election law cases scribd

7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd

1/10

ELECTION LAW CASES DIGESTSTITLE FACTS ISSUE/S RULING

1. Ladlad vs Comelec The case has its roots in the COMELECs

refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-

list organization under Republic Act (RA

!o" #$%&' otherise )non as the *arty-

List +yste, Act"

*etitioner is a national organization hich

represents the lesbians' gays' biseuals'

and trans-genders" .t /led a petition for

accreditation as a party-list organization

to public respondent" 0oe1er' due to

,oral grounds' the latter denied the said

petition" To buttress their denial' COMELEC

cited certain biblical and 2uranic passages

in their decision" .t also stated that since

their ays are i,,oral and contrary to

public policy' they are considered

nuissance" .n fact' their acts are e1en

punishable under the Re1ised *enal Code

in its Article 34&"

A ,otion for reconsideration being

denied' *etitioner /led this instant *etition

on Certiorari under Rule 56 of the ROC"

Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of

accreditation' insofar as it 7usti/ed the

eclusion by using religious dog,a'

1iolated the constitutional guarantees

against the establish,ent of religion"

*etitioner also clai,ed that the Assailed

Resolutions contra1ened its constitutional

rights to pri1acy' freedo, of speech and

asse,bly' and e2ual protection of las' as

ell as constituted 1iolations of the

*hilippines international obligations

against discri,ination based on seual

orientation"

.n its Co,,ent' the COMELEC reiterated

that petitioner does not ha1e a concrete

and genuine national political agenda to

bene/t the nation and that the petition

as 1alidly dis,issed on ,oral grounds" .t

also argued for the /rst ti,e that theL89T sector is not a,ong the sectors

enu,erated by the Constitution and RA

:O! Respondent 1iolated the !on-

establish,ent clause of the Constitution;

:O! Respondent erred in denying

*etitioners application on ,oral and legal

grounds"

Respondent ,ista)enly opines that our

ruling in Ang 9agong 9ayani stands for

the proposition that only those sectors

speci/cally enu,erated in the la or

related to said sectors (labor' peasant'

/sherfol)' urban poor' indigenous cultural

co,,unities' elderly' handicapped'

o,en' youth' 1eterans' o1erseas

or)ers' and professionals ,ay be

registered under the party-list syste," As

e eplicitly ruled in Ang 9agong 9ayani-

O :e thus /nd that it as

gra1e 1iolation of the non-establish,ent

clause for the COMELEC to utilize the 9ible

and the oran to 7ustify the eclusion of

Ang Ladlad" 9e it noted that go1ern,ent

action ,ust ha1e a secular purpose"

Respondent has failed to eplain hat

societal ills are sought to be pre1ented' or

hy special protection is re2uired for the

youth" !either has the COMELEC

condescended to 7ustify its position that

petitioners ad,ission into the party-list

syste, ould be so har,ful as to

irreparably da,age the ,oral fabric ofsociety"


2/10

#$%&' and that petitioner ,ade untruthful

state,ents in its petition hen it alleged

its national eistence contrary to actual

1eri/cation reports by COMELECs /eld

personnel"

:e also /nd the COMELECs reference to

purported 1iolations of our penal and ci1il

las Bi,sy' at best; disingenuous' at

orst" Article 5$% of the Ci1il Code de/nes

a nuisance as =any act' o,ission'

establish,ent' condition of property' or

anything else hich shoc)s' de/es' or

disregards decency or ,orality'> the

re,edies for hich are a prosecution

under the Re1ised *enal Code or any local

ordinance' a ci1il action' or abate,ent

ithout 7udicial proceedings" A 1iolation of

Article 34& of the Re1ised *enal Code' on

the other hand' re2uires proof beyond

reasonable doubt to support a cri,inal

con1iction" .t hardly needs to be

e,phasized that ,ere allegation of

1iolation of las is not proof' and a ,ere

blan)et in1ocation of public ,orals cannot

replace the institution of ci1il or cri,inal

proceedings and a 7udicial deter,inationof liability or culpability"

As such' e hold that ,oral disappro1al'

ithout ,ore' is not a sucient

go1ern,ental interest to 7ustify eclusion

of ho,oseuals fro, participation in the

party-list syste," The denial of Ang

Ladlads registration on purely ,oral

grounds a,ounts ,ore to a state,ent of

disli)e and disappro1al of ho,oseuals'

rather than a tool to further any

substantial public interest"

2. Aton !ala"m#Inc. cases 63 party-list groups and organizations

/led separate petitions totaling 6% iththe +upre,e Court (+C in an eDort to

re1erse 1arious resolutions by the

Co,,ission on Elections (Co,elec

dis2ualifying the, fro, the May 34&

party-list race" The Co,elec' in its

assailed resolutions issued in October'

!o1e,ber and Fece,ber of 34&3' ruled'

a,ong others' that these party-list groups

and organizations failed to represent a

=,arginalized and underrepresented

sector'> their no,inees do not co,e fro,

a =,arginalized and underrepresented

sector'> andGor so,e of the organizationsor groups are not truly representati1e of

the sector they intend to represent in

:hether the COMELEC co,,itted gra1e

abuse of discretion a,ounting to lac) orecess of 7urisdiction in dis2ualifying

petitioners fro, participating in the &

May 34& party-list elections' either by

denial of their ne petitions for

registration under the party-list syste,' or

by cancellation of their eisting

registration and accreditation as party-list

organizations

.n a Fecision pro,ulgated on April 3'

34&' the high court' through Carpiosponencia' ruled in fa1or of the 6% petitions

and re,anded these petitions to the

Co,elec" The party-list groups and

organizations co1ered by the %& petitions

that obtained ,andatory in7unction orders

fro, the high court still stand a chance to

,a)e it to the 34& party-list race as the

high court ordered the poll body to

deter,ine =hether petitioners are

2uali/ed to register under the party-list

syste, and to participate in the & May

34& party-list elections> under the ne

para,eters set forth in the Fecision" Therest' ,eaning' the & other petitions'

ere re,anded to the poll body ,erely


3/10

Congress"

*etitioners argued that the poll body

co,,itted gra1e abuse of discretion in

denying so,e of the petitioners

application for accreditation and

cancelling the eisting accreditation of the

rest" They also la,ented the poll bodys

=denial> to accord the, due process in

the e1aluation proceedings"

The high court consolidated these cases;

+enior Associate Hustice Antonio Carpio

as tas)ed as the Me,ber-in-charge of

the case"

+tatus 2uo ante orders (+IAO ere

issued in all 6% petitions hich restored

the status 2uo prior to the dis2uali/cation

of petitioners" 0oe1er' only $ of the 63

petitioners or only %& petitions ere ableto secure a ,andatory in7unction'

directing the Co,elec to include their

na,es in the printing of ocial ballots"

for purposes of deter,ining hether they

,ay be granted accreditation under the

ne para,eters but ,ay not participate

in the May 34& elections"

The Fecision' hoe1er' clari/ed that the

poll body ,ay not be faulted for acting on

the basis of pre1ious rulings (Ang 9agong

9ayani' 9A!AT of the high court

regarding the party-list syste," These

earlier rulings enu,erated guidelines on

ho ,ay participate in the party-list

syste,"

!e para,eters set forth in the Fecision

on ho ,ay participate in the May 34&

party-list race and subse2uent party-list

elections

The Fecision identi/ed three groups that

,ay participate in the party-list syste,J(& national parties or organizations' (3

regional parties or organizations' and (

sectoral parties or organizations"

On the part of national parties or

organizations and regional parties or

organizations hich intend to participate

in the party-list race' the ne guidelines

state that these parties =do not need to

organize along sectoral lines and do not

need to represent any K,arginalized or

underrepresented sector">

As for political parties' they ,ay

participate in the party-list race by

registering under the party-list syste,

and no longer /eld congressional

candidates" These parties' if they /eld

congressional candidates' hoe1er' are

not barred fro, participating in the party-

list elections; hat they need to do is

register their sectoral ing or party under

the party-list syste," This sectoral ing

shall be considered an =independent

sectoral party> lin)ed to a political party

through a coalition"

The 2uestion isJ here does


4/10

representation of =,arginalized and

underrepresented> sectors co,e in

The anserJ on the sectoral parties or

organizations that intend to participate in

the party-list syste,"

The high court held that purely sectoral

parties or organizations ,ay either

represent =,arginalized and

underrepresented> constituencies or those

=lac)ing el l-de/ned pol it ical

constituencies"> The high court ent on to

enu,erate =,arginalized and

underrepresented> sectors' as follosJ

labor' peasant' /sherfol)' urban poor'

indigenous cultural co,,unities'

handicapped' 1eterans' and o1erseas

or)ers" The sectors that lac) =ell-

de/ned political constituencies> include

professionals' the elderly' o,en' and theyouth"

The rule on no,inees and ,e,bers

co,ing fro, the sector they intend to

represent also applies only to the sectoral

parties or organizations" The high court

ruled that it is enough that =?a@ ,a7ority of

the ,e,bers of the sectoral parties or

organizationsN ,ust belong to the

K,arginalized and underrepresented

sector they represent"> The sa,e is true

for those ho lac) =ell-de/ned political

constituencies">

As for the no,inees of these sectoral

parties and organizations' the ne

guidelines pro1ide that they ,ust either

be ,e,bers of the sector or ha1e a trac)

record of ad1ocacy for their sector"

+hould so,e of the no,inees of these

national' regional' and sectoral parties or

organizations be dis2uali/ed' the party or

organization itself ill not be dis2uali/ed

=pro1ided that they ha1e at least one

no,inee ho re,ains 2uali/ed">

The party-list syste,' according to the


5/10

Fecision

Iuoting Christian Monsod' the ,ain

proponent of the party-list syste,' the

high court stated that i t is =not

synony,ous ith that of the sectoral

representation"> The high court stressed

that the fra,ers of the &$# Constitution

did not intend to lea1e out =non-sectoral

parties> in the party-list syste, and

eclusi1ely li,it it to sectoral groups"

=The fra,ers intended the sectoral parties

to constitute a part' but not the entirety'

of the party-list syste,N .n fact' the

fra,ers 1oted don ' &$-33' a proposal to

reser1e the party-list syste, eclusi1ely

to sectoral parties"

=There can be no doubt hatsoe1er that

the fra,ers of the &$# Constitutionepressly re7ected the proposal to ,a)e

the party-list syste, eclusi1ely for

sectoral parties only' and that they clearly

intended the party-list syste, to include

both sectoral and non-sectoral parties'>

the Fecision read"

To a,plify its position' the high court

pointed out +ec" 6(&' Art" P. of the &$#

Constitution' hich statesJ

+ection 6" (& The 0ouse of

Representati1es shall be co,posed of not,ore than to hundred and /fty

,e,bers' unless otherise /ed by la'

ho shall be elected fro, legislati1e

districts apportioned a,ong the

pro1inces' cities' and the Metropolitan

Manila area in accordance ith the

nu,ber of their respecti1e inhabitants'

and on the basis of a unifor, and

progressi1e ratio' and those ho' as

pro1ided by la' shall be elected through

a party-list syste, of registered national'

regional' and sectoral parties or

organizations"

The Fecision also pointed out pertinent


6/10

pro1isions of Republic Act (RA !o" #$%&'

also )non as the *arty-list +yste, Act'

speci/cally fro, +ec" (Fe/nition of

Ter,sJ

(b A party ,eans either a political party

or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties

(c A political party refers to an organized

group of citizens ad1ocating an ideology

or platfor,' principles and policies for the

general conduct of go1ern,ent and

hich' as the ,ost i,,ediate ,eans of

securing their adoption' regularly

no,inates and supports certain of its

leaders and ,e,bers as candidates for

public oce

(d A sectoral party refers to an organized

group of citizens belonging to any of the

sectors enu,erated in +ection 6 hereof

hose principal ad1ocacy pertains to the

special interest and concerns of their

sector

Again' the high court noted that de/ning

these parties or groups' one fro, the

others' could only ,ean that they are not

one and the sa,e"$. %aon %a&an' vs Comelec *etitioners challenged the Co,elecs

O,nibus Resolution !o" #6' hich

appro1ed the participation of &6%

organizations and parties' including those

herein i,pleaded' in the 344& party-list

elections" *etitioners sought the

dis2uali/cation of pri1ate respondents'

arguing ,ainly that the party-list syste,

as intended to bene/t the ,arginalized

and underrepresented; not the

,ainstrea, political parties' the non-

,arginalized or o1errepresented"

Qnsatis/ed ith the pace by hich

Co,elec acted on their petition'

petitioners ele1ated the issue to the

+upre,e Court"

&" :hether or not petitioners recourse

to the Court as proper"

3" :hether or not political parties ,ay

participate in the party list elections"

" :hether or not the Co,elec

co,,itted gra1e abuse of discretion in

pro,ulgating O,nibus Resolution !o"

#6"

The Court ,ay ta)e cognizance of an

issue notithstanding the a1ailability of

other re,edies here the issue raised is

one purely of la' here public interest is

in1ol1ed' and in case of urgency" The

facts attendant to the case rendered it

7usticiable"

3" *olitical parties S e1en the ,a7or ones

-- ,ay participate in the party-list

elections sub7ect to the re2uire,ents laid

don in the Constitution and RA #$%&'

hich is the statutory la pertinent to the

*arty List +yste,"

Qnder the Constitution and RA #$%&'

pri1ate respondents cannot be dis2uali/ed

fro, the party-list elections' ,erely onthe ground that they are political parties"

+ection 6' Article P. of the Constitution


7/10

pro1ides that ,e,bers of the 0ouse of

Representati1es ,ay be elected through

a party-list syste, of registered national'

regional' and sectoral parties or

organizations> " .t is hoe1er' incu,bent

upon the Co,elec to deter,ine

proportional representation of the

=,arginalized and underrepresented>' the

criteria for participation' in relation to the

cause of the party list applicants so as to

a1oid desecration of the noble purpose of

the party-list syste,"

" The Court ac)noledged that to

deter,ine the propriety of the inclusion of

respondents in the O,nibus Resolution

!o" #6' a study of the factual

allegations as necessary hich as

beyond the pale of the Court" The Court

not being a trier of facts"

0oe1er' seeing that the Co,elec failed

to appreciate fully the clear policy of the

la and the Constitution' the Court

decided to set so,e guidelines culled

fro, the la and the Constitution' to

assist the Co,elec in its or)" The Court

ordered that the petition be re,anded in

the Co,elec to deter,ine co,pliance by

the party lists"(. A)lat vs Comelec On !o1e,ber 34' 344' A)lat /led a

*etition for declaration of re-2uali/cation

as a party-list organization for purposes of

the May 344% elections" .t alleged in its

petition that it participated in the 344&

elections but as dis2uali/ed by the

Co,elec as it as found not to ha1e

co,plied ith the guidelines set by the

Court in the case of Ang 9agong 9ayani-

O


8/10

stating that A)lat cannot be considered as

an organization representing the

,arginalized and underrepresented

groups as identi/ed under +ection 6 of

Republic Act !o" #$%& (R"A" #$%&"

According to the Co,elec' A)lats

state,ent that it has re-organized itself

does not cure this defect as there is

nothing in the petition hich ill help us

identify hat particular ,arginalized and

underrepresented group ALAT is no

representing"


9/10

organized and is no applying for re-

2uali/cation after its de-registration for

failure to co,ply ith the guidelines set

forth in the 9agong 9ayani case" Thus' the

Co,elec cannot be faulted for relying on

its earlier /nding' absent any e1idence in

A)lats petition to the contrary' that A)lat

is not an organization representing the

,arginalized and underrepresented

sectors' but is actually a business interest

or econo,ic lobby group hich see)s the

pro,otion and protection of the boo)

publishing industry"

*. %ANAT vs Comelec .n Huly and August 344#' the COMELEC'

sitt ing as the !ational 9oard of

Can1assers' ,ade a partial procla,ation

of the inners in the party-list elections

hich as held in May 344#"

.n proclai,ing the inners and

apportioning their seats' the COMELEC

considered the folloing rulesJ

&" .n the loer house' 4U shall co,prise

the seats for legislati1e districts' hile the

re,aining 34U shall co,e fro, party-list

representati1es (+ec" 6' Article P.' &$#

Constitution;

3" *ursuant to +ec" &&b of R"A" #$%& or the

*arty-List +yste, Act' a party-list hich

garners at least 3U of the total 1otes cast

in the party-list elections shall be entitled

to one seat;

" .f a party-list garners at least %U' then

it is entitled to 3 seats; if it garners at

least 5U' then it is entitled to seats S

this is pursuant to the 3-%-5 rule or the

*anganiban

1otes prescribed by the sa,e +ec && (b

of RA #$%& constitutional

( Foes the Constitution prohibit ,a7or

political parties fro, participating in the

party-list elections .f not' can ,a7or

political parties participate in the party-list

elections

(& !either the Constitution nor RA #$%&

,andates the /lling up of the entire 34U

allocation of party-list representati1es

found in the Constitution" The

Constitution' in paragraph &' +ec 6 of Art

P.' left the deter,ination of the nu,ber of

the ,e,bers of the 0ouse of

Representati1es to Congress" The 34U

allocation of party-list representati1es is

,erely a ceiling; party-list representati1es

cannot be ,ore then 34U of the ,e,bers

of the 0ouse of Representati1es"

(3 !o" :e rule that' in co,puting the

allocation of additional seats' the

continued operation of the to percent

threshold for the distribution of the

additional seats as found in the second

clause of +ec &&(b of RA #$%& is

unconstitutional" This Court /nds that the

to percent threshold ,a)es it

,athe,atically i,possible to achie1e the

,ai,u, nu,ber of a1ailable party-list

seats hen the a1ailable party-list seat

eceeds 64" The continued operation of

the to percent threshold in the

distribution of the additional seats

frustrates the attain,ent of the

per,issi1e ceiling that 34U of the

,e,bers of the 0ouse of Representati1es

shall consist of party-list

representati1es":e therefore stri)e don

the to percent threshold only in relation

to the distribution of the additional seats


10/10

The 9arangay Association for !ational

Ad1ance,ent and Transparency (9A!AT'

a party-list candidate' 2uestioned the

procla,ation as ell as the for,ula being

used" 9A!AT a1erred that the 3U

threshold is in1alid; +ec" && of RA #$%& is

1oid because its pro1ision that a party-list'

to 2ualify for a congressional seat' ,ust

garner at least 3U of the 1otes cast in the

party-list election' is not supported by the

Constitution"

( !o" !either the Constitution nor RA

#$%& prohibits ,a7or political parties fro,

participating in the party-list syste," On

the contrary' the fra,ers of the

Constitution clearly intended the ,a7or

political parties to participate in party-list

elections through their sectoral ings"

0oe1er' by 1ote of -#' the Court

decided to continue the ruling in Peterans

disalloing ,a7or political parties fro,

participating in the party-list elections'

directly or indirectly"

+. %A,AN -"na vs Comelec

election law cases scribd

Documents