1.

TITLE
Ladlad vs Comelec

ELECTION LAW CASES DIGESTS

FACTS
ISSUE/S
The case has its roots in the COMELECs WON Respondent violated the Nonrefusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party- establishment clause of the Constitution;
list organization under Republic Act (RA) WON Respondent erred in denying
No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party- Petitioners application on moral and legal
List System Act.
grounds.

Petitioner is a national organization which

represents the lesbians, gays, bisexuals,
and trans-genders. It filed a petition for
accreditation as a party-list organization
to public respondent. However, due to
moral grounds, the latter denied the said
petition. To buttress their denial, COMELEC
cited certain biblical and quranic passages
in their decision. It also stated that since
their ways are immoral and contrary to
public policy, they are considered
nuissance. In fact, their acts are even
punishable under the Revised Penal Code
in its Article 201.
A motion for reconsideration being
denied, Petitioner filed this instant Petition
on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.
Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of
accreditation, insofar as it justified the
exclusion by using religious dogma,
violated the constitutional guarantees
against the establishment of religion.
Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed
Resolutions contravened its constitutional
rights to privacy, freedom of speech and
assembly, and equal protection of laws, as
well as constituted violations of the
Philippines
international
obligations
against discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated
that petitioner does not have a concrete
and genuine national political agenda to
benefit the nation and that the petition
was validly dismissed on moral grounds. It
also argued for the first time that the
LGBT sector is not among the sectors
enumerated by the Constitution and RA

RULING
Respondent mistakenly opines that our
ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for
the proposition that only those sectors
specifically enumerated in the law or
related to said sectors (labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities,
elderly,
handicapped,
women,
youth,
veterans,
overseas
workers, and professionals) may be
registered under the party-list system. As
we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Commission on
Elections,
the
enumeration
of
marginalized
and
under-represented
sectors is not exclusive. The crucial
element is not whether a sector is
specifically enumerated, but whether a
particular organization complies with the
requirements of the Constitution and RA
7941.
Our Constitution provides in Article III,
Section 5 that [n]o law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At
bottom, what our non-establishment
clause calls for is government neutrality
in
religious
matters.
Clearly,
governmental reliance on
religious
justification is inconsistent with this policy
of neutrality. We thus find that it was
grave violation of the non-establishment
clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible
and the Koran to justify the exclusion of
Ang Ladlad. Be it noted that government
action must have a secular purpose.
Respondent has failed to explain what
societal ills are sought to be prevented, or
why special protection is required for the
youth.
Neither
has
the
COMELEC
condescended to justify its position that
petitioners admission into the party-list
system would be so harmful as to
irreparably damage the moral fabric of
society.

7941, and that petitioner made untruthful

statements in its petition when it alleged
its national existence contrary to actual
verification reports by COMELECs field
personnel.

2.

Atong Paglaum,Inc. cases

52 party-list groups and organizations

filed separate petitions totaling 54 with
the Supreme Court (SC) in an effort to
reverse various resolutions by the
Commission
on
Elections (Comelec)
disqualifying them from the May 2013
party-list race. The Comelec, in its
assailed resolutions issued in October,
November and December of 2012, ruled,
among others, that these party-list groups
and organizations failed to represent a
marginalized
and
underrepresented
sector, their nominees do not come from
a marginalized and underrepresented
sector, and/or some of the organizations
or groups are not truly representative of
the sector they intend to represent in

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

We also find the COMELECs reference to

purported violations of our penal and civil
laws flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at
worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines
a nuisance as any act, omission,
establishment, condition of property, or
anything else which shocks, defies, or
disregards decency or morality, the
remedies for which are a prosecution
under the Revised Penal Code or any local
ordinance, a civil action, or abatement
without judicial proceedings. A violation of
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, on
the other hand, requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt to support a criminal
conviction. It hardly needs to be
emphasized that mere allegation of
violation of laws is not proof, and a mere
blanket invocation of public morals cannot
replace the institution of civil or criminal
proceedings and a judicial determination
of liability or culpability.
As such, we hold that moral disapproval,
without more, is not a sufficient
governmental interest to justify exclusion
of homosexuals from participation in the
party-list system. The denial of Ang
Ladlads registration on purely moral
grounds amounts more to a statement of
dislike and disapproval of homosexuals,
rather than a tool to further any
substantial public interest.
In a Decision promulgated on April 2,
2013, the high court, through Carpios
ponencia, ruled in favor of the 54 petitions
and remanded these petitions to the
Comelec. The party-list groups and
organizations covered by the 41 petitions
that obtained mandatory injunction orders
from the high court still stand a chance to
make it to the 2013 party-list race as the
high court ordered the poll body to
determine
whether
petitioners
are
qualified to register under the party-list
system and to participate in the 13 May
2013 party-list elections under the new
parameters set forth in the Decision. The
rest, meaning, the 13 other petitions,
were remanded to the poll body merely

Congress.
Petitioners argued that the poll body
committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying
some
of
the
petitioners
application
for
accreditation
and
cancelling the existing accreditation of the
rest. They also lamented the poll bodys
denial to accord them due process in
the evaluation proceedings.
The high court consolidated these cases;
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
was tasked as the Member-in-charge of
the case.
Status quo ante orders (SQAO) were
issued in all 54 petitions which restored
the status quo prior to the disqualification
of petitioners. However, only 39 of the 52
petitioners or only 41 petitions were able
to secure a mandatory injunction,
directing the Comelec to include their
names in the printing of official ballots.

for purposes of determining whether they

may be granted accreditation under the
new parameters but may not participate
in the May 2013 elections.
The Decision, however, clarified that the
poll body may not be faulted for acting on
the basis of previous rulings (Ang Bagong
Bayani, BANAT) of the high court
regarding the party-list system. These
earlier rulings enumerated guidelines on
who may participate in the party-list
system.
New parameters set forth in the Decision
on who may participate in the May 2013
party-list race and subsequent party-list
elections
The Decision identified three groups that
may participate in the party-list system:
(1) national parties or organizations, (2)
regional parties or organizations, and (3)
sectoral parties or organizations.
On the part of national parties or
organizations and regional parties or
organizations which intend to participate
in the party-list race, the new guidelines
state that these parties do not need to
organize along sectoral lines and do not
need to represent any marginalized or
underrepresented sector.'
As for political parties, they may
participate in the party-list race by
registering under the party-list system
and
no
longer
field
congressional
candidates. These parties, if they field
congressional candidates, however, are
not barred from participating in the partylist elections; what they need to do is
register their sectoral wing or party under
the party-list system. This sectoral wing
shall be considered an independent
sectoral party linked to a political party
through a coalition.
The

question

is:

where

does

representation of marginalized
underrepresented sectors come in?

and

The answer: on the sectoral parties or

organizations that intend to participate in
the party-list system.
The high court held that purely sectoral
parties or organizations may either
represent
marginalized
and
underrepresented constituencies or those
lacking
well-defined
political
constituencies. The high court went on to
enumerate
marginalized
and
underrepresented sectors, as follows:
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.
The rule on nominees and members
coming from the sector they intend to
represent also applies only to the sectoral
parties or organizations. The high court
ruled that it is enough that [a] majority of
the members of the sectoral parties or
organizations must belong to the
marginalized
and
underrepresented
sector they represent.' The same is true
for those who lack well-defined political
constituencies.
As for the nominees of these sectoral
parties and organizations, the new
guidelines provide that they must either
be members of the sector or have a track
record of advocacy for their sector.
Should some of the nominees of these
national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations be disqualified, the party or
organization itself will not be disqualified
provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified.
The party-list system, according to the

Decision
Quoting Christian Monsod, the main
proponent of the party-list system, the
high court stated that it is not
synonymous with that of the sectoral
representation. The high court stressed
that the framers of the 1987 Constitution
did not intend to leave out non-sectoral
parties in the party-list system and
exclusively limit it to sectoral groups.
The framers intended the sectoral parties
to constitute a part, but not the entirety,
of the party-list system In fact, the
framers voted down , 19-22, a proposal to
reserve the party-list system exclusively
to sectoral parties.
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 Decision read.
To amplify its position, the high court
pointed out Sec. 5(1), Art. VI of the 1987
Constitution, which states:
Section
5.
(1)
The
House
of
Representatives shall be composed of not
more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law,
who shall be elected from legislative
districts
apportioned
among
the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area in accordance with the
number of their respective inhabitants,
and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through
a party-list system of registered national,
regional,
and
sectoral
parties
or
organizations.
The Decision also pointed out pertinent

provisions of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941,

also known as the Party-list System Act,
specifically from Sec. 3 (Definition of
Terms):
(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
(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

3.

Bagong Bayani vs Comelec

Petitioners challenged the Comelecs

Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which
approved the participation of 154
organizations and parties, including those
herein impleaded, in the 2001 party-list
elections.
Petitioners
sought
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 nonmarginalized
or
overrepresented.
Unsatisfied with the pace by which
Comelec
acted
on
their
petition,
petitioners elevated the issue to the
Supreme Court.

1.
Whether or not petitioners recourse
to the Court was proper.
2.
Whether or not political parties may
participate in the party list elections.
3.
Whether or not the Comelec
committed grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating Omnibus Resolution No.
3785.

Again, the high court noted that defining

these parties or groups, one from the
others, could only mean that they are not
one and the same.
The Court may take cognizance of an
issue notwithstanding the availability of
other remedies "where the issue raised is
one purely of law, where public interest is
involved, and in case of urgency." The
facts attendant to the case rendered it
justiciable.
2. Political parties even the major ones
-- may participate in the party-list
elections subject to the requirements laid
down in the Constitution and RA 7941,
which is the statutory law pertinent to the
Party List System.
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 . It is however, incumbent
upon
the
Comelec
to
determine
proportional
representation
of
the
marginalized and underrepresented, the
criteria for participation, in relation to the
cause of the party list applicants so as to
avoid desecration of the noble purpose of
the party-list system.
3.
The Court acknowledged that to
determine the propriety of the inclusion of
respondents in the Omnibus Resolution
No. 3785, a study of the factual
allegations was necessary which was
beyond the pale of the Court. The Court
not being a trier of facts.

4.

Aklat vs Comelec

On November 20, 2003, Aklat filed a

Petition for declaration of re-qualification
as a party-list organization for purposes of
the May 2004 elections. It alleged in its
petition that it participated in the 2001
elections but was disqualified by the
Comelec as it was found not to have
complied with the guidelines set by the
Court in the case of Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Comelec (Bagong
Bayani case)6 for party-list organizations
to qualify and participate as such in the
party-list elections. Accordingly, Aklat "reorganized itself in order that it will comply
with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by
the Supreme Court"7 in the said case.
In its assailed Resolution dated January 8,
2004, the Comelec dismissed the petition

However, seeing that the Comelec failed

to appreciate fully the clear policy of the
law and the Constitution, the Court
decided to set some guidelines culled
from the law and the Constitution, to
assist the Comelec in its work. The Court
ordered that the petition be remanded in
the Comelec to determine compliance by
the party lists.
Aklats contention that Resolution No.
6320 is null and void as it amends and
amplifies R.A. 7941 deserves scant
consideration. R.A. 7941 provides:
Sec. 5. Registration.Any organized group
of persons may register as a party,
organization or coalition for purposes of
the party-list system by filing with the
COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days
before the election a petition verified by
its president or secretary stating its desire
to participate in the party-list system as a
national, regional or sectoral party or
organization or a coalition of such parties
or organizations, attaching thereto its
constitution, by-laws, platform or program
of government, list of officers, coalition
agreement and other relevant information

stating that Aklat cannot be considered as

an
organization
representing
the
marginalized
and
underrepresented
groups as identified under Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. 7941).
According to the Comelec, Aklats
statement that it has re-organized itself
does not cure this defect as "there is
nothing in the petition which will help us
identify what particular marginalized and
underrepresented group AKLAT is now
representing."8 Further, the Comelec held
that "AKLAT lumped all the sectoral
groups imaginable under the classification
of regular members just to convince us
that it is now cured of its defect."9
On January 15, 2004, Aklat filed a Motion
for Reconsideration dated January 14,
2004, substantially averring that it has
reorganized itself and taken the necessary
steps to make it an organization of, by
and
for
the
marginalized
and
underrepresented groups of society,
particularly
the
indigenous
cultural
communities and the youth. To this end, it
has allegedly effected a fundamental
change in its purposes as an organization,
nature of its membership and focus of its
programs.10
The Comelec denied the motion in its
questioned Resolution dated February 13,
2004, on three grounds, namely: the
petition was filed beyond the deadline set
by the Comelec in Resolution No. 6320 for
registration of party-list organizations; the
petition was not one for re-qualification as
Aklat was never a registered party-list
organization having failed to meet the
eight-point guidelines set by the Court in
the Bagong Bayani case; and that its
decision not to extend the deadline for
registration of party-list organizations is
valid, the Comelec being in the best
position to make such a determination.

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
[Italics supplied.]
By its wording, R.A. 7941 itself supports
the Comelecs position that the period
stated therein refers to the prohibitive
period beyond which petitions for
registration should no longer be filed nor
entertained. Put elsewise, it is simply the
minimum countback period which is not
subject to reduction since it is prescribed
by law, but it is susceptible of protraction
on account of administrative necessities
and other exigencies perceived by the poll
body.
Verily, the Comelec has the power to
promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations to enforce and administer
election laws. This power includes the
determination, within the parameters
fixed by law, of appropriate periods for the
accomplishment of certain pre-election
acts like filing petitions for registration
under the party-list system. This is exactly
what the Comelec did when it issued its
Resolution No. 6320 declaring September
30, 2003, as the deadline for filing
petitions for registration under the partylist system. Considering these, as well as
the multifarious pre-election activities that
the Comelec is mandated to undertake,
the issuance of its Resolution No. 6320
cannot be considered tainted with grave
abuse of discretion.
Neither is there grave abuse of discretion
in the Comelecs denial of Aklats petition
on the ground that it failed to substantiate
its
claim
that
it
represents
the
marginalized
and
underrepresented
sectors of society. It should be noted that
it was Aklat which asserted in its petition
before the poll body that it has re-

organized and is now applying for requalification after its de-registration for
failure to comply with the guidelines set
forth in the Bagong Bayani case. Thus, the
Comelec cannot be faulted for relying on
its earlier finding, absent any evidence in
Aklats petition to the contrary, that Aklat
is not an organization representing the
marginalized
and
underrepresented
sectors, but is actually a business interest
or economic lobby group which seeks the
promotion and protection of the book
publishing industry.

5.

BANAT vs Comelec

In July and August 2007, the COMELEC,

sitting as
the National Board
of
Canvassers, made a partial proclamation
of the winners in the party-list elections
which was held in May 2007.
In
proclaiming
the
winners
and
apportioning their seats, the COMELEC
considered the following rules:
1. In the lower house, 80% shall comprise
the seats for legislative districts, while the
remaining 20% shall come from party-list
representatives (Sec. 5, Article VI, 1987
Constitution);
2. Pursuant to Sec. 11b of R.A. 7941 or the
Party-List System Act, a party-list which
garners at least 2% of the total votes cast
in the party-list elections shall be entitled
to one seat;
3. If a party-list garners at least 4%, then
it is entitled to 2 seats; if it garners at
least 6%, then it is entitled to 3 seats
this is pursuant to the 2-4-6 rule or the
Panganiban Formula from the case of
Veterans Federation Party vs COMELEC.
4. In no way shall a party be given more
than three seats even if if garners more
than 6% of the votes cast for the party-list
election (3 seat cap rule, same case).

(1)
Is the 20% allocation for party-list
representatives provided in Sec 5 (2), Art
VI of the Constitution mandatory or is it
merely a ceiling?
(2)
Is the 2% threshold and qualifier
votes prescribed by the same Sec 11 (b)
of RA 7941 constitutional?
(3)
Does the Constitution prohibit major
political parties from participating in the
party-list elections? If not, can major
political parties participate in the party-list
elections?

(1) Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941

mandates the filling up of the entire 20%
allocation of party-list representatives
found
in
the
Constitution.
The
Constitution, in paragraph 1, Sec 5 of Art
VI, left the determination of the number of
the
members
of
the
House
of
Representatives to Congress. The 20%
allocation of party-list representatives is
merely a ceiling; party-list representatives
cannot be more then 20% of the members
of the House of Representatives.
(2)
No. We rule that, in computing the
allocation
of
additional
seats,
the
continued operation of the two percent
threshold for the distribution of the
additional seats as found in the second
clause of Sec 11(b) of RA 7941 is
unconstitutional. This Court finds that the
two
percent
threshold
makes
it
mathematically impossible to achieve the
maximum number of available party-list
seats when the available party-list seat
exceeds 50. The continued operation of
the two percent threshold in the
distribution of the additional seats
frustrates
the
attainment
of
the
permissive ceiling that 20% of the
members of the House of Representatives
shall
consist
of
party-list
representatives.We therefore strike down
the two percent threshold only in relation
to the distribution of the additional seats

The Barangay Association for National

Advancement and Transparency (BANAT),
a party-list candidate, questioned the
proclamation as well as the formula being
used. BANAT averred that the 2%
threshold is invalid; Sec. 11 of RA 7941 is
void because its provision that a party-list,
to qualify for a congressional seat, must
garner at least 2% of the votes cast in the
party-list election, is not supported by the
Constitution. Further, the 2% rule creates
a mathematical impossibility to meet the
20% party-list seat prescribed by the
Constitution.
BANAT also questions if the 20% rule is a
mere ceiling or is it mandatory. If it is
mandatory, then with the 2% qualifying
vote, there would be instances when it
would be impossible to fill the prescribed
20% share of party-lists in the lower
house. BANAT also proposes a new
computation (which shall be discussed in
the HELD portion of this digest).
On the other hand, BAYAN MUNA, another
party-list candidate, questions the validity
of the 3 seat rule (Section 11a of RA
7941). It also raised the issue of whether
or not major political parties are allowed
to participate in the party-list elections or
is the said elections limited to sectoral
parties.
6.

BAYAN Muna vs Comelec

as found in the second clause of Sec 11

(b) of RA 7941. The two percent threshold
presents an unwarranted obstacle to the
full implementation of Sec 5 (2), Art VI of
the Constitution and prevents the
attainment of the-broadest possible
representation of party, sectoral or group
interests
in
the
House
of
Representatives.
(3)
No. Neither the Constitution nor RA
7941 prohibits major political parties from
participating in the party-list system. On
the contrary, the framers of the
Constitution clearly intended the major
political parties to participate in party-list
elections through their sectoral wings.
However, by vote of 8-7, the Court
decided to continue the ruling in Veterans
disallowing major political parties from
participating in the party-list elections,
directly or indirectly.