homework help,online homework help,online tutors,online tutoring,research paper help,do my homework, https://www.homeworkping.com/

1. Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Online Tutoring
https://www.homeworkping.com/Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 179271 April 21, 2009
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (sitting as the National Board of Canvassers), Respondent.
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS, Intervenor.
AANGAT TAYO, Intervenor.
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR CITIZENS),Intervenor.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 179295 April 21, 2009
BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR TEACHER EMPOWERMENT THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION AND
HARMONY TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., and ABONO, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Petitioner in G.R. No. 179271 — Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) — in a
petition for certiorari and mandamus,1 assails the Resolution2 promulgated on 3 August 2007 by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). The COMELEC’s resolution in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) approved the
recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Legal Group, to deny the
petition of BANAT for being moot. BANAT filed before the COMELEC En Banc, acting as NBC, a Petition to Proclaim the
Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution.
The following are intervenors in G.R. No. 179271: Arts Business and Science Professionals (ABS), AangatTayo (AT), and
Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizens).
Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295 — Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action,
Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms (A Teacher) — in a petition for certiorari with mandamus and
prohibition,3 assails NBC Resolution No. 07-604 promulgated on 9 July 2007. NBC No. 07-60 made a partial proclamation
of parties, organizations and coalitions that obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party-List
System. The COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results, it would determine the
total number of seats of each winning party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v.
COMELEC5 (Veterans).
Estrella DL Santos, in her capacity as President and First Nominee of the Veterans Freedom Party, filed a motion to
intervene in both G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295.
The Facts

2. The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900
votes cast for 93 parties under the Party-List System.6
On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the
Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-041 (PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because "[t]he Chairman and the
Members of the [COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papers that the [COMELEC] is duty bound to and
shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party-list seats."7 There
were no intervenors in BANAT’s petition before the NBC. BANAT filed a memorandum on 19 July 2007.
On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60. NBC Resolution No. 07-60
proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as winners in the party-list elections, namely: BuhayHayaanYumabong (BUHAY), Bayan
Muna, Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), Gabriela’s Women Party (Gabriela), Association of Philippine Electric
Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan! Citizen’s Action Party (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL),
Cooperative-Natco Network Party (COOP-NATCCO), AnakPawis, Alliance of Rural Concerns (ARC), and Abono. We
quote NBC Resolution No. 07-60 in its entirety below:
WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections sitting en banc as National Board of Canvassers, thru its Sub-Committee for
Party-List, as of 03 July 2007, had officially canvassed, in open and public proceedings, a total of fifteen million two
hundred eighty three thousand six hundred fifty-nine (15,283,659) votes under the Party-List System of
Representation, in connection with the National and Local Elections conducted last 14 May 2007;
WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation Groups of the National Board of Canvassers reveals that
the projected/maximum total party-list votes cannot go any higher than sixteen million seven hundred twenty three
thousand one hundred twenty-one (16,723,121) votes given the following statistical data:
Projected/Maximum Party-List Votes for May 2007 Elections
i. Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated 15,283,659
ii. Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/
untabulated (i.e. canvass deferred)
1,337,032
iii. Maximum party-list votes (based on 100% outcome)
from areas not yet submitted for canvass (Bogo, Cebu;
Bais City; Pantar, Lanao del Norte; and Pagalungan,
Maguindanao)
102,430
Maximum Total Party-List Votes 16,723,121
WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) provides in part:
The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party -list
system shall be entitled to one seat each: provided, that those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: provided, finally, that each party, organization, or
coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based on the above projected total of party-list votes, the presumptive two percent
(2%) threshold can be pegged at three hundred thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes;
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, in Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its ruling
in Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC adopting a formula for the additional seats of each party, organization or
coalition receving more than the required two percent (2%) votes, stating that the same shall be determined only after all
party-list ballots have been completely canvassed;
WHEREAS, the parties, organizations, and coalitions that have thus far garnered at least three hundred thirty four
thousand four hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes are as follows:
RANK PARTY/ORGANIZATION/
COALITION
VOTES
RECEIVED
1 BUHAY 1,163,218
2 BAYAN MUNA 972,730
3 CIBAC 760,260
4 GABRIELA 610,451
5 APEC 538,971
6 A TEACHER 476,036

3. 7 AKBAYAN 470,872
8 ALAGAD 423,076
9 BUTIL 405,052
10 COOP-NATCO 390,029
11 BATAS 386,361
12 ANAK PAWIS 376,036
13 ARC 338,194
14 ABONO 337,046
WHEREAS, except for BagongAlyansangTagapagtaguyodngAdhikaingSambayanan (BATAS), against which anURGENT
PETITION FOR CANCELLATION/REMOVAL OF REGISTRATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF PARTY-LIST
NOMINEE (With Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has been filed before the Commission, docketed as SPC
No. 07-250, all the parties, organizations and coalitions included in the aforementioned list are therefore entitled to at least
one seat under the party-list system of representation in the meantime.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order
No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941, and other election laws, the Commission on Elections, sittingenbanc as the
National Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVES to PARTIALLY PROCLAIM, subject to certain conditions set forth
below, the following parties, organizations and coalitions participating under the Party-List System:
1 BuhayHayaanYumabong BUHAY
2 Bayan Muna BAYAN MUNA
3 Citizens Battle Against Corruption CIBAC
4 Gabriela Women’s Party GABRIELA
5 Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives APEC
6 Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through
Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards
Educational Reforms, Inc.
A TEACHER
7 Akbayan! Citizen’s Action Party AKBAYAN
8 Alagad ALAGAD
9 Luzon Farmers Party BUTIL
10 Cooperative-Natco Network Party COOP-NATCCO
11 AnakPawis ANAKPAWIS
12 Alliance of Rural Concerns ARC
13 Abono ABONO
This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations, or coalitions which may later on be
established to have obtained at least two percent (2%) of the total actual votes cast under the Party-List System.
The total number of seats of each winning party, organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant toVeterans
Federation Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results.
The proclamation of BagongAlyansangTagapagtaguyodngAdhikaingSambayanan (BATAS) is hereby deferred until final
resolution of SPC No. 07-250, in order not to render the proceedings therein moot and academic.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall
likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
Let the Clerk of the Commission implement this Resolution, furnishing a copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.8 (Emphasis in the original)
Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60, the COMELEC, acting as NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-72, which
declared the additional seats allocated to the appropriate parties. We quote from the COMELEC’s interpretation of
the Veterans formula as found in NBC Resolution No. 07-72:

4. WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, the Commission on Elections sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers
proclaimed thirteen (13) qualified parties, organization[s] and coalitions based on the presumptive two percent (2%)
threshold of 334,462 votes from the projected maximum total number of party-list votes of 16,723,121, and were thus
given one (1) guaranteed party-list seat each;
WHEREAS, per Report of the Tabulation Group and Supervisory Committee of the National Board of Canvassers, the
projected maximum total party-list votes, as of July 11, 2007, based on the votes actually canvassed, votes canvassed but
not included in Report No. 29, votes received but uncanvassed, and maximum votes expected for Pantar, Lanao del
Norte, is 16,261,369; and that the projected maximum total votes for the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and
coalition[s] are as follows:
Party-List Projected total number of votes
1 BUHAY 1,178,747
2 BAYAN MUNA 977,476
3 CIBAC 755,964
4 GABRIELA 621,718
5 APEC 622,489
6 A TEACHER 492,369
7 AKBAYAN 462,674
8 ALAGAD 423,190
9 BUTIL 409,298
10 COOP-NATCO 412,920
11 ANAKPAWIS 370,165
12 ARC 375,846
13 ABONO 340,151
WHEREAS, based on the above Report, BuhayHayaanYumabong (Buhay) obtained the highest number of votes among
the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, making it the "first party" in accordance withVeterans
Federation Party versus COMELEC, reiterated in Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC;
WHEREAS, qualified parties, organizations and coalitions participating under the party-list system of representation that
have obtained one guaranteed (1) seat may be entitled to an additional seat or seats based on the formula prescribed by
the Supreme Court in Veterans;
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the "first party", the correct formula as expressed in Veterans, is:
Number of votes of first party
Total votes for party-list system
=
Proportion of votes of first
party relative to total votes for
party-list system
wherein the proportion of votes received by the first party (without rounding off) shall entitle it to additional seats:
Proportion of votes received
by the first party
Additional seats
Equal to or at least 6% Two (2) additional seats
Equal to or greater than 4% but less than 6% One (1) additional seat
Less than 4% No additional seat
WHEREAS, applying the above formula, Buhay obtained the following percentage:
1,178,747
16,261,369
= 0.07248 or 7.2%
which entitles it to two (2) additional seats.

5. WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the other qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, the correct
formula as expressed in Veterans and reiterated in CIBAC is, as follows:
Additional seats for
a concerned party
=
No. of votes of
concerned party
No. of votes of
first party
x
No. of additional
seats allocated
to first party
WHEREAS, applying the above formula, the results are as follows:
Party List Percentage Additional Seat
BAYAN MUNA 1.65 1
CIBAC 1.28 1
GABRIELA 1.05 1
APEC 1.05 1
A TEACHER 0.83 0
AKBAYAN 0.78 0
ALAGAD 0.71 0
BUTIL 0.69 0
COOP-NATCO 0.69 0
ANAKPAWIS 0.62 0
ARC 0.63 0
ABONO 0.57 0
NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No.
144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941 and other elections laws, the Commission on Elections en banc sitting as the
National Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to proclaim the following parties,
organizations or coalitions as entitled to additional seats, to wit:
Party List Additional Seats
BUHAY 2
BAYAN MUNA 1
CIBAC 1
GABRIELA 1
APEC 1
This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations or coalitions which may later on be established
to have obtained at least two per cent (2%) of the total votes cast under the party-list system to entitle them to one (1)
guaranteed seat, or to the appropriate percentage of votes to entitle them to one (1) additional seat.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall
likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
Let the National Board of Canvassers Secretariat implement this Resolution, furnishing a copy hereof to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.9
Acting on BANAT’s petition, the NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-88 on 3 August 2007, which reads as follows:
This pertains to the Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution filed
by the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT).

6. Acting on the foregoing Petition of the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) party-
list, Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, National Board of Canvassers Legal Group submitted his comments/observations and
recommendation thereon [NBC 07-041 (PL)], which reads:
COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS:
Petitioner Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), in its Petition to Proclaim the Full
Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution prayed for the following reliefs, to wit:
1. That the full number -- twenty percent (20%) -- of Party-List representatives as mandated by Section 5, Article
VI of the Constitution shall be proclaimed.
2. Paragraph (b), Section 11 of RA 7941 which prescribes the 2% threshold votes, should be harmonized with
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution and with Section 12 of the same RA 7941 in that it should be applicable
only to the first party-list representative seats to be allotted on the basis of their initial/first ranking.
3. The 3-seat limit prescribed by RA 7941 shall be applied; and
4. Initially, all party-list groups shall be given the number of seats corresponding to every 2% of the votes they
received and the additional seats shall be allocated in accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941, that is, in
proportion to the percentage of votes obtained by each party-list group in relation to the total nationwide votes
cast in the party-list election, after deducting the corresponding votes of those which were allotted seats under the
2% threshold rule. In fine, the formula/procedure prescribed in the "ALLOCATION OF PARTY-LIST SEATS,
ANNEX "A" of COMELEC RESOLUTION 2847 dated 25 June 1996, shall be used for [the] purpose of
determining how many seats shall be proclaimed, which party-list groups are entitled to representative seats and
how many of their nominees shall seat [sic].
5. In the alternative, to declare as unconstitutional Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 and that the procedure in
allocating seats for party-list representative prescribed by Section 12 of RA 7941 shall be followed.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N:
The petition of BANAT is now moot and academic.
The Commission En Banc in NBC Resolution No. 07-60 promulgated July 9, 2007 re "In the Matter of the Canvass of
Votes and Partial Proclamation of the Parties, Organizations and Coalitions Participating Under the Party-List System
During the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections" resolved among others that the total number of seats of each
winning party, organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant to the Veterans Federation
Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results."1awphi1
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the National Board of Canvassers RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to
approve and adopt the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, NBC Legal Group, to DENY the herein petition
of BANAT for being moot and academic.
Let the Supervisory Committee implement this resolution.
SO ORDERED.10
BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file a
motion for reconsideration of NBC Resolution No. 07-88.
On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to
use the Veterans formula as stated in its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 because the Veterans formula is violative of the
Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941). On the same day, the COMELEC denied reconsideration
during the proceedings of the NBC.11
Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations proclaimed on 9 July 2007, the COMELEC proclaimed three other party-list
organizations as qualified parties entitled to one guaranteed seat under the Party-List System: Agricultural Sector Alliance
of the Philippines, Inc. (AGAP),12 Anak Mindanao (AMIN),13 and An Waray.14 Per the certification15 by COMELEC, the
following party-list organizations have been proclaimed as of 19 May 2008:
Party-List No. of Seat(s)
1.1 Buhay 3
1.2 Bayan Muna 2
1.3 CIBAC 2
1.4 Gabriela 2
1.5 APEC 2

7. 1.6 A Teacher 1
1.7 Akbayan 1
1.8 Alagad 1
1.9 Butil 1
1.10 Coop-Natco [sic] 1
1.11 AnakPawis 1
1.12 ARC 1
1.13 Abono 1
1.14 AGAP 1
1.15 AMIN 1
The proclamation of BagongAlyansangTagapagtaguyodngAdhikaingSambayanan (BATAS), against which an Urgent
Petition for Cancellation/Removal of Registration and Disqualification of Party-list Nominee (with Prayer for the Issuance
of Restraining Order) has been filed before the COMELEC, was deferred pending final resolution of SPC No. 07-250.
Issues
BANAT brought the following issues before this Court:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
3. Is the two percent threshold and "qualifier" votes prescribed by the same Section 11(b) of RA 7941
constitutional?
4. How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?16
Bayan Muna, A Teacher, and Abono, on the other hand, raised the following issues in their petition:
I. Respondent Commission on Elections, acting as National Board of Canvassers, committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60 to
implement the First-Party Rule in the allocation of seats to qualified party-list organizations as said rule:
A. Violates the constitutional principle of proportional representation.
B. Violates the provisions of RA 7941 particularly:
1. The 2-4-6 Formula used by the First Party Rule in allocating additional seats for the "First
Party" violates the principle of proportional representation under RA 7941.
2. The use of two formulas in the allocation of additional seats, one for the "First Party" and
another for the qualifying parties, violates Section 11(b) of RA 7941.
3. The proportional relationships under the First Party Rule are different from those required
under RA 7941;
C. Violates the "Four Inviolable Parameters" of the Philippine party-list system as provided for under the
same case of Veterans Federation Party, et al. v. COMELEC.
II. Presuming that the Commission on Elections did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it implemented the First-Party Rule in the allocation of seats to qualified party-list
organizations, the same being merely in consonance with the ruling in Veterans Federations Party, et al. v.
COMELEC, the instant Petition is a justiciable case as the issues involved herein are constitutional in nature,
involving the correct interpretation and implementation of RA 7941, and are of transcendental importance to our
nation.17
Considering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the parties in these cases, we defined the
following issues in our advisory for the oral arguments set on 22 April 2008:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives in Section 5(2), Article VI of the
Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling?

8. 2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
3. Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 to qualify for one seat
constitutional?
4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated?
5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties from participating in the party-list elections? If
not, can the major political parties be barred from participating in the party-list elections?18
The Ruling of the Court
The petitions have partial merit. We maintain that a Philippine-style party-list election has at least four inviolable
parameters as clearly stated in Veterans. For easy reference, these are:
First, the twenty percent allocation — the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty
percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list;
Second, the two percent threshold — only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid
votes cast for the party-list system are "qualified" to have a seat in the House of Representatives;
Third, the three-seat limit — each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled
to a maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two additional seats;
Fourth, proportional representation— the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed
"in proportion to their total number of votes."19
However, because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical interpretation of the term "proportional
representation," this Court is compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to party-list
organizations.
Number of Party-List Representatives:
The Formula Mandated by the Constitution
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:
Section 5. (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 through 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.
The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. — The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum
(20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list.
x xx
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the "House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than
two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law." The House of Representatives shall be composed of
district representatives and party-list representatives. The Constitution allows the legislature to modify the number of the
members of the House of Representatives.1avvphi1.zw+
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the ratio of party-list representatives to the total
number of representatives. We compute the number of seats available to party-list representatives from the number of
legislative districts. On this point, we do not deviate from the first formula in Veterans, thus:
Number of seats
available to legislative districts
.80
x .20 =
Number of seats available to
party-list representatives

9. This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats available for party-list representatives whenever
a legislative district is created by law. Since the 14th Congress of the Philippines has 220 district representatives, there
are 55 seats available to party-list representatives.
220
.80
x .20 = 55
After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to the total number of representatives, the
Constitution left the manner of allocating the seats available to party-list representatives to the wisdom of the
legislature.
Allocation of Seats for Party-List Representatives:
The Statutory Limits Presented by the Two Percent Threshold
and the Three-Seat Cap
All parties agree on the formula to determine the maximum number of seats reserved under the Party-List System, as well
as on the formula to determine the guaranteed seats to party-list candidates garnering at least two-percent of the total
party-list votes. However, there are numerous interpretations of the provisions of R.A. No. 7941 on the allocation
of "additional seats" under the Party-List System. Veterans produced the First Party Rule,20 and Justice Vicente V.
Mendoza’s dissent in Veterans presented Germany’s Niemeyer formula21 as an alternative.
The Constitution left to Congress the determination of the manner of allocating the seats for party-list representatives.
Congress enacted R.A. No. 7941, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 11 and Section 12 of which provide:
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. — x xx
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote,22 the following procedure shall be observed:
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number
of votes they garnered during the elections.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the
party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent
(2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: Provided,
finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives. — The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the
parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and
allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party,
organization, or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system. (Emphasis supplied)
In G.R. No. 179271, BANAT presents two interpretations through three formulas to allocate party-list representative seats.
The first interpretation allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section 11(b) on the 2% requirement with Section 12 of R.A.
No. 7941. BANAT described this procedure as follows:
(a) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total Members of the House of
Representatives including those from the party-list groups as prescribed by Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution, Section 11 (1st par.) of RA 7941 and Comelec Resolution No. 2847 dated 25 June 1996. Since there
are 220 District Representatives in the 14th Congress, there shall be 55 Party-List Representatives. All seats shall
have to be proclaimed.
(b) All party-list groups shall initially be allotted one (1) seat for every two per centum (2%) of the total party-list
votes they obtained; provided, that no party-list groups shall have more than three (3) seats (Section 11, RA
7941).
(c) The remaining seats shall, after deducting the seats obtained by the party-list groups under the immediately
preceding paragraph and after deducting from their total the votes corresponding to those seats, the remaining
seats shall be allotted proportionately to all the party-list groups which have not secured the maximum three (3)
seats under the 2% threshold rule, in accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941.23
Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be awarded under BANAT’s first interpretation.
The second interpretation presented by BANAT assumes that the 2% vote requirement is declared unconstitutional, and
apportions the seats for party-list representatives by following Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT states that the
COMELEC:
(a) shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis;

10. (b) rank them according to the number of votes received; and,
(c) allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party,
organization or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.24
BANAT used two formulas to obtain the same results: one is based on the proportional percentage of the votes rec eived
by each party as against the total nationwide party-list votes, and the other is "by making the votes of a party-list with a
median percentage of votes as the divisor in computing the allocation of seats."25 Thirty-four (34) party-list seats will be
awarded under BANAT’s second interpretation.
In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both the COMELEC’s original 2-4-6 formula and
the Veterans formula for systematically preventing all the party-list seats from being filled up. They claim that both
formulas do not factor in the total number of seats alloted for the entire Party-List System. Bayan Muna, Abono, and A
Teacher reject the three-seat cap, but accept the 2% threshold. After determining the qualified parties, a second
percentage is generated by dividing the votes of a qualified party by the total votes of all qualified parties only. The
number of seats allocated to a qualified party is computed by multiplying the total party-list seats available with the second
percentage. There will be a first round of seat allocation, limited to using the whole integers as the equivalent of the
number of seats allocated to the concerned party-list. After all the qualified parties are given their seats, a second round of
seat allocation is conducted. The fractions, or remainders, from the whole integers are ranked from highest to lowest and
the remaining seats on the basis of this ranking are allocated until all the seats are filled up.26
We examine what R.A. No. 7941 prescribes to allocate seats for party-list representatives.
Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the ranking of the participating parties from the highest to the lowest based on
the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
Table 1. Ranking of the participating parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes garnered during
the elections.27
Rank Party
Votes
Garnered
Rank Party
Votes
Garnered
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 48 KALAHI 88,868
2 BAYAN MUNA 979,039 49 APOI 79,386
3 CIBAC 755,686 50 BP 78,541
4 GABRIELA 621,171 51 AHONBAYAN 78,424
5 APEC 619,657 52 BIGKIS 77,327
6 A TEACHER 490,379 53 PMAP 75,200
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 54 AKAPIN 74,686
8 ALAGAD 423,149 55 PBA 71,544
9 COOP-NATCCO 409,883 56 GRECON 62,220
10 BUTIL 409,160 57 BTM 60,993
11 BATAS 385,810 58 A SMILE 58,717
12 ARC 374,288 59 NELFFI 57,872
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 60 AKSA 57,012
14 ABONO 339,990 61 BAGO 55,846
15 AMIN 338,185 62 BANDILA 54,751
16 AGAP 328,724 63 AHON 54,522
17 AN WARAY 321,503 64 ASAHAN MO 51,722
18 YACAP 310,889 65 AGBIAG! 50,837
19 FPJPM 300,923 66 SPI 50,478
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 67 BAHANDI 46,612
21 ABS 235,086 68 ADD 45,624
22 KAKUSA 228,999 69 AMANG 43,062
23 KABATAAN 228,637 70 ABAY PARAK 42,282

11. 24 ABA-AKO 218,818 71 BABAE KA 36,512
25 ALIF 217,822 72 SB 34,835
26 SENIOR CITIZENS 213,058 73 ASAP 34,098
27 AT 197,872 74 PEP 33,938
28 VFP 196,266 75 ABA ILONGGO 33,903
29 ANAD 188,521 76 VENDORS 33,691
30 BANAT 177,028 77 ADD-TRIBAL 32,896
31 ANG KASANGGA 170,531 78 ALMANA 32,255
32 BANTAY 169,801 79 AANGAT KA PILIPINO 29,130
33 ABAKADA 166,747 80 AAPS 26,271
34 1-UTAK 164,980 81 HAPI 25,781
35 TUCP 162,647 82 AAWAS 22,946
36 COCOFED 155,920 83 SM 20,744
37 AGHAM 146,032 84 AG 16,916
38 ANAK 141,817 85 AGING PINOY 16,729
39 ABANSE! PINAY 130,356 86 APO 16,421
40 PM 119,054 87 BIYAYANG BUKID 16,241
41 AVE 110,769 88 ATS 14,161
42 SUARA 110,732 89 UMDJ 9,445
43 ASSALAM 110,440 90 BUKLOD FILIPINA 8,915
44 DIWA 107,021 91 LYPAD 8,471
45 ANC 99,636 92 AA-KASOSYO 8,406
46 SANLAKAS 97,375 93 KASAPI 6,221
47 ABC 90,058 TOTAL 15,950,900
The first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 states that "parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two
percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each." This clause guarantees a
seat to the two-percenters. In Table 2 below, we use the first 20 party-list candidates for illustration purposes. The
percentage of votes garnered by each party is arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by
15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for all party-list candidates.
Table 2. The first 20 party-list candidates and their respective percentage of votes garnered over the total votes for the
party-list.28
Rank Party
Votes
Garnered
Votes Garnered over
Total Votes for Party-
List, in %
Guaranteed
Seat
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1
2 BAYAN MUNA 979,039 6.14% 1
3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1
4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1
5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1
6 A TEACHER 490,379 3.07% 1
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1
8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1
9 COOP-NATCCO 409,883 2.57% 1

12. 10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1
11 BATAS29 385,810 2.42% 1
12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 2.32% 1
14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1
15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% 1
16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1
17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% 1
Total 17
18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0
19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% 0
From Table 2 above, we see that only 17 party-list candidates received at least 2% from the total number of votes cast for
party-list candidates. The 17 qualified party-list candidates, or the two-percenters, are the party-list candidates that are
"entitled to one seat each," or the guaranteed seat. In this first round of seat allocation, we distributed 17 guaranteed
seats.
The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that "those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the
votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes." This is where petitioners’ and
intervenors’ problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets the clause "in proportion to their total number of
votes" to be in proportion to the votes of the first party. This interpretation is contrary to the express language of R.A.
No. 7941.
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 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.
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are 50 million votes cast for the 100 participants in the
party list elections. A party that has two percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us
further assume that the first 50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of 55
seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will repeat itself even if we increase the
available party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum
number of parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is always impossible for the number of occupied party -list
seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present.
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 Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the
full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of "the broadest possible
representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives."30
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following
procedure shall be observed:
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number
of votes they garnered during the elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the
party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to
additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included because they have already been
allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as "additional seats"
are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded
in the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats.

13. In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional, we do not limit our allocation of additional seats in Table 3 below
to the two-percenters. The percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate is arrived at by dividing the number
of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates. There are two
steps in the second round of seat allocation. First, the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats, 38, which
is the difference between the 55 maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the 17 guaranteed seats of
the two-percenters. The whole integer of the product of the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds
to a party’s share in the remaining available seats. Second, we assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in
rank until all available seats are completely distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of
seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is
entitled. Thus:
Table 3. Distribution of Available Party-List Seats
Rank Party
Votes
Garnered
Votes
Garnered
over
Total
Votes for
Party List,
in %
(A)
Guaranteed
Seat
(First
Round)
(B)
Additional
Seats
(Second
Round)
(C)
(B) plus
(C), in
whole
integers
(D)
Applying
the three
seat cap
(E)
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1 2.79 3 N.A.
2
BAYAN
MUNA
979,039 6.14% 1 2.33 3 N.A.
3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1 1.80 2 N.A.
4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
6 A Teacher 490,379 3.07% 1 1.17 2 N.A.
7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1 1.11 2 N.A.
8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1 1.01 2 N.A.
931 COOP-
NATCCO
409,883 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
11 BATAS 385,810 2.42% 1 1 2 N.A.
12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1 1 2 N.A.
13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 2.32% 1 1 2 N.A.
14 ABONO 339,990 2.13% 1 1 2 N.A.
15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% 1 1 2 N.A.
16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1 1 2 N.A.
17 AN WARAY 321,503 2.02% 1 1 2 N.A.
18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0 1 1 N.A.
19 FPJPM 300,923 1.89% 0 1 1 N.A.
20 UNI-MAD 245,382 1.54% 0 1 1 N.A.
21 ABS 235,086 1.47% 0 1 1 N.A.
22 KAKUSA 228,999 1.44% 0 1 1 N.A.
23 KABATAAN 228,637 1.43% 0 1 1 N.A.
24 ABA-AKO 218,818 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
25 ALIF 217,822 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
26
SENIOR
CITIZENS
213,058 1.34% 0 1 1 N.A.
27 AT 197,872 1.24% 0 1 1 N.A.

14. 28 VFP 196,266 1.23% 0 1 1 N.A.
29 ANAD 188,521 1.18% 0 1 1 N.A.
30 BANAT 177,028 1.11% 0 1 1 N.A.
31
ANG
KASANGGA
170,531 1.07% 0 1 1 N.A.
32 BANTAY 169,801 1.06% 0 1 1 N.A.
33 ABAKADA 166,747 1.05% 0 1 1 N.A.
34 1-UTAK 164,980 1.03% 0 1 1 N.A.
35 TUCP 162,647 1.02% 0 1 1 N.A.
36 COCOFED 155,920 0.98% 0 1 1 N.A.
Total 17 55
Applying the procedure of seat allocation as illustrated in Table 3 above, there are 55 party-list representatives from the
36 winning party-list organizations. All 55 available party-list seats are filled. The additional seats allocated to the parties
with sufficient number of votes for one whole seat, in no case to exceed a total of three seats for each party, are shown in
column (D).
Participation of Major Political Parties in Party-List Elections
The Constitutional Commission adopted a multi-party system that allowed all political partiesto participate in the
party-list elections. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission clearly bear this out, thus:
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we suggested or proposed the party list sy stem because we
wanted to open up the political system to a pluralistic society through a multiparty system. x xx We are for opening up
the system, and we would like very much for the sectors to be there. That is why one of the ways to do that is to
put a ceiling on the number of representatives from any single party that can sit within the 50 allocated under the
party list system. x xx.
x xx
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats is not limited to political parties. My question is this:
Are we going to classify for example Christian Democrats and Social Democrats as political parties? Can they run under
the party list concept or must they be under the district legislation side of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these parties that the Commissioner mentioned can field candidates for
the Senate as well as for the House of Representatives. Likewise, they can also field sectoral candidates for the 20
percent or 30 percent, whichever is adopted, of the seats that we are allocating under the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field district candidates and can also participate in the party
list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the party list system, they will be fielding only sectoral
candidates.
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field candidates who come from the different marginalized
sectors that we shall designate in this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Tañada wants to run under BAYAN group and says that he represents the farmers,
would he qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Tañada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party list system and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who
would pass on whether he is a farmer or not?
MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto kolamanglinawinito. Political parties, particularly minority political
parties, are not prohibited to participate in the party list election if they can prove that they are also organized
along sectoral lines.

15. MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all political parties can participate because it is precisely the
contention of political parties that they represent the broad base of citizens and that all sectors are represented in them.
Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. TADEO. Angpuntolamangnamin, pagpinayaganmoang UNIDO naisang political party, it will dominate the party list at
mawawalangsaysay din yung sector. Lalamuninmismong political partiesang party list system. Gusto
kolamangbigyanngdiinang "reserve." Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. Kung titingnannatinitong 198 seats,
reserved din itosa political parties.
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyonkasi anybody can run there. But my question to Commissioner Villacorta and
probably also to Commissioner Tadeo is that under this system, would UNIDO be banned from running under the party list
system?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral candidates. On that condition alone, UNIDO may be
allowed to register for the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares that answer?
MR. TADEO. The same.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwedepoang UNIDO, perosasectoral lines.
x xxx
MR. OPLE. x xxIn my opinion, this will also create the stimulus for political parties and mass organizations to seek
common ground. For example, we have the PDP-Laban and the UNIDO. I see no reason why they should not be able to
make common goals with mass organizations so that the very leadership of these parties can be transformed through the
participation of mass organizations. And if this is true of the administration parties, this will be true of others like the
Partidong Bayan which is now being formed. There is no question that they will be attractive to many mass organizations.
In the opposition parties to which we belong, there will be a stimulus for us to contact mass organizations so that with thei r
participation, the policies of such parties can be radically transformed because this amendment will create conditions that
will challenge both the mass organizations and the political parties to come together. And the party list system is certainly
available, although it is open to all the parties. It is understood that the parties will enter in the roll of the COMELEC the
names of representatives of mass organizations affiliated with them. So that we may, in time, develop this excellent
system that they have in Europe where labor organizations and cooperatives, for example, distribute themselves either in
the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Party in Germany, and their very presence there has a
transforming effect upon the philosophies and the leadership of those parties.
It is also a fact well known to all that in the United States, the AFL-CIO always vote with the Democratic Party. But the
businessmen, most of them, always vote with the Republican Party, meaning that there is no reason at all why political
parties and mass organizations should not combine, reenforce, influence and interact with each other so that the very
objectives that we set in this Constitution for sectoral representation are achieved in a wider, more lasting, and more
institutionalized way. Therefore, I support this [Monsod-Villacorta] amendment. It installs sectoral representation as a
constitutional gift, but at the same time, it challenges the sector to rise to the majesty of being elected representatives
later on through a party list system; and even beyond that, to become actual political parties capable of contesting political
power in the wider constitutional arena for major political parties.
x xx 32 (Emphasis supplied)
R.A. No. 7941 provided the details for the concepts put forward by the Constitutional Commission. Section 3 of R.A. No.
7941 reads:
Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or organizations of a coalition may
participate independently provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the party -list system.
(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.
(c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and
policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their
adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office.
It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the
regions. 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 the region.
(d) 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 interests and concerns of their sector,

16. (e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar
physical attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns.
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for
political and/or election purposes.
Congress, in enacting R.A. No. 7941, put the three-seat cap to prevent any party from dominating the party-list elections.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 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. In fact, the members of the Constitutional Commission voted down, 19-22, any permanent
sectoralseats, and in the alternative the reservation of the party-list system to the sectoral groups.33 In defining a "party"
that participates in party-list elections as either "a political party or a sectoral party," R.A. No. 7941 also clearly intended
that major political parties will participate in the party-list elections. Excluding the major political parties in party-list
elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court
cannot engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the exclusion of major political parties from the party-
list elections in patent violation of the Constitution and the law.
Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission state that major political parties are
allowed to establish, or form coalitions with, sectoral organizations for electoral or political purposes. There should not be
a problem if, for example, the Liberal Party participates in the party-list election through the Kabataang Liberal ngPilipinas
(KALIPI), its sectoral youth wing. The other major political parties can thus organize, or affiliate with, their chosen sector or
sectors. To further illustrate, the Nacionalista Party can establish a fisherfolk wing to participate in the party -list election,
and this fisherfolk wing can field its fisherfolk nominees. KabalikatngMalayang Pilipino (KAMPI) can do the same for the
urban poor.
The qualifications of party-list nominees are prescribed in Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941:
Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. — No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural
born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the elections, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or organization
which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty -five (25)
years of age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on
the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be
allowed to continue until the expiration of his term.
Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list organization’s nominee "wallow in poverty,
destitution and infirmity"34 as there is no financial status required in the law. It is enough that the nominee of the sectoral
party/organization/coalition belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors,35 that is, if the nominee represents
the fisherfolk, he or she must be a fisherfolk, or if the nominee represents the senior citizens, he or she must be a senior
citizen.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire 20% allocation of party-list representatives
found in the Constitution. The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI, left the determination of the number of
the members of the House of Representatives to Congress: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of not
more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, x xx." The 20% allocation of party -list
representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives. However, we cannot allow the continued existence of a provision in the law which will systematically
prevent the constitutionally allocated 20% party-list representatives from being filled. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to
the number of seats that a qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that prevents any
party from dominating the party-list elections. Seats for party-list representatives shall thus be allocated in accordance
with the procedure used in Table 3 above.
However, by a 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. Those who voted to continue disallowing major political parties
from the party-list elections joined Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno in his separate opinion. On the formula to allocate party -
list seats, the Court is unanimous in concurring with this ponencia.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August
2007 in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) as well as the Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC No. 07-60. We declare unconstitutional
the two percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list seats. The allocation of additional seats under the
Party-List System shall be in accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 of this Decision. Major political parties are
disallowed from participating in party-list elections. This Decision is immediately executory. No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

17. WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2 Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), pp. 86-87. Signed by Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., Commissioners Resurreccion
Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., Romeo A. Brawner, Rene V. Sarmiento, and Nicodemo T. Ferrer.
3 Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
4 Rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 103-108. Signed by Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., Commissioners
Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., Romeo A. Brawner, Rene V. Sarmiento, and Nicodemo T.
Ferrer.
5 396 Phil. 419 (2000).
6 Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), pp. 969-986; rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 798-815. Party-List Canvass Report No. 32,
as of 31 August 2007, 6:00 p.m.
7 Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), p. 70.
8 Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), pp. 88-92.
9 Id. at 150-153.
10 Id. at 86-87.
11 Rollo (G.R. No. 179295), p. 112.
12 Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), pp. 158-159. NBC Resolution No. 07-74, 24 July 2007.

18. 13 Id. at 160-161. NBC Resolution No. 07-87, 3 August 2007.
14 NBC Resolution No. 07-97, 4 September 2007.
15 Rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 816-817. This COMELEC certification should have included An Waray, which was
proclaimed on 4 September 2007 under NBC Resolution No. 07-97.
16 Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), p. 14.
17 Rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 21-22.
18 Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), p. 553; rollo (G. R. No. 179295), p. 341.
19 Supra note 5 at 424.
20 Id. at 446-451. We quote below the discussion in Veterans explaining the First Party Rule:
Formula for Determining
Additional Seats for the First Party
Now, how do we determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to? The only basis given by the
law is that a party receiving at least two percent of the total votes shall be entitled to one seat.
Proportionally, if the first party were to receive twice the number of votes of the second party, it should be
entitled to twice the latter’s number of seats and so on. The formula, therefore, for computing the number
of seats to which the first party is entitled is as follows:
Number of votes
of first party
Total votes for
party-list system
=
Proportion of votes of first party relative to
total votes for party-list system
If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off is equal to at least six percent of
the total valid votes cast for all the party list groups, then the first party shall be entitled to two additional
seats or a total of three seats overall. If the proportion of votes without a rounding off is equal to or greater
than four percent, but less than six percent, then the first party shall have one additional or a total of two
seats. And if the proportion is less than four percent, then the first party shall not be entitled to any
additional seat.
We adopted this six percent bench mark, because the first party is not always entitled to the maximum
number of additional seats. Likewise, it would prevent the allotment of more than the total number of
available seats, such as in an extreme case wherein 18 or more parties tie for the highest rank and are
thus entitled to three seats each. In such scenario, the number of seats to which all the parties are
entitled may exceed the maximum number of party-list seats reserved in the House of Representatives.
x xx
Note that the above formula will be applicable only in determining the number of additional seats the first
party is entitled to. It cannot be used to determine the number of additional seats of the other qualified
parties. As explained earlier, the use of the same formula for all would contravene the proportional
representation parameter. For example, a second party obtains six percent of the total number of votes
cast. According to the above formula, the said party would be entitled to two additional seats or a total of
three seats overall. However, if the first party received a significantly higher amount of votes — say,
twenty percent — to grant it the same number of seats as the second party would violate the statutory
mandate of proportional representation, since a party getting only six percent of the votes will have an
equal number of representatives as the one obtaining twenty percent. The proper solution, therefore, is to
grant the first party a total of three seats; and the party receiving six percent, additional seats in
proportion to those of the first party.
Formula for Additional
Seats of Other Qualified Parties
Step Three The next step is to solve for the number of additional seats that the other qualified parties are
entitled to, based on proportional representation. The formula is encompassed by the following complex
fraction:
Additional seats
for concerned party
=
No. of votes of
concerned party x
No. of additional
seats allocated
to the first party

19. Total No. of votes
of party-list system
No. of votes
of first party
Total No. of votes
of party-list system
In simplified form, it is written as follows:
Additional seats
for concerned party
=
No. of votes of
concerned party
No. of votes
of first party
x
No. of additional
seats allocated to
the first party
x xx
Incidentally, if the first party is not entitled to any additional seat, then the ratio of the number of votes for
the other party to that for the first one is multiplied by zero. The end result would be zero additional seat
for each of the other qualified parties as well.
The above formula does not give an exact mathematical representation of the number of additional seats
to be awarded since, in order to be entitled to one additional seat, an exact whole number is necessary.
In fact, most of the actual mathematical proportions are not whole numbers and are not rounded off for
the reasons explained earlier. To repeat, rounding off may result in the awarding of a number of seats in
excess of that provided by the law. Furthermore, obtaining absolute proportional representation is
restricted by the three-seat-per-party limit to a maximum of two additional slots. An increase in the
maximum number of additional representatives a party may be entitled to would result in a more accurate
proportional representation. But the law itself has set the limit: only two additional seats. Hence, we need
to work within such extant parameter.
21 Id. at 475-481.
22 The second vote cast by a registered voter is for the party-list candidates as provided in Section 10 of R.A. No.
7941.
23 Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), p. 47.
24 Id. at 48.
25 Id. at 1076.
26 Rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 66-81.
27 Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), pp. 969-974; rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 798-803. Party-List Canvass Report No. 32,
as of 31 August 2007, 6:00 p.m.
28 Id.
29 Proclamation deferred by COMELEC.
30 Section 2, R.A. No. 7941.
31 The product of the percentage and the remaining available seats of all parties ranked nine and below is less
than one.
32 II Record, Constitutional Commission 256-257 (25 July 1986), 568 (1 August 1986).
33 Id. at 584 (1 August 1986). Dissenting opinion of Justice Jose C. Vitug in AngBagongBayani- OFW Labor Party
v. COMELEC, 412 Phil. 308, 350 (2001).
34 AngBagongBayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 412 Phil. 308, 336 (2001).
35 Section 2, R.A. No. 7941.

20. Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 160032 November 11, 2005
ESTELA L. BERBA, Petitioner,
vs.
JOSEPHINE PABLO and THE HEIRS OF CARLOS PALANCA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Assailed before the Court on a petition for review on certiorari is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 73531, affirming the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Civil Case No. 170639.
Estela L. Berba, a resident of 978 Maligaya Street, Malate, Manila, was the owner of a parcel of land located at No. 2338
M. Roxas Street, Sta. Ana, Manila covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 63726. A house was constructed on
the lot, which she leased to Josephine Pablo* and the Heirs of Carlos Palanca sometime in 1976. The lease was covered
by a lease contract. Upon its expiration, the lessees continued leasing the house on a month-to-month basis.
By 1999, the monthly rental on the property was P3,450.00. The lessees failed to pay the rentals due, and by May 1999,
their arrears amounted to P81,818.00. Berba then filed a complaint for eviction and collection of unpaid rentals only
against Pablo in the Office of the Punong Barangay. On June 5, 1999, Berba and Pablo executed an Agreement
approved by the pangkat, as follows:
Akosi Josephine Pablo, naninirahansa 2338 M. Roxas St., Sta. Ana, Manila, nanasasakopng Barangay 873, Zone 96, ay
nangangakokay GG Robert Berbananagmamay-aringakingtinitirahan ay
maghuhulognghalagangTatlongLibongPiso P3,000.00kadaika-sampungbuwanbilanghulogsaakingpagkakautangkay GG
Berbanaumaabotsahalagang P81,818.00 naangnasabinghalagangito ay
akinghuhuluganhanggangakingmabayaranngbuoangakingpagkakautang. Akorin, si Josephine Pablo, ay
nangangakonaanghindikopagsunod o pagbayadngbuwananghulog, ako ay kusangaalissaakingtinitirahan. Bukod pa
sahulogsaakingpagkakautang, akorin ay magbabayadnghalagang P3,450.00bilangakingupasaaking tinitirahan.3
By May 2000, Pablo and the lessees still had a balance of P71,716.00. As of May 1, 2001, the total arrearages of the
lessees amounted to P135,115.63.4 On May 2, 2001, Berba, through counsel, wrote the lessees, demanding payment of
the said amount and to vacate the house within 30 days from notice, otherwise she will sue them.5 The lessees ignored
the demand. On June 21, 2001, Berba filed a complaint6 against Josephine Pablo and the Heirs of Carlos Palanca in the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila for unlawful detainer. She prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be
rendered in her favor:
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed for that judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff ordering defendant (sic) –
a) to vacate the premises situated at 2338 M. Roxas Street, Sta. Ana, City of Manila;
b) to pay plaintiff the sum of One Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand One Hundred Fifteen and 63/100 Pesos (P135,115.63)
representing monthly rentals in arrears to the present;
c) to pay plaintiff the amount of Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Two and 63/100 Pesos (P4,562.63) per month
representing monthly rent on the premises for the year 2001 until finality of the judgment;
d) to pay plaintiff the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) by way of attorney’s fees;
e) to reimburse plaintiff all expenses for litigation estimated in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos;

21. f) to pay costs of suit.
Other reliefs just and equitable are, likewise, prayed for under the premises.7
Berba, however, failed to append to her complaint a certification from the LuponngTagapamayapa that no conciliation or
settlement had been reached.
In their answer to the complaint, the defendants admitted to have stopped paying rentals because of financial distress.
They also alleged that they were not certain if the plaintiff was the owner of the property. By way of special and affirmative
defenses, they averred that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them as she failed to secure a Certificate to File
Action from the Lupon.8
During the pre-trial conference, the parties manifested to the court that, despite earnest efforts, no amicable settlement
was reached. They defined the main issue as whether or not the plaintiff had a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer
against the defendants.9
In her position paper, Berba appended an Agreement dated June 5, 1999 between her and Pablo, which appeared to
have been approved by Punong Barangay Cayetano L. Gonzales of Barangay 873, as well as other members of
the Lupon,10 duly approved by the Pangkat. She also appended a Statement of Account indicating that the defendants’
back rentals amounted to P135,115.63.11
In their position paper, the defendants insisted that the dispute did not go through the LuponngTagapamayapaprior to the
filing of the complaint; hence, Berba’s complaint was premature. They also averred that the increase in the rental rates
imposed by the plaintiff was unjustified and illegal.
In her reply, the plaintiff alleged that there was no more need for her to secure a Certificate to File Action because she
was a resident of No. 978 Maligaya Street, Malate, Manila, while the defendants were residing in Barangay873, Zone 6 in
Sta. Ana, Manila.
On March 14, 2002, the MTC rendered judgment in favor of Berba. The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and ordering the defendants and all persons claiming rights
under them to vacate the premises at 2338 M. Roxas St., Sta. Ana, Manila and restore possession thereof to the plaintiff.
Ordering the defendant to pay the amount of P135,115.63 representing monthly rentals since 1999 until December 2000.
Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P4,562.63 per month beginning January 2001 and for the
succeeding months until finally vacated. Ordering the defendant to pay the reduced amount of P10,000.00 as attorney’s
fees plus the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.12
The defendants appealed the decision to the RTC. On motion of the plaintiff, the RTC issued an order for the execution of
the decision pending appeal.13 The defendants filed a motion for the recall of the Order,14 but before the court could
resolve the motion, the Sheriff turned over the physical possession of the property to Berba on May 20, 2002. 15
In their Appeal Memorandum, Pablo and the heirs of Palanca insisted that Berba’s action in the MTC was premature
because of the absence of Certificate to File Action issued by the Lupon. They also claimed that Berba unlawfully
increased the rentals for the house.16 Berba, on the other hand, averred that there was no need of a prior referral to
the Lupon before filing her complaint. The petitioner cited Section 408(f) of the Local Government Code, pointing out that
she resided in a Barangay in Malate, 8 kilometers away from Barangay 873 in Sta. Ana, where Pablo and the Palanca
heirs resided.17
On August 20, 2002, the RTC rendered judgment granting the appeal and setting aside the appealed decision.
The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court a quo is ordered set aside. The complaint is also ordered DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Writ of Execution issued by the Court a quo pending appeal is also set aside.
SO ORDERED.18
The RTC ruled that under Section 408 of the Local Government Code, parties who reside in the same city or municipality
although in different barangays are mandated to go through conciliation proceedings in the Lupon.19The court cited the
rulings of this Court in Morata v. Go,20 and Vda. deBorromeo v. Pogoy.21
Berba filed a motion for the reconsideration22 of the decision, which the RTC denied in its Order23 dated October 2, 2002.
She then elevated the case to the CA via petition for review, where she averred:
a) The raising of other affirmative defenses apart from the non-referral to the Barangay Court by the respondents
constitute a waiver of such requirement; and
b) There was substantial compliance on the part of the petitioner with respect to referring her complaint before
theBarangay Court.24

22. Citing the ruling of this Court in Diu v. Court of Appeals,25 Berba claimed that Section 408 of the Local Government Code
should be construed liberally together with Section 412. She further averred that she had complied substantially with the
requisites of the law, and recalls that conciliation proceedings before the Luponresulted in the execution of an Agreement
on June 5, 1999. Upon failure to comply with the agreement, all chances of amicable settlement were effectively
foreclosed. Hence, Pablo and the Heirs of Palanca were estopped from claiming that she failed to comply with the Local
Government Code’s requirement of prior referral of their dispute to the Lupon.
After due proceedings, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition and affirming the RTC decision. Berba moved
for a reconsideration of the decision, which proved futile.
In the instant petition for review on certiorari, the petitioner alleges that:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF
THIS HONORABLE COURT IN THE CASE OF DIU VS. COURT OF APPEALS (251 SCRA 478) AND IN DECLARING
THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATE OF PD 1508 (NOW R.A. 7160) WITH
RESPECT TO PRIOR REFERRAL TO THE BARANGAY COURT, THEREBY DECIDING THE CASE NOT IN ACCORD
WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE COURT.26
The petitioner avers that she is a sickly widow, in the twilight of her years, and whose only source of income are the
rentals generated from the property, which she also uses to pay her medical expenses. She avers that the continued
denial of her right to the fruits of the subject property is highly unjust and contrary to the spirit behind the enactment of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1508.27
The petitioner also points out that, for her to pay obeisance to the decision of the CA, she would have to go through the
tedious, not to mention horrendous, process of going back to square one; that is, referring the dispute to
the barangay which, in all likelihood, would be rendered useless considering that respondents had already been validly
and effectively ejected from the leased premises. She would then have to go through the rungs of the judicial ladder a
second time to vindicate her trampled rights. She further claims that the CA’s affirmation of the RTC decision is equivalent
to sanctioning a "legal anomaly." She points out that the very purpose of barangayconciliation is to abbreviate disputes
between members of the same or adjacent barangays to the end that their disputes will not reach the doors of the courts.
Clearly, it does not contemplate a protracted process as suggested by the RTC ruling and affirmed by the CA. 28
In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that the petitioner was estopped from relying on the June 5, 1999
Agreement between her and respondent Josephine Pablo before the Lupon because the respondent Heirs of Carlos
Palanca were not parties thereto. The respondents maintained that the petitioner must bear the blame for her failure to
comply with the Local Government Code. At first, she insisted that there was no need for prior referral of the dispute to
the Lupon, claiming that she resided in a barangay other than where the respondents resided. Thereafter, she made
a volte face and invoked the June 5, 1999 Agreement between her and respondent Josephine Pablo. Moreover, the
respondents aver, the MTC had no jurisdiction over the petitioner’s action for unlawful detainer because it was filed only
on June 21, 2001, or more than one year from June 5, 1999 when the petitioner and respondent Josephine Pablo
executed the agreement. As such, the action should be one for recovery of possession of property (accionpubliciana).
On June 2, 2004, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective
memoranda.29 The parties complied.
The Court rules that the CA cannot be faulted for affirming the decision of the RTC reversing the decision of the MTC and
ordering the dismissal of the complaint for unlawful detainer without prejudice.
The records show that petitioner and respondent Josephine Pablo executed an Agreement on June 5, 1999, which was
approved by the Lupon. Respondent Josephine Pablo did not repudiate the agreement; hence, such agreement of the
parties settling the case had the force and effect of a final judgment. As the Court declared inVidal v. Escueta,30 the
settlement of the parties may be enforced by the Lupon, through the punong barangay, within
six months; and if the settlement is not enforced after the lapse of said period, it may be enforced by an action in the
proper city or municipal court, as provided in Section 417 of the Local Government Code:
We also agree that the Secretary of the Lupon is mandated to transmit the settlement to the appropriate city or municipal
court within the time frame under Section 418 of the LGC and to furnish the parties and the LuponChairman with copies
thereof. The amicable settlement which is not repudiated within the period therefor may be enforced by execution by
the Lupon through the Punong Barangay within a time line of six months, and if the settlement is not so enforced by
the Lupon after the lapse of said period, it may be enforced only by an action in the proper city or municipal court as
provided for in Section 417 of the LGC of 1991, as amended, which reads:
SEC. 417. Execution. – The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the Luponwithin
six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in
the proper city or municipal court. (Italics supplied).
Section 417 of the Local Government Code provides a mechanism for the enforcement of a settlement of the parties
before the Lupon. It provides for a two-tiered mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement executed by the parties
before the Lupon, namely, (a) by execution of the Punong Barangay which is quasi-judicial and summary in nature on
mere motion of the party/parties entitled thereto; and (b) by an action in regular form, which remedy is judicial. Under the
first remedy, the proceedings are covered by the LGC and the KatarungangPambarangay Implementing Rules and
Regulations. The Punong Barangay is called upon during the hearing to determine solely the fact of non-compliance of

23. the terms of the settlement and to give the defaulting party another chance at voluntarily complying with his obligation
under the settlement. Under the second remedy, the proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court, as amended. The
cause of action is the amicable settlement itself, which, by operation of law, has the force and effect of a final judgment.
Section 417 of the LGC grants a period of six months to enforce the amicable settlement by the Lupon through thePunong
Barangay before such party may resort to filing an action with the MTC to enforce the settlement. Theraisond’etre of the
law is to afford the parties during the six-month time line, a simple, speedy and less expensive enforcement of their
settlement before the Lupon.31
In the present case, respondent Josephine Pablo failed to comply with her obligation of repaying the back rentals
of P81,818.00 and the current rentals for the house. Hence, the petitioner had the right to enforce the Agreement against
her and move for her eviction from the premises. However, instead of filing a motion before the Lupon for the enforcement
of the agreement, or (after six months), an action in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) for the enforcement of the
settlement, the petitioner filed an action against respondent Josephine Pablo for unlawful detainer and the collection of
unpaid rentals, inclusive of those already due before the June 5, 1999 Agreement was executed. The action of the
petitioner against respondent Pablo was barred by the Agreement of June 5, 1999.
The Court notes that the petitioner even submitted with the MTC a copy of her June 5, 1999 Agreement with respondent
Josephine Pablo. Instead of dismissing the complaint as against such respondent, the MTC rendered judgment against
her and ordered her eviction from the leased premises.
The Court thus rules that the petitioner’s complaint against respondent Heirs of Carlos Palanca was premature. It bears
stressing that they were not impleaded by the petitioner as parties-respondents before the Lupon. The petitioner filed her
complaint solely against respondent Josephine Pablo. Moreover, the said respondent heirs were not privy to the said
agreement, and, as such, were not bound by it. Section 412 of the Local Government Code, sets forth the precondition to
filing of complaints in court, to wit:
SEC. 412 Conciliation.- (a) Pre-condition to filing of complaint in court. – No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding
involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government
office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before thelupon chairman or
the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the luponsecretary
or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon chairman or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been
repudiated by the parties thereto.
(b) Where parties may go directly to court. – The parties may go directly to court in the following instances:
(1) Where the accused is under detention;
(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;
(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal
property, and support pendente lite; and
(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.
(c) Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural communities. – The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural
communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural communities.
Under Sec. 408 of the same Code, parties actually residing in the same city or municipality are bound to submit their
disputes to the Lupon for conciliation/amicable settlement, unless otherwise provided therein:
SEC. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. – The lupon of each barangay shall have authority
to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes
except:
(a) Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five Thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree
to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where
such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by
an appropriate lupon;

24. (g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any
time before trial, motuproprio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.
If the complainant/plaintiff fails to comply with the requirements of the Local Government Code, such complaint filed with
the court may be dismissed for failure to exhaust all administrative remedies.32
The petitioner’s reliance on the ruling of this Court in Diu v. Court of Appeals33 is misplaced. In that case, there was a
confrontation by the parties before the Barangay Chairman and no agreement was reached. Although nopangkat was
formed, the Court held in that instance that there was substantial compliance with the law. In any event, the issue in that
case was whether the failure to specifically allege that there was no compliance with thebarangay conciliation procedure
constitutes a waiver of that defense. Moreover, no such confrontation before theLupon occurred with respect to the
unlawful detainer suit against Josephine Pablo before the MTC.34
In this case, the petitioner and the respondent Heirs of Carlos Palanca resided in the City of Manila, albeit in different
barangays. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent heirs was thus a matter within the authority of
the Lupon. Hence, the petitioner’s complaint for unlawful detainer and the collection of back rentals should have been first
filed before
the Lupon for mandatory conciliation, to afford the parties an opportunity to settle the case amicably. However, the
petitioner filed her complaint against the respondent Heirs of Carlos Palanca directly with the MTC. Clearly then, her
complaint was premature. The execution of the June 5, 1999 Agreement between petitioner and respondent Josephine
Pablo does not amount to substantial compliance to the requirements of the Local Government Code on
mandatory barangay conciliation proceedings.
Indeed, considering that the MTC had already rendered a decision on the merits of the case, it is not without reluctance
that the Court reaches this conclusion which would require the petitioner to start again from the beginning. The facts of the
present case, however, do not leave us any choice. To grant the petition under these circumstances would amount to
refusal to give effect to the Local Government Code and to wiping it off the statute books insofar as ejectment and other
cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure are concerned. This Court has no authority to do that. 35
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

25. Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 162084 June 28, 2005
APRIL MARTINEZ, FRITZ DANIEL MARTINEZ and MARIA OLIVIA MARTINEZ, petitioners,
vs.
RODOLFO G. MARTINEZ, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 59420 setting
aside and reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 30, in Civil Case No. 00-96962
affirming, on appeal, the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila in Civil Case No. 164761 (CV) for
ejectment.
The Antecedents
The spouses Daniel P. Martinez, Sr. and Natividad de Guzman-Martinez were the owners of a parcel of land identified as
Lot 18-B-2 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 54334, as well as the house constructed thereon.2 On March
6, 1993, Daniel, Sr. executed a Last Will and Testament3 directing the subdivision of the property into three lots, namely,
Lots 18-B-2-A, 18-B-2-B and 18-B-2-C. He then bequeathed the three lots to each of his sons, namely, Rodolfo, Manolo
and Daniel, Jr.; Manolo was designated as the administrator of the estate.
In May 1995, Daniel, Sr. suffered a stroke which resulted in the paralysis of the right side of his body. Natividad died on
October 26, 1996.4 Daniel, Sr. passed away on October 6, 1997.5
On September 16, 1998, Rodolfo found a deed of sale purportedly signed by his father on September 15, 1996, where t he
latter appears to have sold Lot 18-B-2 to Manolo and his wife Lucila.6 He also discovered that TCT No. 237936 was
issued to the vendees based on the said deed of sale.7
Rodolfo filed a complaint8 for annulment of deed of sale and cancellation of TCT No. 237936 against his brother Manolo
and his sister-in-law Lucila before the RTC. He also filed a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of a public
document in the Office of the City Prosecutor against Manolo, which was elevated to the Department of Justice.9
On motion of the defendants, the RTC issued an Order10 on March 29, 1999, dismissing the complaint for annulment of
deed of sale on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the action since there was no allegation in the
complaint that the last will of Daniel Martinez, Sr. had been admitted to probate. Rodolfo appealed the order to the CA.11
On October 4, 1999, Rodolfo filed a Petition with the RTC of Manila for the probate of the last will of the deceased Daniel
Martinez, Sr.12
In the meantime, the spouses Manolo and Lucila Martinez wrote Rodolfo, demanding that he vacate the property. Rodolfo
ignored the letter and refused to do so. This prompted the said spouses to file a complaint for unlawful detainer against
Rodolfo in the MTC of Manila. They alleged that they were the owners of the property covered by TCT No. 237936, and
that pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1508, the matter was referred to thebarangay for conciliation and
settlement, but none was reached. They appended the certification to file action executed by the barangay chairman to
the complaint.
In his Answer13 to the complaint filed on October 11, 1999, Rodolfo alleged, inter alia, that the complaint failed to state a
condition precedent, namely, that earnest efforts for an amicable settlement of the matter between the parties had been
exerted, but that none was reached. He also pointed out that the dispute had not been referred to the barangay before the
complaint was filed.

26. On October 20, 1999, the spouses Martinez filed an Amended Complaint in which they alleged that earnest efforts toward
a settlement had been made, but that the same proved futile. Rodolfo filed his opposition thereto, on the ground that there
was no motion for the admission of the amended complaint. The trial court failed to act on the matter.
The spouses Martinez alleged in their position paper that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made and/or
exerted by them, but that the same proved futile.14 No amicable settlement was, likewise, reached by the parties during
the preliminary conference because of irreconcilable differences. The MTC was, thus, impelled to terminate the
conference.15
On February 21, 2000, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the spouses Martinez. The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff. The defendant, including any person
claiming right under him, is ordered:
1) To vacate the subject premises;
2) To pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 a month starting July 17, 1999, the date of last demand until he vacates
the same;
3) To pay the sum of P10,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees; and
4) Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.16
The trial court declared that the spouses Martinez had substantially complied with Article 151 of the Family Code of the
Philippines17 based on the allegations of the complaint and the appended certification to file action issued by
the barangay captain.
Rodolfo appealed the decision to the RTC. On May 31, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment affirming the appealed
decision. He then filed a petition for review of the decision with the CA, alleging that:
1. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC WHICH FOUND WITHOUT MERIT THE DEFENSE
OF PETITIONER THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT THAT PETITIONER HAS UNLAWFULLY
WITHHELD POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY FROM RESPONDENTS – A REQUIREMENT IN [AN] UNLAWFUL
DETAINER SUIT.
2. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC WHICH FOUND THAT PETITIONER’S
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IS BY MERE TOLERANCE OF RESPONDENTS.
3. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC WHICH FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE
A CAUSE OF ACTION.
4. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC WHICH DID NOT RESOLVE THE SIXTH ISSUE, TO
WIT, "Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction over this case considering that the allegations in the complaint makes out
a case of accionpubliciana."
5. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC WHICH HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.
6. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC WHICH FOUND THAT THE MANDATORY
REQUIREMENT OF CONCILIATION HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
7. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC WHICH FOUND THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW.
8. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC WHICH FOUND THAT THE PENDENCY OF CIVIL
CASE NO. 98-91147 AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 99-95281, INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AND
RESPONDENTS AND INVOLVING THE SAME PROPERTY DID NOT DIVEST THE MTC OF AUTHORITY TO DECIDE
THE CASE.
9. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC WHICH GRANTED THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR BY
THE RESPONDENTS.
10. THE RTC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTC.18
On November 27, 2003, the CA rendered judgment granting the petition and reversing the decision of the RTC. The
appellate court ruled that the spouses Martinez had failed to comply with Article 151 of the Family code. The CA also held
that the defect in their complaint before the MTC was not cured by the filing of an amended complaint because the latter
pleading was not admitted by the trial court.

27. Upon the denial of their motion for reconsideration of the said decision, the spouses Martinez filed the present petition for
review on certiorari, in which they raise the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CERTIFICATION TO FILE ACTION AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT THAT
THE CASE PASSED [THROUGH] THE BARANGAY BUT NO SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED, ARE SUFFICIENT
COMPLIANCE TO PROVE THAT, INDEED, EARNEST EFFORTS WERE, IN FACT, MADE BUT THE SAME HAVE
FAILED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARTICLE 151 OF THE FAMILY CODE,
CONSIDERING THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES TO A SUIT IN THIS CASE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SAME
FAMILY.19
The petitioners alleged that they substantially complied with Article 151 of the Family Code, since they alleged the
following in their original complaint:
2. In compliance with P.D. 1508, otherwise known as the "KatarungangPambarangay," this case passed [through] the
Barangay and no settlement was forged between plaintiffs and defendant as a result of which Certification to File Action
was issued by Barangay 97, Zone 8, District I, Tondo, Manila. xxx" (Underscoring supplied)20
Further, the petitioners averred, they alleged in their position paper that they had exerted earnest efforts towards a
compromise which proved futile. They also point out that the MTC resolved to terminate the preliminary conference due to
irreconcilable difference between the parties. Besides, even before they filed their original complaint, animosity already
existed between them and the respondent due to the latter’s filing of civil and criminal cases against them; hence, the
objective of an amicable settlement could not have been attained. Moreover, under Article 150 of the Family Code,
petitioner Lucila Martinez had no familial relations with the respondent, being a mere sister-in-law. She was a stranger to
the respondent; hence, there was no need for the petitioners21 to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code.
The petition is meritorious.
Article 151 of the Family Code provides:
Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or
petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no
such efforts were, in fact, made, the case must be dismissed.
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code.
The phrase "members of the family" must be construed in relation to Article 150 of the Family Code, to wit:
Art. 150. Family relations include those:
(1) Between husband and wife;
(2) Between parents and children;
(3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and
(4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.
Article 151 of the Family code must be construed strictly, it being an exception to the general rule. Hence, a sister-in-law
or brother-in-law is not included in the enumeration.22
As pointed out by the Code Commission, it is difficult to imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle than a litigation
between members of the same family. It is necessary that every effort should be made toward a compromise before a
litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family and it is known that a lawsuit between close relatives
generates deeper bitterness than between strangers.23
Thus, a party’s failure to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code before filing a complaint against a family member
would render such complaint premature.
In this case, the decision of the CA that the petitioners were mandated to comply with Article 151 of the Family code and
that they failed to do so is erroneous.
First. Petitioner Lucila Martinez, the respondent’s sister-in-law, was one of the plaintiffs in the MTC. The petitioner is not a
member of the same family as that of her deceased husband and the respondent:

28. As regards plaintiff’s failure to seek a compromise, as an alleged obstacle to the present case, Art. 222 of our Civil Code
provides:
"No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts
toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035."
It is noteworthy that the impediment arising from this provision applies to suits "filed or maintained betweenmembers of
the same family." This phrase, "members of the same family," should, however, be construed in the light of Art. 217 of the
same Code, pursuant to which:
"Family relations shall include those:
(1) Between husband and wife;
(2) Between parent and child;
(3) Among other ascendants and their descendants;
(4) Among brothers and sisters."
Mrs. Gayon is plaintiff’s sister-in-law, whereas her children are his nephews and/or nieces. Inasmuch as none of them is
included in the enumeration contained in said Art. 217 – which should be construed strictly, it being an exception to the
general rule – and Silvestre Gayon must necessarily be excluded as party in the case at bar, it follows that the same does
not come within the purview of Art. 222, and plaintiff’s failure to seek a compromise before filing the complaint does not
bar the same.24
Second. The petitioners were able to comply with the requirements of Article 151 of the Family Code because they
alleged in their complaint that they had initiated a proceeding against the respondent for unlawful detainer in
theKatarungangPambarangay, in compliance with P.D. No. 1508; and that, after due proceedings, no amicable settlement
was arrived at, resulting in the barangay chairman’s issuance of a certificate to file action.25 The Court rules that such
allegation in the complaint, as well as the certification to file action by the barangay chairman, is sufficient compliance with
article 151 of the Family Code. It bears stressing that under Section 412(a) of Republic Act No. 7160, no complaint
involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon shall be instituted or filed directly in court for adjudication unless
there has been a confrontation between the parties and no settlement was reached.26
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
59420 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, as affirmed on appeal by
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 30, in Civil Case No. 164761(CV) is REINSTATED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.