Legislative Cases No. 9-15 - Michelle Lumayag.docx

LEGISLATIVE CASES – Cases No. 9 to 15 9. Veterans Federation Party vs. Commission on Elections 342 SCRA 244 (2000) Facts: Before the Court are three consolidated Petitions for Certiorari (with applications for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction) under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing (1) the October 15, 1998 Resolution of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), Second Division, in Election Matter 98-065; and (2) the January 7, 1999 Resolution of the Comelec en banc, affirming the said disposition. On May 11, 1998, the first election for party-list representation was held simultaneously with the national elections. A total of one hundred twenty-three (123) parties, organizations and coalitions participated. On June 26, 1998, the Comelec en banc proclaimed thirteen (13) party-list representatives from twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had obtained at least two percent of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system. The proclaimed winners were as follows: 1. APEC – two seats (5.5%), 2. ABA (3.51%), 3. ALAGAD (3.41%), 4. VETERANS FEDERATION (3.33%), 5. PROMDI (2.799%), 6. AKO (2.61%), 7. NCSCFO (2.60%), 8. ABANSE! PINAY (2.57%), 9. AKBAYAN (2.54%), 10. BUTIL (2.36%), 11. SANLAKAS (2.13%), and 12. COOPNATCCO (2.07%). The Comelec en banc further determined that COCOFED was entitled to one party-list seat for having 2.04% of the total votes cast for the party-list system. Thus, it was proclaimed on September 8, 1998 as the 14th party-list. On July 6, 1998, PAG-ASA filed with the Comelec a "Petition to Proclaim [the] Full Number of Party-List Representatives provided by the Constitution." It alleged that the filling up of the twenty percent membership of party-list representatives in the House of Representatives, as provided under the Constitution, was mandatory. Thereafter, nine other party-list organizations filed their respective Motions for Intervention, seeking the same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA on substantially the same grounds. On October 15, 1998, the Comelec Second Division promulgated the present assailed Resolution granting PAG-ASA's Petition. It also ordered the proclamation of herein 38 respondents who, in addition to the 14 already sitting, would thus total 52 party-list representatives as the 20% of the total number of the representatives. Issue: Whether or not the twenty percent constitutional allocation is mandatory. Ruling: No, the twenty percent constitutional allocation is not mandatory hence it merely provides a ceiling for party-list seats in Congress. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides: “(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected by a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector." In this case, if there is no sufficient number of participating parties, organizations or coalitions which could hurdle the two percent vote threshold and thereby fill up the twenty percent party-list allocation in the House, then naturally such allocation cannot

be filled up completely. The Comelec cannot be faulted for the "incompleteness," for ultimately the voters themselves are the ones who, in the exercise of their right of suffrage, determine who and how many should represent them. The assailed Resolutions of the Comelec are SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED. The proclamations of the fourteen (14) sitting party-list representatives - two for APEC and one each for the remaining twelve (12) qualified parties - are AFFIRMED.

10. Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs Commission on Elections 694 SCRA 477 (2013) Facts: The case constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list organizations. Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 and COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531, approximately 280 groups and organizations registered and manifested their desire to participate in the May 2013 party-list elections. Thirteen (13) petitioners were denied, were not able to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court and was excluded in the printing of the official ballot. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC En Banc scheduled summary evidentiary hearings to determine whether the groups and organizations that filed manifestations of intent to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections have continually complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC (Ang Bagong Bayani). The COMELEC disqualified the 39 groups and organizations from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections but they were able to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court, their names was included in the printing of the official ballot. Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. This Court issued Status Quo Ante Orders in all petitions. Issue:

Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the 2013 party-list elections. Ruling: No, the COMELEC did not committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the 2013 party-list elections. Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that, “The House of Representative shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.”

In the case at bar, the COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections those that did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral groups or organizations must represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. The 54 petitions were remanded to the COMELEC to determine who are qualified to register under the party-list system, and to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this Decision.

11. 342 SCRA 244 (SEE NO. 9)

12. Abang Lingkod Party-List vs. Commission on Elections 708 SCRA 133 (2013) Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Abang Lingkod challenging the May 2013 resolution issued by COMELEC cancelling the Abang Lingkod's party-list registration. ABANG LINGKOD is a sectoral organization that represents the interests of peasant fanners and fisherfolks. It participated in the May 2010 elections, but failed to obtain the number of votes needed for a seat in the House of Representatives. On May 31, 2012, ABANG LINGKOD manifested before the COMELEC its intent to participate in the May 2013 elections. ABANG LINGKOD, in compliance with the COMELEC's Resolution, filed with the COMELEC pertinent documents to prove its continuing compliance with the requirements under R.A. No. 7941. After due proceedings, the COMELEC En Banc in a Resolution dated November 7, 2012, cancelled ABANG LINGKOD's registration as a party-list group. The COMELEC En Banc pointed out that ABANG LINGKOD failed to establish its track record in uplifting the cause of the marginalized and underrepresented; that it merely offered photographs of some alleged activities it conducted after the May 2010 elections. The COMELEC En Banc further opined that ABANG LINGKOD failed to show that its nominees are themselves marginalized and underrepresented or that they have been involved in activities aimed at improving the plight of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors it claims to represent. ABANG LINGKOD then filed with this Court a petition for certiorari alleging that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling its registration under the party-list system. Issues: Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD’s registration under the party-list system. Ruling: Yes, the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD’s registration under the party-list system. Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 however provides, “Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, That the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.” In the case under consideration, three of the five nominees of ABANG LINGKOD are farmers and, thus, are not required to present a track record showing their active participation in activities aimed to promote the sector which ABANG LINGKOD represents, i.e. peasant farmers and fisherfolk. That two of ABANG LINGKOD's nominees do not actually belong to the sector it represents is immaterial and would not result in the cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's registration as a party-list group. This is clear from the sixth parameter laid down by the Court in Atong Paglaum which states that "national, regional and sectoral organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified." At the very least, ABANG LINGKOD has three (3) qualified nominees, being farmers by occupation.

13. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections 618 SCRA 32 (2010) Facts: Comelec refused to recognize Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgendered individuals, as a party list based on moral grounds. In the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court, Comelec alleged that petitioner made misrepresentation in their application. Issue: Whether or not Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualifies for registration as party-list. Ruling: Yes, Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualifies for registration as party-list. Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In this case, the Comelec failed to substantiate their allegation that allowing registration to Ladlad would be detrimental to society. The LGBT community is not exempted from the exercise of its constitutionality vested rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. Laws of general application should be apply in equal force. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not tolerated not by our own laws nor by any international laws to which we adhere.

14. Fajardo vs. Court of Appeals 302 SCRA 503 (1999) Facts: In 1981, Petitioner was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, and at the time he committed the offense, Presidential Decree No. 968 allows an accused who appeals his conviction to still apply for probation. In 1988, the trial court convicted Petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of 8 months imprisonment. At the time of his conviction, Presidential Decree No. 1990 amending Presidential Decree No. 968, became effective (1986), providing that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Petitioner, however, still appealed his conviction. When he lost the appeal, he filed motion for probation before the trial court The trial court denied Fajardo’s motion for probation and so did CA.

Issue: Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 1990 is null and void, considering Petitioner’s contention that at the time of its issuance, President Marcos could no longer exercise legislative powers as the Batasan Pambansa was functioning and exercising sole legislative powers.

Ruling: No, Presidential Decree No. 1990 is not null and void. In Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance, 115 SCRA 418, it was held that the legislative authority vested in the Batasan Pambansa by Amendment No. 2, read together with Section 1, Article XVII and Section 1, of Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, is subject to the external concurrent legislative prerogative that Amendment No. 6 vests on the "President (Prime Minister)." In this case, at the time of the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 1990, President Marcos was vested with legislative powers concurrently with the Batasan Pambansa. Therefore, Petitioner’s contention is without merit.

15. Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice 297 SCRA 74 (1998)

Facts: Petitioner, who was convicted for the crime of rape and was imposed of death penalty for the said crime, assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8177, or the Lethal Injection Law, on the ground that it unduly delegates legislative power to Respondents Secretary of Justice and the Director of the Bureau of Corrections and filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin said Respondents from carrying out the execution by lethal injection of Petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative powers to the Respondents in Republic Act No. 8177.

Ruling: No, there is no undue delegation of legislative powers to the Respondents in Republic Act No. 8177. Under the law, the separation of power is a fundamental principle in the Philippine’s system of government and each department has exclusive cognizance of matters placed within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. A consequence of the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of powers. There are however exceptions to this rule and one of the recognized exceptions is “Delegation to Administrative Bodies”. Furthermore, the reason for delegation of authority to administrative agencies is the increasing complexity of the task of government requiring expertise as well as the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. In this case, the Secretary of Justice in conjunction with the Secretary of Health and the Director of the Bureau of Corrections are empowered to promulgate rules and regulations on the subject of lethal injection. Considering the scope and the definiteness of RA 8177, which changed the mode of carrying out the death penalty, the Court finds that the law sufficiently describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. RA 8177 likewise provides the standards which define the legislative policy, mark its limits, map out its boundaries, and specify the public agencies which will apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative purpose may be carried out.