Dante V

CONSTITOTIONAL LAW 1 DIGEST CASE WITH DOCTRINES
DANTE V. LIBAN, vs. RICHARD J. GORDON, G.R. No. 175352,

July 15,2009

Doctrine:
A government-owned or controlled corporation must be
owned
by the government,and in the case of a stock corporation, at least a majority of its capital stock
must be owned by the government. In the case of a non-stock corporation, by analogy atleast a
majority of the members must be government officials holding suchmembership by
appointment or designation by the government. Under thiscriterion, and as discussed earlier,
the government does not own or control PNRC.

Facts:
Liban and other petitions filed a Petition to Declare Gordon as having forfeited his seat
in theSenate. They allege that respondent ceased to be a member of the Senate by accepting
thechairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors as provided under Section 13, Article VI of
theConstitution.
Petitioners cite
Camporedondo v. NLRC
,
[2]
which held that the PNRC is agovernment-owned or controlled corporation.

Issue:
whether the office of the PNRC Chairman is a government office or an office in agovernment-
owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition inSection 13, Article VI of the
Constitution.

Ruling:
No.
To ensure and maintain its autonomy, neutrality, and independence, the PNRCcannot be
owned or controlled by the government. Indeed, the Philippinegovernment does not own the
PNRC. The PNRC does not have government assetsand does not receive any appropriation from
the Philippine Congress.
[13]
The PNRCis financed primarily by contributions from private individuals and private
entitiesobtained through solicitation campaigns organized by its Board of Governor

The government does not control the PNRC. Under the PNRC Charter, asamended,
only six of the thirty members of the PNRC Board of Governors areappointed by the President
of the Philippines.

Clearly, an overwhelmingmajority of four-fifths of the PNRC Board are elected or chosen by
the privatesector members of the PNRC
.
Case Digest: Atong Paglaum v Comelec, GR 203766
6/20/2020
0 COMMENTS
FACTS: Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified by the Commission on
Elections in the May 2013 party-list elections for various reasons but primarily for not being
qualified as representatives for marginalized or underrepresented sectors. Atong Paglaum et al
then filed a petition for certiorari against COMELEC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the
part of COMELEC in disqualifying them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the
said party-lists.
DECISION: Remanded to COMELEC
RATIO DECIDENDI: No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following
prevailing decisions in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the coming elections.
However, since the Court adopts new parameters in the qualification of the party-list system,
thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying
petitioners, we remand to the COMELEC all the present petitions for the COMELEC to
determine who are qualified to register under the party-list system, and to participate in the
coming elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this Decision. Moreover, Section
5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that, during the first three consecutive terms
of Congress after the ratification of the 1987 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." This provision clearly shows
again that the party-list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties for two obvious reasons.
First, the other one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives would naturally be
open to non-sectoral party-list representatives, clearly negating the idea that the party-list
system is exclusively for sectoral parties representing the "marginalized and
underrepresented." Second, the reservation of one-half of the party-list seats to sectoral
parties applies only for the first "three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution," clearly making the party-list system fully open after the end of the first three
congressional terms. This means that, after this period, there will be no seats reserved for any
class or type of party that qualifies under the three groups constituting the party-list system.
Hence, the clear intent, express wording, and party-list structure ordained in Section 5(1) and
(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution cannot be disputed: the party-list system is not for
sectoral parties only, but also for non-sectoral parties.
G.R. No. 190529 • April 29, 2010
Constitutional Law | Legislative Department | Cancellation of registration of a party-list
organization
FACTS:
The COMELEC delisted Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) from the roster of
registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions under the party-list
system on the ground that it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate
in the 2007 elections.
Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), otherwise known as the Party-List System Act,
provides: “Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration.
The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or
cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition on any of the following grounds: x x x x (8) It fails to participate in the
last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast
under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it
has registered.”
Argument of Comelec: Since PGBI failed to get 2% of the votes in 2004 and did not participate
at all in the 2007 elections, it necessarily failed to get at least two per centum (2%) of the votes
cast in the two preceding elections.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is legal basis for delisting PGBI.
RULING:
[NOTE: The Supreme Court partly invalidated the 2% party-list vote requirement provided in RA
7941 in an earlier case of Barangay Association for Advancement and National Transparency
(BANAT) v. Comelec, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009.]
There is none. PGBI is qualified to be voted upon as a party-list group or organization in the
coming May 2010 elections. The law is clear – the Comelec may motu proprio or upon verified
complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the
registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition if it: (a) fails to
participate in the last two (2) preceding elections; or (b) fails to obtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered.
The word “or” is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing
from the other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it
ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word. Thus, the plain, clear and unmistakable language of the
law provides for two (2) separate reasons for delisting.
[Note on the invalidity of 2% requirement:

We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the
two percent (2%) threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second
clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 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 number of available party list seats 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.
The disqualification for failure to get 2% party-list votes in two (2) preceding elections should
therefore be understood in light of the Banat ruling that party-list groups or organizations
garnering less than 2% of the party-list votes may yet qualify for a seat in the allocation of
additional seats.
A party-list group or organization which qualified in the second round of seat allocation cannot
now validly be delisted for the reason alone that it garnered less than 2% in the last two
elections. In other words, the application of this disqualification should henceforth be
contingent on the percentage of party-list votes garnered by the last party-list organization that
qualified for a seat in the House of Representatives, a percentage that is less than the 2%
threshold invalidated in Banat.
The disqualification should now necessarily be read to apply to party-list groups or
organizations that did not qualify for a seat in the two preceding elections for the constituency
in which it registered. x x x x
To reiterate, (a) Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate grounds for delisting; these
grounds cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting; and (b) the disqualification for
failure to garner 2% party-list votes in two preceding elections should now be understood, in
light of the Banat ruling, to mean failure to qualify for a party-list seat in two preceding
elections for the constituency in which it has registered.]

Dante V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dante V

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dante V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITOTIONAL LAW 1 DIGEST CASE WITH DOCTRINES

DANTE V. LIBAN, vs. RICHARD J. GORDON, G.R. No. 175352,

[Note on the invalidity of 2% requirement:

You might also like