Upload
mimslaw
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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"
7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd
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
7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd
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
7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd
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
7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd
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
7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd
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
7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd
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
7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd
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"
7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd
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 #$%& is
unconstitutional" This Court /nds that the
to percent threshold ,a)es it
,athe,atically i,possible to achie1e the
,ai,u, nu,ber of a1ailable party-list
seats hen the a1ailable party-list seat
eceeds 64" The continued operation of
the to percent threshold in the
distribution of the additional seats
frustrates the attain,ent of the
per,issi1e ceiling that 34U of the
,e,bers of the 0ouse of Representati1es
shall consist of party-list
representati1es":e therefore stri)e don
the to percent threshold only in relation
to the distribution of the additional seats
7/21/2019 Election Law Cases Scribd
10/10
The 9arangay Association for !ational
Ad1ance,ent and Transparency (9A!AT'
a party-list candidate' 2uestioned the
procla,ation as ell as the for,ula being
used" 9A!AT a1erred that the 3U
threshold is in1alid; +ec" && of RA #$%& 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