Banat vs COMELEC

Facts: Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT)

filed before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petition to proclaim the
full number of party list representatives provided by the Constitution. However,
the recommendation of the head of the legal group of COMELEC’s national board of
canvassers to declare the petition moot and academic was approved by the COMELEC
en banc, and declared further in a resolution that the winning party list will be
resolved using the Veterans ruling. BANAT then filed a petition before the SC
assailing said resolution of the COMELEC.

Issues:
(1) Is the 20% allocation for party-list representatives provided in Sec 5
(2), Art VI of the Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?

(2) Is the 2% threshold and “qualifier” votes prescribed by the same Sec 11
(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

(3) Does the Constitution prohibit major political parties from participating
in the party-list elections? If not, can major political parties participate in
the party-list elections?

Held:
(1) Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 mandates the filling up of the entire
20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the Constitution. The
Constitution, in paragraph 1, Sec 5 of Art VI, left the determination of the
number of the members of the House of Representatives to Congress. The 20%
allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list
representatives cannot be more then 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives.

(2) No. We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the
continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the
additional seats as found in the second clause of Sec 11(b) of RA 7941 is
unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it
mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party-list
seats when the available party-list seat exceeds 50. The continued operation of
the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates
the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.We therefore strike
down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the
additional seats as found in the second clause of Sec 11 (b) of RA 7941. The two
percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of
Sec 5 (2), Art VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of “the-
broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the
House of Representatives.”

(3) No. Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 prohibits major political parties
from participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the
Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to participate in
party-list elections through their sectoral wings. However, by vote of 8-7, the
Court decided to continue the ruling in Veterans disallowing major political
parties from participating in the party-list elections, directly or indirectly.

AKBAYAN VS COMELEC

Facts: On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN-Youth, together with other youth movements
sought the extension of the registration of voters for the May 2001 elections.
The voters registration has already ended on December 27, 2000. AKBAYAN-Youth
asks that persons aged 18-21 be allowed a special 2-day registration. The
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth the sued
COMELEC for alleged grave abuse of discretion for denying the petition. AKBAYAN-
Youth alleged that there are about 4 million youth who were not able to register
and are now disenfranchised. COMELEC invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which
provides that no registration shall be conducted 120 days before the regular
election. AKBAYAN-Youth however counters that under Section 28 of Republic Act
8436, the COMELEC in the exercise of its residual and stand-by powers, can reset
the periods of pre-election acts including voters registration if the original
period is not observed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of discretion when it
denied the extension of the voters registration.

HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so pursuant to the clear
provisions of Section 8, RA 8189 which provides that no voters registration shall
be conducted within 120 days before the regular election. The right of suffrage
is not absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters registration which is
not a mere statutory requirement. The State, in the exercise of its inherent
police power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voter’s
registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful
election, to the incidental yet generally important end, that even pre-election
activities could be performed by the duly constituted authorities in a realistic
and orderly manner – one which is not indifferent and so far removed from the
pressing order of the day and the prevalent circumstances of the times. RA 8189
prevails over RA 8436 in that RA 8189’s provision is explicit as to the
prohibition. Suffice it to say that it is a pre-election act that cannot be
reset.

Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special registration, COMELEC

has shown in its pleadings that if it is allowed, it will substantially create a
setback in the other pre-election matters because the additional voters from the
special two day registration will have to be screened, entered into the book of
voters, have to be inspected again, verified, sealed, then entered into the
computerized voter’s list; and then they will have to reprint the voters
information sheet for the update and distribute it – by that time, the May 14,
2001 elections would have been overshot because of the lengthy processes after
the special registration. In short, it will cost more inconvenience than good.
Further still, the allegation that youth voters are disenfranchised is not
sufficient. Nowhere in AKBAYAN-Youth’s pleading was attached any actual complaint
from an individual youth voter about any inconvenience arising from the fact that
the voters registration has ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN-Youth et al
admitted in their pleading that they are asking an extension because they failed
to register on time for some reasons, which is not appealing to the court. The
law aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.

KABATAAN PARTY-LIST VS. COMELEC

Facts: COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8585 on February 12, 2009 adjusting the
deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections
to October 31, 2009, instead of December 15, 2009 as previously fixed by
Resolution No. 8514. The intense public clamor for an extension of the October
31, 2009 deadline notwithstanding, the COMELEC stood firm in its decision not to
extend it, arguing mainly that it needs ample time to prepare for the automated
elections. Via the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed on October
30, 2009, petitioners challenge the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 and
seek a declaration of its nullity.

Issue: Does the Comelec have discretion to fix other dates for continuing
registration?

Held: The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed to register
daily during regular offices hours, except during the period starting 120 days
before a regular election and 90 days before a special election. Both R.A. No.
6646, Section 29 and R.A. No. 8436, Section 28 grant the COMELEC the power to fix
other periods and dates for pre-election activities only if the same cannot be
reasonably held within the period provided by law. This grant of power, however,
is for the purpose of enabling the people to exercise the right of suffrage – the
common underlying policy of RA 8189, RA 6646 and RA 8436.

In the present case, the Court finds no ground to hold that the mandate of
continuing voter registration cannot be reasonably held within the period
provided by RA 8189, Sec. 8 – daily during office hours, except during the period
 starting 120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular elections. There is thus no
occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines
therefor.

BAGONG BAYANI vs COMELECG.R. No. 147589 - June 26, 2001

Facts: BagongBayani and andAkbayan Citizens Party filed before the COMELEC a
Petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No.
3785 issued by the COMELEC. This resolution approved the participation of 154
organizations and parties, including those 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 none-marginalized or
overrepresented.

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 issue notwithstanding the availability of
other remedies "where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public
interest is involved, and in case of urgency." The facts attendant to the case
rendered it justiciable.

2. Political parties – even the major ones -- may participate in the party-list
elections subject to the requirements laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941,
which is the statutory law pertinent to the Party List System.

Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified

from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political
parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members of the
House of Representatives may "be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations” . It is
however, incumbent upon the Comelec to determine proportional representation of
the “marginalized and underrepresented”, the criteria for participation, in
relation to the cause of the party list applicants so as to avoid desecration of
the noble purpose of the party-list system.

3. The Court acknowledged that to determine the propriety of the inclusion of

respondents in the Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, a study of the factual
allegations was necessary which was beyond the pale of the Court. The Court not
being a trier of facts.

However, seeing that the Comelec failed to appreciate fully the clear policy of
the law and the Constitution, the Court decided to set some guidelines culled
from the law and the Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its work. The Court
ordered that the petition be remanded in the Comelec to determine compliance by
the party lists.