POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law,

Legislative Department
resolution or ordinance.

SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be (b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative
vested in the Congress of the Philippines by the people through a proposition sent to
which shall consist of a Senate and a Congress or the local legislative body for
House of Representatives, except to the action.
extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum. (c) "Referendum" is the power of the
electorate to approve or reject a legislation
through an election called for the purpose. It
may be of two classes, namely:
Republic Act No. 6735 c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A SYSTEM OF petition to approve or reject an act or law, or
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AND part thereof, passed by Congress; and
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR c.2. Referendum on local law which refers to a
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of petition to approve or reject a law, resolution
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies
assembled:: and local legislative bodies.
I. — General Provisions
(d) "Proposition" is the measure proposed by

marcial

Section 1. Title. — This Act shall be known the voters.

as "The Initiative and Referendum Act."
(e) "Plebiscite" is the electoral process by
Section 2. Statement of Policy. — The which an initiative on the Constitution is
power of the people under a system of approved or rejected by the people.

notes
initiative and referendum to directly propose,
enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, (f ) "Petition" is the written instrument
the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or containing the proposition and the required
resolutions passed by any legislative body number of signatories. It shall be in a form to
upon compliance with the requirements of this be determined by and submitted to the
Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and Commission on Elections, hereinafter referred
guaranteed. to as the Commission.

Section 3. Definition of Terms. — For (g) "Local government units" refers to

purposes of this Act, the following terms shall provinces, cities, municipalities and
mean: barangays.
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to
propose amendments to the Constitution or to (h) "Local legislative bodies" refers to the
propose and enact legislations through an Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang
election called for the purpose. Pa n l u n g s o d , S a n g g u n i a n g B a ya n , a n d
There are three (3) systems of initiative, Sangguniang Nayon.
namely:
a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers (i) "Local executives" refers to the Provincial
to a petition proposing amendments to the Governors, City or Municipal Mayors and
Constitution; Punong Barangay, as the case may be.
a.2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a
petition proposing to enact a national Section 4. Who may exercise. — The power
legislation; and of initiative and referendum may be exercised
a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers by all registered voters of the country,
to a petition proposing to enact a regional, autonomous regions, provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays.

Article 6 Section 1 Page 1" of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

per centum (3%) of the registered voters

Section 5. Requirements. — (a) To exercise therein.
the power of initiative or referendum, at least
ten per centum (10%) of the total number of (e) A referendum of initiative on an ordinance
the registered voters, of which every passed in a municipality shall be deemed
legislative district is represented by at least validly initiated if the petition therefor is
three per centum (3%) of the registered signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of
voters thereof, shall sign a petition for the the registered voters in the municipality, of
purpose and register the same with the which every barangay is represented by at
Commission. least three per centum (3%) of the registered
voters therein.
(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987
Constitution must have at least twelve per (f) A referendum or initiative on a barangay
centum (12%) of the total number of resolution or ordinance is deemed validly
registered voters as signatories, of which initiated if signed by at least ten per centum
every legislative district must be represented (10%) of the registered voters in said
by at least three per centum (3%) of the barangay.
registered voters therein. Initiative on the
Constitution may be exercised only after five Section 6. Special Registration. — The
(5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Commission on Election shall set a special
Constitution and only once every five (5) registration day at least three (3) weeks

marcial

years thereafter. before a scheduled initiative or referendum.

(c) The petition shall state the following: Section 7. Verification of Signatures. —
c.1. contents or text of the proposed law The Election Registrar shall verify the
sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, signatures on the basis of the registry list of

notes
amended or repealed, as the case may be; voters, voters' affidavits and voters
c.2. the proposition; identification cards used in the immediately
c.3. the reason or reasons therefor; preceding election.
c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions
provided herein; II. — National Initiative and Referendum
c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered
voters; and SECTION 8. Conduct and Date of
c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than Initiative or Referendum. — The
one hundred (100) words which shall be Commission shall call and supervise the
legibly written or printed at the top of every conduct of initiative or referendum.
page of the petition. Within a period of thirty (30) days from
receipt of the petition, the Commission shall,
(d) A referendum or initiative affecting a law, upon determining the sufficiency of the
resolution or ordinance passed by the petition, publish the same in Filipino and
legislative assembly of an autonomous region, English at least twice in newspapers of general
province or city is deemed validly initiated if and local circulation and set the date of the
the petition thereof is signed by at least ten initiative or referendum which shall not be
per centum (10%) of the registered voters in earlier than forty-five (45) days but not later
the province or city, of which every legislative than ninety (90) days from the determination
district must be represented by at least three by the Commission of the sufficiency of the
per centum (3%) of the registered voters petition.
therein; Provided, however, That if the
province or city is composed only of one (1) Section 9. Effectivity of Initiative or
legislative district, then at least each Referendum Proposition. — (a) The
municipality in a province or each barangay in Proposition of the enactment, approval,
a city should be represented by at least three amendment or rejection of a national law shall

Article 6 Section 1 Page 2

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

be submitted to and approved by a majority of law, may file a petition for indirect initiative
the votes cast by all the registered voters of with the House of Representatives, and other
the Philippines. legislative bodies. The petition shall contain a
summary of the chief purposes and contents
If, as certified to by the Commission, the of the bill that the organization proposes to be
proposition is approved by a majority of the enacted into law by the legislature.
votes cast, the national law proposed for
enactment, approval, or amendment shall The procedure to be followed on the initiative
become effective fifteen (15) days following bill shall be the same as the enactment of any
completion of its publication in the Official legislative measure before the House of
Gazette or in a newspaper of general Representatives except that the said initiative
circulation in the Philippines. If, as certified by bill shall have precedence over the pending
the Commission, the proposition to reject a legislative measures on the committee.
national law is approved by a majority of the
votes cast, the said national law shall be Section 12. Appeal. — The decision of the
deemed repealed and the repeal shall become Commission on the findings of the sufficiency
effective fifteen (15) days following the or insufficiency of the petition for initiative or
completion of publication of the proposition referendum may be appealed to the Supreme
and the certification by the Commission in the Court within thirty (30) days from notice
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general thereof.
circulation in the Philippines.

marcial

However, if the majority vote is not obtained, III. — Local Initiative and Referendum
the national law sought to be rejected or
amended shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 13. Procedure in Local
Initiative. — (a) Not less than two thousand
(b) The proposition in an initiative on the (2,000) registered voters in case of

notes
Constitution approved by a majority of the autonomous regions, one thousand (1,000) in
votes cast in the plebiscite shall become case of provinces and cities, one hundred
effective as to the day of the plebiscite. (100) in case of municipalities, and fifty (50)
in case of barangays, may file a petition with
(c) A national or local initiative proposition the Regional Assembly or local legislative
approved by majority of the votes cast in an body, respectively, proposing the adoption,
election called for the purpose shall become enactment, repeal, or amendment, of any law,
effective fifteen (15) days after certification ordinance or resolution.
and proclamation by the Commission.
(b) If no favorable action thereon is made by
Section 10. Prohibited Measures. — The local legislative body within (30) days from its
following cannot be the subject of an initiative presentation, the proponents through their
or referendum petition: duly authorized and registered representative
may invoke their power of initiative, giving
(a) No petition embracing more than one (1) notice thereof to the local legislative body
subject shall be submitted to the electorate; concerned.
and
(c) The proposition shall be numbered serially
(b) Statutes involving emergency measures, starting from one (1). The Secretary of Local
the enactment of which are specifically vested Government or his designated representative
in Congress by the Constitution, cannot be shall extend assistance in the formulation of
subject to referendum until ninety (90) days the proposition.
after its effectivity.
(d) Two or more propositions may be
Section 11. Indirect Initiative. — Any duly submitted in an initiative.
accredited people's organization, as defined by

Article 6 Section 1 Page 3" of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

(e) Proponents shall have one hundred twenty concerned. If it fails to obtain said number of
(120) days in case of autonomous regions, votes, the proposition is considered defeated.
ninety (90) days in case of provinces and
cities, sixty (60) days in case of municipalities, Section 15. Limitations on Local
and thirty (30) days in case of barangays, Initiatives. — (a) The power of local initiative
from notice mentioned in subsection (b) shall not be exercised more than once a year.
hereof to collect the required number of
signatures. (b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects or
matters which are within the legal powers of
(f) The petition shall be signed before the the local legislative bodies to enact.
E l e c t i o n Re g i s t r a r, o r h i s d e s i g n a t e d
representative, in the presence of a (c) If at any time before the initiative is held,
representative of the proponent, and a the local legislative body shall adopt in toto
representative of the regional assemblies and the proposition presented, the initiative shall
local legislative bodies concerned in a public be cancelled. However, those against such
place in the autonomous region or local action may, if they so desire, apply for
government unit, as the case may be. initiative in the manner herein provided.
Signature stations may be established in as
many places as may be warranted. Section 16. Limitations Upon Local
Legislative Bodies. — Any proposition or
(g) Upon the lapse of the period herein ordinance or resolution approved through the

marcial

provided, the Commission on Elections, system of initiative and referendum as herein

through its office in the local government unit provided shall not be repealed, modified or
concerned shall certify as to whether or not amended, by the local legislative body
the required number of signatures has been concerned within six (6) months from the date
obtained. Failure to obtain the required therefrom, and may be amended, modified or

notes
number is a defeat of the proposition. repealed by the local legislative body within
three (3) years thereafter by a vote of three-
(h) If the required number of the signatures is fourths (3/4) of all its members: Provided,
obtained, the Commission shall then set a however, that in case of barangays, the period
date for the initiative at which the proposition shall be one (1) year after the expiration of
shall be submitted to the registered voters in the first six (6) months.
the local government unit concerned for their
approval within ninety (90) days from the date Section 17. Local Referendum. —
of certification by the Commission, as Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4
provided in subsection (g) hereof, in case of hereof, any local legislative body may submit
autonomous regions, sixty (60) days in case to the registered voters of autonomous region,
of the provinces and cities, forty-five (45) provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays
days in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) for the approval or rejection, any ordinance or
days in case of barangays. The initiative shall resolution duly enacted or approved.
then be held on the date set, after which the Said referendum shall be held under the
results thereof shall be certified and control and direction of the Commission within
proclaimed by the Commission on Elections. sixty (60) days in case of provinces and cities,
forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities
Section 14. Effectivity of Local and thirty (30) days in case of barangays.
Propositions. — If the proposition is The Commission shall certify and proclaim the
approved by a majority of the votes cast, it results of the said referendum.
shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
c e r t i f i c a t i o n by t h e C o m m i s s i o n a s i f Section 18. Authority of Courts. — Nothing
affirmative action thereon had been made by in this Act shall prevent or preclude the proper
the local legislative body and local executive courts from declaring null and void any
proposition approved pursuant to this Act for

Article 6 Section 1 Page 4

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

violation of the Constitution or want of

capacity of the local legislative body to enact
the said measure.

IV. — Final Provisions

SECTION 19. Applicability of the Omnibus

Election Code. — The Omnibus Election Code
and other election laws, not inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act, shall apply to all
initiatives and referenda.

Section 20. Rules and Regulations. — The

Commission is hereby empowered to
promulgate such rules and regulations as may
be necessary to carry out the purposes of this
Act.

Section 21. Appropriations. — The amount

necessary to defray the cost of the initial
implementation of this Act shall be charged

marcial

against the Contingent Fund in the General

Appropriations Act of the current year.
Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary
for the full implementation of this Act shall be
included in the annual General Appropriations

notes
Act.

Section 22. Separability Clause. — If any

part or provision of this Act is held invalid or
unconstitutional, the other parts or provisions
thereof shall remain valid and effective.

Section 23. Effectivity. — This Act shall take

effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation.
Approved: August 4, 1989

Article 6 Section 1 Page 5" of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 2. The Senate shall be validly impose qualifications on candidates for

composed of twenty-four Senators who senator in addition to what the Constitution
shall be elected at large by the qualified prescribes. If Congress cannot require a
voters of the Philippines, as may be candidate for senator to meet such additional
provided by law. qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure, is also
without such power. The right of a citizen in
the democratic process of election should not
be defeated by unwarranted impositions of
SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator
requirement not otherwise specified in the
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Constitution.
Philippines, and, on the day of the
election, is at least thirty-five years of
Same; Same; Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, as
age, able to read and write, a registered
sought to be implemented by the assailed
voter, and a resident of the Philippines
COMELEC resolution, effectively enlarges the
for not less than two years immediately
qualification requirements enumerated in the
preceding the day of the election.
Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution; Whether or
not the drug-free bar set up under the
challenged provision is to be hurdled before or
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., petitioner, after election is really of no moment, as
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, getting elected would be of little value if one
respondent. cannot assume office for non-compliance with

marcial

Same; Same; Definition of the limits on the drug-testing requirement—Sec. 36(g) of

legislative power in the abstract.—Congress’ RA 9165, as sought to be implemented by the
inherent legislative powers, broad as they may assailed COMELEC resolution, effectively
be, are subject to certain limitations. As early enlarges the qualification requirements
as 1927, in Government v. Springer, the Court enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI of the

notes
has defined, in the abstract, the limits on Constitution. As couched, said Sec. 36(g)
legislative power in the following wise: unmistakably requires a candidate for senator
Someone has said that the powers of the to be certified illegal-drug clean, obviously as
legislative department of the Government, like a pre-condition to the validity of a certificate
the boundaries of the ocean, are unlimited. In of candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a
constitutional governments, however, as well condition sine qua non to be voted upon and,
as governments acting under delegated if proper, be proclaimed as senator-elect. The
a u t h o r i ty, t h e p o w e r s o f e a c h o f t h e COMELEC resolution completes the chain with
departments x x x are limited and confined the proviso that “[n]o person elected to any
within the four walls of the constitution or the public office shall enter upon the duties of his
charter, and each department can only office until he has undergone mandatory drug
exercise such powers as are necessarily test.” Viewed, therefore, in its proper context,
implied from the given powers. The Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and the implementing
Constitution is the shore of legislative COMELEC Resolution add another qualification
authority against which the waves of layer to what the 1987 Constitution, at the
legislative enactment may dash, but over minimum, requires for membership in the
which it cannot leap. Senate. Whether or not the drug-free bar set
up under the challenged provision is to be
Same; Same; The right of a citizen in hurdled before or after election is really of no
the democratic process of election should not moment, as getting elected would be of little
be defeated by unwarranted impositions of value if one cannot assume office for non-
requirement not otherwise specified in the compliance with the drug-testing requirement.
Constitution.—In the same vein, the COMELEC
cannot, in the guise of enforcing and
administering election laws or promulgating
rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36(g),

Article 6 Section 2 - 3 Page "6 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 4. The term of office of the SECTION 5. (1) The House of

Senators shall be six years and shall Representatives shall be composed of not
commence, unless otherwise provided by more than two hundred and fifty
law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June members, unless otherwise fixed by law,
next following their election. who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the
No Senator shall serve for more than two provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
consecutive terms. Voluntary Manila area in accordance with the
renunciation of the office for any length number of their respective inhabitants,
of time shall not be considered as an and on the basis of a uniform and
interruption in the continuity of his progressive ratio, and those who, as
service for the full term for which he was provided by law, shall be elected through
elected. a party-list system of registered national,
regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
A Senator resigns on his 2nd term. Can he run
again? (2) The party-list representatives shall
No. He cannot because it is not considered an constitute twenty per centum of the total
interruption. The prohibition applies. number of representatives including
those under the party list. For three
Is voluntary renunciation the only mode? consecutive terms after the ratification of

marcial

No. It does not exclude other modes. A this Constitution, one-half of the seats
senator maybe removed by expulsion, allocated to party-list representatives
disqualification, etc. shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor,
What will interrupt the service of a senator? peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural

notes
If the interruption is beyond the will of the communities, women, youth, and such
Senator. other sectors as may be provided by law,
except the religious sector.
In the 1992 elections, Sen. X and Sen Y were
elected. In 1998, both ran again for re- (3) Each legislative district shall
election, X was the 12th Senator while Y was comprise, as far as practicable,
the 13th. Y challenged the election of X. In contiguous, compact and adjacent
2003 (5th yr), SET ruled that Y is the 12th territory. Each city with a population of at
Senator. Y served the remaining period of 1 least two hundred fifty thousand, or each
year. Can Y run again in the 2004 elections? province, shall have at least one
How bout X? representative.
Y can run again because he did not serve for
two full consecutive terms. X may run again (4) Within three years following the
because he was not able to finish his term due return of every census, the Congress
to the interruption of continuity. shall make a reapportionment of
legislative districts based on the
standards provided in this section.
SECTION 6. No person shall be a Member
of the House of Representatives unless
he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines and, on the day of the
election, is at least twenty-five years of
age, able to read and write, and, except
the party-list representatives, a
registered voter in the district in which
he shall be elected, and a resident

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 7" of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

thereof for a period of not less than one of Mandaluyong” necessarily includes and
year immediately preceding the day of contemplates the subject treated under
the election. Section 49 regarding the creation of a
separate congressional district for
Mandaluyong.
ROBERT V. TOBIAS, RAMON M. GUZMAN,
Same; Same; Same; Same; Congressional
TERRY T. LIM, GREGORIO D. GABRIEL,
Districts; The present composition of Congress
and ROBERTO R. TOBIAS, JR., petitioners,
may be increased, if Congress itself so
vs. HON. CITY MAYOR BENJAMIN S.
mandates through a legislative enactment.—
ABALOS, CITY TREASURER WILLIAM
As to the contention that the assailed law
MARCELINO, and THE SANGGUNIANG
violates the present limit on the number of
PANLUNGSOD, all of the City of
representatives as set forth in the
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, respondents.
Constitution, a reading of the applicable
Municipal Corporations; Highly Urbanized
provision, Article VI, Section 5 (1), as
Cities; Congressional Districts; The statutory
aforequoted, shows that the present limit of
conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly
250 members is not absolute. The Constitution
urbanized city indubitably complies with the
clearly provides that the House of
“one city-one representative” proviso in the
Representatives shall be composed of not
Constitution.—Anent the first issue, we agree
more than 250 members, “unless otherwise
with the observation of the Solicitor General
provided by law.” The inescapable import of

marcial

that the statutory conversion of Mandaluyong

the latter clause is that the present
into a highly urbanized city with a population
composition of Congress may be increased, if
of not less than two hundred fifty thousand
Congress itself so mandates through a
indubitably ordains compliance with the “one
legislative enactment. Therefore, the increase
city-one representative” proviso in the
in congressional representation mandated by
Constitution: “x x x Each city with a

notes
R.A. No. 7675 is not unconstitutional.
population of at least two hundred fifty
thousand, or each province, shall have at least
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Congress
one representative” (Article VI, Section 5(3),
cannot possibly preempt itself on a right which
Constitution). Hence, it is in compliance with
pertains to itself.—As to the contention that
the aforestated constitutional mandate that
Section 49 of R.A. No. 7675 in effect preempts
the creation of a separate congressional
the right of Congress to reapportion legislative
district for the City of Mandaluyong is decreed
districts, the said argument borders on the
under Article VIII, Section 49 of R.A. No.
absurd since petitioners overlook the glaring
7675.
fact that it was Congress itself which drafted,
deliberated upon and enacted the assailed
Same; Same; Statutory Construction;
law, including Section 49 thereof. Congress
Statutes; Titles of Bills; The creation of a
cannot possibly preempt itself on a right which
separate congressional district for
pertains to itself.
Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and
distinct from the subject of its conversion into
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and
a highly urbanized city but is a natural and
Phrases; “Gerry-mandering,” Defined.—
logical consequence of such conversion.—
Similarly, petitioners’ additional argument that
Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, the creation
the subject law has resulted in
of a separate congressional district for
“gerrymandering,” which is the practice of
Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and
creating legislative districts to favor a
distinct from the subject of its conversion into
particular candidate or party, is not worthy of
a highly urbanized city but is a natural and
credence. As correctly observed by the
logical consequence of its conversion into a
Solicitor General, it should be noted that Rep.
highly urbanized city. Verily, the title of R.A.
Ronaldo Zamora, the author of the assailed
No. 7675, “An Act Converting the Municipality
law, is the incumbent representative of the
of Mandaluyong Into a Highly Urbanized City

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 8

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

former San Juan/ Mandaluyong district, having Notes:

consistently won in both localities. By dividing ‣ May a municipality be configured as a
San Juan/Mandaluyong, Rep. Zamora’s legislative district? Yes, in par. 1 sec 5,
constituency has in fact been diminished, legislative districts are those among
which development could hardly be considered provinces, cities and the metropolitan
as favorable to him. area. To be able to convert a municipality
into a city it must be within a metropolitan
Notes: area.
‣ Par 3 of Section 5, requiring contiguous
compact and adjacent territory seeks to CIRILO ROY G. MONTEJO, petitioner, vs.
avoid gerrymandering. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
respondent. SERGIO A.F. APOSTOL,
G.R. No. 118577. March 7, 1995.* intervenor.
JUANITO MARIANO, JR., et al., Same; Same; Same; Constitutional
petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON Commission denied to the COMELEC the major
ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPALITY OF power of legislative apportionment as it itself
MAKATI, HON. JEJOMAR BINAY, THE exercised the power.—Clearly then, the
MUNICIPAL TREASURER, AND Constitutional Commission denied to the
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF MAKATI, COMELEC the major power of legislative
respondents. apportionment as it itself exercised the power.
Same; Same; Reapportionment of legislative Section 2 of the Ordinance only empowered

marcial

districts may be made through a special law, the COMELEC “to make minor adjustments of
such as in the charter of a new city.—These the reapportionment herein made.”
issues have been laid to rest in the recent
case of Tobias v. Abalos. In said case, we ruled Same; Same; Same; Power granted to
that reapportionment of legislative districts respondent COMELEC is to adjust the number

notes
may be made through a special law, such as in of members (not municipalities) “apportioned
the charter of a new city. The Constitution to the province out of which such new
clearly provides that Congress shall be province was created.”—Consistent with the
composed of not more than two hundred fifty limits of its power to make minor adjustments,
(250) members, unless otherwise fixed by Section 3 of the Ordinance did not also give
law. As thus worded, the Constitution did not the respondent COMELEC any authority to
preclude Congress from increasing its transfer municipalities from one legislative
membership by passing a law, other than a district to another district. The power granted
general reapportionment law. This is exactly by Section 3 to the respondent COMELEC is to
what was done by Congress in enacting R.A. adjust the number of members (not
No. 7854 and providing for an increase in municipalities) “apportioned to the province
Makati’s legislative district. Moreover, to hold out of which such new province was created
that reapportionment can only be made
through a general apportionment law, with a SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO
review of all the legislative districts allotted to III and MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO,
each local government unit nationwide, would petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON
create an inequitable situation where a new ELECTIONS represented by its Chairman
city or province created by Congress will be JOSE A.R. MELO and its Commissioners,
denied legislative representation for an RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T.
indeterminate period of time. That intolerable FERRER, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO
situation will deprive the people of a new city VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH AND
or province a particle of their sovereignty. GREGORIO LARRAZABAL, respondents.
Sovereignty cannot admit of any kind of Same; Election Law; Legislative
subtraction. It is indivisible. It must be forever Districts; There is no specific provision in the
whole or it is not sovereignty. Constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum
population that must compose a legislative

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 9

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

district.—There is no specific provision in the VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY,

Constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN NG MGA
population that must compose a legislative MAGSASAKA, MANGGAGAWANG BUKID
district. As already mentioned, the petitioners AT MANGINGISDA, ADHIKAIN AT
rely on the second sentence of Section 5(3), KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG TAO PARA
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, coupled SA LUPA, PABAHAY AT KAUNLARAN, and
with what they perceive to be the intent of the LUZON FARMERS PARTY, petitioners, vs.
framers of the Constitution to adopt a COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PAG-ASA,
minimum population of 250,000 for each SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP AKSYON,
legislative district. The second sentence of PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PAG-ASA,
Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution, MAHARLIKA, OCWUNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-
succinctly provides: “Each city with a KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAYBAYAN,
population of at least two hundred fifty AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW, WOMEN-POWER,
thousand, or each province, shall have at least INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, 4L,
one representative.” The provision draws a AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS,
plain and clear distinction between the COPRA, GREEN, ANAKBAYAN, ARBA,
entitlement of a city to a district on one hand, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN,
and the entitlement of a province to a district KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE
on the other. KA PILIPINAS—All Being Party-List
Same; Same; Same; While Section 5(3), Parties/Organizations—and Hon. MANUEL
Article VI of the Constitution requires a city to B. VILLAR, JR. in His Capacity as Speaker

marcial

have a minimum population of 250,000 to be of the House of Representatives,

entitled to a representative, it does not have respondents.
to increase its population by another 250,000 Constitutional Law; Congress; Party-List
to be entitled to an additional district.—The System; The Constitution makes the number
Mariano case limited the application of the of district representatives the determinant in

notes
250,000 minimum population requirement for arriving at the number of seats allocated for
cities only to its initial legislative district. In party-list lawmakers, a formulation which
other words, while Section 5(3), Article VI of means that any increase in the number of
the Constitution requires a city to have a district representatives, as may be provided
minimum population of 250,000 to be entitled by l aw, w i l l n ec es s ari l y res u l t i n a
to a representative, it does not have to corresponding increase in the number of
increase its population by another 250,000 to party-list seats.—Clearly, the Constitution
be entitled to an additional district. There is no makes the number of district representatives
reason why the Mariano case, which involves the determinant in arriving at the number of
the creation of an additional district within a seats allocated for party-list lawmakers, who
city, should not be applied to additional shall comprise “twenty per centum of the total
districts in provinces. Indeed, if an additional number of representatives including those
legislative district created within a city is not under the party-list.” We thus translate this
required to represent a population of at least legal provision into a mathematical formula,
250,000 in order to be valid, neither should as follows:
such be needed for an additional district in a No. of district x .20 No of party
province, considering moreover that a representatives -list
province is entitled to an initial seat by the representa
mere fact of its creation and regardless of its tives
population. 0.80
N o t e s : To b e e n t i t l e d t o t h e o n e This formulation means that any increase in
representative a city must have atlas 250,000 the number of district representatives, as may
inhabitants BUT for an additional be provided by law, will necessarily result in a
representative the requirement is not anymore corresponding increase in the number of
needed. The same is true for a province. party-list seats.

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 10

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

Same; Same; Same; Section 5(2), Article VI percentage requirement rests in Congress.
of the Constitution is not mandatory—it Our task now, as should have been the
merely provides a ceiling for party-list seats in Comelec’s, is not to find fault in the wisdom of
Congress.—In the exercise of its constitutional the law through highly unlikely scenarios of
prerogative, Congress enacted RA 7941. As clinical extremes, but to craft an innovative
said earlier, Congress declared therein a policy mathematical formula that can, as far as
to promote “proportional representation” in practicable, implement it within the context of
the election of party-list representatives in the actual election process. Indeed, the
order to enable Filipinos belonging to the function of the Supreme Court, as well as of
marginalized and underrepresented sectors to all judicial and quasi-judicial agencies, is to
contribute legislation that would benefit them. apply the law as we find it, not to reinvent or
It however deemed it necessary to require second-guess it. Unless declared
parties, organizations and coalitions unconstitutional, ineffective, insufficient or
participating in the system to obtain at least otherwise void by the proper tribunal, a
two percent of the total votes cast for the s t a t u t e r e m a i n s a va l i d c o m m a n d o f
party-list system in order to be entitled to a sovereignty that must be respected and
party-list seat. Those garnering more than this obeyed at all times. This is the essence of the
percentage could have “additional seats in rule of law.
proportion to their total number of votes.”
Same; Same; Same; Republican State; Under
Furthermore, no winning party, organization or a republican or representative state, all

marcial

coalition can have more than three seats in government authority emanates from the
the House of Representatives. Thus the people, but is exercised by representatives
relevant portion of Section 11(b) of the law chosen by them, but to have meaningful
provides: “(b) The parties, organizations, and representation, the elected persons must have
coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) the mandate of a sufficient number of people.

notes
of the total votes cast for the party-list system —The two percent threshold is consistent not
shall be entitled to one seat each; Provided, only with the intent of the framers of the
That those garnering more than two percent Constitution and the law, but with the very
(2%) of the votes shall be entitled to e s s e n c e o f “ r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .” U n d e r a
additional seats in proportion to their total republican or representative state, all
number of votes; Provided, finally, That each government authority emanates from the
party, organization, or coalition shall be people, but is exercised by representatives
entitled to not more than three (3) seats.” chosen by them. But to have meaningful
Considering the foregoing statutory representation, the elected persons must have
requirements, it will be shown presently that the mandate of a sufficient number of people.
Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is Otherwise, in a legislature that features the
not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for party-list system, the result might be the
party-list seats in Congress. proliferation of small groups which are
incapable of contributing significant legislation,
Same; Same; Same; Statutes; Republic Act and which might even pose a threat to the
7941; Courts; Rule of Law; The prerogative to stability of Congress. Thus, even legislative
determine whether to adjust or change the districts are apportioned according to “the
two percent threshold rests in Congress, as number of their respective inhabitants, and on
the function of the Supreme Court, as well as the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio”
of all judicial and quasi-judicial agencies, is to to ensure meaningful local representation.
apply the law as they find it, not to reinvent or
second-guess it.—On the contention that a Same; Same; Same; Niemeyer Formula;
strict application of the two percent threshold Under the Niemeyer formula, the number of
may result in a “mathematical impossibility,” additional seats to which a qualified party
suffice it to say that the prerogative to would be entitled is determined by multiplying
determine whether to adjust or change this the remaining number of seats to be allocated

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 11

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

by the total number of votes obtained by that Same; Same; Same; Parameters of the
party and dividing the product by the total Filipino Party-List System.—It is now obvious
number of votes garnered by all the qualified that the Philippine style party-list system is a
parties.—Another suggestion that the Court unique paradigm which demands an equally
considered was the Niemeyer formula, which unique formula. In crafting a legally defensible
was developed by a German mathematician and logical solution to determine the number
and adopted by Germany as its method of of additional seats that a qualified party is
distributing party-list seats in the Bundestag. entitled to, we need to review the parameters
Under this formula, the number of additional of the Filipino party-list system. As earlier
seats to which a qualified party would be mentioned in the Prologue, they are as
entitled is determined by multiplying the follows: First, the twenty percent allocation—
remaining number of seats to be allocated by the combined number of all party-list
the total number of votes obtained by that congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent
party and dividing the product by the total of the total membership of the House of
number of votes garnered by all the qualified Representatives, including those elected under
parties. The integer portion of the resulting the party list. Second, the two percent
product will be the number of additional seats threshold--only those parties garnering a
that the party concerned is entitled to. minimum of two percent of the total valid
votes cast for the party-list system are
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Niemeyer “qualified” to have a seat in the House of
formula, while no doubt suitable for Germany, Representatives. Third, the three-seat limit-

marcial

finds no application in the Philippine setting, each. qualified party, regardless of the number
because of our three-seat limit and the non- of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
mandatory character of the twenty-percent maximum of three seats; that is, one
allocation.—The Niemeyer formula, while no “qualifying” and two additional seats. Fourth,
doubt sui tabl e for G ermany, fi nds no proportional representation—the additional

notes
application in the Philippine setting, because seats which a qualified party is entitled to
of our three-seat limit and the non-mandatory shall be computed “in proportion to their total
character of the twenty percent allocation. number of votes.”
True, both our Congress and the Bundestag
have threshold requirements—two percent for Same; Same; Same; Formula for Determining
us and five for them. There are marked Additional Seats for First Party.—Now, how do
differences between the two models, however. we determine the number of seats the first
As ably pointed out by private respondents, party is entitled to? The only basis given by
one half of the German Parliament is filled up the law is that a party receiving at least two
by party-list members. More important, there percent of the total votes shall be entitled to
are no seat limitations, because German law one seat. Proportionally, if the first party were
discourages the proliferation of small parties. to receive twice the number of votes of the
In contrast, RA 7941, as already mentioned, second party, it should be entitled to twice the
imposes a three-seat limit to encourage the latter’s number of seats and so on.
promotion of the multiparty system. This
maj or s t at ut ory d i fferenc e makes t he If the proportion of votes received by the first
Niemeyer formula completely inapplicable to party without rounding it off is equal to at
the Philippines. Just as one cannot grow least six percent of the total valid votes cast
Washington apples in the Philippines or for all the party list groups, then the first
Guimaras mangoes in the Arctic because of party shall be entitled to two additional seats
fundamental environmental differences, or a total of three seats overall. If the
neither can the Niemeyer formula be proportion of votes without a rounding off is
transplanted in toto here because of essential equal to or greater than four percent, but less
variances between the two party-list models. 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,

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 12

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

then the first party shall not be entitled to any 4. The additional seat shall be based in
additional seat. proportion to the total number of
votes
Same; Same; Same; Formula for Determining
Additional Seats of Other Qualified Parties.— BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL
Step Three. The next step is to solve for the ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY
number of additional seats that the other (BANAT), petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
qualified parties are entitled to, based on ELECTIONS (sitting as the National Board
proportional representation. The formula is of Canvassers), respondent.
encompassed by the following complex Constitutional Law; Party-List System
fraction: Act; In computing the allocation of additional
seats, the continued operation of the two
Same; Same; Same; Obtaining absolute percent threshold for the distribution of the
proportional representation is restricted by the additional seats as found in the second clause
three-seat-per-party limit to a maximum of of Section 11 (b) of R.A. No. 7941 is
two additional slots.—Incidentally, if the first unconstitutional.—We rule that, in computing
party is not entitled to any additional seat, the allocation of additional seats, the
then the ratio of the number of votes for the continued operation of the two percent
other party to that for the first one is threshold for the distribution of the additional
multiplied by zero. The end result would be seats as found in the second clause of Section
zero additional seat for each of the other 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional.

marcial

qualified parties as well. The above formula This Court finds that the two percent threshold
does not give an exact mathematical makes it mathematically impossible to achieve
representation of the number of additional the maximum number of available party list
seats to be awarded since, in order to be seats when the number of available party list
entitled to one additional seat, an exact whole seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of

notes
number is necessary. In fact, most of the the two percent threshold in the distribution of
actual mathematical proportions are not whole the additional seats frustrates the attainment
numbers and are not rounded off for the of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the
reasons explained earlier. To repeat, rounding members of the House of Representatives
off may result in the awarding of a number of shall consist of party-list representatives.
seats in excess of that provided by the law.
Furthermore, obtaining absolute proportional Same; Same; The two percent threshold
representation is restricted by the three-seat- presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full
per-party limit to a maximum of two additional implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of
slots. An increase in the maximum number of the Constitution and prevents the attainment
additional representatives a party may be of “the broadest possible representation of
entitled to would result in a more accurate party, sectoral or group interests in the House
proportional representation. But the law itself of Representatives.”—We therefore strike
has set the limit: only two additional seats. down the two percent threshold only in
Hence, we need to work within such extant relation to the distribution of the additional
parameter. seats as found in the second clause of Section
11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent
Notes: threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to
‣ Fundamental Guidelines for the Party - List the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article
Voting VI of the Constitution and prevents the
1. 20% of the total number of seats attainment of “the broadest possible
including those for the party-list representation of party, sectoral or group
2. 2% Threshold to qualify for a seat in interests in the House of Representatives.”
congress
3. 3 Seat Limit for each party Same; Same; Procedure in determining
t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f s e a t s f o r p a r t y- l i s t

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 13

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. directly or indirectly.—By a vote of 8-7, the
7941.—In determining the allocation of seats Court decided to continue the ruling in
for party-list representatives under Section 11 Veterans disallowing major political parties
of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall from participating in the party-list elections,
be observed: 1. The parties, organizations, directly or indirectly. Those who voted to
and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest continue disallowing major political parties
to the lowest based on the number of votes from the party-list elections joined Chief
they garnered during the elections. 2. The Justice Reynato S. Puno in his separate
parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving opinion. On the formula to allocate party-list
at least two percent (2%) of the total votes seats, the Court is unanimous in concurring
cast for the party-list system shall be entitled with this ponencia.
to one guaranteed seat each. 3. Those
garnering sufficient number of votes, Ang Bagong Bayani - OFW Labor Party vs
according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall COMELEC
be entitled to additional seats in proportion to Same; Party-List System; Under the
their total number of votes until all the Constitution and Republic Act (RA) 7941,
additional seats are allocated. 4. Each party, political parties cannot be disqualified from the
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to party-list elections merely on the ground that
not more than three (3) seats. they are political parties.—We now rule on this
issue. Under the Constitution and RA 7941,
Same; Same; The remaining available private respondents cannot be disqualified

marcial

seats for allocation as “additional seats” are from the party-list elections, merely on the
the maximum seats reserved under the Party ground that they are political parties. Section
List System less the guaranteed seats.—In 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides that
computing the additional seats, the members of the House of Representatives may
guaranteed seats shall no longer be included “be elected through a party-list system of

notes
because they have already been allocated, at registered national, regional, and sectoral
one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, parties or organizations.”
the remaining available seats for allocation as
“additional seats” are the maximum seats Same; Same; The key words in the statutory
reserved under the Party List System less the policy set out in RA 7941 are “proportional
guaranteed seats. (Maximum Seats - Reserved r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ,” “ m a r g i n a l i z e d a n d
Seats = Additional Seats) Fractional seats are underrepresented,” and “lack [of] well-defined
disregarded in the absence of a provision in constituencies.”—The foregoing provision
R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of mandates a state policy of promoting
fractional seats. proportional representation by means of the
Filipino-style party-list system, which will
Same; Same; Neither the Constitution “enable” the election to the House of
nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political Representatives of Filipino citizens, 1. who
parties from participating in the party-list belong to marginalized and underrepresented
system.—Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. sectors, organizations and parties; and 2. who
7941 prohibits major political parties from lack well-defined constituencies; but 3. who
participating in the party-list system. On the could contribute to the formulation and
contrary, the framers of the Constitution enactment of appropriate legislation that will
clearly intended the major political parties to benefit the nation as a whole. The key words
participate in party-list elections through their in this policy are “proportional representation,”
sectoral wings. “marginalized and underrepresented,” and
“lack [of] well-defined constituencies.”
Same; Same; By a vote of 8-7, the
Court decided to continue the ruling in S a m e ; S a m e ; Wo r d s a n d P h ra s e s ;
Veterans disallowing major political parties “Proportional representation” does not refer to
from participating in the party-list elections, the number of people in a particular district,

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 14

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

but rather to the representation of the again to those with disparate interests
“marginalized and underrepresented” as identified with the “marginalized or
exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of underrepresented.”
the law—namely, “labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, Same; Same; Statutory Construction; Noscitur
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, A Sociis; It is a fundamental principle of
overseas workers, and statutory construction that words employed in
professionals.”—“Proportional representation” a statute are interpreted in connection with,
here does not refer to the number of people in and their meaning is ascertained by reference
a particular district, because the party-list to, the words and the phrases with which they
election is national in scope. Neither does it a r e a s s o c i a t e d o r r e l a t e d .—W h i l e t h e
allude to numerical strength in a distressed or enumeration of marginalized and
oppressed group. Rather, it refers to the underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it
representation of the “marginalized and demonstrates the clear intent of the law that
underrepresented” as exemplified by the not all sectors can be represented under the
enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely, party-list system. It is a fundamental principle
“labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, of statutory construction that words employed
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, in a statute are interpreted in connection with,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, and their meaning is ascertained by reference
overseas workers, and professionals.” to, the words and the phrases with which they
are associated or related. Thus, the meaning

marcial

Same; Same; The party-list organization or of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified
party must factually and truly represent the o r s p e c i a l i ze d by t h o s e i n i m m e d i a t e
marginalized and underrepresented association.
constituencies mentioned in Section 5, and the
persons nominated by the party-list Same; Same; The party-list system seeks to

notes
candidate-organization must be “Filipino enable certain Filipino citizens.—specifically
citizens belonging to marginalized and those belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties.”—It is not enough for the candidate to parties—to be elected to the House of
claim representation of the marginalized and Representatives, and the assertion of the
underrepresented, because representation is Office of the Solicitor General that the party-
easy to claim and to feign. The partylist list system is not exclusive to the marginalized
organization or party must factually and truly and underrepresented disregards the clear
represent the marginalized and statutory policy.—The declared policy of RA
underrepresented constituencies mentioned in 7941 contravenes the position of the Office of
S e c t i o n 5 . C o n c u r r e n t l y, t h e p e r s o n s the Solicitor General (OSG). We stress that
nominated by the party-list candidate- the party-list system seeks to enable certain
organization must be “Filipino citizens Filipino citizens—specifically those belonging
belonging to marginalized and to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
underrepresented sectors, organizations and organizations and parties—to be elected to the
parties.” House of Representatives. The assertion of the
OSG that the party-list system is not exclusive
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; “Lack of to the marginalized and underrepresented
well-defined constituenc[y]” refers to the disregards the clear statutory policy. Its claim
absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral that even the super-rich and overrepresented
groups, like voters of a congressional district can participate desecrates the spirit of the
or territorial unit of government.—“Lack of party-list system.
well-defined constituenc[y]” refers to the
absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral Same; Same; Allowing the non-marginalized
group, like voters of a congressional district or and overrepresented to vie for the remaining
territorial unit of government. Rather, it points seats under the party-list system would not

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 15

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of directly or through any of its officers or
the marginalized and underrepresented, members or indirectly through third
contrary to the intention of the law to enhance parties for partisan election purposes;
it.—Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and (5) It violates or fails to comply with
overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats laws, rules or regulations relating to
under the party-list system would not only elections;
dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the (6) It declares untruthful statements in
marginalized and underrepresented, contrary its petition;
to the intention of the law to enhance it. The (7) It has ceased to exist for at least
party-list system is a tool for the benefit of the one (1) year; or
underprivileged; the law could not have given (8) It fails to participate in the last two
the same tool to others, to the prejudice of (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain
the intended beneficiaries. at least two per centum (2%) of the
votes cast under the party-list system
Same; Same; Guidelines for Screening Party- in the two (2) preceding elections for
List Participants,—The Court, therefore, deems the constituency in which it has
it proper to remand the case to the Comelec registered.
fqr the latter to determine, after summary 5. Fifth, the party or organization must not be
evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties an adjunct of, or a project organized or an
and organizations allowed to participate in the e n t i t y f u n d e d o r a s s i s t e d b y, t h e
party-list elections comply with the government.

marcial

requirements of the law. In this light, the 6. Sixth, the party must not only comply with
Court finds it appropriate to lay down the the requirements of the law. Its nominees
following guidelines, culled from the law and must likewise do so.
the Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its 7. Seventh, not only candidate party or
work. organization must represent marginalized

notes
1. F i r s t , t h e p o l i t i c a l p a r t y, s e c t o r, and underrepresented sectors. So also
organization or coalition must represent must its nominees.
the marginalized and underrepresented 8. Eighth, while lacking a well-defined political
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. constituency, the nominee must likewise be
2. Second, while even major political parties able to contribute to the formulation and
are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the enactment of appropriate legislation that
Constitution to participate in the party-list will benefit the nation as a whole.
system, they must comply with the
declared statutory policy enabling Filipino ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by
citizens belonging to marginalized and its President, Mr. Alan Igot, petitioner,
underrepresented sectors to be elected to vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
the House of Representatives. respondent.
3. Third, the religious sector may not be Election Law; Party-List System; The
represented in the party-list system. party-list system is intended to democratize
4. Fourth, a party or an organization must not political power by giving political parties that
be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941. cannot win in legislative district elections a
(1) It is a religious sect or chance to win seats in the House of
denomination, organization or Representatives.—The 1987 Constitution
association, organized for religious provides the basis for the party-list system of
purposes; representation. Simply put, the party-list
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful system is intended to democratize political
means to seek its goal; power by giving political parties that cannot
(3) It is a foreign party or organization; win in legislative district elections a chance to
(4) It is receiving support from any win seats in the House of Representatives. The
foreign government, foreign political voter elects two representatives in the House
party, foundation, organization, whether of Representatives: one for his or her

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 16

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

legislative district, and another for his or her different groups: (1) national parties or
party-list group or organization of choice. organizations; (2) regional parties or
organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or
Same; Same; The framers of the 1987 organizations. National and regional parties or
Constitution intended the party-list system to organizations are different from sectoral
include not only sectoral parties but also non- parties or organizations. National and regional
sectoral parties.—Indisputably, the framers of parties or organizations need not be organized
the 1987 Constitution intended the party-list along sectoral lines and need not represent
system to include not only sectoral parties but any particular sector.
also non-sectoral parties. The framers
intended the sectoral parties to constitute a Same; Same; “Political Party” and
part, but not the entirety, of the party-list “Sectoral Party,” Distinguished.—Section 3(a)
system. As explained by Commissioner of R.A. No. 7941 defines a “party” as “either a
Wilfredo Villacorta, political parties can political party or a sectoral party or a coalition
participate in the party-list system “[F]or as of parties.” Clearly, a political party is different
long as they field candidates who come from from a sectoral party. Section 3(c) of R.A. No.
the different marginalized sectors that we 7941 further provides that a “political party
shall designate in this Constitution.” refers to an organized group of citizens
advocating an ideology or platform, principles
Same; Same; The common denominator and policies for the general conduct of
between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is government.” On the other hand, Section 3(d)

marcial

that they cannot expect to win in legislative of R.A. No. 7941 provides that a “sectoral
district elections but they can garner, in party refers to an organized group of citizens
nationwide elections, at least the same belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in
number of votes that winning candidates can Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy
garner in legislative district elections.—The pertains to the special interest and concerns of

notes
common denominator between sectoral and their sector.” R.A. No. 7941 provides different
non-sectoral parties is that they cannot expect definitions for a political and a sectoral party.
to win in legislative district elections but they Obviously, they are separate and distinct from
can garner, in nationwide elections, at least each other.
the same number of votes that winning
candidates can garner in legislative district Same; Same; Republic Act No. 7941;
elections. The party-list system will be the R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and
entry point to membership in the House of regional parties or organizations to represent
Representatives for both these non-traditional the “marginalized and underrepresented”
parties that could not compete in legislative sectors.—R.A. No. 7941 does not require
district elections. national and regional parties or organizations
to represent the “marginalized and
Same; Same; The party-list system is underrepresented” sectors. To require all
composed of three different groups: (1) national and regional parties under the party-
national parties or organizations; (2) regional list system to represent the “marginalized and
parties or organizations; and (3) sectoral underrepresented” is to deprive and exclude,
parties or organizations.—What the framers by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-
intended, and what they expressly wrote in oriented parties from the party-list system.
Section 5(1), could not be any clearer: the How will these ideology-based and cause-
party-list system is composed of three oriented parties, who cannot win in legislative
different groups, and the sectoral parties district elections, participate in the electoral
belong to only one of the three groups. The process if they are excluded from the party-
text of Section 5(1) leaves no room for any list system? To exclude them from the party-
doubt that national and regional parties are list system is to prevent them from joining the
separate from sectoral parties. Thus, the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their only
party-list system is composed of three option the armed struggle. To exclude them

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 17

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

from the party-list system is, apart from being prohibited the “first five (5) major political
obviously senseless, patently contrary to the parties on the basis of party representation in
clear intent and express wording of the 1987 the House of Representatives at the start of
Constitution and R.A. No. 7941. Under the the Tenth Congress” from participating in the
party-list system, an ideology-based or cause- May 1988 party-list elections. Thus, major
oriented political party is clearly different from political parties can participate in subsequent
a sectoral party. A political party need not be party-list elections since the prohibition is
organized as a sectoral party and need not expressly limited only to the 1988 party-list
represent any particular sector. There is no elections. However, major political parties
requirement in R.A. No. 7941 that a national should participate in party-list elections only
or regional political party must represent a through their sectoral wings. The participation
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector. It of major political parties through their sectoral
is sufficient that the political party consists of wings, a majority of whose members are
citizens who advocate the same ideology or “marginalized and underrepresented” or
platform, or the same governance principles lacking in “well-defined political
and policies, regardless of their economic constituencies,” will facilitate the entry of the
status as citizens. “marginalized and underrepresented” and
those who “lack well-defined political
Same; Same; Same; The economically constituencies” as members of the House of
“marginalized and underrepresented” are Representatives.
those who fall in the low income group as

marcial

classified by the National Statistical Same; Same; Same; The 1987

C o o r d i n a t i o n B o a r d .—T h e p h r a s e Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 allow major
“marginalized and underrepresented” should political parties to participate in party-list
refer only to the sectors in Section 5 that are, elections so as to encourage them to work
by their nature, economically “marginalized assiduously in extending their constituencies

notes
and underrepresented.” These sectors are: to the “marginalized and underrepresented”
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, and to those who “lack well-defined political
indigenous cultural communities, constituencies.”—The 1987 Constitution and
handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and R.A. No. 7941 allow major political parties to
other similar sectors. For these sectors, a participate in party-list elections so as to
majority of the members of the sectoral party encourage them to work assiduously in
must belong to the “marginalized and extending their constituencies to the
underrepresented.” The nominees of the “marginalized and underrepresented” and to
sectoral party either must belong to the those who “lack well-defined political
sector, or must have a track record of constituencies.” The participation of major
a d vo c a c y f o r t h e s e c t o r r e p r e s e n t e d . political parties in party-list elections must be
Belonging to the “marginalized and geared towards the entry, as members of the
underrepresented” sector does not mean one House of Representatives, of the “marginalized
must “wallow in poverty, destitution or and underrepresented” and those who “lack
infirmity.” It is sufficient that one, or his or her well-defined political constituencies,” giving
sector, is below the middle class. More them a voice in lawmaking. Thus, to
specifically, the economically “marginalized participate in party-list elections, a major
and underrepresented” are those who fall in political party that fields candidates in the
the low income group as classified by the legislative district elections must organize a
National Statistical Coordination Board. sectoral wing, like a labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, professional, women or youth
Same; Same; Same; Major political wing, that can register under the party-list
parties can participate in subsequent party-list system. Such sectoral wing of a major political
elections since the prohibition is expressly party must have its own constitution, by-laws,
limited only to the 1988 party-list elections.— platform or program of government, officers
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 expressly and members, a majority of whom must

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page "18 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

belong to the sector represented. The sectoral organizations, (2) regional parties or
wing is in itself an independent sectoral party, organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
and is linked to a major political party through organizations.
a coalition. This linkage is allowed by Section
3 of R.A. No. 7941, which provides that 2. National parties or organizations and
“component parties or organizations of a regional parties or organizations do not need
coalition may participate independently (in to organize along sectoral lines and do not
party-list elections) provided the coalition of need to represent any "marginalized and
which they form part does not participate in underrepresented" sector.
the party-list system.”
3. Political parties can participate in party-list
Same; Same; Same; A party-list elections provided they register under the
nominee must be a bona fide member of the party-list system and do not field candidates
party or organization which he or she seeks to in legislative district elections. A political party,
represent. In the case of sectoral parties, to whether major or not, that fields candidates in
be a bona fide party-list nominee one must legislative district elections can participate in
either belong to the sector represented, or party-list elections only through its sectoral
have a track record of advocacy for such wing that can separately register under the
sector.—Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself
the qualifications of party-list nominees. This an independent sectoral party, and is linked to
provision prescribes a special qualification only a political party through a coalition.

marcial

for the nominee from the youth sector. Section

9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees.—No 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either
person shall be nominated as party-list be "marginalized and underrepresented" or
representative unless he is a natural-born lacking in "well-defined political
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a constituencies." It is enough that their

notes
resident of the Philippines for a period of not principal advocacy pertains to the special
less than one (1) year immediately preceding interest and concerns of their sector. The
the day of the election, able to read and write, sectors that are "marginalized and
a bona fide member of the party or underrepresented" include labor, peasant,
organization which he seeks to represent for fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of communities, handicapped, veterans, and
the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-
years of age on the day of the election. In defined political constituencies" include
case of a nominee of the youth sector, he professionals, the elderly, women, and the
must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more youth.
than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the
election. Any youth sectoral representative 5. A majority of the members of sectoral
who attains the age of thirty (30) during his parties or organizations that represent the
term shall be allowed to continue in office until "marginalized and underrepresented" must
the expiration of his term. A party-list belong to the "marginalized and
nominee must be a bona fide member of the underrepresented" sector they represent.
party or organization which he or she seeks to Similarly, a majority of the members of
represent. In the case of sectoral parties, to sectoral parties or organizations that lack
be a bona fide party-list nominee one must "well-defined political constituencies" must
either belong to the sector represented, or belong to the sector they represent. The
have a track record of advocacy for such nominees of sectoral parties or organizations
sector. that represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented," or that represent those
Notes: who lack "well-defined political
1. Three different groups may participate in constituencies," either must belong to their
the party-list system: (1) national parties or respective sectors, or must have a track

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page "19 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

record of advocacy for their respective utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the
sectors. The nominees of national and regional exclusion of Ang Ladlad.—Our Constitution
parties or organizations must be bona-fide provides in Article III, Section 5 that “[n]o law
members of such parties or organizations. shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or thereof.” At bottom, what our non-establish-
organizations shall not be disqualified if some ment clause calls for is “government neutrality
of their nominees are disqualified, provided in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental
that they have at least one nominee who reliance on religious justification is
remains qualified. inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.” We
thus find that it was grave violation of the
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to
herein by its Chair, DANTON REMOTO, utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the
petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
ELECTIONS, respondent.
Constitutional Law; Election Law; Party- Same; Same; Same; Through the years,
List System; The enumeration of marginalized homosexual conduct, and perhaps
a n d u n d e r- r e p r e s e n t e d s e c t o r s i s n o t homosexuals themselves, have borne the
exclusive.—As we explicitly ruled in Ang brunt of societal disapproval.—We are not
B a g o n g B a y a n i - O F W L a b o r P a r t y v. blind to the fact that, through the years,
Commission on Elections, 359 SCRA 698 homosexual conduct, and perhaps

marcial

(2001), “the enumeration of marginalized and homosexuals themselves, have borne the
under-represented sectors is not exclusive.” brunt of societal disapproval. It is not difficult
The crucial element is not whether a sector is to imagine the reasons behind this censure—
specifically enumerated, but whether a religious beliefs, convictions about the
particular organization complies with the preservation of marriage, family, and

notes
requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. procreation, even dislike or distrust of
homosexuals themselves and their perceived
Same; Same; Same; Aside from lifestyle. Nonetheless, we recall that the
Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC’s) moral Philippines has not seen fit to criminalize
objection and the belated allegation of non- homosexual conduct. Evidently, therefore,
existence, nowhere in the records has the these “generally accepted public morals” have
respondent ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad not been convincingly transplanted into the
is not qualified to register as a party-list realm of law.
organization under any of the requisites under
Republic Act No. 7941 or the guidelines in Ang Same; Same; Moral disapproval, without
Bagong Bayani.—We find that Ang Ladlad has more, is not a sufficient governmental interest
sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with to justify exclusion of homosexuals from
the legal requirements for accreditation. participation in the party-list system.—We hold
Indeed, aside from COMELEC’s moral objection that moral disapproval, without more, is not a
and the belated allegation of non-existence, sufficient governmental interest to justify
nowhere in the records has the respondent exclusion of homosexuals from participation in
ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not the party-list system. The denial of Ang
qualified to register as a party-list organization Ladlad’s registration on purely moral grounds
under any of the requisites under RA 7941 or amounts more to a statement of dislike and
the guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. The disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool
difference, COMELEC claims, lies in Ang to further any substantial public interest.
Ladlad’s morality, or lack thereof. Respondent’s blanket justifications give rise to
the inevitable conclusion that the COMELEC
Same; Same; Same; It was grave targets homosexuals themselves as a class,
violation of the non-establishment clause for not because of any particular morally
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page "20 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

reprehensible act. It is this selective targeting expression constitutes one of the essential
that implicates our equal protection clause. foundations of a democratic society, and this
freedom applies not only to those that are
Constitutional Law; Election Law; Party- favorably received but also to those that
List System; Equal Protection Clause; Recent offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction
jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law imposed in this sphere must be proportionate
neither burdens a fundamental right nor to the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any
targets a suspect class, the Supreme Court compelling state interest, it is not for the
will uphold the classification as long as it bears COMELEC or this Court to impose its views on
a rational relationship to some legitimate the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC
government end.—Recent jurisprudence has is certainly not free to interfere with speech
affirmed that if a law neither burdens a for no better reason than promoting an
fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, approved message or discouraging a
we will uphold the classification as long as it disfavored one.
bears a rational relationship to some
legitimate government end. In Central Bank Same; Same; Same; Freedom of
Employees Association, Inc. v. Banko Sentral Association; Only if a political party incites
ng Pilipinas, 446 SCRA 299 (2004), we violence or puts forward policies that are
declared that “[i]n our jurisdiction, the incompatible with democracy does it fall
standard of analysis of equal protection outside the protection of the freedom of
challenges x x x have followed the ‘rational association guarantee.—A political group

marcial

basis’ test, coupled with a deferential attitude should not be hindered solely because it seeks
to legislative classifications and a reluctance to to publicly debate controversial political issues
invalidate a law unless there is a showing of a in order to find solutions capable of satisfying
clear and unequivocal breach of the everyone concerned. Only if a political party
Constitution.” incites violence or puts forward policies that

notes
are incompatible with democracy does it fall
Same; Same; Same; Same; Law of outside the protection of the freedom of
general application should apply with equal association guarantee.
f o r c e t o L e s b i a n , G a y, B i s e x u a l a n d
Transgender (LGBTs), and they deserve to Same; Party-List System; Equal
participate in the party-list system on the Protection Clause; The principle of non-
same basis as other marginalized and under- discrimination requires that laws of general
represented sectors.—From the standpoint of application relating to elections be applied
the political process, the lesbian, gay, equally to all persons, regardless of sexual
bisexual, and transgender have the same o r i e n t a t i o n .—T h e p r i n c i p l e o f n o n -
interest in participating in the party-list discrimination requires that laws of general
system on the same basis as other political application relating to elections be applied
parties similarly situated. State intrusion in equally to all persons, regardless of sexual
this case is equally burdensome. Hence, laws orientation. Although sexual orientation is not
of general application should apply with equal specifically enumerated as a status or ratio for
f o r c e t o LG BTs , a n d t h e y d e s e r ve t o discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR, the
participate in the party-list system on the ICCPR Human Rights Committee has opined
same basis as other marginalized and under- that the reference to “sex” in Article 26 should
represented sectors. be construed to include “sexual orientation.”
Additionally, a variety of United Nations bodies
Same; Same; Freedom of Expression; have declared discrimination on the basis of
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the sexual orientation to be prohibited under
essential foundations of a democratic society, various international agreements.
and this freedom applies not only to those
that are favorably received but also to those S a m e ; S a m e ; S a m e ; Yo g y a k a r t a
that offend, shock or disturb.—Freedom of Principles; Using even the most liberal of

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 21

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

lenses, these Yogyakarta Principles, consisting eventually, to choose five from among them
of a declaration formulated by various after all belongs to the party or organization
international law professors, are—at best—de that nominates them. But where an allegation
lege ferenda—and do not constitute binding is made that the party or organization had
obligations on the Philippines.—Using even the chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee to
most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta become its party-list representative in the
Principles, consisting of a declaration lower House and enjoy the secured tenure
formulated by various international law that goes with the position, the resolution of
professors, are—at best—de lege ferenda—and the dispute is taken out of its hand.—
do not constitute binding obligations on the Petitioners Abayon and Palparan of course
Philippines. Indeed, so much of contemporary point out that the authority to determine the
international law is characterized by the “soft qualifications of a party-list nominee belongs
law” nomenclature, i.e., international law is to the party or organization that nominated
full of principles that promote international him. This is true, initially. The right to examine
cooperation, harmony, and respect for human the fitness of aspiring nominees and,
rights, most of which amount to no more than eventually, to choose five from among them
well-meaning desires, without the support of after all belongs to the party or organization
either State practice or opinio juris. that nominates them. But where an allegation
is made that the party or organization had
CONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. PALPARAN, chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee to
JR., petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF become its party-list representative in the

marcial

REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL lower House and enjoy the secured tenure

TRIBUNAL (HRET), DR. REYNALDO that goes with the position, the resolution of
LESACA, JR., CRISTINA PALABAY, the dispute is taken out of its hand.
RENATO M. REYES, JR., ERLINDA
CADAPAN, ANTONIO FLORES and Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction;

notes
JOSELITO USTAREZ, respondents. Commission on Elections; Once the party or
Election Law; Party-List Representatives; organization of the party-list nominee has
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal been proclaimed and the nominee has taken
(HRET); It is for the House of Representatives his oath and assumed office as member of the
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to interpret the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s
meaning of this particular qualification of a jurisdiction over election contests relating to
nominee—the need for him or her to be a his qualifications ends and the House of
bona fide member or a representative of his Representatives Electoral Tribunal’s (HRET’s)
party-list organization— in the context of the own jurisdiction begins.—What is inevitable is
facts that characterize petitioners Abayon and that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution
Palparan’s relation to Aangat Tayo and Bantay, provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge
respectively, and the marginalized and of all contests relating to, among other things,
underrepresented interests that they the qualifications of the members of the House
presumably embody.—It is for the HRET to of Representatives. Since, as pointed out
interpret the meaning of this particular above, party-list nominees are “elected
qualification of a nominee—the need for him members” of the House of Representatives no
or her to be a bona fide member or a less than the district representatives are, the
representative of his party-list organization— HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon
in the context of the facts that characterize their qualifications. By analogy with the cases
petitioners Abayon and Palparan’s relation to of district representatives, once the party or
Aangat Tayo and Bantay, respectively, and the organization of the party-list nominee has
marginalized and underrepresented interests been proclaimed and the nominee has taken
that they presumably embody. his oath and assumed office as member of the
House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s
Same; Same; Same; The right to jurisdiction over election contests relating to
examine the fitness of aspiring nominees and,

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 22

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own Same; Party List System; Automate
jurisdiction begins. Elections; Special circumstances exist which
call for leniency and impose the penalty of
Notes: severe reprimand instead of of imprisonment
‣ The right to choose a nominees belongs to and/or fine under Section 7, of Rule 71 of the
the party. Rules of Court; Although automation is a
‣ The qualifications of the nominee may be special circumstance that should be
relied by COMELEC because according to considered in the present incidental matter, its
the law, not only the party must be effect on the Comelec’s non-compliance is
qualified but also the nominee. merely to mitigate, not to totally exculpate,
‣ The jurisdiction vests in HRET the moment the Comelec from liability for its failure to
the nominee is proclaimed. comply with the Status Quo Order.—In the
‣ The nominee becomes a member of the present case, special circumstances exist
HOR and not the party only. which call for our leniency and compel us to
impose the penalty of severe reprimand
PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, instead of imprisonment and/or fine under
INC., represented by its Secretary- Section 7, of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as
General GEORGE “FGBF GEORGE” we have ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
DULDULAO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION Labor Party. We emphasize that although
ON ELECTIONS, respondent. automation is a special circumstance that
Same; Party-List System; An equally should be considered in the present incidental

marcial

important aspect of a democratic electoral matter, however, its effect on the Comelec’s
exercise is the right of free choice of the non-compliance is merely to mitigate, not to
electorates on who shall govern them—the totally exculpate, the Comelec from liability for
party-list system affords them this choice, as its failure to comply with our Status Quo
it gives the marginalized and Order. In other words, even if we grant that

notes
underrepresented sectors the opportunity to automation might have posed some difficulty
participate in governance.—Although we have in including a new party in the party-list
recognized the validity of the automation of listing, the Comelec still failed to prove to our
the May 10, 2010 elections in Roque, Jr. v. satisfaction that the PGBI’s inclusion was
Comelec, 599 SCRA 69 (2009), we stress that technically impossible and could not have
automation is not the end-all and be-all of an been done even if the Comelec had wanted to.
electoral process. An equally important aspect Thus, at the most, we can give the Comelec
of a democratic electoral exercise is the right the benefit of the doubt to the extent of
of free choice of the electorates on who shall recognizing its excuse as a mitigating factor.
govern them; the party-list system, in the
words of Ang Bagong Bayani–OFW Labor Party Same; Part-List System; The Court
v. Comelec, 359 SCRA 698 (2001), affords cannot recognize Philippine Guardians
them this choice, as it gives the marginalized Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) to be a party-list
and underrepresented sectors the opportunity organization fully qualified to run under the
to participate in governance. Wittingly or party-list system in the coming 2013 party-list
unwittingly, the Comelec took this freedom of elections since the question of full and total
choice away and effectively disenfranchised qualification is not ripe for judicial
the members of the sector that PGBI sought determination and for the court’s resolution.—
to represent when it did not include PGBI in We partly agree with the Comelec that we
the list of qualified parties vying for a seat cannot recognize PGBI to be a party-list
under the party-list system of representation. organization fully qualified to run under the
This is a consideration no less weighty than party-list system in the coming 2013 party-list
the automation of the election and cannot be elections. The question of full and total
simply disregarded on mere generalized qualification is not ripe for judicial
allegations of automation difficulties. determination as this is not before us for
resolution. Participation in a previous election

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 23

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

a n d t h e l e ve l o f vo t e s i n f avo r o f a cast under the party-list system in the two

participating organization are not the only (2) preceding elections for the
qualification issues that can arise in a party- constituency in which it has registered.
list election, and we cannot assume that PGBI ‣ In order for the party to be disqualified the
shall meet all other legal standards to qualify party must fall under either one of the
as a party-list organization in the 2013 grounds but the grounds may not be
elections. mixed together. So it either failed to
participate in two preceding elections or
Same; Same; As it was the Comelec failed to obtain the 2% twice.
itself which prevented Philippine Guardians
Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) from participating in Bantay Republic Act vs COMELEC
the 10 May 2010 party-list elections when it Same; Same; Same; Nowhere in Republic Act
deleted PGBI, with grave abuse of discretion, No. 7941 is there a requirement that the
from the list of accredited party-list groups or qualification of a party-list nominee be
organizations and, thereafter, refused to determined simultaneously with the
return it to the list despite the Court’s accreditation of an organization.— Petitioners
directive, PGBI should, at the very least, be BA-RA 7941’s and UP-LR’s posture that the
deemed to have participated in the 10 May Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion
2010 elections, and cannot be disqualified for when it granted the assailed accreditations
non-participation or for failure to garner the without simultaneously determining the
votes required under Section 6(8) of R.A. No. qualifications of their nominees is without

marcial

7941.—But separate from the question of basis. Nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is there a
PGBI’s overall qualification is the narrower requirement that the qualification of a party-
question of its participation in the May 10, list nominee be determined simultaneously
2010 elections—an issue that is subsumed by with the accreditation of an organization. And
the issues in the main certiorari case. As as aptly pointed out by private respondent

notes
shown above, PGBI intended to participate in Babae Para sa Kaunlaran (Babae Ka), Section
the May 10, 2010 elections but it was not able 4 of R.A. No. 7941 requires a petition for
to do so because the Comelec did not— registration of a party-list organization to be
contrary to our express directive—include it in filed with the Comelec “not later than ninety
the list of party-list organizations to be voted (90) days before the election” whereas the
upon in the May 10, 2010 elections. As it was succeeding Section 8 requires the submission
the Comelec itself which prevented PGBI from “not later than fortyfive (45) days before the
participating in the May 10, 2010 party-list election” of the list of names whence partylist
elections when it deleted PGBI, with grave representatives shall be chosen.
abuse of discretion, from the list of accredited
party-list groups or organizations and, Same; Same; Assayed against the non-
thereafter, refused to return it to the list disclosure stance of the Comelec and the
despite our directive, PGBI should, at the very given rationale therefor is the right to
least, be deemed to have participated in the information.—Assayed against the non-
May 10, 2010 elections, and cannot be disclosure stance of the Comelec and the
disqualified for non-participation or for failure given rationale therefor is the right to
to garner the votes required under Section information enshrined in the self-executory
6(8) of R.A. No. 7941. To conclude otherwise Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, viz.:
is to effectively recognize the ineffectiveness Sec. the right of the people to information on
of our Status Quo Order, of our April 29, 2010 matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Decision, and of this Court. Access to official records, and to documents,
and papers pertaining to official acts,
Notes: transactions, or decisions, as well to
‣ It fails to participate in the last two (2) government research data used as basis for
preceding elections or fails to obtain at policy development, shall be afforded the
least two per centum (2%) of the votes citizen, subject to such limitations as may be

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page "24 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

provided by law. Complementing and going that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or
hand in hand with the right to information is even publishing through mediums other than
another constitutional provision enunciating the “Cer-tified List” the names of the party-list
the policy of full disclosure and transparency nominees. The Comelec obviously misread the
in Government. We refer to Section 28, Article limited non-disclosure aspect of the provision
II of the Constitution reading: Sec. 28. as an absolute bar to public disclosure before
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by the May 2007 elections. The interpretation
law, the State adopts and implements a policy thus given by the Comelec virtually tacks an
of full public disclosure of all its transactions unconstitutional dimension on the last
involving public interest. sentence of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941.

Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave Same; Same; While the vote cast in a party-
abuse of discretion in refusing the legitimate list elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in
demands of the petitioners for a list of the the end, would be a vote for its nominees,
nominees of the party-list groups subject of who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit
their respective petitions, mandamus, in the House of Representatives.—The
therefore, lies.—If, as in Legaspi, it was the Comelec’s reasoning that a party-list election
legitimate concern of a citizen to know if is not an election of personalities is valid to a
certain persons employed as sanitarians of a point. It cannot be taken, however, to justify
health department of a city are civil service its assailed non-disclosure stance which
eligibles, surely the identity of candidates for a comes, as it were, with a weighty presumption

marcial

lofty elective public office should be a matter of invalidity, impinging, as it does, on a

of highest public concern and interest. As may fundamental right to information. While the
be noted, no national security or like concerns vote cast in a party-list elections is a vote for
is involved in the disclosure of the names of a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote
the nominees of the party-list groups in for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases,

notes
question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed w o u l d e ve n t u a l l y s i t i n t h e H o u s e o f
grave abuse of discretion in refusing the Representatives.
legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list
of the nominees of the party-list groups REPUBLIC ACT No. 7941
subject of their respective petitions. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION
Mandamus, therefore, lies. OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES
THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND
Same; Same; As it were, there is absolutely APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
nothing in R.A. No. 7941 that prohibits the Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as
Comelec from disclosing or even publishing the "Party-List System Act."
through mediums other than the “Certified Section 2. Declaration of part y. The State
List” the names of the party-list nominees.— shall promote proportional representation in
The last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. 7941 the election of representatives to the House of
reading: “[T]he names of the party-list Representatives through a party-list system of
nominees shall not be shown on the certified registered national, regional and sectoral
list” is certainly not a justifying card for the parties or organizations or coalitions thereof,
Comelec to deny the requested disclosure. To which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to
us, the prohibition imposed on the Comelec marginalized and under-represented sectors,
under said Section 7 is limited in scope and organizations and parties, and who lack well-
duration, meaning, that it extends only to the defined political constituencies but who could
certified list which the same provision requires contribute to the formulation and enactment
to be posted in the polling places on election of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition nation as a whole, to become members of the
to the absolute is to read into the law House of Representatives. Towards this end,
something that is not intended. As it were, the State shall develop and guarantee a full,
there is absolutely nothing in R.A. No. 7941 free and open party system in order to attain

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 25

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

the broadcast possible representation of party, such party, organization, or coalition shall file
sectoral or group interests in the House of with the Commission, not later than ninety
Representatives by enhancing their chances to (90) days before the election, a manifestation
compete for and win seats in the legislature, of its desire to participate in the party-list
and shall provide the simplest scheme system.
possible. Section 5. Registration. Any organized group
Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) The party- o f p e r s o n s m a y r e g i s t e r a s a p a r t y,
list system is a mechanism of proportional organization or coalition for purposes of the
representation in the election of party-list system by filing with the COMELEC
representatives to the House of not later than ninety (90) days before the
Representatives from national, regional and election a petition verified by its president or
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions secretary stating its desire to participate in the
thereof registered with the Commission on party-list system as a national, regional or
Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of
organizations of a coalition may participate such parties or organizations, attaching
independently provided the coalition of which thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or
they form part does not participate in the program of government, list of officers,
party-list system. coalition agreement and other relevant
(b) A party means either a political party or a information as the COMELEC may require:
sectoral party or a coalition of parties. Provided, That the sectors shall include labor,
(c) A political party refers to an organized peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous

marcial

group of citizens advocating an ideology or cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,

platform, principles and policies for the women, youth, veterans, overseas workers,
general conduct of government and which, as and professionals.
the most immediate means of securing their The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at
adoption, regularly nominates and supports least two (2) national newspapers of general

notes
certain of its leaders and members as circulation.
candidates for public office. The COMELEC shall, after due notice and
It is a national party when its constituency is hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen (15)
spread over the geographical territory of at days from the date it was submitted for
least a majority of the regions. It is a regional decision but in no case not later than sixty
party when its constituency is spread over the (60) days before election.
geographical territory of at least a majority of Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of
the cities and provinces comprising the region. Registration. The COMELEC may, motu propio
(d) A sectoral party refers to an organized or upon verified complaint of any interested
group of citizens belonging to any of the party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and
sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose hearing, the registration of any national,
principal advocacy pertains to the special regional or sectoral party, organization or
interest and concerns of their sector, coalition on any of the following grounds:
(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of (1) It is a religious sect or denomination,
citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who organization or association, organized for
share similar physical attributes or religious purposes;
characteristics, employment, interests or (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to
concerns. seek its goal;
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly (3) It is a foreign party or organization;
registered national, regional, sectoral parties (4) It is receiving support from any foreign
or organizations for political and/or election g o v e r n m e n t , f o r e i g n p o l i t i c a l p a r t y,
purposes. foundation, organization, whether directly or
Section 4. Manifestation to Participate in the through any of its officers or members or
Party-List System. Any party, organization, or indirectly through third parties for partisan
coalition already registered with the election purposes;
Commission need not register anew. However,

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 26

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
rules or regulations relating to elections; registered voter, a resident of the Philippines
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its for a period of not less than one (1)year
petition; immediately preceding the day of the election,
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) able to read and write, a bona fide member of
year; or the party or organization which he seeks to
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) represent for at least ninety (90) days
preceding elections or fails to obtain at least preceding the day of the election, and is at
two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day
the party-list system in the two (2) preceding of the election.
elections for the constituency in which it has In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he
registered. must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more
Section 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the
The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) election. Any youth sectoral representative
days before election, prepare a certified list of who attains the age of thirty (30) during his
national, regional, or sectoral parties, term shall be allowed to continue in office until
organizations or coalitions which have applied the expiration of his term.
or who have manifested their desire to Section 10. Manner of Voting. Every voter
participate under the party-list system and shall be entitled to two (2) votes: the first is a
distribute copies thereof to all precincts for vote for candidate for member of the House of
posting in the polling places on election day. Representatives in his legislative district, and

marcial

The names of the part y-list nominees shall t h e s e c o n d , a v o t e f o r t h e p a r t y,

not be shown on the certified list. organizations, or coalition he wants
Section 8. Nomination of Party-List represented in the house of Representatives:
Representatives. Each registered party, Provided, That a vote cast for a party, sectoral
organization or coalition shall submit to the organization, or coalition not entitled to be

notes
COMELEC not later than forty-five (45) days voted for shall not be counted: Provided,
before the election a list of names, not less finally, That the first election under the party-
than five (5), from which party-list list system shall be held in May 1998.
representatives shall be chosen in case it The COMELEC shall undertake the necessary
obtains the required number of votes. information campaign for purposes of
A person may be nominated in one (1) list educating the electorate on the matter of the
only. Only persons who have given their party-list system.
consent in writing may be named in the list. Section 11. Number of Party-List
The list shall not include any candidate for any Representatives. The party-list representatives
elective office or a person who has lost his bid shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of
for an elective office in the immediately the total number of the members of the House
preceding election. No change of names or of Representatives including those under the
alteration of the order of nominees shall be party-list.
allowed after the same shall have been For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the
submitted to the COMELEC except in cases first five (5) major political parties on the
where the nominee dies, or withdraws in basis of party representation in the House of
writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated Representatives at the start of the Tenth
in which case the name of the substitute Congress of the Philippines shall not be
nominee shall be placed last in the list. entitled to participate in the party-list system.
Incumbent sectoral representatives in the In determining the allocation of seats for the
House of Representatives who are nominated second vote, the following procedure shall be
i n t h e p a r ty- l i s t s y s t e m s h a l l n o t b e observed:
considered resigned. (a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions
Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest
Nominees. No person shall be nominated as based on the number of votes they garnered
party-list representative unless he is a during the elections.

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 27

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions submitted to the COMELEC by the same party,
receiving at least two percent (2%) of the organization, or coalition, who shall serve for
total votes cast for the party-list system shall the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted,
be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That the party, organization coalition concerned
those garnering more than two percent (2%) shall submit additional nominees.
of the votes shall be entitled to additional Section 17. Rights of Party-List
seats in proportion to their total number of Representatives. Party-List Representatives
votes : Provided, finally, That each party, shall be entitled to the same salaries and
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to emoluments as regular members of the House
not more than three (3) seats. of Representatives.
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Section 18. Rules and Regulations. The
Party-List Representatives. The COMELEC shall COMELEC shall promulgate the necessary
tally all the votes for the parties, rules and regulations as may be necessary to
organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide carry out the purposes of this Act.
basis, rank them according to the number of Section 19. Appropriations. The amount
vo t e s r e c ei ved an d al l o c at e p arty- l i s t necessary for the implementation of this Act
representatives proportionately according to shall be provided in the regular appropriations
the percentage of votes obtained by each for the Commission on Elections starting fiscal
party, organization, or coalition as against the year 1996 under the General Appropriations
total nationwide votes cast for the party-list Act.
system. Starting 1995, the COMELEC is hereby

marcial

Section 13. How Party-List Representatives authorized to utilize savings and other
are Chosen. Party-list representatives shall be available funds for purposes of its information
proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list campaign on the party-list system.
of names submitted by the respective parties, Section 20. Separability Clause. If any part of
organizations, or coalitions to the COMELEC this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the

notes
according to their ranking in said list. other parts or provisions thereof shall remain
Section 14. Term of Office. Party-list valid and effective.
representatives shall be elected for a term of Section 21. Repealing Clause. All laws,
three (3) years which shall begin, unless decrees, executive orders, rules and
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with
thirtieth day of June next following their the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.
election. No party-list representatives shall Section 22. Effectivity. This Act shall take
serve for more than three (3) consecutive effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for a newspaper of general circulation.
any length of time shall not be considered as Approved, March 3, 1995.
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

Article 6 Section 4 - 5 Page 28

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 6. No person shall be a Member on facts and circumstances in the sense that
of the House of Representatives unless they disclose intent.” Based on the foregoing,
he is a natural-born citizen of the domicile includes the twin elements of “the
Philippines and, on the day of the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed
election, is at least twenty-five years of place” and animus manendi, or the intention
age, able to read and write, and, except of returning there permanently.
the party-list representatives, a
registered voter in the district in which Same; Same; Same; Same; Domicile and
he shall be elected, and a resident Residence, Distinguished.—Residence, in its
thereof for a period of not less than one ordinary conception, implies the factual
year immediately preceding the day of relationship of an individual to a certain place.
the election. It is the physical presence of a person in a
given area, community or country. The
essential distinction between residence and
domicile in law is that residence involves the
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, petitioner,
intent to leave when the purpose for which the
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
resident has taken up his abode ends. One
CIRILO ROY MONTEJO, respondents.
may seek a place for purposes such as
Election Law; Domicile; Residence; Words and
pleasure, business, or health. If a person’s
Phrases; Residence, for the purpose of
intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if
meeting the qualification for an elective
his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is

marcial

position, has a settled meaning in our

established it is residence. It is thus, quite
jurisdiction.—A perusal of the Resolution of the
perfectly normal for an individual to have
COMELEC’S Second Division reveals a startling
different residences in various places.
confusion in the application of settled concepts
However, a person can only have a single
of “Domicile” and “Residence” in election law.
domicile, unless, for various reasons, he
While the COMELEC seems to be in agreement

notes
successfully abandons his domicile in favor of
with the general proposition that for the
another domicile of choice.
purposes of election law, residence is
synonymous with domicile, the Resolution
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; As these
reveals a tendency to substitute or mistake
concepts have evolved in our election law,
the concept of domicile for actual residence, a
what has clearly and unequivocally emerged is
conception not intended for the purpose of
the fact that residence for election purposes is
determining a candidate’s qualifications for
used synonymously with domicile.—For
election to the House of Representatives as
political purposes the concepts of residence
required by the 1987 Constitution. As it were,
and domicile are dictated by the peculiar
residence, for the purpose of meeting the
criteria of political laws. As these concepts
qualification for an elective position, has a
have evolved in our election law, what has
settled meaning in our jurisdiction.
clearly and unequivocally emerged is the fact
that residence for election purposes is used
Same; Same; Same; Same; Domicile includes
synonymously with domicile.
the twin elements of “the fact of residing or
physical presence in a fixed place” and animus
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
manendi, or the intention of returning there
Constitutional Law; When the Constitution
permanently.—Article 50 of the Civil Code
speaks of “residence ” in election law, it
decrees that “[f]or the exercise of civil rights
a c t u a l l y m e a n s o n l y “ d o m i c i l e .” —T h e
and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the
deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the
domicile of natural persons is their place of
residence qualification for certain elective
habitual residence.” In Ong vs. Republic this
positions have placed beyond doubt the
court took the concept of domicile to mean an
principle that when the Constitution speaks of
individual’s “permanent home,” “a place to
“residence” in election law, it actually means
which, whenever absent for business or for
only “domicile.”
pleasure, one intends to return, and depends

Article 6 Section 6 Page 29

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

domicile even if he has lived and maintained

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It residences in different places. Residence, it
is the fact of residence, not a statement in a bears repeating, implies a factual relationship
certificate of candidacy which ought to be to a given place for various purposes. The
decisive in determining whether or not an absence from legal residence or domicile to
individual has satisfied the constitution’s pursue a profession, to study or to do other
residency qualification requirement.—It is the things of a temporary or semi-permanent
fact of residence, not a statement in a nature does not constitute loss of residence.
certificate of candidacy which ought to be Thus, the assertion by the COMELEC that “she
decisive in determining whether or not an could not have been a resident of Tacloban
individual has satisfied the constitution’s City since childhood up to the time she filed
residency qualification requirement. The said her certificate of candidacy because she
statement becomes material only when there became a resident of many places” flies in the
is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to face of settled jurisprudence in which this
mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would Court carefully made distinctions between
otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It (actual) residence and domicile for election
would be plainly ridiculous for a candidate to law purposes.
deliberately and knowingly make a statement
in a certificate of candidacy which would lead Same; Same; Same; Same; Domicile of
to his or her disqualification. Origin; A minor follows the domicile of his
parents.—A minor follows the domicile of his

marcial

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The parents. As domicile, once acquired is retained
honest mistake in the certificate of candidacy until a new one is gained, it follows that in
regarding the period of residency does not spite of the fact of petitioner’s being born in
negate the fact of residence in a congressional Manila, Tacloban, Leyte was her domicile of
district if such fact is established by means origin by operation of law. This domicile was

notes
more convincing than a mere entry on a piece not established only when she reached the
of paper.—Having been forced by private age of eight years old, when her father
respondent to register in her place of actual brought his family back to Leyte contrary to
residence in Leyte instead of petitioner’s private respondent’s averments.
claimed domicile, it appears that petitioner
had jotted down her period of stay in her Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Requisites
actual residence in a space which required her for a change of domicile.—Domicile of origin is
period of stay in her legal residence or not easily lost. To successfully effect a change
domicile. The juxtaposition of entries in Item 7 of domicile, one must demonstrate: 1. An
and Item 8—the first requiring actual actual removal or an actual change of
residence and the second requiring domicile— domicile; 2. A bona fide intention of
coupled with the circumstances surrounding abandoning the former place of residence and
petitioner’s registration as a voter in Tolosa establishing a new one; and 3. Acts which
obviously led to her writing down an correspond with the purpose.
unintended entry for which she could be
disqualified. This honest mistake should not, Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; To effect
however, be allowed to negate the fact of an abandonment requires the voluntary act of
residence in the First District if such fact were relinquishing former domicile with an intent to
established by means more convincing than a supplant the former domicile with one of her
mere entry on a piece of paper. own choosing (domicilium voluntarium).—In
the absence of clear and positive proof based
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; An on these criteria, the residence of origin
individual does not lose his domicile even if he should be deemed to continue. Only with
has lived and maintained residences in evidence showing concurrence of all three
different places.—We have stated, many times requirements can the presumption of
in the past, that an individual does not lose his continuity or residence be rebutted, for a

Article 6 Section 6 Page 30

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

change of residence requires an actual and Code refers to “domicile” and not to
deliberate abandonment, and one cannot have “residence.”—The duty to live together can
two legal residences at the same time. In the only be fulfilled if the husband and wife are
case at bench, the evidence adduced by physically together. This takes into account the
private respondent plainly lacks the degree of situations where the couple has many
persuasiveness required to convince this court residences (as in the case of petitioner). If the
that an abandonment of domicile of origin in husband has to stay in or transfer to any one
favor of a domicile of choice indeed occurred. of their residences, the wife should necessarily
To effect an abandonment requires the be with him in order that they may “live
voluntary act of relinquishing petitioner’s together.” Hence, it is illogical to conclude that
former domicile with an intent to supplant the Art. 110 refers to “domicile” and not to
former domicile with one of her own choosing “residence.” Otherwise, we shall be faced with
(domicilium voluntarium). a situation where the wife is left in the
domicile while the husband, for professional or
Same; Same; Same; Same; Marriages; other reasons, stays in one of their (various)
Husband and Wife; The presumption that the residences.
wife automatically gains the husband’s
domicile by operation of law upon marriage Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
cannot be inferred from the use of the term What petitioner gained upon marriage was
“residence” in Article 110 of the Civil Code actual residence—she did not lose her domicile
because the Civil Code is one area where the of origin.—Parenthetically when Petitioner was

marcial

two concepts are well delineated.—In this married to then Congressman Marcos, in
connection, it cannot be correctly argued that 1954, petitioner was obliged—by virtue of
petitioner lost her domicile of origin by Article 110 of the Civil Code—to follow her
operation of law as a result of her marriage to husband’s actual place of residence fixed by
the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in him. The problem here is that at that time, Mr.

notes
1952. For there is a clearly established Marcos had several places of residence,
distinction between the Civil Code concepts of among which were San Juan, Rizal and Batac,
“domicile” and “residence.” The presumption Ilocos Norte. There is no showing which of
that the wife automatically gains the these places Mr. Marcos did fix as his family’s
husband’s domicile by operation of law upon residence. But assuming that Mr. Marcos had
marriage cannot beinferred from the use of fixed any of these places as the conjugal
the term “residence” in Article 110 of the Civil residence, what petitioner gained upon
Code because the Civil Code is one area where marriage was actual residence. She did not
the two concepts are well delineated. lose her domicile of origin.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A Notes:

survey of jurisprudence yields nothing which ‣ There are two kinds of domicile. Domicile
would suggest that the female spouse by origin and Voluntary Domicile. Domicile
automatically loses her domicile of origin in by origin cannot be easily lost. There must
favor of the husband’s choice of residence be concurrence of 3 requisites.
upon marriage.—A survey of jurisprudence
relating to Article 110 or to the concepts of AGAPITO A. AQUINO, petitioner, vs.
domicile or residence as they affect the female COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MOVE
spouse upon marriage yields nothing which MAKATI, MATEO BEDON and JUANITO
would suggest that the female spouse ICARO, respondents.
automatically loses her domicile of origin in Same; Domicile; Residence; In order for a
favor of the husband’s choice of residence person to qualify as a candidate for a district,
upon marriage. he must prove that he has established not just
residence but domicile of choice.—We agree
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It with COMELEC’s contention that in order that
is illogical to conclude that Art. 110 of the Civil petitioner could qualify as a candidate for

Article 6 Section 6 Page 31

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

Representative of the Second District of cognizant and sensitive to the needs of a

Makati City the latter “must prove that he has particular district, if a candidate falls short of
established not just residence but domicile of the period of residency mandated by law for
choice.” him to qualify. That purpose could be
obviously best met by individuals who have
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; either had actual residence in the area for a
Residence, for election law purposes, has a given period or who have been domiciled in
settled meaning in our jurisdiction.—The the same area either by origin or by choice. It
Constitution requires that a person seeking would, therefore, be imperative for this Court
election to the House of Representatives to inquire into the threshold question as to
should be a resident of the district in which he whether or not petitioner actually was a
seeks election for a period of not less than one resident for a period of one year in the area
(1) year prior to the elections. Residence, for now encompassed by the Second Legislative
election law purposes, has a settled meaning District of Makati at the time of his election or
in our jurisdiction. whether or not he was domiciled in the same.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Clearly, the place Same; Same; Same; The absence of clear and
“where a party actually or constructively has positive proof showing a successful
his permanent home,” i.e., his domicile, is that abandonment of domicile under the conditions
to which the Constitution refers when it in the instant case—sentimental, actual or
speaks of residence for the purposes of otherwise—with the area, and the suspicious

marcial

election law.—Clearly, the place “where a circumstances under which a lease agreement
party actually or constructively has his was effected all belie petitioner’s claim of
permanent home,” where he, no matter where residency for the period required by the
he may be found at any given time, eventually Constitution.—While property ownership is not
intends to return and remain, i.e., his and should never be an indicia of the right to

notes
domicile, is that to which the Constitution vote or to be voted upon, the fact that
refers when it speaks of residence for the petitioner himself claims that he has other
purposes of election law. The manifest residences in Metro Manila coupled with the
purpose of this deviation from the usual short length of time he claims to be a resident
conceptions of residency in law as explained in of the condominium unit in Makati (and the
Gallego vs. Vera is “to exclude strangers or fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac) “indicate
newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and that the sole purpose of (petitioner) in
needs of the community” from taking transferring his physical residence” is not to
advantage of favorable circumstances existing acquire a new residence or domicile “but only
in that community for electoral gain. to qualify as a candidate for Representative of
the Second District of Makati City.” The
Same; Same; Same; While there is nothing absence of clear and positive proof showing a
wrong with the practice of establishing successful abandonment of domicile under the
residence in a given area for meeting election conditions stated above, the lack of
law requirements, this nonetheless defeats the identification—sentimental, actual or otherwise
essence of representation, which is to place —with the area, and the suspicious
through the assent of voters those most circumstances under which the lease
cognizant and sensitive to the n eeds of a agreement was effected all belie petitioner’s
particular district, if a candidate falls short of claim of residency for the period required by
the period of residency mandated by law for the Constitution, in the Second District of
him to qualify.—While there is nothing wrong Makati.
with the practice of establishing residence in a
given area for meeting election law Same; Same; Same; Domicile of origin is not
requirements, this nonetheless defeats the easily lost—to successfully effect a change of
essence of representation, which is to place domicile, a person must prove an actual
through the assent of voters those most removal or an actual change of domicile, a

Article 6 Section 6 Page 32

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

bona fide intention of abandoning the former that had already elected Philippine citizenship
place of residence and establishing a new one for him.—The respondent was born in an
and definite acts which correspond with the outlying rural town of Samar where there are
purpose.—Moreover, his assertion that he has no alien enclaves and no racial distinctions.
transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati The respondent has lived the life of a Filipino
is a bare assertion which is hardly supported since birth. His father applied for
by the facts in the case at bench. Domicile of naturalization when the child was still a small
origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a boy. He is a Roman Catholic. He has worked
change of domicile, petitioner must prove an for a sensitive government agency. His
actual removal or an actual change of profession requires citizenship for taking the
domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning examinations and getting a license. He has
the former place of residence and establishing participated in political exercises as a Filipino
a new one and definite acts which correspond and has always considered himself a Filipino
with the purpose. These requirements are citizen. There is nothing in the records to show
hardly met by the evidence adduced in that he does not embrace Philippine customs
support of petitioner’s claims of a change of and values, nothing to indicate any tinge of
domicile from Tarlac to the Second District of alien-ness, no acts to show that this country is
Makati. In the absence of clear and positive not his natural homeland. The mass of voters
proof, the domicile of origin should be deemed of Northern Samar are fully aware of Mr. Ong’s
to continue. parentage. They should know him better than
any member of this Court will ever know him.

marcial

ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioner, vs. They voted by overwhelming numbers to have

ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF him represent them in Congress. Because of
REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE ONG, JR., his acts since childhood, they have considered
Political Law; Citizenship; Natural-born him as a Filipino. The filing of a sworn
Citizen; The exercise of the right of suffrage s t a t e m e n t o r f o r m a l d e c l a ra t i o n i s a

notes
and the participation in election exercises requirement for those who still have to elect
constitute a positive act of election of citizenship. For those already Filipinos when
Philippine citizenship.—In the case of In Re: the time to elect came up, there are acts of
Florencio Mallare (59 SCRA 45 [1974]), the deliberate choice which cannot be less
Court held that the exercise of the right of binding. Entering a profession open only to
suffrage and the participation in election Filipinos, serving in public office where
exercises constitute a positive act of election citizenship is a qualification, voting during
of Philippine citizenship. In the exact election time, running for public office, and
pronouncement of the Court, we held: other categorical acts of similar nature are
Esteban’s exercise of the right of suffrage themselves formal manifestations of choice for
when he came of age, constitutes a positive these persons. An election of Philippine
act of election of Philippine citizenship”. (p. citizenship presupposes that the person
52; emphasis supplied) The private electing is an alien. Or his status is doubtful
respondent did more than merely exercise his because he is a national of two countries.
right of suffrage. He has established his life There is no doubt in this case about Mr. Ong’s
here in the Philippines. For those in the being a Filipino when he turned twenty-one
peculiar situation of the respondent who (21). We repeat that any election of Philippine
cannot be expected to have elected citizenship citizenship on the part of the private
as they were already citizens, we apply the In respondent would not only have been
Re Mallare rule. superfluous but it would also have resulted in
an absurdity. How can a Filipino citizen elect
Same; Same; Same; Any election of Philippine Philippine citizenship? The respondent HRET
citizenship on the part of private respondent has an interesting view as to how Mr. Ong
Jose Ong, Jr. would not only have been elected citizenship. It observed that “when
superfluous but would also have resulted in protestee was only nine years of age, his
absurdity considering that it was the law itself father, Jose Ong Chuan became a naturalized

Article 6 Section 6 Page 33

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

Filipino. Section 15 of the Revised other than in the place where one is elected,
Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit does not constitute loss of residence. (Faypon
to him for he was then a minor residing in this v. Quirino, 96 Phil. 294 [1954]) As previously
country. Concededly, it was the law itself that stated, the private respondent stayed in
had already elected Philippine citizenship for Manila for the purpose of finishing his studies
protestee by declaring him as and later to practice his profession. There was
such.” (Emphasis supplied) no intention to abandon the residence in
Laoang, Samar. On the contrary, the periodical
Same; Same; The term “residence” has been journeys made to his home province reveal
understood as synonymous with domicile not that he always had the animus revertendi.
only under the previous Constitutions but also
under the 1987 Constitution.—The petitioners Notes:
lose sight of the meaning of “residence” under ‣ If the place is Domicile by origin then
the Constitution. The term “residence” has property is not required to establish
been understood as synonymous with domicile residence within the place. (In the case of
not only under the previous Constitutions but Co)
also under the 1987 Constitution. xxx The ‣ If it is Voluntary Domicile then there must
framers of the Constitution adhered to the be an intention to establish domicile. A
earlier definition given to the word “residence” manifestation of that intention is the
which regarded it as having the same meaning owning of property. (in the case of Aquino)
as domicile. The term “domicile” denotes a

marcial

fixed permanent residence to which when JUAN G. FRIVALDO, petitioner, vs.

absent for business or pleasure, one intends COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RAUL
to return. (Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA R. LEE, respondents.
966 [1967]) The absence of a person from Political Law; Citizenship; Having been
said permanent residence, no matter how declared as a non-citizen, it is incumbent upon

notes
long, notwithstanding, it continues to be the Frivaldo to show that he has reacquired
domicile of that person. In other words, citizenship.—Inasmuch as Frivaldo had been
domicile is characterized by animus declared by this Court as a non-citizen, it is
revertendi. (Ujano v. Republic, 17 SCRA 147 therefore incumbent upon him to show that he
[1966]) has reacquired citizenship; in fine, that he
possesses the qualifications prescribed under
Same; Same; It is not required that a person the said statute (R.A. 7160).
should have a house in order to establish his
residence and domicile.—Even assuming that Same; Same; Citizenship may be reacquired
the private respondent does not own any by direct act of Congress, by naturalization or
property in Samar, the Supreme Court in the by repatriation.—Under Philippine law,
case of De los Reyes v. Solidum (61 Phil. 893 citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
[1935]) held that it is not required that a Congress, by naturalization or by repatriation.
person should have a house in order to Frivaldo told this Court in G.R. No. 104654
establish his residence and domicile. It is and during the oral argument in this case that
enough that he should live in the municipality he tried to resume his citizenship by direct act
or in a rented house or in that of a friend or of Congress, but that the bill allowing him to
relative. (Emphasis supplied) do so “failed to materialize, notwithstanding
the endorsement of several members of the
Same; Same; Absence from residence to House of Representatives” due, according to
pursue studies or practice a profession or him, to the “maneuvers of his political rivals.”
registration as a voter other than in the place In the same case, his attempt at naturalization
where one is elected, does not constitute loss was rejected by this Court because of
of residence.—It has also been settled that jurisdictional, substantial and procedural
absence from residence to pursue studies or defects.
practice a profession or registration as a voter

Article 6 Section 6 Page 34

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

Same; Same; The law does not specify any Same; Same; Frivaldo deserves a liberal
particular date or time when the candidate interpretation of Philippine laws and whatever
must possess citizenship unlike that for defects there were in his nationality should
residence and age.—From the above, it will be now be deemed mooted by his repatriation.—
noted that the law does not specify any Being a former Filipino who has served the
particular date or time when the candidate people repeatedly, Frivaldo deserves a liberal
must possess citizenship, unlike that for interpretation of Philippine laws and whatever
residence (which must consist of at least one defects there were in his nationality should
year’s residency immediately preceding the now be deemed mooted by his repatriation.

day of election) and age (at least twenty three
years of age on election day).

Same; Same; Same; The Local Government

Code requires an elective official to be a
registered voter, it does not require him to
vote actually.—If the law intended the
citizenship qualification to be possessed prior
to election consistent with the requirement of
being a registered voter, then it would not
h a v e m a d e c i t i z e n s h i p a S E P A R AT E
qualification. The law abhors a redundancy. It

marcial

therefore stands to reason that the law

intended CITIZENSHIP to be a qualification
distinct from being a VOTER, even if being a
voter presumes being a citizen first. It also
stands to reason that the voter requirement

notes
was included as another qualification (aside
from “citizenship”), not to reiterate the need
for nationality but to require that the official
be registered as a voter IN THE AREA OR
TERRITORY he seeks to govern, i.e., the law
states: “a registered voter in the barangay,
municipality, city, or province x x x where he
i n t e n d s t o b e e l e c t e d .” I t s h o u l d b e
emphasized that the Local Government Code
requires an elective official to be a registered
voter. It does not require him to vote actually.
Hence, registration—not the actual voting—is
the core of this “qualification.” In other words,
the law’s purpose in this second requirement
is to ensure that the prospective official is
actually registered in the area he seeks to
govern—and not anywhere else.

Same; Same; The repatriation of Frivaldo

retroacted to the date of the filing of his
application on August 17, 1994.—But to
remove all doubts on this important issue, we
also hold that the repatriation of Frivaldo
RETROACTED to the date of the filing of his
application on August 17, 1994.

Article 6 Section 6 Page "35 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 7. The Members of the House of members of Congress. Section 2 of Article XI

Representatives shall be elected for a provides that "(t)he President, the Vice-
term of three years which shall begin, President, the Members of the Supreme Court,
unless otherwise provided by law, at the Members of the Constitutional
noon on the thirtieth day of June next Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
following their election. removed from office, on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the
No member of the House of Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
Representatives shall serve for more than corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
three consecutive terms. Voluntary public trust. All other public officers and
renunciation of the office for any length employees may be removed from office as
of time shall not be considered as an provided by law, but not by impeachment.
interruption in the continuity of his Such constitutional expression clearly
service for the full term for which he was recognizes that the four (4) grounds found in
elected. Article VI of the Constitution by which the
tenure of a Congressman may be shortened
are not exclusive.
MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO, petitioner,
Same; Same; Forfeiture is automatic and
vs. HON. RAMON V. MITRA, JR., Speaker,
permanently effective upon the filing of the
House of Representatives, and (HON
certificate of candidacy for another office.—In

marcial

QUIRINO D. ABAD SANTOS, JR.) HON.

Monroy vs. Court of Appeals, a case involving
CAMILO L. SABIO, Secretary, House of
Section 27 of R.A. No. 180 above-quoted, this
representatives, respondents.
Court categorically pronounced that "forfeiture
Same; Same; Term of office distinguished
(is) automatic and permanently effective upon
from tenure.—In theorizing that the provision
the filing of the certificate of candidacy for
under consideration cuts short the term of

notes
another office. Only the moment and act of
office of a Member of Congress, petitioner
filing are considered. Once the certificate is
seems to confuse "term" with "tenure" of
filed, the seat is forever forfeited and nothing
office. As succinctly distinguished by the
save a new election or appointment can
Solicitor General: "The term of office
restore the ousted official.
prescribed by the Constitution may not be
extended or shortened by the legislature (22
Notes:
R.C.L.), but the period during which an officer
‣ The term limit applies even if running for
actually holds the office (tenure), may be
different districts.
affected by circumstances within or beyond
‣ The limit applies on party list nominees as
the power of said officer. Tenure may be
well.
shorter than the term or it may not exist at
‣ Grounds
all. These situations will not change the
‣ SECTION 13. ARTICLE 6: No Senator or
duration of the term of office (see Topacio
Member of the House of Representatives
Nueno vs. Angeles, 76 Phil. 12).”
may hold any other office or employment
in the Government, or any subdivision,
Same; Same; Same; Fact that the ground
ag ency, or i nst rument al i ty t hereof,
cited in Section 67, Article lX of BP Blg. 881 is
including government-owned or controlled
not mentioned in the Constitution itself as a
corporations or their subsidiaries, during
mode of shortening the tenure of office of
his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither
members of Congress does not preclude its
shall he be appointed to any office which
application to present members of Congress.—
may have been created or the emoluments
That the ground cited in Section 67, Article IX
thereof increased during the term for
of B.P. Blg. 881 is not mentioned in the
which he was elected.
Constitution itself as a mode of shortening the
‣ SECTION 16,(3), ARTICLE 6: Each House
tenure of office of members of Congress, does
may determine the rules of its
not preclude its application to present

Article 6 Section 7 Page 36

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

proceedings, punish its Members for

d i s o r d e r l y b e h a v i o r, a n d , w i t h t h e
concurrence of two-thirds of all its
Members, suspend or expel a Member. A
penalty of suspension, when imposed,
shall not exceed sixty days.
‣ SECTION 17. ARTICLE 6: The Senate and
the House of Representatives shall each
have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be
the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of
their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine
Members, three of whom shall be Justices
of the Supreme Court to be designated by
the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
shall be Members of the Senate or the
House of Representatives, as the case may
be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or

marcial

organizations registered under the party-

list system represented therein. The senior
Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman.
‣ SECTION 7, (2), ARTICLE 6: No member of

notes
the House of Representatives shall serve
for more than three consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as
an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was
elected.


Article 6 Section 7 Page 37

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 8. Unless otherwise provided by publish it in their respective localities by

law, the regular election of the Senators posting at least three copies thereof in as
and the Members of the House of many conspicuous places in each of their
Representatives shall be held on the election precincts, and a copy in each of the
second Monday of May. polling places and public markets, and in the
municipal buildings.

Section 4. This Act shall take effect upon its

Republic Act No. 6645 publication in the Official Gazette or in at least
two newspapers of general circulation.
AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF Approved: December 28, 1987.

FILING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF
THE PHILIPPINES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled::

Section 1. In case a vacancy arises in the

Senate at least eighteen (18) months or in the
House of Representatives at least (1) year
before the next regular election for Members

marcial

of Congress, the Commission on Elections,

upon receipt of a resolution of the Senate or
the House of Representatives, as the case may
be, certifying to the existence of such vacancy
and calling for a special election, shall hold a
special election to fill such vacancy.f Congress

notes
is in recess, an official communication on the
existence of the vacancy and call for a special
election by the President of the Senate or by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
as the case may be, shall be sufficient for such
purpose. The Senator or Member of the House
of Representatives thus elected shall serve
only for the unexpired term.

Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall

fix the date of the special election, which shall
not be earlier than forty-five (45) days not
later than ninety (90) days from the date of
such resolution or communication, stating
among other things the office or offices to be
voted for: provided, however, that if within the
said period a general election is scheduled to
be held, the special election shall be held
simultaneously with such general election.

Section 3. The Commission on Elections shall

send copies of the resolution, in number
sufficient for due distribution and publication,
to the Provincial of City Treasurer of each
province or city concerned, who in turn shall

Article 6 Section 8 Page "38 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 9. In case of vacancy in the duly authorized to perform its functions as

Senate or in the House of such, at the time of the performance of the
Representatives, a special election may acts in question. (Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil.
be called to fill such vacancy in the 192; Tenney vs. Brandhove, 341 U.S, 367;
manner prescribed by law, but the Coffin vs. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1.)
Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall serve Same; Congress; Open letter to the President,
only for the unexpired term. when Congress was not in session, is not
covered by constitutional privilege.—An open
letter to the President of the Philippines when
Congress was not in session which defendant-
SECTION 10. The salaries of Senators and Congressman caused to be published in
Members of the House of Representatives several newspapers of general circulation in
shall be determined by law. No increase the Philippines is not a communication which
in said compensation shall take effect the defendant published while he was
until after the expiration of the full term performing his official duty, either as a
of all the Members of the Senate and the Member of Congress, or as officer of any
House of Representatives approving such Committee thereof. Said communication is not
increase. absolutely privileged.

Pobre vs Defensor - Santiago

marcial

The immunity Senator Santiago claims is

SECTION 11. A Senator or Member of the rooted primarily on the provision of Article VI,
House of Representatives shall, in all Section 11 of the Constitution, which
offenses punishable by not more than six provides: A Senator or Member of the House
years imprisonment, be privileged from of Representative shall, in all offenses
arrest while the Congress is in session.

notes
punishable by not more than six years
No Member shall be questioned nor be imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
held liable in any other place for any the Congress is in session. No member shall
speech or debate in the Congress or in be questioned nor be held liable in any other
any committee thereof. place for any speech or debate in the
Congress or in any committee thereof.
Explaining the import of the underscored
portion of the provision, the Court, in Osmea,
NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs Jr. v. Pendatun, said:
and appellants, vs. BARTOLOME Our Constitution enshrines
CABANGBANG, defendant and appellee. parliamentary immunity which is a
Constitutional law; Libel; Utterances made by fundamental privilege cherished in every
Congressmen that are privileged.—The phrase legislative assembly of the democratic world.
“speech or debate therein,” used in Article VI, As old as the English Parliament, its purpose is
Section 15 of the Constitution, refers to to enable and encourage a representative of
utterances made by Congressmen in the the public to discharge his public trust with
performance of their official functions, such as firmness and success for it is indispensably
speeches delivered, statements made, or necessary that he should enjoy the fullest
votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the liberty of speech and that he should be
same is in session, as well as bills introduced protected from resentment of every one,
in Congress, whether the same is in session or however, powerful, to whom the exercise of
not, and other acts performed by that liberty may occasion offense.[1]
Congressmen, either in Congress or outside
the premises housing its offices, in the official As American jurisprudence puts it,
discharge of their duties as Members of this legislative privilege is founded upon long
Congress and of Congressional Committees experience and arises as a means of

Article 6 Section 9 - 11 Page "39 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

perpetuating inviolate the functioning process C O N S T I T U T I O N A L L AW; C O N G R E SS ;

of the legislative department. Without PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS,
parliamentary immunity, parliament, or its N OT A B S O L U T E .—W h i l e p a r l i a m e n t a r y
equivalent, would degenerate into a polite and immunity guarantees the legislator complete
ineffective debating forum. Legislators are freedom of expression without fear of being
immune from deterrents to the uninhibited made responsible in criminal or civil actions
discharge of their legislative duties, not for before the courts or any other forum outside
their private indulgence, but for the public of the Congressional Hall, however, it does not
good. The privilege would be of little value if protect him from responsibility before the
they could be subjected to the cost and legislative body itself whenever his words and
inconvenience and distractions of a trial upon conduct are considered by the latter disorderly
a conclusion of the pleader, or to the hazard of or unbecoming a member thereof. For
a judgment against them based upon a judges unparliamentary conduct, members of
speculation as to the motives. Congress can be censured, committed to
prison, suspended, even expelled by the votes
This Court is aware of the need and of their colleagues.
has in fact been in the forefront in upholding
the institution of parliamentary immunity and P A R L I A M E N TA R Y R U L E S ; FA I L U R E T O
promotion of free speech. Neither has the C O N F O R M T O R U L E S , E F F E C T O F. —
Court lost sight of the importance of the Parliamentary rules are merely procedural,
legislative and oversight functions of the and with their observance, the courts have no

marcial

Congress that enable this representative body concern. They may be waived or disregarded
to look diligently into every affair of by the legislative body. Consequently, mere
government, investigate and denounce failure to conform to parliamentary usage will
anomalies, and talk about how the country not invalidate the action taken by a deliberate
and its citizens are being served. Courts do body when the requisite number of members

notes
not interfere with the legislature or its have agreed to a particular measure.
members in the manner they perform their
functions in the legislative floor or in POWER OF CONGRESS TO DETERMINE
committee rooms. Any claim of an unworthy DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR OF MEMBERS;
purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of the SEPARATION OF POWERS.—The House of
statement uttered by the member of the Re p r e s e n t at i ve s i s t h e j u d g e o f w h at
Congress does not destroy the privilege.[3] The constitutes disorderly behaviour. The courts
disciplinary authority of the assembly[4] and will not assume a jurisdiction in any case
the voters, not the courts, can properly which will amount to an interference by the
discourage or correct such abuses committed judicial department with the legislature.
in the name of parliamentary immunity.[5]
PERSONAL ATTACK UPON CHIEF EXECUTIVE
SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., petitioner, vs. CONSTITUTES DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR.—The
SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, LEON Z. House of Representatives of the United States
GUINTO, JR., VICENTE L. PERALTA, has taken the position that personal attacks
FAUSTINO TOBIA, LORENZO G. TEVES, upon the Chief Executive constitutes
JOSE J. ROY, FAUSTO DUGENIO, unparliamentary conduct or breach of order.
ANTONIO Y. DE PIO, BENJAMIN T. LIGOT, And in several instances, it took action against
PEDRO G. TRONO, FELIPE ABRIGO, offenders, even after other business had been
FELIPE S. ABELEDA, TECLA SAN ANDRES considered.

ZIGA, ANGEL B. FERNANDEZ, ,and
EUGENIO S. BALTAO, in their capacity as
'members of the Special Committee
created by House Resolution No. 59,
respondents.

Article 6 Section 9 - 11 Page 40

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 12. All Members of the Senate office conferred upon him by said new
and the House of Representatives shall, appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the
upon assumption of office, make a full discharge of the functions thereof.
disclosure of their financial and business
interests. They shall notify the House Notes:
concerned of a potential conflict of ‣ The automatic forfeiture shall apply when
interest that may arise from the filing of a the public officer has accepted, qualified,
proposed legislation of which they are assumed and accepted compensation.
authors.
SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of
the House of Representatives may
personally appear as counsel before any
SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of court of justice or before the Electoral
the House of Representatives may hold Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
any other office or employment in the administrative bodies. Neither shall he,
Government, or any subdivision, agency, directly or indirectly, be interested
or instrumentality thereof, including financially in any contract with, or in any
government-owned or controlled franchise or special privilege granted by
corporations or their subsidiaries, during the Government, or any subdivision,
his term without forfeiting his seat. agency, or instrumentality thereof,
Neither shall he be appointed to any including any government-owned or

marcial

office which may have been created or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary,
the emoluments thereof increased during during his term of office. He shall not
the term for which he was elected. intervene in any matter before any office
of the Government for his pecuniary
benefit or where he may be called upon

notes
FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, petitioner, vs. to act on account of his office.
SIXTO DE LA COSTA, respondent.JUDGES; EUGENIO J. PUYAT, ERWIN L.
ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT FOR A NEW CHIONGBIAN, EDGARDO P. REYES,
JUDICIAL DlSTRICT; PETITIONER ESTOPPED ANTONIO G. PUYAT, JAIME R. BLANCO,
TO QUESTION LEGALITY OF COMMONWEALTH RAFAEL R. RECTO and REYNALDO L.
ACT NO. 145 UNDER WHICH NEW LARDIZABAL, petitioners, vs. HON. SIXTO
APPOINTMENT WAS MADE.—When a judge of T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Associate
first instance, presiding over a branch of a Commissioner of the Securities &
Court of First Instance of a judicial district by Exchange Commission, EUSTAQUIO T. C.
virtue of a legal and valid appointment, ACERO, R. G. VILDZIUS, ENRIQUE M.
accepts another appointment to preside over BELO, MANUEL G. ABELLO, SERVILLANO
the same branch of the same Court of First DOLINA, JUANITO MERCADO and
Instance, in addition to another court of the ESTANISLAO A. FERNANDEZ,
same category, both of which belong to a new respondents.
judicial district formed by the addition of
another Court of First Instance to the old one,
enters into the discharge of the functions of Attorneys; Constitutional Law; Administrative
his new office and receives the corresponding Law; Corporations Act; An assemblyman
salary, he abandons his old office and cannot cannot indirectly fail to follow the
claim to be entitled to repossess it or question Constitutional prohibition not to appear as
the constitutionality of the law by virtue of counsel before an administrative tribunal like
which his new appointment has been issued; the SEC by buying a nominal amount of share
and, said new appointment having been of one of the shareholders after his
disapproved by the Commission on appearance as counsel therein was contested.
Appointments of the National Assembly, —Ordinarily, by virtue of the Motion for
neither can he claim to continue occupying the Intervention, Assemblyman Fernandez cannot

Article 6 Section 12 - 15 Page 41

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

be said to be appearing as counsel. Ostensibly, SECTION 15. The Congress shall convene
he is not appearing on behalf of another, once every year on the fourth Monday of
although he is joining the cause of the private July for its regular session, unless a
respondents His appearance could different date is fixed by law, and shall
theoretically be for the protection of his continue to be in session for such number
ownership of ten (10) shares of IPI in respect of days as it may determine until thirty
of the matter in litigation and not for the days before the opening of its next
protection of the petitioners nor respondents regular session, exclusive of Saturdays,
who have their respective capable and Sundays, and legal holidays. The
respected counsel. President may call a special session at
any time.
Same; Same; Same; Same.—However, certain
salient circumstances militate against the
intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in the Notes:
SEC Case. He had acquired a mere P200.00 ‣ Adjournment: ends the legislative day;
worth of stock in IPI, representing ten shares Recess: breaks within a legislative day
out of 262,843 outstanding shares. He ‣ Calendar day is one day; legislative day is
acquired them “after the fact”, that is, on May the opening of a debate until the debate
30, 1979, after the contested election of ends.

Directors on May 14, 1979, after the quo
warranto suit had been filed on May 25, 1979

marcial

before SEC and one day before the scheduled

hearing of the case before the SEC on May 31,
1979. And what is more, before he moved to
intervene, he had signified his intention to
appear as counsel for respondent Eustaquio T.

notes
C Acero, but which was objected to by
petitioners. Realizing, perhaps, the validity of
the objection, he decided, instead, to
“intervene” on the ground of legal interest in
the matter under litigation. And it may be
noted that in the case filed before the Rizal
Court of First Instance (L-51928), he appeared
as counsel for defendant Excelsior, co-
defendant of respondent Acero therein.

Same; Same; Same; Same.—Under those

facts and circumstances, we are constrained
to find that there has been an indirect
“appearance as counsel before x x x an
administrative body” and, in our opinion, that
is a circumvention of the Constitutional
prohibition. The “intervention” was an
afterthought to enable him to appear actively
in the proceedings in some other capacity. To
believe the avowed purpose, that is, to enable
him eventually to vote and to be elected as
Director in the event of an unfavorable
outcome of the SEC Case would be pure
naivete. He would still appear as counsel
indirectly.

Article 6 Section 12 - 15 Page "42 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall elect “Majority” and “Minority,” Explained; The plain
its President and the House of and unambiguous words of Section 16 (1),
Representatives its Speaker, by a Article VI of the Constitution simply mean that
majority vote of all its respective the Senate President must obtain the votes of
Members. more than one half of all the senators, and not
by any construal does it thereby delineate who
Each House shall choose such other comprise the “majority,” much less the
officers as it may deem necessary. “minority,” in the said body.—The term
“majority” has been judicially defined a
(2) A majority of each House shall number of times. When referring to a certain
constitute a quorum to do business, but a number out of a total or aggregate, it simply
smaller number may adjourn from day to “means the number greater than half or more
day and may compel the attendance of than half of any total.” The plain and
absent Members in such manner, and unambiguous words of the subject
under such penalties, as such House may constitutional clause simply mean that the
provide. Senate President must obtain the votes of
more than one half of all the senators. Not by
(3) Each House may determine the rules any construal does it thereby delineate who
of its proceedings, punish its Members for comprise the “majority,” much less the
disorderly behavior, and, with the “minority,” in the said body. And there is no
concurrence of two-thirds of all its showing that the framers of our Constitution

marcial

Members, suspend or expel a Member. A had in mind other than the usual meanings of
penalty of suspension, when imposed, these terms.
shall not exceed sixty days.
Same; Same; Same; Same; While the
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its Constitution mandates that the President of

notes
proceedings, and from time to time the Senate must be elected by a number
publish the same, excepting such parts as constituting more than one half of all the
may, in its judgment, affect national members thereof, it does not provide that the
security; and the yeas and nays on any members who will not vote for him shall ipso
question shall, at the request of one-fifth facto constitute the “minority,” who could
of the Members present, be entered in thereby elect the minority leader.—In effect,
the Journal. while the Constitution mandates that the
President of the Senate must be elected by a
Each House shall also keep a Record of its number constituting more than one half of all
proceedings. the members thereof, it does not provide that
the members who will not vote for him shall
(5) Neither House during the sessions of ipso facto constitute the “minority,” who could
the Congress shall, without the consent thereby elect the minority leader. Verily, no
of the other, adjourn for more than three law or regulation states that the defeated
days, nor to any other place than that in candidate shall automatically become the
which the two Houses shall be sitting. minority leader.

Same; Same; Same; Same; History would

also show that the “majority” in either house
SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO AND of Congress has referred to the political party
SEN. FRANCISCO S. TATAD, petitioners, to which the most number of lawmakers
vs. SEN. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. belonged, while the “minority” normally
AND SEN. MARCELO B. FERNAN, referred to a party with a lesser number of
respondents. members.—The Comment of Respondent
Constitutional Law; Parliamentary Rules; Guingona furnishes some relevant precedents,
Statutory Construction; Words and Phrases; which were not contested in petitioners’ Reply.

Article 6 Section 16 Page 43

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

During the eighth Congress, which was the elections. In the prevailing composition of the
first to convene after the ratification of the present Senate, members either belong to
1987 Constitution, the nomination of Sen. different political parties or are independent.
Jovito R. Salonga as Senate President was No constitutional or statutory provision
seconded by a member of the minority, then prescribes which of the many minority groups
Sen. Joseph E. Estrada. During the ninth or the independents or a combination thereof
regular session, when Sen. Edgardo J. Angara has the right to select the minority leader.
assumed the Senate presidency in 1993, a
consensus was reached to assign committee Same; Same; Separation of Powers; Political
chairmanships to all senators, including those Questions; The method of choosing who will
belonging to the minority. This practice be such other officers is merely a derivative of
continued during the tenth Congress, where the exercise of the prerogative conferred by
even the minority leader was allowed to chair the Constitution, and such method must be
a committee. History would also show that the prescribed by the Senate itself, not by the
“majority” in either house of Congress has Supreme Court.—While the Constitution is
referred to the political party to which the explicit on the manner of electing a Senate
most number of lawmakers belonged, while President and a House Speaker, it is, however,
the “minority” normally referred to a party dead silent on the manner of selecting the
with a lesser number of members. other officers in both chambers of Congress.
All that the Charter says is that “[e]ach House
Same; Same; Same; Same; Majority may also shall choose such other officers as it may

marcial

refer to “the group, party, or faction with the deem necessary.” To our mind, the method of
larger number of votes,” not necessarily more choosing who will be such other officers is
than one half—sometimes referred to as merely a derivative of the exercise of the
plurality—while minority is “a group, party, or prerogative conferred by the aforequoted
faction with a smaller number of votes or constitutional provision. Therefore, such

notes
adherents than the majority;” No method must be prescribed by the Senate
constitutional or statutory provision prescribes itself, not by this Court.
which of the many minority groups or the
independents or a combination thereof has the Same; Same; Same; Same; In the absence of
right to select the minority leader.—Let us go constitutional or statutory guidelines or
back to the definitions of the terms “majority” specific rules, this Court is devoid of any basis
and “minority.” Majority may also refer to “the upon which to determine the legality of the
group, party, or faction with the larger number acts of the Senate relative thereto.—Notably,
of votes,” not necessarily more than one half. the Rules of the Senate do not provide for the
This is sometimes referred to as plurality. In positions of majority and minority leaders.
contrast, minority is “a group, party, or faction Neither is there an open clause providing
with a smaller number of votes or adherents specifically for such offices and prescribing the
than the majority.” Between two unequal parts manner of creating them or of choosing the
or numbers comprising a whole or totality, the holders thereof. At any rate, such offices, by
greater number would obviously be the tradition and long practice, are actually
majority, while the lesser would be the extant. But, in the absence of constitutional or
minority. But where there are more than two statutory guidelines or specific rules, this
unequal groupings, it is not as easy to say Court is devoid of any basis upon which to
which is the minority entitled to select the determine the legality of the acts of the
leader representing all the minorities. In a Senate relative thereto.
government with a multiparty system such as
in the Philippines (as pointed out by Same; Same; Same; Same; Courts may not
petitioners themselves), there could be intervene in the internal affairs of the
several minority parties, one of which has to legislature—it is not within the province of
be identified by the Comelec as the “dominant courts to direct Congress how to do its work.—
minority party” for purposes of the general On grounds of respect for the basic concept of

Article 6 Section 16 Page 44

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

separation of powers, courts may not case does not present a situation in which a
intervene in the internal affairs of the branch of the government has “gone beyond
legislature; it is not within the province of the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction” so
courts to direct Congress how to do its work. as to call for the exercise of the Court’s Art.
Paraphrasing the words of Justice Florentino P. VIII, §1 power.—As we have already held,
Feliciano, this Court is of the opinion that under Art. VIII, §1, this Court’s function is
where no specific, operable norms and merely [to] check whether or not the
standards are shown to exist, then the governmental branch or agency has gone
legislature must be given a real and effective beyond the constitutional limits of its
opportunity to fashion and promulgate as well jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different
as to implement them, before the courts may view. In the absence of a showing . . . [of]
intervene. grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court
Same; Same; Same; Same; Being merely to exercise its corrective power. . . . It has no
matters of procedure, the observance of power to look into what it thinks is apparent
legislative rules are of no concern to the error. If, then, the established rule is that
courts, for said rules may be waived or courts cannot declare an act of the legislature
disregarded by the legislative body at will, void on account merely of noncompliance with
upon the concurrence of a majority.—Needless rules of procedure made by itself, it follows
to state, legislative rules, unlike statutory that such a case does not present a situation
laws, do not have the imprints of permanence in which a branch of the government has

marcial

and obligatoriness during their effectivity. In “gone beyond the constitutional limits of its
fact, they “are subject to revocation, jurisdiction” so as to call for the exercise of
modification or waiver at the pleasure of the our Art. VIII, §1 power.
body adopting them.” Being merely matters of
procedure, their observance are of no concern Same; Same; Same; Legislative Rules of

notes
to the courts, for said rules may be waived or Procedure; Bicameral Conference Committee
disregarded by the legislative body at will, Reports; No rule of the House of
upon the concurrence of a majority. Representatives has been cited which
specifically requires that in cases involving the
Jose Avelino, petitioner, vs. approval of a conference committee report,
Mariano J. Cuenco, respondent. the Chair must restate the motion and conduct
Quorum of Philippine Senate.—The Court held a viva voce or nominal voting.—Petitioners
that there was a quorum in the session of the argue that, in accordance with the rules of the
Philippine Senate (composed of twenty-four House, Rep. Albano’s motion for the approval
Senators) in which twelve Senators were of the conference committee report should
present, one Senator being in the United have been stated by the Chair and later the
States. individual votes of the Members should have
been taken. They say that the method used in
JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, this case is a legislator’s nightmare because it
JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA, WIGBERTO E. suggests unanimity when the fact was that
TAÑADA, AND RONALDO B. ZAMORA, one or some legislators opposed the report.
petitioners, vs. JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL No rule of the House of Representatives has
DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE been cited which specifically requires that in
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY cases such as this involving approval of a
OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER conference committee report, the Chair must
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. restate the motion and conduct a viva voce or
Same; Same; Same; Same; If, then, the nominal voting. On the other hand, as the
established rule is that courts cannot declare Solicitor General has pointed out, the manner
an act of the legislature void on account in which the conference committee report on
merely of noncompliance with rules of H. No. 7198 was approved was by no means a
procedure made by itself, it follows that such a unique one. It has basis in legislative practice.

Article 6 Section 16 Page 45

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

It was the way the conference committee the business of the House; A Member of the
report on the bills which became the Local House waives his objection to the presence of
Government Code of 1991 and the conference a quorum by his continued interpellation for in
committee report on the bills amending the so doing he in effect acknowledges the
Tariff and Customs Code were approved. presence of a quorum.—Here, the matter
complained of concerns a matter of internal
Same; Same; Same; Same; The advantages procedure of the House with which the Court
or disadvantages, the wisdom or folly of a should not be concerned. To repeat, the claim
method do not present any matter for judicial is not that there was no quorum but only that
consideration—the Court cannot provide a Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented from
second opinion on what is the best procedure. questioning the presence of a quorum. Rep.
—Indeed, it is no impeachment of the method Arroyo’s earlier motion to adjourn for lack of
to say that some other way would be better, quorum had already been defeated, as the roll
more accurate and even more just. The call established the existence of a quorum.
advantages or disadvantages, the wisdom or The question of quorum cannot be raised
folly of a method do not present any matter repeatedly—especially when the quorum is
for judicial consideration. In the words of the obviously present—for the purpose of delaying
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, “this Court the business of the House. Rep. Arroyo waived
cannot provide a second opinion on what is his objection by his continued interpellation of
the best procedure. Notwithstanding the the sponsor for in so doing he in effect
deference and esteem that is properly acknowledged the presence of a quorum.

marcial

tendered to individual congressional actors,

our deference and esteem for the institution Same; Same; Same; Same; Enrolled Bill
as a whole and for the constitutional command Doctrine; Presumptions; Under the enrolled
that the institution be allowed to manage its bill doctrine, the signing of a bill by the
own affairs precludes us from even attempting Speaker of the House and the President of the

notes
a diagnosis of the problem.” Senate and the certification by the secretaries
of both Houses of Congress that it was passed
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Constitution are conclusive of its due enactment; There is
does not require that the yeas and the nays of no claim either here or in the decision in the
the Members be taken every time a House has EVAT cases that the enrolled bill embodies a
to vote, except only in the following instances conclusive presumption.—Under the enrolled
—upon the last and third readings of a bill, at bill doctrine, the signing of H. No. 7198 by the
the request of one-fifth of the Members Speaker of the House and the President of the
present, and in repassing a bill over the veto Senate and the certification by the secretaries
of the President.—Nor does the Constitution of both Houses of Congress that it was passed
require that the yeas and the nays of the on November 21, 1996 are conclusive of its
Members be taken every time a House has to due enactment. Much energy and learning is
vote, except only in the following instances: devoted in the separate opinion of Justice
upon the last and third readings of a bill, at Puno, joined by Justice Davide, to disputing
the request of one-fifth of the Members this doctrine. To be sure, there is no claim
present, and in repassing a bill over the veto either here or in the decision in the EVAT
of the President. Indeed, considering the fact cases [Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance] that
that in the approval of the original bill the the enrolled bill embodies a conclusive
votes of the Members by yeas and nays had presumption.
already been taken, it would have been sheer
tedium to repeat the process. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Where
there is no evidence to the contrary, the Court
Same; Same; Same; Same; Quorum; The will respect the certification of the presiding
q u e s t i o n o f q u o r u m c an n o t b e rai s e d officers of both Houses that a bill has been
repeatedly—especially when the quorum is duly passed.—In one case we “went behind”
obviously present—for the purpose of delaying an enrolled bill and consulted the Journal to

Article 6 Section 16 Page 46

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

determine whether certain provisions of a the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
statute had been approved by the Senate. Journal has also been accorded conclusive
But, where as here there is no evidence to the effect.—The Journal is regarded as conclusive
c o n t r a r y, t h i s C o u r t w i l l r e s p e c t t h e with respect to matters that are required by
certification of the presiding officers of both the Constitution to be recorded therein. With
Houses that a bill has been duly passed. respect to other matters, in the absence of
Under this rule, this Court has refused to evidence to the contrary, the Journals have
determine claims that the three-fourths vote also been accorded conclusive effect. Thus, in
needed to pass a proposed amendment to the United States v. Pons, this Court spoke of the
Constitution had not been obtained, because imperatives of public policy for regarding the
“a duly authenticated bill or resolution imports Journals as “public memorials of the most
absolute verity and is binding on the courts.” permanent character,” thus: “They should be
public, because all are required to conform to
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The them; they should be permanent, that rights
enrolled bill doctrine, as a rule of evidence, is acquired today upon the faith of what has
well established, and to overrule it now is to been declared to be law shall not be destroyed
repudiate the massive teaching of our cases tomorrow, or at some remote period of time,
and overthrow an established rule of evidence. by facts resting only in the memory of
—The enrolled bill doctrine, as a rule of individuals.” As already noted, the bill which
evidence, is well established. It is cited with became R.A. No. 8240 is shown in the Journal.
approval by text writers here and abroad. The Hence its due enactment has been duly

marcial

enrolled bill rule rests on the following proven.

considerations: . . . As the President has no
authority to approve a bill not passed by Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court has
Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the not been invested with a roving commission to
Secretary of State, and having the official inquire into complaints, real or imagined, of

notes
attestations of the Speaker of the House of legislative skullduggery—it would be acting in
Representatives, of the President of the excess of its power and would itself be guilty
Senate, and of the President of the United of grave abuse of its discretion were it to do
States, carries, on its face, a solemn so.—It would be an unwarranted invasion of
assurance by the legislative and executive the prerogative of a coequal department for
departments of the government, charged, this Court either to set aside a legislative
respectively, with the duty of enacting and action as void because the Court thinks the
executing the laws, that it was passed by House has disregarded its own rules of
Congress. The respect due to coequal and procedure, or to allow those defeated in the
independent departments requires the judicial political arena to seek a rematch in the judicial
department to act upon that assurance, and to forum when petitioners can find their remedy
accept, as having passed Congress, all bills in that department itself. The Court has not
authenticated in the manner stated; leaving been invested with a roving commission to
the court to determine, when the question inquire into complaints, real or imagined, of
properly arises, whether the Act, so legislative skullduggery. It would be acting in
authenticated, is in conformity with the excess of its power and would itself be guilty
Constitution. To overrule the doctrine now, as of grave abuse of its discretion were it to do
the dissent urges, is to repudiate the massive so. The suggestion made in a case may
teaching of our cases and overthrow an instead appropriately be made here:
established rule of evidence. petitioners can seek the enactment of a new
law or the repeal or amendment of R.A. No.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Legislative 8240. In the absence of anything to the
Journals; The Journal is regarded as contrary, the Court must assume that
conclusive with respect to matters that are Congress or any House thereof acted in the
required by the Constitution to be recorded good faith belief that its conduct was
therein, and with respect to other matters, in permitted by its rules, and deference rather

Article 6 Section 16 Page 47

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

than disrespect is due the judgment of that not exceed sixty days.” The suspension
body. contemplated in the above constitutional
provision is a punitive measure that is
Osmeña vs Pendatun
 imposed upon determination by the Senate or
ID.; ID.; POWER OF CONGRESS TO the House of Representatives, as the case may
DETERMINE DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR OF be, upon an erring member.
MEMBERS; SEPARATION OF POWERS.—The
House of Representatives is the judge of what Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
constitutes disorderly behaviour. The courts Separation of Powers; The doctrine of
will not assume a jurisdiction in any case separation of powers by itself may not be
which will amount to an interference by the deemed to have effectively excluded members
judicial department with the legislature. of Congress from Republic Act No. 3019 nor

 from its sanctions.—The doctrine of separation
ID.; ID.; ID.; PERSONAL ATTACK UPON CHIEF of powers by itself may not be deemed to
EXECUTIVE CONSTITUTES DISORDERLY have effectively excluded members of
BEHAVIOUR.—The House of Representatives of Congress from Republic Act No. 3019 nor from
the United States has taken the position that its sanctions. The maxim simply recognizes
personal attacks upon the Chief Executive each of the three co-equal and independent,
constitutes unparliamentary conduct or breach albeit coordinate, branches of the government
of order. And in several instances, it took —the Legislative, the Executive and the
action against offenders, even after other Judiciary—has exclusive prerogatives and

marcial

business had been considered. cognizance within its own sphere of influence

 and effectively prevents one branch from
ID.; ID.; POWER OF CONGRESS TO SUSPEND unduly intruding into the internal affairs of
ITS MEMBERS.—While under the Jones Law, either branch.
the Senate had no power to suspend

notes
appointive member (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, De Venecia vs Sandiganbayan
46 Phil., 83), at present Congress has the The issue before us had long been settled by
inherent legislative prerogative of suspension this Court in Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. v.
which the Constitution did not impair. Sandiganbayan in G.R. No. 118354 (August 8,
1995). We ruled that the suspension provided
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, for in the Anti-Graft law is mandatory and is
petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, of different nature and purpose.It is imposed
FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, JOSE S. by the court, not as a penalty, but as a
BALAJADIA AND MINITA V. CHICO- precautionary measure resorted to upon the
NAZARIO, AS PRESIDING JUSTICE AND filing of a valid Information. Its purpose is to
MEMBERS OF THE FIRST DIVISION, prevent the accused public officer from
respondents. frustrating his prosecution by influencing
Same; Same; Same; Same; Congressional witnesses or tampering with documentary
Discipline; The order of suspension prescribed evidence and from committing further acts of
by Republic Act No. 3019 is distinct from the malfeasance while in office. It is thus an
power of Congress to discipline its own ranks incident to the criminal proceedings before the
u n d e r t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n .—T h e o r d e r o f court. On the other hand, the suspension or
suspension prescribed by Republic Act No. expulsion contemplated in the Constitution is
3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to a House-imposed sanction against its
discipline its own ranks under the Constitution members.It is, therefore, a penalty for
which provides that each—“x x x house may disorderly behavior to enforce discipline,
determine the rules of its proceedings, punish maintain order in its proceedings, or
its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with vindicate its honor and integrity.
the concurrence of two-thirds of all its
Members, suspend or expel a Member. A Just recently, in Miriam Defensor Santiago v.
penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall Sandiganbayan, et al., this Court en banc,

Article 6 Section 16 Page "48 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

through Justice Jose C. Vitug, held that the large quantity of opium and profits thereby, a
doctrine of separation of powers does not penalty of two year's imprisonment and a. fine
exclude the members of Congress from the of P1,000 is not excessive.
mandate of R.A. 3019, thus:
"The order of suspension prescribed by CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO., INC.,
Republic Act No. 3019 is distinct from the petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO GIMENEZ, in
power of Congress to discipline its own ranks his capacity as Auditor General of the
under the Constitution. x x x. Philippines, and HON. ISMAEL MATHAY,
"The suspension contemplated in the above in his capacity as Auditor of the Central
constitutional provision is a punitive measure Bank, respondents.
that is imposed upon a determination by the Same; Enrolled bill conclusive upon the
Senate or the House of Representatives, as courts; Remedy in case of mistake in the
the case may be, upon an erring member. x x printing of bills.—The enrolled bill is conclusive
upon the courts as regards the tenor of the
"The doctrine of separation of powers by itself measure passed by Congress and approved by
may not be deemed to have effectively the President (Primicias v. Paredes, 61 Phil.
excluded members of Congress from Republic 118, 120; Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1;
Act No. 3019 nor from its sanctions.The Macias v. Comm. on Elections, L-18684, Sept.
maxim simply recognizes that each of the 14, 1961). If there has been any mistake in
three co-equal and independent, albeit the printing of a bill before it was certified by
coordinate, branches of the government - the the officers of Congress and approved by the

marcial

Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary - Executive, the remedy is by amendment or
has exclusive prerogatives and cognizance curative legislation, not by judicial decree.

within its own sphere of influence and
effectively prevents one branch from unduly Imports; Imposition of margin fee on
intruding into the internal affairs of either foreign exchange; Importation of urea and

notes
branch." (Emphasis ours) formaldehyde not exempt.—The term “urea
formaldehyde”, used in Section 2 of Republic
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and Act No. 2609, under which the sale of foreign
appellee, vs. JUAN PONS, defendant and exchange for the importation of certain
appellant. articles is exempt from payment of margin
E V I D E N C E ; D O C U M E N TA RY E V I D E N C E ; fees, refers to the finished product, and is
LEGISLATIVE JOURNALS; JUDICIAL NOTICE.— distinct and separate from “urea” and
The courts in the Philippine Islands are bound, “formaldehyde”, which are separate articles
judicially, to take notice of what the law is used in the manufacture of synthetic resin.
and, to enable them to determine whether the Hence, the importation of urea and
legal requisites to the validity of a statute formaldehyde is not exempt from the
have been complied with, it is their right, as imposition of the margin fee established by
well as their duty, to take notice of the the Monetary Board pursuant to the provisions
legislative journals. of Section 1 in relation to Section 2 of said

 Act.
ID.; lD.; ID.; PAROL EVIDENCE.—When the
legislative journals show with certainty the- Philippines Judges Association vs Prado
time of adjournment of the Legislature and are Constitutional Law; Doctrine of separation of
clear and unambiguous respecting the same, powers; Under the doctrine of separation of
they are conclusive; and extraneous evidence powers, the Court may not inquire beyond the
cannot be admitted to show a different date of certification of the approval of a bill from the
adjournment, presiding officers of Congress.—Under the

 doctrine of separation of powers, the Court
OPIUM LAW; ILLEGAL IMPORTATION.—Where may not inquire beyond the certification of the
a person takes a direct part in the illegal approval of a bill from the presiding officers of
importation into the Philippine Islands of a Congress. Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v.

Article 6 Section 16 Page "49 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

Gimenez laid down the rule that the enrolled requires that all persons or things similarly
bill is conclusive upon the Judiciary (except in situated should be treated alike, both as to
matters that have to be entered in the rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
journals like the yeas and nays on the final Similar subjects, in other words, should not be
reading of the bill.) The journals are treated differently, so as to give undue favor
themselves also binding on the Supreme to some and unjustly discriminate against
Court, as we held in the old (but still valid) others. The equal protection clause does not
case of U.S. vs. Pons, where we explained the require the universal application of the laws on
reason thus: To inquire into the veracity of the all persons or things without distinction. This
journals of the Philippine legislature when they might in fact sometimes result in unequal
are, as we have said, clear and explicit, would protection, as where, for example, a law
be to violate both the letter and spirit of the prohibiting mature books to all persons,
organic laws by which the Philippine regardless of age, would benefit the morals of
Government was brought into existence, to the youth but violate the liberty of adults.
i nva d e a c o o r d i n a t e a n d i n d e p e n d e n t What the clause requires is equality among
department of the Government, and to equals as determined according to a valid
interfere with the legitimate powers and classification. By classification is meant the
functions of the Legislature. Applying these grouping of persons or things similar to each
principles, we shall decline to look into the other in certain particulars and different from
petitioners’ charges that an amendment was all others in these same particulars.
made upon the last reading of the bill that

marcial

eventually became R.A. No. 7354 and that Notes:

copies thereof in its final form were not ‣ Majority of all the members - is a fixed
distributed among the members of each number. This means the number provided
House. Both the enrolled bill and the by law.
legislative journals certify that the measure ‣ Majority of the house - this varies

notes
was duly enacted i.e., in accordance with depending on circumstance. This includes
Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution. We the number of members and those whom
are bound by such official assurances from a can be subjected under the coercive power
coordinate department of the government, to of Congress
which we owe, at the very least, a becoming ‣ The 3 penalties congress may impose are
courtesy. suspension, expulsion and detention.
Suspension and expulsion always require
Same; Equal Protection Clause; Equal 2/3 votes of all members. Any penalty
protection simply requires that all persons or graver requires 2/3.
things similarly situated should be treated ‣ The period of detention does not have an
alike, both as to rights conferred and express period but it must not be arbitrary.
responsibilities imposed.—The equal protection ‣ The internal rules may be disregarded
of the laws is embraced in the concept of due except when 1) there is a party other than
process, as every unfair discrimination offends the HOR or 2) proceedings will affect
the requirements of justice and fair play. It private rights.
has nonetheless been embodied in a separate ‣ A journal records the minutes of the
clause in Article III, Sec. 1, of the Constitution meeting while the record transcribes the
to provide for a more specific guaranty against whole proceeding. If there is a
any form of undue favoritism or hostility from discrepancy, which shall prevail depends.
the government. Arbitrariness in general may BUT if the proceeding is required to be in
be challenged on the basis of the due process the journal then the journal prevails.
clause. But if the particular act assailed ‣ If there is a difference in the enrolled bill
partakes of an unwarranted partiality or and the journal, the enrolled bill shall
prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down prevail.

is the equal protection clause. According to a
long line of decisions, equal protection simply

Article 6 Section 16 Page 50

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of party to deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction
Representatives shall each have an already acquired. “We hold therefore that this
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole Tribunal retains the power and the authority to
judge of all contests relating to the grant or deny Protestant’s Motion to Withdraw,
election, returns, and qualifications of if only to insure that the Tribunal retains
their respective Members. Each Electoral sufficient authority to see to it that the will of
Tribunal shall be composed of nine the electorate is ascertained. “Since
Members, three of whom shall be Justices Protestant’s ‘Motion to Withdraw Protest on
of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Unrevised Precincts’ had not been acted
the Chief Justice, and the remaining six upon by this Tribunal before it was recalled by
shall be Members of the Senate or the the Protestant, it did not have the effect of
House of Representatives, as the case removing the precincts covered thereby from
may be, who shall be chosen on the basis the protest. If these precincts were not
of proportional representation from the withdrawn from the protest, then the granting
political parties and the parties or of Protestant’s ‘Urgent Motion to Recall and
organizations registered under the party- Disregard Withdrawal of Protest’ did not
list system represented therein. The amount to allowing the refiling of protest
senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal beyond the reglementary period.” Where the
shall be its Chairman. court has jurisdiction over the subject matter,
its orders upon all questions pertaining to the
cause are orders within its jurisdiction, and

marcial

REP. VIRGILIO P. ROBLES, petitioner, vs. however erroneous they may be, they cannot
HON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES be corrected by certiorari (Santos v. Court of
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND ROMEO L. Appeals, G.R. No. 56614, July 28, 1987, 152
SANTOS, respondents. SCRA 378; Paramount Insurance Corp. v.
Election Law; Electoral Tribunal; Mere filing of Luna, G.R. No. 61404, March 16, 1987, 148

notes
a motion to withdraw protest, without any SCRA 564). This rule more appropriately
action on the part of the electoral tribunal, did applies to respondent HRET whose
not divest the latter of jurisdiction; independence as a constitutional body has
Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon time and again been upheld by Us in many
instance of the parties, and continues until the cases.
case is terminated.—The mere filing of the
motion to withdraw protest on the remaining JOSE A. ANGARA, petitioner, vs. THE
uncontested precincts, without any action on ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA,
the part of respondent tribunal, does not by MIGUEL CASTILLO, and DIONISIO C.
itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over MAYOR, respondents.
the case. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not JUDICIARY THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL
lost upon the instance of the parties but ARBITER TO ALLOCATE CONSTITUTIONAL
continues until the case is terminated B O U N D A R I E S .— B u t i n t h e m a i n , t h e
(Jimenez v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-37933, April Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes
15, 1988, 160 SCRA 1). We agree with and in bold lines, allotment of power to the
respondent House of Representatives Electoral executive, the legislative and the judicial
Tribunal when it held: “We cannot agree with departments of the government. The
Protestee’s coantention that Protestant’s overlapping and interlacing of functions and
‘Motion to Withdraw Protest on Unrevised duties between the several departments,
Precincts’ effectively withdrew the precincts however, sometimes makes it hard to say just
referred to therein from the protest even where the one leaves off and the other begins.
before the Tribunal has acted thereon. In times of social disquietude or political
Certainly, the Tribunal retains the authority to excitement, the great landmarks of the
grant or deny the Motion, and the withdrawal Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred,
becomes effective only when the Motion is if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict,
granted. To hold otherwise would permit a the judicial department is the only

Article 6 Section 17 Page 51

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

constitutional organ which can be called upon par. 5) laying down the rule that "the
to determine the proper allocation of powers assembly shall be the judge of the elections,
between the several departments and among returns, and qualifications of its members",
the integral or constituent units thereof. was taken from clause 1 of section 5, Article I
of the Constitution of the United States
MODERATING POWER OF THE JUDICIARY is providing that "Each House shall be the Judge
GRANTED, IF NOT EXPRESSLY, BY CLEAR of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of
IMPLICATION.—As any human production, our its own Members, * * *." The Act of Congress
Constitution is of course lacking perfection and of August 29, 1916 (sec. 18, par. 1) modified
perfectibility, but as much as it was within the this provision by the insertion of the word
power of our people, acting through their "sole" as follows: "That the Senate and House
delegates to so provide, that instrument which of Representatives, respectively, shall be the
is the expression of their sovereignty however sole judges of the elections, returns, and
limited, has established a republican qualifications of their elective members, * * *"
government intended to operate and function apparently in order to emphasize the exclusive
as a harmonious whole, under a system of character of the jurisdiction conferred upon
checks and balances, and subject to specific each House of the Legislature over the
limitations and restrictions provided in the said particular cases therein specified. This court
instrument. The Constitution sets forth in no has had occasion to characterize this grant of
uncertain language the restrictions and power to the Philippine Senate and House of
limitations upon governmental powers and Representatives, respectively, as "full, clear

marcial

agencies. If these restrictions and limitations and complete". (Veloso vs. Boards of
are transcended, it would be inconceivable if Canvassers of Leyte and Samar [1919], 39
the Constitution had not provided for a Phil., 886, 888.)
mechanism by which to direct the course of 

government along constitutional channels, for, ELECTORAL COMMISSION; HISTORICAL

notes
then, the distribution of powers would be INSTANCES.—The transfer of the power of
mere verbiage, the bill of rights mere determining the election, returns and
expressions of sentiment, and the principles of qualifications of the members of the
good government mere political apothegms. Legislature long lodged in the legislative body,
Certainly, the limitations and restrictions to an independent, impartial and non-partisan
embodied in the Constitution are real as they tribunal, is by no means a mere experiment in
should be in any living constitution. In the the science of government. As early as 1868,
United States where no express constitutional the House of Commons in England solved the
grant is found in their constitution, the problem of insuring the non-partisan
possession of this moderating power of the settlement of the controverted elections of its
courts, not to speak of its historical origin and members by abdicating its prerogative to two
development there, has been set at rest by judges of the King's Bench of the High Court
popular acquiescence for a period of more of Justice selected from a rota in accordance
than one and a half centuries. In our case, this with rules of court made for the purpose.
moderating power is granted, if not expressly, Having proved successful, the practice has
by clear implication from section 2 of article become imbedded in English jurisprudence
VIII of our Constitution. (Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868 [31 & 32
Vict. c. 125] as amended by Parliamentary
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION; Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879 [42
CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF POWER TO THE & 43 Vict. c. 75], s. 2; Corrupt and. Illegal
ELECTORAL COMMISSION TO BE THE SOLE Practices Prevention Act 1883 [46 & 47 Vict. c.
JUDGE OF ALL CONTESTS RELATING TO THE 51], s. 70; Expiring Laws Continuance Act,
ELECTION, RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS 1911 [1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 22]; Laws of England,
OF MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.— vol. XII, p. 1 408, vol. XXI, p. 787). In
The original provision regarding this subject in the Dominion of Canada, election contests
the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 (sec. 7, which were originally heard by the Committee

Article 6 Section 17 Page 52

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

of the House of Commons, are since 1922 OF OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD;
tried in the courts. Likewise, in the ELECTORAL COMMISSION is THE EXPRESSION
Commonwealth of Australia, election contests OF THE WlSDOM AND ULTIMATE JUSTICE OF
which were originally determined by each T H E P E O P L E .—T h e m e m b e r s o f t h e
house, are since 1922 tried in the High Court. Constitutional Convention who framed our
In Hungary, the organic law provides that all fundamental law were in their majority men
protests against the election of members of mature in years and experience. To be sure,
the Upper House of Diet are to be resolved by many of them were familiar with the history
the Supreme Administrative Court (Law 22 of and political development of other countries of
1 9 1 6 , c h a p. 2 , a r t . 3 7 , p a r. 6 ) . T h e the world. When, therefore, they deemed it
Constitution of Poland of March 17, 1921 (art. wise to 1 create an Electoral
19) and the Constitution of the Free City of Commission as a constitutional organ and
Danzig of May 13, 1922 (art. 10) vest the invested it with the exclusive function of
authority to decide contested elections to the passing upon and determining the election,
Diet or National Assembly in the Supreme returns and qualifications of the members of
Court. For the purpose of deciding legislative the National Assembly, they must have done
contests, the Constitution of the German Reich so not only in the light of their own experience
of July 1, 1919 (art. 31), the Constitution of but also having in view the experience of
the Czechoslovak Republic of February 29, other enlightened peoples of the world. The
1920 (art. 19) and the Constitution of the creation of the Electoral Commission was
Grecian Republic of June 2, 1927 (art. 43), all designed to remedy certain evils of which the

marcial

provide for an Electoral Commission. framers of our Constitution were cognizant.


 Notwithstanding the vigorous opposition of
ID. ; ELECTORAL COMMISSION IN THE some members of the Convention to its
UNITED STATES.—The "creation of an Electoral creation, the plan was approved" by that body
Commission whose membership is recruited by a vote of 98 against 58. All that can be said

notes
both from the legislature and the judiciary is now is that, upon the approval of the
by no means unknown in the United States. In Constitution, the creation of the Electoral
the presidential elections of 1876 there was a Commission is the expression of the wisdom
dispute as to the number of electoral votes and "ultimate justice of the people". (Abraham
received by each of the two opposing Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4,
candidates. As the Constitution made no 1861.) '
adequate provision for such a contingency, 

Congress passed a law on January 29, 1877 ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; PURPOSE WAS TO TRANSFER
(United States Statutes at Large, vol. 19, I N I T S T O TA L I T Y P O W E R E X E R C I S E D
chap. 37, pp. 227-229), creating a special PREVIOUSLY BY THE LEGISLATURE OVER THE
Electoral Commission composed of five CONTESTED ELECTIONS OF THE MEMBERS TO
members elected by the Senate, five members AN INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL.
elected by the House of Representatives, and —From the deliberations of our Constitutional
five justices of the Supreme Court, the fifth Convention it is evident that the purpose was
justice to be selected by the four designated in to transfer in its totality all the powers
the Act. The decision of the commission was previously exercised by the Legislature in
to be binding unless rejected by the two matters pertaining to contested elections of its
houses voting separately. Although there is members, to an independent and impartial
not much moral lesson to be derived from the tribunal. It was not so much the knowledge
experience of America in this regard, the and appreciation of contemporary
experiment has at least abiding historical constitutional precedents, however, as the
interest. long-felt need of determining legislative

 contests devoid of partisan considerations
ID.; ID.; FAMILIARITY OF THE MEMBERS OF which prompted the people acting through
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WITH their delegates to the Convention to provide
THE HlSTORY AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT for this body known as the Electoral

Article 6 Section 17 Page "53 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

Commission. With this end in view, a and cut off the power of the Electoral
composite body in which both the majority Commission to lay down a period within which
and minority parties are equally represented protest should be filed were conceded, the
to off-set partisan influence in its deliberations grant of power to the commission would be
was created, and further endowed with judicial ineffective. The Electoral Commission in such
temper by including in its membership three a case would be invested with the power to
justices of the Supreme Court. determine contested cases involving the

 election, returns, and qualifications of the
ID. ; ID. ; lD.; THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION members of the National Assembly but subject
is AN INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL at all times to the regulative power of the
CREATION ALTHOUGH FOR PURPOSES OF National Assembly. Not only would the
CLASSIFICATION IT is CLOSER TO THE purpose of the framers of our Constitution of
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT THAN TO ANY totally transferring this authority from the
OTHER.—The Electoral Commission is a legislative body be frustrated, but a dual
constitutional creation, invested with the authority would be created with the resultant
necessary authority in the performance and inevitable clash of powers from time to time. A
execution of the limited and specific function sad spectacle would then be presented of the
assigned to it by the Constitution. Although it Electoral Commission retaining the bare
is not a power in our tripartite scheme of authority of taking cognizance of cases
government, it is, to all intents and purposes, referred to, but in reality without the
when acting within the limits of its authority, necessary means to render that authority

marcial

an independent organ. It is, to be sure, closer effective whenever and wherever the National
to the legislative department than to any Assembly has chosen to act, a situation worse
other. The location of the provision (sec. 4) than that intended to be remedied by the
creating the Elec 1 toral Commission framers of our Constitution. The power to
under Article VI entitled "Legislative regulate on the part of the National Assembly

notes
Department" of our Constitution is very in procedural matters will inevitably lead to
indicative. Its composition is also significant in the ultimate control by the Assembly of the
that it is constituted by a majority of members entire proceedings of the Electoral
of the Legislature. But it is a body separate Commission, and, by indirection, to the entire
from and independent of the Legislature. abrogation of the constitutional grant. It is

 obvious that this result should not be
ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; GRANT OF POWER TO THE permitted.
ELECTORAL COMMISSION INTENDED TO BE
AS COMPLETE AND UNIMPAIRED AS IF IT HAD THE POWER TO PROMULGATE INCIDENTAL
REMAINED ORIGINALLY IN THE LEGISLATURE. RULES AND REGULATIONS LODGED ALSO IN
—The grant of power to the Electoral THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION BY NECESSARY
Commission to judge all contests relating to IMPLICATION.—The creation of the Electoral
the election, returns and qualifications of Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei
members of the National Assembly, is the power regulative in character to limit the
intended to be as complete and unimpaired as time within which protests intrusted to its
if it had remained originally in the Legislature. cognizance should be filed. It is a settled rule
The express lodging of that power in the of construction that where a general power is
Electoral Commission is an implied denial of conferred or duty enjoined, every particular
the exercise of that power by the National power necessary for the exercise of the one or
Assembly. And this is as effective a restriction the performance of the other is also conferred
upon the legislative power as an express (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, eighth ed.,
prohibition in the Constitution (Ex parte Lewis, vol. I, pp. 138, 139). In the absence of any
45 Tex. Crim. Rep., 1; State vs. Whisman, 33 further constitutional provision relating to the
S. D., 260; L. R. A., 1917B, 1). If the power procedure to be followed in filing protests
claimed for the National Assembly to regulate before the Electoral Commission, therefore,
the proceedings of the Electoral Commission the incidental power to promulgate such rules

Article 6 Section 17 Page 54

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

necessary for the proper exercise of its NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE FILED.—
exclusive powers to judge all contests relating Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly
to the election, returns and qualifications of confirming the election of members against
members of the National Assembly, must be whom no protests has been filed at the time of
deemed by necessary implication to have been its passage on December 3, 1935, can not be
lodged also in the Electoral Commission. construed as a limitation upon the time for the

 initiation of election contests. While there
ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE NO might have been good reason for the
ARGUMENT AGAINST GRANT OF POWER.—The legislative practice of confirmation of members
possibility of abuse is not an argument against of the Legislature at the time the power to
the concession of the power as there is no decide election contests was still lodged in the
power that is not susceptible of abuse. If any Legislature, confirmation alone by the
mistake has been committed in the creation of Legislature cannot be construed as depriving
an Electoral Commission and in investing it the Electoral Commission of the authority
with exclusive jurisdiction in all cases relating incidental to its constitutional power to be "the
to the election, returns, and qualifications of sole judge of all contests relating to the
members of the National Assembly, the election, returns, and qualifications of the
remedy is political, not judicial, and must be members of the National Assembly", to fix the
sought through the ordinary processes of time for the filing of said election protests.
democracy. All the possible abuses of the Confirmation by the National Assembly of the
government are not intended to be corrected returns of its members against whose election

marcial

by the judiciary. The people in creating the no protests have been filed is, to all legal
Electoral Commission reposed as much purposes, unnecessary. Confirmation of the
confidence in this body in the exclusive election of any member is not required by the
determination of the specified cases assigned Constitution before he can discharge his duties
to it, as it has given to the Supreme Court in as such member. As a matter of fact,

notes
the proper cases entrusted to it for decision. certification by the proper provincial board of
All the agencies of the government were canvassers is sufficient to entitle a member-
designed by the Constitution to achieve elect to a seat in the National Assembly and to
specific purposes, and each constitutional render him eligible to any office in said body
organ working within its own particular sphere (No. 1, par. 1, Rules of the National Assembly,
of discretionary action must be deemed to be adopted December 6, 1935).
animated with same zeal and honesty in 

accomplishing the great ends for which they ID. ; EFFECT OF CONFIRMATION UNDER THE
were created by the sovereign will. That the JONES LAW.—Under the practice prevailing
actuations of these constitutional agencies when the Jones Law was still in force, each
might leave much to be desired in given House of the Philippine Legislature fixed the
instances, is inherent in the imperfections of time when protests against the election of any
human institutions. From the fact that the of its members should be filed. This was
Electoral Commission may not be interfered expressly authorized by section 18 of the
with in the exercise of its legitimate power, it Jones Law making each House the sole judge
does not follow that its acts, however illegal or of the election, returns and qualifications of its
unconstitutional, may not be challenged in members, as well as by a law (sec. 478, Act !
appropriate cases over which the courts may No. 3387) empowering each House
exercise jurisdiction. respectively to prescribe by resolution the
time and manner of filing contest \a the
CONFIRMATION BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY election of members of said bodies. As a
CAN NOT DEPRIVE THE ELECTORAL matter of formality, after the time fixed by its
COMMISSION OF ITS AUTHORITY TO FIX THE rules for the filing of protests had already
TlME WITHIN WHICH- PROTESTS AGAINST expired, each House passed a resolution
THE ELECTION, RETURNS AND confirming or approving the returns of such
QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE members against whose election no protest

Article 6 Section 17 Page "55 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

had been filed within the prescribed time. This legislative power is now vested in a bicameral
was interpreted as cutting off the filing of Congress. Second, the Constitution vests
further protests against the election of those exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating
members not theretofore contested (Amistad to the election, returns and qualifications of
vs. Claravall [Isabela], Second Philippine the Members of the Senate and the House of
Legislature, Record—First Period, p. 89; Representatives in the respective Electoral
Urgello vs. Rama [Third District, Cebu], Sixth Tribunals [Art. VI, Sec. 17]. The exclusive
Philippine Legislature; Fetalvero vs. Festin original jurisdiction of the COMELEC is limited
[Romblon], Sixth Philippine Legislature, by constitutional fiat to election contests
Record—First Period, pp. 637-640; Kintanar pertaining to elective regional, provincial and
vs. Aldanese [Fourth District, Cebu], Sixth city offices and its appellate jurisdiction to
Philippine Legislature, Record—First Period, those involving municipal and barangay offices
pp. 1121, 1122; Aguilar vs. Corpus [Masbate], [Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(2)].
Eighth Philippine Legislature, Record—First
Period, vol. III, No. 56, pp. 892, 893). The Same; Same; Same; Same; The rules
Constitution has 1 e x p r e s s l y governing the exercise of the Tribunals’
repealed section 18 of the Jones Law. Act No. constitutional functions may not be prescribed
3387, section 478, must be deemed to have b y t h e O m n i b u s E l e c t i o n C o d e .— A n
been impliedly abrogated also, for the reason examination of the Omnibus Election Code and
that with the power to determine all contests the executive orders specifically applicable to
relating to the election, returns and the May 11, 1987 congressional elections

marcial

qualifications of members of the National reveals that there is no provision for the
Assembly, is inseparably linked the authority period within which to file election protests in
to prescribe regulations for the exercise of the respective Electoral Tribunals. Thus, the
that power. There was thus no law nor question may well be asked whether the rules
constitutional provision which authorized the governing the exercise of the Tribunals’

notes
National Assembly to fix, as it is alleged to constitutional functions may be prescribed by
have fixed on December 3, 1935, the time for statute. The Court is of the considered view
the filing of contests against the election of its that it may not.
members. And what the National Assembly
could not do directly, it could not do by Same; Same; Same; Same; Powers of the
indirection through the medium of House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,
confirmation. flows from the general power granted it by the
Constitution.—The power of the HRET, as the
CARMELO F. LAZATIN, petitioner, vs. THE sole judge of all contests relating to the
HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and election, returns and qualifications of the
LORENZO G. TIMBOL, respondents. Members of the House of Representatives, to
Constitutional Law; Election Contests; promulgate rules and regulations relative to
Jurisdiction; The 1987 Constitution vests matters within its jurisdiction, including the
exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating period for filing election protests before it, is
to the election, returns and qualifications of beyond dispute. Its rule-making power
the Members of the Senate and House of necessarily flows from the general power
Representatives in the respective Electoral granted it by the Constitution. This is the
Tribunals; Jurisdiction of the Comelec under import of the ruling in the landmark case of
the 1987 Constitution.—That Sec. 250 of the Angara v. Electoral Commission (63 Phil. 139
Omnibus Election Code, as far as contests [1936]), where the Court, speaking through
regarding the election, returns and Justice Laurel, declared in no uncertain terms:
qualifications of Members of the Batasang x x x [T]he creation of the Electoral
Pambansa is concerned, had ceased to be Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei
effective under the 1987 Constitution is the power regulative in character to limit the
readily apparent. First, the Batasang time within which protests intrusted to its
Pambansa has already been abolished and the cognizance should be filed. It is a settled rule

Article 6 Section 17 Page 56

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

of construction that where a general power is Justice Malcolm as “full, clear and
conferred or duly enjoined, every particular complete” [Veloso v. Board of Canvassers of
power necessary for the exercise of the one or Leyte and Samar, 39 Phil. 886 (1919)]. Under
the performance of the other is also conferred the amended 1935 Constitution, the power
(Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, eighth ed., was unqualifiedly reposed upon the Electoral
vol. I, pp. 138, 139). In the absence of any Tribunal [Suanes v. Chief Accountant of the
further constitutional provision relating to the Senate, 81 Phil. 818 (1948)] and it remained
procedure to be followed in filing protests as full, clear and complete as that previously
before the Electoral Commission, therefore, granted the legislature and the Electoral
the incidental power to promulgate such rules Commission [Lachica v. Yap, G.R. No.
necessary for the proper exercise of its L-25379, September 25, 1968, 25 SCRA 140].
exclusive power to judge all contests relating The same may be said with regard to the
to the election, returns and qualifications of jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals under the
members of the National Assembly, must be 1987 Constitution. The 1935 and 1987
deemed by necessary implication to have been Constitutions, which separate and distinctly
lodged also in the Electoral Commission. apportion the powers of the three branches of
government, lodge the power to judge
Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutes; The use contests relating to the election, returns and
of the word “sole” emphasizes the exclusive qualifications of members of the legislature in
character of the jurisdiction conferred upon an independent, impartial and non-partisan
the Electoral Tribunal.—Except under the 1973 body attached to the legislature and specially

marcial

Constitution, the power granted is that of created for that singular purpose (i.e., the
being the sole judge of all contests relating to Electoral Commission and the Electoral
the election, returns and qualifications of the Tribunals) [see Suanes v. Chief Accountant of
members of the legislative body. Article VI of the Senate, supra]. It was only under the
the 1987 Constitution states it in this wise: 1973 Constitution where the delineation

notes
Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of between the powers of the Executive and the
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Legislature was blurred by constitutional
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all experimentation that the jurisdiction over
contests relating to the election, returns, and election contests involving members of the
qualifications of their respective Members. Legislature was vested in the COMELEC, an
Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of agency with general jurisdiction over the
nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices conduct of elections for all elective national
of the Supreme Court to be designated by the and local officials.
Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Members of the Senate or the House of Same; Same; Same; Same; Injunction; To
Representatives, as the case may be, who issue a restraining order or a writ of
shall be chosen on the basis of proportional preliminary injunction during the pendency of
representation from the political parties and a protest lies within the sound discretion of
the parties or organizations registered under the HRET.—The matter of whether or not to
the party-list system represented therein. The issue a restraining order or a writ of
senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be preliminary injunction during the pendency of
its Chairman. The use of the word “sole” a protest lies within the sound discretion of
emphasizes the exclusive character of the the HRET as sole judge of all contests relating
jurisdiction conferred [Angara v. Electoral to the election, returns and qualifications of
Commission, supra, at 162]. The exercise of the Members of the House of Representatives.
the power by the Electoral Commission under Necessarily, the determination of whether or
the 1935 Constitution has been described as not there are indubitable grounds to support
“intended to be as complete and unimpaired the prayer for the aforementioned ancilliary
as if it had remained originally in the remedies also lies within the HRET’s sound
legislature” [Id. at 175.] Earlier, this grant of judgment. Thus, in G.R. No. 80007, where the
power to the legislature was characterized by Court declined to take cognizance of the

Article 6 Section 17 Page "57 of 67

"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

private respondent’s electoral protest, this MONTEMAYOR, BLAS F. OPLE, RAFAEL P.

Court said: The alleged invalidity of the PALMARES, ZOSIMO JESUS M. PAREDES,
proclamation (which had been previously JR., VICENTE G. PUYAT, EDITH N. RABAT,
ordered by the COMELEC itself) despite ISIDRO S. RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCO S.
alleged irregularities in connection therewith, TATAD, LORENZO G. TEVES, ARTURO M.
and despite the pendency of the protests of TOLENTINO, and FERNANDO R. VELOSO,
the rival candidates, is a matter that is also petitioners, vs. THE SENATE ELECTORAL
addressed, considering the premises, to the TRIBUNAL, respondent.
sound judgment of the Electoral Tribunal. Constitutional Law; Composition of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal; The Constitutional provision
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Abuse of clearly mandates the participation in the same
Discretion; The judgment rendered by the process of decision of a representative or
Electoral Commission in the exercise of such representatives of the Supreme Court.—It
sole power is beyond judicial interference; seems quite clear to us that in thus providing
Exceptions.—Moreover, private respondent’s for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of
attempt to have the Court set aside the the Supreme Court and Members of the
HRET’s resolution to defer action on his prayer Senate, the Constitution intended that both
for provisional relief is undeniably premature, those “Judicial” and “legislative” components
considering that the HRET had not yet taken commonly share the duty and authority of
any final action with regard to his prayer. deciding all contests relating to the election,
Hence, there is actually nothing to review or returns and qualifications of Senators. The

marcial

annul and set aside. But then again, so long respondent Tribunal correctly stated one part
as the Constitution grants the HRET the power of this proposition when it held that said
to be the sole judge of all contests relating to provision “x x x is a clear expression of an
the election, returns and qualifications of intent that all (such) contests x x x shall be
Members of the House of Representatives, any resolved by a panel or body in which their (the

notes
final action taken by the HRET on a matter Senators’) peers in that Chamber are
within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be represented.” The other part, of course, is that
reviewed by this Court. As stated earlier, the the constitutional provision just as clearly
power granted to the Electoral Tribunal is full, mandates the participation in the same
clear and complete and “excludes the exercise process of decision of a representative or
of any authority on the part of this Court that representatives of the Supreme Court.
would in any wise restrict or curtail it or even
affect the same.” [Lachica v. Yap, supra, at Same; Same; Same; Quorum; The Senate
143.] As early as 1938 in Morrero v. Bocar, Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as
[66 Phil. 429, 431 (1938)], the Court declared such, absent its entire membership of
that “[t]he judgment rendered by the Senators and no amendment of its Rules can
[Electoral] Commission in the exercise of such confer on the three Justices-Members alone
an acknowledged power is beyond judicial the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial
interference, except, in any event, upon a election contest.—Let us not be misunderstood
clear showing of such arbitrary and as saying that no Senator-Member of the
improvident use of the power as will constitute Senate Electoral Tribunal may inhibit or
a denial of due process of law.” disqualify himself from sitting in judgment on
any case before said Tribunal. Every Member
FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS, HOMOBONO A. of the Tribunal may, as his conscience
ADAZA, ALEJANDRO D. ALMENDRAS, dictates, refrain from participating in the
ABUL KAHYR D. ALONTO, JUAN PONCE resolution of a case where he sincerely feels
ENRILE, RENE G. ESPINA, WILSON P. that his personal interests or biases would
GAMBOA, ROILO S. GOLEZ, ROMEO G. stand in the way of an objective and impartial
JALOSJOS, EVA R. ESTRADA-KALAW, judgment. What we are merely saying is that
WENCESLAO R. LAGUMBAY, VICENTE P. in the light of the Constitution, the Senate
MAGSAYSAY, JEREMIAS U. Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as

Article 6 Section 17 Page 58

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

such, absent its entire membership of committed a grave abuse ofdiscretion, an

Senators and that no amendment of its Rules injustice, and a violation of the Constitution.
can confer on the three Justices-Members Its resolution of expulsion against
alone the power of valid adjudication of a Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and
senatorial election contest. void.

DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC, petitioner, vs. Same; Same; Same; Same.—Another reason
REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO M. for the nullity of the expulsion resolution of
PINEDA, MAGDALENO M. PALACOL, COL. the House of Representatives is that it violates
JUANITO G. CAMASURA, JR., or any other Congressman Camasura’s right to security of
representative who may be appointed tenure, Members of the HRET, as “sole judge”
vice representative Juanito G. Camasura, of congressional election contests, are entitled
Jr., and THE HOUSE OF to security of tenure just as members of the
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL judiciary enjoy security of tenure under our
TRIBUNAL, respondents. Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 198?
Constitutional Law; House Electoral Tribunal; Constitution). Therefore; membership in the
Nature of functions.—The use of the word H o u s e E l e c t o ra l Tr i b u n a l m a y n o t b e
“sole” in both Section 17 of the 1987 terminated except for a just cause, such as,
Constitution and Section 11 of the 1935 the expiration of the member’s congressional
Constitution underscores the exclusive term of office, his death, permanent disability,
jurisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal as resignation from-the political party he

marcial

judge of contests relating to the election, represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation
returns and qualifications of the members of with another political party, or removal for-
the House of Representatives (Robles vs. other valid cause. A member may not be
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, expelled by the House of Representatives for
G.R. No. 86647, February 5, 1990). The “party disloyalty” short of proof that he has

notes
tribunal was created to function as a formally affiliated with another political group.
nonpartisan court although twothirds of its As the records of this case fail to show that
members are politicians. It is a non-political Congressman Camasura has become a
body in a sea of politicians x x x To be able to registered member of another political party,
exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the House his expulsion from the LDP and from the HRET
Electoral Tribunal must be independent. Its was not for a valid cause, hence, it violated
jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional his right to security of tenure.
election contests is not to be shared by it with
the Legislature nor with the Courts. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Same; Same; Grounds for removal; Disloyalty respondent.
to party not a valid cause for termination of Same; Same; Same; Pre-proclamation cases
membership.—As judges, the members of the are not allowed in elections for President,
tribunal must be non-partisan. They must Vice-President, Senator and member of the
discharge their functions with complete H o u s e o f Re p r e s e n t a t i v e s .—W h i l e t h e
detachment, impartiality, and independence— Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over
even independence from the political party to pre-proclamation controversies involving local
which they belong. Hence, “disloyalty to party” elective officials (Sec. 242, Omnibus Election
and “breach of party discipline,” are not valid Code), nevertheless, pre-proclamation cases
grounds for the expulsion of a member of the are not allowed in elections for President,
tribunal. ln expelling Congressman Camasura Vice-President, Senator and Member of the
from the HRET for having cast a “conscience House of Representatives.
vote” in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the
result of the examination and appreciation of Same; Same; Same; Same; What is allowed
the ballots and the recount of the votes by the is the correction of manifest errors in the
tribunal, the House of Representatives certificate of canvass or election returns.—It is

Article 6 Section 17 Page 59

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

clear from the above-quoted provision of the Pimentel vs HRET

law that “pre-proclamation cases (are) not Separation of Powers; Electoral Tribunals;
allowed in elections for President, Vice- Commission on Appointments; The
President, Senator and Member of the House Constitution expressly grants to the House of
of Representatives.” What is allowed is the Representatives the prerogative, within
correction of “manifest errors in the certificate constitutionally defined limits, to choose from
of canvass or election returns.” To be among its district and party-list
manifest, the errors must appear on the face representatives those who may occupy the
of the certificates of canvass or election seats allotted to the House in the HRET and
returns sought to be corrected and/or the CA.—The Constitution expressly grants to
objections thereto must have been made the House of Representatives the prerogative,
before the board of canvassers and specifically within constitutionally defined limits, to choose
noted in the minutes of their respective from among its district and partylist
proceedings. representatives those who may occupy the
seats allotted to the House in the HRET and
Same; Same; Same; Same; Petitioner’s the CA. Section 18, Article VI of the
proper recourse is to file a regular election Constitution explicitly confers on the Senate
protest which under the Constitution and the and on the House the authority to elect among
Omnibus Election Code exclusively pertains to their members those who would fill the 12
the Senate Electoral Tribunal.—It is quite seats for Senators and 12 seats for House
obvious that petitioner’s prayer does not call members in the Commission on Appointments.

marcial

for the correction of “manifest errors in the Under Section 17, Article VI of the
certificates of canvass or election returns” Constitution, each chamber of Congress
before the Comelec but for the re-opening of exercises the power to choose, within
the ballot boxes and appreciation of the ballots constitutionally defined limits, who among
contained therein. Indeed, petitioner has not their members would occupy the allotted 6

notes
even pointed to any “manifest error” in the seats of each chamber’s respective electoral
certificates of canvass or election returns he tribunal.
desires to be rectified. There being none,
petitioner’s proper recourse is to file a regular Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Primary
election protest which, under the Constitution Jurisdiction; Even assuming that party-list
and the Omnibus Election Code, exclusively representatives comprise a sufficient number
pertains to the Senate Electoral Tribunal. and have agreed to designate common
nominees to the HRET and the CA, their
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Petitioner primary recourse clearly rests with the House
has not demonstrated any manifest error in of Representatives and not with the Supreme
the certificates of canvass or election returns Court; Under the doctrine of primary
before the Comelec which would warrant their jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House of
correction.—In the case at bar, petitioner’s Representatives is necessary before
allegation that “Chavez” votes were either petitioners may bring the instant case to the
invalidated or declared stray has no relation to c o u r t .— E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t p a r t y- l i s t
the correctness or authenticity of the election representatives comprise a sufficient number
r e t u r n s c a n va s s e d . O t h e r w i s e s t a t e d , and have agreed to designate common
petitioner has not demonstrated any manifest nominees to the HRET and the CA, their
error in the certificates of canvass or election primary recourse clearly rests with the House
returns before the Comelec which would of Representatives and not with this Court.
warrant their correction. As the authenticity of Under Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of the
the certificates of canvass or election returns Constitution, party-list representatives must
are not questioned, they must be prima facie first show to the House that they possess the
considered valid for purposes of canvassing required numerical strength to be entitled to
the same and proclamation of the winning seats in the HRET and the CA. Only if the
candidates. House fails to comply with the directive of the

Article 6 Section 17 Page 60

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

Constitution on proportional representation of proportional representation in the HRET and

political parties in the HRET and the CA can the CA based on the “present composition” of
the party-list representatives seek recourse to the House of Representatives as presented by
this Court under its power of judicial review. petitioners and the Solicitor General. With the
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, May 14, 2001 elections, it is certain that the
prior recourse to the House is necessary composition of the House has changed. In the
before petitioners may bring the instant case absence of a proper petition assailing the
to the court. Consequently, petitioners’ direct present composition of the HRET and the CA,
recourse to this Court is premature. the instant petitions must fail. Otherwise, for
the Court to rule on the instant petitions at
Same; Same; Same; Under the doctrine of this time would be tantamount to rendering an
separation of powers, the Supreme Court may advisory opinion, which is outside our
not interfere with the exercise by the House of jurisdiction.
the constitutionally mandated duty to choose
its members to the HRET and the CA, absent a CONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. PALPARAN,
clear violation of the Constitution or grave JR., petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
excess of jurisdiction.—The discretion of the TRIBUNAL (HRET), DR. REYNALDO
House to choose its members to the HRET and LESACA, JR., CRISTINA PALABAY,
the CA is not absolute, being subject to the RENATO M. REYES, JR., ERLINDA
mandatory constitutional rule on proportional CADAPAN, ANTONIO FLORES and

marcial

representation. However, under the doctrine of JOSELITO USTAREZ, respondents.

separation of powers, the Court may not Election Law; Party-List Representatives;
interfere with the exercise by the House of this House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
constitutionally mandated duty, absent a clear (HRET); It is for the House of Representatives
violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to interpret the

notes
discretion amounting to lack or excess of meaning of this particular qualification of a
jurisdiction. Otherwise, the doctrine of nominee—the need for him or her to be a
separation of powers calls for each branch of bona fide member or a representative of his
government to be left alone to discharge its party-list organization in the context of the
duties as it sees fit. Neither can the Court facts that characterize petitioners Abayon and
speculate on what action the House may take Palparan’s relation to Aangat Tayo and Bantay,
i f p a r t y- l i s t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a r e d u l y respectively, and the marginalized and
nominated for membership in the HRET and underrepresented interests that they
the CA. presumably embody.—It is for the HRET to
interpret the meaning of this particular
Same; Same; Same; The HRET and the CA qualification of a nominee—the need for him
are bereft of any power to reconstitute or her to be a bona fide member or a
themselves.—We likewise find no grave abuse representative of his party-list organization—
in the action or lack of action by the HRET and in the context of the facts that characterize
the CA in response to the letters of Senator petitioners Abayon and Palparan’s relation to
Pimentel. Under Sections 17 and 18 of Article Aangat Tayo and Bantay, respectively, and the
VI of the 1987 Constitution and their internal marginalized and underrepresented interests
rules, the HRET and the CA are bereft of any that they presumably embody.
power to reconstitute themselves.
Same; The rendering of an advisory opinion is Same; Same; Same; The right to
outside the jurisdiction of the Court.—The examine the fitness of aspiring nominees and,
issues raised in the petitions have been eventually, to choose five from among them
rendered academic by subsequent events. On after all belongs to the party or organization
May 14, 2001, a new set of district and party- that nominates them. But where an allegation
list representatives were elected to the House. is made that the party or organization had
The Court cannot now resolve the issue of chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee to

Article 6 Section 17 Page 61

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

become its party-list representative in the Same; Electoral Tribunals; House of

lower House and enjoy the secured tenure Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET);
that goes with the position, the resolution of That the House of Representatives Electoral
the dispute is taken out of its hand.— Tribunal (HRET) is the sole judge of all
Petitioners Abayon and Palparan of course contests relating to the election, returns and
point out that the authority to determine the qualifications of the Members of the House of
qualifications of a party-list nominee belongs Representatives is a written constitutional
to the party or organization that nominated provision.―Petitioner is in error when she
him. This is true, initially. The right to examine posits that at present it is the HRET which has
the fitness of aspiring nominees and, exclusive jurisdiction over her qualifications as
eventually, to choose five from among them a Member of the House of Representatives.
after all belongs to the party or organization That the HRET is the sole judge of all contests
that nominates them. But where an allegation relating to the election, returns and
is made that the party or organization had qualifications of the Members of the House of
chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee to Representatives is a written constitutional
become its party-list representative in the provision. It is, however unavailable to
lower House and enjoy the secured tenure petitioner because she is NOT a Member of the
that goes with the position, the resolution of House at present. The COMELEC never
the dispute is taken out of its hand. ordered her proclamation as the rightful
winner in the election for such membership.
Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction; Indeed, the action for cancellation of

marcial

Commission on Elections; Once the party or petitioner’s certificate of candidacy, the

organization of the party-list nominee has decision in which is the indispensable
been proclaimed and the nominee has taken determinant of the right of petitioner to
his oath and assumed office as member of the proclamation, was correctly lodged in the
House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s COMELEC, was completely and fully litigated in

notes
jurisdiction over election contests relating to the COMELEC and was finally decided by the
his qualifications ends and the House of COMELEC. On and after 14 May 2013, there
Representatives Electoral Tribunal’s (HRET’s) was nothing left for the COMELEC to do to
own jurisdiction begins.—What is inevitable is decide the case. The decision sealed the
that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution proceedings in the COMELEC regarding
provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge petitioner’s ineligibility as a candidate for
of all contests relating to, among other things, Representative of Marinduque. The decision
the qualifications of the members of the House erected the bar to petitioner’s proclamation.
of Representatives. Since, as pointed out
above, party-list nominees are “elected The bar remained when no restraining
members” of the House of Representatives no order was obtained by petitioner from the
less than the district representatives are, the Supreme Court within five days from 14 May
HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon 2013. Same; House of Representatives
their qualifications. By analogy with the cases Electoral Tribunal (HRET); The House of
of district representatives, once the party or Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
organization of the party-list nominee has jurisdiction over the qualification of the
been proclaimed and the nominee has taken Member of the House of Representatives is
his oath and assumed office as member of the original and exclusive, and as such, proceeds
House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s de novo unhampered by the proceedings in
jurisdiction over election contests relating to the COMELEC which, as just stated has been
his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own terminated. The HRET proceedings is a
jurisdiction begins. regular, not summary, proceeding.―The
HRET’s constitutional authority opens, over
REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, petitioner, vs. the qualification of its MEMBER, who becomes
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH so only upon a duly and legally based
SOCORRO B. TAN, respondents. proclamation, the first and unavoidable step

Article 6 Section 17 Page 62

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

towards such membership. The HRET subject to her predilections the supremacy of
jurisdiction over the qualification of the the law.
Member of the House of Representatives is
original and exclusive, and as such, proceeds Notes:
de novo unhampered by the proceedings in ‣ HRET acquires jurisdiction upon 1) valid
the COMELEC which, as just stated has been proclamation 2) taking of Oath 3)
terminated. The HRET proceedings is a Assumption of Function

regular, not summary, proceeding. It will ‣ The party may nominate but it is the house
determine who should be the Member of the which chooses even if not part of the
House. It must be made clear though, at the nominees

risk of repetitiveness, that no hiatus occurs in ‣ Pre-proclamation cases are not allowed for
the representation of Marinduque in the House senators

because there is such a representative who ‣ The election code cannot prescribe the
shall sit as the HRET proceedings are had till rules and regulations of the HRET.

termination. Such representative is the duly
proclaimed winner resulting from the
terminated case of cancellation of certificate of
candidacy of petitioner. The petitioner is not,
cannot, be that representative. And this, all in
all, is the crux of the dispute between the
parties: who shall sit in the House in

marcial

representation of Marinduque, while there is

yet no HRET decision on the qualifications of
the Member.

Remedial Law; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction,

notes
once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of
the parties, but continues until the case is
terminated.―The motion to withdraw petition
filed AFTER the Court has acted thereon, is
noted. It may well be in order to remind
petitioner that jurisdiction, once acquired, is
not lost upon the instance of the parties, but
continues until the case is terminated. When
petitioner filed her Petition for Certiorari,
jurisdiction vested in the Court and, in fact,
the Court exercised such jurisdiction when it
acted on the petition. Such jurisdiction cannot
be lost by the unilateral withdrawal of the
petition by petitioner. More importantly, the
Resolution dated 25 June 2013, being a valid
court issuance, undoubtedly has legal
consequences. Petitioner cannot, by the mere
expediency of withdrawing the petition,
negative and nullify the Court’s Resolution and
its legal effects. At this point, we counsel
petitioner against trifling with court processes.
Having sought the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, petitioner cannot withdraw her petition
to erase the ruling adverse to her interests.
Obviously, she cannot, as she designed below,

Article 6 Section 17 Page 63

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
on Appointments consisting of the legality, of a particular measure.
President of the Senate, as ex officio
Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Same; Same; Same; Same; Expanded
Members of the House of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court conferred by
Representatives, elected by each House Art. VII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution; Case at
on the basis of proportional bar.—In the case now before us, the
representation from the political parties jurisdictional objection becomes even less
and parties or organizations registered tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even
under the party-list system represented if we were to assume that the issue presented
therein. The Chairman of the Commission before us was political in nature, we would still
shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The not be precluded from resolving it under the
Commission shall act on all appointments expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that
submitted to it within thirty session days now covers, in proper cases, even the political
of the Congress from their submission. question. Article VII, Section 1, of the
The Commission shall rule by a majority Constitution clearly provides: Section 1. The
vote of all the Members. judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. Judicial power includes the
REP. RAUL A. DAZA, petitioner, vs. REP. duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
LUIS C. SINGSON and HON. RAOUL V. controversies involving rights which are legally

marcial

VICTORINO IN THE LATTER’S CAPACITY demandable and enforceable, and to

AS SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON determine whether or not there has been a
APPOINTMENTS, respondent. grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
Constitutional Law; Jurisdiction; Political excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
question defined; The Supreme Court has the branch or instrumentality of the Government.

notes
competence to act in the case at bar since it
involved the legality of the act of the House of Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The
Representatives in removing the petitioner transcendental importance to the public of
from the Commission on Appointments.— cases where serious constitutional questions
Ruling first on the jurisdictional issue, we hold are involved demands that they be settled
that, contrary to the respon-dent’s assertion, promptly and brushing aside the technicalities
the Court has the competence to act on the of procedure.—The respondent’s contention
matter at bar. Our finding is that what is that he has been improperly impleaded is
before us is not a discretionary act of the even less persuasive. While he may be
House of Representatives that may not be technically correct in arguing that it is not he
reviewed by us because it is political in nature. who caused the petitioner’s removal, we feel
What is involved here is the legality, not the that this objection is also not an insuperable
wisdom, of the act of that chamber in obstacle to the resolution of this controversy.
removing the petitioner from the Commission We may, for one thing, treat this proceeding
on Appointments. That is not a political as a petition for quo warranto as the petitioner
question because, as Chief Justice Concepcion is actually questioning the respondent’s right
explained in Tanada v. Cuenco: x x x the term to sit as a member of the Commission on
political question” connotes, in legal parlance, Appointments. For another, we have held as
what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a early as in the Emergency Powers Cases that
question of policy. In other words, x x x it where serious constitutional question are
refers “to those questions which, under the involved, “the transcendental importance to
Constitution, are to be decided by the people the public of these cases demands that they
in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to be settled promptly and definitely, brushing
which full discretionary authority has been aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.”
delegated to the Legislature or executive Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The
branch of the Government.” It is concerned Supreme Court’s expanded jurisdiction

Article 6 Section 18 Page 64

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

includes the authority to determine whether representation in the Commission on

grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess Appointments is based on proportional
or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by representation of the political parties therein
a ny b ra n c h o r i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y o f t h e as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the
goverment; Case at bar.—To summarize, then, 1987 Constitution.
we hold, in view of the foregoing
consideration, that the issue presented to us is Same; Same; Same; Political question issue
justiciable rather political, involving as it does was settled in Daza vs. Singson G.R. No.
the legality and not the wisdom of the act 86344, December 21, 1989, where the court
complained of, or the manner of filling the ruled that the legality and not the wisdom of
Commission on Appointments as prescribed by the manner of filling the Commission on
the Constitution. Even if the question were Appointments as prescribed by the
political in nature, it would still come within Constitution is justifiable and even if the
our powers of review under the expanded question were political in nature, it would still
jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, come within their powers of review.—The
Section 1, of the Constitution, which includes “political question” issue was settled in Daza
the authority to determine whether grave vs. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, December 21,
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or 1989, where this Court ruled that “the legality,
lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any and not the wisdom, of the manner of filling
branch or instrumentality of the government. the Commission on Appointments as
As for the alleged technical flaw in the prescribed by the Constitution” is justiciable,

marcial

designation of the party respondent, assuming and, “even if the question were political in
the existence of such a defect, the same nature, it would still come within our powers
maybe brushed aside, conformably to existing of review under the expanded jurisdiction
doctrine, so that the important constitutional conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of
issue raised maybe addressed. Lastly, we the Constitution, which includes the authority

notes
resolve that issue in favor of the authority of to determine whether grave abuse of
the House of Representatives to change its discretion amounting to excess or lack of
representation in the Commission on jurisdiction has been committed by any branch
Appointments to reflect at any time the of instrumentality of the government.”
changes that may transpire in the political
alignments of its membership. It is understood Same; Same; Same; There is no doubt that
that such changes must be permanent and do the apportionment of the House membership
not include the temporary alliances or in the Commission on Appointments was done
factional divisions not involving severance of on the basis of proportional representation of
political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and the political parties therein.—The composition
permanent shifts of allegiance from one of the House membership in the Commission
political party to another. on Appointments was based on proportional
representation of the political parties in the
Coseteng vs Mitra House. There are 160 members of the LDP in
Constitutional Law; Commission on the House. They represent 79% of the House
Appointments; Petition should be dismissed membership (which may be rounded out to
not because it raises a political question which 80%). Eighty percent (80%) of 12 members in
it does not but because the revision of the the Commission on Appointments would equal
House representation in the Commission on 9.6 members, which may be rounded out to
Appointments is based on proportional ten (10) members from the LDP. The
representation of the political parties therein. remaining two seats were apportioned to the
—After deliberating on the petition and the LP (respondent Lorna Verano-Yap) as the next
comments of the respondents, we hold that largest party in the Coalesced Majority and the
the petition should be dismissed, not because KBL (respondent Roque Ablan) as the principal
it raises a political question, which it does not, opposition party in the House. There is no
but because the revision of the House doubt that this apportionment of the House

Article 6 Section 18 Page 65

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

membership in the Commission on ROMU-LO AND WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA,

Appointments was done “on the basis of respondents. NATIONALIST PEOPLE’S
proportional representation of the political COALITION, petitioner-in-intervention.
parties therein.” Constitutional Law; Commission on
Appointments; Where constitutional issues are
Same; Same; Same; Even if KAIBA were to be properly raised in the context of the alleged
considered as an opposition party, its lone facts, procedural questions acquire a relatively
member (petitioner Coseteng) represents only minor significance and the transcendental
.4% or less than 1% of the House importance to the public of the case demands
membership hence she is not entitled to one that they be settled promptly and definitely
of the 12 House seats in the Commission on brushing aside xxx technicalities of procedure.
Appointments.—The other political parties or —There is no doubt that the issues involved
groups in the House, such as petitioner’s herein are constitutional in nature and are of
KAIBA (which is presumably a member also of vital importance to our nation. They involve
the Coalesced Majority), are bound by the the interpretation of Section 18, Article VI of
majority’s choices. Even if KAIBA were to be the Constitution which creates a Commission
considered as an opposition party, its lone on Appointments. Where constitutional issues
member (petitioner Coseteng) represents only are properly raised in the context of the
.4% or less than 1% of the House alleged facts, procedural questions acquire a
membership, hence, she is not entitled to one relatively minor significance, and the
of the 12 House seats in the Commission on “transcendental importance to the public of

marcial

Appointments. To be able to claim proportional the case demands that they be settled
membership in the Commission on promptly and definitely brushing aside x x x
Appointments, a political party should technicalities of procedure.”
represent at least 8.4% of the House
membership, i.e., it should have been able to Same; Same; Provision of Section 18 on

notes
elect at least 17 congressmen or proportional representation mandatory in
congresswoman. character.—The provision of Section 18 on
proportional representation is mandatory in
Same; Same; Same; No merit in the character and does not leave any discretion to
petitioner’s contention that the House the majority party in the Senate to disobey or
members in the Commission on Appointments disregard the rule on proportional
should have been nominated and elected by representation; otherwise, the party with a
their respective political parties.—There is no majority representation in the Senate or the
merit in the petitioner’s contention that the House of Representatives can by sheer force
House members in the Commission on of numbers impose its will on the hapless
Appointments should have been nominated minority.
and elected by their respective political
parties. The petition itself shows that they Same; Same; Court does not agree with
were nominated by their respective floor respondents’ claim that it is mandatory to
leaders in the House. They were elected by elect 12 Senators to the Commission on
the House (not by their party) as provided in Appointments.—We do not agree with
Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution. The respondents’ claim that it is mandatory to
validity of their elec-tion to the Commission on elect 12 Senators to the Commission on
Appointments—eleven (11) from the Appointments. The Constitution does not
Coalesced Majority and one from the minority contemplate that the Commission on
—is unassailable. Appointments must necessarily include twelve
(12) senators and twelve (12) members of the
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., AND House of Representatives. What the
LAKAS-NATIONAL UNION OF CHRISTIAN Constitution requires is that there be at least a
DEMOCRATS (LAKAS-NUCD), petitioners, majority of the entire membership. Under
vs. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ALBERTO Section 18, the Commission shall rule by

Article 6 Section 18 Page 66

" of 67
"
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - CASE DOCTRINES

Marcial Notes - 4B - Atty Gabriel

majority vote of all the members and in Appointments; and ordering the respondent
Section 19, the Commission shall meet only Senate President Neptali Gonzales, in his
while Congress is in session, at the call of its capacity as ex-officio Chairman of the
Chairman or a majority of all its members “to Commission on Appointments, to desist from
discharge such powers and functions herein recognizing the membership of the respondent
conferred upon it.” Senators and from allowing and permitting
them from sitting and participating as
Same; Same; The Constitution does not members of said Commission.
require the election and presence of twelve
(12) Senators and twelve (12) members of NOTES:
the House of Representatives in order that the ‣ The CoA must include proportional
Commission may function.—It is quite evident representation.
that the Constitution does not require the ‣ In the case of Guingona, there is no
election and presence of twelve (12) senators rounding up. This applies to the SENATE.
and twelve (12) members of the House of But in the case of Mitra, ROUND UP TO 1.
Representatives in order that the Commission This applies to HOR.
may function. Other instances may be ‣ By - passed appointment only apply to ad
mentioned of Constitutional collegial bodies intern appointment.
which perform their functions even if not fully ‣ Ad interim means when not in session
constituted and even if their composition is ‣ The CoA may disapprove or fail to act on
expressly specified by the Constitution. Among the appointment

marcial

these are the Supreme Court, Civil Service ‣ If within 30 days of regular session if the
Commission, Commission on Election, appointment is and enacted upon the
Commission on Audit. They perform their appointment is NEITH BY PASSED NOR
functions so long as there is the required APPROVED.
quorum, usually a majority of its membership.

notes
The Commission on Appointments may
perform its functions and transact its business
even if only ten (10) senators are elected
thereto as long as a quorum exists.

Same; Same; Court declares the election of

Senator Alberto Romulo and Senator Wigberto
Tañada as members of the Commission on
Appointments as null and void for being in
violation of the rule on proportional
representation under Section 18 of Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.—In
the light of the foregoing and on the basis of
the applicable rules and jurisprudence on the
matter before this Court, We declare the
election of Senator Alberto Romulo and
Senator Wigberto Tañada as members of the
Commission on Appointments as null and void
for being in violation of the rule on
proportional representation under Section 18
of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines. Accordingly, a writ of prohibition is
hereby issued ordering the said respondents
Senator Romulo and Senator Tañada to desist
from assuming, occupying and discharging the
functions of members of the Commission on

Article 6 Section 18 Page 67

" of 67
"