SECTION 5.

COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC (Disapproval due to religious purpose vs. secular purpose)
 COMELEC denied Ang Ladlad LGBT Party’s petition for registration as a sectoral party.
 Ang Ladlad Party is an organization composed of individuals who identify themselves as lesbians,
gays, bisexuals, or transgendered individuals.
 They first applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006 but were denied on the grounds of
having no substantial membership base.
 They filed another petition in 2009, arguing that the LGBT community is marginalized and under-
represented.
o COMELEC dismissed their petition on moral grounds, stating that the organization tolerates
immorality that offends religious beliefs.
o COMELEC cited religious texts (i.e., Quran and the Bible) to support their argument.
o COMELEC also claimed that granting the petition would expose the youth to an environment
that goes against the teachings of faith and would harm the moral fabric of society.
 Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration, but the COMELEC Chairman upheld the dismissal, stating that the
LGBT sector does not have a concrete and genuine national political agenda that would benefit the
nation.
 ISSUE: WON COMELEC violated Ang Ladlad’s constitutional rights by denying their petition for
registration on moral and religious grounds.
 RULING: The SC ruled that the COMELEC’s denial of Ang Ladlad’s petition for registration violated
their constitutional rights. The SC emphasized the need for government neutrality in religious matters
and the importance of secular purposes and justifications for government actions.
o The Court highlighted the need for government neutrality in religious matters and the
importance of secular purposes and justifications for government actions.
o They stated that moral disapproval is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion
of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system.
 The SC granted Ang Ladlad’s petition, set aside the COMELEC’s resolutions, and directed the
COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlad’s application for party-list accreditation.

Atong Paglaum et al. v. COMELEC (New guidelines for party-list; controlling rule)
 Multiple petitions filed against the COMELEC by political parties and organizations challenges the
COMELEC’s decision to disqualify them from participating in the party-list elections.
 The COMELEC's actions were based on the groups' failure to meet the requirements set forth in
Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941) and the guidelines established in the Ang Bagong Bayani case,
which laid down the guidelines for qualifying those who desire to participate in the party-list system.
 COMELEC based its decisions on various grounds, including failure to represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, lack of track record, and failure of nominees to qualify.
o Failure to represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors: The group/party did not
effectively represent the interests of disadvantaged or less-represented groups in society.
o Lack of track record: The group/party did not have enough history or experience showing they
have worked for or helped the sectors they claim to represent.
o Failure of nominees to qualify: The individuals chosen by the group/party to be their
representatives did not meet the necessary qualifications or requirements set by law.
 ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the petitioners from
participating in the 2013 party-list elections based on the criteria laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani and
BANAT.
 RULING: The SC held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following the
prevailing decisions in disqualifying the petitioners.
o However, the Court adopted new parameters for the qualification of national, regional, and
sectoral parties under the party-list system, thereby abandoning the rulings in Ang Bagong
Bayani and BANAT.
o The new parameters are:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or
organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations.
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 amarginalized and
underrepresenteda sector.
 3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the
party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political
party, whether major or not, that fields candidates 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 amarginalized and underrepresenteda or
lacking in awell-defined political constituencies.a It is enough that their principal
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are
amarginalized and underrepresenteda include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The
sectors that lack awell-defined political constituenciesa include professionals, the elderly,
women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
amarginalized and underrepresenteda must belong to the amarginalized and
underrepresenteda sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral
parties or organizations that lack awell-defined political constituenciesa must belong to
the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent
the amarginalized and underrepresented,a or that represent those who lack awell-defined
political constituencies,a 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.
 The COMELEC excluded groups from the 13 May 2013 party-list elections if they did not meet two
criteria: (1) representing marginalized and underrepresented sectors, and (2) having nominees who
belong to those sectors. Petitioners were disqualified because they were not sectoral and did not
represent such groups. Nominees not belonging to the sectors they claim to represent were also
disqualified, even if they had a track record of advocacy. Additionally, a party was disqualified if any of
its nominees failed to qualify, even if others were qualified. These disqualifications, however,
contradict the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.

Abang Lingkod v. COMELEC (Meaning of national, regional, and sectoral)

 Abang Lingkod is a sectoral organization representing the interests of peasant farmers and fisherfolks.
 They were registered under the party-list system in 2009 but failed to obtain the required number of
votes in the 2010 elections.
 In 2012, Abang Lingkod filed its intent to join the 2013 elections and submitted documents to show its
compliance with the requirements.
 COMELEC canceled its registration, citing its failure to prove a track record of representing the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors it claimed to represent.
 Abang Lingkod filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, claiming that the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion by canceling their registration.
o They argued that they were denied the chance to prove their qualifications, violating their
right to due process.
o They also contended that using digitally manipulated images should not be grounds for
cancellation, as it is not a criterion set by the Supreme Court in a previous case.
 ISSUE: WON COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling Abang Lingkod’s registration
under the party-list system.
 RULING: The Court held that COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by insisting on a track record
requirement, which was no longer necessary under the new parameters set by Atong Paglaum.
o Section 3 of RA 7941 states that:
 A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.
 A political party is defined as an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology
or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government.
 A party is a national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical
territory of at least a majority of the region.
 It is a regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of
at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising a region.
  A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the
sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the
special interest and concerns of their sector.
 The Court ruled that sectoral groups must show advocacy for their sector’s interests, not a track record.
 Despite ABANG LINGKOD's deceitful photos, it qualified under the party-list system, and the Court
ordered COMELEC to proclaim it a winner in the May 13, 2013 elections based on its votes.

Lico v. COMELEC (Expulsion)

 The dispute centers on COMELEC's authority to expel a party-list representative and decide a party-list
organization's legitimate leadership.
 The case involves a dispute within the party-list organization Ating Koop.
o Two rival factions are involved: the Lico group and the Rimas Group.
 The Rimas Group petitioned COMELEC to expel Lico from the House and recognize Mascarina as
Ating Koop’s representative.
 The COMELEC Second Division upheld Lico’s expulsion from Ating Koop and declared Mascarina
the legitimate nominee.
 The COMELEC En Banc affirmed Lico’s expulsion from Ating Koop but stated it had no jurisdiction
to remove him from the House.
 ISSUE: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction over the expulsion of a sitting party-list representative from
his party-list organization.
 RULING: The SC ruled that the COMELEC does not have jurisdiction over the expulsion of a sitting
party-list representative from his party-list organization.
o The SC held that while COMELEC rightly dismissed the petition to expel Lico from the
House for lack of jurisdiction, it erred in ruling on his expulsion from Ating Koop.
o The Court clarified that on the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has
exclusive authority over the qualifications of Congress members, including party-list
representatives, and COMELEC overstepped its bound by ruling on a matter under HRET’s
jurisdiction.
o Lico was expelled.

Tobias v. Abalos (Reapportionment thru special law)

 This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of RA 7675, which is an act converting the
municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city of Mandaluyong.
 Prior to the enactment of the assailed statute, the municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan
belonged to only one legislative district, with Hon. Zamora as the incumbent congressional
representative and sponsor of the said bill.
 Petitioners in this case are residents and taxpayers of Mandaluyong.
 Respondents are gov’t officials responsible for the implementation of RA 7675.
 Petitioners argued that Art. VII, Section 49 of RA 7675 is unconstitutional for being violative of three
specific provisions of the Constitution.
o The petitioners argued that three specific provisions of the Constitution were violated:
1. Article VI, Section 26(1) - The "one subject-one bill" rule, which states that every bill
passed by Congress must embrace only one subject, expressed in the title. Petitioners
argue that R.A. No. 7675 includes two subjects: the conversion of Mandaluyong into a
highly urbanized city and the division of the San Juan/Mandaluyong congressional
district.
2. Article VI, Section 5(1) - This provision sets a limit on the number of members in the
House of Representatives and requires legislative districts to be apportioned based on
population. Petitioners claim that the division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate
districts under Section 49 resulted in an increase in the House's composition beyond what
is allowed.
3. Article VI, Section 5(4) - This provision mandates that Congress must reapportion
legislative districts within three years after each census, based on population. Petitioners
argue that Section 49 preempted Congress's authority to reapportion districts and was not
based on a new census showing the required population.
 ISSUE: WON the creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong exceed the
constitutional limit on representatives, lack a census justification, and preempt Congress’s authority to
reapportion districts?
 RULING: The Court ruled that creating a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong does not
exceed the constitutional limit on representatives and does not require a specific census justification in
 the law. It stated that the Constitution allows an increase in representatives if mandated by law and that
laws do not need to include all data considered by Congress. The Court also found that R.A. No. 7675
does not preempt Congress's right to reapportion districts, noting it was Congress that enacted the law.

Montejo v. COMELEC (Mere minor adjustments)

 The case arose from COMELEC's Resolution No. 2736, which transferred the municipality of
Capoocan from the Second District and the municipality of Palompon from the Fourth District to the
Third District of Leyte.
 Montejo sought the annulment of this resolution, arguing that it violated the principle of equality of
representation.
o He proposed transferring the municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second
District to address the imbalance.
 Apostol, representing the Second District, opposed Montejo’s proposal.
 The COMELEC maintained that the minor adjustments were minimal territorial disruptions and that
districts remained contiguous, compact, and adjacent.
 Montejo filed a motion alleging inequitable voter distribution.
 Apostol contested, raising jurisdiction issues and constitutional compliance by COMELEC.
 The Supreme Court examined the constitutional authority of COMELEC under the Ordinance
appended to the 1987 Constitution, primarily focusing on the validity and scope of COMELEC’s power
to adjust legislative districts.
 ISSUE: WON COMELEC has the constitutional authority to transfer municipalities from one
legislative district to another?
 RULING: The Supreme Court annulled Section 1 of COMELEC's Resolution No. 2736, which moved
Capoocan and Palompon to Leyte's Third District, ruling that only Congress has the authority to
redistrict and reapportion legislative districts. The 1987 Constitution grants COMELEC only limited
powers for minor adjustments, not substantive changes like transferring municipalities. The
Constitutional Commission debates confirmed that "minor adjustments" do not include such transfers.

Herrera v. COMELEC (Redistricting of province)

 The Province of Guimaras underwent a significant change with the addition of two new municipalities:
San Lorenzo and Sibunag.
 The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Guimaras passed Resolution No. 68 on March 25, 1996, requesting
COMELEC to divide the province into two districts.
 The Provincial Election Supervisor of Guimaras held consultative meetings on August 21 and October
2, 1996, with elected officials, barangay leaders, political party representatives, and other stakeholders.
The consensus, via secret ballot, was to create two districts:
1. First district: Municipalities of Jordan (Buenavista) and San Diego with three Sangguniang
Panlalawigan members.
2. Second district: Municipalities of Jordan, Nueva Valencia, and Sibunag with five Sangguniang
Panlalawigan members.
 The Bureau of Local Government Finance reclassified Guimaras from a fifth-class to a fourth-class
province. Based on this, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2950 on November 3, 1997, dividing
Guimaras into two districts and allocating Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats.
 ISSUE: WON COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 2950, which
divided Guimaras into two districts, apportioned eight Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats, and ensured
the districts were equitable, compact, contiguous, and adjacent?
 RULING:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing
Resolution No. 2950, which divided Guimaras into two districts and apportioned Sangguniang
Panlalawigan seats. The Court held that this division was in accordance with Republic Acts No.
6636 and No. 7166, which require districts to be based on the number of inhabitants and to be
compact, contiguous, and adjacent.
2. The Court found the apportionment equitable, using the 1995 Census of Population as the basis,
not the number of registered voters.
3. The map of Guimaras confirmed the districts were contiguous and adjacent. Thus, the Court
dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Samson v. Aguirre (Absence of certification as to income, population, and area not fatal; presumption of
validity)
  Petitioner, Moises S. Samson, challenges the constitutionality of the law creating the City of
Novaliches, arguing it does not meet the required income, population, and land area criteria and would
effectively amend the Constitution.
 The petitioner claims no certifications on income, population, and land area were presented to
Congress for the City of Novaliches. However, the Supreme Court notes the bill had a sponsor in the
House, and the petitioner provided no evidence that certifications were missing. Resource persons from
relevant government offices provided necessary data during public hearings.
 The court states that meeting either the income or population/land area requirement is sufficient to
create a new city. The proposed City of Novaliches met the income requirement and is now highly
urbanized. The court dismisses the petitioner's argument on the need for written certifications, noting
that officials' oral declarations at hearings suffice.
 ISSUE: WON RA 8535 failed to meet the criteria established by the Local Government Code regarding
income, population, land area, and the specification of the seat of government.
 RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that Republic Act No. 8535 met the Local Government Code's
criteria for income, population, and land area.
o The Supreme Court emphasized that every statute is presumed valid and that the burden of
proving unconstitutionality lies with the petitioner.
o The lack of a specified seat of government did not invalidate the law, as the Code allows
establishing a seat of government after city creation.
o The Court emphasized the presumption of a statute's validity and found the petitioner failed to
prove unconstitutionality or provide evidence of adverse effects on Quezon City.
o The Court also clarified that creating the City of Novaliches would not amend the
Constitution. Due to insufficient proof, the petition was dismissed, and R.A. 8535 was upheld.

Aldaba v. COMELEC (Demographic projections)

 Aldaba et al. challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9591, which created a separate
congressional district for Malolos City, arguing it did not meet the required population of 250,000.
 COMELEC cited a population projection from the National Statistics Office estimating the population
would reach 254,030 by 2010. However, the Supreme Court declared RA 9591 unconstitutional on
January 25, 2010.
 COMELEC sought reconsideration, presenting alternative population data, but the Court dismissed
their motion, reaffirming its decision.