election digest title 8 and 9

7/21/2019 ELECTION Digest Title 8 and 9

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/election-digest-title-8-and-9 1/12

1 | E L E C T I O N _ d i g e s t _ t i t l e 8 a n d 9

ELECTION_digest_title 8 and 9

Title 8: Political Party; Party-List Organization

(1) (Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 136781, 136786, 136795, [October 6, 2000])

(4) (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, 147613, [June 26, 2001], 412 PHIL 308-374)

(7) Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, 02 April 2013

(9) Palparan v. HRET, G.R. No. 189506, 11 February 2012

Title 9: Automated Elections

(10) (Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188456, [September 10, 2009], 615 PHIL 149-392)

(11) Capalla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201112, 13 June 2012

VIII. Political Party; Party-List Organization

(Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

136781, 136786, 136795, [October 6, 2000])

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 136781. October 6, 2000.]

VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY, ALYANSANG

BAYANIHAN NG MGA MAGSASAKA,

MANGGAGAWANG BUKID AT MANGINGISDA,

ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG TAO

PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY AT KAUNLARAN, and

LUZON FARMERS PARTY, petitioners, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PAG-ASA, SENIOR

CITIZENS, AKAP AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP,

AMIN, PAG-ASA, MAHARLIKA, OCW-UNIFIL, PCCI,

AMMA-KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW,

ANG LAKAS OCW, WOMEN-POWER INC., FEJODAP,CUP, VETERANS CARE, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP,

NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAKBAYAN,

ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN,

KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA PILIPINAS

— All Being Party-List Parties/Organizations — and

Hon MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR., in his Capacity as

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

respondents.

[G.R. No. 136786. October 6, 2000.]

AKBAYAN! (CITIZENS' ACTION PARTY), ADHIKAIN ATKILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG TAO PARA SA LUPA,

PABAHAY AT KAUNLARAN (AKO), and ASSOCIATION

OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES (APEC),

petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

(COMELEC), HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

represented by Speaker Manuel B. Villar, PAG-ASA,

SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA,

PRP, AMIN, MAHARLIKA, OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-

KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG

LAKAS OCW, WOMENPOWER INC., FEJODAP, CUP,

VETERANS CARE, FOUR "L", AWATU, PMP, ATUCP,

NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAK-BAYAN,

ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN,KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA PILIPINAS,

respondents.

[G.R. No. 136795. October 6, 2000.]

ALAGAD (PARTIDO NG MARALITANG-LUNGSOD),

NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF SMALL (COCONUT

FARMERS' ORGANIZATIONS (NCSFCO), and LUZON

FARMERS' PARTY (BUTIL), petitioners, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SENIOR CITIZENS,

AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PAG-

ASA, MAHARLIKA, OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-

KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG

LAKAS OCW, WOMENPOWER INC., FEJODAP, CUP,

VETERANS CARE, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP,

ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAK-BAYAN, ARBA,

MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN, KATIPUNAN,

ONEWAY PRINT, and AABANTE KA PILIPINAS,

respondents.

Romeo G. Roxas for petitioners in G.R. No. 136781.

Gregorio A. Andolana for petitioner A.K.O.

The Solicitor General for public respondent.

Ceferino Padua Law Office for Intervenor-Movant

ABB-OFW.

Romero Valdecantos Arreza & Magtanong Law

Offices for Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Ruth R. Aldaba for Intervenor in G.R. No. 136786.

R.A.V. Saguisag for petitioner in G.R. No. 136795.

Arturo M. Tolentino and Ricardo Blancaflor forKabataan ng Masang Pilipino, National Urban Poor

Assembly, Bantay Bayan Foundation Party, People's

Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good

Government Towards Alleviation of Poverty and

Social Advancement.

SYNOPSIS

Petitions for certiorari were filed assailing two (2)

Comelec Resolutions ordering the proclamation of

thirty-eight (38) additional party-list representatives

"to complete the full complement of 52 seats in the

House of Representatives as provided underSection 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and

R.A. 7941."

Comelec, together with the respondent parties,

averred that the twenty percent allocation for

party-list representatives in the House under the

Constitution was mandatory and that the two

percent vote requirement in RA 7941 was

unconstitutional, because its strict application

would make it mathematically impossible to fill up

the house party-list complement.

The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC gravelyabused its discretion in granting additional seats

which violated the two percent threshold and

proportional representation requirements of RA

7941.

The Supreme Court held that Section 5 (2), Art. VI of

the Constitution stating that "[t]he party-list

representatives shall constitute twenty per centum

of the total number of representatives including




those under the party-list" is not mandatory; that this

percentage is a ceiling the mechanics by which it is

to be filled up has been left to Congress; that in the

exercise of its prerogative, Congress enacted RA

7941 by which it prescribed that a party,

organization or coalition participating in the party-

list election must obtain at least two percent of thetotal votes cast for the system to qualify for a seat in

the House of Representatives but that no winning

party, organization or coalition can have more than

three seats therein; that Congress has the

prerogative to determine whether to adjust or

change this percentage requirement; and that the

two percent threshold is consistent with the intent of

the framers of the law and with the essence of

"representation."

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SECTION 5, ARTICLE VI

OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION; TWENTY PERCENT

ALLOCATION IN THE HOUSE FOR PARTY-LIST

LAWMAKERS IS A MERE CEILING AND NOT

MANDATORY; CASE AT BAR. — The Constitution

simply states that "[t]he party-list representatives

shall constitute twenty per centum of the total

number of representatives including those under

the party-list." [A] simple reading of Section 5, Article

VI of the Constitution, easily conveys the equally

simple message that Congress was vested with the

broad power to define and prescribe the

mechanics of the party-list system of representation.

The Constitution explicitly sets down only thepercentage of the total membership in the House

of Representatives reserved for party-list

representatives. In the exercise of its constitutional

prerogative, Congress enacted RA 7941. As said

earlier, Congress declared therein a policy to

promote "proportional representation" in the

election of party-list representatives in order to

enable Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and

underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation

that would benefit them. It however deemed it

necessary to require parties, organizations and

coalitions participating in the system to obtain atleast two percent of the total votes cast for the

party-list system in order to be entitled to a party-list

seat. Those garnering more than this percentage

could have "additional seats in proportion to their

total number of votes." Furthermore, no winning

party, organization or coalition can have more than

three seats in the House of Representatives. [T]he

foregoing statutory requirements, show that Section

5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is not mandatory.

It merely provides a ceiling for party-list seats in

Congress.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; TWO PERCENT THRESHOLD ISCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF LAWMAKERS AND

WITH THE ESSENCE OF "REPRESENTATION." — In

imposing a two percent threshold, Congress

wanted to ensure that only those parties,

organizations and coalitions having a sufficient

number of constituents deserving of representation

are actually represented in Congress. This intent

can be gleaned from the deliberations on the

proposed bill. . . The two percent threshold is

consistent not only with the intent of the framers of

the Constitution and the law, but with the very

essence of "representation." Under a republican or

representative state, all government authority

emanates from the people, but is exercised by

representatives chosen by them. But to have

meaningful representation, the elected personsmust have the mandate of a sufficient number of

people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features the

party-list system, the result might be the proliferation

of small groups which are incapable of contributing

significant legislation, and which might even pose a

threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even

legislative districts are apportioned according to

"the number of their respective inhabitants, and on

the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" to

ensure meaningful local representation.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; THREE-SEAT-PER-PARTY LIMIT

ENSURES ENTRY OF VARIOUS INTEREST-

REPRESENTATIONS INTO THE LEGISLATURE. — An

important consideration in adopting the party-list

system is to promote and encourage a multiparty

system of representation . . . Consistent with the

Constitutional Commission's pronouncements,

Congress set the seat-limit to three (3) for each

qualified party, organization or coalition. "Qualified"

means having hurdled the two percent vote

threshold. Such three-seat limit ensures the entry of

various interest-representations into the legislature;

thus, no single group, no matter how large its

membership, would dominate the party-list seats, ifnot the entire House. EScaIT

4. REMEDIAL LAW; CERTIORARI; GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION; GRANT BY COMELEC OF

ADDITIONAL PARTY-LIST SEATS IN VIOLATION OF THE

TWO PERCENT THRESHOLD AND PROPORTIONAL

REPRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS OF RA 7941, A CASE

OF; CASE AT BAR. — [T]he Comelec gravely abused

its discretion in ruling that the thirty-eight (38) herein

respondent parties, organizations and coalitions are

each entitled to a party-list seat, because it

glaringly violated two requirements of RA 7941: thetwo percent threshold and proportional

representation. In disregarding, rejecting and

circumventing these statutory provisions, the

Comelec effectively arrogated unto itself what the

Constitution expressly and wholly vested in the

legislature: the power and the discretion to define

the mechanics for the enforcement of the system.

The wisdom and the propriety of these impositions,

absent any clear transgression of the Constitution or

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction, are beyond judicial review.




Facts:

COMELEC proclaimed 14 party-list representatives

from 13 parties which obtained at least 2% of the

total number of votes cast for the party-list system

as members of the House of Representatives. Upon

petition for respondents, who were party-list

organizations, it proclaimed 38 additional party-listrepresentatives although they obtained less than

2% of the total number of votes cast for the party-list

system on the ground that under the Constitution, it

is mandatory that at least 20% of the members of

the House of Representatives come from the party-

list representatives.

Issue:

Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list

representatives mentioned in Section 5 (2), Article VI

of the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a

ceiling? In other words, should the twenty percent

allocation for party-list solons be filled up

completely and all the time?

Held:

It is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for

the party-list seats in the House of Representatives.

The Constitution vested Congress with the broad

power to define and prescribe the mechanics of

the party-list system of representatives. In the

exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress

deemed it necessary to require parties participating

in the system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes

cast for the party list system to be entitled to aparty-list seat. Congress wanted to ensure that only

those parties having a sufficient number of

constituents deserving of representation are

actually represented in Congress.

FORMULA FOR

determination of total number of party-list

representatives = #district representatives/.80 x .20

additional representatives of first party = # of votes

of first party/ # of votes of party list system

additional seats for concerned party = # of votes

of concerned party/ # votes of first party x

additional seats for concerned party

Issue:

Are the two percent threshold requirement and the

three-seat limit provided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941

constitutional?

Held:Yes. In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress

wanted to ensure that only those parties,

organizations and coalitions having a sufficient

number of constituents deserving of representation

are actually represented in Congress. This intent

can be gleaned from the deliberations on the

proposed bill. The two percent threshold is

consistent not only with the intent of the framers of

the Constitution and the law, but with the very

essence of "representation." Under a republican or

representative state, all government authority

emanates from the people, but is exercised by

representatives chosen by them. But to have

meaningful representation, the elected persons

must have the mandate of a sufficient number of

people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features theparty-list system, the result might be the proliferation

of small groups which are incapable of contributing

significant legislation, and which might even pose a

threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even

legislative districts are apportioned according to

"the number of their respective inhabitants, and on

the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" to

ensure meaningful local representation.

Issue:

How should the additional seats of a qualified party

be determined?

Held:

Step One. There is no dispute among the

petitioners, the public and the private respondents,

as well as the members of this Court that the initial

step is to rank all the participating parties,

organizations and coalitions from the highest to the

lowest based on the number of votes they each

received. Then the ratio for each party is computed

by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all

the parties participating in the system. All parties

with at least two percent of the total votes are

guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties shallbe considered in the computation of additional

seats. The party receiving the highest number of

votes shall thenceforth be referred to as the “first”

party.

Step Two. The next step is to determine the number

of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to be

able to compute that for the other parties. Since

the distribution is based on proportional

representation, the number of seats to be allotted

to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to

which the first party is entitled by virtue of itsobtaining the most number of votes.

Step Three The next step is to solve for the number

of additional seats that the other qualified parties

are entitled to, based on proportional

representation.




(Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

147589, 147613, [June 26, 2001], 412 PHIL 308-374)

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 147589. June 26, 2001.]

ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under

the acronym OFW), represented herein by itssecretary-general, MOHAMMAD OMAR FAJARDO,

petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; CITIZENS

DRUG WATCH; MAMAMAYAN AYAW SA DROGA;

GO! GO! PHILIPPINES; THE TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST

ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES; PHILIPPINE LOCAL

AUTONOMY; CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE,

ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE; CHAMBER

OF REAL ESTATE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; SPORTS &

HEALTH ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; ANG

LAKAS NG OVERSEAS CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW);

BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION and others under

"Organizations/Coalitions" of Omnibus Resolution

No. 3785; PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO; LAKAS

NUCD-UMDP; NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION;

LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO; AKSYON

DEMOKRATIKO; PDP-LABAN; LIBERAL PARTY;

NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG BUHAY HAYAANG

YUMABONG; and others under "Political Parties" of

Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, respondents.

[G.R. No. 147613. June 26, 2001.]

BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS; NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION

(NPC); LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP);PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-

NUCD-UMDP; LIBERAL PARTY; MAMAMAYANG

AYAW SA DROGA; CREBA; NATIONAL FEDERATION

OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS; JEEP; and BAGONG

BAYANI ORGANIZATION, respondents.

Neri Javier Colmenares for Bayan Muna.

Chan Robles & Associates for Citizens Drug Watch

Foundation, Inc.

Cruz Cruz & Navarro for Mamamayan Ayaw sa

Droga.

Brillantes Navarro Jumamil Arcilla Escolin & MartinezLaw Offices for The True Marcos Loyalist Association

of the Philippines.

Francis A. Ver for Phil. Local Autonomy Movement.

Yap Crisanto Salvador & Calderon and Fonacier &

Fonacier Law Office for Chamber of Real Estate

Builders Asso.

Mcaskell Equila & Associates for Ang Lakas ng

Overseas Contract Workers (OCW).

Juan Carlos T. Cuna for Partido ng Masang Pilipino.

Buñag Kapunan Migallos & Perez for Aksyon

Democratiko.

Tonisito M.C. Umali for Liberal Party.

Antonio Dollete & Associates for Partido ng MasangPilipino.

Yulo and Bello Law Offices for LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP.

Ceferino Padua Law Office, Gerardo A. Del Mundo

Law Office and Antonio R. Bautista & Partners for

Bagong Bayani Org.

The Solicitor General for Commission on Elections.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioners Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party

and Bayan Muna filed the present petitions under

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging Omnibus

Resolution No. 37851 issued by the Commission on

Elections (Comelec) on March 26, 2001. This

Resolution approved the participation of 154organizations and parties, including those herein

impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections.

Petitioners seek the disqualification of private

respondents, arguing mainly that the party-list

system was intended to benefit the marginalized

and underrepresented; not the mainstream political

parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented.

The Supreme Court found the petition partly

meritorious. The Court remanded the case to the

Comelec and directed the Commission to conduct

summary evidentiary hearings on the qualifications

of the party-list participants. The Court rejected the

submissions of the Comelec and the other

respondents that the party-list system is, without any

qualification, open to all. According to the Court,

such position does not only weaken the electoral

chances of the marginalized and

underrepresented; it also prejudices them. It would

gut the substance of the party-list system. Instead of

generating hope, it would create a mirage. Instead

of enabling the marginalized, it would further

weaken them and aggravate their marginalization.

The Court stressed that the very reason for the

establishment of the party-list system is thefundamental social justice principle that those who

have less in life should have more in law. It was for

them that the party-list system was enacted — to

give them not only genuine hope, but genuine

power; to give them the opportunity to be elected

and to represent the specific concerns of their

constituencies; and simply to give them a direct

voice in Congress and in the larger affairs of the

State. The State cannot now disappoint and

frustrate them by disabling and desecrating this

social justice vehicle. The Court also laid down

some guidelines to assist the Comelec in its work ofconducting summary evidentiary hearings on the

qualifications of the party-list participants.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS;

CERTIORARI; VALIDITY OF COMELEC OMNIBUS

RESOLUTION 3785 IN CASE AT BAR MAY BE BROUGHT

BEFORE THIS COURT IN A VERIFIED PETITION THEREFOR

UNDER RULE 65 OF RULES OF COURT. — Petitioners

attack the validity of Comelec Omnibus Resolution

3785 for having been issued with grave abuse of

discretion, insofar as it allowed respondents to

participate in the party-list elections of 2001.Indeed, under both the Constitution and the Rules

of Court, such challenge may be brought before

this Court in a verified petition for certiorari under

Rule 65.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN AVAILABLE. — These cases

present an exception to the rule that certiorari shall

lie only in the absence of any other plain, speedy

and adequate remedy. It has been held that




certiorari is available, notwithstanding the presence

of other remedies, "where the issue raised is one

purely of law, where public interest is involved, and

in case of urgency." Indeed, the instant case is

indubitably imbued with public interest and with

extreme urgency, for it potentially involves the

composition of 20 percent of the House ofRepresentatives.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

MAY BE GLOSSED OVER TO PREVENT A MISCARRIAGE

OF JUSTICE. — Procedural requirements "may be

glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice,

when the issue involves the principle of social justice

. . . when the decision sought to be set aside is a

nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely

urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and

speedy remedy available."

4. POLITICAL LAW; ELECTION LAWS; COMELEC RULES

OF PROCEDURE; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PROHIBITED UNDER SECTION 1(D), RULE 13 THEREOF.

— The assailed Omnibus Resolution was

promulgated by Respondent Commission en banc;

hence, no motion for reconsideration was possible,

it being a prohibited pleading under Section 1 (d),

Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; DUTY; TO

FORMULATE GUIDING AND CONTROLLING

CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, PRECEPTS, DOCTRINES

OR RULES. —

These cases raise transcendentalconstitutional issues on the party-list system, which

this Court must urgently resolve, consistent with its

duty to "formulate guiding and controlling

constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or

rules." acCTIS

6. ID.; PARTY-LIST SYSTEM; POLITICAL PARTIES; MAY

PARTICIPATE IN PARTY-LIST ELECTIONS AND MAY BE

REGISTERED UNDER PARTY-LIST SYSTEM. — Under the

Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents

cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections,

merely on the ground that they are political parties.Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides

that members of the House of Representatives may

"be elected through a party-list system of registered

national, regional, and sectoral parties or

organizations." Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8,

Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political parties

may be registered under the party-list system.

Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt

as to the participation of political parties in the

party-list system. We quote the pertinent provision

below: . . . Indubitably, therefore, political parties —

even the major ones — may participate in the

party-list elections.

7. ID.; ID.; PURPOSE. — Commissioner Monsod stated

that the purpose of the party-list provision was to

open up the system, in order to give a chance to

parties that consistently place third or fourth in

congressional district elections to win a seat in

Congress. He explained: "The purpose of this is to

open the system. In the past elections, we found

out that there were certain groups or parties that, if

we count their votes nationwide, have about

1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always

third or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they

have no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they

would have five or six representatives in the

Assembly even if they would not win individually in

legislative districts. So, that is essentially themechanics, the purpose and objectives of the

party-list system."

8. ID.; ID.; POLITICAL PARTY; DEFINED. — For its part,

Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list

system of registered national, regional and sectoral

parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, . . . ."

Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a

political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of

parties." More to the point, the law defines "political

party" as "an organized group of citizens

advocating an ideology or platform, principles and

policies for the general conduct of government

and which, as the most immediate means of

securing their adoption, regularly nominates and

supports certain of its leaders and members as

candidates for public office."

9. ID.; ID.; RA 7941; PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION,

CONSTRUED. — "Proportional representation" in Sec.

2 of RA 7941 does not refer to the number of people

in a particular district, because the party-list

election is national in scope. Neither does it allude

to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed

group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the"marginalized and underrepresented" as

exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of RA

7941; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban

poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,

handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas

workers, and professionals."

10. ID.; ID.; ID.; LACK OF WELL-DEFINED

CONSTITUENCY, EXPLAINED. — "Lack of well-defined

constituenc[y]" refers to the absence of a

traditionally identifiable electoral group, like voters

of a congressional district or territorial unit ofgovernment. Rather, it points again to those with

disparate interests identified with the "marginalized

or underrepresented."

11. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; INTERPRETATION OF

STATUTES; WHERE LANGUAGE OF LAW IS CLEAR, IT

MUST BE APPLIED ACCORDING TO ITS EXPRESS

TERMS. — The intent of the Constitution is clear: to

give genuine power to the people, not only by

giving more law to those who have less in life, but

more so by enabling them to become veritable

lawmakers themselves. Consistent with this intent,

the policy of the implementing law, we repeat, islikewise clear: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging

to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,

organizations and parties, . . ., to become members

of the House of Representatives." Where the

language of the law is clear, it must be applied

according to its express terms.

12. ID.; ID.; MEANING OF A TERM IN A STATUTE MAY

BE LIMITED, QUALIFIED OR SPECIALIZED BY THOSE IN




IMMEDIATE ASSOCIATION. — While the enumeration

of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not

exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law

that not all sectors can be represented under the

party-list system. It is a fundamental principle of

statutory construction that words employed in a

statute are interpreted in connection with, and theirmeaning is ascertained by reference to, the words

and the phrases with which they are associated or

related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute

may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in

immediate association.

13. ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION; PRIMARY

SOURCE FROM WHICH TO ASCERTAIN

CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT OR PURPOSE IS LANGUAGE

OF PROVISION ITSELF. — The fundamental principle

in constitutional construction, however, is that the

primary source from which to ascertain

constitutional intent or purpose is the language of

the provision itself. The presumption is that the words

in which the constitutional provisions are couched

express the objective sought to be attained. In

other words, verba legis still prevails. Only when the

meaning of the words used is unclear and

equivocal should resort be made to extraneous aids

of construction and interpretation, such as the

proceedings of the Constitutional Commission or

Convention, in order to shed light on and ascertain

the true intent or purpose of the provision being

construed.

14. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS;

CERTIORARI; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION; WHEN A

LOWER COURT OR A QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY

VIOLATES OR IGNORES THE CONSTITUTION OR THE

LAW, ITS ACTION CAN BE STRUCK DOWN BY THIS

COURT ON THE GROUND THEREOF. — When a lower

court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the

Commission on Elections, violates or ignores the

Constitution or the law, its action can be struck

down by this Court on the ground of grave abuse

of discretion. Indeed, the function of all judicial and

quasi-judicial instrumentalities is to apply the law asthey find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it.

15. ID.; SUPREME COURT; JURISDICTION; SUPREME

COURT NOT A TRIER OF FACTS. — Bayan Muna also

urges us to immediately rule out Respondent

Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD), because "it is

a government entity using government resources

and privileges." This Court, however, is not a trier of

facts. It is not equipped to receive evidence and

determine the truth of such factual allegations.

16. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PARTY-LIST SYSTEM ACT

(RA 7941); POLITICAL PARTY, SECTOR,ORGANIZATION OR COALITION MUST REPRESENT

MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS

IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 5 THEREOF. — First, the

political party, sector, organization or coalition must

represent the marginalized and underrepresented

groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other

words, it must show — through its constitution,

articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of

government and track record — that it represents

and seeks to uplift marginalized and

underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its

membership should belong to the marginalized and

underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in

a conflict of interests, it has chosen or is likely to

choose the interest of such sectors.

17. ID.; ID.; ID.; MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES MUST

SHOW THAT THEY REPRESENT INTERESTS OF THE

MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED. —

Second, while even major political parties are

expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution

to participate in the party-list system, they must

comply with the declared statutory policy of

enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized

and underrepresented sectors . . . to be elected to

the House of Representatives." In other words, while

they are not disqualified merely on the ground that

they are political parties, they must show, however,

that they represent the interests of the marginalized

and underrepresented. DAHaTc

18. ID.; ID.; ID.; RELIGIOUS SECTOR MAY NOT BE

REPRESENTED IN PARTY-LIST SYSTEM. — In view of the

objections directed against the registration of Ang

Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, which is allegedly a

religious group, the Court notes the express

constitutional provision that the religious sector may

not be represented in the party-list system.

19. ID.; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; RELIGIOUS

DENOMINATIONS AND SECTS SHALL NOT BEREGISTERED AS POLITICAL PARTIES. — Furthermore,

the Constitution provides that "religious

denominations and sects shall not be registered."

The prohibition was explained by a member of the

Constitutional Commission in this wise: "[T]he

prohibition is on any religious organization

registering as a political party. I do not see any

prohibition here against a priest running as a

candidate. That is not prohibited here; it is the

registration of a religious sect as a political party."

20. ID.; PARTY-LIST SYSTEM ACT (RA 7941); A PARTYOR ORGANIZATION MUST NOT BE DISQUALIFIED

UNDER SECTION 6 THEREOF. — Fourth, a party or an

organization must not be disqualified under Section

6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for

disqualification as follows: "(1) It is a religious sect or

denomination, organization or association

organized for religious purposes; (2) It advocates

violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; (3) It is

a foreign party or organization; (4) It is receiving

support from any foreign government, foreign

political party, foundation, organization, whether

directly or through any of its officers or members or

indirectly through third parties for partisan electionpurposes; (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws,

rules or regulations relating to elections; (6) It

declares untruthful statements in its petition; (7) It

has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or (8) It

fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding

elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum

(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in

the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency

in which it has registered."




21. ID.; ID.; ID.; PARTY OR ORGANIZATION MUST NOT

BE AN ADJUNCT OF, OR A PROJECT ORGANIZED OR

AN ENTITY FUNDED OR ASSISTED BY THE

GOVERNMENT. — Fifth, the party or organization

must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized

or an entity funded or assisted by the government.By the very nature of the party-list system, the party

or organization must be a group of citizens,

organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It

must be independent of the government. The

participation of the government or its officials in the

affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal and

unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to the

objective of the law: to enable citizens belonging

to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and

organizations to be elected to the House of

Representatives.

22. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOMINEES MUST REPRESENT

MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED SECTORS.

— Not only the candidate party or organization

must represent marginalized and underrepresented

sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under

Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino

citizens "who belong to marginalized and

underrepresented sectors, organizations and

parties." Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be

fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of

the urban poor or the working class, by an

industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State

policy to give genuine representation to themarginalized and underrepresented.

23. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOMINEE MUST BE ABLE TO

CONTRIBUTE TO FORMULATION AND ENACTMENT OF

APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION THAT WILL BENEFIT THE

NATION AS A WHOLE. — As previously discussed,

while lacking a well-defined political constituency,

the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to

the formulation and enactment of appropriate

legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.

Senator Jose Lina explained during the bicameral

committee proceedings that "the nominee of aparty, national or regional, is not going to represent

a particular district . . . ."

Facts: Petitioners challenged the Comelec’s

Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which approved the

participation of 154 organizations and parties,

including those herein impleaded, in the 2001 party-

list elections. Petitioners sought the disqualification

of private respondents, arguing mainly that the

party-list system was intended to benefit the

marginalized and underrepresented; not the

mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized

or overrepresented. Unsatisfied with the pace bywhich Comelec acted on their petition, petitioners

elevated the issue to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Whether or not petitioner’s recourse to the

Court was proper.

2. Whether or not political parties may

participate in the party list elections.

3. Whether or not the Comelec committed

grave abuse of discretion in promulgating

Omnibus Resolution No. 3785.

Ruling:

1. The Court may take cognizance of an issuenotwithstanding the availability of other remedies

"where the issue raised is one purely of law, where

public interest is involved, and in case of urgency."

The facts attendant to the case rendered it

justiciable.

2. Political parties – even the major ones -- may

participate in the party-list elections subject to the

requirements laid down in the Constitution and RA

7941, which is the statutory law pertinent to the

Party List System.

Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private

respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-

list elections, merely on the ground that they are

political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the

Constitution provides that members of the House of

Representatives may "be elected through a party-

list system of registered national, regional, and

sectoral parties or organizations” . It is however,

incumbent upon the Comelec to determine

proportional representation of the “marginalized

and underrepresented”, the criteria for

participation, in relation to the cause of the party

list applicants so as to avoid desecration of thenoble purpose of the party-list system.

3. The Court acknowledged that to determine the

propriety of the inclusion of respondents in the

Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, a study of the factual

allegations was necessary which was beyond the

pale of the Court. The Court not being a trier of

facts.

However, seeing that the Comelec failed to

appreciate fully the clear policy of the law and the

Constitution, the Court decided to set someguidelines culled from the law and the Constitution,

to assist the Comelec in its work. The Court ordered

that the petition be remanded in the Comelec to

determine compliance by the party lists.




Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, 02

April 2013

Facts:

1. A few weeks before the elections, the

Supreme Court in Atong Paglaum Inc. vs.

Commission on Elections reinterpretedSection 5, Article VI of the Constitution and

revered its ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani and

Barangay Association for National

Advancement and Transparency v.

Commission on Elections (BANAT).

2. In granting the petition of 52 party list groups

and organizations which were disqualified

by the Commission on Elections from

participating in the May 13, 2013 party list

elections because they allegedly do not

represent the marginalized and

underrepresented sector of society, the

majority is one of the view that the party list

system includes not only sectoral parties but

also non-sectoral parties.

Hence, contrary to the Ang Bagong Bayani, the

party-list system is not the exclusive domain of

sectoral representatives belonging to the

“marginalized and underrepresented sectors” but

may be participated in by non-sectoral parties as

well who do not need to represent marginalized

and underrepresented sector.

Issue: Whether or not Comelec committed grave

abuse of discretion in following prevailing

decisionsof this court in disqualifying petitioners from

participating in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list

elections.

Held:

1. We hold that the Comelec did not commit

grave abuse of discretion in the following prevailing

decisions of this court in disqualifying petitioners

from participating in the coming 13 May 2013 party-

list elections.

However, since the court adopts in this decision

new parameters in the qualifications of national,

regional, and sectoral parties under the party-list

system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the

decisions applied by the Comelec in disqualifying

petitioners, we remand to all the present petitions

for the Comelec to determine who are qualified to

register under party-list system, and to participate in

the coming 13 May 2013 party-list electionsunder

the new parameters, prescribed in this decision.

What is the objective of the party list system underthe 1987 Constitution? To democratize political

power by going political parties’ that cannot win in

legislative district elections a chance to win seats in

the house of representatives.

Who are included in the party-list system?Sectoral

and Non-sectoral parties.

What is the proof that the party-list system is not

exclusively for sectoral parties?

Section 5(2) Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

Version 2

FACTS: Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties

were disqualified by the Commission on Elections in

the May 2013 party-list elections for various reasons

but primarily for not being qualified asrepresentatives for marginalized or

underrepresented sectors.

Atong Paglaum et al then filed a petition for

certiorari against COMELEC alleging grave abuse of

discretion on the part of COMELEC in disqualifying

them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed

grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the said

party-lists.

HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed the

guidelines set in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani

and BANAT. However, the Supreme Court

remanded the cases back to the COMELEC as the

Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines

which abandoned some principles established in

the two aforestated cases. The new guidelines are

as follows:

I. Parameters. In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC

must use the following parameters:

1. Three different groups may participate in theparty-list system: (1) national parties or

organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations,

and (3) sectoral parties ororganizations.

2. National parties or organizations and regional

parties or organizations do not need to organize

along sectoral lines and do not need to represent

any “marginalized and underrepresented” sector.

3. Political parties can participate in party-list

elections provided they register under the party-list

system and do not field candidates in legislativedistrict elections. A political party, whether major or

not, that fieldscandidates in legislative district

elections can participate in party-list elections only

through its sectoral wing that can separately

register under the party-list system. The sectoral

wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and

is linked to a political party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be

“marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in

“well-defined political constituencies.” It is enough

that their principal advocacy pertains to the

special interest and concerns of their sector. Thesectors that are “marginalized and

underrepresented” include labor, peasant,

fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural

communities, handicapped, veterans, and

overseas workers. The sectors that lack “well-

defined political constituencies” include

professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.




5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or

organizations that represent the “marginalized and

underrepresented” must belong to the

“marginalized and underrepresented” sector they

represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of

sectoral parties or organizations that lack “well-

defined political constituencies” must belong to thesector they represent. The nominees of sectoral

parties or organizations that represent the

“marginalized and underrepresented,” or that

represent those who lack “well-defined political

constituencies,” either must belong to their

respective sectors, or must have a track record of

advocacy for their respective sectors. The

nominees of national and regional parties or

organizations must be bona-fide members of such

parties or organizations.

6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or

organizations shall not be disqualified if some of

their nominees are disqualified, provided that they

have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are

disallowed, as has always been the practice, from

participating in the party-list elections. But, since

there’s really no constitutional prohibition nor a

statutory prohibition, major political parties can now

participate in the party-list system provided that

they do so through their bona fide sectoral wing

(see parameter 3 above).

Allowing major political parties to participate, albeit

indirectly, in the party-list elections will encourage

them to work assiduously in extending their

constituencies to the “marginalized and

underrepresented” and to those who “lack well-

defined political constituencies.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave weight to the

deliberations of the Constitutional Commission

when they were drafting the party-list system

provision of the Constitution. The Commissioners

deliberated that it was their intention to include allparties into the party-list elections in order to

develop a political system which is pluralistic and

multiparty. (In the BANAT case, Justice Puno

emphasized that the will of the people should

defeat the intent of the framers; and that the intent

of the people, in ratifying the 1987 Constitution, is

that the party-list system should be reserved for the

marginalized sectors.)

III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the

party-list system is NOT RESERVED for the

“marginalized and underrepresented” or for parties

who lack “well-defined political constituencies”. It isalso for national or regional parties. It is also for small

ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who

lack “well-defined political constituencies”. The

common denominator however is that all of them

cannot, they do not have the machinery – unlike

major political parties, to field or sponsorcandidates

in the legislative districts but they can acquire the

needed votes in a national election system like the

party-list system of elections.

If the party-list system is only reserved for

marginalized representation, then the system itself

unduly excludes other cause-oriented groups from

running for a seat in the lower house.

As explained by the Supreme Court, party-listrepresentation should not be understood to include

only labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,

indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,

veterans, overseas workers, and other sectors that

by their nature are economically at the margins of

society. It should be noted that Section 5 of

Republic Act 7941 includes, among others, in its

provision for sectoral representation groups of

professionals, which are not per se economically

marginalized but are still qualified as “marginalized,

underrepresented, and do not have well-defined

political constituencies” as they are ideologically

marginalized.

Palparan v. HRET, G.R. No. 189506, 11 February 2012

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 189466. February 11, 2010.]

DARYL GRACE J. ABAYON, petitioner, vs. THE

HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, PERFECTO C. LUCABAN, JR.,

RONYL S. DELA CRUZ and AGUSTIN C. DOROGA,

respondents.

[G.R. No. 189506. February 11, 2010.]

CONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. PALPARAN, JR.,

petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET), DR. REYNALDO

LESACA, JR., CRISTINA PALABAY, RENATO M. REYES,

JR., ERLINDA CADAPAN, ANTONIO FLORES and

JOSELITO USTAREZ, respondents.

FACTS: In the 2007 elections, Bantay party-list group

received the sufficient voting percentage entitlingit

to a seat in the House of Representatives in which

Petitioner Jovito S. Palparan, Jr. is the firstnominee ofthe said party-list group.Respondents Reynaldo

Lesaca, Jr. , Cristina Palabay, Renato M. Reyes. Jr.

,ErlindaCadapan,Antonia Flores, and

JoselitoUstarez are members of the other party-list

groups filed with theHRET a petition for quo

warranto against Bantay and its nominee,

Palaparan. They alleged thatPalapran is not eligible

to sit in the House of Representative because he

did not belong to amarginalized and

nderreprsented sectors which then are the victims

of communist rebels,Civilian Forces Geographical

Units (CAFGUs), security guards and former

rebels.Palaparan claimed that he was just Bantay’snominee and that HRET had no jurisdiction over his

person since it was actually the party-list that was

elected to assume membership in the House

ofRepresentatives. Furthermore, he said that such

question should be raised before the party-

listgroup, not before the HRET.On July 23, 2009 HRET

issued an order upholding its jurisdiction over the

question of petitioner Palparan’s qualifications.

Palparan filed a motio for reconsideration but the




HRET denied it by a resolution dated September 10,

2009.

ISSUE: Whether the HRET has the jurisdiction

concerning the eligibilities of the nominees of the

party-list groups that won seats in the lower house

of Congress.

HELD: YES. Under Section 5, Article VI of the

Constitution, the members of the Housse of

Representatives are of two kinds: “members who

shall be elected from legislative districts” and“those

who shall be elected through a party-list system of

registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or

organizations”. Thus, it is the part-list representatives

who are “elected” into office, not their parties or

organizations. Although it is the party-list

organization that is voted forin the elections, it is not

the organization that sits as and becomes member

of the House ofRepresentatives.As contemplated in

Section 17 Article VI of the 1987 Constitution , the

HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating

to the election, returns, and qualifications of the

members of theHouse of Representatives. Since the

party-list representatives and districts

representatives are treated in like manner, the HRET

has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their

qualifications.Once the party or organization of the

party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the

nomineehas taken his oath and assumed office as

member of the House of Representatives, the

COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contestsrelating to his qualifications ends and theHRET’s own

jurisdiction begins.

Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides

that the HRET shall be the sole judge of allcontests

relating to, among other things, the qualifications of

the members of the House ofRepresentatives. Since

party- list nominees are “elected members” of the

House of Representatives no less than the district

representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to

hearand pass upon their qualifications. By analogy

with the cases of district representatives, once theparty or organization of the party-list nominee has

been proclaimed and the nominee has takenhis

oath and assumed office as member of the House

of Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over

election contests relating to his qualifications ends

and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.

IX. Automated Elections

(Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.

188456, [September 10, 2009], 615 PHIL 149-392)

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 188456. September 10, 2009.]H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROMEL R.

BAGARES, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL, GILBERT T.

ANDRES, IMMACULADA D. GARCIA, ERLINDA T.

MERCADO, FRANCISCO A. ALCUAZ, MA. AZUCENA

P. MACEDA, and ALVIN A. PETERS, petitioners, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by HON.

CHAIRMAN JOSE MELO, COMELEC SPECIAL BIDS

and AWARDS COMMITTEE, represented by its

CHAIRMAN HON. FERDINAND RAFANAN,

DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET and MANAGEMENT,

represented by HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, TOTAL

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and

SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,

respondents.

PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, petitioner-in-intervention.

SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its

President, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, movant-intervenor.

Facts: On 23 January 2007, Congress passed RA

9369 amending the first automated election law,

RA 8436.[2] Section 5 of RA 8436, as amended by

RA 9369, which amendment took effect on 10

February 2007, authorized the COMELEC to:

Use an automated election system or systems in thesame election in different provinces, whether

paper-based or a direct recording automated

election system as it may deem appropriate and

practical for the process of voting, counting of

votes and canvassing/consolidation and transmittal

of results of electoral exercises: Provided, that for

the regular national and local election, which shall

be held immediately after effectivity of this Act, the

AES shall be used in at least two highly urbanized

cities and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas and

Mindanao, to be chosen by the Commission x x x x

In succeeding regular national or local elections,the AES shall be implemented nationwide.

(Emphasis supplied)

The COMELEC did not use any automated election

system in the 14 May 2007 elections, the national

and local elections held after RA 9369 took effect.

On 10 July 2009, the COMELEC, on the one hand,

and TIM and Smartmatic (Provider), on the other,

signed the Contract for the automated tallying and

recording of votes cast nationwide in the 10 May

2010 elections. For P7,191,484,739.48, the COMELEC

leased for use in the 10 May 2010 elections 82,200

optical scanners (and related equipment) andhired ancillary services of the Provider.

On 9 July 2009, petitioners, as taxpayers and

citizens, filed this petition[4]to enjoin the signing of

the Contract or its implementation and to compel

disclosure of the terms of the Contract and other

agreements between the Provider and its

subcontractors.[5] Petitioners sought the Contract's

invalidation for non-compliance with the




requirement in Section 5 of RA 8436, as amended,

mandating the partial use of an automated

election system before deploying it nationwide. To

further support their claim on the Contract's

invalidity, petitioners alleged that (1) the optical

scanners leased by the COMELEC do not satisfy the

minimum systems capabilities" under RA 8436, asamended and (2) the Provider not only failed to

submit relevant documents during the bidding but

also failed to show "community of interest" among

its constituent corporations as required

inInformation Technology Foundation of the

Philippines v. COMELEC(Infotech).

Issue: Whether or not, the COMELECgravely abuse

its discretion when it entered to contract with

Smartmatic TIM Corporation and assailing to an

automated election.

Ruling: Assayed against the provisions of the

Constitution, the enabling automation law, RA 8436,

as amended by RA 9369, the RFP and even the

Anti-Dummy Law, which petitioners invoked as an

afterthought, the Court finds the project award to

have complied with legal prescriptions, and the

terms and conditions of the corresponding

automation contract in question to be valid. No

grave abuse of discretion, therefore, can be laid on

the doorsteps of respondent COMELEC. And surely,

the winning joint venture should not be faulted for

having a foreign company as partner.

The COMELEC is an independent constitutional

body with a distinct and pivotal role in our scheme

of government. In the discharge of its awesome

functions as overseer of fair elections, administrator

and lead implementor of laws relative to the

conduct of elections, it should not be stymied with

restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the

case of an organization of lesser responsibility.[103]

It should be afforded ample elbow room and

enough wherewithal in devising means and

initiatives that would enable it to accomplish the

great objective for which it was created--topromote free, orderly, honest and peaceful

elections. This is as it should be for, too often,

COMELEC has to make decisions under difficult

conditions to address unforeseen events to

preserve the integrity of the election and in the

process the voice of the people. Thus, in the past,

the Court has steered away from interfering with

the COMELEC’s exercise of its power which, by law

and by the nature of its office properly pertain to it.

Absent, therefore, a clear showing of grave abuse

of discretion on comelec’s part, as here, the Court

should refrain from utilizing the corrective hand of

certiorari to review, let alone nullify, the acts of thatbody.

There are no ready-made formulas for solving

public problems. Time and experience are

necessary to evolve patterns that will serve the ends

of good government. In the matter of the

administration of the laws relative to the conduct of

elections, x x x we must not by any excessive zeal

take away from the comelec the initiative which by

constitutional and legal mandates properly belongs

to it. Due regard to the independent character of

the Commission x x x requires that the power of this

court to review the acts of that body should, as a

general proposition, be used sparingly, but firmly in

appropriate cases.

This independent constitutional commission, it is

true, possesses extraordinary powers and enjoys a

considerable latitude in the discharge of its

functions. The road, however, towards successful

2010 automation elections would certainly be

rough and bumpy. The comelec is laboring under

very tight timelines. It would accordingly need the

help of all advocates of orderly and honest

elections, of all men and women of goodwill, to

smoothen the way and assist comelec personnel

address the fears expressed about the integrity of

the system. Like anyone else, the Court would like

and wish automated elections to succeed,

credibly.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED




(Capalla v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.

201112, 201121, 201127, 201413, [June 13, 2012])

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 201112. June 13, 2012.]

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, OMAR

SOLITARIO ALI and MARY ANNE L. SUSANO,petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS, respondent.

[G.R. No. 201121. June 13, 2012.]

SOLIDARITY FOR SOVEREIGNTY (S4S), represented by

Ma. Linda Olaguer; RAMON PEDROSA, BENJAMIN

PAULINO SR., EVELYN CORONEL, MA. LINDA

OLAGUER MONTAYRE, and NELSON T. MONTAYRE,

petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

represented by its Chairman, Commissioner SIXTO S.

BRILLANTES, JR., respondent.

[G.R. No. 201127. June 13, 2012.]

TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, BISHOP BRODERICK S.

PABILLO, SOLITA COLLAS MONSOD, MARIA

CORAZON MENDOZA ACOL, FR. JOSE DIZON,

NELSON JAVA CELIS, PABLO R. MANALASTAS,

GEORGINA R. ENCANTO and ANNA LEAH E.

COLINA, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS and SMARTMATIC TIM CORPORATION,

respondents.

[G.R. No. 201413. June 13, 2012.]

TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC.,

EVELYN L. KILAYKO, TERESITA D. BALTAZAR, PILAR L.CALDERON and ELITA T. MONTILLA, petitioners, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SMARTMATIC-TIM

Corporation, respondents.

FACTS: Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM entered into

a Contract for the Provision of an Automated

Election System for the May 10, 2010 Synchronized

National and Local Elections (AES Contract) which

is a Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase

(OTP) the goods listed therein consisting of the

Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS), both software

and hardware. The parties agreed that the AESContract shall remain effective until the release of

the performance security posted by the Comelec.

The Comelec was given until December 31, 2010

within which to exercise the option to purchase. The

option was, however, not exercised within said

period. The parties later entered into an extension

agreement giving the Comelec until March 31,

2012 within which to exercise it.

Herein petitioners, however, assailed the validity of

such agreement on the ground that the same

requires another public bidding since it substantially

amended the terms of the contract. They alsoaverred that such extension to exercise the option

will prejudice the governments interest.

In the assailed June 13, 2012 decision of the

Supreme Court, the Court upheld the validity of the

transaction. Hence, the petitioners moved for

reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not the extension of the OTP in

favor of Comelec is valid?

HELD: The motions for reconsideration are denied.

CIVIL LAW: contracts

In our June 13, 2012 Decision, we decided in favor

of respondents and placed a stamp of validity on

the assailed resolutions and transactions entered

into. Based on the AES Contract, we sustained the

parties right to amend the same by extending the

option period. Considering that the performance

security had not been released to Smartmatic-TIM,

the contract was still effective which can still be

amended by the mutual agreement of the parties,

such amendment being reduced in writing.

In this case, the contract is still effective because

the performance security has not been released.

Thus, not only the option and warranty provisions

survive but the entire contract as well. In light of the

contractual provisions, we, therefore, sustain the

amendment of the option period. The amendment

of a previously bidded contract is not per se invalid.

For it to be nullified, the amendment must be

substantial such that the other bidders were

deprived of the terms and opportunities granted to

the winning bidder after it won the same and that it

is prejudicial to public interest.

Here, the extension of the option period means thatthe Comelec had more time to determine the

propriety of exercising the option.With the

extension, the Comelec could acquire the subject

PCOS machines under the same terms and

conditions as earlier agreed upon. The end result is

that the Comelec acquired the subject PCOS

machines with its meager budget and was able to

utilize the rentals paid for the 2010 elections as part

of the purchase price.

The motions for reconsideration are DENIED for lack

of merit.

election digest title 8 and 9

Documents