REPUBLIC ACT No.

7941 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the "Party-List System Act." Section 2. Declaration of part y. The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and under-represented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadcast possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible. 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. Section 4. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List System. Any party, organization, or coalition already registered with the Commission need not register anew. However, such party, organization, or coalition shall file with the Commission, not later than ninety (90) days before the election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system. Section 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. The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for decision but in no case not later than sixty (60) days before election. Section 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: (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. Section 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a certified list of national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions which have applied or who have manifested their desire to participate under the party-list system and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for posting in the polling places on election day. The names of the part y-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list. 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. 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. 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. Section 10. Manner of Voting. Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes: the first is a vote for candidate for member of the House of Representatives in his legislative district, and the second, a vote for the party, organizations, or coalition he wants represented in the house of Representatives: Provided, That a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted: Provided, finally, That the first election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998. The COMELEC shall undertake the necessary information campaign for purposes of educating the electorate on the matter of the party-list system. Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The partylist representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list. For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system. In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure shall be observed: (a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.

(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the partylist system shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes : Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats. Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives. The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system. Section 13. How Party-List Representatives are Party-list representatives shall be proclaimed COMELEC based on the list of names submitted respective parties, organizations, or coalitions COMELEC according to their ranking in said list. Chosen. by the by the to the

Section 14. Term of Office. Party-list representatives shall be elected for a term of three (3) years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No party-list representatives shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity his service for the full term for which he was elected. Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect. Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat: Provided, That if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization.

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. Section 17. Rights of Party-List Representatives. Party-List Representatives shall be entitled to the same salaries and emoluments as regular members of the House of Representatives. Section 18. Rules and Regulations. The COMELEC shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. Section 19. Appropriations. The amount necessary for the implementation of this Act shall be provided in the regular appropriations for the Commission on Elections starting fiscal year 1996 under the General Appropriations Act. Starting 1995, the COMELEC is hereby authorized to utilize savings and other available funds for purposes of its information campaign on the party-list system. Section 20. Separability Clause. If any part of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts or provisions thereof shall remain valid and effective. Section 21. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. Section 22. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Approved, March 3, 1995.

participate in the Party-List System of Representation in the House of Representatives. SEC. 2. Who may file petition for registration. Organized groups not yet registered with the Commission on Elections may file a petition for registration under the party-list system. An organized group already registered need not to register anew. However, it shall file with the Commission a manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list election pursuant to Rule 3 hereof. RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE: 1) FILING OF PETITIONS FOR REGISTRATION; 2) FILING OF MANIFESTATION OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE; 3) SUBMISSION OF NAMES OF NOMINEES; AND 4) FILING OF DISQUALIFICATION CASES AGAINST NOMINEES OF PARTY-LIST GROUPS OR ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 13, 2013 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS, AND SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS THEREAFTER Promulgation: 21 February 2012 The Commission on Elections (Commission), by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Act No. 7941 otherwise known as The PartyList System Act, and other election laws, RESOLVED to promulgate, as it hereby RESOLVES to prescribe the following RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE: 1) FILING OF PETITIONS FOR REGISTRATION; 2) FILING OF MANIFESTATION OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE; 3) SUBMISSION OF NAMES OF NOMINEES; AND 4) FILING OF DISQUALIFICATION CASES AGAINST NOMINEES OF PARTY-LIST GROUPS OR ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 13, 2013 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS, AND SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS THEREAFTER. RULE 1 FILING OF PETITIONS FOR REGISTRATION SEC. 1. Registration requirement Only organized groups duly registered with the Commission, and which have manifested their desire to participate in the party-list election, may Party-list groups delisted may file anew a verified petition for registration, Provided however: That party-list groups delisted shall be ineligible to file a petition for registration in the election immediately following its delisting. SEC. 3. Who may participate. The following organized groups may participate in the party-list election: Sectoral party an organized group of citizens whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of the following sectors: Labor; Peasant; Urban Poor; Indigenous Cultural Communities; Elderly; Handicapped; Women; Youth; Overseas Workers; Fisherfolk; Veterans; and Professionals; Sectoral organization a group of qualified voters bound together by similar physical attributes or characteristics, or by employment, interests or concerns; Political Party an organized group of qualified voters pursuing the same ideology, political ideas and principles for the general conduct of the government; 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 majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region. Coalition an aggrupation of duly-registered national, regional. Sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes.

SEC. 4 Where to file petition for registration. The verified petition for registration by any of the abovementioned organized groups, signed by their President/Chairman or, in his absence, their Secretary-General, shall be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, Commission on Elections, Manila, in twelve (12) legible copies. Petitions filed by mail, telegram or facsimile shall not be accepted. In case two separate petitions are filed for the same organized group, one signed by the President/Chairman and the other by the Secretary-General, both petitions shall be dismissed. SEC. 5. When to file petition for registration. Petitions for registration shall be filed not later than the last working day of March of the year immediately preceding the next regular national and local elections during regular working hours. SEC. 6. Petition for Registration, Contents. The petition for registration shall be verified and shall state the following: a) name and acronym of the petitioner, with the acronym not exceeding twenty (20) characters; b) nature of the organization: whether it is a sectoral party, sectoral organization, political party or coalition; c) the sector or sectors which it seeks to represent; d) the name and address of its President/Chairman or, in his absence, the SecretaryGeneral, who will represent the party in the petition; e) petitioners principal headquarters and postal office address; f) names, positions, and addresses of its elected officers; g) petitioners intention or desire to participate in the party-list election; h) names and addresses of its chapter offices; i) that all of its officers and members are made aware of the petition and have given their consent thereto; j) the list of documents attached to the petition; k) names, addresses and representatives of sectoral parties or organizations affiliated with the petitioner, which affiliates need not be registered with the Commission, but have given their consent thereto; l) that it is not a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; m) that it shall not advocate violence or unlawful means to achieve its goals; n) that it is not an adjunct or a project organized or an entity

funded or assisted by the government; o) that it is not a foreign party or organization; p) that it does not receive support for partisan political purposes from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or indirectly, or through it officers or members, or indirectly through third parties; q) the period of existence of petitioner, which shall be at least one (1) year at the time the petition is filed; and r) that it commits to comply with the laws, rules and regulations relating to elections. The President/Chairman or, in his absence, the SecretaryGeneral representing the party shall affix his signature on the verification portion of the petition stating under oath that he is one of the officers of the petitioner duly authorized to verify the petition; that he has caused the preparation and filing of the petition; and that he read and understood the contents of the petition and acknowledge the same to be true and correct based on his personal knowledge. SEC. 7. Documents to support petition for registration. The following documents shall support petitions for registration: Constitution and by-laws as an organization seeking registration under the party-list system of representation; Platform or program of government; List of all its officers and members (national, regional, provincial, city/municipal) particularly showing that the majority of its membership and officers belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s it seeks to represent; Manifestation of intent to participate in the next immediately succeeding national and local elections, and list of at least five (5) nominees; Articles of Incorporation, by-laws and Certificate of Registration issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), if registered therewith. Track record summary showing that it represents and seeks to uplift the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s it seeks to represent;

Coalition agreement, if any, and the detailed list of affiliates comprising the coalition, including the signed coalition agreement; Sworn proof/s of existence in the areas organization is claiming representation; and Other information required by the Commission. A filing fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (P 10,000.00), and a legal research fee of One Hundred Pesos (P 100.00) shall be charged for each petition. SEC. 8. Receiving and recording of petitions for registration. Upon receipt of the requirements provided for in Section 6 and 7 hereof, the Office of the Clerk of the Commission shall receive and acknowledge receipt of the petition for registration by stamping every copy of each petition with the date and time of its receipt, and the signature of the personnel who actually received the same. Petitions shall be docketed and a docket number shall be assigned thereto. As soon as the petition is docketed, the Office of the Clerk of the Commission shall furnish the Law Department with a copy of the petition. SEC. 9. Procedure for Registration. Upon docketing the petition for registration, the Office of the Clerk of the Commission shall determine if the petition is in due form, and if all information required is complete. Within seven (7) days from receipt of the petitions for registration for registration, it shall submit the petitions received together with its findings and recommendations to the Commission. Upon receipt of the petition from the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, the Commission shall require the petitioner to publish at his expense in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation duly accredited by the Commission on Elections the following; The petition; Manifestation of intent to participate where the

List of nominees and certificate of nomination; and Order of the Commission requiring the publication with the date of the hearing of the petition. The Commission, after due notice and hearing, shall resolve the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for resolution but not later than the last working day of September of the year immediately preceding the next regular national and local elections, inclusive of resolutions of motions for reconsideration elevated to the Commission en banc.

RULE 2 OPPOSITION TO A PETITION FOR REGISTRATION SEC. 1. Opposition to a petition for registration; Where to file. A verified opposition to a petition for registration may be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, Commission on Elections in Manila, by any interested party on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 2 hereof. SEC. 2. Grounds for opposition to a petition for registration. The Commission may deny due course to the petition motu proprio or upon verified opposition of any interested party, after due notice and hearing, on any of the following grounds: It is a religious sec or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; It advocates violence or unlawful means to achieve its goal; That it is adjunct of, or a project or an entity funded or assisted by, the government; It is a foreign party or organization;

It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or indirectly or through its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes; It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections; If it has made untruthful statements in its Petition; It has ceased to exist for a period of at least one (1) year; 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; or The petition has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute, or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of names or registered parties, or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has no bona fide intention to represent the sector for which the petition has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. SEC. 3. Removal and/or cancellation of registration; Grounds. The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any party-list group organization or coalition on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 2 of this Rule. Any party whose registration has been removed or cancelled shall not be allowed to participate in the party-list system, or from being proclaimed if the evidence is strong. SEC. 4. When to file; Where to file. Verified complaint may be filed at anytime during office hours with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission. SEC. 5. Filing Fees A filing fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (P 10,000.00), and a legal research fees on One Hundred Pesos (P 100.00) shall be charged for each petition.

RULE 3 MANIFESTATION OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE SEC. 1. Who shall file manifestation of intent to participate. Any party-list group previously registered under the party-list system of representation, which intends to participate in the next regular national and local elections, shall file with the Commission a manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list election. SEC. 2. Where to file manifestation of intent to participate. The manifestation of intent to participate by any of the above-mentioned organized groups or parties shall be filed with the office of the Clerk of the Commission, Commission on Elections, Manila, in twelve (12) legible copies. The manifestation shall be signed by the President/Chairman or, in his absence, the Secretary-General of the party or group. Manifestations filed by mail, telegram or facsimile shall not be accepted. A sample of the manifestation to participate is attached as Annex A. SEC. 3. When to file manifestation of intent to participate. Manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list election shall be filed not later than the last working day of April of the year immediately preceding the next regular national and local elections during regular working hours. For purposes of the May 13, 2013 national and local elections, the last day for the filing of manifestation of intent to participate shall be on May 31, 2012 in accordance with Comelec Resolution No. 9359, promulgated February 8, 2012. SEC. 4. Contents of manifestation of intent to participate. The manifestation of intent to participate shall be under oath and state the following: a) name, acronym and nature of the filer,

whether a sectoral party, sectoral organization, political party or coalition; b) the date of its registration with the Commission; c) that at no time has it ceased to exist for a period of one (1) year from the time of its registration; d) that it did not fail to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or did not fail 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; and e) its desire to participate in the party-list election. The manifestation of intent to participate shall be accompanied by a list of at least five (5) nominees in the form prescribed by the Commission as Annex B. SEC. 5. Receiving and recording of manifestation of intent to participate. Upon receipt of the requirements provided for in Section 4 hereof, the Clerk of the Commission shall receive and acknowledge receipt of the manifestation of intent to participate by stamping every copy of each manifestation with the date and time of its receipt, and the signature of the personnel who actually received the same. A copy of each manifestation shall be forwarded to the Law Department for the preparation of the certified list of parties participating in the party-list election. No manifestation of intent to participate shall be accepted beyond the period stated in Section 3 herein. SEC. 6. Distribution of copies. The copies of the manifestation of intent to participate shall be distributed by the Clerk of the Commission, as follows: First copy, to be retained by the Clerk of the Commission; Second copy, to the Commission en banc through the Chairman; Third copy, to the Law Department; Fourth copy, to Department; and the Election Records and Statistics

A copy for the Chairman and each Commissioner. SEC. 7. Petition to deny due course to a manifestation of intent to participate. A verified petition seeking to deny due course to a manifestation of intent to participate may be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, Commission on Elections in Manila, by any interested party within five (5) days from the date of publication of the manifestation of intent to participate on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 2 of Rule 2 for previously registered party-list groups. For groups seeking registration, the last day for filing of petition to deny due course to a manifestation of intent to participate shall be filed by any interested party not later than last working day of May of the year immediately preceding the elections. For purposes of the May 13, 2013 national and local elections, the petition shall be filed not later than May 31, 2012.

RULE 4 PARTY-LIST NOMINEES SEC. 1. Qualifications of nominees. A party-list nominee must be: 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 election day; Able to read and write; A bona fide member of the party he seeks to represent for at least ninety days preceding election day; At least twenty-five (25) year of age;

Fifth copy, to the Comelec Secretary; and

A Filipino citizen who belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented sector which his sectoral party, organization, political party or coalition seeks to represent; and Able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. In case of the youth sector, he must be at least 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. The party-list group and the nominees must submit documentary evidence in consonance with the Constitution, R.A. 7941 and other laws 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: 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; 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); 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 In case of a part-list group/organization seeking representation of the marginalized and underrepresented 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. SEC. 2. Change of affiliation; Effect. Any selected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat; Provided, that if he changes his political or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization. SEC. 3. Effects of acceptance of nomination. Nominees holding appointive or elective offices may continue to hold office even after acceptance of their nomination, and the one-year prohibition from being hired or rehired in a public office after their party-list organizations fail to secure the needed votes to qualify them for a seat in the House of Representatives, shall not apply to them. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned. SEC. 4. Withdrawal of nomination or acceptance of nomination. Withdrawal of nominations or acceptance of nominations shall be in writing and under oath, and filed with the Law Department of the Commission in Manila before the close of polls. A nominee who withdraws his acceptance to the nomination shall not be eligible for nomination by other parties. SEC. 5. Nomination of Party-List representatives. 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.

SEC. 6. 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. SEC. 7. Term sharing of nominees. Filing of vacancy as a result of term sharing agreement among nominees of winning party-list groups/organizations shall not be allowed. SEC. 8. Publication. The Education and Information Department shall cause the immediate publication of the list of nominees in two (2) national newspaper of general circulation. RULE 5 PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE OR TO CANCEL CERTIFICATE OF NOMINATION OF PARTY-LIST NOMINEES SEC. 1. Petition to deny due course and/or cancellation; Grounds. A verified petition seeking to deny due course the nomination of nominees of party-list groups may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that a material misrepresentation has been committed in the qualification of the nominees. SEC. 2. Petition for disqualification, Ground; - A verified petition seeking the disqualification of nominees of party-list groups may be filed by any person when the nominee has been declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having: Given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; Committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; Spent in the campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by law;

Solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Section 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104 of the Omnibus Election Code; or Violated any of Sections 83, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. SEC. 3. Where to file petitions. The petitions herein mentioned shall be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, Commission on Elections in Intramuros, Manila; Petition for disqualification filed with office other than with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission shall not be accepted. SEC. 4. When to file petitions. Petitions for denial / cancellation / disqualification of party-list nominees shall be filed as follows: Petition to deny due course or cancellation of nomination of party-list nominees shall be filed within five (5) days after the publication of the list of nominees; and Petition for disqualification of party-list nominees shall be filed at any day not later than the date of proclamation. SEC. 5. Procedure in filing petitions. For purposes of the preceding sections, the following procedure shall be observed: A verified petition to disqualify a party-list nominee shall be filed in ten (10) legible copies, personally or through a duly authorized representative, by any person or voting age, or duly registered political party, organization or coalition of political parties, or party-list groups or organizations; Petitioner shall, before the filing of the petition, furnish a copy of the petition through personal service, to the respondent. In case personal service is not feasible, or the respondent refuses to receive the petition or the respondents whereabouts cannot be ascertained, the petitioner shall execute an affidavit stating the reasons or circumstances therefore;

The proof of service or the affidavit shall be attached to the petition to be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission; Upon payment of the filing fee of Php 10,000.00 and the legal research fee of Php 100.00, the Office of the Clerk of the Commission shall docket the petition and assign to it a docket number, which must be consecutive according to the order of receipt, and must bear the year and prefixed as SPA (DCN); Additional filing and legal research fees shall be charged if there are more than one (1) respondent at Php 10,000.00 and Php 100.00 for each respondent-nominee. Upon proper filing and docketing of the petition, the Office of the Clerk of the Commission shall, within three (3) calendar days, issue summons with notice of hearing through personal or telegram, facsimile or through the fastest means of communication, to the respondent and notice of hearing to the petitioner; Within three (3) calendar days from receipt of summons, the respondent shall, personally or through his authorized representative, file his verified answer (not a Motion to Dismiss) to the petition, at the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, in twelve (12) legible copies, with proof of personal service of Answer upon the petitioner; Grounds for Motion to Dismiss may be raised as an Affirmative Defense. The proceeding shall be summary in nature. In lieu of oral testimonies, the parties shall submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other documentary evidence together with their position papers or memoranda; The position paper or memorandum of each party shall contain the following: A Statement of the Case, which is a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action, a summary of the documentary evidence, and other matters necessary to an understanding of the controversy;

A Statement of the Issues, which is a clear and concise statement of the issues; The Argument, which is a clear and concise presentation of the argument in support of each issue; and The Relief, which is a specification of the judgment which the party seeks to obtain. Issues raised in the pleadings that are not included in the memorandum shall be deemed waived or abandoned. The Commission may consider the memorandum alone in deciding or resolving the petition, as said memorandum is a summation of the parties pleadings and documentary evidence SEC. 6. Motu proprio cases. The Commission may, at any time before proclamation, motu proprio disqualify any nominee whose nomination is contrary to Section 5, Rule 4 of this Resolution. Upon receipt of the list of nominees, the Law Department shall, within three (3) days from the last day of filing of the list of nominees, forward to the Commission en banc through the Office of the Commission Secretary, the list of nominees for purposes of publication. Thereafter, the Law Department shall, within the soonest time possible, submit its study and recommendation to the Commission en banc through the Office of the Commission Secretary whether or not the conditions imposed in Section 5, Rule 4 have been met. The Commission Secretary shall upon receipt thereof, immediately calendar for deliberation the list of nominees together with the study and recommendation of the Law Department with notice to all members of the Commission. Within five (5) days from the date of the deliberation, the Commission shall resolve all matters relative to the list of nominees submitted to it.

The Resolution disqualifying the nomination of party-list nominees shall be published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. SEC. 7. Promulgation. The promulgation of a Decision or Resolution of the Commission or a Division shall be made by delivering a copy thereof to the Clerk of the Commission, notice of which shall be served upon the parties or their attorneys personally, or by registered mail, telegram, fax or thru the fastest means of communication. SEC. 8. Effects of petition if unresolved before completion of canvass. If the petition, for reasons beyond the control of the Commission, cannot be decided before the completion of the canvass, the votes cast for the party-list group or organization shall be included in the counting and, in the canvassing; however, if the evidence is strong, the proclamation of the nominee shall be suspended notwithstanding the fact that his group or organization received the winning number of votes in such election. RULE 7 COMMON PROVISIONS SEC. 1. Suspension of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. In the interest of justice and in order to attain speedy disposition of cases, application of the Comelec Rules of Procedure or any portion thereof inconsistent herewith is hereby suspended. SEC. 2. Motion for Reconsideration. A motion to reconsider a Decision, Resolution, Order or Ruling of a Division shall be filed with three (3) days from receipt thereof. Such motion, if not pro forma, suspends the execution for implementation of the Decision, Resolution, Order or Ruling. Within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing thereof, the Clerk of the Commission shall notify the Presiding Commissioner. The latter within two (2) day thereafter certify the case to the Commission en banc. The office of the Clerk of the Commission shall calendar the Motion for Reconsideration for the resolution of the

Commission en banc within three (3) days from certification thereof. SEC. 3. Filing fee for Motion for Reconsideration. There shall be a payment of filing fee of Php 1,000.00 for every Motion for Reconsideration filed before the Office of the Clerk of the Commission. Additional filing fees shall be charged if there are more than one (1) respondent at Php 1,000.00 for each respondentnominee. SEC. 4. Availability of records to the public. Copies of Petitions and/or Manifestations filed under these Rules shall be available to the public upon prior compliance with existing Comelec rules and regulations and payment of fees that the Commission may require. SEC. 5. Effectivity. This Resolution shall take effect seven (7) days after its publication in two (2) daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. The Education and Information Department of the Commission shall cause the publication of this Resolution in two (2) daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. SEC. 6. Dissemination. The Education and Information Department of the Commission shall furnish copies of this Resolution to all field officials of the Commission, the President/Chairman or in his absence, the Secretary-General of all parties, organization or coalitions registered under the party-list system of representation. SO ORDERED.

TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY AT KAUNLARAN, and LUZON FARMERS PARTY, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PAG-ASA, SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PAG-ASA, MAHARLIKA, OCW-UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW, WOMEN-POWER, INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAKBAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN, KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA PILIPINAS -- All Being Party-List Parties/Organizations -- and Hon. MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR. in His Capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, respondents. x-----------------------x G.R. No. 136786 October 6, 2000

AKBAYAN! (CITIZENS' ACTION PARTY), ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY AT KAUNLARAN (AKO), and ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES (APEC), petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES represented by Speaker Manuel B. Villar, PAG-ASA, SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, MAHARLIKA, OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMAKATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW, WOMENPOWER INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, FOUR "L", AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAK-BAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN, KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA PILIPINAS, respondents. x-----------------------x G.R. No. 136781 October 6, 2000 G.R. No. 136795 October 6, 2000

VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY, ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN NG MGA MAGSASAKA, MANGGAGAWANG BUKID AT MANGINGISDA, ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG

ALAGAD (PARTIDO NG MARALITANG-LUNGSOD), NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF SMALL COCONUT FARMERS'

ORGANIZATIONS (NCSFCO), and LUZON FARMERS' PARTY (BUTIL), petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PAG-ASA, MAHARLIKA, OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAYBAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW, WOMENPOWER INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAK-BAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN, KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, and AABANTE KA PILIPINAS, respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.:* Prologue To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election, the Constitution and Republic Act (RA) No. 7941 mandate at least four inviolable parameters. These are: First, the twenty percent allocation - the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list. Second, the two percent threshold - only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are "qualified" to have a seat in the House of Representatives; Third, the three-seat limit - each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two additional seats. Fourth, proportional representation - the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to their total number of votes."

Because the Comelec violated these legal parameters, the assailed Resolutions must be struck down for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The poll body is mandated to enforce and administer election-related laws. It has no power to contravene or amend them. Neither does it have authority to decide the wisdom, propriety or rationality of the acts of Congress. Its bounden duty is to craft rules, regulations, methods and formulas to implement election laws -- not to reject, ignore, defeat, obstruct or circumvent them. In fine, the constitutional introduction of the party-list system - a normal feature of parliamentary democracies - into our presidential form of government, modified by unique Filipino statutory parameters, presents new paradigms and novel questions, which demand innovative legal solutions convertible into mathematical formulations which are, in turn, anchored on time-tested jurisprudence. The Case Before the Court are three consolidated Petitions for Certiorari (with applications for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction) under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing (1) the October 15, 1998 Resolution1 of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), Second Division, in Election Matter 98-065;2 and (2) the January 7, 1999 Resolution3 of the Comelec en banc, affirming the said disposition. The assailed Resolutions ordered the proclamation of thirty-eight (38) additional partylist representatives "to complete the full complement of 52 seats in the House of Representatives as provided under Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. 7941." The Facts and the Antecedents Our 1987 Constitution introduced a novel feature into our presidential system of government -- the party-list method of representation. Under this system, any national, regional or sectoral party or organization registered with the Commission on Elections may participate in the election of

party-list representatives who, upon their election and proclamation, shall sit in the House of Representatives as regular members.4 In effect, a voter is given two (2) votes for the House -- one for a district congressman and another for a party-list representative.5 Specifically, this system of representation is mandated by Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, which provides: "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 by 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." Complying with its constitutional duty to provide by law the "selection or election" of party-list representatives, Congress enacted RA 7941 on March 3, 1995. Under this statutes policy declaration, the State shall "promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of

Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible." (italics ours.) The requirements for entitlement to a party-list seat in the House are prescribed by this law (RA 7941) in this wise: "Sec. 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. -- The partylist representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list. For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system. In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure shall be observed: (a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections. (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the partylist system shall be entitled to one seat each; Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats. Pursuant to Section 18 of RA 7941, the Comelec en banc promulgated Resolution No. 2847, prescribing the rules and regulations governing the election of party-list representatives through the party-list system.

Election of the Fourteen Party-List Representatives On May 11, 1998, the first election for party-list representation was held simultaneously with the national elections. A total of one hundred twenty-three (123) parties, organizations and coalitions participated. On June 26, 1998, the Comelec en banc proclaimed thirteen (13) party-list representatives from twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had obtained at least two percent of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system. Two of the proclaimed representatives belonged to Petitioner APEC, which obtained 5.5 percent of the votes. The proclaimed winners and the votes cast in their favor were as follows:6 Party/Organization/ Coalition Number of Votes Obtained Percentage Total Votes Nominees 1. APEC 503,487 5.5% Rene M. Silos Melvyn D. Eballe 2. ABA 321,646 3.51%Leonardo Q. Montemayor 3. ALAGAD 312,500 3.41%Diogenes S. Osabel 4. VETERANS FEDERATION 304,802 3.33%Eduardo P. Pilapil 5. PROMDI 255,184 2.79%Joy A.G. Young 6. AKO 239,042 2.61%Ariel A. Zartiga 7. NCSCFO 238,303 2.60%Gorgonio P. Unde 8. ABANSE! PINAY 235,548 2.57%Patricia M. Sarenas 9. AKBAYAN 232,376 2.54%Loreta Ann P. Rosales 10. BUTIL 215,643 2.36%Benjamin A. Cruz 11. SANLAKAS 194,617 2.13%Renato B. Magtubo 12. COOP-NATCCO 189,802 2.07%Cresente C. Paez After passing upon the results of the special elections held on July 4, 18, and 25, 1998, the Comelec en banc further determined that COCOFED (Philippine Coconut Planters Federation, Inc.) was entitled to one party-list seat for having garnered 186,388 votes, which were equivalent to 2.04 percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system. Thus, its first nominee, Emerito S. Calderon, was proclaimed on September 8, 1998 as the 14th party-list representative.7

On July 6, 1998, PAG-ASA (Peoples Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good Government Towards Alleviation of Poverty and Social Advancement) filed with the Comelec a "Petition to Proclaim [the] Full Number of Party-List Representatives provided by the Constitution." It alleged that the filling up of the twenty percent membership of party-list representatives in the House of Representatives, as provided under the Constitution, was mandatory. It further claimed that the literal application of the two percent vote requirement and the three-seat limit under RA 7941 would defeat this constitutional provision, for only 25 nominees would be declared winners, short of the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit in the House. Thereafter, nine other party-list organizations8 filed their respective Motions for Intervention, seeking the same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA on substantially the same grounds. Likewise, PAG-ASAs Petition was joined by other party-list organizations in a Manifestation they filed on August 28, 1998. These organizations were COCOFED, Senior Citizens, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, OCW-UNIFIL, KAMPIL, MAHARLIKA, AFW, Women Power, Inc., Ang Lakas OCW, FEJODAP, CUP, Veterans Care, Bantay Bayan, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, ALU and BIGAS. On October 15, 1998, the Comelec Second Division promulgated the present assailed Resolution granting PAGASA's Petition. It also ordered the proclamation of herein 38 respondents who, in addition to the 14 already sitting, would thus total 52 party-list representatives. It held that "at all times, the total number of congressional9 seats must be filled up by eighty (80%) percent district representatives and twenty (20%) percent party-list representatives." In allocating the 52 seats, it disregarded the two percent-vote requirement prescribed under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941. Instead, it identified three "elements of the party-list system," which should supposedly determine "how the 52 seats should be filled up." First, "the system was conceived to enable the marginalized sectors of the Philippine society to be represented in the House of Representatives." Second, "the system should represent the broadest sectors of the

Philippine society." Third, "it should encourage [the] multiparty system." (Boldface in the original.) Considering these elements, but ignoring the two percent threshold requirement of RA 7941, it concluded that "the party-list groups ranked Nos. 1 to 51 x x x should have at least one representative." It thus disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881), Republic Act No. 7941 and other election laws, the Commission (Second Division) hereby resolves to GRANT the instant petition and motions for intervention, to include those similarly situated. ACCORDINGLY, the nominees from the party-list hereinbelow enumerated based on the list of names submitted by their respective parties, organizations and coalitions are PROCLAIMED as party-list representatives, to wit: 1. SENIOR CITIZENS 2. AKAP 3. AKSYON 4. PINATUBO 5. NUPA 6. PRP 7. AMIN 8. PAG-ASA 9. MAHARLIKA 10. OCW-UNIFIL 11. FCL 12. AMMA-KATIPUNAN

13. KAMPIL 14. BANTAY BAYAN 15. AFW 16. ANG LAKAS OCW 17. WOMENPOWER, INC. 18. FEJODAP 19. CUP 20. VETERANS CARE 21. 4L 22. AWATU 23. PMP 24. ATUCP 25. NCWP 26. ALU 27. BIGAS 28. COPRA 29. GREEN 30. ANAKBAYAN 31. ARBA 32. MINFA 33. AYOS

34. ALL COOP 35. PDP-LABAN 36. KATIPUNAN 37. ONEWAY PRINT 38. AABANTE KA PILIPINAS to complete the full complement of 52 seats in the House of Representatives as provided in Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. 7941." The foregoing disposition sums up a glaring bit of inconsistency and flip-flopping. In its Resolution No. 2847 dated June 25, 1996, the Comelec en banc had unanimously promulgated a set of "Rules and Regulations Governing the Election of x x x Party-List Representatives Through the Party-List System." Under these Rules and Regulations, one additional seat shall be given for every two percent of the vote, a formula the Comelec illustrated in its Annex "A." It apparently relied on this method when it proclaimed the 14 incumbent party-list solons (two for APEC and one each for the 12 other qualified parties). However, for inexplicable reasons, it abandoned said unanimous Resolution and proclaimed, based on its three "elements," the "Group of 38" private respondents.10 The twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had earlier been proclaimed winners on the basis of having obtained at least two percent of the votes cast for the party-list system, objected to the proclamation of the 38 parties and filed separate Motions for Reconsideration. They contended that (1) under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941, only parties, organizations or coalitions garnering at least two percent of the votes for the party-list system were entitled to seats in the House of Representatives; and (2) additional seats, not exceeding two for each, should be allocated to those which had garnered the two percent threshold in proportion to the

number of votes cast for the winning parties, as provided by said Section 11. Ruling of the Comelec En Banc Noting that all the parties -- movants and oppositors alike had agreed that the twenty percent membership of party-list representatives in the House "should be filled up," the Comelec en banc resolved only the issue concerning the apportionment or allocation of the remaining seats. In other words, the issue was: Should the remaining 38 unfilled seats allocated to party-list solons be given (1) to the thirteen qualified parties that had each garnered at least two percent of the total votes, or (2) to the Group of 38 - herein private respondents - even if they had not passed the two percent threshold? The poll body held that to allocate the remaining seats only to those who had hurdled the two percent vote requirement "will mean the concentration of representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives to thirteen organizations representing two political parties, three coalitions and four sectors: urban poor, veterans, women and peasantry x x x. Such strict application of the 2% 'threshold' does not serve the essence and object of the Constitution and the legislature -- to develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives x x x." Additionally, it "will also prevent this Commission from complying with the constitutional and statutory decrees for party-list representatives to compose 20% of the House of Representatives." Thus, in its Resolution dated January 7, 1999, the Comelec en banc, by a razor-thin majority -- with three commissioners concurring11 and two members12 dissenting -- affirmed the Resolution of its Second Division. It, however, held in abeyance the proclamation of the 51st party (AABANTE KA PILIPINAS), "pending the resolution of petitions for correction of manifest errors."

Without expressly declaring as unconstitutional or void the two percent vote requirement imposed by RA 7941, the Commission blithely rejected and circumvented its application, holding that there were more important considerations than this statutory threshold. Consequently, several petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayers for the issuance of temporary restraining orders or writs of preliminary injunction, were filed before this Court by the parties and organizations that had obtained at least two per cent of the total votes cast for the party-list system.13 In the suits, made respondents together with the Comelec were the 38 parties, organizations and coalitions that had been declared by the poll body as likewise entitled to party-list seats in the House of Representatives. Collectively, petitioners sought the proclamation of additional representatives from each of their parties and organizations, all of which had obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system. On January 12, 1999, this Court issued a Status Quo Order directing the Comelec "to CEASE and DESIST from constituting itself as a National Board of Canvassers on 13 January 1999 or on any other date and proclaiming as winners the nominees of the parties, organizations and coalitions enumerated in the dispositive portions of its 15 October 1998 Resolution or its 7 January 1999 Resolution, until further orders from this Court." On July 1, 1999, oral arguments were heard from the parties. Atty. Jeremias U. Montemayor appeared for petitioners in GR No. 136781; Atty. Gregorio A. Andolana, for petitioners in GR No. 136786; Atty. Rodante D. Marcoleta for petitioners in GR No. 136795; Attys. Ricardo Blancaflor and Pete Quirino Quadra, for all the private respondents; Atty. Porfirio V. Sison for Intervenor NACUSIP; and Atty. Jose P. Balbuena for Respondent Comelec. Upon invitation of the Court, retired Comelec Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong acted as amicus curiae. Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez appeared, not for any party but also as a friend of the Court.

Thereafter, the parties and the amici curiae were required to submit their respective Memoranda in amplification of their verbal arguments.14 The Issues The Court believes, and so holds, that the main question of how to determine the winners of the subject party-list election can be fully settled by addressing the following issues: 1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? In other words, should the twenty percent allocation for party-list solons be filled up completely and all the time? 2. Are the two percent threshold requirement and the threeseat limit provided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional? 3. If the answer to Issue 2 is in the affirmative, how should the additional seats of a qualified party be determined? The Courts Ruling The Petitions are partly meritorious. The Court agrees with petitioners that the assailed Resolutions should be nullified, but disagrees that they should all be granted additional seats. First Issue: Whether the Twenty Percent Constitutional Allocation Is Mandatory The pertinent provision15 of the Constitution on the composition of the House of Representatives reads as follows: "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 by 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." Determination of the Total Number of Party-List Lawmakers Clearly, the Constitution makes the number of district representatives the determinant in arriving at the number of seats allocated for party-list lawmakers, who shall comprise "twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list." We thus translate this legal provision into a mathematical formula, as follows: No. of district representatives .80 x .20 = No. of party-list representatives This formulation16 means that any increase in the number of district representatives, as may be provided by law, will necessarily result in a corresponding increase in the number of party-list seats. To illustrate, considering that there were 208 district representatives to be elected during the 1998 national elections, the number of party-list seats would be 52, computed as follows: 208 .80 x .20 = 52 The foregoing computation of seat allocation is easy enough to comprehend. The problematic question, however, is this: Does the Constitution require all such allocated seats to be filled up all the time and under all circumstances? Our short answer is "No."

Twenty Percent Allocation a Mere Ceiling The Constitution simply states that "[t]he party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list." According to petitioners, this percentage is a ceiling; the mechanics by which it is to be filled up has been left to Congress. In the exercise of its prerogative, the legislature enacted RA 7941, by which it prescribed that a party, organization or coalition participating in the party-list election must obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the system in order to qualify for a seat in the House of Representatives. Petitioners further argue that the constitutional provision must be construed together with this legislative requirement. If there is no sufficient number of participating parties, organizations or coalitions which could hurdle the two percent vote threshold and thereby fill up the twenty percent party-list allocation in the House, then naturally such allocation cannot be filled up completely. The Comelec cannot be faulted for the "incompleteness," for ultimately the voters themselves are the ones who, in the exercise of their right of suffrage, determine who and how many should represent them. On the other hand, Public Respondent Comelec, together with the respondent parties, avers that the twenty percent allocation for party-list lawmakers is mandatory, and that the two percent vote requirement in RA 7941 is unconstitutional, because its strict application would make it mathematically impossible to fill up the House party-list complement. We rule that a simple reading of Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, easily conveys the equally simple message that Congress was vested with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. The Constitution explicitly sets down only the

percentage of the total membership in the House of Representatives reserved for party-list representatives. In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress enacted RA 7941. As said earlier, Congress declared therein a policy to promote "proportional representation" in the election of party-list representatives in order to enable Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation that would benefit them. It however deemed it necessary to require parties, organizations and coalitions participating in the system to obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system in order to be entitled to a party-list seat. Those garnering more than this percentage could have "additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes." Furthermore, no winning party, organization or coalition can have more than three seats in the House of Representatives. Thus the relevant portion of Section 11(b) of the law provides: "(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the partylist system shall be entitled to one seat each; Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats." Considering the foregoing statutory requirements, it will be shown presently that Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for party-list seats in Congress. On the contention that a strict application of the two percent threshold may result in a "mathematical impossibility," suffice it to say that the prerogative to determine whether to adjust or change this percentage requirement rests in Congress.17 Our task now, as should have been the Comelecs, is not to find fault in the wisdom of the law through highly unlikely scenarios of clinical extremes, but to craft an innovative mathematical formula that can, as far as

practicable, implement it within the context of the actual election process. Indeed, the function of the Supreme Court, as well as of all judicial and quasi-judicial agencies, is to apply the law as we find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it. Unless declared unconstitutional, ineffective, insufficient or otherwise void by the proper tribunal, a statute remains a valid command of sovereignty that must be respected and obeyed at all times. This is the essence of the rule of law. Second Issue: The Statutory Requirement and Limitation The Two Percent Threshold In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties, organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. This intent can be gleaned from the deliberations on the proposed bill. We quote below a pertinent portion of the Senate discussion: "SENATOR GONZALES: For purposes of continuity, I would want to follow up a point that was raised by, I think, Senator Osmea when he said that a political party must have obtained at least a minimum percentage to be provided in this law in order to qualify for a seat under the party-list system. They do that in many other countries. A party must obtain at least 2 percent of the votes cast, 5 percent or 10 percent of the votes cast. Otherwise, as I have said, this will actually proliferate political party groups and those who have not really been given by the people sufficient basis for them to represent their constituents and, in turn, they will be able to get to the Parliament through the backdoor under the name of the party-list system, Mr. President."18 A similar intent is clear from the statements of the bill sponsor in the House of Representatives, as the following shows:

"MR. ESPINOSA. There is a mathematical formula which this computation is based at, arriving at a five percent ratio which would distribute equitably the number of seats among the different sectors. There is a mathematical formula which is, I think, patterned after that of the party list of the other parliaments or congresses, more particularly the Bundestag of Germany."19 Moreover, even the framers of our Constitution had in mind a minimum-vote requirement, the specification of which they left to Congress to properly determine. Constitutional Commissioner Christian S. Monsod explained: "MR. MONSOD. x x x We are amenable to modifications in the minimum percentage of votes. Our proposal is that anybody who has two-and-a-half percent of the votes gets a seat. There are about 20 million who cast their votes in the last elections. Two-and-a-half percent would mean 500,000 votes. Anybody who has a constituency of 500,000 votes nationwide deserves a seat in the Assembly. If we bring that down to two percent, we are talking about 400,000 votes. The average vote per family is three. So, here we are talking about 134,000 families. We believe that there are many sectors who will be able to get seats in the Assembly because many of them have memberships of over 10,000. In effect, that is the operational implication of our proposal. What we are trying to avoid is this selection of sectors, the reserve seat system. We believe that it is our job to open up the system and that we should not have within that system a reserve seat. We think that people should organize, should work hard, and should earn their seats within that system."20 The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the law, but with the very essence of "representation." Under a republican or representative state, all government authority emanates from the people, but is exercised by representatives chosen by them.21 But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features

the party-list system, the result might be the proliferation of small groups which are incapable of contributing significant legislation, and which might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even legislative districts are apportioned according to "the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio"22 to ensure meaningful local representation. All in all, we hold that the statutory provision on this two percent requirement is precise and crystalline. When the law is clear, the function of courts is simple application, not interpretation or circumvention.23 The Three-Seat-Per-Party Limit An important consideration in adopting the party-list system is to promote and encourage a multiparty system of representation. Again, we quote Commissioner Monsod: "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. But we also wanted to avoid the problems of mechanics and operation in the implementation of a concept that has very serious shortcomings of classification and of double or triple votes. 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. This way, we will open it up and enable sectoral groups, or maybe regional groups, to earn their seats among the fifty. x x x."24 Consistent with the Constitutional Commission's pronouncements, Congress set the seat-limit to three (3) for each qualified party, organization or coalition. "Qualified" means having hurdled the two percent vote threshold. Such three-seat limit ensures the entry of various interestrepresentations into the legislature; thus, no single group, no matter how large its membership, would dominate the partylist seats, if not the entire House.

We shall not belabor this point, because the validity of the three-seat limit is not seriously challenged in these consolidated cases. Third Issue: Method of Allocating Additional Seats Having determined that the twenty percent seat allocation is merely a ceiling, and having upheld the constitutionality of the two percent vote threshold and the three-seat limit imposed under RA 7941, we now proceed to the method of determining how many party-list seats the qualified parties, organizations and coalitions are entitled to. The very first step - there is no dispute on this - is to rank all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions (hereafter collectively referred to as "parties") according to the votes they each obtained. The percentage of their respective votes as against the total number of votes cast for the party-list system is then determined. All those that garnered at least two percent of the total votes cast have an assured or guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives. Thereafter, "those garnering more than two percent of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes." The problem is how to distribute additional seats "proportionally," bearing in mind the three-seat limit further imposed by the law. One Additional Seat Per Two Percent Increment One proposed formula is to allocate one additional seat for every additional proportion of the votes obtained equivalent to the two percent vote requirement for the first seat.25 Translated in figures, a party that wins at least six percent of the total votes cast will be entitled to three seats; another party that gets four percent will be entitled to two seats; and one that gets two percent will be entitled to one seat only. This proposal has the advantage of simplicity and ease of comprehension. Problems arise, however, when the parties get very lop-sided votes -- for example, when Party A receives 20 percent of the total votes cast; Party B, 10 percent; and Party C, 6 percent. Under the method just described, Party A would be entitled to 10 seats; Party B, to 5

seats and Party C, to 3 seats. Considering the three-seat limit imposed by law, all the parties will each uniformly have three seats only. We would then have the spectacle of a party garnering two or more times the number of votes obtained by another, yet getting the same number of seats as the other one with the much lesser votes. In effect, proportional representation will be contravened and the law rendered nugatory by this suggested solution. Hence, the Court discarded it. The Niemeyer Formula Another suggestion that the Court considered was the Niemeyer formula, which was developed by a German mathematician and adopted by Germany as its method of distributing party-list seats in the Bundestag. Under this formula, the number of additional seats to which a qualified party would be entitled is determined by multiplying the remaining number of seats to be allocated by the total number of votes obtained by that party and dividing the product by the total number of votes garnered by all the qualified parties. The integer portion of the resulting product will be the number of additional seats that the party concerned is entitled to. Thus: No. of remaining seats to be allocated Total no. of votes of qualified parties x No. of votes of party concerned = No. of additional seats of party concerned (Integer.decimal) The next step is to distribute the extra seats left among the qualified parties in the descending order of the decimal portions of the resulting products. Based on the 1998 election results, the distribution of party-list seats under the Niemeyer method would be as follows: Party Number of Votes Guaranteed Seats Additional

Extra Seats Total 1. APEC 503,487 1 5.73 1 7 2. ABA 321,646 1 3.66 1 5 3. ALAGAD 312,500 1 3.55 4 4. VETERANS FEDERATION 304,802 1 3.47 4 5. PROMDI 255,184 1 2.90 1 4 6. AKO 239,042 1 2.72 1 4 7. NCSCFO 238,303 1 2.71 1 4 8. ABANSE! PINAY 235,548 1 2.68 1 4 9. AKBAYAN 232,376 1 2.64 4 10. BUTIL 215,643 1 2.45 3 11. SANLAKAS 194,617 1 2.21 3 12. COOP-NATCCO 189,802 1 2.16 3 13. COCOFED 186,388 1 2.12 3 Total 3,429,338 13 32 7 52 However, since Section 11 of RA 7941 sets a limit of three (3) seats for each party, those obtaining more than the limit will have to give up their excess seats. Under our present set of facts, the thirteen qualified parties will each be entitled to three seats, resulting in an overall total of 39. Note that like the previous proposal, the Niemeyer formula would violate the principle of "proportional representation," a basic tenet of our party-list system. The Niemeyer formula, while no doubt suitable for Germany, finds no application in the Philippine setting, because of our three-seat limit and the non-mandatory character of the twenty percent allocation. True, both our Congress and the Bundestag have threshold requirements -- two percent for us and five for them. There are marked differences between the two models, however. As ably pointed out by private respondents,26 one half of the German Parliament is filled up by party-list members. More important, there are no seat

limitations, because German law discourages the proliferation of small parties. In contrast, RA 7941, as already mentioned, imposes a three-seat limit to encourage the promotion of the multiparty system. This major statutory difference makes the Niemeyer formula completely inapplicable to the Philippines. Just as one cannot grow Washington apples in the Philippines or Guimaras mangoes in the Arctic because of fundamental environmental differences, neither can the Niemeyer formula be transplanted in toto here because of essential variances between the two party-list models. The Legal and Logical Formula for the Philippines It is now obvious that the Philippine style party-list system is a unique paradigm which demands an equally unique formula. In crafting a legally defensible and logical solution to determine the number of additional seats that a qualified party is entitled to, we need to review the parameters of the Filipino party-list system. As earlier mentioned in the Prologue, they are as follows: First, the twenty percent allocation - the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list. Second, the two percent threshold - only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are "qualified" to have a seat in the House of Representatives; Third, the three-seat limit - each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two additional seats. Fourth, proportional representation - the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to their total number of votes."

The problem, as already stated, is to find a way to translate "proportional representation" into a mathematical formula that will not contravene, circumvent or amend the abovementioned parameters. After careful deliberation, we now explain such formula, step by step. Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners, the public and the private respondents, as well as the members of this Court, that the initial step is to rank all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they each received. Then the ratio for each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the parties participating in the system. All parties with at least two percent of the total votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties shall be considered in the computation of additional seats. The party receiving the highest number of votes shall thenceforth be referred to as the "first" party. Step Two. The next step is to determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to be able to compute that for the other parties. Since the distribution is based on proportional representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes. For example, the first party received 1,000,000 votes and is determined to be entitled to two additional seats. Another qualified party which received 500,000 votes cannot be entitled to the same number of seats, since it garnered only fifty percent of the votes won by the first party. Depending on the proportion of its votes relative to that of the first party whose number of seats has already been predetermined, the second party should be given less than that to which the first one is entitled. The other qualified parties will always be allotted less additional seats than the first party for two reasons: (1) the

ratio between said parties and the first party will always be less than 1:1, and (2) the formula does not admit of mathematical rounding off, because there is no such thing as a fraction of a seat. Verily, an arbitrary rounding off could result in a violation of the twenty percent allocation. An academic mathematical demonstration of such incipient violation is not necessary because the present set of facts, given the number of qualified parties and the voting percentages obtained, will definitely not end up in such constitutional contravention. The Court has previously ruled in Guingona Jr. v. Gonzales27 that a fractional membership cannot be converted into a whole membership of one when it would, in effect, deprive another party's fractional membership. It would be a violation of the constitutional mandate of proportional representation. We said further that "no party can claim more than what it is entitled to x x x." In any case, the decision on whether to round off the fractions is better left to the legislature. Since Congress did not provide for it in the present law, neither will this Court. The Supreme Court does not make the law; it merely applies it to a given set of facts. Formula for Determining Additional Seats for the First Party Now, how do we determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to? The only basis given by the law is that a party receiving at least two percent of the total votes shall be entitled to one seat. Proportionally, if the first party were to receive twice the number of votes of the second party, it should be entitled to twice the latter's number of seats and so on. The formula, therefore, for computing the number of seats to which the first party is entitled is as follows: Number of votes of first party Total votes for party-list system = Proportion of votes of first party relative to total votes for party-list system

If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off is equal to at least six percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party list groups, then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats overall. If the proportion of votes without a rounding off is equal to or greater than four percent, but less than six percent, then the first party shall have one additional or a total of two seats. And if the proportion is less than four percent, then the first party shall not be entitled to any additional seat. We adopted this six percent bench mark, because the first party is not always entitled to the maximum number of additional seats. Likewise, it would prevent the allotment of more than the total number of available seats, such as in an extreme case wherein 18 or more parties tie for the highest rank and are thus entitled to three seats each. In such scenario, the number of seats to which all the parties are entitled may exceed the maximum number of party-list seats reserved in the House of Representatives.1wphi1 Applying the above formula, APEC, which received 5.5% of the total votes cast, is entitled to one additional seat or a total of two seats. Note that the above formula will be applicable only in determining the number of additional seats the first party is entitled to. It cannot be used to determine the number of additional seats of the other qualified parties. As explained earlier, the use of the same formula for all would contravene the proportional representation parameter. For example, a second party obtains six percent of the total number of votes cast. According to the above formula, the said party would be entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats overall. However, if the first party received a significantly higher amount of votes -- say, twenty percent -- to grant it the same number of seats as the second party would violate the statutory mandate of proportional representation, since a party getting only six percent of the votes will have an equal number of representatives as the one obtaining twenty percent. The proper solution, therefore, is to grant the first party a total of three seats; and the party receiving six

percent, additional seats in proportion to those of the first party. Formula for Additional Seats of Other Qualified Parties Step Three The next step is to solve for the number of additional seats that the other qualified parties are entitled to, based on proportional representation. The formula is encompassed by the following complex fraction: Additional seats for concerned party = No. of votes of concerned party Total No. of votes for party-list system No. of votes of first party Total No. of for party list system x No. of additional seats allocated to the first party In simplified form, it is written as follows: Additional seats for concerned party = No. of votes of concerned party No. of votes of first party x No. of additional seats allocated to the first party Thus, in the case of ABA, the additional number of seats it would be entitled to is computed as follows: Additional seats for concerned party (ABA) = No. of votes of ABA No. of vites of first party (APEC) x No. of additional seats allocated to

the first party Substituting actual values would result in the following equation: Additional seats for concerned party (ABA) = 321,646 503,487 x 1 = .64 or 0 additional seat, since rounding off is not to be applied Applying the above formula, we find the outcome of the 1998 party-list election to be as follows: Organization Votes Garnered %age of Total Votes Initial No. of Seats Additional Seats Total 1. APEC 503,487 5.50%1 1 2 2. ABA 321,646 3.51%1 321,646 / 503,487 = 0.64 1 3. ALAGAD 312,500 3.41%1 312,500 / 503,487 = 0.62 1 4. VETERANS FEDERATION 304,802 3.33%1 304,802 / 503,487 = 0.61 1 5. PROMDI 255,184 2.79%1 255,184 / 503,487 = 0.51 1 6. AKO 239,042 2.61%1 239,042 / 503,487 = 0.47 1 7. NCSFO 238,303 2.60%1 238,303 / 503,487 = 0.47 1 8. ABANSE! 235,548 2.57%1 321,646 / 503,487 = 0.47 1 PINAY 9. AKBAYAN! 232,376 2.54%1 232,376 / 503,487 = 0.46 1 10. BUTIL 215,643 2.36%1 215,643 / 503,487 = 0.43 1 11. SANLAKAS 194,617 2.13%1 194,617 503,487 * 1 = 0.39 1 12. COOP-NATCCO 189,802 2.07%1 189,802 503,487 * 1 = 0.38 1

13. COCOFED 186,388 2.04%1 186,388 / 503,487 * 1 = 0.37 1 Incidentally, if the first party is not entitled to any additional seat, then the ratio of the number of votes for the other party to that for the first one is multiplied by zero. The end result would be zero additional seat for each of the other qualified parties as well. The above formula does not give an exact mathematical representation of the number of additional seats to be awarded since, in order to be entitled to one additional seat, an exact whole number is necessary. In fact, most of the actual mathematical proportions are not whole numbers and are not rounded off for the reasons explained earlier. To repeat, rounding off may result in the awarding of a number of seats in excess of that provided by the law. Furthermore, obtaining absolute proportional representation is restricted by the three-seat-per-party limit to a maximum of two additional slots. An increase in the maximum number of additional representatives a party may be entitled to would result in a more accurate proportional representation. But the law itself has set the limit: only two additional seats. Hence, we need to work within such extant parameter. The net result of the foregoing formula for determining additional seats happily coincides with the present number of incumbents; namely, two for the first party (APEC) and one each for the twelve other qualified parties. Hence, we affirm the legality of the incumbencies of their nominees, albeit through the use of a different formula and methodology. In his Dissent, Justice Mendoza criticizes our methodology for being too strict. We say, however, that our formula merely translated the Philippine legal parameters into a mathematical equation, no more no less. If Congress in its wisdom decides to modify RA 7941 to make it "less strict," then the formula will also be modified to reflect the changes willed by the lawmakers. Epilogue

* 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 / /

In sum, we hold that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the thirty-eight (38) herein respondent parties, organizations and coalitions are each entitled to a party-list seat, because it glaringly violated two requirements of RA 7941: the two percent threshold and proportional representation. In disregarding, rejecting and circumventing these statutory provisions, the Comelec effectively arrogated unto itself what the Constitution expressly and wholly vested in the legislature: the power and the discretion to define the mechanics for the enforcement of the system. The wisdom and the propriety of these impositions, absent any clear transgression of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, are beyond judicial review.28 Indeed, the Comelec and the other parties in these cases both petitioners and respondents - have failed to demonstrate that our lawmakers gravely abused their discretion in prescribing such requirements. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.29 The Comelec, which is tasked merely to enforce and administer election-related laws,30 cannot simply disregard an act of Congress exercised within the bounds of its authority. As a mere implementing body, it cannot judge the wisdom, propriety or rationality of such act. Its recourse is to draft an amendment to the law and lobby for its approval and enactment by the legislature. Furthermore, a reading of the entire Constitution reveals no violation of any of its provisions by the strict enforcement of RA 7941. It is basic that to strike down a law or any of its provisions as unconstitutional, there must be a clear and unequivocal showing that what the Constitution prohibits, the statute permits.31 Neither can we grant petitioners prayer that they each be given additional seats (for a total of three each), because granting such plea would plainly and simply violate the

"proportional representation" mandated by Section 11 (b) of RA 7941. The low turnout of the party-list votes during the 1998 elections should not be interpreted as a total failure of the law in fulfilling the object of this new system of representation. It should not be deemed a conclusive indication that the requirements imposed by RA 7941 wholly defeated the implementation of the system. Be it remembered that the party-list system, though already popular in parliamentary democracies, is still quite new in our presidential system. We should allow it some time to take root in the consciousness of our people and in the heart of our tripartite form of republicanism. Indeed, the Comelec and the defeated litigants should not despair. Quite the contrary, the dismal result of the first election for party-list representatives should serve as a challenge to our sectoral parties and organizations. It should stir them to be more active and vigilant in their campaign for representation in the State's lawmaking body. It should also serve as a clarion call for innovation and creativity in adopting this novel system of popular democracy. With adequate information dissemination to the public and more active sectoral parties, we are confident our people will be more responsive to future party-list elections. Armed with patience, perseverance and perspicacity, our marginalized sectors, in time, will fulfill the Filipino dream of full representation in Congress under the aegis of the party-list system, Philippine style. WHEREFORE, the Petitions are hereby partially GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Comelec are SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED. The proclamations of the fourteen (14) sitting party-list representatives - two for APEC and one each for the remaining twelve (12) qualified parties - are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

UMDP; LIBERAL PARTY; MAMAMAYANG AYAW SA DROGA; CREBA; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS; JEEP; and BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them to become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to make the marginalized and the underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the State's benevolence, but active participants in the mainstream of representative democracy. Thus, allowing all individuals and groups, including those which now dominate district elections, to have the same opportunity to participate in party-list elections would desecrate this lofty objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanism into an atrocious veneer for traditional politics. The Case Before us are two Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 1 issued by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on March 26, 2001. This Resolution approved the participation of 154 organizations and parties, including those herein impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented. The Factual Antecedents G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001 BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION (NPC); LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP); PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-NUCDWith the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received several Petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties, organizations and political parties. According to the Comelec, "[v]erifications were made as to the status and capacity of these parties and organizations and hearings were scheduled day and night until the last party w[as] heard. With the

G.R. No. 147589

June 26, 2001

ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the acronym OFW), represented herein by its secretary-general, MOHAMMAD OMAR FAJARDO, petitioner, vs. ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY GO! GO! PHILIPPINES; THE TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES; PHILIPPINE LOCAL AUTONOMY; CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE; CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; SPORTS & HEALTH ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; ANG LAKAS NG OVERSEAS CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW); BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION and others under "Organizations/Coalitions" of Omnibus Resolution No. 3785; PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO; LAKAS NUCD-UMDP; NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION; LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO; AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO; PDPLABAN; LIBERAL PARTY; NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG; and others under "Political Parties" of Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. respondents. x---------------------------------------------------------x

number of these petitions and the observance of the legal and procedural requirements, review of these petitions as well as deliberations takes a longer process in order to arrive at a decision and as a result the two (2) divisions promulgated a separate Omnibus Resolution and individual resolution on political parties. These numerous petitions and processes observed in the disposition of these petition[s] hinder the early release of the Omnibus Resolutions of the Divisions which were promulgated only on 10 February 2001." 2 Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 deadline prescribed under Comelec Resolution No. 3426 dated December 22, 2000, the registered parties and organizations filed their respective Manifestations, stating their intention to participate in the party-list elections. Other sectoral and political parties and organizations whose registrations were denied also filed Motions for Reconsideration, together with Manifestations of their intent to participate in the party-list elections. Still other registered parties filed their Manifestations beyond the deadline. The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manifestations (or accreditations) of 154 parties and organizations, but denied those of several others in its assailed March 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which we quote: "We carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in mind that this system of proportional representation scheme will encourage multi-partisan [sic] and enhance the inability of small, new or sectoral parties or organization to directly participate in this electoral window. "It will be noted that as defined, the 'party-list system' is a 'mechanism of proportional representation' in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections.

"However, in the course of our review of the matters at bar, we must recognize the fact that there is a need to keep the number of sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions, down to a manageable level, keeping only those who substantially comply with the rules and regulations and more importantly the sufficiency of the Manifestations or evidence on the Motions for Reconsiderations or Oppositions." 3 On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed before the Comelec a Petition praying that "the names of [some of herein respondents] be deleted from the 'Certified List of Political Parties/Sectoral Parties/Organizations/Coalitions Participating in the Party List System for the May 14, 2001 Elections' and that said certified list be accordingly amended." It also asked, as an alternative, that the votes cast for the said respondents not be counted or canvassed, and that the latter's nominees not be proclaimed. 4 On April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth also filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration and Nomination against some of herein respondents. 5 On April 18, 2001, the Comelec required the respondents in the two disqualification cases to file Comments within three days from notice. It also set the date for hearing on April 26, 2001, 6 but subsequently reset it to May 3, 2001. 7 During the hearing, however, Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion merely directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda. 8 Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the Comelec, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party filed a Petition 9 before this Court on April 16, 2001. This Petition, docketed as GR No. 147589, assailed Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated April 17, 2001, 10 the Court directed respondents to comment on the Petition within a nonextendible period of five days from notice. 11 On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna also filed before this Court a Petition, 12 docketed as GR No. 147613, also challenging Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated May 9, 2001, 13 the Court ordered the consolidation of the two Petitions before it; directed respondents named in the second Petition to file their

respective Comments on or before noon of May 15, 2001; and called the parties to an Oral Argument on May 17, 2001. It added that the Comelec may proceed with the counting and canvassing of votes cast for the party-list elections, but barred the proclamation of any winner therein, until further orders of the Court. Thereafter, Comments 14 on the second Petition were received by the Court and, on May 17, 2001, the Oral Argument was conducted as scheduled. In an Order given in open court, the parties were directed to submit their respective Memoranda simultaneously within a nonextendible period of five days. 15 Issues: During the hearing on May 17, 2001, the Court directed the parties to address the following issues: "1. Whether or not recourse under Rule 65 is proper under the premises. More specifically, is there no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law? "2. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections. "3. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to 'marginalized and underrepresented' sectors and organizations. "4. Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. 3785." 16 The Court's Ruling The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded to the Comelec which will determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941, as specified in this Decision.

First Issue: Recourse Under Rule 65 Respondents contend that the recourse of both petitioners under Rule 65 is improper because there are other plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. 17 The Office of the Solicitor General argues that petitioners should have filed before the Comelec a petition either for disqualification or for cancellation of registration, pursuant to Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Comelec Resolution No. 3307-A 18 dated November 9, 2000. 19 We disagree. At bottom, petitioners attack the validity of Comelec Omnibus Resolution 3785 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, insofar as it allowed respondents to participate in the party-list elections of 2001. Indeed, under both the Constitution 20 and the Rules of Court, such challenge may be brought before this Court in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Moreover, the assailed Omnibus Resolution was promulgated by Respondent Commission en banc; hence, no motion for reconsideration was possible, it being a prohibited pleading under Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. 21 The Court also notes that Petitioner Bayan Muna had filed before the Comelec a Petition for Cancellation of Registration and Nomination against some of herein respondents. 22 The Comelec, however, did not act on that Petition. In view of the pendency of the elections, Petitioner Bayan Muna sought succor from this Court, for there was no other adequate recourse at the time. Subsequent events have proven the urgency of petitioner's action; to this date, the Comelec has not yet formally resolved the Petition before it. But a resolution may just be a formality because the Comelec, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has made its position on the matter quite clear. In any event, this case presents an exception to the rule that certiorari shall lie only in the absence of any other plain,

speedy and adequate remedy. 23 It has been held that certiorari is available, notwithstanding the presence of other remedies, "where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved, and in case of urgency." 24 Indeed, the instant case is indubitably imbued with public interest and with extreme urgency, for it potentially involves the composition of 20 percent of the House of Representatives. Moreover, this case raises transcendental constitutional issues on the party-list system, which this Court must urgently resolve, consistent with its duty to "formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules." 25 Finally, procedural requirements "may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the principle of social justice x x x when the decision sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available." 26 Second Issue: Participation of Political Parties In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party contends that "the inclusion of political parties in the party-list system is the most objectionable portion of the questioned Resolution." 27 For its part, Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the participation of "major political parties." 28 On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, like the impleaded political parties, submits that the Constitution and RA No. 7941 allow political parties to participate in the party-list elections. It argues that the party-list system is, in fact, open to all "registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations." 29 We now rule on this issue. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution

provides that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations." Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political parties may be registered under the party-list system. "Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution. "Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law." 30 During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Comm. Christian S. Monsod pointed out that the participants in the party-list system may "be a regional party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO, 31 Magsasaka, or a regional party in Mindanao." 32 This was also clear from the following exchange between Comms. Jaime Tadeo and Blas Ople: 33 "MR. TADEO. Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay pwedeng paghati-hatian ng UNIDO, PDP-Laban, PNP, Liberal at Nacionalista? MR. OPLE. Maaari yan sapagkat bukas ang party list system sa lahat ng mga partido." Indeed, Commissioner Monsod stated that the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the system, in order to give a chance to parties that consistently place third or fourth in congressional district elections to win a seat in Congress. 34 He explained: "The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past elections, we found out that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But

they were always third or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they would have five or six representatives in the Assembly even if they would not win individually in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives of the party-list system." For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for "a partylist system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x x." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." More to the point, the law defines "political party" as "an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office." Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as to the participation of political parties in the party-list system. We quote the pertinent provision below: "x x x "For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system. x x x" Indubitably, therefore, political parties even the major ones -- may participate in the party-list elections. Third Issue: Marginalized and Underrepresented That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean, however, that any political party --

or any organization or group for that matter -- may do so. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides as follows: "(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." (Emphasis supplied.) Notwithstanding the sparse language of the provision, a distinguished member of the Constitutional Commission declared that the purpose of the party-list provision was to give "genuine power to our people" in Congress. Hence, when the provision was discussed, he exultantly announced: "On this first day of August 1986, we shall, hopefully, usher in a new chapter to our national history, by giving genuine power to our people in the legislature." 35 The foregoing provision on the party-list system is not selfexecutory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in accordance with law" or "as may be provided by law"; it was thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted. It laid out the statutory policy in this wise:

"SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible." The Marginalized and Lawmakers Themselves Underrepresented to Become

Rather, it refers to the representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented" as exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals." However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the marginalized and underrepresented, because representation is easy to claim and to feign. The party-list organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5. 36 Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must be "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties." Finally, "lack of well-defined constituenc[y] " refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group, like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of government. Rather, it points again to those with disparate interests identified with the "marginalized or underrepresented." In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos who are "marginalized and underrepresented" become members of Congress under the party-list system, Filipino-style. The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people, not only by giving more law to those who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves. Consistent with this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we repeat, is likewise clear: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, x x x, to become members of the House of Representatives." Where the language of the law is clear, it must be applied according to its express terms. 37

The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional representation by means of the Filipino-style party-list system, which will "enable" the election to the House of Representatives of Filipino citizens, 1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and 2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but 3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. The key words in this policy are "proportional representation," "marginalized and underrepresented," and "lack of well-defined constituencies." "Proportional representation" here does not refer to the number of people in a particular district, because the partylist election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group.

The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the party-list system are enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941, which states: "SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, that the sector shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals." While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association. 38 The Party-List System Desecrated by the OSG Contentions Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy, the Office of the Solicitor General submits that RA No. 7941 "does not limit the participation in the party-list system to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society." 39 In fact, it contends that any party or group that is not disqualified under Section 6 40 of RA 7941 may participate in the elections. Hence, it admitted during the Oral Argument that even an organization representing the super rich of Forbes Park or Dasmarias Village could participate in the party-list elections. 41

The declared policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). We stress that the party-list system seeks to enable certain Filipino citizens specifically those belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties to be elected to the House of Representatives. The assertion of the OSG that the party-list system is not exclusive to the marginalized and underrepresented disregards the clear statutory policy. Its claim that even the super-rich and overrepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of the party-list system. Indeed, the law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park. The interests of these two sectors are manifestly disparate; hence, the OSG's position to treat them similarly defies reason and common sense. In contrast, and with admirable candor, Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan 42 admitted during the Oral Argument that a group of bankers, industrialists and sugar planters could not join the party-list system as representatives of their respective sectors. 43 While the business moguls and the mega-rich are, numerically speaking, a tiny minority, they are neither marginalized nor underrepresented, for the stark reality is that their economic clout engenders political power more awesome than their numerical limitation. Traditionally, political power does not necessarily emanate from the size of one's constituency; indeed, it is likely to arise more directly from the number and amount of one's bank accounts. It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized and underrepresented in our midst are the majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity. It was for them that the party-list system was enacted -- to give them not only genuine hope, but genuine power; to give them the opportunity to be elected and to represent the specific concerns of their constituencies; and simply to give them a direct voice in Congress and in the larger affairs of the State. In its noblest sense, the party-list system truly empowers the

masses and ushers a new hope for genuine change. Verily, it invites those marginalized and underrepresented in the past the farm hands, the fisher folk, the urban poor, even those in the underground movement to come out and participate, as indeed many of them came out and participated during the last elections. The State cannot now disappoint and frustrate them by disabling and desecrating this social justice vehicle. Because the marginalized and underrepresented had not been able to win in the congressional district elections normally dominated by traditional politicians and vested groups, 20 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives were set aside for the party-list system. In arguing that even those sectors who normally controlled 80 percent of the seats in the House could participate in the party-list elections for the remaining 20 percent, the OSG and the Comelec disregard the fundamental difference between the congressional district elections and the party-list elections. As earlier noted, the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the system, 44 in order to enhance the chance of sectoral groups and organizations to gain representation in the House of Representatives through the simplest scheme possible. 45 Logic shows that the system has been opened to those who have never gotten a foothold within it -- those who cannot otherwise win in regular elections and who therefore need the "simplest scheme possible" to do so. Conversely, it would be illogical to open the system to those who have long been within it -- those privileged sectors that have long dominated the congressional district elections. The import of the open party-list system may be more vividly understood when compared to a student dormitory "open house," which by its nature allows outsiders to enter the facilities. Obviously, the "open house" is for the benefit of outsiders only, not the dormers themselves who can enter the dormitory even without such special privilege. In the same vein, the open party-list system is only for the "outsiders" who cannot get elected through regular elections

otherwise; it is not for the non-marginalized overrepresented who already fill the ranks of Congress.

or

Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the party-list system would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the marginalized and underrepresented, contrary to the intention of the law to enhance it. The party-list system is a tool for the benefit of the underprivileged; the law could not have given the same tool to others, to the prejudice of the intended beneficiaries. This Court, therefore, cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied and prostituted by those who are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. It cannot let that flicker of hope be snuffed out. The clear state policy must permeate every discussion of the qualification of political parties and other organizations under the party-list system. Refutation of the Separate Opinions The Separate Opinions of our distinguished colleagues, Justices Jose C. Vitug and Vicente V. Mendoza, are anchored mainly on the supposed intent of the framers of the Constitution as culled from their deliberations. The fundamental principle in constitutional construction, however, is that the primary source from which to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the provision itself. The presumption is that the words in which the constitutional provisions are couched express the objective sought to be attained. 46 In other words, verba legis still prevails. Only when the meaning of the words used is unclear and equivocal should resort be made to extraneous aids of construction and interpretation, such as the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission or Convention, in order to shed light on and ascertain the true intent or purpose of the provision being construed. 47 Indeed, as cited in the Separate Opinion of Justice Mendoza, this Court stated in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary 48 that "the debates and proceedings of the

constitutional convention [may be consulted] in order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution x x x only when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates in the constitutional convention 'are of value as showing the views of the individual members, and as indicating the reason for their votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the large majority who did not talk, much less of the mass or our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it safer to construe the constitution from what appears upon its face.' The proper interpretation therefore depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the framers' understanding thereof." Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, relative to the partylist system, is couched in clear terms: the mechanics of the system shall be provided by law. Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted RA 7941. In understanding and implementing partylist representation, we should therefore look at the law first. Only when we find its provisions ambiguous should the use of extraneous aids of construction be resorted to. But, as discussed earlier, the intent of the law is obvious and clear from its plain words. Section 2 thereof unequivocally states that the party-list system of electing congressional representatives was designed to "enable underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole x x x." The criteria for participation is well defined. Thus, there is no need for recourse to constitutional deliberations, not even to the proceedings of Congress. In any event, the framers' deliberations merely express their individual opinions and are, at best, only persuasive in construing the meaning and purpose of the constitution or statute. Be it remembered that the constitutionality or validity of Sections 2 and 5 of RA 7941 is not an issue here. Hence, they remain parts of the law, which must be applied plainly and simply.

Fourth Issue: Grave Abuse of Discretion From its assailed Omnibus Resolution, it is manifest that the Comelec failed to appreciate fully the clear policy of the law and the Constitution. On the contrary, it seems to have ignored the facet of the party-list system discussed above. The OSG as its counsel admitted before the Court that any group, even the non-marginalized and overrepresented, could field candidates in the party-list elections. When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the Commission on Elections, violates or ignores the Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down by this Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. 49 Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasi-judicial instrumentalities is to apply the law as they find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it. 50 In its Memorandum, Petitioner Bayan Muna passionately pleads for the outright disqualification of the major political parties Respondents Lakas-NUCD, LDP, NPC, LP and PMP on the ground that under Comelec Resolution No. 4073, they have been accredited as the five (six, including PDP-Laban) major political parties in the May 14, 2001 elections. It argues that because of this, they have the "advantage of getting official Comelec Election Returns, Certificates of Canvass, preferred poll watchers x x x." We note, however, that this accreditation does not refer to the party-list election, but, inter alia, to the election of district representatives for the purpose of determining which parties would be entitled to watchers under Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166. What is needed under the present circumstances, however, is a factual determination of whether respondents herein and, for that matter, all the 154 previously approved groups, have the necessary qualifications to participate in the partylist elections, pursuant to the Constitution and the law.

Bayan Muna also urges us to immediately rule out Respondent Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD), because "it is a government entity using government resources and privileges." This Court, however, is not a trier of facts. 51 It is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth of such factual allegations. Basic rudiments of due process require that respondents should first be given an opportunity to show that they qualify under the guidelines promulgated in this Decision, before they can be deprived of their right to participate in and be elected under the party-list system. Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants The Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand the case to the Comelec for the latter to determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections comply with the requirements of the law. In this light, the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the following guidelines, culled from the law and the Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its work. 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. The counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko and other similarly situated political parties admitted as much during the Oral Argument, as the following quote shows: "JUSTICE PANGANIBAN: I am not disputing that in my question. All I am saying is, the political party must claim to represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors? ATTY. KAPUNAN: Yes, Your Honor, the answer is yes."52 Third, in view of the objections53 directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. The extent of the constitutional proscription is demonstrated by the following discussion during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission: "MR. OPLE. x x x In the event that a certain religious sect with nationwide and even international networks of members and supporters, in order to circumvent this prohibition, decides to form its own political party in emulation of those parties I had mentioned earlier as deriving their inspiration and philosophies from well-established religious faiths, will that also not fall within this prohibition? MR. MONSOD. If the evidence shows that the intention is to go around the prohibition, then certainly the Comelec can pierce through the legal fiction."54 The following discussion is also pertinent: "MR. VILLACORTA. When the Commissioner proposed "EXCEPT RELIGIOUS GROUPS," he is not, of course, prohibiting priests, imams or pastors who may be elected by, say, the indigenous community sector to represent their group.

REV. RIGOS. Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who represents the Iglesia ni Kristo, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church et cetera."55 Furthermore, the Constitution provides that "religious denominations and sects shall not be registered."56 The prohibition was explained by a member57 of the Constitutional Commission in this wise: "[T] he prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a political party. I do not see any prohibition here against a priest running as a candidate. That is not prohibited here; it is the registration of a religious sect as a political party."58 Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows: "(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; (3) It is a foreign party or organization; (4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes; (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections; (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition; (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or (8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered."59

Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a party or group for violation of or failure to comply with election laws and regulations. These laws include Section 2 of RA 7941, which states that the party-list system seeks to "enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties x x x to become members of the House of Representatives." A party or an organization, therefore, that does not comply with this policy must be disqualified. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. By the very nature of the party-list system, the party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It must be independent of the government. The participation of the government or its officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal60 and unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations to be elected to the House of Representatives. 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. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens "who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties." Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or the working class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine representation to the marginalized and underrepresented. Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. Senator Jose Lina explained during the bicameral committee proceedings that "the nominee of a party, national or regional, is not going to represent a particular district x x x."61 Epilogue The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the law: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives." Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine power. It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced, and even to those in the underground, that change is possible. It is an invitation for them to come out of their limbo and seize the opportunity.

Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions of the Comelec and the other respondents that the party-list system is, without any qualification, open to all. Such position does not only weaken the electoral chances of the marginalized and underrepresented; it also prejudices them. It would gut the substance of the party-list system. Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage. Instead of enabling the marginalized, it would further weaken them and aggravate their marginalization. In effect, the Comelec would have us believe that the partylist provisions of the Constitution and RA 7941 are nothing more than a play on dubious words, a mockery of noble intentions, and an empty offering on the altar of people empowerment. Surely, this could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution and the makers of RA 7941. WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the Comelec, which is hereby DIRECTED to immediately conduct summary evidentiary hearings on the qualifications of the party-list participants in the light of the guidelines enunciated in this Decision. Considering the extreme urgency of determining the winners in the last party-list elections, the Comelec is directed to begin its hearings for the parties and organizations that appear to have garnered such number of votes as to qualify for seats in the House of Representatives. The Comelec is further DIRECTED to submit to this Court its compliance report within 30 days from notice hereof.1wphi1.nt The Resolution of this Court dated May 9, 2001, directing Comelec "to refrain from proclaiming any winner" during last party-list election, shall remain in force until after Comelec itself will have complied and reported compliance with the foregoing disposition. the the the its

This Decision is immediately executory upon the Commission on Elections' receipt thereof. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 189466

February 11, 2010

DARYL GRACE J. ABAYON, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, PERFECTO C. LUCABAN, JR., RONYL S. DE LA CRUZ and AGUSTIN C. DOROGA, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 189506 CONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. PALPARAN, JR., Petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET), DR. REYNALDO LESACA, JR., CRISTINA PALABAY, RENATO M. REYES, JR., ERLINDA CADAPAN, ANTONIO FLORES and JOSELITO USTAREZ, Respondents. DECISION ABAD, J.: These two cases are about the authority of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to pass upon the

eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list groups that won seats in the lower house of Congress. The Facts and the Case In G.R. 189466, 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, in HRET Case 07-041. They claimed 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. She moreover lost her bid as party-list representative of the party-list organization called An Waray in the immediately preceding elections of May 10, 2004. 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. Abayon also claimed that although she was the second nominee of An Waray party-list organization during the 2004 elections, she could not be regarded as having lost a bid for an elective office. Finally, petitioner Abayon pointed out that respondent HRET had no jurisdiction over the petition for quo warranto since respondent Lucaban and the others with him collaterally attacked the registration of Aangat Tayo as a party-list organization, a matter that fell within the jurisdiction of the

COMELEC. It was Aangat Tayo that was taking a seat in the House of Representatives, and not Abayon who was just its nominee. All questions involving her eligibility as first nominee, said Abayon, were internal concerns of Aangat Tayo. On July 16, 2009 respondent HRET issued an order, dismissing the petition as against Aangat Tayo but upholding its jurisdiction over the qualifications of petitioner Abayon.1 The latter moved for reconsideration but the HRET denied the same on September 17, 2009,2 prompting Abayon to file the present petition for special civil action of certiorari. 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. Shortly 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, in HRET Case 07-040. Lesaca and the others alleged 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. Lesaca and the others said that Palparan committed gross human rights violations against marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations. Petitioner Palparan countered that the HRET had no jurisdiction over his person since it was actually the party-list Bantay, not he, that was elected to and assumed membership in the House of Representatives. Palparan claimed that he was just Bantays nominee. Consequently, any question involving his eligibility as first nominee was an

internal concern of Bantay. Such question must be brought, he said, before that party-list group, not before the HRET. On July 23, 2009 respondent HRET issued an order dismissing the petition against Bantay for the reason that the issue of the ineligibility or qualification of the party-list group fell within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC pursuant to the PartyList System Act. HRET, however, defended its jurisdiction over the question of petitioner Palparans qualifications.3 Palparan moved for reconsideration but the HRET denied it by a resolution dated September 10, 2009,4 hence, the recourse to this Court through this petition for special civil action of certiorari and prohibition. Since the two cases raise a common issue, the Court has caused their consolidation. The Issue Presented The common issue presented in these two cases is: 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, respectively, who took the seats at the House of Representatives that such organizations won in the 2007 elections. The Courts Ruling 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.

If at all, says petitioner Abayon, such authority belongs to the COMELEC which already upheld her qualification as nominee of Aangat Tayo for the women sector. For Palparan, Bantays personality is so inseparable and intertwined with his own person as its nominee so that the HRET cannot dismiss the quo warranto action against Bantay without dismissing the action against him. But, although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not the organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of Representatives. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution,5 identifies who the "members" of that House are: 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 party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (Underscoring supplied) Clearly, the members of the House of Representatives are of two kinds: "members x x x who shall be elected from legislative districts" and "those who x x x shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations." This means that, from the Constitutions 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. Once elected, both the district representatives and the partylist representatives 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. It may not be amiss to point out that the Party-List System Act itself recognizes party-list nominees as "members of the House of Representatives," thus: Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible. (Underscoring supplied) As this Court also held in Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 v. Commission on Elections,6 a party-list representative is in every sense "an elected member of the House of Representatives." Although the vote cast in a party-list election is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House of Representatives. Both the Constitution and the Party-List System Act set the qualifications and grounds for disqualification of party-list nominees. Section 9 of R.A. 7941, echoing the Constitution, states: Sec. 9. Qualification 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, 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.1avvphi1 In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of his term. In the cases before the Court, those who challenged the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan claim that the two do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that they ought to represent. The Party-List System Act provides that a nominee must be a "bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent."7 It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of this particular qualification of a nomineethe need for him or her to be a bona fide member or a representative of his party-list organizationin the context of the facts that characterize petitioners Abayon and Palparans relation to Aangat Tayo and Bantay, respectively, and the marginalized and underrepresented interests that they presumably embody. Petitioners Abayon and Palparan of course point out that the authority to determine the qualifications of a party-list nominee belongs to the party or organization that nominated him. This is true, initially. The right to examine the fitness of aspiring nominees and, eventually, to choose five from among them after all belongs to the party or organization that nominates them.8 But where an allegation is made that the party or organization had chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee to become its party-list representative in the lower House and enjoy the secured tenure that goes

with the position, the resolution of the dispute is taken out of its hand. Parenthetically, although the Party-List System Act does not so state, the COMELEC seems to believe, when it resolved the challenge to petitioner Abayon, that it has the power to do so as an incident of its authority to approve the registration of party-list organizations. But the Court need not resolve this question since it is not raised here and has not been argued by the parties. What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution9 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 partylist 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.10 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. WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the consolidated petitions and AFFIRMS the Order dated July 16, 2009 and Resolution 09-183 dated September 17, 2009 in HRET Case 07-041 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal as well as its Order dated July 23, 2009 and Resolution 09-178 dated September 10, 2009 in HRET Case 07-040. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 203766

April 2, 2013

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. x-----------------------x G.R. Nos. 203818-19

AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY (AKB), Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, Respondent. x-----------------------x G.R. No. 203922 ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES (APEC),represented by its President Congressman Ponciano D. Payuyo, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. x-----------------------x DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Cases These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition1 filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list organizations. This Court resolved to consolidate the 54 petitions in the Resolutions dated 13 November 2012,2 20 November 2012,3 27 November 2012,4 4 December 2012,5 11 December 2012,6 and 19 February 2013.7 The Facts Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941) and COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531, approximately 280 groups and organizations registered and manifested their desire to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.

G.R. No. SPP No. Group Grounds for Denial A. Via the COMELEC En Bancs automatic review of the COMELEC Divisions resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations Resolution dated 23 November 20128 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 20129 2 204455 12-041 (PLM) Manila Teachers Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (Manila Teachers) - A non-stock savings and loan association cannot be considered marginalized and underrepresented; and - The first and second nominees are not teachers by profession. 3 204426 12-011 (PLM) Association of Local Athletics Entrepreneurs and Hobbyists, Inc. (ALA-EH) - Failure to show that its members belong to the marginalized; and - Failure of the nominees to qualify. Resolution dated 27 November 201210 4 204435 12-057

(PLM) 1 Alliance Advocating Autonomy Party (1AAAP) - Failure of the nominees to qualify: although registering as a regional political party, two of the nominees are not residents of the region; and four of the five nominees do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. Resolution dated 27 November 201211 5 204367 12-104 (PL) Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN), Inc. - Failure of the group to show that its nominees belong to the urban poor sector. Resolution dated 29 November 201212 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. Resolution dated 4 December 201213 7 204436 12-009 (PP), 12-165 (PLM) Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI) - Failure to show that the 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 201214 8 204485 12-175 (PL) Alliance of Organizations, Networks and Associations of the Philippines, Inc. (ALONA) - Failure to establish that the group can represent 14 sectors; - The sectors of homeowners associations, entrepreneurs and cooperatives are not marginalized and underrepresented; and - The nominees do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. B. Via the COMELEC En Bancs review on motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC Divisions resolutions denying registration of groups and organizations Resolution dated 7 November 201215 9 204139 12-127 (PL) Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) - Failure to prove track record as an organization; - Failure to show that the group actually represents the marginalized and underrepresented; and - Failure to establish that the group can represent all sectors it seeks to represent. Resolution dated 7 November 201216 10 204402 12-061 (PP) Kalikasan Party-List (KALIKASAN) - The group reflects an advocacy for the environment, and is not representative of the

marginalized and underrepresented; - There is no proof that majority of its members belong to the marginalized and underrepresented; - The group represents sectors with conflicting interests; and - The nominees do not belong to the sector which the group claims to represent. Resolution dated 14 November 201217 11 204394 12-145 (PL) Association of Guard, Utility Helper, Aider, Rider, Driver/ Domestic Helper, Janitor, Agent and Nanny of the Philippines, Inc. (GUARDJAN) - Failure to prove membership base and track record; - Failure to present activities that sufficiently benefited its intended constituency; and - The nominees do not belong to any of the sectors which the group seeks to represent. Resolution dated 5 December 201218 12 204490 12-073 (PLM) Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP) - Failure to show that the 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 Divisions resolution to grant Partido ng Bayan ng Bidas (PBB) registration and accreditation as a political party in the National Capital Region. However, PBB was denied participation in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections because PBB does not represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector; PBB failed to apply for registration as a party-list group; and PBB failed to establish its track record as an organization that seeks to uplift the lives of the "marginalized and underrepresented."20 These 13 petitioners (ASIN, Manila Teachers, ALA-EH, 1AAAP, AKIN, AAB, AI, ALONA, ALAM, KALIKASAN, GUARDJAN, PPP, and PBB) were not able to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court. The COMELEC, on 7 January 2013 issued Resolution No. 9604,21 and excluded the names of these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the 13 May 2013 party-list elections. Pursuant to paragraph 222 of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC En Banc scheduled summary evidentiary hearings to determine whether the groups and organizations that filed manifestations of intent to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections have continually complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC23 (Ang Bagong Bayani). The COMELEC disqualified the following groups and organizations from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections: G.R. No. SPP No. Group Grounds for Denial Resolution dated 10 October 201224 1 203818-19 12-154 (PLM) 12-177 (PLM) AKO Bicol Political Party (AKB) Retained registration and 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 201225 2 203766 12-161 (PLM) Atong Paglaum, Inc. (Atong Paglaum) Cancelled registration and accreditation - The nominees do not belong to the sectors which the party represents; and - The party failed to file its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2010 Elections. 3 203981 12-187 (PLM) Association for Righteousness Advocacy on Leadership (ARAL) Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to comply, and for violation of election laws; - The nominees do not represent the sectors which the party represents; and - There is doubt that the party is organized for religious purposes. 4 204002 12-188 (PLM) Alliance for Rural Concerns

(ARC) Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure of the nominees to qualify; and - Failure of the party to prove that majority of its members belong to the sectors it seeks to represent. 5 204318 12-220 (PLM) United Movement Against Drugs Foundation (UNIMAD) Cancelled registration and accreditation - The sectors of drug counsellors and lecturers, veterans and the youth, are not marginalized and underrepresented; - Failure to establish track record; and - Failure of the nominees to qualify as representatives of the youth and young urban professionals. Omnibus Resolution dated 16 October 201226 6 204100 12-196 (PLM) 1-Bro Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (1BRO-PGBI) Cancelled registration - Failure to define the sector it seeks to represent; and - The nominees do not belong to a marginalized and underrepresented sector. 7 204122 12-223 (PLM) 1 Guardians Nationalist Philippines, Inc. (1GANAP/

GUARDIANS) Cancelled registration - The party is a military fraternity; - The sector of community volunteer workers is too broad to allow for meaningful representation; and - The nominees do not appear to belong to the sector of community volunteer workers. 8 2042612-257 (PLM) Blessed Federation of Farmers and Fishermen International, Inc. (A BLESSED Party-List) Cancelled registration - Three of the seven nominees do not belong to 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. Resolution dated 16 October 201227 9 203960 12-260 (PLM) 1st Consumers Alliance for Rural Energy, Inc. (1-CARE) Cancelled registration - The sector of rural energy consumers is not marginalized and underrepresented; - The partys track record is related to electric

cooperatives and not rural energy consumers; and - The nominees do not belong to the sector of rural energy consumers. Resolution dated 16 October 201228 10 203922 12-201 (PLM) Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC) Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to represent a marginalized and underrepresented sector; and - The nominees do not belong to the sector that the party claims to represent. Resolution dated 23 October 201229 11 204174 12-232 (PLM) Aangat Tayo Party-List Party ( AT ) Cancelled registration and 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 - The nominees do not belong to the marginalized sectors that the party seeks to represent. Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201230 12 203976 12-288 (PLM) Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction,

Inc. (ARARO) Cancelled registration and accreditation - The interests of the peasant and urban poor sectors that the party represents differ; - The nominees do not 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. Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201231 13 204240 12-279 (PLM) Agri-Agra na Reporma Para sa Magsasaka ng Pilipinas Movement (AGRI)Cancelled registration - The party ceased to exist for more than a year immediately after the May 2010 elections; - The nominees do not 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 Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM) Cancelled registration - Failure to show that 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 Agilang Pilipinong Magsasaka (KAP) Cancelled registration - The Manifestation of 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 Ordinaryong Tao Para sa Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at Kaunlaran (AKO-BAHAY) Cancelled registration - Failure to show that nominees actually belong to the sector, or that they have undertaken meaningful activities for the sector.

17 204141 12-229 (PLM) The True Marcos Loyalist (for God, Country and People) Association of the Philippines, Inc. (BANTAY) Cancelled registration - Failure to show that majority of its members are marginalized and underrepresented; and - Failure to prove that two of its nominees actually belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. 18 204408 12-217 (PLM) Pilipino Association for Country Urban Poor Youth Advancement and Welfare ( PA C YAW ) Cancelled registration - Change of sector (from urban poor youth to urban poor) necessitates a new application; - Failure to show track record for the marginalized and underrepresented; - Failure to prove that majority of its members and officers are from the urban poor sector; and - The nominees are not members of the urban poor sector. 19 204153 12-277 (PLM) Pasang Masda Nationwide

Party (PASANG MASDA) Cancelled registration - 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 na Walang Sala, Inc. (KAKUSA) Cancelled registration - Failure to prove that na Walang Sala, Inc. (KAKUSA) majority of its officers and members belong to the marginalized and underrepresented; - The incumbent representative in Congress failed to author or sponsor bills that are beneficial to the sector that the party represents (persons imprisoned without proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt); - Failure to show track record for the marginalized and underrepresented; and - The nominees did not appear to be marginalized and underrepresented. Resolution dated 30 October 201232 21 204428 12-256 (PLM) Ang Galing Pinoy (AG) Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to attend the summary hearing; - Failure to show track record

for the marginalized and underrepresented; and - The nominees did not appear to be marginalized and underrepresented. Resolution dated 7 November 201233 22 204094 12-185 (PLM) Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to represent an identifiable marginalized and underrepresented sector; - Only three nominees were submitted to the COMELEC; - The nominees do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented; and - Failure to submit its Statement of Contribution and Expenditures for the 2007 Elections. Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 201234 23 204239 12-060 (PLM) Green Force for the Environment Sons and Daughters of Mother Earth (GREENFORCE) Cancelled registration and accreditation - The party is an advocacy group and does not represent the marginalized and underrepresented; - Failure to comply with the track record requirement; and - The nominees are not marginalized citizens. 24 204236 12-254

(PLM) Firm 24-K Association, Inc. (FIRM 24-K) Cancelled registration and accreditation - The nominees do not belong to the sector that the party seeks to represent (urban poor and peasants of the National Capital Region); - Only two of its nominees reside in the National Capital Region; and - Failure to comply with the track record requirement. 25 204341 12-269 (PLM) Action League of Indigenous Masses (ALIM) Cancelled registration and 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 partys nominees reside in the Mindanao and Cordilleras; and - Three of the nominees do not appear to belong to the marginalized. Resolution dated 7 November 201235 26 204358 12-204 (PLM) Alliance of Advocates in Mining Advancement for National Progress (AAMA) Cancelled registration - The sector it represents is a

specifically defined group which may not be allowed registration under the party-list system; and - Failure to establish that the nominees actually belong to the sector. Resolution dated 7 November 201236 27 204359 12-272 (PLM) Social Movement for Active Reform and Transparency (SMART) Cancelled registration - The nominees are disqualified from representing the sectors that the party represents; - Failure to comply with the track record requirement; and - There is doubt as to whether majority of its members are marginalized and underrepresented. Resolution dated 7 November 201237 28 204238 12-173 (PLM) Alliance of Bicolnon Party (ABP) Cancelled registration and accreditation - Defective registration and accreditation dating back to 2010; - Failure to represent any sector; and - Failure to establish that the nominees are employed in the construction industry, the sector it claims to represent. Resolution dated 7 November 201238 29 204323 12-210 (PLM) Bayani Party List (BAYANI) Cancelled registration and

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. Resolution dated 7 November 201239 30 204321 12-252 (PLM) Ang Agrikultura Natin Isulong (AANI)Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to establish a track record of enhancing the lives of the marginalized and underrepresented farmers which it claims to represent; and - More than a majority of the partys nominees do not belong to the farmers sector. Resolution dated 7 November 201240 31 204125 12-292 (PLM) Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance, Inc. (A-IPRA) Cancelled registration and accreditation - 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. Resolution dated 7 November 201241

32 204216 12-202 (PLM) Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) Cancelled registration and accreditation - The party is affiliated with private and government agencies and is not marginalized; - The party is assisted by the government in various projects; and - The nominees are not members of the marginalized sector of coconut farmers and producers. Resolution dated 7 November 201242 33 204220 12-238 (PLM) Abang Lingkod Party-List (ABANG LINGKOD) Cancelled registration - 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. Resolution dated 14 November 201243 34 204158 12-158 (PLM) Action

Brotherhood for Active Dreamers, Inc. (ABROAD) Cancelled registration and accreditation - 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. Resolution dated 28 November 201244 35 204374 12-228 (PLM) Binhi-Partido ng mga Magsasaka Para sa mga Magsasaka (BINHI) Cancelled registration and accreditation - The party receives assistance from the government through the Department of Agriculture; and - Failure to prove that the group is marginalized and underrepresented. Resolution dated 28 November 201245 36 204356 12-136 (PLM) Butil Farmers Party (BUTIL) Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to establish that the agriculture and cooperative sectors are marginalized and underrepresented; and - The partys nominees neither appear to belong to the sectors they seek to represent, nor to have

actively participated in the undertakings of the party. Resolution dated 3 December 201246 37 204486 12-194 (PLM) 1st Kabalikat ng Bayan Ginhawang Sangkatauhan (1st KABAGIS) Cancelled registration and accreditation - 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. Resolution dated 4 December 201247 38 204410 12-198 (PLM) 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) Cancelled accreditation - The party represents drivers and operators, who may have conflicting interests; and - The partys nominees do not belong to any marginalized and underrepresented sector. Resolution dated 4 December 201248 39 204421, 204425 12-157 (PLM), 12-191 (PLM) Coalition of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc.

(SENIOR CITIZENS) Cancelled registration - The party violated election laws because its nominees had a term-sharing agreement. These 39 petitioners (AKB, Atong Paglaum, ARAL, ARC, UNIMAD, 1BRO-PGBI, 1GANAP/GUARDIANS, A BLESSED PartyList, 1-CARE, APEC, AT, ARARO, AGRI, AKMA-PTM, KAP, AKOBAHAY, 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 Resolution dated 13 November 2012 203818-19 12-154 (PLM) 12-177 (PLM) AKO Bicol Political Party (AKB) 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) Resolution dated 20 November 2012 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) Resolution dated 27 November 2012 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) Resolution dated 11 December 2012 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) 12-191 (PLM) Coalition of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS) 204436 12-009 (PP), 12-165 (PLM) Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI) 204485 12-175 (PL) Alliance of Organizations, Networks and Associations of the Philippines, Inc. (ALONA) 204484 11-002 Partido ng Bayan ng Bida (PBB)

Resolution dated 11 December 2012 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 Elections49 (BANAT) should be applied by the COMELEC in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. The Courts 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 womens party gets 2 1/2 percent and anybody who has at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote qualifies and the 50 seats are apportioned among all of these parties who get at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote.

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 Taada wants to run under BAYAN group and says that he represents the farmers, would he qualify? MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify. MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party list system and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who would pass on whether he is a farmer or not? MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang linawin ito. Political parties, particularly minority political parties, are not prohibited to participate in the party list election if they can prove that they are also organized along sectoral lines. MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all political parties can participate because it is precisely the contention of political parties that they represent the broad base of citizens and that all sectors are represented in them. Would the Commissioner agree? MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO na isang political party, it will dominate the party list at mawawalang saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang party list system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan ng diin ang "reserve." Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198 seats, reserved din ito sa political parties. MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run there. But my question to Commissioner Villacorta and probably also to Commissioner Tadeo is that under this system, would UNIDO be banned from running under the party list system?

MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral candidates. On that condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed to register for the party list system. MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares that answer? MR. TADEO. The same. MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines. MR. MONSOD: Sino po ang magsasabi kung iyong kandidato ng UNIDO ay hindi talagang labor leader or isang laborer? Halimbawa, abogado ito. MR. TADEO: Iyong mechanics. MR. MONSOD: Hindi po mechanics iyon because we are trying to solve an inherent problem of sectoral representation. My question is: Suppose UNIDO fields a labor leader, would he qualify? MR. TADEO: The COMELEC may look into the truth of whether or not a political party is really organized along a specific sectoral line. If such is verified or confirmed, the political party may submit a list of individuals who are actually members of such sectors. The lists are to be published to give individuals or organizations belonging to such sector the chance to present evidence contradicting claims of membership in the said sector or to question the claims of the existence of such sectoral organizations or parties. This proceeding shall be conducted by the COMELEC and shall be summary in character. In other words, COMELEC decisions on this matter are final and unappealable.52 (Emphasis supplied) Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-list system to include not only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral parties. The framers intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the party-

list system. As explained by Commissioner Wilfredo Villacorta, political parties can participate in the party-list system "For as long as they field candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this Constitution."53 In fact, the framers voted down, 19-22, a proposal to reserve permanent seats to sectoral parties in the House of Representatives, or alternatively, to reserve the party-list system exclusively to sectoral parties. As clearly explained by Justice Jose C. Vitug in his Dissenting Opinion in Ang Bagong Bayani: The draft provisions on what was to become Article VI, Section 5, subsection (2), of the 1987 Constitution took off from two staunch positions the first headed by Commissioner Villacorta, advocating that of the 20 per centum of the total seats in Congress to be allocated to party-list representatives half were to be reserved to appointees from the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. The proposal was opposed by some Commissioners. Mr. Monsod expressed the difficulty in delimiting the sectors that needed representation. He was of the view that reserving seats for the marginalized and underrepresented sectors would stunt their development into full-pledged parties equipped with electoral machinery potent enough to further the sectoral interests to be represented. The Villacorta group, on the other hand, was apprehensive that pitting the unorganized and less-moneyed sectoral groups in an electoral contest would be like placing babes in the lion's den, so to speak, with the bigger and more established political parties ultimately gobbling them up. R.A. 7941 recognized this concern when it banned the first five major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives from participating in the party-list system for the first party-list elections held in 1998 (and to be automatically lifted starting with the 2001 elections). The advocates for permanent seats for sectoral representatives made an effort towards a compromise that the party-list system be open only to underrepresented and marginalized sectors. This proposal was further whittled down by allocating only half of the seats under the party-list system to

candidates from the sectors which would garner the required number of votes. The majority was unyielding. Voting 19-22, the proposal for permanent seats, and in the alternative the reservation of the party-list system to the sectoral groups, was voted down. The only concession the Villacorta group was able to muster was an assurance of reserved seats for selected sectors for three consecutive terms after the enactment of the 1987 Constitution, by which time they would be expected to gather and solidify their electoral base and brace themselves in the multi-party electoral contest with the more veteran political groups.54 (Emphasis supplied) Thus, in the end, the proposal to give permanent reserved seats to certain sectors was outvoted. Instead, the reservation of seats to sectoral representatives was only allowed for the first three consecutive terms.55 There can be no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the 1987 Constitution expressly rejected the proposal to make the party-list system exclusively for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly intended the party-list system to include both sectoral and non-sectoral parties. The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that they cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes that winning candidates can garner in legislative district elections. The party-list system will be the entry point to membership in the House of Representatives for both these non-traditional parties that could not compete in legislative district elections. The indisputable intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution to include in the party-list system both sectoral and non-sectoral parties is clearly written in Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution, which states: Section 5. (1) The House of Representative shall be composed of not more that two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the

number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (Emphasis supplied) Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution is crystal-clear that there shall be "a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations." The commas after the words "national," and "regional," separate national and regional parties from sectoral parties. Had the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended national and regional parties to be at the same time sectoral, they would have stated "national and regional sectoral parties." They did not, precisely because it was never their intention to make the party-list system exclusively sectoral. What the framers intended, and what they expressly wrote in Section 5(1), could not be any clearer: the party-list system is composed of three different groups, and the sectoral parties belong to only one of the three groups. The text of Section 5(1) leaves no room for any doubt that national and regional parties are separate from sectoral parties. Thus, the party-list system is composed of three different groups: (1) national parties or organizations; (2) regional parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or organizations. National and regional parties or organizations are different from sectoral parties or organizations. National and regional parties or organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines and need not represent any particular sector. Moreover, Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that, during the first three consecutive terms of Congress after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, "onehalf 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 ideologybased and cause-oriented parties, who cannot win in legislative district elections, participate in the electoral process if they are excluded from the party-list system? To exclude them from the party-list system is to prevent them from joining the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their only option the armed struggle. To exclude them from the partylist 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 causeoriented political party is clearly different from a sectoral party. A political party need not be organized as a sectoral party and need not represent any particular sector. There is no requirement in R.A. No. 7941 that a national or regional political party must represent a "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. It is sufficient that the political party consists of citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same governance principles and policies, regardless of their economic status as citizens. 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 welldefined 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 COMELECs 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.1wphi1 A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or organization which he or she seeks to represent. In

the case of sectoral parties, to be a bona fide party-list nominee one must either belong to the sector represented, or have a track record of advocacy for such sector. In disqualifying petitioners, the COMELEC used the criteria prescribed in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. Ang Bagong Bayani laid down the guidelines for qualifying those who desire to participate in the party-list system: First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. x x x Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives." x x x. xxxx Third, x x x the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. x x x. xxxx Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows: "(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes; (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; (3) It is a foreign party or organization; (4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;

(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections; (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition; (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or (8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered." Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. x x x. xxxx Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows: "SEC 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. - No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term."

Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. x x x. Eighth, x x x the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. (Emphasis supplied) In 2009, by a vote of 8-7 in BANAT, this Court stretched the Ang Bagong Bayani ruling further. In BANAT, the majority officially excluded major political parties from participating in party-list elections,60 abandoning even the lip-service that Ang Bagong Bayani accorded to the 1987 Constitution and R.A.No. 7941 that major political parties can participate in party-list elections. The minority in BANAT, however, believed that major political parties can participate in the party-list system through their sectoral wings. The minority expressed that "[e]xcluding the major political parties in party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the exclusion of major political parties from the party-list elections in patent violation of the Constitution and the law."61 The experimentations in socio-political engineering have only resulted in confusion and absurdity in the party-list system. Such experimentations, in clear contravention of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941, must now come to an end. We cannot, however, fault the COMELEC for following prevailing jurisprudence in disqualifying petitioners. In following prevailing jurisprudence, the COMELEC could not have committed grave abuse of discretion. However, for the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, we must now impose and mandate the party-list system actually envisioned and authorized under the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941. In BANAT, this Court devised a new formula in the allocation of party-list seats, reversing the COMELEC's allocation which followed the then prevailing formula in Ang Bagong Bayani. In BANAT, however, the Court did not declare

that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. Similarly, even as we acknowledge here that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, we declare that it would not be in accord with the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to apply the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining who are qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. For this purpose, we suspend our rule62 that a party may appeal to this Court from decisions or orders of the COMELEC only if the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. Thus, we remand all the present petitions to the COMELEC. In determining who may participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters: 1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations. 2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. 3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition. 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "welldefined political constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented" include labor, peasant, fisherfolk,

urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack "welldefined 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 "welldefined political constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations. 6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified. The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections those that did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral groups or organizations must represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. Petitioners may have been disqualified by the COMELEC because as political or regional parties they are not organized along sectoral lines and do not represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." Also, petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the sectors they represent may have been disqualified, although they may have a track record of advocacy for their sectors. Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties may have been disqualified because they do not belong to any sector. Moreover, a party may have been disqualified because one or more of its nominees failed to qualify, even if the party has at least one remaining

qualified nominee. As discussed above, the disqualification of petitioners, and their nominees, under such circumstances is contrary to the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941. This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its provisions faithfully, and desist from engaging in socioeconomic or political experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has ordained. Judicial power does not include the power to re-write the Constitution. Thus, the present petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC not because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may now possibly qualify to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed by this Court. 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 partylist system under the parameters prescribed in this Decision but they shall not participate in the 13 May 2013 part-list elections. The 41 petitions, which have been granted mandatory injunctions to include the names of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are remanded to the Commission on Elections for determination whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-list system and to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the parameters prescribed in this Decision. The Commission on Elections may conduct summary evidentiary hearings for this purpose. This Decision is immediately executory. SO ORDERED.

account the situation prevailing in the area and the funds available for the purpose." SEC. 2. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twentyfourth day of July, two thousand six. Republic Act No. 9369 Amending RA 8436 January 23, 2007 "1. Automated election system, hereinafter to as AES - a system using appropriate technology which has been demonstrated in the voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission of election result, and other electoral process; "2. Electronic transmission - conveying data in electronic form from one location to other; "3. Official ballot - where AES is utilized, refers to the paper ballot, whether printed or generated by the technology applied, that faithfully captures or represents the votes cast by a voter recorded or to be recorded in electronic form; "4. Election returns - a document in electronic and printed form directly produced by the counting or voting machine, showing the date of the election, the province, municipality and the precinct in which it is held and the votes in figures for each candidate in a precinct in areas where AES is utilized; "5. Statement of votes - a document containing the votes obtained by candidates in each precinct in a city/municipality; "6. City/municipal/district/provincial certificate of canvass - a document in electronic and printed form containing the total votes in figures obtained by each candidate in a city/municipality/district/province as the case may be. The electronic certificates of canvass shall be the official canvass result in the aforementioned jurisdictions; "SEC. 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8436, ENTITLED "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998 NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES, TO ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY, CREDIBILITY, FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY OF ELECTIONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMPANSA BLG. 881, AS AMEMDED, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7166 AND OTHER RELATED ELECTIONS LAWS, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Section 1 of Republic act No.8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 1.Declation of Policy. - It is policy of the State to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, credible and informed elections, plebiscites, referenda, recall and other similar electoral exercises by improving on the election process and adopting systems, which shall involved the use of an automated election system that will ensure the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot and all election, consolidation and transmission documents on order that the process shall be transparent and credible and that the results shall be fast, accurate and reflective of the genuine will of the people. "The State recognizes the mandate and authority of the Commission to prescribe adoption and use of the most suitable technology of demonstrated capability taking into

"7. Paper-based election system - a type of automated election system that use paper ballots, records and counts votes, tabulates, consolidates/canvasses and transmits electronically the results of the vote count;" "8. Direct recording electronic election system - a type or automated election system that uses electronic ballots, records, votes by means of a ballot display provided with mechanical or electro-optical component that can be activated by the voter, processes data by means of a computer programs, record voting data and ballot images, and transmits voting results electronically; "9. Counting center - a public places within the city/municipality or in such other places as may be designated by the Commission where the official ballots cast in various precincts of the city/municipality shall be counted. Polling places or voting centers may also be designated as counting centers; "10. Continuity plan - a list of contingency measures, and the policies for activation of such, that are put in place to ensure continuous operation of the AES; "11. Disabled voters - a person with impaired capacity to use the AES; "12. Source code - human readable instructions that define what the computer equipment will do; and "13. Station- refers to a polling place, counting center, municipal or provincial canvassing center." SEC. 3. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC 3. Board of Election Inspectors. - Where AES shall be adopted, at least one member of the Board of Election Inspectors shall be an information technology-capable person, who is trained or certified by the DOST to use the EAS. Such certification shall be issued by the DOST, free of charge."

SEC. 4. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby deleted. The succeeding section are hereby renumbered accordingly. SEC. 5. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 4 Information Technology Support for the Board of Canvassers. - To implement the AES, each board of canvassers shall be assisted by an information technologycapable person authorized to operate the equipment adopted for the elections. The Commission shall deputized information technology personnel from among the agencies and instrumentalities of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. The per diem of the deputized personnel shall be the same as that of the members of the board of canvassers." SEC. 6. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 5 Authority to Use an Automated Election System. - To carry out the above-stated policy, the Commission on Elections, herein referred to as the Commission, is hereby authorized to use an automated election system or systems in the same election in different provinces, whether paperbased or a direct recording electronic election system as it may deem appropriate and practical for the process of voting, counting of votes and canvassing/consolidation and transmittal of results of electoral exercises: Provided, that for the regular national and local election, which shall be held immediately after effectivity of this Act, the AES shall be used in at least two highly urbanized cities and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, to be chosen by the Commission: Provided, further, That local government units whose officials have been the subject of administrative charges within sixteen (16) month prior to the May 14, 2007 election shall not be chosen: Provided, finally, That no area shall be chosen without the consent of the Sanggunian of the local government unit concerned. The term local government unit as used in this provision shall refer to a highly urbanized

city or province. In succeeding regular national or local elections, the AES shall be implemented nationwide." SEC. 7. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read the follows: "SEC.6. Minimum System Capabilities. - "The automated election system must at least have the following functional capabilities: (a) Adequate security against unauthorized access: (b) Accuracy in recording and reading of votes as well as in the tabulation, consolidation/canvassing, electronic transmission, and storage of results; (c) Error recovery in case of non-catastrophic failure of device; (d) System integrity which ensures physical stability and functioning of the vote recording and counting process; (e) Provision for voter verified paper audit trail; (f) System auditability which provides supporting documentation for verifying the correctness of reported election results; (g) An election management system for preparing ballots and programs for use in the casting and counting of votes and to consolidate, report and display election result in the shortest time possible; (h) Accessibility to illiterates and disable voters; (i) Vote tabulating program for election, referendum or plebiscite; (j) Accurate ballot counters; (k) Data retention provision;

(l) Provide for the safekeeping, storing and archiving of physical or paper resource used in the election process; (m) Utilize or generate official ballots as herein defined; (n) Provide the voter a system of verification to find out whether or not the machine has registered his choice; and (o) Configure access control for sensitive system data and function. "In the procurement of this system, the Commission shall develop and adopt an evaluation system to ascertain that the above minimum system capabilities are met. This evaluation system shall be developed with the assistance of an advisory council." SEC.8. A new Section 7 is hereby provided to read as follows: "SEC.7 Communication Channels for Electronic Transmissions. - all electronic transmissions by and among the EAS and its related components shall utilizes secure communication channels as recommended by the Advisory Council, to ensure authentication and integrity of transmission." SEC. 9. New section 8,9, 10 and 11 are hereby provided to read as follows: "SEC.8. The Advisory Council. - The Commission shall create an advisory Council, hereafter referred to as the Council, which shall be convened not later than eighteen (18) months prior to the next schedule electoral exercise, and deactivated six months after completion of canvassing: Provided, for purposes of the 2007 elections, the Advisory Council shall be immediately convened within ten (10) days after the effectivity of this Act. "The Council shall be composed of the following members, who must be registered Filipino voters, of known independence, competence and probity;

"(a) The Chairman of the Commission on information and Communications Technology (CICT) who shall act as the chairman of the council; "(b) One member from the Department of Science and Technology; "(c) One member from the Department of Education; "(d) One member representing the academe, to be selected by the chair of the Advisory Council from among the list of nominees submitted by the country's academic institutions; "(e) Three members representing ICT professional organizations to be selected by the chair of the Advisory Council from among the list of nominees submitted by Philippines-based ICT professional organization. Nominees shall be individuals, at least one of whom shall be experience in managing or implementing large-scale IT projects. "(f) Two members representing nongovernmental electoral reform organizations, to be selected by the chair of the Advisory Council from among the list of nominees submitted by the country's nongovernmental electoral reform organizations. "A person who is affiliated with any political party or candidate for any national position, or is related to a candidate for any national position by affinity or consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, shall not be eligible for appointment or designation to the Advisory Council. Should any such situation arise at any time during the incumbency of a member, the designation or appointment of that member, shall ipso facto be terminated. "Any member of the advisory council is prohibited from engaging, directly or indirectly, with any entity that advocates, markets, imports, produces or in any manner handles software, hardware or any equipment that may be used for election purposes for personal gain".

"Any violation of the two immediate preceding paragraphs shall disqualify said member from the Advisory Council and shall be punishable as provided in this Act and shall be penalized in accordance with the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and other related laws. "The council may avail itself of the expertise and services of resource person who are known independence, competence and probity, are nonpartisan, and do not posses any of the disqualifications applicable to a member of the Advisory Council as provided herein. The resource persons shall also be subject to the same prohibitions and penalties as the members of the Advisory Council. "The commission on information and communications technology (CICT), shall include in its annual appropriation the funds necessary to enable the council to effectively perform its functions". "SEC. 9. Function of the Advisory Council. - the Council shall have the following functions: 1. Recommend the most appropriate, secure, applicable and cost-effective technology to be applied in the AES, in whole or in part, at that specific form in time. 2. Participate Committee in Members of Professionals participating Committee. as nonvoting members of the Bids and Awards the conduct of the bidding process for the AES. the Advisory Council representing the ICT organizations are hereby excluded from in any manner in the Bids and Awards

3. Participate as nonvoting members of the steering committee tasked with the implementation of the AES, Members of the Advisory Council representing the ICT professional organization are hereby excluded from participating in any manner in the steering committee. 4. Provide advice and assistance in the review of the systems planning, inception, development, testing, operationalization, and evaluation stages.

5. Provided advice and/or assistance in the identification, assessment and resolution of systems problems or inadequacies as may surface or resurface in the course of the bidding, acquisition, testing, operationalization, re-use, storage or disposition of the AES equipment and/or resources as the case may be. 6. Provided advice and/or assistance in the risk management of the AES especially when a contingency or disaster situation arises. 7. Prepare and submit a written report, which shall be submitted within six months from the date of the election to the oversight committee, evaluating the use of the AES. Nothing in the role of the Council or any outside intervention or influence shall be construed as an abdication or diminution of the Commission's authority and responsibility for the effective development, management and implementation of the AES and this Act." The Advisory Council shall be entitled to a just and reasonable amount of per diem allowances and/or honoraria to cover the expenses of the services rendered chargeable against the budget of the Commission." "SEC. 10. The Technical Evaluation Committee. - The Commission, in collaboration with the chairman of the Advisory Council, shall establish an independent technical evaluation committee, herein known as the Committee, composed of a representative each from the Commission, the Commission on Information and Communications Technology and the Department of Science and Technology who shall act as chairman of the Committee. "The Committee shall be immediately convened within ten (10) days after the effectively of this Act." "SEC. 11. Functions of the Technical Evaluation Committee. The Committee shall certify, through an established international certification entity to be chosen by the

Commission from the recommendations of the Advisory Council, not later than three months before the date of the electoral exercises, categorically stating that the AES, including its hardware and software components, is operating properly, securely, and accurately, in accordance with the provisions of this Act based, among others, on the following documented results: 1. The successful conduct of a field testing process followed by a mock election event in one or more cities/municipalities; 2. The successful completion of audit on the accuracy, functionally and security controls of the AES software; 3. The successful completion of a source code review; 4. A certification that the source code is kept in escrow with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas; 5. A certification that the source code reviewed is one and the same as that used by the equipment; and 6. The development, provisioning, and operationalization of a continuity plan to cover risks to the AES at all points in the process such that a failure of elections, whether at voting, counting or consolidation, may be avoided. For purposes of the 2007 elections, the certification shall be done not later than eight weeks prior to the date of the elections. "If the Commission decides to proceed with the use of the AES without the Committee's certification, it must submit its reason in writing, to the Oversight Committee, no less than thirty (30) days prior to the electoral exercise where the AES will be used. "The Committee may avail itself of the expertise and service of resource persons who are of known independence, competence and probity, are no partisan, and who do not possess any of the disqualification applicable to a member of the Advisory Council as provided herein. The resource

persons shall also be subject to the same prohibitions and penalties as the members of the Advisory Council. "The Committee shall closely coordinate with the steering committee of the Commission tasked with the implementation of the AES in the identification and agreement of the project deliverables and timelines, and in the formulation of the acceptance criteria for each deliverable." SEC. 10. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follow: "SEC.12. Procurement of Equipment and Materials. - To achieve the purpose of this Act, the Commission in authorized to procure, in accordance with existing laws, by purchase, lease, rent or other forms of acquisition, supplies, equipment, materials, software, facilities, and other service, from local or foreign sources free from taxes and import duties, subject to accounting and auditing rules and regulation. With respect to the May 10, 2010 election and succeeding electoral exercises, the system procured must have demonstrated capability and been successfully used in a prior electoral exercise here or board. Participation in the 2007 pilot exercise shall not be conclusive of the system's fitness. "In determining the amount of any bid from a technology, software or equipment supplier, the cost to the government of its deployment and implementation shall be added to the bid price as integral thereto. The value of any alternative use to which such technology, software or equipment can be put for public use shall not be deducted from the original face value of the said bid." SEC. 11. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follow: "SEC.13. Continuity Plan. - The AES shall be so designed to include a continuity plan in case of a systems breakdown or any such eventuality which shall result in the delay, obstruction or nonperformance of the electoral process.

Activation of such continuity and contingency measures shall be undertaken in the presence of representatives of political parties and citizen's arm of the Commission who shall be notified by the election officer of such activation. "All political parties and party-lists shall be furnished copies of said continuity plan at their official addresses as submitted to the Commission. The list shall be published in at least two newspaper of national of circulation and shall be posted at the website of the Commission at least fifteen (15) days prior to the electoral activity concerned." SEC. 12. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC.14. Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and Opening of the Source Code for Review. - The Commission shall allow the political parties and candidates or their representatives, citizens' arm or their representatives to examine and test. "The equipment or device to be used in the voting and counting on the day of the electoral exercise, before voting start. Test ballots and test forms shall be provided by the Commission. "Immediately after the examination and testing of the equipment or device, parties and candidates or their representatives, citizen's arms or their representatives, may submit a written comment to the election officer who shall immediately transmit it to the Commission for appropriate action. "The election officer shall keep minutes of the testing, a copy of which shall be submitted to the Commission together with the minute of voting." "Once an AES technology is selected for implementation, the Commission shall promptly make the source code of that technology available and open to any interested political party or groups which may conduct their own review thereof."

SEC. 13. Section 11 of republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC.15. Official Ballot. - The Commission shall prescribe the format of the electronic display and/or the size and form of the official ballot, which shall contain the titles of the position to be filled and/or the proposition to be voted upon in an initiative, referendum or plebiscite. Where practicable, electronic displays must be constructed to present the names of all candidates for the same position in the same page or screen, otherwise, the electronic displays must be constructed to present the entire ballot to the voter, in a series of sequential pages, and to ensure that the voter sees all of the ballot options on all pages before completing his or her vote and to allow the voter to review and change all ballot choices prior to completing and casting his or her ballot. Under each position to be filled, the names of candidates shall be arranged alphabetically by surname and uniformly indicated using the same type size. The maiden or married name shall be listed in the official ballot, as preferred by the female candidate. Under each proposition to be vote upon, the choices should be uniformly indicated using the same font and size. "A fixed space where the chairman of the board of election inspector shall affix her/her signature to authenticate the official ballot shall be provided. "For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon that start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers, and employees in government-owned or-controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso factor resigned from

his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certification of candidacy. "Political parties may hold political conventions to nominate their official candidate within thirty (30) days before the start of the period for filing certificate of candidacy. "With respect to a paper-based election system, the official ballots shall be printed by the National Printing Office and/or the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas at the price comparable with that of private printers under proper security measures which the Commission shall adopt. The Commission may contact the services of private printers upon certification by the National Printing Office/Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas that it cannot meet the printing requirements. Accredited political parties and deputized citizen's arms of the Commission shall assign watchers in the printing, storage and distribution of official ballots. "To prevent the use of fake ballots, the Commission through the Committee shall ensure that the necessary safeguards, such as, but not limited to, bar codes, holograms, color shifting ink, microprinting, are provided on the ballot. "The official ballots shall be printed and distributed to each city/municipality at the rate of one ballot for every registered voter with a provision of additional three ballots per precinct." SEC. 14. Section 13 of republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 17. Ballot box. - Where applicable, there shall be in each precinct on election day a ballot box with such safety features that the Commission may prescribe and of such size as to accommodate the official ballots." SEC. 15. Section 14 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 18. Procedure in voting. - The Commission shall prescribe the manner and procedure of voting, which can be

easily understood and followed by the voters, taking into consideration, among other things, the secrecy of the voting." SEC. 16. Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 19. Closing of polls.- The Commission shall prescribe the time, manner and procedure of closing the polls and the steps for the correct reporting of votes cast and the proper conduct of counting for areas covered by the AES." SEC. 17. Section 16 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 20. Notice of Designation of Counting Centers. - The election officer shall post prominently in his/her office, in the bulletin boards at the city/municipal hall and in three other conspicuous places in the city/municipality, the notice on the designated counting center(s) for at least three weeks prior to election day. The notice shall specify the precincts covered by each counting center and the number of registered voters in each of said precincts. The election officer shall also furnish a copy of the notice to the headquarters or official address of the political parties or independent candidates within the same period. The election officer shall post in the Commission website concerned the said notice and publish the notice in the local newspaper. Where the polling place or voting center is also the designated counting center, such information shall be contained in the notice. "The Commission may not designate as counting center any building or facility located within the premises of a camp, reservation compound, headquarters, detachment, or field office of the military, police, prison or detention bureau, or any law enforcement or investigation agency." SEC. 18. Section 17 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 21. Counting procedure. - The Commission shall prescribe the manner and procedure of counting the votes

under the automated system: Provided, that apart from the electronically stored result, thirty (30) copies of the election return are printed." SEC. 19. Section 18 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 22. Electronic Returns. - Each copy of the of the printed election returns shall bear appropriate control marks to determine the time and place of printing. Each copy shall be signed and thumbmarked by all the members of the board of election inspectors and the watchers present. If any member of the board of election inspectors present refuses to sign, the chairman of the board shall note the same copy in each copy of the printed election returns. The member of the board of election inspectors concerned refusing to sign shall be compelled to explain his or her refusal to do so. Failure to explain an unjustifiable refusal to sign each copy of the printed election return by any member of the board of election inspectors shall be punishable as provided in this Act. The chairman of the boards shall then publicly read and announce the total numbers of registered voters, the total number of voters who actually voted and the total numbers of votes obtained by each candidate based on the election returns. "Thereafter, the copies of the election returns shall be sealed and placed in the proper envelopes for distribution as follows: "A. In the election of president, vice-president, senators and party-list system; 1) The first copy shall be delivered to the city or municipal board of canvassers; 2) The second copy, to the congress, directed to the President of the Senate; 3) The third copy, to the commission; 4) The fourth copy, to the citizen's arm authorized by the Commission to conduct an unofficial count

5) The fifth copy, to the dominant majority party as determined by the Commission in accordance with law; 6) The six copy, to the dominant minority party as determined by the Commission in accordance with law; and 7) The seventh copy shall be deposited compartment of the ballot box for valid ballots. inside the

use the four certified copies of election returns for the conduct of citizens' quick counts at the local or national levels; "B. In the election of local officials and members of the House of Representatives: 1) The First copy shall be delivered to the city or municipal board of canvassers; 2) The second copy, to the Commission; 3) The third copy, to the provincial board of canvassers; 4) The fourth copy, to the citizens' arm authorized by the Commission to conduct an unofficial count; 5) The fifth copy, to the dominant majority party as determined by the Commission in accordance with law; 6) The sixth copy, to the dominant minority party as determined by the Commission in accordance with law; and 7) The seventh copy shall be deposited inside the copy shall deposited inside the compartment of the ballot box for valid ballots. 8) The eight copy to be posted conspicuously on a wall within the premises of the polling place or counting center; 9) The ninth to the eighteenth copies, shall be given to the ten (10) accredited major national parties, excluding the dominant majority and minority parties, in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the Commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies on the basis of the criteria provided in Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166; 10) The nineteenth and twentieth copies shall be given to the two accredited major local parties in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the Commission shall decide which parties shall

8) The eight copy to the Provincial Board of canvassers; 9) The ninth to the eighteenth copies, shall be given to the ten (10) accredited major national parties, excluding the dominant majority and minority parties, in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the Commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies on the basis of the criteria provided in Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166; 10) The nineteenth and twentieth copies, to the two accredited major local parties in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies on the basis of criteria analogous to that provided in Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166; 11) The twenty-first to the twenty-fourth copies, to national broadcast or print media entities as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; 12) The twenty-fifth and twenty-six copies, to local broadcast or print media entities as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; and 13) The twenty-seventh to the thirtieth copies, to the major citizen's arms, including the accredited citizen's arm, and other non-partisan groups or organization enlisted by the Commission pursuant to Section 52(k) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Such citizens' arm, groups and organization may

receive the copies on the basis of criteria analogous to that provided in Section 26 of republic Act No. 7166; 11) The twenty-first to the twenty-fifth copies, to national broadcast or print media entities as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; 12) The twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh copies, to local broadcast or print media entities as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; and 13) The twenty-eighth to the thirtieth copies to the major citizens' arms, including the accredited citizens' arm, and other non-partisan groups or organization enlisted by the Commission pursuant to section 52(k) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Such citizens' arms, groups and organization may use the five certified copies of election returns for the conduct of citizens' quick counts at the local or national levels. "Immediately after the eight copy is printed, the poll clerk shall announce the posting of said copy on a wall within the premises of the polling place or counting center, which must be sufficiently lighted and accessible to the public. Any person may view or capture an image of the election return by means of any data capturing device such as, but not limited to cameras at any time of the day for forty-eight (48) hours following its posting. After such period, the chairman of the board of election inspectors shall detach the election return from the wall and keep the same in his custody to be produced as may be requested by any voter for image or data capturing or for any lawful purpose as may be ordered by competent authority. "Within one hour after the printing of the election returns, the chairman of the board of election inspectors or any official authorized by the Commission shall, in the presence of watchers and representatives of the accredited citizens' arm, political parties/candidates, if any, electronically transmit the precinct results to the respective levels of board of

canvassers, to the dominant majority and minority party, to the accredited citizen's arm, and to the Kapisanan ng mga Brodcaster ng Pilipinas (KBP). "The election results at the city/municipality canvassing centers shall be transmitted in the same manner by the election officer or any official authorized by the commission to the district or provincial canvassing centers. "The election returns transmitted electronically and digitally signed shall be considered as official election results and shall be used as the basis for the canvassing of votes and the proclamation of a candidate." "After the electronic results have been transmitted additional copies not to exceed thirty (30) may be printed and given to requesting parties at their own expense." SEC. 20. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 25. Canvassing by Provincial, City, District and Municipal Boards of Canvassers. - The City or Municipal board of canvassers shall canvass the votes for the president, vicepresident, senators, and parties, organization or coalitions participating under the party-list system by consolidating the electronically transmitted results contained in the data storage devices used in the printing of the election returns. Upon completion of the canvass, it shall print the certificate of canvass of votes for president, vice-president, senators and members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial officials and thereafter, proclaim the elected city or municipal officials, as the case may be. "The city board of canvassers of cities comprising one or more legislative districts shall canvass the votes for president, vice-president, senators, members of the House Representatives and elective city officials by consolidating the certificates of canvass electronically transmitted or the results contained in the data storage devices used in the printing of the election returns. Upon completion of the

canvass, the board shall procedure the canvass of votes for president, vice-president, and senators thereafter, proclaim the elected members of the House of Representatives and city officials. "In the Metro Manila area, each municipality comprising a legislative district shall have a district board of canvassers which shall canvass the votes for president, vice-president, senators, members of the House of Representatives and elective municipal officials by consolidating the electronically transmitted results or the results contained in the data storage devices used in the printing of the election returns. Upon completion of the canvass, it shall produce the certificate of canvass of votes for president, vice-president, and senators and thereafter, proclaim the elected members of the House Representatives and municipal officials. "Each component municipality in a legislative district in the Metro Manila area shall have a municipal board of canvassers which shall canvass the votes for president, vice-president, senators, members of the house of Representatives and elective municipal officials by consolidating the results electronically transmitted from the counting centers or the results contained in the data storage devices used in the printing of the election returns. Upon completion of the canvass, it shall prepare the certificate of canvass of votes for president, vice-president, senators, members of the House of Representatives and thereafter, proclaim the elected municipal officials. "The district board of canvassers of each legislative district comprising two municipalities in the Metro Manila area shall canvass the votes for president, vice-president, senators and members of the House of Representatives by consolidating the certificates of canvass electronically transmitted from the city/municipal consolidating centers or the results contained in the data storage devices submitted by the municipal board of canvassers of the component municipalities. Upon completion of the canvass. It shall produce a certificate of the canvass votes for president, vice-president, senators and thereafter, proclaim the elected members of the House of Representatives in the legislative district.

"The district/provincial board of canvassers shall canvass the votes for president, vice-president, senators, members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial officials by consolidating the results electronically transmitted from the city/municipal consolidating centers or the results contained in the data storage devices submitted by the board of canvassers of the municipalities and component cities. Upon completion of the canvass, it shall produce the certificates of canvass votes for president, vice-president and senators and thereafter, proclaim the elected members of the House of Representatives and the provincial official. "The municipal, city, district and provincial certificates of canvass of votes shall each be supported by a statement of votes. "Within one hour after the canvassing, the Chairman of the district or provincial Board of Canvassers or the city board of canvassers of those cities which comprise one or more legislative districts shall electronically transmit the certificate of canvass to the commission sitting as the national board of canvassers for senators and party-list representatives and to the Congress as the National Board of Canvassers for the president and vice president, directed to the President of the Senate. "The Commission shall adopt adequate measures to preserve the integrity of the canvass transmitted electronically and the storage devices at the various levels of canvassers. and effective certificates of results in the the boards of

"The certificates of canvass transmitted electronically and digitally signed shall be considered as official election results and shall be used as the basis for the proclamation of a winning candidate." SEC. 21. Section 22 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 26. Number of Copies of Certificates of Canvass of Votes and their distribution. - (a) The certificate of canvass of votes for president, vice-president, senators, members of the House of Representatives, parties, organization or coalitions participating under the party-list system and elective provincial officials shall be produced by the city or municipal board of canvassers and distributed as follows: "(1) The first copy shall be delivered to the provincial board of canvassers for use in the canvass of election results for president, vice-president, senators, members of the House of Representatives, parties, organization or coalitions participating under the party-list system and elective provincial officials; "(2) The second copy shall be sent to the Commission; "(3) The third copy shall be kept by the chairman of the board; and "(4) The fourth copy shall be given to the citizen arm designated by the Commission to conduct an unofficial count. It shall be the duty of the citizens' arm to furnish independent candidates' copies of the certificate of canvass at the expense of the requesting party. "(5) The fifth copy to Congress, directed to the President of Senate; "(6) The sixth copy to be posted on a wall within the premises of the canvassing center; "(7) The seventh and eighth copies shall be given to the dominant majority and minority parties; "(8) The ninth to eighteenth copies shall be given to the ten (10) accredited major national parties, excluding the dominant majority and minority parties, in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the Commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies on the basis of the criteria provided in Section 26 of Republic Act no. 7166;

"(9) The nineteenth and twentieth copies shall be given to the two accredited major local parties in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the Commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies on the basis of criteria analogous to that provided in Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166; "(10) The twenty-first to the twenty-fifth copies to national broadcast or print media entities as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; "(11) The twenty-six and twenty-seven copies, to local broadcast or print media entities as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; and "(12) The twenty-eighth to the thirtieth copies, to the major citizens' arms, including the accredited citizens' arm, and other non-partisan groups or organizations enlisted by the commission pursuant to Section 52(k) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Such citizens' arms, groups and organization may use the three certified copies of election returns for the conduct of citizens' quick counts at the local or national levels; "The board of canvassers shall furnish all other registered parties copies of the certificate of canvass at the expense of the requesting party. "(b) The certificate of canvass of votes for president, vicepresident and senators, parties, organization or coalitions participating under the party-list system shall be produced by the city boards of canvassers of cities comprising one or more legislative districts, by provincial boards of canvassers and by district boards of canvassers in the Metro Manila area, and other highly urbanized areas and distributed as follows: "(1) The first copy shall be sent to congress , directed to the president of the Senate for use in the canvass of election results for president and vice-president;

"(2) The second copy shall be sent to the Commission for use in the canvass of the election results for senators; "(3) The third copy shall be kept the chairman of the board; and "(4) The fourth copy shall be given to the citizens' arm designated by the Commission to conduct an unofficial count. It shall be the duty of the citizens' arm to furnish independent candidates copies of the certificate of canvass at the expense of the requesting party. "(5) The fifth copy to Congress, directed to the President of the Senate; "(6) The six copy to be posted on a wall within the premises of the canvassing center; "(7) The seventh and eight copies to the dominant majority and minority parties; "(8) The ninth and tenth copies to two accredited major national parties representing the majority and minority, excluding the dominant majority and minority parties, to be determined by the Commission on the basis of the criteria provided in Section 26 of Republic Act No. 7166; "(9) The eleventh to thirteenth copies to broadcast media entities as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; and "(10) The fourteenth copy to another citizens' arm or in the absence thereof, to a non-partisan group or organization enlisted by the Commission pursuant to Section 52(k) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Such citizens' arm or non-partisan group or organization may use the copy of election return for the conduct of citizens' quick counts at the local or national levels.

"The board of canvassers shall furnish all other registered parties copies of the certificate of canvass at the expense of the requesting party. "(c) The certificates of canvass printed by the provincial, district, city or municipal boards of canvassers shall be signed and thumb marked by the chairman and members of the board and the principal watchers, if available. Thereafter, it shall be sealed and placed inside an envelope which shall likewise be properly sealed. "In all instances, where the board of Canvassers has the duty to furnish registered political parties with copies of the certificate of canvass, the pertinent election returns shall be attached thereto, where appropriate." "Immediately after the six copy and its supporting statement of votes are printed, the chairman of the board of canvassers shall announce the posting of said prints on a wall within the premises of the canvassing center, which must be sufficiently lighted and accessible to the public. Any person may view or capture an image of the Certificate of Canvass or the supporting statement of votes by means of any data capturing device such as, but not limited to, cameras at any time of the day for forty-eight (48) hours following the posting. After such period, the chairman of the board of canvassers shall detach the election return from the wall and keep the same in his custody to be produced as may be requested by any voter for image or data capturing or for any lawful purpose as may be ordered by competent authority." SEC. 22. Section 23 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 27. National Board of Canvassers for Senators and Party-List Representatives. - The chairman and members of the Commission on Election sitting en banc, shall compose the national board of canvassers for senators and party-list representatives. It shall canvass the results by consolidating the certificates of canvass electronically transmitted. Thereafter, the national board shall proclaim the winning candidates for senators and party-list representatives."

SEC. 23. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 28. Congress as the National Board of Canvassers for President and Vice-President. - The Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session shall compose the national board of canvassers for president and vicepresident. The certificate of canvass for president and vicepresident duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be electronically transmitted to the Congress, directed to the president of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty (30) days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of representatives in joint public session and the Congress upon determination of the authenticity and the due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass all the results for president and vice-president and thereafter, proclaim the winning candidates." SEC. 24. A new Section 29 is hereby provided to reads as follows: "SEC 29. Random Manual Audit. - Where the AES is used, there shall be a random manual audit in one precinct per congressional district randomly chosen by the Commission in each province and city. Any difference between the automated and manual count will result in the determination of root cause and initiate a manual count for those precincts affected by the computer or procedural error." SEC. 25. A new Section 30 is hereby provided to read as follows: "Sec. 30. Authentication of Electronically Transmitted Election Results. - The manner of determining the authenticity and due execution of the certificates shall conform with the provisions of Republic Act No. 7166 as may be supplement or modified by the provision of this Act, where applicable, by appropriate authentication and certification

procedures for electronic signatures as provided in Republic Act No. 8792 as well as the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant thereto." SEC. 26. Section 25 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to reads as follows: "SEC. 31. Stakeholder education and training. - The Commission shall, not later than six months before the actual automated election exercise, undertake a widespread stakeholder education and training program, through newspaper of general circulation, radio, television and other media forms, as well as through seminars, symposia, fora and other nontraditional means, to educate the public and fully inform the electorate about the AES and inculcate values on honest, peaceful, orderly and informed elections. "Such program shall ensure the acceptance and readiness of the following stakeholders to understand and appreciate the benefits of the AES: 1. General public/voters; 2. Commission's staff; 3. Department of Education, Department of Finance (municipal, city and provincial treasurers) and all other government agencies who will play a role in the electoral exercise; 4. Local government officials (provincial, municipal, barangay levels); 5. Incumbent elected officials in the legislative and executive departments; 6. Political parties and candidates; 7. Members of the military and police. "The general public or voters training will focus on building the capability to use the automated system to cast their

vote, as well as general appreciation of the AES. All other stakeholders mentioned above will receive additional information in order to build a deeper understanding of the voting, counting, canvassing procedures, so that they may act as advocates of he AES. "The Commission together with and in support of accredited citizens' arms shall carry out a continuing and systematic campaign through newspaper of general circulation, radio and other media forms, as well as through seminars, symposia, fora and other nontraditional means to educate the public and fully inform the electorate about the AES and inculcate values on honest, peaceful and orderly election." SEC. 27. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: SEC. 33. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. - An Oversight Committee is hereby created composed of seven members each from the Senate and the House of Representatives, four of whom shall come from the majority and three from the minority, to monitor and evaluate the implementation of this Act. A written report to the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be submitted by the Advisory Council within six months from the date of election. The oversight committee shall conduct a mandatory review of this Act every twelve (12) months from the date of the last regular national or local elections." "The oversight committee shall conduct a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the performance of the different AES technologies implemented and shall make appropriate recommendations to Congress, in session assembled, specifically including the following: 1. An assessment and comparison of each of the AES technologies utilized, including their strengths, weakness, applicability or inapplicability in specific areas and situations; 2. An evaluation of their accuracy through a comparison of a random sample of the AES election results with a manual tabulation, and the conduct of similar tests;

3. As to the scope of AES implementation in the subsequent elections, provide for recommendations as to whether any of the following should be adopted: "a. Further test application of the AES or a particular AES technology used in the 2007 elections, whether in the same or others areas; "b. An increase or enlargement of areas for implementation of the AES or an AES technology and not a full implementation; or "c. A full implementation of the AES. 4. As to the kind of AES technology, provide for proposals as to whether: a) A particular AES technology should no longer be utilized for being obsolete, inapplicable, inaccurate or with a defect which cannot be remedied; b) An enhancement or improvement is needed to an AES technology which was used in the 2007 election to make it more functional, appropriate and accurate; c) A particular AES technology is already appropriate and should be utilized fully for subsequent election; or d) The testing or adoption of new technologies which may have emerged after the 2007 elections is needed." SEC. 28. Section 29 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 35. Prohibited Acts and Penalties. - The following shall be penalized as provided in this Act, whether or not said acts affect the electoral process or results: "(a) Utilizing without authorization, damaging, destroying or stealing: tampering with,

"(1) Official ballots, election returns, and certificates of canvass of votes used in the system; and "(2) Electronic devices or their components, peripherals or supplies used in the AES such as counting machine, memory pack/diskette, memory pack receiver and computer set; "(b) Interfering with, impeding, absconding for purpose of gain, preventing the installation or use of computer counting devices and the processing, storage, generation and transmission of election results, data or information; "(c) Gaining or causing access to using, altering, destroying or disclosing any computer data, program, system software, network, or any computer-related devices, facilities, hardware or equipment, whether classified or declassified; "(d) Refusal of the citizens' arm to present for perusal its copy of election return to the board of canvassers; "(e) Presentation by the citizens' arm of tampered or spurious election returns; "(f) Refusal or failure to provide the dominant majority and dominant minority parties or the citizens'' arm their copy of election returns; and "(g) The failure to post the voters' list within the specified time, duration and in the designated location shall constitute an election offense on the part the election officer concerned." "Any person convicted for violation of this Act, except those convicted of the crime of electoral sabotage, shall be penalized with imprisonment of eight years and one day to twelve (12) years without possibility of parole, and perpetual disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. Moreover, the offender shall be perpetually disqualified to hold any non-elective public office." SEC. 29. Section 30 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 36. Applicability. - The provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended, otherwise known as the 'Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines', and other election laws not inconsistent with this Act shall apply." SEC. 30. Section 31 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 37. Rules and Regulations. - The Commission shall promulgate rules and regulation for the implementation and enforcement of this Act. "Notwithstanding the foregoing canvassing procedure, the Commission is authorized to prescribe other manner or procedure for the canvassing and consolidation of votes as technology evolves, subject to the provisions of Section 7 hereof on the minimum capabilities of the AES and other pertinent laws." SEC. 31. Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec 25. Manner of Counting Votes. - In addition to the requirement in the fourth paragraph of Section 12 of the Republic Act No. 6646 and Section 210 of the Omnibus Election Code, in reading the official ballots during the counting, the chairman, the poll clerk and the third member shall assume such positions as to provide the watchers and the members of the public as may be conveniently accommodated in the polling place, an unimpeded view of the ballot being ready by the chairman, of the election return and the tally board being simultaneously accomplished by the, poll clerk and the third member respectively, without touching any of these election documents. The table shall be cleared of all unnecessary writing paraphernalia. Any violation of this requirement shall constitute an election offense punishable under Section 263 and 264 the Omnibus Election Code. "The chairman shall first read the votes for national positions.

"Any violation of this Section, or its pertinent portion, shall constitute an election offense and shall be penalized in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Sec. 32. Section 212 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 as amended, is hereby to read as follows: "SEC. 212. Election Returns. - The board of election inspectors shall prepare the election returns simultaneously with the counting of votes in the polling places as prescribe in Section 210 hereof. The recording of vote shall be made as prescribed in said section. The entry of votes in words and figures for each candidate shall be closed with the signature and the clear imprint of the thumbmark of the right hand of all the members, likewise to be affixed in full view of the public, immediately after the last vote recorded or immediately after the name of the candidate who did not receive any vote." "The returns shall also show the date of the election, the polling place, the barangay and the city or municipality in which it was held, the total number of ballots found in the compartment for valid ballots, the total number of valid ballots withdrawn from the compartment for spoiled ballots because they were erroneously placed therein, the total number of excess ballots, the total number of marked or void ballots, and the total numbers of votes obtained by each candidate, writing out the said number in words and figures and, at the end thereof, the board of election inspectors shall certify that the contents are correct. The returns shall be accomplished in a single sheet of paper, but if this is not possible, additional sheets may be used which shall be prepared in the same manner as the first sheet and likewise certified by the board of election inspectors." "The commission shall take steps so that the entries on the first copy of the election returns are clearly reproduced on the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth copies thereof, and for the purpose this Commission shall use a special kind of paper."

"Immediately upon the accomplishment of the election return for national position, the poll clerk shall announce the posting of the second copy of the election return on a wall with sufficient lighting within the premises of the polling place or counting center. He shall then proceed to do the same in the presence of the other members of the Board, the watchers and those present in the polling place or counting center. Without delay and, when feasible, he shall secure an image of the election return using a secured data capturing device and immediately thereafter, while in the premises of the polling place or counting center, directly print thirty (30) copies of the election return. Once the prints have been produced, the poll clerk shall call the other members of the board to authenticate each print copy by closely comparing the same with the election return posted on the wall in the presence of the watchers and within view of the public. If the Board finds each print a faithful reproduction of the election return, all members thereof shall annotate and sign a certification to that effect on the bottom front of the print. "Each certified printed copy shall be placed in an envelope and distributed as herein provided. Designated recipients of the certified print copies may receive their copies at the polling place or counting center. "Immediately upon the accomplishment of the election returns for local position, the second copy of the same shall be posted on a wall with sufficient lighting within the premises of the polling place. "The other copies of election returns for both national and local position shall be sealed in the presence of the watchers and the public, and placed in the proper envelope, which shall likewise be sealed and distributed as herein provided." "Any election return with a separately printed serial number or which bears a different serial number from that assigned to the particular polling place concerned shall not be canvassed. This is to be determined by the board canvassers prior to its canvassing on the basis of the certification of the provincial, city or municipal treasurer as to the serial number of the election return assigned to said voting precinct, unless

the Commission shall order in writing for its canvassing, stating the reason for the variance in serial numbers." "If the signatures and/or thumbmarks of the members of the board of election inspectors or some of them as required in this provision are missing in the election returns, the board of canvassers may summon the members of the board of election inspectors concerned to complete the returns. "The citizen's arm is mandated to present for perusal its copy of the election return to the board of election canvassers upon the request of any interested candidate. "Any violation of this election or its pertinent portion, shall constitute an election offense and shall be penalized in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 "In addition, the following shall likewise be guilty of an election offense: "(a) Any Person who removes the election return posted on the wall, whether within or after the prescribed forty-eight (48) hours of posting, or defaces the same in any manner; "(b) Any person who simulates an actual election return, or a print or digital copy thereof; "(c) Any person who simulates the certification in a print of an election return; "(d) The chairman or any member of the board of election inspectors who, during the prescribe period of posting, removes the election return from the wall on which it had been posted other than for the purpose of immediately transferring it to a more suitable place; "(e) The chairman or any member of the board of election inspectors who signs or authenticates a print of the election return outside of the polling place; and "(f) The chairman or any member of the board of election inspectors who signs or authenticates a print which bears an

image different from the election return produced after counting and posted on the wall." SEC. 33. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 8045 and Republic Act No. 8173 is hereby further amended to read as follows: SEC. 27. Number of Copies of Election Returns and their Distribution. - The board of election inspectors shall prepare in handwriting the election returns in their respective polling place, in the number of copies herein provided and in the form to be prescribed and provided by the Commission. "The copies of election returns shall be distributed by the chairman of the board of election inspectors as follows: "(a) In the election of president, vice-president, senators and members of the House of Representatives including the party-list representatives: "(1) The first copy shall be delivered to the city or municipal board of canvassers; "(2) The second copy to be posted on a wall within the premises of the polling place; "(3) The third copy, to the congress, directed to the President of the Senate; "(4) The fourth copy. to the Commission; "(5) The fifth copy, to the dominant majority party as determined by the Commission in accordance with law; "(6) The sixth copy, to the dominant minority party as determined by the Commission in accordance with law; "(7) The seventh copy, to a citizens' authorized by the Commission to conduct an unofficial count: Provided, however, That the accreditation of the citizens' arm shall be subject to the provision of Section 52(k) of Batas Pambansa Bldg. 881; and

"(8) The eight copy shall be deposited inside compartment of the ballot box for valid ballots; and "(b) In the election of local officials;

the

by any voter or any lawful purpose as may be ordered by competent authority. "Except for those copies that are required to be delivered, copies of election returns may be claimed at the polling place. Any unclaimed copy shall be brought by the chairman of the board of election inspectors to the canvassing center where the recipients or their representatives may claim them. Copies still unclaimed at the canvassing center shall be deemed placed in the custody of the chairman of the board of election inspectors, who shall produce them when requested by the recipient or when ordered by a competent authority. "The Thirty (30) certified print copies of the election return for national positions shall be distributed as follows: "(a) The first fourteen (14) copies shall be given to the fourteen (14) accredited major national parties in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the Commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies on the basis of the criteria provided in Section 26 hereof; "(b) The next three copies shall be given to the three accredited major local parties in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the Commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies on the basis of criteria analogous to that provided in Section 26 Hereof; "(c) The next five copies shall be given to national broadcast or print media entities as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; "(d) The next two copies shall be given to local broadcast or print media entities as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible;

"(1) The First copy shall be delivered to the city or municipal board of canvassers; "(2) The second copy to be posted on a wall within the premises of the polling place; "(3) The third copy, to the Commission; "(4) The fourth copy, to the provincial board of canvassers; "(5) The fifth copy, to the dominant majority party as determined by the Commission in accordance with law; "(6) The sixth copy, to the dominant minority party as determined by the Commission in accordance with law; "(7) The seventh copy, to a citizens' authorized by the Commission to conduct an unofficial count: Provided, however, That the accreditation of the citizens' arm shall be subject to the provisions of Section 52(k) of Batas Pambansa Bldg. 881; and "(8) The eighth copy shall be deposited compartment of the ballot box for valid votes. inside the

"The copy of the election return posted on the wall shall be open for public viewing at any time of the day for forty-eight (48) hours following its posting. Any person may view or capture an image of the election return by means of any data capturing device such as, but not limited to, cameras at any time of the day for forty-eight (48) hours following its posting. After the prescribed period for posting, the chairman of the board of election inspectors shall collect the posted election returns and keep the same in his custody to be produced for image or data capturing as may be requested

"(e) The next four copies to the major citizens' arms, including the accredited citizens' arms and other nonpartisan groups or organizations enlisted by the Commission pursuant to Section 52(k) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881; "(f) The next copy to be placed inside the compartment of the ballot box for valid ballots; and "(g) The last copy to the provincial board of canvassers." "The certified print copies may be claimed at the polling place. Any unclaimed copy shall be brought by the chairman of the board of election inspectors to the canvassing center where the recipients or representatives may claim them. Copies still unclaimed at the canvassing center shall be placed in the custody of the chairman of the board election inspectors, who shall produce them when requested by the recipient or when ordered by a competent authority. "Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, any of the recipients of the print or digital copies of the election return may conduct an unofficial consolidation of votes and may announce the result to the public. "The Commission shall post its digital files in its website for the public to view or download at any time of the day. The Commission shall maintain the files at least three years from the date of posting. "Any violation of this section, or its pertinent portion, shall constitute an election offense and shall be penalized in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881; SEC. 34. Sec. 26 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 26. Official Watchers. - Every registered political party or coalition of political parties, and every candidate shall each be entitled to one watcher in every polling place and canvassing center: Provided That, candidates for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlunsod, or

Sangguniang Bayan belonging to the same slate or ticket shall collectively be entitled to only one watcher. "The dominant majority party and dominant minority party, which the Commission shall determine in accordance with law, shall each be entitled to one official watcher who shall be paid a fixed per diem of four hundred pesos (400,00). "There shall also recognized six principal watchers, representing the six accredited major political parties excluding the dominant majority and minority parties, who shall be designated by the Commission upon nomination of the said parties. These political parties shall be determined by the Commission upon notice and hearing on the basis of the following circumstances: "(a) The established record of the said parties, coalition of groups that now composed them, taking into account, among other things, their showing in past election; "(b) The number of incumbent elective officials belonging to them ninety (90) days before the date of election; "c) Their identifiable political organizations and strengths as evidenced by their organized/chapters; "(d) The ability to fill a complete slate of candidates from the municipal level to the position of President; and "(e) Other analogous circumstances that may determine their relative organizations and strengths." Sec. 35. Section. 206 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 206 Counting to be Public and without Interruption. - As soon as the voting is finished, the board of election inspectors shall publicly count in the polling place the votes cast and ascertain the results. The board may rearrange the physical set up of the polling place for the counting or perform any other activity with respect to the transition from voting counting. However, it may do so only in the presence

of the watchers and within close view of the public. At all times, the ballot boxes and all election documents and paraphernalia shall be within close view of the watchers and the public. "The board of election inspectors shall not adjourn or postpone or delay the count until it has been fully completed, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. "The Commission, in the interest of free, orderly, and honest election, may authorize the board of election inspectors to count the votes and to accomplish the election return and other forms prescribed under the code in any other place within a public building in the same municipality or city on account of imminent danger of widespread violence or similar causes of comparable magnitude: Provided, That the transfer shall been recommended in writing by the board of election inspectors by unanimous vote and endorsed in writing by the majority of watchers present: Provided, further, that the said public building shall not located within the perimeter of or inside a military or police camp, reservation, headquarters, detachment or field office nor within the premises of a prison or detention bureau or any law enforcement or investigation agency. "Any violation of this section, or its pertinent portion, shall constitute and election offense and shall be penalized in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881." SEC.36. Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6646 is hereby repealed. SEC.37. Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby amended to read as follows" "SEC. 30. Congress as the National Board of Canvassers for the Election of President and Vice President: The Commission en banc as the National Board of Canvassers for the election of senators: Determination of Authenticity and Due Execution of Certificates of Canvass.- Congress and the Commission en banc shall determine the authenticity and due execution of the certificate of canvas for president and vice - president

and senators, respectively, as accomplished and transmitted to it by the local boards of canvassers, on a showing that: (1) each certificate of canvass was executed, signed and thumbmarked by the chairman and member of the board of canvassers and transmitted or caused to be transmitted to Congress by them; (2) each certificate of canvass contains the names of all of the candidates for president and vice president or senator, as the case may be, and their corresponding votes in words and their corresponding votes in words and in figures; (3) there exits no discrepancy in other authentic copies of the document such as statement of votes of any of its supporting document such as statement of votes by city/municipality/by precinct or discrepancy in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the certificate; and (4) there exist no discrepancy in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the certificates of canvass againts the aggregate number of votes appearing in the election returns of precincts covered by the certificate of canvass: Provided, That certified print copies of election returns or certificates of canvass may be used for the purpose of verifying the existence of the discrepancy. "When the certificate of canvass, duly certified by the board of canvass of each province, city of district, appears to be incomplete, the Senate President or the Chairman of the Commission, as the case may be, shall require the board of canvassers concerned to transmit by personal delivery, the election returns form polling places that were not included in the certificate of canvass and supporting statements. Said election returns shall be submitted by personal delivery within two (2) days from receipt of notice. "When it appears that any certification of canvass or supporting statement of each province, city of district, appears to be incomplete, the Senate President or the Chairman of the Commission, as the case may be, shall require the board of canvassers concerned to transmit by personal delivery, the election returns from polling places that were not included in the certificate of canvass and supporting statements. Said election returns shall be submitted by personal delivery within two (2) days from receipt of notice.

"When it appears that any certificate of canvass or supporting statement of votes by city/municipality or by precinct bears erasures or alteration which may cast doubt as to the veracity of the number of votes stated herein and may affect the result of the election, upon requested of the presidential, vice - presidential or senatorial candidate concerned or his party, Congress or the Commission en banc, as the case may be shall , for the sole purpose of verifying the actual the votes as they appear in the copies if the election returns submitted to it. "In case of any discrepancy, incompleteness, erasure or alteration as mentioned above, the procedure on preproclamation controversies shall be adopted and applied as provided in Section 17,18,19 and 20. "Any person who present in evidence a simulated copy of an election return, certificate of canvass or statement of votes, or a printed copy of an election return, certificate of canvass or statement of votes bearing a simulated certification or a simulated image, shall be guilty of an election offense shall be penalized in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881." SEC.38. Section 15 of Republic Act No.7166 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC.15. Pre - proclamation Cases in Elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House of Representatives. - For purpose of the elections for president, vice - president, senator, and member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns or the certificates of canvass, as the case may be, expect as provided for in Section 30 hereof. However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election before it.

"Question affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers may be initiated in the board or directly with the Commission in accordance with Section 19 hereof. "Any objection on the election return before the city or municipal board of canvassers, or the municipal certificates of canvass before the provincial board of canvassers or district board of canvassers in Metro Manila Area, shall specifically notice in the minutes of their respective proceeding." SEC. 39. Section 28 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby amended as follows: "SEC. 28. Canvassing by Provincial City, District, and Municipal Board of Canvassers. - a) The City or municipal of board of canvassers shall canvass the election return of President, Vice president, Senator and Members of the House of Representatives and for elective provincial and city or municipal officials: Provided, That the returns for national positions shall be canvassed first Upon completion of the canvass, it shall prepare the certificate of canvass for of Representatives and elective provincial officials, announce the results of the election for national positions in the city or municipality, and thereafter, proclaims the elected city or municipal officials, as the case may be. "b) The city board of canvassers of cities comprising one or more legislative district shall canvass the election returns for president, vice-president, senator, members of the House of Representatives and elective city officials: Provided, That the returns for positions shall be canvassed first. Upon completion of the canvass, the board shall prepare the certificate of canvass, of president, vice-president, and senator, announce the results of the election for national positions in the city, and thereafter, proclaim the elected members of the House of the Representatives and city officials. "c) (1) In the Metro Manila Area such municipality comprising a legislative district shall have district board of canvass the election return for President, Vice-Presidents, Senator,

Members for the House of Representatives and elective municipal officials: Provided, That the return for national positions shall be prepare the certificate of canvass for president, vice-presidents, senators, announce the results of the election for national position in the municipality, and thereafter, proclaim the elected member of the House of the Representatives and city officials. "(2) Each component municipality in a legislative district in the Metro Manila Area shall have a municipal board of canvassers which shall canvass the election returns for president, vice-president, senator, members of the House of representatives and elective municipal officials: Provided, That the returns for national positions shall be canvassed first. Upon completion of the canvass, it shall prepare the certificate of canvass for presidents, vice-presidents, senators, and members of the House of the Representatives, announce the results of the election for national position in the municipality, and thereafter, proclaim the elected municipal officials. "(3) The district board of canvassers of each legislative district comprising two municipalities in Metro Manila area shall canvass the certificate of canvass the for President, Vice-Presidents, Senator and Members of the House of representatives submitted by the municipal board of canvassers of the Component municipalities. Upon completion of the canvass, it shall prepare a certificate of canvass for president, vice-president, and senator, announce the results of the election for national positions in the district, and thereafter, proclaim the elected member of the House of the Representatives in the legislative district. "(d) The provincial board of canvassers shall canvass the certificate of canvass for president, vice president, senators and members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial officials as well as plebiscite results, if any plebiscite is conducted simultaneously with the same election, as submitted by the board of canvassers of municipalities and component cities: Provided, That the returns for national position shall be canvassed first. Upon completion of the canvass, it shall prepare the certificate of

canvass for president, vice-president, and senator, announce the results of the election for national position in the province, proclaim the elected member of the House of Representatives and provincial officials as well as the plebiscite results, if any. "In conducting the canvass of election return of certificates of canvass, as the case may be, the board of canvassers in a municipality, city, district or province shall project each election return or certificate of canvass on a wall from which its contents shall be read in order that those present in the canvassing canter may follow the progress of the canvassing process from beginning to end. The Commission may utilize the appropriate projection equipment for this purpose. "Immediately after the certificate of canvass for national positions is accomplished, the chairman of the Board of Canvassers shall announce the posting of the second copy thereof and its supporting statement of votes on a wall with sufficient lighting within the premises of the canvassing center. He shall then proceed to do the same in the present in the canvassing center. Without delay and when feasible, he shall capture images of the certificate of canvass and supporting statements of votes using a secured data capturing device and thereafter, while in the premises of the canvassing center, immediately print the data so captured in thirty (30) copies. The board of canvassers shall then authenticates each printed copy, in the presence of watchers and within public view, by closely comparing the same with the certificate of canvass or statement of votes, as the case may be, posted on of the wall. If the board finds each printed copy a faithful reproduction of the certificate of canvass or statement of votes, all members thereof shall annotate and sign a certification to that effect on the bottom front of the printed copy. "Each certified printed copy shall be placed in an envelope and distributed as herein provided. Designated recipient of the certified printed copies may receive their copies at the canvassing center.

"The Chairman of the board shall transmit the digital files of the certificate of canvass and its supporting statement of votes using a secured transmission device with authentication features to the secured tabulation system of the Commission and to the systems of the other designated recipients as herein provided. "Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, any of the recipients of the print or digital copies of the certificate of canvass and the supporting statements of votes may conduct an unofficial consolidation of votes and may announce the result thereof to the public. "Any violation of this section, or its pertinent portion, shall constitute an election offence and shall be penalized in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. "In addition, the following shall likewise be guilty of an election offence: "(a) Any person who remove the certificate of canvass posted on the wall, whether within or after the prescribed forty-eight (48) hours of posting, or defaces the same in any manner; "(b) Any person who simulates an actual certificates of canvass or statement of votes, or a print or digital copy thereof; "(c) Any person who simulates the certification of a certificate of canvass or statement of votes; "(d) The chairman or any member of the board of canvassers who, during the prescribed period of posting, remove the certificate of canvass or its supporting statement of votes from the wall on which they have been posted other than for the purpose of immediately transferring them to a more suitable place; "(e) The chairman of any member of the board of canvassers who sign or authenticates a print of the certificate of canvass or its supporting statement of votes outside of the polling place: and

"(f) The chairman or any member of the board of canvassers who sign or authenticates a print which bears an image different from the certificate of canvass or statement of votes produced after counting and posted on the wall." SEC. 40. Section 29 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC.29. Number of Copies of Certificate of Canvass and their Distribution. - a) the certificate of canvass for president, vicepresident, senator and member of the house of Representatives and elective provincial official shall be prepared in seven copies by the city or municipal board of canvassers and distributed as follows: "(1) The first copy shall be delivered to the provincial board of canvassers for use in the canvass election results for president, vice- president, senator and member of the House of representatives and elective provincial officials: "(2) The second copy shall be sent to the Commission; "(3) The third copy shall be posted on a wall within the premises of the canvassing center "(4) The fourth copy shall be kept by the chairman of the Board: and "(5) the fifth copy shall be given the citizens' arm designated by the Commission to conduct a media-based unofficial count, and the sixth and seventh copies shall be given to the citizen's arm designated by the Commission to conduct a media - based unofficial count , and the sixth and seventh copies shall be given to the representatives of two of the six major political parties in accordance with the voluntary agreement of the parties. If no such agreement is reached, the commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies of the certificate of the canvass on the basis of the criteria provided in Section 26 hereof. The parties receiving the certificate shall have obligation to furnish the other

parties with authentic copies thereof with the at least possible delay. "b) The certificates of canvass for president, vice president, senators shall be prepared in seven (7) copies by the city boards of canvassers of cities comprising one or more legislative districts, by provincial boards of canvassers in the Metro Manila Area, and distributed as follows: "(1) The first copy shall be sent to the Congress directed to the President of the Senate for use in the canvass of election results for president and vice-president; "(2) The second copy shall be sent to the Commission for use in the canvass of the election results for Senators; "(3) The third copy shall be posted on a wall within the premises of the canvassing center; "(4) The fourth copy shall be kept by the Chairman of the Board; and "(5) The fifth copy shall be given to the citizens' s arm designated by the Commission to conduct a media -based unofficial count, and the sixth and seventh copies shall be given to the representatives of two of the six major political parties. If no such agreement is reached, the commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies of the certificate of canvass on the basis of the criteria provided in Section 26 hereof. The parties receiving the certificates shall have the obligation to furnish the other parties with authentic copies thereof with the least possible delay. "The of the certificate of canvass posted on the wall shall be open for public viewing at any time of the day for forty -eight (48) hours following its posting. Any person may view or capture an image of the certificate of canvass .After the prescribed period for posting, the chairman of the board of canvassers shall collect the posted certificate of canvass and keep the same in his custody to be produced for image or data capturing as may be requested by any voter or for any lawful purpose as may be ordered competent authority.

"Except for those copies that are required to be delivered, copies of certificates of canvass may be claimed at the canvassing center. Any unclaimed copy shall be deemed placed in the custody of the chairman of the board of canvassers, who shall produce them requested by the recipient or when ordered by a competent authority. "The thirty (30) certified print copies of the certificate canvass for national positions shall be distributed as follows: "(a) The first fourteen (14) copies shall be given to the fourteen (14) accredited major national parties in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies on the basis of the criteria provided in Section 26 hereof; "(b) The next three copies shall be given to the three accredited major local parties in accordance with a voluntary agreement among them. If no such agreement is reached, the Commission shall decide which parties shall receive the copies in the basis of criteria analogous to the provided in Section 26 hereof; "(c) The next five copies shall be given to national broadcast or print media entities as may be equitably determined by the commission in view of propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; "(d) The next two copies shall be given to local broadcast or print media entitles as may be equitably determined by the Commission in view propagating the copies to the widest extent possible; "(e) The next four copies to the major citizen's arms, including accredited citizen' arm, and other non -partisan groups or organizations enlisted by the commission pursuant to section 52(K) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881; and

(f) The last two copies to be kept in file by the chairman of the board of canvassers to be subsequently distributed as the national board of canvassers may direct. "The certified print copies may be claimed at the canvassing center. Any unclaimed copy shall be deemed place in the custody of the chairman of the board of canvassers, who shall produce them when requested by the recipient or when ordered by a competent authority. "The commission shall post its digital files in its website for the public to view or download at any time of the day. The commission shall maintain the files for at least three years from the date of posting. "Any violation of this section, or its pertinent portion, shall constitute an election offense and shall be penalized in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881." SEC. 41 The first paragraph of Sec. 52 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 52. Powers and Functions of the Commission on Elections, - In addition to the powers and functions conferred upon it buy the constitution the commission shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections, except as otherwise provided herein and shall." SEC. 42. Section27 (b) of Republic Act No. 6646 is hereby amended to read as follows : "Sec. 27. Election Offenses; Electoral Sabotage. - In additional to the prohibited acts and election offenses enumerated in Section 261 and 262 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881,as amended, the following shall be guilty of an election offense or a special election offense to be known as eletoral sabotage: "(a) x x x

"(b) Any person or member of the board of election inspectors or board of canvassers who tampers, increases or decreases the votes received by a candidates in any election or any member of the board who refuses after proper verification and hearing ,to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes: Provided, however, That when the tampering, increase or decrease of votes or the refusal to credit the correct votes and /or to deduct tampered to deduct tampered votes are perpetrated on large scale or in substantial numbers, the same shall be considered not as an ordinary election offense under Section 261 of the omnibus election code. But a special election offense to be known as electoral sabotage and the penalty to be imposed shall be life imprisonment. "The act or offense committed shall fall under the category of electoral sabotage in any of the following instances; "(1) When the tampering, increase and / or decrease of votes perpetrated or the refusal to credit the correct votes or to deduct tampered votes, is/are committed in the election of a national elective office which is voted upon nationwide and the tampering, increase and/ or decrease votes refusal to credit the correct votes or to deduct tampered votes, shall adversely affect the results of the election to the said national office to the extent that losing candidate/s is /are made to appear the winner/s; "(2) Regardless of the elective office involved, when the tampering, increase and/or decrease of votes committed or the refusal to credit the correct votes or to deduct tampered votes perpetrated , is a accomplished in a single election document or in the transposition of the figure / results from one election document to another and involved in the said tampering increase and/or decrease or refusal to credit correct votes or deduct tampered votes exceed five thousand (5,000) votes, and that the same adversely affects the true results of the election ; "(3) Any and all other forms or tampering increase/s and/ or decrease/s of votes perpetuated or in cases of refusal to

credit the correct votes or deduct the tampered votes, where the total votes involved exceed ten thousand (10,000) votes; "Provided finally; That any and all either persons or individuals determined to be conspiracy or in connivance with the members of the BEIs or BOCs involved, shall be meted the same penalty of life imprisonment." SEC. 43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended to read as follow: "SEC. 265. Prosecution. - The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and prosecute the same" SEC. 44. Appropriations. - To carry out the provisions of this Act, the amount necessary for the automated system shall be charged against the Two billion six hundred million pesos (2,600,000,000.00) modernization fund in the current year's appropriations of the commission. Further, the amount necessary to carry out the manual system, at a maximum of Three billion pesos (3,000,000,000) shall be charged against the current year's appropriation of the commission. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the continuous implementation of this Act or any part thereof, or the application such be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. If the said funds shall not be fully utilized the same shall continue to be appropriated for the electoral modernization as set forth in this Act and shall not revert to the General Fund. SEC. 45. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, any section or provision of this Act or any part thereof , or the application of such section, provision or portion is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder thereof shall not be affected by such declaration.

SEC. 46. Repealing Clause. - All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations or part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. SEC. 47. Effectivity. - This Act Shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Approved,

G.R. No. 188456 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING,* YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, and ABAD, JJ.

H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROMEL R. BAGARES, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL, GILBERT T. ANDRES, IMMACULADA D. GARCIA, ERLINDA T. MERCADO, FRANCISCO A. ALCUAZ, MA. AZUCENA P. MACEDA, and ALVIN A. PETERS, Petitioners, - versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by HON. CHAIRMAN JOSE MELO, COMELEC SPECIAL BIDS and AWARDS COMMITTEE, represented by its CHAIRMAN HON. FERDINAND RAFANAN, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET and MANAGEMENT, represented by HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, TOTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondents. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, Petitioner-in-Intervention. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Movant-Intervenor.

Promulgated: September 10, 2009 x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.: In a democratic system of government, the peoples voice is sovereign. Corollarily, choosing through the ballots the men and women who are to govern the country is perhaps the highest exercise of democracy. It is thus the interest of the state to insure honest, credible and peaceful elections, where the sanctity of the votes and the secrecy of the ballots are safeguarded, where the will of the electorate is not frustrated or undermined. For when the popular will itself is subverted by election irregularities, then the insidious seeds of doubt are sown and the ideal of a peaceful and smooth transition of power is placed in jeopardy. To automate, thus breaking away from a manual system of election, has been viewed as a significant step towards clean and credible elections, unfettered by the travails of the long wait and cheating that have marked many of our electoral exercises. The Commission on Elections (Comelec), private respondents, the National Computer Center and other computer wizards are confident that nationwide automated elections can be successfully implemented. Petitioners and some skeptics in the information technology (IT) industry have, however, their reservations, which is quite understandable. To them, the automated election system and the untested technology Comelec has chosen and set in motion are pregnant with risks and could lead to a disastrous failure of elections. Comelec, they allege, would not be up to the challenge. Cheating on a massive scale, but this time facilitated by a machine, is perceived to be a real possibility. In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, petitioners H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al., suing as taxpayers and concerned citizens, seek to nullify respondent Comelecs award of the 2010 Elections Automation Project (automation project) to the joint venture of Total Information Management Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International Corporation (Smartmatic)[1] and to permanently prohibit the Comelec, TIM and Smartmatic from signing and/or implementing the corresponding contract-award.

By Resolution[2] of July 14, 2009, the Court directed the respondents as well as the University of the Philippines (UP) Computer Center, National Computer Center (NCC) and Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines (Infotech, hereinafter) to submit their collective or separate comments to the petition on or before July 24, 2009. Before any of the comments could actually be filed, Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra sought leave to intervene. In another resolution, the Court allowed the intervention and admitted the corresponding petition-in-intervention.[3] On July 29, 2009, the Court heard the principal parties in oral arguments which was followed by the submission of their and the resource persons instructive, albeit clashing, memoranda. The Senate, through the Senate President, would later join the fray via a Motion for Leave to Intervene. In a Resolution of August 25, 2009, the Court admitted the Senates comment-in-intervention. From the petition, the separate comments thereon, with their respective annexes, and other pleadings, as well as from admissions during the oral arguments, the Court gathers the following facts: On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted Republic Act No. (RA) 8436 authorizing the adoption of an automated election system (AES) in the May 11, 1998 national and local elections and onwards. The 1998, 2001, and 2004 national and local polls, however, came and went but purely manual elections were still the order of the day. On January 23, 2007, the amendatory RA 9369[4] was passed authorizing anew the Comelec to use an AES. Of particular relevance are Sections 6 and 10 of RA 9369originally Secs. 5 and 8, respectively of RA 8436, as amendedeach defining Comelecs specific mandates insofar as automated elections are concerned. The AES was not utilized in the May 10, 2000 elections, as funds were not appropriated for that purpose by Congress and due to time constraints. RA 9369 calls for the creation of the Comelec Advisory Council[5] (CAC). CAC is to recommend, among other functions, the most appropriate, applicable and cost-effective

technology to be applied to the AES.[6] To be created by Comelec too is the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC)[7] which is tasked to certify, through an established international certification committee, not later than three months before the elections, by categorically stating that the AES, inclusive of its hardware and software components, is operating properly and accurately based on defined and documented standards.[8] In August 2008, Comelec managed to automate the regional polls in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao[9] (ARMM), using direct recording electronics (DRE) technology[10] in the province of Maguindanao; and the optical mark reader/recording (OMR) system, particularly the Central Count Optical Scan (CCOS),[11] in the rest of ARMM.[12] What scores hailed as successful automated ARMM 2008 elections paved the way for Comelec, with some prodding from senators,[13] to prepare for a nationwide computerized run for the 2010 national/local polls, with the many lessons learned from the ARMM experience influencing, according to the NCC, the technology selection for the 2010 automated elections.[14] Accordingly, in early March 2009, the Comelec released the Request for Proposal (RFP), also known as Terms of Reference (TOR), for the nationwide automation of the voting, counting, transmission, consolidation and canvassing of votes for the May 10, 2010 Synchronized National and Local Elections. What is referred to also in the RFP and other contract documents as the 2010 Elections Automation Project (Automation Project) consists of three elaborate components, as follows: Component 1: Paper-Based AES.[15] 1-A. Election Management System (EMS); 1-B Precinct-Count Optic Scan (PCOS) [16] System and 1-C. Consolidation/Canvassing System (CCS); Component 2: Provision for Electronic Transmission of Election Results using Public Telecommunications Network; and

Component 3: Overall Project Management And obviously to address the possibility of systems failure, the RFP required interested bidders to submit, among other things: a continuity plan[17] and a back-up plan. [18] Under the two-envelope system designed under the RFP,[19] each participating bidder shall submit, as part of its bid, an Eligibility Envelope[20] that should inter alia establish the bidders eligibility to bid. On the other hand, the second envelope, or the Bid Envelope itself, shall contain two envelopes that, in turn, shall contain the technical proposal and the financial proposal, respectively.[21] Subsequently, the Comelec Special Bids and Awards Committee (SBAC), earlier constituted purposely for the aforesaid project, caused the publication in different newspapers of the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid[22] for the procurement of goods and services to be used in the automation project.[23] Meanwhile, Congress enacted RA 9525 appropriating some PhP 11.3 billion as supplemental budget for the May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections. Of the ten (10) invitation-responding consortia which obtained the bid documents, only seven (7) submitted sealed applications for eligibility and bids[24] which, per Bid Bulletin No. 24, were to be opened on a pre-set date, following the convening of the pre-bid conference. Under the RFP, among those eligible to participate in the bidding are manufacturers, suppliers and/or distributors forming themselves into a joint venture. A joint venture is defined as a group of two or more manufacturers, suppliers and/or distributors that intend to be jointly and severally responsible or liable for a particular contract.[25] Among the submitted bids was that of the joint venture (JV) of TIM and Smartmatic, the former incorporated under the Corporation Code of the Philippines. Smartmatic, on the other hand, was organized under the laws of Barbados.[26] For a stated amount, said JV proposed to undertake the whole automation project, inclusive of the delivery of 82,200 PCOS

machines. After the conclusion of the eligibility evaluation process, only three consortia[27] were found and thus declared as eligible. Further on, following the opening of the passing bidders Bid Envelope and evaluating the technical and financial proposals therein contained, the SBAC, per its Res. No. 09-001, s.-2009, declared the above-stated bid of the JV of TIM-Smartmatic as the single complying calculated bid.[28] As required by the RFP, the bid envelope contained an outline of the joint ventures back-up and continuity or contingency plans,[29] in case of a systems breakdown or any such eventuality which shall result in the delay, obstruction or nonperformance of the electoral process. After declaring TIM-Smartmatic as the best complying bidder, the SBAC then directed the joint venture to undertake postqualification screening, and its PCOS prototype machines the Smarmatic Auditable Electronic System (SAES) 1800to undergo end-to-end[30] testing to determine compliance with the pre-set criteria. In its Memorandum of June 01, 2009, on the Subject: Systems Evaluation Consolidated Report and Status Report on the Post-Qualification Evaluation Procedures, the SBAC Technical Working Group (TWG) stated that it was undertaking a 4-day (May 27 to May 30, 2009) test evaluation of TIM and Smartmatics proposed PCOS project machines. Its conclusion: The demo systems presented PASSED all tests as required in the 26-item criteria specified in the [RFP] with 100% accuracy rating.[31] The TWG also validated the eligibility, and technical and financial qualifications of the TIM-Smartmatic joint venture. On June 9, 2009, Comelec, upon the recommendation of its SBAC, the CAC and other stakeholders, issued Resolution No. (Res.) 8608[32] authorizing the SBAC to issue, subject to well-defined conditions, the notice of award and notice to proceed in favor of the winning joint venture. Soon after, TIM wrote Comelec expressing its desire to quit the JV partnership. In time, however, the parties were able to patch up what TIM earlier described as irreconcilable differences between partners.

What followed was that TIM and Smartmatic, pursuant to the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA),[33] caused the incorporation of a joint venture corporation (JVC) that would enter into a contract with the Comelec. On July 8, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a certificate of incorporation in favor of Smartmatic TIM Corporation. Two days after, or on July 10, 2009, Comelec and Smartmatic TIM Corporation, as provider, executed a contract[34] for the lease of goods and services under the contract for the contract amount of PhP 7,191,484,739.48, payable as the Goods and Services are delivered and/or progress is made in accordance [with pre-set] Schedule of Payments.[35] On the same date, a Notice to Proceed[36] was sent to, and received by, Smartmatic TIM Corporation. Meanwhile, or on July 9, 2009, petitioners interposed the instant recourse which, for all intents and purposes, impugns the validity and seeks to nullify the July 10, 2009 ComelecSmartmatic-TIM Corporation automation contract adverted to. Among others, petitioners pray that respondents be permanently enjoined from implementing the automation project on the submission that: PUBLIC RESPONDENTS COMELEC AND COMELECSBAC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN AWARDING THE 2010 ELECTIONS AUTOMATION PROJECT TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TIM AND SMARTMATIC FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: x x x COMELEC DID NOT CONDUCT ANY PILOT TESTING OF THE x x x PCOS MACHINES OFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS SMARTMATIC AND TIM, IN VIOLATION OF [RA] 8436 (AS AMENDED BY [RA] 9369) THE [PCOS] MACHINES [THUS] OFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS x x x DO NOT SATISFY THE MINIMUM SYSTEM CAPABILITIES SET BY [RA] NO. 8436 (AS AMENDED BY [RA] 9369).

PRIVATE RESPONDENTS x x x DID NOT SUBMIT THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS THAT SHOULD ESTABLISH THE DUE EXISTENCE, COMPOSITION, AND SCOPE OF THEIR JOINT VENTURE, IN VIOLATION OF THE SUPREME COURTS HOLDING IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 159139, Jan. 13, 2004). THERE WAS NO VALID JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT [JVA] BETWEEN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS SMARTMATIC AND TIM DURING THE BIDDING, IN VIOLATION OF THE SUPREME COURTS HOLDING IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COMELEC x x x WHICH REQUIRES A JOINT VENTURE TO INCLUDE A COPY OF ITS [JVA] DURING THE BIDDING. THE ALLEGED JOINT VENTURE COMPOSED OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS SMARTMATIC AND TIM, DOES NOT SATISFY THE SUPREME COURTS DEFINITION OF A JOINT VENTURE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COMELEC x x x WHICH REQUIRES A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER. Filed as it was before contract signing, the petition understandably did not implead Smartmatic TIM Corporation, doubtless an indispensable party to these proceedings, an incident that did not escape Comelecs notice.[37] As a preliminary counterpoint, either or both public and private respondents question the legal standing or locus standi of petitioners, noting in this regard that the petition did not even raise an issue of transcendental importance, let alone a constitutional question. As an additional point, respondents also urge the dismissal of the petition on the ground of prematurity, petitioners having failed to avail themselves of the otherwise mandatory built-in grievance mechanism under Sec. 55 in relation to Sec. 58 of

RA 9184, also known as the Government Procurement Reform Act, as shall be discussed shortly. PROCEDURAL GROUNDS The Court is not disposed to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds advanced by respondents. Locus Standi and Prematurity It is true, as postulated, that to have standing, one must, as a rule, establish having suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the alleged illegal government conduct; that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.[38] The prescription on standing, however, is a matter of procedure. Hence, it may be relaxed, as the Court has often relaxed the rule for non-traditional plaintiffs, like ordinary citizens and taxpayers, when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overarching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.[39] As we wrote in Chavez v. PCGG,[40] where issues of public importance are presented, there is no necessity to show that the suitor has experienced or is in actual danger of suffering direct and personal injury as the requisite injury is assumed. Petitioners counsel, when queried, hedged on what specific constitutional proscriptions or concepts had been infringed by the award of the subject automation project to Smartmatic TIM Corporation, although he was heard to say that our objection to the system is anchored on the Constitution itself a violation [sic] of secrecy of voting and the sanctity of the ballot.[41] Petitioners also depicted the covering automation contract as constituting an abdication by the Comelec of its election-related mandate under the Constitution, which is to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections. Worse still, according to the petitioners, the abdication, with its anti-dummy dimension, is in favor of a foreign corporation that will be providing the hardware and software requirements.[42] And when pressed further, petitioners came out with the

observation that, owing in part to the sheer length of the ballot, the PCOS would not comply with Art. V, Sec. 2 of the Constitution[43] prescribing secrecy of voting and sanctity of the ballot.[44] There is no doubt in our mind, however, about the compelling significance and the transcending public importance of the one issue underpinning this petition: the successand the far-reaching grim implications of the failureof the nationwide automation project that will be implemented via the challenged automation contract. The doctrinal formulation may vary, but the bottom line is that the Court may except a particular case from the operations of its rules when the demands of justice so require.[45] Put a bit differently, rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. [46] Accordingly, technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand in the way, if the ends of justice would not be subserved by a rigid adherence to the rules of procedure.[47] This postulate on procedural technicalities applies to matters of locus standi and the presently invoked principle of hierarchy of courts, which discourages direct resort to the Court if the desired redress is within the competence of lower courts to grant. The policy on the hierarchy of courts, which petitioners indeed failed to observe, is not an iron-clad rule. For indeed the Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction of special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons[48] or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition.[49] The exceptions that justify a deviation from the policy on hierarchy appear to obtain under the premises. The Court will for the nonce thus turn a blind eye to the judicial structure intended, first and foremost, to provide an orderly dispensation of justice. Hierarchy of Courts

At this stage, we shall dispose of another peripheral issue before plunging into the core substantive issues tendered in this petition. Respondents contend that petitioners should have availed themselves of the otherwise mandatory protest mechanism set forth in Sections 55 and 58 of the procurement law (RA 9184) and the counterpart provisions found in its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)-A before seeking judicial remedy. Insofar as relevant, Sec. 55 of RA 9184 provides that decisions of the bids and awards committee (BAC) in all stages of procurement may be protested, via a verified position paper, to the head of the procuring agency. On the other hand, the succeeding Sec. 58 states that court action may be resorted to only after the protest contemplated in Sec. 55 shall have been completed. Petitioners except. As argued, the requirement to comply with the protest mechanism, contrary to what may have been suggested in Infotech, is imposed on the bidders.[50] Petitioners position is correct. As a matter of common sense, only a bidder is entitled to receive a notice of the protested BAC action. Only a losing bidder would be aggrieved by, and ergo would have the personality to challenge, such action. This conclusion finds adequate support from the ensuing provisions of the aforesaid IRR-A: 55.2. The verified position paper shall contain the following documents: a) The name of bidder; b) The office address of the bidder x x x.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES We now turn to the central issues tendered in the petition which, in terms of subject matter, revolved around two

concerns, viz: (1) the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) of Smartmatic and TIM; and (2) the PCOS machines to be used. Petitioners veritably introduced another issue during the oral arguments, as amplified in their memorandum, i.e. the constitutionality and statutory flaw of the automation contract itself. The petition-in-intervention confined itself to certain features of the PCOS machines. The Joint Venture Agreement: Its Existence and Submission The issue respecting the existence and submission of the TIM-Smartmatic JVA does not require an extended disquisition, as repairing to the records would readily provide a satisfactory answer. We note in fact that the petitioners do not appear to be earnestly pressing the said issue anymore, as demonstrated by their counsels practically cavalier discussion thereof during the oral argument. When reminded, for instance, of private respondents insistence on having in fact submitted their JVA dated April 23, 2009, petitioners counsel responded as follows: We knew your honor that there was, in fact, a joint venture agreement filed. However, because of the belated discovery that [there] were irreconcilable differences, we then made a view that this joint venture agreement was a sham, at best pro forma because it did not contain all the required stipulations in order to evidence unity of interest x x x.[51] Indeed, the records belie petitioners initial posture that TIM and Smartmatic, as joint venture partners, did not include in their submitted eligibility envelope a copy of their JVA. The SBACs Post Qualification Evaluation Report (Eligibility) on TIM-Smartmatic, on page 10, shows the following entry: Valid Joint Venture Agreement, stating among things, that the members are jointly and severally liable for the whole obligation, in case of joint venture Documents verified compliance.[52] Contrary to what the petitioners posit, the duly notarized JVA, as couched, explained the nature and the limited purpose[53] of the joint venture and expressly defined, among other things, the composition, scope, and the 60-40 capital structure of the aggroupment.[54] The JVA also

contains provisions on the management[55] and division of profits.[56] Article 3[57] of the JVA delineates the respective participations and responsibilities of the joint venture partners in the automation project. Given the foregoing perspective, the Court is at a loss to understand how petitioners can assert that the SmartmaticTIM consortium has failed to prove its joint venture existence and/or to submit evidence as would enable the Comelec to know such items as who it is dealing with, which between the partners has control over the decision-making process, the amount of investment to be contributed by each partner, the parties shares in the profits and like details. Had petitioners only bothered to undertake the usual due diligence that comes with good judgment and examined the eligibility envelope of the Smartmatic-TIM joint venture, they would have discovered that their challenge to and arguments against the joint venture and its JVA have really no factual basis. It may be, as petitioners observed, that the TIM-Smartmatic joint venture remained an unincorporated aggroupment during the bid-opening and evaluation stages. It ought to be stressed, however, that the fact of non-incorporation was without a vitiating effect on the validity of the tender offers. For the bidding ground rules, as spelled out primarily in the RFP and the clarificatory bid bulletins, does not require, for bidding purposes, that there be an incorporation of the bidding joint ventures or consortiums. In fact, Bid Bulletin Nos. 19 and 20 recognize the existence and the acceptability of proposals of unincorporated joint ventures. In response to a poser, for example, regarding the 60% Filipino ownership requirement in a joint venture arrangement, the SBAC, in its Bid Bulletin No. 22, stated: In an unincorporated joint venture, determination of the required Filipino participation may be made by examining the terms and conditions of the [JVA] and other supporting financial documents submitted by the joint venture. (Emphasis ours.) Petitioners, to be sure, have not shown that incorporation is part of the pass/fail criteria used in determining eligibility.

Petitioners have made much of the Courts ruling in Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines [Infotech] v. Comelec,[58] arguing in relation thereto that the partnership of Smartmatic and TIM does not meet the Courts definition of a joint venture which requires community of interest in the performance of the subject matter. Petitioners invocation of Infotech is utterly misplaced. Albeit Infotech and this case are both about modernizing the election process and bidding joint ventures, the relevant parallelism ends there. Cast as they are against dissimilar factual milieu, one cannot plausibly set Infotech side with and contextually apply to this case the ratio of Infotech. Suffice it to delve on the most glaring of differences. In Infotech, the winning bid pertained to the consortium of Mega Pacific, a purported joint venture. Extant records, however, do not show the formation of such joint venture, let alone its composition. To borrow from the ponencia of then Justice, later Chief Justice, Artemio Panganiban, there is no sign whatsoever of any [JVA], consortium agreement [or] memorandum agreement x x x executed among the members of the purported consortium.[59] There was in fine no evidence to show that the alleged joint venture partners agreed to constitute themselves into a single entity solidarily responsible for the entirety of the automation contract. Unlike the purported Mega Pacific consortium in Infotech, the existence in this case of the bidding joint venture of Smarmatic and TIM is properly documented and spread all over the bid documents. And to stress, TIM and Smartmatic, in their JVA, unequivocally agreed between themselves to perform their respective undertakings. And over and beyond their commitments to each other, they undertook to incorporate, if called for by the bidding results, a JVC that shall be solidarily liable with them for any actionable breach of the automation contract.

petitioners tag the TIM-Smartmatic JVA as flawed and as one that would leave the Comelec hanging for the noninclusion, as members of the joint venture, of three IT providers. The three referred to are Jarltech International, Inc. (Jarltech), a subsidiary of Smartmatic that manufactures the Smartmatic voting machines; Dominion Voting Systems (Domino), the inventor of said PCOS machines; and 2GO Transportation System Corporation (2GO), the subcontractor responsible for the distribution of the PCOS machines throughout the country.

Petitioners beef against the TIM-Smartmatic JVA is untenable. First off, the Comelec knows the very entities whom they are dealing with, which it can hold solidary liable under the automation contract, should there be contract violation. Secondly, there is no requirement under either RA 8436, as amended, or the RFP, that all the suppliers, manufacturers or distributors involved in the transaction should be part of the joint venture. On the contrary, the Instruction to Biddersas petitioners themselves admit[60] allows the bidder to subcontract portions of the goods or services under the automation project.[61] To digress a bit, petitioners have insisted on the nonexistence of a bona fide JVA between TIM and Smarmatic. Failing to gain traction for their indefensible posture, they would thrust on the Court the notion of an invalid joint venture due to the non-inclusion of more companies in the existing TIM-Smartmatic joint venture. The irony is not lost on the Court. This brings us to the twin technical issues tendered herein bearing on the PCOS machines of Smartmatic. At its most basic, the petition ascribes grave abuse of discretion to the Comelec for, among other things, awarding the automation project in violation of RA 8436, as amended. Following their line, no pilot test of the PCOS technology Smartmatic-TIM offered has been undertaken; hence, the Comelec cannot conduct a nationwide automation of the

In Infotech, the Court chastised the Comelec for dealing with an entity, the full identity of which the poll body knew nothing about. Taking a cue from this holding,

2010 polls using the machines thus offered. Hence, the contract award to Smartmatic-TIM with their untested PCOS machines violated RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, which mandates that with respect to the May 2010 elections and onwards, the system procured must have been piloted in at least 12 areas referred to in Sec. 6 of RA 8436, as amended. What is more, petitioners assert, private respondents PCOS machines do not satisfy the minimum system capabilities set by the same law envisaged to ensure transparent and credible voting, counting and canvassing of votes. And as earlier narrated, petitioners would subsequently add the abdication angle in their bid to nullify the automation contract. Pilot Testing Not Necessary Disagreeing, as to be expected, private respondents maintain that there is nothing in the applicable law requiring, as a prerequisite for the 2010 election automation project award, that the prevailing bidders automation system, the PCOS in this case, be subjected to pilot testing. Comelec echoes its co-respondents stance on pilot testing, with the added observation that nowhere in the statutory provision relied upon are the words pilot testing used.[62] The Senates position and its supporting arguments match those of private respondents. The respondents thesis on pilot testing and the logic holding it together are well taken. There can be no argument about the phrase pilot test not being found in the law. But does it necessarily follow that a pilot test is absolutely not contemplated in the law? We repair to the statutory provision petitioners cited as requiring a pilot run, referring to Sec. 6 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, reading as follows: Sec. 5. Authority to use an Automated Election System.- To carry out the above stated-policy, the [Comelec], x x x is hereby authorized to use an automated election system or systems in the same election in different provinces, whether paper-based or a direct recording electronic election system

as it may deem appropriate and practical for the process of voting, counting of votes and canvassing/consolidation and transmittal of results of electoral exercises: Provided, that for the regular national and local elections, which shall be held immediately after the effectivity of this Act, the AES shall be used in at least two highly urbanized cities and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao to be chosen by the [Comelec]: Provided, further, That local government units whose officials have been the subject of administrative charges within sixteen (16) month prior to the May 14, 2007 elections shall not be chosen. Provided, finally, That no area shall be chosen without the consent of the Sanggunian of the local government unit concerned. The term local government unit as used in this provision shall refer to a highly urbanized city or province. In succeeding regular national or local elections, the AES shall be implemented. (Emphasis and underscoring added.) RA 9369, which envisages an AES, be it paper-based or direct-recording electronic, took effect in the second week of February 2007 or thereabout.[63] The regular national and local elections referred to after the effectivity of this Act can be no other than the May 2007 regular elections, during which time the AES shall, as the law is worded, be used in at least two highly urbanized cities and provinces in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The Court takes judicial notice that the May 2007 elections did not deploy AES, evidently due to the mix of time and funding constraints. To the petitioners, the underscored portion of the aforequoted Sec. 6 of RA 8436 is the pilot-testing provision that Comelec failed to observe.

We are not persuaded.

From the practical viewpoint, the pilot testing of the technology in question in an actual, scheduled electoral exercise under harsh conditions would have been the ideal

norm in computerized system implementation. The underscored proviso of Sec. 6 of RA 8436 is not, however, an authority for the proposition that the pilot testing of the PCOS in the 2007 national elections in the areas thus specified is an absolute must for the machines use in the 2010 national/local elections. The Court can concede that said proviso, with respect to the May 2007 elections, commands the Comelec to automate in at least 12 defined areas of the country. But the bottom line is that the required 2007 automation, be it viewed in the concept of a pilot test or not, is not a mandatory requirement for the choice of system in, or a prerequisite for, the full automation of the May 2010 elections.

country would theoretically be barred forever from having full automation.

Sec. 6 of the amended RA 8436, as couched, therefore, unmistakably conveys the idea of unconditional full automation in the 2010 elections. A construal making pilot testing of the AES a prerequisite or condition sine qua non to putting the system in operation in the 2010 elections is tantamount to reading into said section something beyond the clear intention of Congress, as expressed in the provision itself. We reproduce with approval the following excerpts from the comment of the Senate itself:

As may be noted, Sec. 6 of RA 8436 may be broken into three essential parts, the first partaking of the nature of a general policy declaration: that Comelec is authorized to automate the entire elections. The second part states that for the regular national and local elections that shall be held in May 2007, Comelec shall use the AES, with an option, however, to undertake automation, regardless of the technology to be selected, in a limited area or, to be more precise, in at least two highly urbanized cities and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao to be chosen by the Comelec. On the other hand, the last part, phrased sans reference to the May 2007 elections, commands thus: [I]n succeeding regular national or local elections, the [automated election system] shall be implemented. Taken in its proper context, the last part is indicative of the legislative intent for the May 2010 electoral exercise to be fully automated, regardless of whether or not pilot testing was run in the 2007 polls.

The plain wordings of RA 9369 (that amended RA 8436) commands that the 2010 elections shall be fully automated, and such full automation is not conditioned on pilot testing in the May 2007 elections. Congress merely gave COMELEC the flexibility to partially use the AES in some parts of the country for the May 2007 elections.[64]

To argue that pilot testing is a condition precedent to a full automation in 2010 would doubtless undermine the purpose of RA 9369. For, as aptly observed during the oral arguments, if there was no political exercise in May 2007, the

Lest it be overlooked, an AES is not synonymous to and ought not to be confused with the PCOS. Sec. 2(a) of RA 8436, as amended, defines an AES as a system using appropriate technology which has been demonstrated in the voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing and transmission of election results, and other electoral processes. On the other hand, PCOS refers to a technology wherein an optical ballot scanner, into which optical scan paper ballots marked by hand by the voter are inserted to be counted.[65] What may reasonably be deduced from these definitions is that PCOS is merely one of several automated voting, counting or canvassing technologies coming within the term AES, implying in turn that the automated election system or technology that the Comelec shall adopt in future elections need not, as a matter of mandatory arrangement, be piloted in the adverted two highly urbanized cities and provinces.

In perspective, what may be taken as mandatory prerequisite for the full automation of the 2010 regular national/ local elections is that the system to be procured for that exercise be a technology tested either here or abroad. The ensuing Section 8 of RA 8436, as amended, says so.

Ontario, Canada; and New York, USA,[67] albeit Smartmatic was not necessarily the system provider. But then, RA 9369 does not call for the winning bidder of the 2010 automation project and the deploying entity/provider in the foreign electoral exercise to be one and the same entity. Neither does the law incidentally require that the system be first used in an archipelagic country or with a topography or a voting population similar to or approximating that of the Philippines. At any event, any lingering doubt on the issue of whether or not full automation of the 2010 regular elections can validly proceed without a pilot run of the AES should be put to rest with the enactment in March 2009 of RA 9525,[68] in which Congress appropriated PhP 11.301 billion to automate the 2010 elections, subject to compliance with the transparency and accuracy requirements in selecting the relevant technology of the machines, thus: Sec. 2. Use of Funds. x x x Provided, however, That disbursement of the amounts herein appropriated or any part thereof shall be authorized only in strict compliance with the Constitution, the provisions of [RA] No. 9369 and other election laws incorporated in said Act as to ensure the conduct of a free, orderly, clean, honest and credible election and shall adopt such measures that will guaranty transparency and accuracy in the selection of the relevant technology of the machines to be used on May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections. (Emphasis added.)

SEC 12. Procurement of Equipment and Materials. To achieve the purpose of this Act, the Commission is authorized to procure, xxx, by purchase, lease, rent or other forms of acquisition, supplies, equipment, materials, software, facilities, and other services, from local or foreign sources xxx. With respect to the May 10, 2010 elections and succeeding electoral exercises, the system procured must have demonstrated capability and been successfully used in prior electoral exercise here or abroad. Participation in the 2007 pilot exercise shall not be conclusive of the systems fitness. (Emphasis supplied). While the underscored portion makes reference to a 2007 pilot exercise, what it really exacts is that, for the automation of the May 2010 and subsequent elections, the PCOS or any AES to be procured must have demonstrated its capability and success in either a local or a foreign electoral exercise. And as expressly declared by the provision, participation in the 2007 electoral exercise is not a guarantee nor is it conclusive of the systems fitness. In this regard, the Court is inclined to agree with private respondents interpretation of the underscored portion in question: The provision clearly conveys that the [AES] to be used in the 2010 elections need not have been used in the 2007 elections, and that the demonstration of its capability need not be in a previous Philippine election. Demonstration of the success and capability of the PCOS may be in an electoral exercise in a foreign jurisdiction.[66] As determined by the Comelec, the PCOS system had been successfully deployed in previous electoral exercises in foreign countries, such as

It may safely be assumed that Congress approved the bill that eventually became RA 9525, fully aware that the system using the PCOS machines were not piloted in the 2007 electoral exercise. The enactment of RA 9525 is to us a compelling indication that it was never Congress intent to make the pilot testing of a particular automated election system in the 2007 elections a condition precedent to its use or award of the 2010 Automation Project. The comment-inintervention of the Senate says as much.

Further, the highly charged issue of whether or not the 2008 ARMM electionscovering, as NCC observed, three conflictridden island provincesmay be treated as substantial compliance with the pilot test requirement must be answered in the affirmative. No less than Senator Richard J. Gordon himself, the author of the law, said that the system has been tried and tested in the ARMM elections last year, so we have to proceed with the total implementation of the law.[69] We note, though, the conflicting views of the NCC[70] and ITFP[71] on the matter. Suffice it to state at this juncture that the system used in the 2008 ARMM election exercise bears, as petitioners to an extent grudgingly admit, [72] a similarity with the PCOS. The following, lifted from the Comelecs comment, is to us a fair description of how the two systems (PCOS and CCOS) work and where the difference lies: xxx the elections in the [ARMM] utilized the Counting Center Optical Scan (CCOS), a system which uses the Optical Mark Reader (OMR), the same technology as the PCOS. Under the CCOS, the voters cast their votes by shading or marking the circles in the paper ballots which corresponded to the names of their chosen candidates [like in PCOS]. Thereafter, the ballot boxes were brought to the counting centers where they were scanned, counted and canvassed. xxx Under the PCOS, the counting, consolidation and canvassing of the votes are done at the precinct level. The election results at the precincts are then electronically transmitted to the next level, and so on. xxx PCOS dispenses with the physical transportation of ballot boxes from the precincts to the counting centers.[73] Moreover, it has been proposed that a partial automation be implemented for the May 2010 elections in accordance with Section 5 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369 instead of full automation. The Court cannot agree as

such proposition has no basis in law. Section 5, as worded, does not allow for partial automation. In fact, Section 5 clearly states that the AES shall be implemented nationwide.[74] It behooves this Court to follow the letter and intent of the law for full automation in the May 2010 elections. PCOS Meets Minimum Capabilities Standards As another ground for the nullification of the automation contract, petitioners posit the view that the PCOS machines do not satisfy the minimum system capabilities prescribed by RA 8436, as amended. To a specific point, they suggest that the PCOS system offered and accepted lacks the features that would assure accuracy in the recording and reading of votes, as well as in the tabulation, consolidation/canvassing, electronic transmission, storage results and accurate ballot counting.[75] In this particular regard, petitioners allege that, based on Smartmatics website, the PCOS has a margin of error of from 2% to 10%, way beyond that of the required 99.99% accuracy in the counting of votes.[76] The minimum system capabilities provision cited is Sec. 7 of RA 8436, as amended, and the missing features referred to by petitioners are pars. (b) and (j). In full, Sec. 7 of RA 8436, as amended, reads: SEC. 6. Minimum System Capabilities. - The automated election system must at least have the following functional capabilities: (a) Adequate security against unauthorized access; (b) Accuracy in recording and reading of votes as well as in the tabulation, consolidation/canvassing, electronic transmission, and storage of results; (c) Error recovery in case of non-catastrophic failure of device; (d) System integrity which ensures physical stability and functioning of the vote recording and counting process;

(e) Provision for voter verified paper audit trail; (f) System auditability which provides supporting documentation for verifying the correctness of reported election results; (g) An election management system for preparing ballots and programs for use in the casting and counting of votes and to consolidate, report and display election result in the shortest time possible; (h) Accessibility to illiterates and disabled voters; (i) Vote tabulating program for election, referendum or plebiscite; (j) Accurate ballot counters; (k) Data retention provision; (l) Provide for the safekeeping, storing and archiving of physical or paper resource used in the election process; (m) Utilize or generate official ballots as herein defined; (a) Provide the voter a system of verification to find out whether or not the machine has registered his choice; and (o) Configure access control for sensitive system data and function. In the procurement of this system, the Commission shall develop and adopt an evaluation system to ascertain that the above minimum system capabilities are met. The evaluation system shall be developed with the assistance of an advisory council. From the records before us, the Court is fairly satisfied that the Comelec has adopted a rigid technical evaluation mechanism, a set of 26-item/check list criteria, as will be enumerated shortly, to ensure compliance with the above minimum systems capabilities. The SBAC Memorandum[77] of June 03, 2009, as approved by Comelec Res. 8608,[78] categorically stated that the SBAC-TWG submitted its report that TIM/Smartmatics proposed systems and machines PASSED all the end-to-end demo tests using the aforementioned 26item criteria, inclusive of the accuracy rating test of at least 99.955%. As appearing in the SBAC-TWG report, the

corresponding answers/remarks to each of the 26 individual items are as herein indicated:[79] ITEM REQUIREMENT REMARK/DESCRIPTION 1 Does the system allow manual feeding of a ballot into the PCOS machine? Yes. The proposed PCOS machine accepted the test ballots which were manually fed one at a time. 2 Does the system scan a ballot sheet at the speed of at least 2.75 inches per second? Yes. A 30-inch ballot was used in this test. Scanning the 30inch ballot took 2.7 seconds, which translated to 11.11inches per second. 3 Is the system able to capture and store in an encrypted format the digital images of the ballot for at least 2,000 ballot sides (1,000 ballots, with back to back printing)? Yes the system captured the images of the 1,000 ballots in encrypted format. Each of the 1,000 images files contained the images of the front and back sides of the ballot, totaling to 2,000 ballot side. To verify the captured ballot images, decrypted copies of the encrypted files were also provided. The same were found to be digitized representations of the ballots cast. 4 Is the system a fully integrated single device as described in item no. 4 of Component 1-B? Yes. The proposed PCOS is a fully integrated single device, with built-in printer and built-in data communications ports (Ethernet and USB). 5 Does the system have a scanning resolution of at least 200 dpi? Yes. A portion of a filled up marked oval was blown up using image editor software to reveal the number of dots per inch. The sample image showed 200 dpi.

File properties of the decrypted image file also revealed 200 dpi. 6 Does the system scan in grayscale? Yes. 30 shades of gray were scanned in the test PCOS machine, 20 of which were required, exceeding the required 4-bit/16 levels of gray as specified in the Bid Bulletin No. 19. 7 Does the system require authorization and authentication of all operators, such as, but not limited to, usernames and passwords, with multiple user access levels? Yes. The system required the use of a security key with different sets of passwords/PINs for Administrator and Operator users. 8 Does the system have an electronic display? Yes. The PCOS machine makes use of an LCD display to show information: if a ballot may be inserted into the machine; if a ballot is being processed; if a ballot is being rejected; on other instructions and information to the voter/operator. 9 Does the system employ error handling procedures, including, but not limited to, the use of error prompts and other related instructions? Yes. The PCOS showed error messages on its screen whenever a ballot is rejected by the machine and gives instructions to the voter on what to do next, or when there was a ballot jam error. 10 Does the system count the voters vote as marked on the ballot with an accuracy rating of at least 99.995%? Yes. The two rounds of tests were conducted for this test using only valid marks/shades on the ballots. 20,000 marks were required to complete this test, with only one (1) allowable reading error. 625 ballots with 32 marks each were used for this test. During the comparison of the PCOS-generated results with

the manually prepared/predetermined results, it was found out that there were seven (7) marks which were inadvertently missed out during ballot preparation by the TWG. Although the PCOS-generated results turned out to be 100% accurate, the 20,000-mark was not met thereby requiring the test to be repeated. To prepare for other possible missed out marks,650 ballots with (20,800 marks) were used for the next round of test, which also yielded 100% accuracy. 11 Does the system detect and reject fake or spurious, and previously scanned ballots? Yes. This test made use of one (1) photocopied ballot and one (1) re-created ballot. Both were rejected by the PCOS. 12 Does the system scan both sides of a ballot and in any orientation in one pass? Yes. Four (4) ballots with valid marks were fed into the PCOS machine in the four (4) portrait orientations specified in Bid Bulletin No. 4 (either back or front, upside down or right side up), and all were accurately captured. 13 Does the system have necessary safeguards to determine the authenticity of a ballot, such as, but not limited to, the use of bar codes, holograms, color shifting ink, micro printing, to be provided on the ballot, which can be recognized by the system? Yes. The system was able to recognize if the security features on the ballot are missing. Aside from the test on the fake or spurious ballots (Item No. 11), three (3) test ballots with tampered bar codes and timing marks were used and were all rejected by the PCOS machine. The photocopied ballot in the test for Item No. 11 was not able to replicate the UV ink pattern on top portion of the ballot causing the rejection of the ballot. 14 Are the names of the candidates pre-printed on the ballot?

Yes. The Two sample test ballots of different lengths were provided: one (1) was 14 inches long while the other was 30 inches long. Both were 8.5 inches wide. The first showed 108 pre-printed candidate names for the fourteen (14) contests/positions, including two (2) survey questions on gender and age group, and a plebiscite question. The other showed 609 pre-printed candidate names, also for fourteen (14) positions including three (3) survey questions. 15 Does each side of the ballot sheet accommodate at least 300 names of candidates with a minimum font size of 10, in addition to other mandatory information required by law? Yes. The 30-inch ballot, which was used to test Item No. 2, contained 309 names for the national positions and 300 names for local positions. The total pre-printed names on the ballot totaled 609. This type of test ballot was also used for test voting by the public, including members of the media. Arial Narrow, font size 10, was used in the printing of the candidate names. 16 Does the system recognize full shade marks on the appropriate space on the ballot opposite the name of the candidate to be voted for? Yes. The ballots used for the accuracy test (Item No. 10), which made use of full shade marks, were also used in this test and were accurately recognized by the PCOS machine. 17 Does the system recognize partial shade marks on the appropriate space on the ballot opposite the name of the candidate to be voted for? Yes. Four (4) test ballots were used with one (1) mark each per ballot showing the following pencil marks: top half shade; bottom half shade; left half shade; and

right half shade These partial shade marks were all recognized by the PCOS machine 18 Does the system recognize check ()marks on the appropriate space on the ballot opposite the name of the candidate to be voted for? Yes. One (1) test ballot with one check () mark, using a pencil, was used for this test. The mark was recognized successfully. 19 Does the system recognize x marks on the appropriate space on the ballot opposite the name of the candidate to be voted for? Yes. One (1) test ballot with one x mark, using a pencil, was used for this test. The mark was recognized successfully. 20 Does the system recognize both pencil and ink marks on the ballot? Yes. The 1000 ballots used in the accuracy test (Item No. 10) were marked using the proposed marking pen by the bidder. A separate ballot with one (1) pencil mark was also tested. This mark was also recognized by the PCOS machine. Moreover, the tests for Items No. 17, 18 and 19 were made using pencil marks on the ballots. 21 In a simulation of a system shut down, does the system have error recovery features? Yes. Five (5) ballots were used in this test. The power cord was pulled from the PCOS while the 3rd ballot was in the middle of the scanning procedure, such that it was left hanging in the ballot reader. After resumption of regular power supply, the PCOS machine was able to restart successfully with notification to the operator that there were two (2) ballots already cast in the machine. The hanging 3rd ballot was returned to the

operator and was able to be re-fed into the PCOS machine. The marks on all five (5) were all accurately recognized. 22 Does the system have transmission and consolidation/canvassing capabilities? Yes. The PCOS was able to transmit to the CCS during the end-to-end demonstration using GLOBE prepaid Internet kit. 23 Does the system generate a backup copy of the generated reports, in a removable data storage device? Yes. The PCOS saves a backup copy of the ERs, ballot images, statistical report and audit log into a Compact Flash (CF) Card. 24 Does the system have alternative power sources, which will enable it to fully operate for at least 12 hours? Yes. A 12 bolt 18AH battery lead acid was used in this test. The initial test had to be repeated due to a short circuit, after seven (7) hours from start-up without ballot scanning. This was explained by TIM-Smartmatic to be caused by noncompatible wiring of the battery to the PCOS. A smaller wire than what is required was inadvertently used, likening the situation to incorrect wiring of a car battery. Two (2) COMELEC electricians were called to confirm TIMSmartmatics explanation. The PCOS machine was connected to regular power and started successfully. The following day, the re-test was completed in 12 hours and 40 minutes xxx 984 ballots were fed into the machine. The ER, as generated by the PCOS was compared with predetermined result, showed 100% accuracy. 25 Is the system capable of generating and printing reports? Yes. The PCOS prints reports via its built-in printer which includes: 1. Initialization Report; 2. Election Returns (ER); 3. PCOS Statistical Report; 4. Audit Log. 26

Did the bidder successfully demonstrate EMS, voting counting, consolidation/canvassing and transmission? Yes. An end-to-end demonstration of all proposed systems was presented covering: importing of election data into the EMS; creation of election configuration data for the PCOS and the CCS using EMS; creation of ballot faces using EMS; configuring the PCOS and the CCS using the EMS-generated election configuration file; initialization, operation, generation of reports and backup using the PCOS; electronic transmission of results to the: [1] from the PCOS to city/municipal CCS and the central server. [2] from the city/municipal CCS to the provincial CCS. [3] from the provincial CCS to the national CCS; receipt and canvass of transmitted results: [1] by the city/municipal CCS from the PCOS. [2] by the provincial CCS from the city/municipal CCS. [3] by the national CCS from the provincial CCS; receipt of the transmittal results by the central server from the PCOS. Given the foregoing and absent empirical evidence to the contrary, the Court, presuming regularity in the performance of regular duties, takes the demo-testing thus conducted by SBAC-TWG as a reflection of the capability of the PCOS machines, although the tests, as Comelec admits,[80] were done literally in the Palacio del Governador building, where a room therein simulated a town, the adjoining room a city, etc. Perusing the RFP, however, the real worth of the PCOS system and the machines will of course come after they shall have been subjected to the gamut of acceptance tests expressly specified in the RFP, namely, the lab test, field test, mock election test, transmission test and, lastly, the final test and sealing procedure of all PCOS and CCS units using the actual Election Day machine configuration.[81] Apropos the counting-accuracy feature of the PCOS machines, petitioners no less impliedly admit that the web page they appended to their petition, showing a 2% to 10% failing rate, is no longer current.[82] And if they bothered to examine the current website of Smartmatic specifically dealing with its SAES 1800, the PCOS system it offered, they would have readily seen that the advertised accuracy rating is over 99.99999%.[83] Moreover, a careful scrutiny of the

old webpage of Smarmatic reveals that the 2% to 10% failure rate applied to optical scanners and not to SAES. Yet the same page discloses that the SAES has 100% accuracy. Clearly, the alleged 2% to 10% failing rate is now irrelevant and the Court need not belabor this and the equally irrelevant estoppel principle petitioners impose on us. Intervenor Cuadras concern relates to the auditability of the election results. In this regard, it may suffice to point out that PCOS, being a paper-based technology, affords audit since the voter would be able, if need be, to verify if the machine had scanned, recorded and counted his vote properly. Moreover, it should also be noted that the PCOS machine contains an LCD screen, one that can be programmed or configured to display to the voter his votes as read by the machine. [84] No Abdication of Comelecs Mandate and Responsibilty

the automated elections. To a more specific point, the loss of control, as may be deduced from the ensuing exchanges, arose from the fact that Comelec would not be holding possession of what in IT jargon are the public and private keys pair. CHIEF JUSTICE: Well, more specifically are you saying that the main course of this lost of control is the fact that SMARTMATIC holds the public and private keys to the sanctity of this system? ATTY. ROQUE: Yes, Your Honor, as well as the fact that they control the program embedded in the key cost that will read their votes by which the electorate may verify that their votes were counted. CHIEF JUSTICE: You are saying that SMARTMATIC and not its partner TIM who hold these public and private keys? ATTY. ROQUE: Yes, Your Honor.

As a final main point, petitioners would have the ComelecSmartmatic-TIM Corporation automation contract nullified since, in violation of the Constitution, it constitutes a wholesale abdication of the poll bodys constitutional mandate for election law enforcement. On top of this perceived aberration, the mechanism of the PCOS machines would infringe the constitutional right of the people to the secrecy of the ballot which, according to the petitioners, is provided in Sec. 2, Art. V of the Constitution.[85] The above contention is not well taken. The first function of the Comelec under the Constitution[86]and the Omnibus Election Code for that matterrelates to the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relating to the conduct of elections to public office to ensure a free, orderly and honest electoral exercise. And how did petitioners come to their conclusion about their abdication theory? By acceding to Art. 3.3 of the automation contract, Comelec relinquished, so petitioners claim, supervision and control of the system to be used for

The Court is not convinced. There is to us nothing in Art 3.3 of the automation contract, even if read separately from other stipulations and the provisions of the bid documents and the Constitution itself, to support the simplistic conclusion of abdication of control pressed on the Court. Insofar as pertinent, Art 3.3 reads:

3.3 The PROVIDER shall be liable for all its obligations under this Project and the performance of portions thereof by other persons or entities not parties to this Contract shall not relieve the PROVIDER of said obligations and concomitant liabilities. SMARTMATIC, as the joint venture partner with the greater track record in automated elections, shall be in charge of the technical aspects of the counting and

canvassing software and hardware, including transmission configuration and system integration. SMARTMATIC shall also be primarily responsible for preventing and troubleshooting technical problems that may arise during the elections. (Emphasis added.) The proviso designating Smartmatic as the joint venture partner in charge of the technical aspect of the counting and canvassing wares does not to us translate, without more, to ceding control of the electoral process to Smartmatic. It bears to stress that the aforesaid designation of Smartmatic was not plucked from thin air, as it was in fact an eligibility requirement imposed, should the bidder be a joint venture. Part 5, par. 5.4 (e) of the Instruction to Bidders on the subject Eligible Bidders, whence the second paragraph of aforequoted Art. 3.3 came from, reads:

of the election process is Art. 6.7 of the automation contract, providing:

6.7 Subject to the provisions of the General Instructions to be issued by the Commission En Banc, the entire processes of voting, counting, transmission, consolidation and canvassing of votes shall be conducted by COMELECs personnel and officials, and their performance, completion and final results according to specifications and within the specified periods shall be the shared responsibility of COMELEC and the PROVIDER. (Emphasis added.)

5.4 A JV of two or more firms as partners shall comply with the following requirements. xxxx (e) The JV member with a greater track record in automated elections, shall be in-charge of the technical aspects of the counting and canvassing software and hardware, including transmission configuration and system integration

But not one to let an opportunity to score points pass by, petitioners rhetorically ask: Where does Public Respondent Comelec intend to get this large number of professionals, many of whom are already gainfully employed abroad?[89] The Comelec, citing Sec. 3[90] and Sec. 5 of RA 8436,[91] as amended, aptly answered this poser in the following wise: x x x [P]ublic respondent COMELEC, in the implementation of the automated project, will forge partnerships with various entities in different fields to bring about the success of the 2010 automated elections. Public respondent COMELEC will partner with Smartmatic TIM Corporation for the training and hiring of the IT personnel as well as for the massive voter-education campaign. There is in fact a budget allocation x x x for these undertakings. x x x As regards the requirement of RA 9369 that ITcapable personnel shall be deputized as a member of the BEI and that another IT-capable person shall assist the BOC, public respondent COMELEC shall partner with DOST and other agencies and instrumentalities of the government.

And lest it be overlooked, the RFP, which forms an integral part of the automation contract,[87] has put all prospective bidders on notice of Comelecs intent to automate and to accept bids that would meet several needs, among which is a complete solutions provider which can provide effective overall nationwide project management service under COMELEC supervision and control, to ensure effective and successful implementation of the [automation] Project.[88] Complementing this RFP advisory as to control

In not so many words during the oral arguments and in their respective Memoranda, public and private respondents categorically rejected outright allegations of abdication by the Comelec of its constitutional duty. The petitioners, to stress, are strangers to the automation contract. Not one participated in the bidding conference or the bidding proper or even perhaps examined the bidding documents and, therefore, none really knows the real intention of the parties. As case law tells us, the court has to ferret out the real intent of the parties. What is fairly clear in this case, however, is that petitioners who are not even privy to the bidding process foist upon the Court their own view on the stipulations of the automation contract and present to the Court what they think are the parties true intention. It is a study of outsiders appearing to know more than the parties do, but actually speculating what the parties intended. The following is self-explanatory:

the start cocksure about Smartmatics control of these keys and, with its control, of the electoral process.[93] Several questions later, his answers had a qualifying tone: JUSTICE NACHURA: And can COMELEC under the contract not demand that it have access, that it be given access to and in fact generate its own keys independently with SMARTMATIC so that it would be COMELEC and not SMARTMATIC that would have full control of the technology insofar as the keys are concerned xxx? ATTY. ROQUE: I do not know if COMELEC will be in a position to generate these keys, xxx. [94] And subsequently, the speculative nature of petitioners position as to who would have possession and control of the keys became apparent. CHIEF JUSTICE: Yes, but did you check with the COMELEC who will be holding these two keys x x x did you check with COMELEC whether this system is correct? ATTY.ROQUE: We have not had occasion to do so, x x x Your Honor. xxxx CHIEF JUSTICE: Why do you make that poor conclusion against the COMELEC x x x May not the COMELEC hire the services of experts in order for the institution to be able to discharge its constitutional functions? ATTY. ROQUE: That is true, but x x x there is too much reliance on individuals who do not have the same kind of accountability as public officers x x x CHIEF JUSTICE: Are you saying that the COMELEC did not consult with available I.T. experts in the country before it made the bidding rules before it conducted the bidding and make the other policy judgments?

CHIEF JUSTICE: Why did you say that it did not, did you talk with the Chairman and Commissioners of COMELEC that they failed to perform this duty, they did not exercise this power of control? ATTY. ROQUE : Your Honor, I based it on the fact that it was the COMELEC in fact that entered into this contract . CHIEF JUSTICE : Yes, but my question is did you confront the COMELEC officials that they forfeited their power of control in over our election process? ATTY. ROQUE : We did not confront, your Honor. We impugned their acts, Your Honor.[92] Just as they do on the issue of control over the electoral process, petitioners also anchor on speculative reasoning their claim that Smartmatic has possession and control over the public and private keys pair that will operate the PCOS machines. Consider: Petitioners counsel was at

ATTY. ROQUE: Your Honor, what I am sure is that they did not confer with the I.T. Foundation x x x. CHIEF JUSTICE: But is that foundation the only expert, does it have a monopoly of knowledge?[95] The Court, to be sure, recognizes the importance of the votesecurity issue revolving around the issuance of the public and private keys pair to the Board of Election Inspectors, including the digital signatures. The NCC comment on the matter deserves mention, appearing to hew as it does to what appear on the records. The NCC wrote: The RFP/TOR used in the recent bidding for the AES to be used in the 2010 elections specifically mandated the use of public key cryptography. However, it was left to the discretion of the bidder to propose an acceptable manner of utilization for approval/acceptance of the Comelec. Nowhere in the RFP/TOR was it indicated that COMELEC would delegate to the winning bidder the full discretion, supervision and control over the manner of PKI [Public Key Infrastructure] utilization. With the view we take of the automation contract, the role of Smartmatic TIM Corporation is basically to supply the goods necessary for the automation project, such as but not limited to the PCOS machines, PCs, electronic transmission devices and related equipment, both hardware and software, and the technical services pertaining to their operation. As lessees of the goods and the back-up equipment, the corporation and its operators would provide assistance with respect to the machines to be used by the Comelec which, at the end of the day, will be conducting the election thru its personnel and whoever it deputizes. And if only to emphasize a point, Comelecs contract is with Smartmatic TIM Corporation of which Smartmatic is a 40% minority owner, per the JVA of TIM and Smartmatic and the Articles of Incorporation of Smartmatic TIM Corporation. Accordingly, any decision on the part or on behalf of

Smartmatic will not be binding on Comelec. As a necessary corollary, the board room voting arrangement that Smartmatic and TIM may have agreed upon as joint venture partners, inclusive of the veto vote that one may have power over the other, should really be the least concern of the Comelec. Parenthetically, the contention that the PCOS would infringe on the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot because, as petitioners would put it, the voter would be confronted with a three feet long ballot,[96] does not commend itself for concurrence. Surely, the Comelec can put up such infrastructure as to insure that the voter can write his preference in relative privacy. And as demonstrated during the oral arguments, the voter himself will personally feed the ballot into the machine. A voter, if so minded to preserve the secrecy of his ballot, will always devise a way to do so. By the same token, one with least regard for secrecy will likewise have a way to make his vote known. During the oral arguments, the notion of a possible violation of the Anti-Dummy Law cropped up, given the RFP requirement of a joint venture bidder to be at least be 60% Filipino. On the other hand, the winning bidder, TIMSmartmatic joint venture, has Smartmatic, a foreign corporation, owning 40% of the equity in, first, the joint venture partnership, and then in Smartmatic TIM Corporation. The Anti-Dummy Law[97] pertinently states: Section 1. Penalty. In all cases in which any constitutional or legal provision requires Philippine or any other specific citizenship as a requisite for the exercise or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege, any citizen of the Philippines or of any other specific country who allows his name or citizenship to be used for the purpose of evading such provision, and any alien or foreigner profiting thereby, shall be punished by imprisonment xxx and by a fine xxx. SECTION 2. Simulation of minimum capital stock In all cases in which a constitutional or legal provision requires that a

corporation or association may exercise or enjoy a right, franchise or privilege, not less than a certain per centum of its capital must be owned by citizens of the Philippines or any other specific country, it shall be unlawful to falsely simulate the existence of such minimum stock or capital as owned by such citizen for the purpose of evading such provision. xxx SECTION 2-A. Unlawful use, Exploitation or Enjoyment. Any person, corporation, or association which, having in its name or under its control, a right, franchise, privilege, property or business, the exercise or enjoyment of which is expressly reserved by the Constitution or the laws to citizens of the Philippines or of any other specific country, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, permits or allows the use, exploitation or enjoyment thereof by a person, corporation, or association not possessing the requisites prescribed by the Constitution or the laws of the Philippines; or leases, or in any other way, transfers or conveys said right, franchise, privilege, property or business to a person, corporation or association not otherwise qualified under the Constitution xxx shall be punished by imprisonment xxx (Emphasis added.) The Anti-Dummy Law has been enacted to limit the enjoyment of certain economic activities to Filipino citizens or corporations. For liability for violation of the law to attach, it must be established that there is a law limiting or reserving the enjoyment or exercise of a right, franchise, privilege, or business to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. In the case at bench, the Court is not aware of any constitutional or statutory provision classifying as a nationalized activity the lease or provision of goods and technical services for the automation of an election. In fact, Sec. 8 of RA 8436, as amended, vests the Comelec with specific authority to acquire AES from foreign sources, thus: SEC 12. Procurement of Equipment and Materials. To achieve the purpose of this Act, the Commission is

authorized to procure, xxx, by purchase, lease, rent or other forms of acquisition, supplies, equipment, materials, software, facilities, and other services, from local or foreign sources xxx. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners cite Executive Order No. (EO) 584,[98] Series of 2006, purportedly limiting contracts for the supply of materials, goods and commodities to government-owned or controlled corporation, company, agency or municipal corporation to corporations that are 60% Filipino. We do not quite see the governing relevance of EO 584. For let alone the fact that RA 9369 is, in relation to EO 584, a subsequent enactment and, therefore, enjoys primacy over the executive issuance, the Comelec does fall under the category of a government-owned and controlled corporation, an agency or a municipal corporation contemplated in the executive order. A view has been advanced regarding the susceptibility of the AES to hacking, just like the voting machines used in certain precincts in Florida, USA in the Gore-Bush presidential contests. However, an analysis of post-election reports on the voting system thus used in the US during the period material and the AES to be utilized in the 2010 automation project seems to suggest stark differences between the two systems. The first relates to the Source Code, defined in RA 9369 as human readable instructions that define what the computer equipment will do.[99] The Source Code for the 2010 AES shall be available and opened for review by political parties, candidates and the citizens arms or their representatives;[100] whereas in the US precincts aforementioned, the Source Code was alleged to have been kept secret by the machine manufacture company, thus keeping the American public in the dark as to how exactly the machines counted their votes. And secondly, in the AES, the PCOS machines found in the precincts will also be the same device that would tabulate and canvass the votes; whereas in the US, the machines in the precincts did not count the votes. Instead the votes cast appeared to have been stored in a memory card that was brought to a counting center at the end of the day. As a result, the hacking and cheating may have possibly occurred at the counting center.

Additionally, with the AES, the possibility of system hacking is very slim. The PCOS machines are only online when they transmit the results, which would only take around one to two minutes. In order to hack the system during this tiny span of vulnerability, a super computer would be required. Noteworthy also is the fact that the memory card to be used during the elections is encrypted and read-onlymeaning no illicit program can be executed or introduced into the memory card. Therefore, even though the AES has its flaws, Comelec and Smartmatic have seen to it that the system is well-protected with sufficient security measures in order to ensure honest elections. And as indicated earlier, the joint venture provider has formulated and put in place a continuity and back-up plans that would address the understandable apprehension of a failure of elections in case the machines falter during the actual election. This over-all fall-back strategy includes the provisions for 2,000 spare PCOS machines on top of the 80,000 units assigned to an equal number precincts throughout the country. The continuity and back-up plans seek to address the following eventualities: (1) The PCOS fails to scan ballots; (2) The PCOS scans the ballots, but fails to print election returns (ERs); and/or (3) The PCOS prints but fails to transmit the ERs. In the event item #1 occurs, a spare PCOS, if available, will be brought in or, if not available, the PCOS of another precinct (PCOS 2 for clarity), after observing certain defined requirements,[101] shall be used. Should all the PCOS machines in the entire municipality/city fail, manual counting of the paper ballots and the manual accomplishment of ERs shall be resorted to in accordance with Comelec promulgated rules on appreciation of automated ballots.[102] In the event item #2 occurs where the PCOS machines fail to print ERs, the use of spare PCOS and the transfer of PCOS-2 shall be effected. Manual counting of ERs shall be resorted to also if all PCOS fails in the entire municipality. And should eventuality #3 transpire, the following back-up options, among others, may be availed of: bringing PCOS-1 to the nearest precinct or polling center which has a functioning transmission facility; inserting

transmission cable of functioning transmission line to PCOS-1 and transmitting stored data from PCOS-1 using functioning transmission facility. The disruption of the election process due to machine breakdown or malfunction may be limited to a precinct only or could affect an entire municipal/city. The worst case scenario of course would be the wholesale breakdown of the 82,000 PCOS machines. Nonetheless, even in this most extreme case, failure of all the machines would not necessarily translate into failure of elections. Manual count tabulation and transmission, as earlier stated, can be done, PCOS being a paper-ballot technology. If the machine fails for whatever reason, the paper ballots would still be there for the hand counting of the votes, manual tabulation and transmission of the ERs. Failure of elections consequent to voting machines failure would, in fine, be a very remote possibility. A final consideration. The first step is always difficult. Hardly anything works, let alone ends up perfectly the first time around. As has often been said, if one looks hard enough, he will in all likelihood find a glitch in any new system. It is no wonder some IT specialists and practitioners have considered the PCOS as unsafe, not the most appropriate technology for Philippine elections, and easily hackable, even. And the worst fear expressed is that disaster is just waiting to happen, that PCOS would not work on election day. Congress has chosen the May 2010 elections to be the maiden run for full automation. And judging from what the Court has heard and read in the course of these proceedings, the choice of PCOS by Comelec was not a spur-of-moment affair, but the product of honest-to-goodness studies, consultations with CAC, and lessons learned from the ARMM 2008 automated elections. With the backing of Congress by way of budgetary support, the poll body has taken this historic, if not ambitious, first step. It started with the preparation of the RFP/TOR, with a list of voluminous annexes embodying in specific detail the bidding rules and

expectations from the bidders. And after a hotly contested and, by most accounts, a highly transparent public bidding exercise, the joint venture of a Filipino and foreign corporation won and, after its machine hurdled the end-toend demonstration test, was eventually awarded the contract to undertake the automation project. Not one of the losing or disqualified bidders questioned, at least not before the courts, the bona fides of the bidding procedures and the outcome of the bidding itself. Assayed against the provisions of the Constitution, the enabling automation law, RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, the RFP and even the Anti-Dummy Law, which petitioners invoked as an afterthought, the Court finds the project award to have complied with legal prescriptions, and the terms and conditions of the corresponding automation contract in question to be valid. No grave abuse of discretion, therefore, can be laid on the doorsteps of respondent Comelec. And surely, the winning joint venture should not be faulted for having a foreign company as partner. The Comelec is an independent constitutional body with a distinct and pivotal role in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its awesome functions as overseer of fair elections, administrator and lead implementor of laws relative to the conduct of elections, it should not be stymied with restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the case of an organization of lesser responsibility.[103] It should be afforded ample elbow room and enough wherewithal in devising means and initiatives that would enable it to accomplish the great objective for which it was createdto promote free, orderly, honest and peaceful elections. This is as it should be for, too often, Comelec has to make decisions under difficult conditions to address unforeseen events to preserve the integrity of the election and in the process the voice of the people. Thus, in the past, the Court has steered away from interfering with the Comelecs exercise of its power which, by law and by the nature of its office properly pertain to it. Absent, therefore, a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on Comelecs part, as here, the Court should refrain from utilizing the corrective hand of certiorari to review, let alone nullify, the acts of that body. This gem,

while not on all fours with, is lifted from, the Courts holding in an old but oft-cited case: x x x We may not agree fully with [the Comelecs] choice of means, but unless these are clearly illegal or constitute gross abuse of discretion, this court should not interfere. Politics is a practical matter, and political questions must be dealt with realisticallynot from the standpoint of pure theory [or speculation]. x x x xxxx There are no ready-made formulas for solving public problems. Time and experience are necessary to evolve patterns that will serve the ends of good government. In the matter of the administration of the laws relative to the conduct of elections, x x x we must not by any excessive zeal take away from the [Comelec] the initiative which by constitutional and legal mandates properly belongs to it. Due regard to the independent character of the Commission x x x requires that the power of this court to review the acts of that body should, as a general proposition, be used sparingly, but firmly in appropriate cases.[104] x x x The Court, however, will not indulge in the presumption that nothing would go wrong, that a successful automation election unmarred by fraud, violence, and like irregularities would be the order of the moment on May 10, 2010. Neither will it guarantee, as it cannot guarantee, the effectiveness of the voting machines and the integrity of the counting and consolidation software embedded in them. That task belongs at the first instance to Comelec, as part of its mandate to ensure clean and peaceful elections. This independent constitutional commission, it is true, possesses extraordinary powers and enjoys a considerable latitude in the discharge of its functions. The road, however, towards successful 2010 automation elections would certainly be rough and bumpy. The Comelec is laboring under very tight timelines. It would accordingly need the help of all advocates of orderly and honest elections, of all men and women of goodwill, to smoothen the way and assist Comelec personnel address the fears expressed about the integrity of the system. Like

anyone else, the Court would like and wish automated elections to succeed, credibly. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.

EVELYN CORONEL, MA. LINDA OLAGUER MONTAYRE, and NELSON T. MONTAYRE, Petitioners, - versus -

SO ORDERED. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by its Chairman, Commissioner SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., Respondent. x--------------------------------------------x TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, BISHOP BRODERICK S. PABILLO, SOLITA COLLAS MONSOD, MARIA CORAZON MENDOZA ACOL, FR. JOSE DIZON, NELSON JAVA CELIS, PABLO R. MANALASTAS, GEORGINA R. ENCANTO and ANNA LEAH E. COLINA, Petitioners, - versus COMMISSION ON CORPORATION, ELECTIONS and SMARTMATIC TIM

Respondents. x--------------------------------------------x TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC., EVELYN L. KILAYKO, TERESITA D. BALTAZAR, PILAR L. CALDERON and ELITA T. MONTILLA, Petitioners, ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, OMAR SOLITARIO ALI and MARY ANNE L. SUSANO, Petitioners, - versus THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. x--------------------------------------------x SOLIDARITY FOR SOVEREIGNTY (S4S), represented by Ma. Linda Olaguer; RAMON PEDROSA, BENJAMIN PAULINO SR., COMMISSION Corporation, ON ELECTIONS Respondents. and SMARTMATIC-TIM

- versus -

G.R. No. 201112

G.R. No. 201413 Present: G.R. No. 201121 CARPIO, J., VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, MENDOZA, SERENO, REYES, and PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: June 13, 2012 x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. 201127

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Pursuant to its authority to use an Automated Election System (AES) under Republic Act (RA) No. 8436, as amended by RA No. 9369, or the Automation Law and in accordance with RA No. 9184, otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform Act, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) posted and published an invitation to apply for eligibility and to bid for the 2010 Poll Automation Project[1] (the Project). On March 18, 2009, the Comelec approved and issued a Request for Proposal[2] (RFP) for the Project consisting of the following components: Component 1: Paper-Based Automation Election System (AES) 1-A. Election Management System (EMS) 1-B. Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) System 1-C. Consolidation/Canvassing System (CCS) Component 2: Provision for Electronic Transmission of Election Results using Public Telecommunications Network Component 3: Overall Project Management[3] On June 9, 2009, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 8608 awarding the contract for the Project to respondent Smartmatic-TIM.[4] On July 10, 2009, the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM entered into a Contract for the Provision of an Automated Election System for the May 10, 2010 Synchronized National and Local Elections,[5] (AES Contract, for brevity). The contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM was one of lease of the AES with option to purchase (OTP) the goods listed in the contract. In said contract, the Comelec was given until December 31, 2010 within which to exercise the option. On September 23, 2010, the Comelec partially exercised its OTP 920 units of PCOS machines with corresponding canvassing/consolidation system (CCS) for the special elections in certain areas in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Bulacan.[6] In a letter[7] dated December

18, 2010, Smartmatic-TIM, through its Chairman Cesar Flores (Flores), proposed a temporary extension of the option period on the remaining 81,280 PCOS machines until March 31, 2011, waiving the storage costs and covering the maintenance costs. The Comelec did not exercise the option within the extended period. Several extensions were given for the Comelec to exercise the OTP until its final extension on March 31, 2012. On March 6, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9373[8] resolving to seriously consider exercising the OTP subject to certain conditions. On March 21, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9376[9] resolving to exercise the OTP the PCOS and CCS hardware and software in accordance with the AES contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM in connection with the May 10, 2010 elections subject to the following conditions: (1) the warranties agreed upon in the AES contract shall be in full force and effect; (2) the original price for the hardware and software covered by the OTP as specified in the AES contract shall be maintained, excluding the cost of the 920 units of PCOS and related peripherals previously purchased for use in the 2010 special elections; and (3) all other services related to the 2013 AES shall be subject to public bidding. On March 29, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9377[10] resolving to accept Smartmatic-TIMs offer to extend the period to exercise the OTP until March 31, 2012 and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign for and on behalf of the Comelec the Agreement on the Extension of the OTP Under the AES Contract[11] (Extension Agreement, for brevity). The aforesaid Extension Agreement was signed on March 30, 2012.[12] On even date, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9378[13] resolving to approve the Deed of Sale between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM to purchase the latters PCOS machines (hardware and software) to be used in the upcoming May 2013 elections and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign the Deed of Sale for and on behalf of the Comelec. The Deed of Sale[14] was forthwith executed. Claiming that the foregoing issuances of the Comelec, as well as the transactions entered pursuant thereto, are illegal and unconstitutional, petitioners come before the Court in

four separate Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Comelec in issuing the assailed Resolutions and in executing the assailed Extension Agreement and Deed. G.R. No. 201112 In G.R. No. 201112, petitioners Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, Omar Solitario Ali and Mary Anne L. Susano pray that a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) be issued enjoining the Comelec from purchasing the PCOS machines until after final judgment of the instant case; a writ of prohibition be issued against the Comelec for the purchase of these defective PCOS machines; a writ of mandamus be issued compelling the Comelec to conduct the necessary bidding for the equipment and facilities which shall be used for the 2013 National and Local Elections; and to declare Comelec Resolution Nos. 9376, 9377, and 9378, on the purchase of PCOS machines, null and void. Petitioners argue that if there is a necessity to purchase the PCOS machines, the Comelec should follow RA 9184 requiring competitive public bidding. They likewise argue that the OTP clause embodied in the contract with Smartmatic-TIM should be rendered invalid not only because the OTP has already lapsed but because of the fact that the OTP clause is a circumvention of the explicit provisions of RA 9184. Petitioners add that the current PCOS machines do not meet the rigorous requirements of RA 9369 that the system procured must have demonstrated capability and should have been successfully used in a prior electoral exercise here or abroad. Petitioners submit that there are intrinsic technical infirmities as regards the PCOS machines used during the 2010 elections which rendered it incapable for future use. Lastly, petitioners claim that the Comelec does not have the capability to purchase and maintain the PCOS machines, because of lack of trained manpower and technical expertise to properly maintain the PCOS machines; thus, the purchase is unfavorable to the general public. G.R. No. 201121

In G.R. No. 201121, petitioners Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S), represented by Ma. Linda Olaguer, Ramon Pedrosa, Benjamin Paulino, Sr., Evelyn Coronel, Ma. Linda Olaguer Montayre and Nelson T. Montayre, pray that a TRO be issued directing the Comelec to desist from implementing the contract; that Resolution No. 9376 be declared unconstitutional and all acts made pursuant thereto, including the purchase of the PCOS machines unlawful and void; that an Injunction be issued prohibiting the Comelec from further pursuing any act pursuant to Resolution No. 9376.[15] Petitioners argue that the Comelecs act of exercising its OTP the PCOS machines from Smartmatic-TIM after the period had already lapsed is illegal and unlawful.[16] They explain that the period within which the Comelec may exercise the OTP could last only until December 31, 2010 without extension as provided in the Comelecs bid bulletin.[17] They further assert that the Comelecs acceptance of SmartmaticTIMs unilateral extension of the option period constitutes substantial amendment to the AES contract giving undue benefit to the winning bidder not available to the other bidders.[18] Petitioners also contend that the Comelecs decision to purchase and use the PCOS machines is unconstitutional, as it allows the Comelec to abrogate its constitutional duty to safeguard the election process by subcontracting the same to an independent provider (Smartmatic-TIM), who controls the software that safeguards the entire election process. The purchase of the PCOS machines for use in the May 2013 elections would be tantamount to a complete surrender and abdication of the Comelecs constitutional mandate in favor of SmartmaticTIM. The control of the software and process verification systems places the Comelec at the end of the process as it merely receives the report of Smartmatic-TIM. This, according to petitioners, amounts to a direct transgression of the exclusive mandate of the Comelec completely to take charge of the enforcement and administration of the conduct of elections. [19] Lastly, petitioners aver that the Comelecs act of deliberately ignoring the palpable infirmities and defects of the PCOS machines, as duly confirmed by forensic

experts, is in violation of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution, as it fails to safeguard the integrity of the votes. They went on by saying that the subject PCOS machines lack security features which can guaranty the secrecy and sanctity of our votes in direct contravention of RA 9369 which requires that the automated election system must at least possess an adequate security feature against unauthorized access. In deciding to purchase the PCOS machines despite the above-enumerated defects, the Comelecs decision are claimed to be unconstitutional.[20] G.R. No. 201127 In G.R. No. 201127, petitioners Teofisto Guingona, Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo, Solita Collas Monsod, Maria Corazon Mendoza Acol, Fr. Jose Dizon, Nelson Java Celis, Pablo R. Manalastas, Georgina R. Encanto and Anna Leah E. Colina pray that the Court issue a TRO enjoining and restraining respondents Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM from implementing Comelec Resolution No. 9376 and the Deed of Sale for the acquisition and purchase of the PCOS machines and related equipment; issue writ of preliminary injunction; declare Comelec Resolution No. 9376 void and unconstitutional and annul the Deed of Sale; and direct the Comelec to conduct public bidding soonest for the automated election system to be used for the 2013 elections.[21] Petitioners fault the Comelec in totally disregarding the recommendation of the Comelec Advisory Council (CAC) not to exercise the OTP. They point out that in its Resolution No. 2012-2003, the CAC resolved to recommend that the Comelec should exert all efforts to procure the necessary AES only through public bidding. The CAC likewise allegedly recommended that the OTP should not be exercised if as a consequence, the rest of the system must come from the same vendor as the Comelec would lose the opportunity to look for better technology; would prevent the Comelec from taking advantage of the best possible technology available; would prevent other prospective vendors from competitively participating in the bidding process; and may erode the public trust and confidence in the electoral process. In its report to the Congressional Oversight Committee after the

2010 elections, the CAC supposedly concluded that the Comelec does not need to use the same PCOS machines and that the Comelec would be better off not exercising the OTP the PCOS machines so it can look for an even better solution for the May 2013 elections.[22] Like the other petitioners, it is their position that Comelec Resolution No. 9376 is totally null and void having been issued in violation of the express provisions of RA 9184 and the AES contract. According to petitioners, the Comelec itself provided in its bid bulletins for a fixed and determinate period, and such period ended on December 31, 2010. Thus, Smartmatic-TIM could not have unilaterally extended the option period and the Comelec could not have also given its consent to the extension. In extending the option period, it is tantamount to giving the winning bidder a benefit that was not known and available to all bidders during the bidding of the 2010 AES, which is a clear violation of the bidding rules and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.[23] Considering that the option period already expired, the purchase of the PCOS machines requires competitive public bidding. Lastly, petitioners claim that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in opting to buy the PCOS machines and allied paraphernalia of Smartmatic-TIM for the 2013 elections, despite incontrovertible findings of the glitches, malfunctions, bugs, and defects of the same.[24] G.R. No. 201418 In G.R. No. 201418, petitioners Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc., Evelyn L. Kilayko, Teresita D. Baltazar, Pilar L. Calderon and Elita T. Montilla pray that the Court annul Resolution No. 9376 and the March 30, 2012 Deed of Sale, and prohibit the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM from implementing the same; and declare said Resolution and Deed of Sale invalid for having been issued and executed by the Comelec with grave abuse of discretion and for violating the provisions of R.A. 9184.[25] Petitioners claim that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in contracting for the purchase of AES goods and services from Smartmatic-TIM in spite of the below par performance of the

latters PCOS machines, CCS and other software and hardware in the May 2010 elections and non-compliance with the minimum functional capabilities required by law.[26] They echo the other petitioners contention that the Comelecs decision to buy the CCS, PCOS machines, software and hardware of Smartmatic violates RA 9184s requirement of a prior competitive public bidding. Since the Comelec is bent on pursuing the purchase of the subject goods, which is an entirely new procurement, petitioners contend that there must be a public bidding. They argue that there is enough time to conduct public bidding for the 2013 elections, considering that for the May 2010 elections, the Comelec only had 10 months and they were able to conduct the public bidding. Petitioners are of the view that there is no more OTP to speak of, because the option period already lapsed and could not be revived by the unilateral act of one of the contracting parties.[27] On April 24, 2012, the Court issued a TRO enjoining the implementation of the assailed contract of sale. The consolidated cases were later set for Oral Arguments on the following issues: I. Whether or not the Commission on Elections may validly accept the extension of time unilaterally given by Smartmatic-TIM Corporation within which to exercise the option to purchase under Article 4 of the Contract for the Provision of an Automated Election System for the May 2010 Synchronized National and Local Elections; and II. Whether or not the acceptance of the extension and the issuance of Comelec En Banc Resolution No. 9376 violate Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act and its Implementing Rules, and Republic Act No. 9369 or the Automated Election Systems Act. The parties were, thereafter, required to submit their Memoranda. The petitions are without merit.

Simply stated, petitioners assail the validity and constitutionality of the Comelec Resolutions for the purchase of the subject PCOS machines as well as the Extension Agreement and the Deed of Sale covering said goods mainly on three grounds: (1) the option period provided for in the AES contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM had already lapsed and, thus, could no longer be extended, such extension being prohibited by the contract; (2) the extension of the option period and the exercise of the option without competitive public bidding contravene the provisions of RA 9184; and, (3) despite the palpable infirmities and defects of the PCOS machines, the Comelec purchased the same in contravention of the standards laid down in RA 9369. For its part, the Comelec defends the validity and constitutionality of its decision to purchase the subject PCOS machines, pursuant to the OTP under the AES contract with Smartmatic-TIM, on the following grounds: (1) Article 6.6 of the AES contract which states the option period was amended by the extension agreement; (2) the exercise of the OTP is not covered by RA 9184, because it is merely an implementation of a previously bidded contract; (3) taking into account the funds available for the purpose, exercising the OTP was the prudent choice for the Comelec and is more advantageous to the government; and (4) the exercise of the OTP is consistent with the technical requirements of RA 9369. Stated in another way, Smartmatic-TIM insists on the validity of the subject transaction based on the following grounds: (1) there is no prohibition either in the contract or provision of law for it to extend the option period; rather, the contract itself allows the parties to amend the same; (2) the OTP is not an independent contract in itself, but is a provision contained in the valid and existing AES contract that had already satisfied the public bidding requirements of RA 9184; (3) exercising the option was the most advantageous option of the Comelec; and (4) Smartmatic-TIM has an established track record in providing effective and accurate electoral solutions and its satisfactory performance has been proven during the 2010 elections. The alleged glitches in the May 2010 elections, if at all, are not attributable to the PCOS machines.

We agree with respondents. At the outset, we brush aside the procedural barriers (i.e., locus standi of petitioners and the non-observance of the hierarchy of courts) that supposedly prevent the Court from entertaining the consolidated petitions. As we held in Guingona, Jr. v. Commission on Elections:[28] There can be no doubt that the coming 10 May 2010 [in this case, May 2013] elections is a matter of great public concern. On election day, the country's registered voters will come out to exercise the sacred right of suffrage. Not only is it an exercise that ensures the preservation of our democracy, the coming elections also embodies our people's last ounce of hope for a better future. It is the final opportunity, patiently awaited by our people, for the peaceful transition of power to the next chosen leaders of our country. If there is anything capable of directly affecting the lives of ordinary Filipinos so as to come within the ambit of a public concern, it is the coming elections, more so with the alarming turn of events that continue to unfold. The wanton wastage of public funds brought about by one bungled contract after another, in staggering amounts, is in itself a matter of grave public concern.[29] Thus, in view of the compelling significance and transcending public importance of the issues raised by petitioners, the technicalities raised by respondents should not be allowed to stand in the way, if the ends of justice would not be subserved by a rigid adherence to the rules of procedure.[30] Now on the substantive issues. In order to achieve the modernization program of the Philippine Electoral System, which includes the automation of the counting, transmission and canvassing of votes for the May 2010 national and local elections with systems integration and over-all project management in a comprehensive and well-managed manner, [31] the Comelec entered into an AES contract with Smartmatic-TIM for the lease of goods and purchase of

services under the contract, with option to purchase the goods. The option contract between the Comelec and SmartmaticTIM is embodied in Article 4.3 of the AES contract to wit: Article 4 Contract Fee and Payment xxxx 4.3. OPTION TO PURCHASE In the event the COMELEC exercises its option to purchase the Goods as listed in Annex L, COMELEC shall pay the PROVIDER an additional amount of Two Billion One Hundred Thirty Million Six Hundred Thirty- Five Thousand Forty-Eight Pesos and Fifteen Centavos (Php2,130,635,048.15) as contained in the Financial Proposal of the joint venture partners Smartmatic and TIM. In case COMELEC should exercise its option to purchase, a warranty shall be required in order to assure that: (a) manufacturing defects shall be corrected; and/or (b) replacements shall be made by the PROVIDER, for a minimum period of three (3) months, in the case of supplies, and one (1) year, in the case of equipment, after performance of this Contract. The obligation for the warranty shall be covered by retention money of ten percent (10%) of every option to purchase payment made. The retention money will be returned within five (5) working days after the expiration of the above warranty, provided, however, that the goods supplied are in good operating condition free from patent and latent defects, all the conditions imposed under the purchase contract have been fully met, and any defective machines, except to those attributable to the COMELEC, have been either repaired at no additional charge or replaced or deducted from the price under the Option to Purchase.[32]

Article 6.6 thereof, in turn provides for the period within which the Comelec could exercise the option, thus: Article 6 COMELECs Responsibilities xxxx 6.6. COMELEC shall notify the PROVIDER on or before 31 December 2010 of its option to purchase the Goods as listed in Annex L.[33] The Comelec did not exercise the option within the period stated in the above provision. Smartmatic, however, unilaterally extended the same until its final extension on March 31, 2012. The Comelec, thereafter, accepted the option and eventually executed a Deed of Sale involving said goods. Now, petitioners come before the Court assailing the validity of the extension, the exercise of the option and the Deed of Sale. In light of the AES contract, can SmartmaticTIM unilaterally extend the option period? Can the Comelec accept the extension? We answer in the affirmative. It is a basic rule in the interpretation of contracts that an instrument must be construed so as to give effect to all the provisions of the contract.[34] In essence, the contract must be read and taken as a whole.[35] While the contract indeed specifically required the Comelec to notify Smartmatic-TIM of its OTP the subject goods until December 31, 2010, a reading of the other provisions of the AES contract would show that the parties are given the right to amend the contract which may include the period within which to exercise the option. There is, likewise, no prohibition on the extension of the period, provided that the contract is still effective. Article 2 of the AES contract lays down the effectivity of the contract, viz.: Article 2

EFFECTIVITY 2.1. This Contract shall take effect upon the fulfillment of all of the following conditions: (a) Submission by the PROVIDER of the Performance Security; (b) Signing of this Contract in seven (7) copies by the parties; and (c) Receipt by the PROVIDER of the Notice to Proceed. 2.2. The Term of this Contract begins from the date of effectivity until the release of the Performance Security, without prejudice to the surviving provisions of this Contract, including the warranty provision as prescribed in Article 8.3 and the period of the option to purchase (Emphasis supplied).[36] Obviously, the contract took effect even prior to the 2010 elections. The only question now is whether its existence already ceased. Pursuant to the above-quoted provision, it is important to determine whether or not the performance security had already been released to Smartmatic-TIM. In Article 8 of the AES contract, performance security was defined and the rules in releasing said security were laid down, to wit: Article 8 Performance Security and Warranty 8.1. Within three (3) days from receipt by the PROVIDER of the formal Notice of Award from COMELEC, the PROVIDER shall furnish COMELEC with a Performance Security in an amount equivalent to five percent (5%) of the Contract Amount; which Performance Security as of this date has been duly received by COMELEC. Within seven (7) days from delivery by the PROVIDER to COMELEC of the Over-all Project Management Report after successful conduct of the May 10, 2010 elections, COMELEC shall release to the PROVIDER the above-mentioned Performance Security without need of demand.[37]

Smartmatic-TIM categorically stated in its Consolidated Comment to the petitions that the Comelec still retains P50M of the amount due Smartmatic-TIM as performance security. [38] In short, the performance security had not yet been released to Smartmatic-TIM which indicates that the AES contract is still effective and not yet terminated. Consequently, pursuant to Article 19[39] of the contract, the provisions thereof may still be amended by mutual agreement of the parties provided said amendment is in writing and signed by the parties. In light of the provisions of the AES contract, there is, therefore, nothing wrong with the execution of the Extension Agreement. Considering, however, that the AES contract is not an ordinary contract as it involves procurement by a government agency, the rights and obligations of the parties are governed not only by the Civil Code but also by RA 9184. In this jurisdiction, public bidding is the established procedure in the grant of government contracts. The award of public contracts, through public bidding, is a matter of public policy.[40] The parties are, therefore, not at full liberty to amend or modify the provisions of the contract bidded upon. The three principles of public bidding are: (1) the offer to the public; (2) an opportunity for competition; and (3) a basis for the exact comparison of bids.[41] By its very nature, public bidding aims to protect public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages through open competition.[42] Competition requires not only bidding upon a common standard, a common basis, upon the same thing, the same subject matter, and the same undertaking, but also that it be legitimate, fair and honest and not designed to injure or defraud the government.[43] The essence of competition in public bidding is that the bidders are placed on equal footing which means that all qualified bidders have an equal chance of winning the auction through their bids. [44] Another self-evident purpose of public bidding is to avoid or preclude suspicion of favoritism and anomalies in the execution of public contracts.[45]

A winning bidder is not precluded from modifying or amending certain provisions of the contract bidded upon. However, such changes must not constitute substantial or material amendments that would alter the basic parameters of the contract and would constitute a denial to the other bidders of the opportunity to bid on the same terms.[46] The determination of whether or not a modification or amendment of a contract bidded out constitutes a substantial amendment rests on whether the contract, when taken as a whole, would contain substantially different terms and conditions that would have the effect of altering the technical and/or financial proposals previously submitted by the other bidders. The modifications in the contract executed between the government and the winning bidder must be such as to render the executed contract to be an entirely different contract from the one bidded upon.[47] Public bidding aims to secure for the government the lowest possible price under the most favorable terms and conditions, to curtail favoritism in the award of government contracts and avoid suspicion of anomalies, and it places all bidders in equal footing. Any government action which permits any substantial variance between the conditions under which the bids are invited and the contract executed after the award thereof is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which warrants proper judicial action.[48] If this flawed process would be allowed, public bidding will cease to be competitive, and worse, government would not be favored with the best bid. Bidders will no longer bid on the basis of the prescribed terms and conditions in the bid documents but will formulate their bid in anticipation of the execution of a future contract containing new and better terms and conditions that were not previously available at the time of the bidding. Such a public bidding will not inure to the public good.[49] In Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) v. Pozzolanic Philippines Incorporated, [50] the Court nullified the right of first refusal granted to respondent therein in the Batangas Contract for being contrary to public policy. The Court explained that the same violated the requirement of competitive public bidding in the

government contract, because the grant of the right of first refusal did not only substantially amend the terms of the contract bidded upon so that resultantly the other bidders thereto were deprived of the terms and opportunities granted to respondent therein after it won the public auction, but also altered the bid terms by effectively barring any and all true bidding in the future.[51] Also in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., (PIATCO),[52] this Court declared as null and void, for being contrary to public policy, the Concession Agreement entered into by the government with PIATCO, because it contained provisions that substantially departed from the Draft Concession Agreement included in the bid documents. The Court considered the subject contracts a mockery of the bidding process, because they were substantially amended after their award to the successful bidder on terms more beneficial to PIATCO and prejudicial to public interest.[53] The same conclusions cannot be applied in the present case. One. Smartmatic-TIM was not granted additional right that was not previously available to the other bidders. Admittedly, the AES contract was awarded to Smartmatic-TIM after compliance with all the requirements of a competitive public bidding. The RFP, Bid Bulletins and the AES contract identified the contract as one of lease with option to purchase. The AES contract is primarily a contract of lease of goods[54] listed in the contract and purchase of services[55] also stated in the contract. Section 4.3 thereof gives the Comelec the OTP the goods agreed upon. The same provision states the conditions in exercising the option, including the additional amount that the Comelec is required to pay should it exercise such right. It is, therefore, undisputed that this grant of option is recognized by both parties and is already a part of the principal contract of lease. Having been included in the RFP and the bid bulletins, this right given to the Comelec to exercise the option was known to all the bidders and was considered in preparing their bids. The bidders were apprised that aside from the lease of goods and purchase of services, their proposals should include an OTP the subject goods. Although the AES contract was amended after the

award of the contract to Smartmatic-TIM, the amendment only pertains to the period within which the Comelec could exercise the option because of its failure to exercise the same prior to the deadline originally agreed upon by the parties. Unlike in PSALM, wherein the winning bidder was given the right of first refusal which substantially amended the terms of the contract bidded upon, thereby depriving the other bidders of the terms and opportunities granted to winning bidder after it won the public auction; and in Agan, Jr., wherein the Concession Agreement entered into by the government with PIATCO contained provisions that substantially departed from the draft Concession Agreement included in the bid documents; the option contract in this case was already a part of the original contract and not given only after Smartmatic-TIM emerged as winner. The OTP was actually a requirement by the Comelec when the contract of lease was bidded upon. To be sure, the Extension Agreement does not contain a provision favorable to Smartmatic-TIM not previously made available to the other bidders. Two. The amendment of the AES contract is not substantial. The approved budget for the contract was P11,223,618,400.00[56] charged against the supplemental appropriations for election modernization. Bids were, therefore, accepted provided that they did not exceed said amount. After the competitive public bidding, SmartmaticTIM emerged as winner and the AES contract was thereafter executed. As repeatedly stated above, the AES contract is a contract of lease with OTP giving the Comelec the right to purchase the goods agreed upon if it decides to do so. The AES contract not only indicated the contract price for the lease of goods and purchase of services which is P7,191,484,739.48, but also stated the additional amount that the Comelec has to pay if it decides to exercise the option which is P2,130,635,048.15. Except for the period within which the Comelec could exercise the OTP, the terms and conditions for such exercise are maintained and respected. Admittedly, the additional amount the Comelec needed to pay was maintained (less the amount already paid when it purchased 920 units of PCOS machines with corresponding CCS for the special elections in certain areas in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Bulacan)

subject to the warranties originally agreed upon in the AES contract. The contract amount not only included that for the contract of lease but also for the OTP. Hence, the competitive public bidding conducted for the AES contract was sufficient. A new public bidding would be a superfluity. The Solicitor General himself clarified during the oral arguments that the purchase price of the remaining PCOS machines stated in the assailed Deed of Sale was the price stated in Article 4.3 of the AES contract. Therefore, the said amount was already part of the original amount bidded upon in 2009 for the AES contract which negates the need for another competitive bidding.[57] Third. More importantly, the amendment of the AES contract is more advantageous to the Comelec and the public. The nature of an option contract was thoroughly explained in Eulogio v. Apeles,[58] to wit: An option is a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that the latter shall have the right to buy the former's property at a fixed price within a certain time. It is a condition offered or contract by which the owner stipulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price within a certain time, or under, or in compliance with certain terms and conditions; or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale. An option is not of itself a purchase, but merely secures the privilege to buy. It is not a sale of property but a sale of the right to purchase. It is simply a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time. He does not sell his land; he does not then agree to sell it; but he does sell something, i.e., the right or privilege to buy at the election or option of the other party. Its distinguishing characteristic is that it imposes no binding obligation on the person holding the option, aside from the consideration for the offer.[59]

Also in Carceller v. Court of Appeals,[60] the Court described an option in this wise: An option is a preparatory contract in which one party grants to the other, for a fixed period and under specified conditions, the power to decide, whether or not to enter into a principal contract. It binds the party who has given the option, not to enter into the principal contract with any other person during the period designated and, within that period, to enter into such contract with the one to whom the option was granted, if the latter should decide to use the option. It is a separate agreement distinct from the contract which the parties may enter into upon the consummation of the option. [61] In Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. CA,[62] the Court described an option as: An option, as used in the law on sales, is a continuing offer or contract by which the owner stipulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price within a certain time, or under, or in compliance with, certain terms and conditions, or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale. It is sometimes called an unaccepted offer. x x x[63] From the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, an option is only a preparatory contract and a continuing offer to enter into a principal contract. Under the set-up, the owner of the property, which is Smartmatic-TIM, gives the optionee, which is the Comelec, the right to accept the formers offer to purchase the goods listed in the contract for a specified amount, and within a specified period. Thus, the Comelec is given the right to decide whether or not it wants to purchase the subject goods. It is, therefore, uncertain whether or not the principal contract would be entered into. The owner of the property would then have to wait for the optionee to make a decision. A longer option period would mean that more time would be given to the optionee to consider circumstances affecting its decision whether to purchase the goods or not. On the part of Smartmatic-TIM, it would have to wait for a longer period to determine whether the subject

goods will be sold to the Comelec or not, instead of freely selling or leasing them to other persons or governments possibly at a higher price. This is especially true in this case as the terms and conditions for the exercise of the option including the purchase price, had been included in the AES contract previously bidded upon. The parties are bound to observe the limitations embodied therein, otherwise, a new public bidding would be needed. We agree with respondents that the exercise of the option is more advantageous to the Comelec, because the P7,191,484,739.48 rentals paid for the lease of goods and purchase of services under the AES contract was considered part of the purchase price. For the Comelec to own the subject goods, it was required to pay only P2,130,635,048.15. If the Comelec did not exercise the option, the rentals already paid would just be one of the government expenses for the past election and would be of no use to future elections. Assuming that the exercise of the option is nullified, the Comelec would again conduct another public bidding for the AES for the 2013 elections with its available budget of P7 billion. Considering that the said amount is the available fund for the whole election process, the amount for the purchase or lease of new AES will definitely be less than P7 billion. Moreover, it is possible that Smartmatic-TIM would again participate in the public bidding and could win at a possibly higher price. The Comelec might end up acquiring the same PCOS machines but now at a higher price. The advantage to the government of the exercise of the OTP was even recognized by petitioners, shown during the oral arguments: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: May I just ask you, do you know the total value of the subject matter of this contract? DEAN ESPEJO: Php1.8 billion pesos, Your Honor.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: Youre referring to the Deed of Sale. DEAN ESPEJO: Yes, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: The whole, the whole equipment, subject matter of the contract. DEAN ESPEJO: I think roughly, the original contract something like 10 billion I am not sure, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: 10 billion pesos. DEAN ESPEJO: Yes, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: Okay. Now, in the original contract of July 10, 2009, the contract was not actually a purchase contract but merely a lease contract. DEAN ESPEJO: Yes, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: And the lease contract is 7.1 billion. DEAN ESPEJO: It says 7.1 billion. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: Okay. But it is here [denominated] as a lease contract. DEAN ESPEJO: Yes, Your Honor.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: So the value was 10 billion pesos then you just pay the difference between ten (10) and seven (7) you get 3 billion pesos to purchase all of these equipment. DEAN ESPEJO: Yes, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: Okay. Now, you look at your Deed of Sale, this is annexed to your petition, the value of the Deed of Sale is something like two billion one hundred thirty million (Php2,130,000,000). DEAN ESPEJO: Around that much, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: You add this at two [billion] one hundred thirty million and so to seven billion one ninety-one the subject matter of your original contract; you come up with something like over 9 billion pesos. DEAN ESPEJO: Close to Ten, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: Close to Ten. DEAN ESPEJO: Yes, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: So thats practically less than the total value of the equipment, because according to you the total value would come up to 10 billion pesos, you add up the Lease Contract of 7 billion and two billion, plus under this Deed of Sale which is the subject matter of this petition, you will come up with a little more than 9 billion pesos even less than the 10 billion pesos. Do you think that is disadvantageous to the government?

DEAN ESPEJO: May I be allowed to explain? ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: Go ahead, you go ahead, you have all the time. DEAN ESPEJO: It may appear advantageous, Your Honor please, but on the other hand, there are certain disadvantages there. For one thing, these are not brand new machines; these are refurbished existing machines which could be suffering from hardware or software problem. For the COMELEC to accept this, Your Honor please, each machine will have to be checked as to its hardware and software. Eighty-two thousand (82,000) PCOS machines, Your Honor please, what if half of them, [turn out] to be white elephants or malfunctioning, Your Honor please, then we will be acquiring eighty-two thousand (82,000) with fifty percent (50%) malfunctioning machines. There is a danger, Your Honor please, that does not appear to the naked eye. In any event, with respect to the financial figures there appears to be some advantages, Your Honor, please. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: x x x these are merely speculative. Yourre only speculating that there are dangers, the dangers might not come, in fact, it might even be void or favorable. Okay, now my other question is, do you think that if this was bidden out under R.A. 9184 for the purchase of all these equipment, do you think that a bidder will come up with a bid of less than 2 billion pesos for the whole equipment? When according to you, the equipment in 2009 is 10 billion, and elections are very near already 2013, the filing of certificates of candidacy will be on the second to the last month of this year? DEAN ESPEJO: May I be allowed to answer that by way of a speculation, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: Go ahead, please.

DEAN ESPEJO: I think bidder will find it difficult to match that. xxxx ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: Okay. My other question is this. Okay, now you admitted that the original value is 10 billion. Are you also aware that the budget of the COMELEC when they come up with this contract is 7 billion? DEAN ESPEJO: Yes, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: And the total value of the original contract is 10 billion. Do you think that the COMELEC will have money to purchase equipment valued at 10 billion pesos with only 7 billion pesos for the elections of 2013? Because the budget of 7 billion is not for the purpose only of the purchase of the equipment, but also includes for the budget of the elections, pre, during and post elections expenses. DEAN ESPEJO: Well, Your Honor please, the shortfall of 3 billion pesos can be remedied if Congress will appropriate additional amounts, if the President of this Republic will convince the legislature to appropriate an additional amount, I see no problem why the shortfall of 3 billion cannot be remedied, Your Honor please. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: Oh, thats again speculative. DEAN ESPEJO: Again, thats unfortunate thats my speculation. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA: You will have first to go to Congress, then you go to Senate, and then you go to the President discounting the possibility of filing a petition to question the allocation of

additional amount for the 2013 elections, by the time that all of these exercises are finished then election is there already. DEAN ESPEJO: Well, Im hopeful, Your Honor please, that our Congressmen and our Senators will rise to the occasion and move fast and appropriate the needed amount of 3 billion pesos to help the COMELEC acquire the proper Automated election System. x x x[64] Another reason posed by petitioners for their objection to the exercise of the option and the eventual execution of the March 30, 2012 Deed of Sale is the existence of the alleged defects, glitches, and infirmities of the subject goods. The technology provided by Smartmatic-TIM was not perfect, because of some technical problems that were experienced during the 2010 elections. Petitioners herein doubt that the integrity and sanctity of the ballots are protected because of these defects. We do not agree. Prior to the execution of the Deed of Sale, the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM had agreed that the latter would undertake fixes and enhancements to the hardware and software to make sure that the subject goods are in working condition to ensure a free, honest, and credible elections. As former Commissioner Augusto C. Lagman admitted[65] during the oral arguments, there are possible software solutions to the alleged problems on the PCOS machines and it is not inherently impossible to remedy the technical problems that have been identified. While there is skepticism that Smartmatic-TIM would be able to correct the supposed defects prior to the 2013 elections because of its inaction during the two years prior to the exercise of the option, we agree with the opinion of Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. that it is absurd to expect Smartmatic-TIM to invest time, money and resources in fixing the PCOS machines to the specifications and requirements of the Comelec when prior to

the exercise of the OTP, they do not have the assurance from the Comelec that the latter will exercise the option.[66] Moreover, as to the digital signature which appears to be the major concern of petitioners, it has been clarified during the oral arguments that the PCOS machines are capable of producing digitally-signed transmissions: JUSTICE CARPIO: I have some questions. Counsel, the law requires that the election returns that are electronically transmitted must be digitally signed, correct? ATTY. LAZATIN: Thats right, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: Now, but in the 2010 elections, all election returns electronically transmitted were NOT digitally signed, correct? ATTY. LAZATIN: They were, Your Honors, please JUSTICE CARPIO: Why? How? ATTY. LAZATIN: Your Honor, as we explained in our presentation, the iButtons, Your Honor, contain the digital signatures JUSTICE CARPIO: Yes, I understand that ATTY. LAZATIN: and the iButtons [interrupted] JUSTICE CARPIO: because they are there, the machine is capable of producing digitally-signed transmissions. But you just said that the BEI Chairman did not input their private keys because there was no time. It requires five (5) months.

ATTY. LAZATIN: Your Honor, as I said, there is a digital signature that was assigned to the BEIto the BEIs, your Honor, okay. I am saying that there is digital signature. What I also said, Your Honor, is that there is also a possibility that another digital certificate or signature can come from another certification authority xxx JUSTICE CARPIO: No, thats a third partythats a third-party certifier, but thats an option. The law does not require a third-party certification. It merely says that transmission must be digitally signed. ATTY. LAZATIN: Thats right. JUSTICE CARPIO: Thats why Chairman Melo told Congress that it will cost one (1) billion to get a third-party certifier, but the law does not require it even now, if you said in your presentation that the BEI Chairman could not input their private key, thats generated because it takes five (5) months to do that and the list of BEI Chairman is known only one (1) month before the election, then how could there be a digital signature? ATTY. LAZATIN: Your Honor, as I mentioned it is anot a customized or personal digital signature. It is a digital signature that is assigned by COMELEC. JUSTICE CARPIO: Assigned by COMELEC? How canwho inputs that digital signature? ATTY. LAZATIN: It is cranked out, Your Honor, and JUSTICE CARPIO: No, yourit is trusted that the list of the BEI Chairman is known only one (1) month before, so how can

the BEI Chairman input their digital signature five (5) months before? ATTY. LAZATIN: As I said, Your Honor, it is not a personal or customized signature. It is just like JUSTICE CARPIO: It is a machine ID, in other words? ATTY. LAZATIN: No, let me explain it this way, Your Honor. The best example I can give, Your Honor, is JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay, let us define first what a digital signature means. ATTY. LAZATIN: The Rules of Court, Your Honor, defines digital signature as the first one it is electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public Cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signers public key can accurately determine: (i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signers public key; and (ii) whether the initial electronic document has been altered after the transformation was made. JUSTICE CARPIO: Therefore, digital signature requires private key and public key ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: and this private key and public key are generated by an algorithm, correct?

ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, thats right, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: And there is another algorithm which, if you matchif you put together the private key and the message, will generate the signature. ATTY. LAZATIN: Thats right, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: And the third algorithm, that if you put together the public key and the signature it will accept or reject the message, thats correct? ATTY. LAZATIN: Thats correct, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: Now, was that used in the 2010 elections? ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: How was that private key generated? ATTY. LAZATIN: Again, Your Honor, as I said JUSTICE CARPIO: Did the BEI Chairman know what that private key is? ATTY. LAZATIN: Your Honor, allow me to explain, Your Honor. The names, Your Honor, or the private keys arewere assigned to the BEIs Your Honor. In the same way, Your Honor, in the office my code name, Your Honor, or assigned to me is 00 xxx

JUSTICE CARPIO: You mean to say the private key is embedded in the machine? ATTY. LAZATIN: No, Your Honor, it is embedded in the iButton and they are given a x x x JUSTICE CARPIO: Yes, in the machinethe iButton is in the machine. ATTY. LAZATIN: No, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: Where is it? ATTY. LAZATIN: It is a gadget, Your Honors, that is usedit is a separate gadget, your Honor xxx This is a sample of an iButton, your Honor, and in fact we said that we are prepared to demonstrate, Your Honor, and to show to this Court xxxx JUSTICE CARPIO: On election Day, where was the iButton placed? In the machine? ATTY. LAZATIN: To start the machine, Your Honor, you have to put it on top of that Button xxx JUSTICE CARPIO: In other words, whoever is in possession of that iButton can make a digitally-transmitted election return, correct? ATTY. LAZATIN: Thats correct, Your Honor. Your Honor, together with the other BEIs because apart from this iButton, Your Honor, for authentication the BEIs, three of them, Your Honor, have an 8-digit PIN, Your Honor.

JUSTICE CARPIO: How is that 8-digit PIN given to them? ATTY. LAZATIN: In a sealed envelope, Your Honor, these are x x x JUSTICE CARPIO: And then they also input that in the keyboard? ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: In the display? ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: So, that iButton contains the private key? ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor, thats my understanding. JUSTICE CARPIO: And who controls the public key? Who control[led] the public key in the last election? ATTY. LAZATIN: My understanding, Your honor, is COMELEC, your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: COMELEC had the public key? ATTY. LAZATIN: Thats my understanding, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: And there was no certifying agency because it cost too much and the law did not require that?

ATTY. LAZATIN: Thats correct, Your Honor. But the machine, Your Honor, as I mentioned, is capable of accepting any number of digital signatures whether self-generated or by a third-party certification authority, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay. So, whoever is in possession of that iButton and in possession of the four (4) PINS, the set of PINs, for the other BEI number, can send a transmission? ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: The moment you are in possession of the iButton and the four (4) sets of PINs ATTY. LAZATIN: Thats correct, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: If they can send an electronic transmission thats digitally signed and when received by the COMELEC and matched with the public key will result with an official election return, correct? ATTY. LAZATIN: Thats correct. In the same way, Your Honor, that even if someone keeps his key or private key, Your Honor, if he is under threat he will also divulge it, Your Honor. Its the same. JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay, so whoever wants to send it, he will have to get the private key from the BEI Chairman and the PIN numbers from the other members ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO:

before they can send the electronic transmission. ATTY. LAZATIN: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: Okay. That clarifies things. x x x[67] As the Comelec is confronted with time and budget constraints, and in view of the Comelecs mandate to ensure free, honest, and credible elections, the acceptance of the extension of the option period, the exercise of the option, and the execution of the Deed of Sale, are the more prudent choices available to the Comelec for a successful 2013 automated elections. The alleged defects in the subject goods have been determined and may be corrected as in fact fixes and enhancements had been undertaken by Smartmatic-TIM. Petitioners could not even give a plausible alternative to ensure the conduct of a successful 2013 automated elections, in the event that the Court nullifies the Deed of Sale. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are DISMISSED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on April 24, 2012 is LIFTED. SO ORDERED.