving at its Resolution, the COMELEC En Banc held that it had no jurisdiction

to expel Congressman Lico from the House of Representatives, considering that his
expulsion from Ating Koop affected his qualifications as member of the House, and
therefore it was the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) that had
jurisdiction over the Petition.
At the same time, the COMELEC upheld the validity of petitioner Lico's expulsion
from Ating Koop, explaining that when the Interim Central Committee ousted
him from Ating Koop, the said Committee's members remained in hold-over
capacity even after their terms had expired;[29] and that the COMELEC was not in a
position to substitute its judgment for that of Ating Koop with respect to the cause
of the expulsion.[30]
Finally, the COMELEC En Banc recognized the Rimas Group as the legitimate

representative of Ating Koop considering that: 1) it found nothing in the records to
show that the Lico Group made a valid call for the special election of Central
Committee members as required under the Amended Constitution and By-Laws;
[31]
2) there is nothing on record indicating that a minimum of 100 attended the
Cebu meeting;[32]and 3) the Parañaque convention was in accordance with Ating
Koop's Amended Constitution and By-Laws.[33]
Hence, this Petition: the Lico Group now comes before Us, praying for a review of
the COMELEC Resolutions.
The Court's Ruling
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction over

the expulsion of a Member of the House
of Representatives from his party-list
organization
We find that while the COMELEC correctly dismissed the Petition to expel petitioner
Lico from the House of Representatives for being beyond its jurisdiction, it
nevertheless proceeded to rule upon the validity of his expulsion from Ating Koop -
a matter beyond its purview.
The COMELEC notably characterized the Petition for expulsion of petitioner Lico
from the House of Representatives and for the succession of the second nominee as
party-list representative as a disqualification case. For this reason, the COMELEC
dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, insofar as it relates to the question of
unseating petitioner Lico from the House of Representatives.
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution[34] endows the HRET with jurisdiction
to resolve questions on the qualifications of members of Congress. In the case of
party-list representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case
upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee, and
assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives.[35] In this case,
the COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as a winning party-list group; petitioner Lico
took his oath; and he assumed office in the House of Representatives. Thus, it is
the HRET, and not the COMELEC, that has jurisdiction over the disqualification case.
What We find to be without legal basis, however, is the action of the COMELEC in
upholding the validity of the expulsion of petitioner Lico from Ating Koop, despite its
own ruling that the HRET has jurisdiction over the disqualification issue. These
findings already touch upon the qualification requiring a party-list nominee to be
a bona fide member of the party-list group sought to be represented.
The COMELEC justified its Resolution on the merits of the expulsion, by relying on
the rule that it can decide intra-party matters as an incident of its constitutionally
granted powers and functions. It cited Lokin v. COMELEC, where We held that when
the resolution of an intra-party controversy is necessary or incidental to the
performance of the constitutionally-granted functions of the COMELEC, the latter
can step in and exercise jurisdiction over the intra-party matter.[36] The Lokin case,
however, involved nominees and not incumbent members of Congress. In the
present case, the fact that petitioner Lico was a member of Congress at the time of
his expulsion from Ating Koop removes the matter from the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC.
The rules on intra-party matters and on the jurisdiction of the HRET are not parallel
concepts that do not intersect. Rather, the operation of the rule on intra-party
matters is circumscribed by Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and
jurisprudence on the jurisdiction of electoral tribunals. The jurisdiction of the HRET
is exclusive. It is given full authority to hear and decide the cases on any matter
touching on the validity of the title of the proclaimed winner.[37]
In the present case, the Petition for petitioner Lico's expulsion from the House of
Representatives is anchored on his expulsion from Ating Koop, which necessarily
affects his title as member of Congress. A party-list nominee must have been,
among others, a bona fide member of the party or organization for at least ninety
(90) days preceding the day of the election.[38] Needless to say, bona
fide membership in the party-list group is a continuing qualification. We have
ruled that qualifications for public office, whether elective or not, are continuing
requirements. They must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or
election, or of assumption of office, but during the officer'sentire tenure.[39]
This is not the first time that this Court has passed upon the issue of HRET
jurisdiction over the requirements for bona fide membership in a party-list
organization. In Abayon v. HRET,[40] it was argued that the petitioners did not
belong to the marginalized and under-represented sectors that they should
represent; as such, they could not be properly considered bona fide members of
their respective party-list organizations. The Court held that it was for the HRET to
interpret the meaning of the requirement of bona fide membership in a party-list
organization. It reasoned that under Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, the
HRET is the sole judge of all contests when it comes to qualifications of the
members of the House of Representatives.[41]
Consequently, the COMELEC failed to recognize that the issue on the validity of
petitioner Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop is integral to the issue of his
qualifications to sit in Congress. This is not merely an error of law but an error of
jurisdiction correctible by a writ of certiorari;[42] the COMELEC should not have
encroached into the expulsion issue, as it was outside its authority to do so.
Distinguished from Reyes v. COMELEC
Our ruling here must be distinguished from Regina Ongsiako Reyes v. Commission

on Elections.[43] In that case, We upheld the disqualification by the COMELEC of
petitioner Reyes, even as she was already proclaimed winner in the elections at the
time she filed her petition with the High Court. In doing so, We rejected the
argument that the case fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET.
In Reyes, the petitioner was proclaimed winner of the 13 May 2013 Elections, and
took her oath of office before the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
However, the Court ruled on her qualifications since she was not yet a member of
the House of Representatives: petitioner Reyes had yet to assume office, the term
of which would officially start at noon of 30 June 2013, when she filed a Petition for
Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction and/or Status Quo Ante Order dated 7 June 2013 assailing the
Resolutions ordering the cancellation of her Certificate of Candidacy. In the present
case, all three requirements of proclamation, oath of office, and assumption of
office were satisfied.
Moreover, in Reyes, the COMELEC En Banc Resolution disqualifying petitioner on

grounds of lack of Filipino citizenship and residency had become final and executory
when petitioner elevated it to this Court.[44] It should be mentioned that when
petitioner Reyes filed her petition with the Court, the COMELEC En Banc had, as
early as 5 June 2013, already issued a Certificate of Finality over its 14 May 2013
Resolution disqualifying her. Therefore, there was no longer any pending case on
the qualifications of petitioner Reyes to speak of. Here, the question of whether
petitioner Lico remains a member of the House of Representatives in view of his
expulsion from Ating Koop is a subsisting issue.
Finally, in Reyes, We found the question of jurisdiction of the HRET to be a non-

issue, since the recourse of the petitioner to the Court appeared to be a mere
attempt to prevent the COMELEC from implementing a final and executory
judgment. We said that the petitioner therein took an inconsistent, if not confusing,
stance, considering that she sought remedy before the Court, and yet asserted that
it is the HRET which had jurisdiction over the case.[45] In this case, the question on
the validity of petitioner Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop is a genuine issue that
falls within the jurisdiction of the HRET, as it unmistakably affects his qualifications
as party-list representative.
On which group legitimately represents

Ating Koop
We now pass upon the question of which, between the two contending groups, is
the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop.
At the outset, We reject the Lico Group's argument that the COMELEC has no
jurisdiction to decide which of the feuding groups is to be recognized, and that it is
the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies.
Indeed, the COMELECs jurisdiction to settle the struggle for leadership within the
party is well established. This power to rule upon questions of party identity and
leadership is exercised by the COMELEC as an incident of its enforcement powers.
[46]
That being said, We find the COMELEC to have committed grave abuse of discretion
in declaring the Rimas Group as the legitimate set of Ating Koop officers for the
simple reason that the amendments to the Constitution and By-laws of Ating Koop
were not registered with the COMELEC. Hence, neither of the elections held
during the Cebu meeting and the Paranaque conference pursuant to the said
amendments, were valid.
Both the Lico Group and the Rimas Group indeed assert that their respective
elections were conducted pursuant to the amendment introduced in the Second
National Convention held on 14 May 2011. In particular, Section 1 of Article VI of
Ating Koop's By-laws called for the conduct of an election of Central Committee
members within six months after the Second National Convention.[47]
There is no showing, however, that the amendments were actually filed with the
COMELEC.
A party-list organization owes its existence to the State and the latter's approval
must be obtained through its agent, the COMELEC. In the 2013 case of Dayao v.
COMELEC,[48] We declared that it is the State, acting through the COMELEC, that
breathes life to a party-list organization. The implication, therefore, is that the
State, through the COMELEC, is a party to the principal contracts entered into by
the party-list organization and its members - the Constitution and By-laws - such
that any amendment to these contracts would constitute a novation requiring the
consent of all the parties involved. An amendment to the bylaws of a party-list
organization should become effective only upon approval by the COMELEC.
Such a prerequisite is analogous to the requirement of filing of the amended by-

laws and subsequent conformity thereto of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) under corporation law. Under the Corporation Code, an
amendment to a by-law provision must be filed with the SEC. The amendment shall
be effective only upon the issuance by the SEC of a certification that it is not
inconsistent with the Corporation Code.[49]
There being no showing that the amendments on the by-laws of Ating Koop were
filed with and subsequently approved by the COMELEC, any election conducted
pursuant thereto may not be considered valid. Without such requisite proof, neither
the Lico Group nor the Rimas Group can claim to be the legitimate set of officers of
Ating Koop.
Even assuming arguendo that the amendment calling for a special election were

effective, this Court still cannot declare any of the feuding groups as the legitimate
set of officers considering that the respective sets of evidence presented were
evenly balanced. With respect to the Lico Group's Cebu meeting, the COMELEC
correctly found - and the records bear out - that the notices sent were deficient and
that there was no sufficient proof of quorum. Hence, the Cebu meeting was held to
be invalid. On the other hand, the COMELEC failed to appreciate the fact that the
Paranaque convention suffered from the same infirmity, the records of the said
convention, consisting merely of the Minutes thereof, likewise fail to establish due
notice and a quorum.[50]
Accordingly, as neither group can sufficiently lay claim to legitimacy, the equipoise
doctrine comes into play. This rule provides that when the evidence in an issue of
fact is in equipoise, that is, when the respective sets of evidence of both parties are
evenly balanced, the party having the burden of proof fails in that issue. Since
neither party succeeds in making out a case, neither side prevails. The courts are
left with no other option but to leave them as they are. The consequence,
therefore, is the dismissal of the complaint/petition.[51]
The Rimas Group, being the petitioner before the COMELEC, had the burden of
proving that it is the petitioner, and not the Lico Group, that is the legitimate
group. As the evidence of both parties are in equipoise, the Rimas Group failed to
discharge its burden. The COMELEC should have dismissed the petition of the Rimas
Group insofar as it sought to be declared the legitimate group representing Ating
Koop.
Yet, the COMELEC held that the Paranaque convention "appeared to be in

conformity" with Ating Koop's Amended Constitution and By-Laws.[52] It should be
stressed that the COMELEC did not even substantiate this conclusion.[53]
The Court ordinarily refrains from reviewing the COMELEC s appreciation and
evaluation of the evidence.[54] But when the COMELECs assessment of the evidence
is so grossly unreasonable that it turns into an error of jurisdiction, the Court is
compelled to intervene and correct the error.[55]
As seen in the above discussions, neither of the parties was able to establish its
legitimacy. The evaluation of the evidence by the COMELEC in deciding the issue of
which group legitimately represents Ating Koop was therefore grossly unreasonable,
which amounts to a jurisdictional error that may be remedied by certiorari under
Rule 65.
The final, and most important question to be addressed is: if neither of the two
groups is the legitimate leadership of Ating Koop, then who is?
We find such legitimate leadership to be the Interim Central Committee, whose

members remain as such in a hold-over capacity.
In Seneres v. COMELEC,[56] the validity of the Certificate of Nomination filed by

Buhay Party-List through its President, Roger Robles, was questioned on the ground
that his term had expired at the time it was filed. The Court applied by analogy the
default rule in corporation law to the effect that officers and directors of a
corporation hold over after the expiration of their terms until such time as their
successors are elected or appointed.[57] Señeres ruled that the hold-over principle
applies in the absence of a provision in the constitution or by-laws of the party-list
organization prohibiting its application.
In the present case, We have gone through the Constitution and Bylaws of Ating
Koop and We do not see any provision forbidding, either expressly or impliedly, the
application of the hold-over rule. Thus, in accordance with corporation law, the
existing Interim Central Committee is still a legitimate entity with full authority to
bind the corporation and to carry out powers despite the lapse of the term of its
members on 14 November 2011, since no successors had been validly elected at
the time, or since.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The COMELEC En

Banc Resolution dated 31 January 2013 and the COMELEC Second Division
Resolution dated 18 July 2012 in E.M. No. 12-039 are hereby ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE insofar as it declares valid the expulsion of Congressman Lico from Ating
Koop and it upholds the ATING KOOP Party-list Group represented by its President,
Amparo T. Rimas, as the legitimate Party-list Group.
A new one is entered DECLARING that the legitimate Central Committee and set of

officers legitimately representing Ating Koop are the Interim Central Committee and
set of officers prior to the split of Ating Koop.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, CJ, Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.,
Perez, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Mendoza, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., on official leave
Brion, and Reyes, JJ., on leave.
Jardeleza, J., no part.
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 225198, February 07, 2017 ]
GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
NATIONAL CHAIRPERSON, HON. EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS
VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Phase take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 7,
2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225198 (Gabriela Women's Party, represented by its National

Chairperson, Hon. Emerenciana A. De Jesus vs. Commission on Elections). -
This is a Petition for Certiorari[1] under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules
of Court, which seeks to annul and set aside the National Board of Canvassers
(NBOC) Resolution No. 008-16[2] dated May 19, 2016 issued by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC), sitting en banc as the NBOC for Senators and Party- List
Representatives.
On May 9, 2016, the national and local elections, including the party-list elections,
were held. Gabriela Women's Party (GABRIELA) was one of the candidates for the
position of party-list representative. On May 19, 2016, the COMELEC en banc,
sitting as the NBOC for Senators and Party-List Representatives, issued NBOC
Resolution No. 008-16,[3] which declared the winning party-list groups in the party-
list elections. The pertinent portion of NBOC Resolution No. 008-16 reads:
NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it under the 1987

Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Big. 881), Republic Act
Nos. 9369, 8436, 7166, 6646 and other election laws, and applying the rule in
Banat vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 179271, dated April 21, 2009), the [COMELEC]
sitting en banc as the [NBOC] for Party-List DECLARES the following party-list
groups as winners in the party-list elections of May 9, 2016, entitled to the total
seat/s, as provided next to their respective names, to serve for a term of three (3)
years, beginning noon of June 30, 2016, in accordance with Section 7, Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution:
POLITICAL ACRONYM GRAND PERCENTAG GUARA ADDITIONA TOTAL

PARTY / TOTAL E N L SEATS SEATS
COALITIONS / (%)OF TEED
SECTORAL TOTAL SEATS
ORGANIZATION VOTES
S GARNERED
Ako Bicol Political AKO BICOL 1,664,97 5.1423 1 2 3
Party 5
Gabriela Women's GABRIELA 1,367,79 4.2245 1 1 2
Party 5
One Patriotic 1PACMAN 1.310,19 4.0466 1 1 2
Coalition of 7
Marginalized
Nationals
Act Teachers ACT 1,180,75 3.6468 1 1 2
Party-List TEACHERS 2
Coalition of SENIOR 988,876 3.0542 1 1 2
Associations of CITIZENS
Senior Citizens in
the Philippines
Kabalikal ng KABAYAN 840,393 2.5956 1 1 2
Mamamayan
Agri-Agra na AGRI 833,821 2.5753 1 1 2
Reporma para sa
Magsasaka ng
Pilipinas
Movement
Puwersa ng PBA 780,309 2.4100 1 1 2
Bayaning Atleta
Buhay Hayaan BUHAY 760,912 2.3501 1 1 2
Yumabong
Abono Party-List ABONO 732,060 2.2610 1 1 2
Anak Mindanao AMIN 706,689 2.1826 1 1 2
Party- List
Cooperative COOP- 671,699 2.0746 1 1 2
Natcco Network NATCCO
Party
Akbayan Citizens' AKBAYAN 608,449 1.8792 1
Action Party
Bayan Muna BAYAN 606,566 1.8734 1
MUNA
Agricultural Sector AGAP 593,748 1.8338 1
Alliance of the
Philippines
An Waray AN WARAY 590,895 1.8250 1
Citizens Battle CIBAC 555,760 1.7165 1
Against Corruption
Ang Asosasyon AAMBIS- 495,483 1.5303 1
Sang Mangunguma OWA
Nga Bisaya Owa
Mangunguma, Inc.
Advocacy for KALINGA 494,725 1.5280 1
Social
Empowerment and
Nation Building
Through Easing
Poverty, Inc.
Advocacy for A TEACHER, 475,488 1.4686 1
Teacher INC.
Empowerment
Through Action
Cooperation and
Harmony Towards
Educational
Reforms, Inc.
You Against YACAP 471,173 1.4552 1
Corruption and
Poverty
Democratic DIWA 467,794 1.4448 1
Independent
Workers
Association, Inc.
Trade Union TUCP 467,275 1.4432 1
Congress Party
Abang Lingkod, ABANG 466,701 1.4414 1
Inc. LINGKOD
LPG Marketers LPGMA 466,103 1.4396 1
Association, Inc.
Alliance of ALONA 434,856 1.3431 1
Organizations,
Networks and
Associations of the
Philippines, Inc.
Social 1-SAGIP 397.064 1.2263 1
Amelioration &
Genuine
Intervention on
Poverty
Butil Farmers BUTIL 395,011 1.2200 1
Party
Aets-Overseas ACTS-OFW 374,601 1.1570 1
Filipino Workers
Coalition of
Organizations
Anakpawis ANAKPAWIS 367,376 1.1347 1
Ang Kabuhayan ANG 348,533 1.0765 1
KABUHAYA
N
Angkla: Ang ANGKLA 337,245 1.0416 1
Partido ng mga
Pilipinong Marino,
Inc.
Ang Mata'y MATA 331,285 1.0232 1
Alagaan
I s1 Consumers 1-CARE 329,627 1.0181 1
Alliance for Rural
Energy, Inc.
Ang National ANAC-IP 318,257 0.9829 1
Coalition of
Indigenous Peoples
Action NaL Inc.
Arts Business and ABS 301,457 0.9311 1
Science
Professionals
Kabataan Party- KABATAAN 300,420 0.9279 1
List
Bagong BH (Bagong 299,381 0.9246 1
Hencrasyon Hencrasyon)
Ating Agapay AASENSO 294,281 0.9089 1
Sentrong Samahan
ng niga Obrero,
Inc.
Serbisyo sa Bay an SBP 280,465 0.8662 1
Party
Magdalo Para sa MAGDALO 279,356 0.8628 1
Pilipino
Una ang 1-ANG 278,393 0.8598 1
Edukasyon EDUKASYO
N
Manila Teachers' MANILA 268,613 0.8296 1
Savings and Loan TEACHERS
Association. Inc.
Kusug Tausug KUSUG 247,487 0.7644 1
TAUSUG
Aangat Tayo AANGAT 243,266 0.7513 1
TAYO
Agbiag! Timpuyog AGBIAG! 240,273 0.7435 1
llocano. Inc.
TOTAL 59
SO ORDERED. [4]
During the proclamation of the winning party-list groups, GABRIELA raised a point
of clarification as regards the allocation of seats among the winning party-list
groups. It claimed that it is entitled to two more seats in addition to their one
guaranteed seat. The COMELEC brushed aside GABRIELA's manifestation and only
declared a total of two seats for GABRIELA.[5]
On May 20, 2016, GABRIELA filed its Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration,
Correction of Manifest Error and Proclamation of additional seat for GABRIELA with
the COMELEC en banc.[6] It pointed out that considering that there are 238 seats
available to legislative districts, using the formula for determining the seats
available to party-list representatives laid down by the Court in Barangay
Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC,
[7]
59.5 seats are reserved for party-list representatives in the House of
Representatives.[8]
GABRIELA further explained that in computing the number of additional seats to

which each of the party-list groups who have obtained at least two percent of the
total votes cast in the party-list elections, the percentage of the total votes they
garnered should be multiplied by the remaining available seats, which is the
difference between the total seats reserved and the guaranteed seats of the two
percenters. Thereafter, GABRIELA averred that the whole integer of the product of
the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a party's share
in the remaining available seats.[9]
GABRIELA's argument can be summed up as follows:

238 (No. of seats available for

x 0.20 = 59.5
legislative districts)
0.80
4.2245% (GABRIELA's 47.5 (59.5 less the 12

=
percentage of total votes x guaranteed seats of
2.0066375
garnered) the two percenters)
Accordingly, GABRIELA claimed that it is entitled to two additional seats or a total of

three party-list seats. It pointed out that the COMELEC, in computing the additional
seat/s to which it is entitled, rounded down the number of reserved seats to party-
list representatives from 59.5 to 59, thereby arriving at 1.985515 instead of
2.0066375. GABRIELA posited that COMELEC's mathematical inaccuracy deprived it
of an additional seat.[10]
The NBOC Legal Group referred the said Omnibus Motion to the NBOC Supervisory
Committee for appropriate action.[11]
On May 24, 2016, GABRIELA filed a Submission, which, inter alia, requested that
its Omnibus Motion be set for hearing.[12] GABRIELA's request was likewise referred
to the NBOC Supervisory Committee for appropriate action.[13]
On June 1, 2016, the NBOC Supervisory Committee recommended that GABRIELA's

Omnibus Motion be denied for lack of merit.[14] It pointed out that GABRIELA's claim
that the reserved seats for party-list representatives, for purposes of computing the
additional seats, should be pegged at 59.5 and not 59 is misplaced since fractional
seats should be disregarded.[15] It claimed that the COMELEC correctly applied the
formula laid down by the Court in BANAT.[16]
On June 7, 2016, GABRIELA filed with the COMELEC en banc an Urgent Motion to
Resolve its Omnibus Motion.[17] On July 11, 2016, while its Omnibus Motion was still
pending before the COMELEC en banc, GABRIELA filed with this Court this petition
for certiorari, claiming that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in declaring
that it is only entitled to one additional seat.
On July 19, 2016, the COMELEC en banc issued Minute Resolution No. 16-0481,
which adopted the NBOC Supervisory Committee's recommendation.[18] GABRIELA
received a copy of COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 16-0481 on August 15, 2016.[19]
In support of this petition, GABRIELA maintains that it is entitled to two more seats
in addition to its guaranteed seat. It claims that the COMELEC is not entitled to use
its discretion in disregarding the 0.5 from the product of the computation for the
determination of the 20% of party-list seats[20]
Moreover, GABRIELA claims that the use of 60 allocated seats, instead of 59 as

used by the COMELEC as basis for issuing NBOC Resolution No. 008-16, is more
consistent with the policy declaration of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941.[21] It explains
that, mathematically, 59 is 19.8653% while 60 is 20.1342%, and that both are
20% if rounded off. GABRIELA argues that fixing the reserved seats for party-list
representatives at 60 favors broader participation.[22]
On the other hand, the COMELEC, in its Comment,[23] avers that the instant petition
should be dismissed for utter lack of merit. It asserts that GABRIELA committed
forum shopping when it filed this petition for certiorari despite the pendency of its
motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc."[24]
The COMELEC further alleges that it did not commit any abuse of discretion when it
ruled that GABRIEL A is only entitled to one seat in addition to its guaranteed seat.
[25]
It maintains that in computing the number of seats for party-list representatives
in the 2016 elections, it correctly used the whole integer 59 instead of 59.5 since
there are no fractional seats under R.A. No. 7941.[26] The COMELEC further alleges
that to declare that there should be 60 party-list seats would contravene the first
inviolable parameter of the Philippine party-list system, which provides that the
total number of all party-list representatives shall not exceed 20% of the total
membership of the House of Representatives.[27]
Ruling of the Court

The petition is dismissed on the ground of forum shopping.
"Forum shopping consists of the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties
for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose
of obtaining a favorable judgment."[28] "There is forum shopping when as a result of
an adverse decision in one (1) forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks
favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or
certiorari.''''[29]"It is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because
it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. It degrades the administration
of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets."[30]
To deter the pernicious practice of forum shopping, Section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules
of Court mandates that:
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there
is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that , fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion
and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non- compliance with
any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of
the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions
GABRIELA committed forum shopping when it filed this petition for certiorari with

the Court despite the pendency of its Omnibus Motion with the COMELEC. In filing
this petition without awaiting the resolution of its pending Omnibus Motion with the
COMELEC, GABRIELA asked for simultaneous remedies in two different fora.
[31]
Indeed, the Omnibus Motion then pending with the COMELEC en banc and this
petition for certiorari both seek the same relief, i.e. that NBOC Resolution No. 008-
16 be reconsidered and corrected in order to reflect the correct number of seats
that GABRIELA allegedly won.

"The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to
pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts, for to do so would constitute
abuse of court processes which tends to degrade the administration of justice,
wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the
heavily burdened dockets of the courts."[32] GABRIELA abused the court processes
when it filed this petition with the Court despite the pendency of its Omnibus
Motion with the COMELEC en banc.
Worse, contrary to the directive of Section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court,

GABRIELA did not even bother to state in its verification and certification of non-
forum shopping the fact that its Omnibus Motion was then still pending before the
COMELEC.[33]

GABRIELA's failure to comply with the rule against forum shopping alone
constitutes a sufficient ground to dismiss this petition.[34] To avoid any confusion,
the Court adheres strictly to the rules against forum shopping, and any violation of
these rules results in the dismissal of a case.[35]
However, the Court deems it proper to make the following observations which,
although rendered unnecessary by the dismissal of this petition on account of
GABRIELA's commission of forum shopping, should nevertheless be pointed out:
First, there are only 59 seats reserved for party-list representatives in the 2016
elections, not 60 as claimed by GABRIELA. Section 5(2) of Article VI of the 1987
Constitution provides that "[t]he party-list representatives shall constitute twenty
per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-
list." To compute the maximum number of seats available to party-list
representatives, the Court has laid down the following formula in Veterans
Federation Party v. COMELEC,[36] as affirmed by BANAT:
Number of seats available to Number of seats available to

x .20 =
legislative districts party-list representatives
There are 238 seats for district representatives in 2016 elections. Applying the
formula laid down by the Court in Veterans and BANAT, the product of 59.5 is
obtained, viz.:
238 x ..20 = 59.5

.80
In determining the maximum number of seats reserved for party-list

representatives, only the whole integer of 59 is considered. This is because what is
being determined is the number of seats that can actually be allocated to the
winning party-list groups and a fraction of a seat fails in this qualification since only
a complete or undivided count guarantees the grant of a seat. Logic would dictate
that a fraction of a seat cannot be properly allocated to the winning party-list
groups.
The maximum number of seats available to party-list representatives cannot be

pegged at 60 since it would violate the first inviolable parameter of the
Philippine-style party-list election laid down by the Court in Veterans and
BANAT, i.e. the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed
20% of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including
those elected under the party list. If the maximum number of party-list seats would
be fixed at 60, this would bring the total number of representatives to 298 and,
accordingly, the percentage of party-list representatives would be equal to
20.1342%.
Admittedly, fixing the maximum number of reserved seats for party-list

representatives to 59 would bring the total number of representatives to 297 and,
in such case, the percentage of party-list representatives would only be equal to
19.8653%, which is less than the 20% constitutional threshold. Nevertheless, the
Court has already determined that Section 5(2) of Article VI of the Constitution is
not mandatory; it merely provides a ceiling for party-list seats in Congress.[37] The
total number of party-list representatives cannot be more than 20% of the
members of the House of Representatives.[38]
Second, it behooves the COMELEC, having the particular expertise as the agency
charged with the enforcement and administration of all election laws, rules and
regulations, to make an exhaustive re-examination of its computation on the
allocation of seats among the winning party-list groups considering its far-reaching
effects.
The allocation of seats to the winning party-list groups involves two rounds.
The first round of seat allocation involves the grant of one guaranteed seat to each
of the parties, organizations, and coalitions who have received at least two percent
of the total votes cast for the party-list candidates after they have been ranked
from highest to lowest based on the number of votes they each obtained.[39] In the
2016 elections, only 12 party-list groups have obtained at least two percent of the
total votes cast for party-list candidates.[40] Thus, 47 available seats remain which
would then be distributed in the second round of seat allocation.
The second round of seat allocation, in turn, involves two steps: first, the
percentage of total votes garnered by the party-list group is multiplied by the
remaining available seats, i.e. the difference between the maximum seats reserved
for party-list representatives and the guaranteed seats of the two percenters. The
whole integer of the product thereof corresponds to a party's share in the remaining
available seats.[41] The first step of the second round of seat allocation can be
summed up in the following formula:
Percentage of x (maximum seats reserved = whole integer of the

total votes for party-list product is the party's
garnered representatives less share in the
guaranteed seats of the remainingavailable seats
two percenters)
This case presented two versions on how the remaining available seats would be
allocated in the first step of the second round of seat allocation. GABRIELA's
version used the multiplicand 59.5, representing the reserved seats for party-list
representatives in the 2016 elections. Using GABRIELA's version, the computation
of the additional seat/s to which GABRIELA is entitled would be as follows:
4.2245% x (59.5-12) = 2.0066375
If GABRIELA would be granted two additional seats, instead of only one as ruled by
the COMELEC, 13 party-list seats would be allocated to 11 party-list groups[42] in
the first step of the second round of seat allocation, leaving 34 seats to be
distributed to the qualified party-list groups in the second step of the second round
of seat allocation.
On the other hand, the COMELEC's version used 59 as the reserved seats for party-
list representatives in the 2016 elections. Using the COMELEC's version, GABRIEL A
would only be entitled to one additional seat, viz.:
4.2245% x (59-12) = 1.985515
Pursuant to the COMELEC's version, only 12 seats would be allocated to 11 party-

list groups[43] in the first step of the second round of seat allocation, leaving 35
seats to be distributed to the qualified party-list groups in the second step of the
second round of seat allocation.
Under the second step of the second round of seat allocation, one party-list seat to
each of the parties next in rank is assigned until all available seats are completely
distributed. The three-seat cap is then applied to determine the number of seats
each qualified party-list groups are entitled to.[44]
Pursuant to GABRIELA's version, the remaining 34 seats would be distributed to
the parties next in rank by assigning one seat to each of them, from Cooperative
Natcco Network Party and so forth until the remaining seats are all distributed.
However, since GABRIELA qualified for two additional seats, the last ranked party-
list group, Agbiag! Timpuyog Ilocano, Inc., would necessarily lose its seat in the
House of Representatives. Under the COMELEC's version, however, Agbiag!
Timpuyog Ilocano, Inc., would still qualify for a seat in the House of
Representatives since there are still 35 seats to be allocated in the second step of
the second round of seat allocation.
Nevertheless, considering that the winning party-list groups have already been
proclaimed by the COMELEC and their respective representatives have already
assumed office, matters concerning the adjustment of seats granted to the qualified
party-list groups, if any, should be brought to the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal; the Court may not pass upon the same in this certiorari action.
[45]

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is

hereby DISMISSED. Velasco, Jr., Peralta and Del Castillo, JJ., no part.
Caguioa, J., on leave.

n

8th Recitation Legislative Dept Partylist

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

8th Recitation Legislative Dept Partylist

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 203766, April 02, 2013 ]

[G.R. NOS. 203818-19]

AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY (AKB), PETITIONER, VS.

[G.R. NO. 203922]

ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES

[G.R. NO. 203936]

AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA,

[G.R. NO. 203958]

KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA, INC.

[G.R. NO. 203960]

1ST CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR RURAL ENERGY, INC. (1-

ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION,

[G.R. NO. 203981]

ASSOCIATION FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON

[G.R. NO. 204002]

ALLIANCE FOR RURAL CONCERNS, PETITIONER, VS.

[G.R. NO. 204094]

ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD),

[G.R. NO. 204100]

1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC.,

[G.R. NO. 204122]

1 GUARDIANS NATIONALIST PHILIPPINES, INC.,

[G.R. NO. 204125]

AGAPAY NG INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ALLIANCE, INC.

[G.R. NO. 204126]

KAAGAPAY NG NAGKAKAISANG AGILANG PILIPINONG

[G.R. NO. 204139]

ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), REPRESENTED BY ATTY.

[G.R. NO. 204141]

BANTAY PARTY LIST, REPRESENTED BY MARIA EVANGELINA

[G.R. NO. 204153]

PASANG MASDA NATIONWIDE PARTY REPRESENTED BY ITS

[G.R. NO. 204158]

[G.R. NO. 204174]

AANGAT TAYO PARTY LIST-PARTY, REPRESENTED BY ITS

[G.R. NO. 204216]

COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION,

[G.R. NO. 204220]

ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST, PETITIONER, VS.

[G.R. NO. 204236]

FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS.

[G.R. NO. 204238]

ALLIANCE OF BICOLNON PARTY (ABP), PETITIONER, VS.

[G.R. NO. 204239]

GREEN FORCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SONS AND

[G.R. NO. 204240]

AGRI-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA MAGSASAKA NG

[G.R. NO. 204263]

A BLESSED PARTY LIST A.K.A. BLESSED FEDERATION OF

[G.R. NO. 204318]

UNITED MOVEMENT AGAINST DRUGS FOUNDATION

[G.R. NO. 204321]

ANG AGRIKULTURA NATIN ISULONG (AANI), REPRESENTED

[G.R. NO. 204323]

BAYANI PARTYLIST AS REPRESENTED BY HOMER BUENO,

[G.R. NO. 204341]

ACTION LEAGUE OF INDIGENOUS MASSES (ALIM) PARTY-

[G.R. NO. 204356]

BUTIL FARMERS PARTY, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON

[G.R. NO. 204358]

ALLIANCE OF ADVOCATES IN MINING ADVANCEMENT FOR

[G.R. NO. 204359]