Additional Election Cases

Case

Ruling

Samson Alcantara vs. Comelec 696 SCRA 547

ISSUE: Did Comelec gravely abuse its discretion when it did not consider Alcantara s affidavit?

Abakada had a Supreme Assembly which resulted in

the following: the approval and ratification of the
revised ABAKADA CBL; the ouster of Alcantara, et al.
from their positions; the expulsion of the petitioners
from the party; and the election of De la Cruz and
Albano as new President and Secretary-General,
respectively.
Petitioners filed a Petition with Comelec to (1) declare
the meeting void and (2) restrain the respondents from
falsely representing themselves as they duly elected
officers of ABAKADA. This was dismissed by the
COMELEC 2nd division. COMELEC En Banc denied
the Petitioners MR.

Petitioner claims that Comelec could have just easily compared the list of members of Abakada to the Supreme
Assembly participants to see whether the latter are genuine members of the Abakada party.
Petition dismissed.
COMELEC is empowered to register political parties. More specifically, as part of its power to enforce and
administer laws relative to the conduct of an election, the COMELEC possesses the power to register national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions for purposes of the party-list system of elections. It is the
party-list groups registration under the party-list system that confers juridical personality on the party-list group for
election related purposes.
As a juridical entity, a party-list group can only validly act through its duly authorized representative/s. In the exercise
of its power to register parties, the COMELEC necessarily possesses the power to pass upon the question of who,
among the legitimate officers of the party-list group, are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges granted to a
party-list group under the law. The COMELECs jurisdiction on this point is well settled and is not here disputed.
Thus the court will only interfere with COMELECs action under Rule 64 and 65 if it acted with grave abuse of
discretion.
The political parties, through their members, are free to adopt their own constitution and by-laws that contain the
terms governing the group in pursuing its goals. These terms, include the terms in choosing its leaders and
members, among others. To the group belongs the power to adopt a constitution; to them likewise belongs the
power to amend, modify or altogether scrap it.
The COMELEC, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to resolve party leadership disputes, has rendered its ruling. By
failing to establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC, this Court can do no less than dismiss
this petition and allow ABAKADA as a sectoral party to determine its own affairs under its present leadership.

Lokin Jr. vs. Comelec 621 SCRA 385

refer to TSN

*substitution of the names in the nominees list

Case

Ruling

Luis Lokin Jr. vs. Comelec et al. 674 SCRA 538

Petition denied for being filed outside the requisite period.

President Joel Villanueva submitted the Certificate

of Nomination of CIBAC to the Comelec Law
Department.

COMELEC is tasked by the Constitution to register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or
coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government. Its
jurisdiction to settle the struggle for leadership within the party is well-established. Its power to rule upon questions
of party identity and leadership is exercised by the COMELEC as an incident to its enforcement powers.

- certified by Villanueva and Jose

- Pia Derla, Acting Sec. General submitted a
2nd Certificate of Nomination which included
Lokin Jr and Planas as party-list nominees
Respondents filed a Petition to Expunge From the
Records and/or for Disqualification seeking to nullify
the Certificate filed by Derla. The Certificate of
Nomination and other documents she submitted were
unauthorized.

- COMELEC 1st div: ordered Certificate issued by

Derla to be expunged from the records

- COMELEC en banc: affirmed

Does COMELEC have jurisdiction over an intracorporate issue within CIBAC?

LDP vs. Comelec Corollary to the right of a political party to identify the people who constitute the
association and to select a standard bearer who best represents the partys ideologies and preference is the
right to exclude persons in its association and to not lend its name and prestige to those which it deems
undeserving to represent its ideals. A certificate of candidacy makes known to the COMELEC that the person
therein mentioned has been nominated by a dulyauthorized political group empowered to act and that it
reflects accurately the sentiment of the nominating body. A candidates political party affiliation is also printed
followed by his or her name in the certified list of candidates. A candidate misrepresenting himself or herself to
be a partys candidate, therefore, not only misappropriates the partys name and prestige but foists a
deception upon the electorate, who may unwittingly cast its ballot for him or her on the mistaken belief that he
or she stands for the partys principles. To prevent this occurrence, the COMELEC has the power and the duty
to step in and enforce the law not only to protect the party but, more importantly, the electorate, in line with the
Commissions broad constitutional mandate to ensure orderly elections.
Atienza vs. Comelec the COMELEC possessed the authority to resolve intra-party disputes as a
necessary tributary of its constitutionally mandated power to enforce election laws and register political
parties.
SEC.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.
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who have given their consent in writing
may be named in the list. 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. No change of names or alteration of the order of
nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the
nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the
substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of
Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned.
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 (l)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.
COMELECs Rules on Disqualification Cases Against Nominees of Party-List Groups/Organizations Participating in
the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections.

- Sec. 6 party list must submit documentary evidence in consonance with the Constitution, RA 7941 to duly
prove that the nominees truly belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s, the sectoral party,
organization, political party or coalition they seek to represent, which may include but not limited to the
following:
1.

Track record of the party-list group/organization showing active participation of the nominee/s in the
undertakings of the party-list group/organization for the advancement of the marginalized and
underrepresented sector/s, the sectoral party, organization, political party or coalition they seek to
represent;

2.

Proofs that the nominee/s truly adheres to the advocacies of the party-list group/organizations (prior
declarations, speeches, written articles, and such other positive actions on the part of the nominee/s
showing his/her adherence to the advocacies of the party-list group/organizations);

3.

Certification that the nominee/s is/are a bona fide member of the party-list group/organization for at
least ninety (90) days prior to the election; and

4.

In case of a party-list group/organization seeking representation of the marginalized and under

represented sector/s, proof that the nominee/s is not only an advocate of the party-list/organization but
is/are also a bona fide member/s of said marginalized and underrepresented sector.

The Law Department shall require party-list group and nominees to submit the foregoing documentary
evidence if not complied with prior to the effectivity of this resolution not later than three (3) days from the last
day of filing of the list of nominees.
No abuse of discretion. PIa is a virtual stranger to the party-list, and clearly not qualified to attest to petitioners as
CIBAC nominees, or certify their nomination to the COMELEC. Petitioners cannot use their registration with the
SEC as a substitute for the evidentiary requirement to show that the nominees, including Derla, are bona fide
members of the party. Petitioners Planas and Lokin, Jr. have not even presented evidence proving the affiliation of
the so-called Board of Trustees to the CIBAC Sectoral Party that is registered with COMELEC.

Case

Ruling

Atienza vs. Comelec 612 SCRA 761

ISSUE: Did Comelec gravely abused its discretion in upholding the composition of the NECO that elected Roxas as
LP President?

Drion announced his partys withdrawal of support for

the administration of PGMA. But Atienza, LP Chairman
and a number of party members denounced Drilons
move. Atienza hosted a party conference to discuss
local autonomy but when convened, the assembly
proceeded to declare all positions in the LPs ruling
body vacant.
Drilon filed a Petition with Comelec to nullify the
elections.

- Comelec annulled the election of new officers

and ordered another election under Comelec
supervision. Drilon held LP Presidency until new
officers were elected.
SC: granted respodnent Drilons petition. Comelec had
jurisdiction over the intra-party leadership dispute.
New meeting installed Mar Roxas as the new LP
President.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandatory and Prohibitory
Injunction before Comelec against Roxas, Drilon and
Acotsta.

- did not properly convene

- Comelec: dismissed!

- NECO was validly convened in accordance with the amended LP Constitution

- the details of how they arrived at the NECO xomposition for the purpose of electing the party leaders is logical
and consistent with party rules
THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF OF ATIENZA, ET. ALS EXPULSION WAS PURELY A MEMBERSHIP ISSUE
THAT HAD TO BE SETTLED WITHIN THE PARTY. Petitioners Atienza et al. cannot claim that their expulsion from
the party impacts on the party leadership issue or on the election of respondent Roxas as president so that it was
indispensable for the COMELEC to adjudicate such claim. Under the circumstances, the validity or invalidity of
Atienza, et al.s expulsion was purely a membership issue that had to be settled within the party. It is an internal
party matter over which the COMELEC has no jurisdiction.
THE COMELECS JURISDICTION OVER INTRA-PARTY DISPUTES IS LIMITED. It does not have blanket
authority to resolve any and all controversies involving political parties. Political parties are generally free to conduct
their activities without interference from the state. The COMELEC may intervene in disputes internal to a party only
when necessary to the discharge of its constitutional functions.
Kalaw vs. COMELEC COMELECs powers and functions under Sec. 2, Art IX-C of the Constitution,
include the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its
acts. The Court also declared in another case that the COMELECs power to register political parties
necessarily involved the determination of the persons who must act on its behalf. Thus, the COMELEC may
resolve an intra-party leadership dispute, in a proper case brought before it, as an incident of its power to
register political parties.
VALIDITY OF ROXASS ELECTION AS LP PRESIDENT IS A LEADERSHIP ISSUE THAT THE COMELEC HAD
TO SETTLE. Under the amended LP Constitution, the LP president is the issuing authority for certificates of
nomination of party candidates for all national elective positions. It is also the LP president who can authorize other
LP officers to issue certificates of nomination for candidates to local elective posts. In simple terms, it is the LP
president who certifies the official standard bearer of the party. The resolution of the leadership issue is thus
particularly significant in ensuring the peaceful and orderly conduct of the elections.
To conclude, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it upheld Roxas election as LP president but
refused to rule on the validity of Atienza, et al.s expulsion from the party. While the question of party leadership has
implications on the COMELECs performance of its functions under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the
same cannot be said of the issue pertaining to Atienza, et al.s expulsion from the LP. Such expulsion is for the
moment an issue of party membership and discipline, in which the COMELEC cannot intervene, given the limited
scope of its power over political parties.

Case

Ruling

Liberal Party vs. Comelec 620 SCRA 393

ISSUE: Did Comelec act with grave abuse of discretion when it granted the registration of NP-NPC?
Ruling:

This case involves the registration of political coalitions,

the grant of accreditation to the dominant parties under
the first time ever automated election system in the
country and validity of the COMELEC en bancs
authority to act on the registration of political coalitions.
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 8646 setting
August 17, 2009 as the last day for the filing of petitions
for registration of political parties. February 12, 2010 is
the deadling for accreditation.
February 12, 2010 LP filed with the Comelec its
petition for accreditation as dominant minority party.
NP and NPC also filed their accrreditation.

- LP filed an opposition on the ground that NPNPC is not a registered coalition of political
parties and that the petition for registration is
filed beyond the Aug 17, 2009 deadline
Comelec En Banc granted the NP-NPCs petition for
registration as a coalition.
LP files a Petition for Certiorari assailing the decision.

THE REGISTRATION OF A COALITIONAND THE ACCREDITATION OF A DOMINANT MINORITY PARTY ARE 2

SEPARATE MATTERS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIVELY DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER.
Registration the act that bestows juridical personality for purposes of our election laws; Section2(5), Art.
IX-C of the Constitution and Rule 32 of the CRP regulate the registration of political parties, organizations or
coalitions of political parties.
Accreditation relates to the privileged participation that our election laws grant to qualified registered
parties; governed by COMELEC Resolution No. 8572, Sec. 1 of which states that the petition for accredition
shall be field with the Clerk of the Commission who shall docket it as an SPP DM case, in the manner that the
NP-NPC petition before the Comelec was docketed.
NOT PREMATURE. After the en banc issued the assailed Resolution resolving NP-NPCs application forther
egistraion as a coalition, Comelecs part in the registration process was brought to a close, rendering the Resolution
ripe for review by this Court.

- Accreditation can only be granted to a registered political party, organization or coalition

- Registration must first take place before the a request for accreditation can be made.
NP-NPC PETITION FOR REGISTRATION BEFORE THE COMELEC IS ALREADY TIME-BARRED. THUS IT
ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT GRANTED THE REGISTRATION OF NP-NPC AS A
COALITION BEYOND THE DEADLINE. .

- phrase last day for filing petitions for registration of political parties; political parties, in the absence of any
note, explanation or reason why the deadline only mentions political parties, the term should be understoof in
its generic sense that covers political organizations and political coalitions as well.

- to rule otherwise is to introduce, through a COMELEC deadline-setting resolution, a meaning or intent into
Section 2(5) , Art. IX-C which was not clearly intended by the Constitution or by the Comelec Rules.
Resolution No. 8846 would effectively differentiate between political parties, on one hand and political
organizations and coalitions on the other.

- deadline of Comelec is mandatory; the whole electoral exercise may fail or at leastsuffer disruptions, if the
deadlines are not observed
NP-NPC CANNOT BE AN OPERATIVE FACT. REGISTRATION AND THE FORMAL RECOGNITION THAT
ACCOMPANIES IT ARE REQUIRED, AS THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION THEMSELVES IT ARE
REQUIRED, AS THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION THEMSELVES SHOW, BECAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONS CONCERN ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE ORGANIZATIONS OFFICIALLY
PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTIONS. Thus, the Constitution specifies religious and ideological limitations, and in
clear terms bars alien participation and influence in our elections. This constitutional concern, among others, serves
as a reason why registration is not simply a checklist exercise, but one that requires the exercise of profound
discretion and quasi-judicial adjudication by the COMELEC. Registration must be undertaken, too, under the strict
formalities of the law, including the time limits and deadlines set by the proper authorities.
To sum up, political coalitions need to register in accordance with the established norms and procedures, if
they are to be recognized as such and be given the benefits accorded by law to registered coalitions.
Registered political parties carry a different legal personality from that of the coalition they may wish to
establish with other similarly registered parties. If they want to coalesce with one another without the formal
registration of their coalition, they can do so on their own in the exercise of their and their members
democratic freedom of choice, but they cannot receive official recognition for their coalition. Or they can
choose to secure the registration of their coalition in order to be accorded the privileges accruing to registered
coalitions, including the right to be accredited as a dominant majority or minority party. There are no ifs and
buts about these constitutional terms.

LDP vs. Comelec 423 SCRA 665

Case

Ruling

A-IPRA vs. Comelec 696 SCRA 563

ISSUE: Comelec gravely abused its discretion?

Ruling:

A-IPRA is a sectoral political party whose primordial

objectives are the recognition, protection and
promotion of the rights of the indigenous people.

- registered Jan 13, 2010

- filed a Manifestation in for the 2013 elections
- Comelec En Banc issued an Order requiring AIPRA to appear before them to present
documentary evidence which will establish its
continuing compliance with the requirements set
forth in RA 7941 and the guidelines in Ang
Bagong Bayani.

THE DETERMINATION OF WHO IS THE RIGHTFUL REPRESENTATIVE OF A POLITICAL PARTY OR THE

LEGITIMATE NOMINEE OF A PARTY-LIST GROUP LIES WITH THE COMELEC, AS PART AND PARCEL OF
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL TASK OF REGISTERING POLITICAL PARTIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND COALITIONS
UNDER SEC. 2(5), ART. IX-C OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
LDP vs. Comelec the ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers is a matter
that is well within its authority. The source of this authority is no other than the fundamental law itself, which
vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative
to the conduct of an election.
Comelec failed to resolve the issue of the legitimacy of the nomination of the Lota Group in its Resolution. The
decision in Atong Paglaum has rendered this case moot and academic.

October 11, 2012 Insigne Group of A-IPRA filed a

Petition for Intervention with Opposition to the
Nomination filed by Bogus Officers of A-IPRA; prayed
that the Lota Group be disqualified as nomineees and
officers of A-IPRA and that they be recognized as the
legitimate nominees and officers of the group and not
be allowed to participate in the May 2013 elections
COMELEC En Banc: cancelled the registration and
accreditation of A-IPRA
Dec 13, 2012 the Insigne Group filed this case
before the Court
Damasen vs. Tumamao 613 SCRA 49

Case

Ruling

Atong Paglaum vs. Comelec (2013)

ISSUE: Did Comelec act with grave abuse of its discretion in disqualifying the Petitioners?

54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for certiorari

and Prohibition filed by 52 party-list groups and
organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the
COMELEC disqualifying them from participating in the
May 13, 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.

Ruling: NO.
Party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative
district elections a chance tow in seats in HoR. 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.
Sec. 5. Art. 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.
Sec. 7 and 8, Art. 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.
Christian Monsod PLS is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation. 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.
FRAMERS OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION INTENDED THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY
SECTORAL PARTIES BUT ALSO NON-SECTORAL PARTIES. 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.

- the text of Sec. 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.

- PLS is composed of 3 diff. groups (1) national parties or organizations; (2) regional parties or organizations
and (3) sectoral parties or organizations

- Sec. 5(2) 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:
(1) the other one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives would naturally be open to nonsectoral party-list representatives, clearly negating the idea that the party-list system is exclusively
for sectoral parties representing the marginalized and underrepresented.
(2) the reservation of 1/2 of the party-list seats to sectoral parties pplies 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.
RA 7941 DOES NOT REQUIRE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS TO REPRESENT
THE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED SECTORS. 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.
None of the 8 grounds under Sec. 6, RA 7941 to refuse or cancel registration refers to non-representation of
the marginalized and underrepresented
How to we harmonize?
THE PHRASE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED SHOULD REFER ONLY TO THE SECTORS IN
SECTION 5 THAT ARE BY THEIR NATURE, ECONOMICALLY MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED.
(1) labor, (2) peasant, (3) fisherfolk, (4) urban poor, (5) ICC, (6) handicapped, (7) veterans, (8) overseas workers,
(9) other similar sectors.

- for these sectors the 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.

Case

Ruling
Guidelines/parameters given by Court in the remanding of the cases:
(1) Three different groups may participate in the PLS: national parties or organizations, regional parties or
organizations and sectoral parties or organizations
(2) National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral
lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector.
(3) Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not
field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can
separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and
is linked to a political party through a coalition.
(4) Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in well-defined
political constituencies. It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of
their sector. The sectors that are marginalized and underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack
well-defined political constituencies include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
(5) A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the marginalized and
underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack well-defined political constituencies must
belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
marginalized and underrepresented, or that represent those who lack well-defined political constituencies,
either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective
sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona fide members of such
parties or organizations.
(6) National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are
disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

Case

Ruling

Cocofed vs. Comelec

ISSUE: Was the cancellation of the registration and accreditation of COCOFED proper?
Ruling: Petition dismissed.

COCOFED filed a Manifestation with the Comelec and

submitted a list of names of only 2 nominees: Atty.
Emerito and Atty. Espina.

- Comelec cancelled COCOFEDs registration and

accreditation because it submitted only 2
nominees and thus failed to comply with Sec. 8
of RA 7941

- COCOFED questioned cancellation before the

SC

- COCOFEDs name was included in the printing

of the ballots for the May 13, 2013 elections
COCOFED filed MR, but withdrew its motion. It filed
additional names as nominees.
- Comelec issued a resolution declaring the
cancellation of COCOFEDs accreditation final
and executory.

Petition is not moot because of the failure of COCOFED to obtain 2% of the votes casted for PLS. The validity of the
Comelecs resolution cancelling COCOFEDs registration, remains a very live issue that is not dependent on the
outcome of the elections.
Sec. 4 vs. Sec. 5 of RA 7941.
Sec. 4 a party-list group need not register anew for purposes of every subsequent election, but only
needs to file a manifestation of intent to participate with the COMELEC.
Sec. 5 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.

- submit constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and
other relevant information as Comelec may require.

- publication of petition in at least 2 national newspapers of general circulation

- then Comelec resolves the petition
COMELEC ID NOT ACT WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION IN CANCELLING THE ACCREDITATION.
1. Sec. 8, RA 7941 expressly requires the submission of a list containing at least 5 qualified nominees
Sec. 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.
2. deadline was on May 31, 2012
3. Sec. 6(5) of RA 7941 provides that a violation 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 groups 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.
COCOFEDS FAILURE TO SUBMIT A LIST OF 5 NOMINEES IS A VIOLATION UNDER SEC.6(5) OF RA 7941.
1. mandatory 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
2. 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;

Sec. 6, RA 7941 requires the 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. But the registration of party-list groups involves the exercise of COMELECs
administrative power, particularly its power to enforce and administer all laws related to elections.

3. 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, does not render Section 8 of RA No. 7941 permissive in nature
1. while the law allows the submission of addl nominees once the list is exhausted, the exhaustion of
the list presupposes prior compliance with the requirement of sec. RA 7941
2. 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
3. to allow COCOFED to complete the list of its nominees beyond the deadline set by the law would
allow the party do indirectly what it cannot do indirectly
4. PLSystem operated on the theoretical assumption that a party-list group has national constituency whose
interests, concerns or ideologies call for representation in the HoR, its inconceivable that it cannot compy
with the statutory requirement
5. although the 6th parameter in Atong Paglaum states 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, Court did not authorize a partylist groups inexcusable failure, if not outright refusal
to comply with the clear leter of the law of at least 5 nominees.

Case

Ruling

Alliance for Nationalism or Democracy vs. Comelec

705 SCRA 340 (2013)

ISSUE: Did comelec gravely abuse its discretion in cancelling the accreditation and registration without the benefit
of a summary evidentiary hearing?
Ruling: Petition denied. NO GAD.

Comelec En Banc cancelled Petitioners Certificate of

Registration and/or Accreditation on 3 grounds:
1. does not belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors
2. no proof showing that nominees are actually
nominated by ANAD itself; submitted only 3
names
3. failed to submit its Statement of Contributions
and Expenditures for the 2007 National and
Local Elections as required by RA 7166
ANAD went before the SC and in Atong Paglaum, the
Court remanded the case to the Comelec.

- Comelec affirmed cancellation

- still DQd because of their violation of electio
laws and regulations (failure to submit 5
nominees, and the Statement of Contributions
and Expenditures)

COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 8 OF RA 7941 IS ESSENTIAL AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST ARBITRARINESS. It 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.
Lokin Jr vs. Comelec 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.
COMELEC MAY MOTU PROPRIO CANCEL, AFTER DUE NOTICE AND HEARING, THE REGISTRATION OF
ANY PARTY-LIST ORGANIZATION IF IT VIOLATES OR FAILS TO COMPKY WITH LAWS, RULES OR
REGULATIONS RELATING TO ELECTIONS.

Abayhon vs. HRET 612 SCRA 375

ISSUE: Does HRET have jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan as
nominees of PL orgs who took seats at the HoR?

Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat Tayo partylist organization that won a seat in the HoR in the 2007
elections.

Ruling: YES!

- Respondents Lucaban et al. filed a Petition for

Quo Warranto with HRET against Aangat Tayo
and its nominee for its ineligibility for a party-list
sear in the HoR since is did not represent the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

- Abayon was not qualifed herself being the wife of

an incumbent congressional district
representative; previously lost as a nominee in
An Waray
HRET dismissed the petition
2nd case: Palparan was the first nominee of the Bantay
party-list group that won a seat.

ALTHOUGH IT IS THE PARTY LIST ORG THAT IS VOTED FOR IN THE ELECTIONS, IT IS NOT THE
ORGANIATION THAT SITS AS AND BECOMES A MEMBER OF THE HOR.
Sec. 5(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces,
cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on
the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a
partylist system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
Two kinds of members in the HoR: (1) from Party-list System and (2) those from legislative districts
ONCE ELECTED, BOTH THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PARTY-LIST REPS ARE TREATED IN
LIKE MANNER. They have the same deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments. They can participate in the
making of laws that will directly benefit their legislative districts or sectors. They are also subject to the same term
limitation of three years for a maximum of three consecutive terms.The members of the party-list organizations
become members of the HoR.

- Petition quo warranto was filed against him for

his ineligibility as he did not represent the M and
UR sectors which Bantay represented (victims of
communist rebels, CAFGUs, former rebels and
security guards)
HRET dismisesd the petition.

IT IS FOR HRET TO INTERPRET THE MEANING OF THIS PARTICULAR QUALIFICATION OF A NOMINEE

WHETHER HE NEEDS TO BE A BONA FIDE MEMBER OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS PARTY-LIST
ORGANIZATION. Sec. 17, Art. 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, as
pointed out above, 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 COMELECs
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins.

Philippine Guardians Brotherhood vs. Comelec 619

SCRA 585

The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due
notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition if it: (a) fails to
participate in the last two (2) preceding elections; or (b) fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast
under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. The
word or is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from the other things
enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word.

Philippine Guardians Brotherhood vs. Comelec 646

SCRA 63

But separate from the question of PGBIs overall qualification is the narrower question of its participation in the May
10, 2010 electionsan issue that is subsumed by the issues in the main certiorari case. As shown above, PGBI
intended to participate in the May 10, 2010 elections but it was not able to do so because the Comelec did not
contrary to our express directiveinclude it in the list of party-list organizations to be voted upon in the May 10,
2010 elections. As it was the Comelec itself which prevented PGBI from participating in the May 10, 2010 party-list
elections when it deleted PGBI, with grave abuse of discretion, from the list of accredited party-list groups or
organizations and, thereafter, refused to return it to the list despite our directive, PGBI should, at the very least, be
deemed to have participated in the May 10, 2010 elections, and cannot be disqualified for non-participation or for
failure to garner the votes required under Section 6(8) of R.A. No. 7941. To conclude otherwise is to effectively
recognize the ineffectiveness of our Status Quo Order, of our April 29, 2010 Decision, and of this Court.

Despite ruling above, PGBI was never included in the

ballot as one of the accredited party-list groups or
organizations eligible for election under the party-list
system. Hence, PGBI was never voted upon as a
party-list candidate in the May 10, 2010 elections.

Case

Ruling

Amores vs. HRET 622 SCRA 593

ISSUE: Did HRET commit GAD in dismissing the quo warranto petition?
Ruling:

Petitioner filed a Petition for quo warranto against

Private Respondent Joel Villanueva for having
assumed office without a formal proclamation issued by
COMELEC, and that he is DQd to be a nominee of his
youth sector of CIBAC since at the time of the filing of
his certificates of nomination and acceptance, he was
already 31 years old or beyond the age limit of 30
pursuant to Sec. 9 of RA 7941 and his change of
affiliation from CIBACs youth sector to its overseas
Filipino workers and their families sector was not
effected at least 6 months prior to the May 14, 2007
elections.
HRET dismissed Petition.

- Section 9 applied only to those nominated during

the first three congressional terms after the
ratification of the Constitution or until 1998,
unless a sectoral party is thereafter registered
exclusively as representing the youth sector.
Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec 618 SCRA 32

Since petitioners challenge goes into private respondents qualifications, it may be filed at anytime during
his term.
Frivaldo vs. Comelec Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed
not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure.
Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged.
THE LAW IS CLEAR.
(1) Sec. 9 of RA 7941 clearly states that a nominee of the youth sector must at least be twenty-five (25) but not
more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election, so it must be that a candidate who is more than
30 on election day is not qualified to be a youth sector nominee. Since this mandate is contained in RA No.
7941, the Party-List System Act, it covers ALL youth sector nominees vying for party-list representative seats.
(2) Sec. 15 of RA 7941 covers changes both in political parties and sectoral affiliations a nominee who changes
his sectoral affiliation within the same party will only be eligible for nomination under the new sectoral affiliation if
the change has been effected at least six months before the elections. Again, since the statute is clear and free
from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is the plain
meaning rule or verba legis, as expressed in the maxim index animi sermo or speech is the index of intention.
VILLANUEVA WAS ALREADY MORE THAN 30 YEARS OLD IN MAY 2007; HE DID NOT CHANGE HIS
SECTORAL AFFILIATION AT LEAST 6 MONTHS BEFORE MAY 2007. That private respondent is the first
nominee of CIBAC, whose victory was later upheld, is of no moment. A party-list organizations ranking of its
nominees is a mere indication of preference, their qualifications according to law are a different matter.
LADLAD is qualified
We find that Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the legal requirements for accreditation.
Indeed, aside from COMELECs moral objection and the belated allegation of non-existence, nowhere in the records
has the respondent ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to register as a party-list organization under
any of the requisites under RA 7941 or the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. The difference, COMELEC claims, lies
in Ang Ladlads morality, or lack thereof.
A political group should not be hindered solely because it seeks to publicly debate controversial political issues
in order to find solutions capable of satisfying everyone concerned. Only if a political party incites violence or
puts forward policies that are incompatible with democracy does it fall outside the protection of the freedom of
association guarantee.
Violation of the non-establishment clause
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that [n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is government
neutrality in religious matters. Clearly, governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy
of neutrality. We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the
Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
Nuisance
Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as any act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or
anything else which shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality, the remedies for which are a prosecution
under the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial proceedings.

AKLAT vs. Comelec GR 162203 (2004)

Aklat filed a Petition for Declaration for Re-qualification
as a party-list orgnization for the May 2004 elections.

ISSUE: Should AKLAT be allowed to register?

Ruling: NO. Its application for registration was filed beyond the period prescribed by Comelec and it does not have a
track record of representing the marginalized and underrepresented.
RA 7941 IN SEC. 5(1) IS MERELY A PROHIBITED PERIOD.

- DQd by Comelec because it failed to comply

with the guidelines set by the Court in the case of
Ang Bagong Bayani

- Aklat re-organized itself

- Comelec dismissed
Comelec denied MR: (1) filed beyond the deadline; (2)
petition was not one for re-qualification as Aklat was
never a registered party-list organization having failed
to meet the 8-pt guidelines set by the Court; (3)
decision not to extend the deadline for registation of
party-list organizations is valid.
AKLAT goes to SC
- under Sec. 5, RA 7941 petitions for registration
as a party-list organization may be filed not later
than 90 days before the elections; it had unitl Feb
10, 2004.

Verily, the Comelec has the power to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to enforce and administer
election laws. This power includes the determination, within the parameters fixed by law, of appropriate periods for
the accomplishment of certain pre-election acts like filing petitions for registration under the party-list system. This is
exactly what the Comelec did when it issued its Resolution No. 6320 declaring September 30, 2003, as the deadline
for filing petitions for registration under the party-list system. Considering these, as well as the multifarious preelection activities that the Comelec is mandated to undertake, the issuance of itsResolution No. 6320 cannot be
considered tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
NO. The general statements found it Aklats articles of incorporation do not measure up to the first guideline set
by the Bagong Bayani case for screening party-list participants, i.e., that the political party, sector,
organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in
Section 5 of R.A. 7941. In other words, it must showthrough its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track recordthat 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.

10

Case

Ruling

Bantay Act RA 7941 vs. Comelec 523 SCRA 1

Did the Comelec violated the right to information and free access to documents by not refusing to reveal the names
of the nominees of the various party-list groups? Is it mandated by the Constitution to disclose to the public the
names of said nominees?

BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR sought to have the COurt

cancel the accreditation given by the Comelec to the
Respondent party-list groups because the latter and
the latters nominees do not appear to be qualified.

THE COMELEC COMMITTED GAD IN REFUSING THE LEGITIMATE DEMANDS OF THE PETITIONERS FOR A
LIST OF THE NOMINEES OF THE PARTY-LIST GROUPS SUBJECT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS.
Mandamus thus lies. The last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. 7941 reading: [T]he names of the party-list
nominees shall not be shown on the certified list is certainly not a justifying card for the Comelec to deny
the requested disclosure. To us, the prohibition imposed on the Comelec under said Section 7 is limited in
scope and duration, meaning, that it extends only to the certified list which the same provision requires to
be posted in the polling places on election day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the absolute is
to read into the law something that is not intended. As it were, there is absolutely nothing in R.A. No. 7941
that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even publishing through mediums other than the Certified
List the names of the party-list nominees. The Comelec obviously misread the limited non-disclosure
aspect of the provision as an absolute bar to public disclosure before the May 2007 elections. The
interpretation thus given by the Comelec virtually tacks an unconstitutional dimension on the last sentence
of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941.

11