Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.

147589, June 26,2001

FACTS:
- Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed before the Comelec a Petition praying that the names of
respondents (ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY GO! GO! PHILIPPINES, et. al)
be deleted from the Certified List of Political Parties/Sectoral Parties/Organizations/Coalitions
Participating in the Party List System for the May 14, 2001 Elections' and that said certified list
be accordingly amended.
- Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth also filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration and
Nomination against some of the respondents.
- However, the Comelec required the respondents to submit only the respective memoranda of
the respondents.
- Dissatisfied with the pace of the Comelec, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and Bayan
Muna filed a petition before the Court assailing Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections.
2. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to 'marginalized and underrepresented'
sectors and organizations.

RULING:
1. Yes. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified
from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties. Section
5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives
may "be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations.

Furthermore, Article IX (C), sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution states that political
parties may be registered under the party-list system:

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

2. No. Political parties may participate in the party-list elections but this does not mean that
any political party may do so. It must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list
system, in accordance with the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution provides that:

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

(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number
of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after
the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.

The purpose of the party-list provision was to give "genuine power to our people" in
Congress. Hence, when the provision was discussed, it gave genuine power to the people
in the legislature.

Moreover, the party-list system is not self-executory. It is interspersed with phrases like
"in accordance with law" or "as may be provided by law". It was then up to Congress to
sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.
BANAT vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, 179295, April 21, 2009

FACTS:
- The Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed a
Petition before the National Board of Canvassers (NBC) to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-
List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, because the Chairman and the Members of the
COMELEC shall implement the Veterans ruling which is applying the Panganiban formula in
allocating party-list seats.
- Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60, the COMELEC, acting as NBC, promulgated NBC
Resolution No. 07-72, which declared the additional seats allocated to the appropriate parties.
- BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC Resolution
No. 07-88. However, BANAT did not file a motion for reconsideration.
- Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its
decision to use the Veterans formula as stated in its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 because the
Veterans formula is violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941)

ISSUES:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article
VI of the Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?

2. Is the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

3. Is the two percent threshold and "qualifier" votes prescribed by the same Section 11(b) of RA
7941 constitutional?

4. How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?

5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties from participating in the party-list
elections? If not, can the major political parties be barred from participating in the party-list
elections?

RULING:
1. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:

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

(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number
of representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after
the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor,
 peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.

The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:

Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. — The party-list representatives shall

In prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to the total number of
representatives, the Constitution left the manner of allocating the seats available to party-
list representatives to the wisdom of the legislature.

2. Yes. In enacting R.A. No. 7941, the three-seat cap prevents any party from dominating
the party-list elections. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a
qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that
prevents any party from dominating the party-list elections. Seats for party-list
representatives shall thus be allocated.

3. No. the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the two percent
threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of
Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. The Court finds that the two percent
threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of
available party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The
continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats
frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House
of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.

To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are 50 million votes
cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections. A party that has two percent of the
votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the first
50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of
55 seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will repeat
itself even if we increase the available party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase
the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of parties get two
percent of the votes for every party, it is always impossible for the number of occupied
party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present.

The Court therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A.
No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full
implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the
attainment of "the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in
the House of Representatives."
4. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a qualified party-list
organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that prevents any party from
dominating the party-list elections. Seats for party-list representatives shall thus be
allocated in accordance with this procedure:

In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included
because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus,
the remaining available seats for allocation as "additional seats" are the maximum seats
reserved under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are
disregarded in the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of
fractional seats.

5. Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political parties from
participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution
clearly intended the major political parties to participate in party-list elections through
their sectoral wings.

In defining a "party" that participates in party-list elections as either "a political party or a
sectoral party," R.A. No. 7941 also clearly intended that major political parties will
participate in the party-list elections. Excluding the major political parties in party-list
elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional
Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot engage in socio-political engineering
and judicially legislate the exclusion of major political parties from the party-list
elections in patent violation of the Constitution and the law.

Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
state that major political parties are allowed to establish, or form coalitions with, sectoral
organizations for electoral or political purposes.
Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, April 2,2013

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 May 2013 party-list elections.
- Fifty-two (52) party-list groups and organizations assailed the Resolutions issued by the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating in the 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not 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.

RULING:
No. However, the Court remanded the COMELEC to determine who are qualified to register
under the party-list system.

The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system of representation. 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. 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.

Moreover, Sections 7 and 8 of Article IX-C states that:

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."

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."

Based on its conclusions, the majority provided the guidelines for the party-list system,
summarized below:

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.

Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the
Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory
policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x
x to be elected to the House of Representatives." In other words, while they are not disqualified
merely on the ground that they are political parties, they must show, however, that they represent
the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.

COMPARISON TO BANAT CASE: In BANAT, the Court devised a new formula in the
allocation of party-list seats, reversing the COMELEC's allocation which followed the then
prevailing formula in Ang Bagong Bayani. In BANAT, however, the Court did not declare that
the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. Similarly, even as we acknowledge here
that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, we declare that it would not be in
accord with the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to apply the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani
and BANAT in determining who are qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-
list elections. For this purpose, we suspend our rule62 that a party may appeal to this Court from
decisions or orders of the COMELEC only if the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion.
Palparan vs. HRET, G.R. No. 189506, February 11, 2012

FACTS:
- Petitioner Daryl Grace J. Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-list organization
that won a seat in the House of Representatives during the 2007 elections.
- Respondents Perfecto C. Lucaban, Jr., Ronyl S. Dela Cruz, and Agustin C. Doroga, all
registered voters, filed a petition for quo warranto with respondent HRET against Aangat Tayo
and its nominee, petitioner Abayon, claiming that Aangat Tayo was not eligible for a party-list
seat in the House of Representatives, since it did not represent the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors.
- Respondent Lucaban and the others with him further pointed out that petitioner Abayon herself
was not qualified to sit in the House as a party-list nominee since she did not belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, she being the wife of an incumbent congressional
district representative.
- Petitioner Abayon countered that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had already
confirmed the status of Aangat Tayo as a national multi-sectoral party-list organization
representing the workers, women, youth, urban poor, and elderly and that she belonged to the
women sector.
- respondent HRET issued an order, dismissing the petition as against Aangat Tayo but
upholding its jurisdiction over the qualifications of petitioner Abayon.
- In G.R. 189506, petitioner Jovito S. Palparan, Jr. is the first nominee of the Bantay party-list
group that won a seat in the 2007 elections for the members of the House of Representatives.
Respondents Reynaldo Lesaca, Jr., Cristina Palabay, Renato M. Reyes, Jr., Erlinda Cadapan,
Antonio Flores, and Joselito Ustarez are members of some other party-list groups.
- after the elections, respondent Lesaca and the others with him filed with respondent HRET a
petition for quo warranto against Bantay and its nominee, petitioner Palparan. They allege that
Palparan was ineligible to sit in the House of Representatives as party-list nominee because he
did not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that Bantay represented, namely,
the victims of communist rebels, Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGUs), former
rebels, and security guards.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent HRET has jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of
petitioners Abayon and Palparan as nominees of Aangat Tayo and Bantay party-list
organizations.

RULING:
Yes. The Court holds that respondent HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion when it
dismissed the petitions for quo warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list and Bantay party-list but
upheld its jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan.

What is inevitable is thatSection 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the members
of the House of Representatives. Since party-list nominees are "elected members" of the House
of Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear
and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the
party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken
his oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own
jurisdiction begins

Petitioners Abayon and Palparan have a common theory: Republic Act (R.A.) 7941, the Party-
List System Act, vests in the COMELEC the authority to determine which parties or
organizations have the qualifications to seek party-list seats in the House of Representatives
during the elections. Indeed, the HRET dismissed the petitions for quo warranto filed with it
insofar as they sought the disqualifications of Aangat Tayo and Bantay. Since petitioners Abayon
and Palparan were not elected into office but were chosen by their respective organizations under
their internal rules, the HRET has no jurisdiction to inquire into and adjudicate their
qualifications as nominees.

The members of the House of Representatives are of two kinds: "members who shall be elected
from legislative districts" and "those who shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations." This means that, from the
Constitution’s point of view, it is the party-list representatives who are "elected" into office, not
their parties or organizations. These representatives are elected, however, through that peculiar
party-list system that the Constitution authorized and that Congress by law established where the
voters cast their votes for the organizations or parties to which such party-list representatives
belong.