Types of Party

(222) Cadre and Mass Parties There are a variety of

PADUA classifications that have been
The first party distinction is between cadre used to categorize political
parties and mass parties. The term cadre parties. The following
party originally referred to a party of categories are the most
notables, but now, the cadre party is significant:
commonly used in communist parties to
refer to trained and professional party
· Cadre and mass parties
members who must demonstrate a high Cadre party is commonly used in
level of political commitment and doctrinal communist parties to refer to
discipline. The feature of cadre parties is trained and professional party
their reliance on a politically active elite that members who must demonstrate
is capable of offering ideological leadership a high level of political
to the masses. On the other hand, a mass commitment and doctrinal
party emphasizes broadening membership discipline. On the other hand,
and constructing an expansive electoral mass parties place heavier
base. The characteristic of mass parties is emphasis on recruitment and
to place heavier emphasis on recruitment organization than on ideology
and organization than on ideology and and political conviction.
political conviction. Furthermore, mass
parties fall into the "catch-all parties" · Representative and
category of Otto Kirchhemer (1966), which integrative parties
drastically reduces their ideological
baggage to win as many votes as possible. Representative parties see their
primary function as securing votes
Representative and Integrative Parties in elections, and they thus attempt
to reflect, rather than shape,
The second party distinction is the so-called public opinion. In contrast,
representative and integrative parties, put integrative parties adopt proactive
forth by Sigmund Neumann (1956). rather than reactive political
Representative parties see their primary strategies in which they wish to
function as securing votes in elections, and mobilize, educate and inspire the
they thus attempt to reflect, rather than masses.
shape, public opinion. These parties employ
a catch-all strategy and place pragmatism · Constitutional and
before principle and market research before revolutionary parties
popular mobilization. In contrast, integrative
parties adopt proactive rather than reactive Constitutional parties
political strategy, in which they wish to acknowledge other parties' rights
mobilize, educate and inspire the masses and entitlements and operate
rather than merely respond to their within the set rules and
concerns. The mass parties and integrative regulations. Contrarily,
parties both demonstrate mobilizing revolutionary parties are anti
tendencies. For example, if they are system or anti constitutional
discouraged by electoral failure, these parties that aim to seize power
parties, especially socialist parties, set out to and overthrow the existing
win over the electorate to a belief in the constitutional structure.
advantages and benefits of full employment,
especially social welfare, and so forth.
· Left-wing and right-wing
Constitutional And Revolutionary Parties parties

The left-wing parties are the

The third type of classification distinguishes
progressive, socialist, and
between constitutional parties and
communist parties, characterized
revolutionary parties. Constitutional parties
by a dedication to change,
acknowledge other parties' rights and
whether through extensive
entitlements and operate within the set rules
economic or social reform.
and regulations. These parties believe there
Meanwhile, right-wing parties are
is a division between the party and the
the conservative and fascist
state, between the party in power and state
parties.
institutions, and thus, respect the rules of
electoral competition. Contrarily,
revolutionary parties are anti system or anti
constitutional parties. These parties aim to
seize power and overthrow the existing
constitutional structure using tactics that
range from outright insurrection and popular
revolution to the quasi-legalism that Nazis
practiced. Furthermore, revolutionary parties
are occasionally outright outlawed because
they are considered extremist or
anti-democratic.

Left-Wing And Right-Wing Parties

The final way of distinguishing between

parties is based on ideological orientation,
specifically between those parties labeled
left-wing and right-wing. The left-wing
parties are the progressive, socialist, and
communist parties, characterized by a
dedication to change, whether through
extensive economic or social reform. In
addition, they have drawn their support from
the ranks of the underprivileged and needy.
 On the other hand, right-wing parties are the
conservative and fascist parties that uphold
the current social order and are, in that
sense, a force for continuity.

Functions of
Parties (227) Political parties are characterized by a Political parties are characterized
MERIN central function, but their political influence by a central function, but their
system are far wide and complicated. political influence system are far
Parties working in an electoral context are wide and complicated.
frequently represented as Democracy's
outwork; in fact, the presence of such The following are the key
parties is sometimes regarded as a litmus functions:
test of a good democratic system. While
regime parties that have political power are 1. Representation
depicted as instruments of manipulation
It is the ability of
and political control.
parties to respond and
The following are the key functions: express the views of
both the members and
1. Representation the voters.

- It is the ability of parties to 2. Elite formation and

respond and express the views recruitment
of both the members and the
voters. Political parties, in the Parties serve as a training ground
jargon of systems theory, are for politicians although one that is
significant “input” devices that dependent on the fortunes of the
guarantee the government pays party.
attention to the demands and
3. Goal formulation
wants of the greater community.
Parties are a key source of policy
2. Elite formation and recruitment
initiative, but it also supports
- Political parties of all types them to provide logical sets of
are accountable for giving policy choices that provide voters
political leaders to states. Except with a choice amid reasonable
for parties that are effectively the and achievable objectives.
product of powerful people and
4. Interest articulation and
are used as political vehicles to
aggregation
rally support for them. Typically,
politicians are elected because of
Parties contribute to the
their qualifications. Parties serve
development of common goals by
as a training ground for
articulating and defining them.
politicians although one that is
dependent on the fortunes of the
 party. Meanwhile, political 5. Socialization and
parties’ grasp on government mobilization
departments can be damaging
and chastised for ensuring that The problems that political parties
political leaders are picked from emphasize contribute to shaping
a limited pool of talent. the political agenda and the
beliefs and attitudes they
3. Goal formulation represent become part of the
greater political landscape of
- Political parties have always Iconic culture.
been one of the mechanisms by
which societies define common 6. Organization of
goals and, in certain situations, Government
guarantee that they are met.
Parties perform this function It provides stability and
because, in the process of coherence to governments,
gaining power, they establish especially if the government’s
policies. This not only implies members are recruited from
that parties are a key source of diverse backgrounds.
policy initiative, but it also
supports them to provide logical
sets of policy choices that
provide voters with a choice
amid reasonable and achievable
objectives.

4. Interest articulation and

aggregation

- Parties contribute to the

development of common goals
by articulating and defining them.
The many interests present in
society are aggregated. Parties,
in fact, frequently emerge
because of vehicles for
commercial, labor, religious,
ethnic, and other groups. They
are advancing or defending their
various interests.

5. Socialization and mobilization

- Internal debate and

discussion, as well as
campaigning and electoral
 participation, parties are
significant agents of political
education and socialization. The
problems that political parties
emphasize contribute to shaping
the political agenda and the
beliefs and attitudes they
represent become part of the
greater political landscape of
Iconic culture.

6. Organization of Government

- Parties aid in the

establishment of governments, to
the extent that it is conceivable
to speak of ‘parliamentary
government’ in parliamentary
systems. It provides stability and
coherence to governments,
especially if the government’s
members are recruited from
diverse backgrounds.

Party Party organization refers to the

Organization: Party organization refers to the officials, officials, activists, and members
Where does activists, and members who set up the who set up the administration,
power lie? administration, make the rules, and carry make the rules, and carry out the
(231) out the collective goals and activities of the collective goals and activities of
BALUDA party. Party organizations at the state and the party.
local level are influenced by the political
environment in which they are situated. Where does the power lie? In the
Moreover, this establishes connections law of Robert Michels which is
between leaders and followers so that they the IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY.
can build and maintain a base of supportive
voters they can count on during elections. *Oligarchy- refers to a
government or domination of the
WHERE DOES THE POWER LIE? few.

- In the view of Robert Michels, a

A.Elite groups result from the
prominent elite theorist expressed
need for specialization
political parties in the form of iron
B. Leaders form cohesive groups
law of oligarchy. Oligarchy is
C. Rank-and-file members of an
government or domination by the
organization
few. The iron law of oligarchy,
 formulated by Robert Michels, Machine politics - A style of
suggests that there is an inevitable politics in which party ‘bosses’
tendency for political organizations, control a mass organization
and by implication all organizations, through patronage and the
to be oligarchic. These are the distribution of favours.
following that entails the following
arguments which support his law: Caucus/Caucuses- A meeting of
- Elite groups result from the need for party members held to nominate
specialization. Elite members have election candidates, or to discuss
greater expertise and better legislative proposals in advance
organizational skills than those of formal proceedings.
possessed by ordinary members.
- Leaders form cohesive groups Democratic centralism- The
because they recognize that this Leninist principle of party
improves their chances of remaining organization, based on a
in power. supposed balance between
- Rank-and-file members of an freedom of discussion and strict
organization tend to be apathetic unity of action.
and are, therefore, generally
disposed to accept subordination
and venerate leaders.

Meanwhile, attempts have been made to

strengthen the democratic and participatory
features of parties through REFORMS.

1. Machine politics - A style of politics

in which party ‘bosses’ control a
mass organization through
patronage and the distribution of
favours.

-This occurred in the USA in the

1970s and 1980s since US parties
differ in many respects from their
European counterparts. Hence,
Machine politics was applied due to
loose coalitions of sometimes
conflicting interests held together by
little more than the need to contest
presidential elections, they are highly
decentralized and generally
non-programmic.
 2. Caucus/Caucuses- A meeting of
party members held to nominate
election candidates, or to discuss
legislative proposals in advance of
formal proceedings. This was used
first with the Democrats and later
with the Republicans due to growing
number of issues and candidate
activists into party politics, leading to
the nomination of more ideological
candidates such as George
McGovern for the Democrats in 1972
and Ronald Reagan for the
Republicans in 1980. However, the
Democrats feared that more open
and participatory structures could
simply result in the nomination of
unelectable ‘outsider’ candidates.
Thus, the main US parties
responded to this by modernizing
and strengthening their committee
structures,especially at national,
congressional and senatorial levels.
This has been portrayed as a
process of ‘party renewal’, it is
evidence of the parties’ desire to
provide better electoral support for
individual candidates rather than of
the emergence of European-style,
party-focused elections.

3. Democratic centralism- The Leninist

principle of party organization,
based on a supposed balance
between freedom of discussion and
strict unity of action.

PARTY In simple terms "party system" refers to the Party system: A relatively stable
SYSTEMS establishment, structure, and organization network of relationships between
ADAROG of political parties. It is concerned with the parties that is structured by their
political party system of governing in a number, size and ideological
democratic state. It is the legal framework orientation.
under which political parties in a given
democratic state can operate.

A party system is an idea in political

science that refers to a democratic
country's system of governing by political
parties. The concept is that political parties
share fundamental characteristics: they
dominate the government, have a solid base
of mass popular support, and establish
internal processes for regulating finance,
information, and elections.

One-Party A one-party system is a political system in

Systems (234) which a single political party has exclusive
MACASO control over the government and the right to
rule the country. In such a system, the ruling
party has a monopoly on political power
and control over government institutions.

One-party systems are typically associated

with authoritarian regimes, where the ruling
party maintains control over the government
through various means, such as
suppressing opposition parties, limiting
freedom of speech and press, and using
force to maintain power.

One-party systems have been implemented

in various countries throughout history,
including China, Cuba, North Korea, and
Vietnam. However, one-party systems are
generally considered undemocratic and
contrary to principles of political pluralism
and freedom of choice, as they limit the
ability of citizens to participate in the
political process and express diverse
opinions.

The first type has been found in state

 socialist regimes where ‘ruling’ communist
parties have directed and controlled virtually
all the institutions and aspects of society.
Such parties are subject to strict ideological
discipline, traditionally linked tenets of
Marxism–Leninism, and have
highly-structured internal organizations in
line with the principles of democratic
centralism. These are cadre parties in the
sense that membership is restricted on
political and ideological grounds.

The second type of one-party system is

associated with anticolonial nationalism and
state consolidation in the developing world.
In Ghana, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, for
example, the ‘ruling’ party developed out of
an independence movement that
proclaimed the overriding need for
nation-building and economic development.

Two-party
systems (235) A two-party system in government refers to Two-party system
ELIZARDE a political system where two major political
parties dominate the political landscape of a - duopolistic in that it is
country. This system is prevalent in various dominated by two 'major'
countries, such as the United States, the parties that have a roughly
United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, equal prospect of winning
among others. government power.

A two-party system is duopolistic in that it is Duopolistic

dominated by two 'major' parties that have
a roughly equal prospect of winning - preponderant influence or
government power. The UK and the USA control by two political
are the most frequently cited examples of powers.
states with two-party systems, though
A two-party system can be
others have included Canada, Australia and,
identified by three criteria:
until the introduction of electoral reform in
1993, New Zealand. The US presidential
1. Although a number of
system allows one party to capture the
‘minor’ parties may exist,
White House and the other to control one or
only two parties enjoy
both houses of Congress, making it difficult
sufficient electoral and
to identify a clear government–opposition.
legislative strength to have
Two-party systems have been praised for
a realistic prospect of
providing stability, choice and
accountability, but have not been so winning government
well-regarded since the 1970s due to their power.
tendency towards adversary politics. 2. The larger party is able to
Two-party systems are characterized by rule alone (usually on the
ideological polarization and an emphasis on basis of a legislative
conflict and argument, rather than majority); the other
consensus and compromise. provides the opposition.
3. Power alternates between
Thus, a two-party system helps to balance these parties; both are
out the power in government. The two-party ‘electable’, the opposition
system can prevent one party from gaining serving as a ‘government
too much power and using it for personal in the wings’.
interests. The competition between the two
parties results in a political balance where
each party is forced to keep the other in
check on the policies that they put forward.
This is due to the class nature of party
support and the influence of ideologically Disadvantages: KALMA
committed grass-roots activists. HAHAHAHAHAHA
Additionally, two evenly-matched parties are
ST. VIAAAA KALMAHAN MO
encouraged to compete for votes, leading to
PLS
irresponsible party government. Finally,
two-party systems impose restrictions on
1. Ideological polarization
electoral and ideological choice, making
and an emphasis on
them inadequate in a period of greater
conflict and argument,
individualism and social diversity.
rather than consensus and
compromise.
Furthermore, the two-party system can be a
2. Two evenly matched
significant factor in promoting
parties are encouraged to
accountability. When the ruling party makes
compete for votes by
policy decisions, the opposition is always
outdoing each other’s
there to scrutinize their actions, policies,
electoral promises.
and decisions. This pressure often forces
3. There is obvious
the party in power to be more transparent
restrictions they impose
and accountable to the electorate.
in terms of electoral and
In conclusion, the two-party system in ideological choice.
government, though not perfect, has both
advantages and disadvantages. The
competition and balance of power
promoted by the two-party system can lead
to a stable and accountable government
structure. However, the lack of political
diversity and the possibility of a lack of
genuine choices for the electorate can be
very detrimental to a democracy. Therefore,
 it is essential to keep these advantages and
disadvantages in mind and work to create a
political system that best represents all
sections of society.

Dominant-part A dominant party system is often referred to

y systems as a political system where a single political
(237) party holds a vast majority of seats in the
GALICIA
pament or the national legislature, making it
virtually impossible for opposition parties to
exert any significant political influence. This
system is often characterized by a lack of
political freedom and a weak civil society,
as political power is monopolized by the
ruling party, which dominates all aspects of
public life.

The concept of a dominant party system is

not new, and several countries have
experienced it in the past or are currently
experiencing it. It is often seen in countries
that have undergone significant political,
social, or economic upheavals, where the
party in power has strong patronage
networks and uses its fiscal powers to
maintain its grip on power.

Dominant-party systems are competitive in

the sense that a number of parties compete
for power, but are dominated by a single
major party that enjoys prolonged periods in
power. Japan is the classic example of a
dominant-party system, with the Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP) in power for 54
years. However, economic stagnation and
internal divisions have caused the LDP to
lose members and supporters, leading to its
decline. In 2009, the Democratic Party of
Japan became the first opposition party
 since 1945 to win a parliamentary majority.
A dominant-party system is characterized
by the tendency for the political focus to
shift from competition between parties to
factional conflict within the dominant party
itself.

In conclusion, a dominant party system is

detrimental to the democratic process, as it
stifles opposition, centralizes power, fosters
corruption and inefficiency, and slows down
social and economic progress. It is essential
for countries that are experiencing this
system to work towards establishing a
meaningful and effective opposition,
institutionalizing checks and balances, and
ensuring the participation of civil society in
the political process.

Multiparty A multiparty systems—from the word MULTIPARTY SYSTEMS

Systems (239) ‘multiple’—is defined by competition among - Competition among morre
DIMAANO more than two parties. The idea of this kind than two parties.
of system is to increase the chance of - Increase coalition
forming a coalition while it reduces the formation
possibility of having a single-party - Reduces single-party
government. Coalitions are naturally government possibility
characterized by negotiation and
conciliation, searching for common ground. NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS
Given that the Philippines is also a OF COALITIONS
Multiparty system, we have seen different 1. Negotiations
coalitions formed in recent years. The most 2. Conciliation
recently formed coalitions are Hugpong ng 3. Searching for common
Pagbabago and Otso Diretso for the 2019 ground
Senatorial Election coalition and the
UniTeam and Team Robredo-Pangilinan 2019, 2022 MAJOR
(TRoPa) for the recently concluded COALITIONS
Presidential Elections. The main
Administration Opposition
administration coalitions—Hugpong ng
Pagbabago and the UniTeam—have Hudp 9/13 Otso 0/8
secured 15 out of 24 senators in the span of ong Angar Direts Alejan
2 Senatorial Elections, while the main ng a o o
opposition coalitions—Otso Diretso and Pagba Revill Aquin
TRoPa—have only secured 3 out of 19
senators.
bago a o
According to Giovanni Sartori (1976),
Cayet Diokn
multiparty systems are categorized into
ano o
‘moderate’ and ‘polarized’ pluralist systems.
dela Gutoc
Moderate, where there are slight ideological
Rosa Hilbay
differences between major parties and
Ejercit Macal
generally lean to form coalitions while
o intal
moving towards the middle ground—this
Estrad Roxas
exists in countries such as Belgium, the
a Tañad
Netherlands, and Norway. Polarized
Go a
pluralism is observed when significant
Mang
ideological differences separate major
udada
parties. Some adopt an anti-system stance
tu
or fascist movements—countries that
Manic
exhibited Polarized pluralism include France,
ad
Italy, and Spain.
Marc
According to Andrew Heywood
os
(2013), having multiparty systems expect
Pime
the result to create internal checks and
ntel
balances within the government and may
Tolen
have a bias in favor of debate, conciliation,
tino
and compromise. However, the main
Villar
criticisms of having multiparty systems
involve the drawback and difficulties in UniTe 6/11 TRoP 3/11
forming a coalition. Heywood exemplifies am Bautis a Baguil
the criticisms in post-election negotiations ta at
and horsetrading—political bargaining. Estra Binay
Moreover, coalition governments may be da de
fractured and unstable as they pay more Gado Lima
attention to political rivalries than n Diokn
governance. Finally, multiparty systems Gatch o
cannot propose apparent ideological alian Escu
alternatives because the political center Hona dero
dominates them. san Gordo
Legar n
da Honti
Padill veros
a Lacso
Roqu n
e Matul
Teodo a
ro Trillan
Villar es
Zubiri Villan
ueva
 CATEGORIES OF MULTIPARTY
SYSTEMS
MODERATE PLURALISM
- Slight ideological
differences
- Inclined to form coalitions
POLARIZED PLURALISM
- Significant ideological
differences
- Tend to adopt anti-system
stance or fascist
movements

EXPECTATIONS
- Create internal checks and
balances
- Bias in favor of debate,
conciliation, and
compromise
- Difficulties in forming a
coalition
- Post-Election Negotiations
- Horsetrading
- Coalitions may be
fractured and unstable
- Cannot propose apparent
ideological alternatives

Highlight 3 In the recently concluded 2022 Philippine POLITICAL PARTIES FROM THE
Political parties National Elections, the electorate observed RECENT NATIONAL
from the recent the influence of the main political parties, ELECTIONS
national such as the PDP-Laban, the Liberal Party,
elections and Aksyon Demokratiko. PDP-LABAN
(LP, Founders: Aquilino ‘Nene’ Q.
PDP-Laban, PDP-Laban Pimentel, Jr. & Benigno ‘Ninoy’ S.
etc) PDP-Laban or the Partido Demokratiko Aquino, Jr.
DIMAANO Pilipino–Lakas ng Bayan is a merger of
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and Benigno S. Recent Electoral Performance
Aquino, Jr.’s political parties in 1983. Presidential Elections
PDP-Laban regained its popularity with the
Year Candidate Outcom
victory of then-Mayor Rodrigo Duterte in the
e
2016 Presidential Elections. In the recent
2022 National Elections, the party had 2010 None -
disputes over its presidential bet, dividing
the party into the Pacquiao-led and the
Duterte-Cusi-led wings. Pacquiao-wing
2016 Rodrigo Won
endorsed Emmanuel ‘Manny’ Pacquiao and
Duterte
Lito Atienza. In contrast, the
Duterte-Cusi-wing initially endorsed Sara 2022 None; Won
Duterte for the vice presidential race and endored
later endorsed her running mate Ferdinand Bongbong
‘Bongbong’ Marcos, despite unclear Marcos
support from then-President Duterte and
criticism from the original members of the Manny Lost
party as it was established primarily to Pacquiao
oppose the dictatorship of his (Bongbong’s)
Vice-Presidential Elections
father. Pacquiao then took an oath as a
member of PROMDI and was adopted as Year Candidate Outcom
presidential bet with Atienza still as his e
running mate. Both Marcos and Duterte won
their respective races. 2010 Jejomar Won
Binay
Liberal Party
2016 None -
Liberal Party is one of the early-established
political parties in the Philippines, founded 2022 None; Won
by former Presidents Manuel Roxas and endorsed
Elpidio Quirino after its split with the Sara
Nacionalista Party. In the recent Presidential Duterte
Elections, the Liberal Party endorsed Leni
Robredo and Francis ‘Kiko’ Pangilinan as Senate Elections
their presidential and vice-presidential bets. Year Seats
Robredo, however, ran under an
Independent party while being a Liberal 2010 0/24
Party member. Liberal Party declined in
terms of its popularity after the success of 2013 1/24
former President Duterte in the 2016
National Elections. Both Robredo and 2016 2/24
Pangilinan finished 2nd in the recently
2019 5/24
concluded National Elections.
2022 5/24
Aksyon Demokratiko
Aksyon Demokratiko, popularly called House of Representatives
Aksyon, is a major political party founded by Election
then-Senator and presidential aspirant Raul Year Seats
Roco in 1997. Historically, Aksyon had only
Raul Roco as their Presidential Candidate in 2010 2/286
the 1998 and 2004 Presidential Elections
and is usually affiliated with 2013 0/292
coalitions—People Power Coalition in 2001,
2016 3/297
Genuine Opposition in 2007, and Otso
Diretso in 2019—until the party adopted
2019 82/304
then-Mayor Isko Moreno Domagoso after he
resigned from the National Unity Party for 2022 66/316
his presidential bid and Willie Ong as their
vice-presidential bet. Both Domagoso and
Ong finished 4th in the recently concluded LIBERAL PARTY
National Elections. Founders: Manuel Roxas &
Elpidio Quirino

Recent Electoral Performance

Presidential Elections
Year Candidate Outcom
e

2010 Benigno S. Won

Aquino III

2016 Mar Roxas Lost

2022 Leni Robredo Lost

Vice-Presidential Elections
Year Candidate Outcom
e

2010 Mar Roxas Lost

2016 Leni Won

Robredo

2022 Francis Lost

Pangilinan
Senate Elections
Year Seats

2010 4/24

2013 4/24

2016 6/24

2019 3/24

2022 0/24
House of Representatives
Election
 Year Seats

2010 47/286

2013 109/292

2016 115/297

2019 18/304

2022 10/316

AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO
Founder: Raul Roco

Recent Electoral Performance

Presidential Elections
Year Candidate Outcom
e

2010 None -

2016 None -

2022 Isko Moreno Lost

Vice-Presidential Elections
Year Candidate Outcom
e

2010 None -

2016 None -

2022 Willie Ong Lost

Senate Elections
Year Seats

2010 0/24

2013 0/24

2016 0/24

2019 0/24
 2022 0/24
House of Representatives
Election
Year Seats

2010 0/286

2013 0/292

2016 1/297

2019 1/304

2022 3/304

Highlight their Proposed Policies and Beliefs:

proposed
policies and PDP-LABAN
beliefs -
ELIZARDE 1. Federalism - The
PDP-Laban supports the
shift from a unitary to a
federal form of
government to promote
decentralization and
regional development.
2. Anti-drug campaign -
The party is known for its
strong stance against
illegal drugs and
advocates for a
comprehensive anti-drug
campaign. Oplan
Tokhang
3. Stronger Defense
Capabilities - PDP-Laban
aims to modernize and
strengthen the defense
capabilities of the country
by acquiring new and
advanced military
hardware, enhancing
training and education of
the military personnel, and
 expanding the military's
reach across the country.
4. Counter-Terrorism -
PDP-Laban aims to
intensify the country's
counter-terrorism efforts,
improve intelligence
gathering, and enhance
law enforcement to
combat terrorism and
violent extremism.
5. Infrastructure
Development -
PDP-Laban aims to
prioritize the development
of infrastructure such as
roads, bridges, airports,
and seaports to improve
connectivity, boost
economic activity, and
create more jobs. Build,
Build, Build

LIBERAL PARTY

1. Good Governance - LP
aims to promote good
governance and
transparency in public
service by strengthening
institutions and
empowering citizens to
participate in government
processes. Freedom of
Information Act;
Anti-Corruption; Good
Governance and Ethical
Standards Act;
Public-Private
Partnerships; and
Participatory
Governance
2. Healthcare - LP aims to
promote universal access
to affordable and quality
healthcare for all Filipinos.
 The party believes that
access to healthcare is a
basic human right and a
key component of social
justice. Universal Health
Care; Health
Infrastructure
Development; Mental
Health
3. Human Rights - LP is
committed to promoting
and protecting human
rights in the country. The
party believes that human
rights are fundamental to
democracy, peace, and
development. Human
Rights Protection;
Anti-Torture Law;
Anti-Discrimination;
Indigenous Peoples’
Rights; and Protection of
Journalists and Human
Rights Defenders
4. Economic Development
- The party aims to
promote inclusive
economic growth by
investing in infrastructure,
agriculture, and human
capital development. LP
believes that economic
development should
benefit all Filipinos, not
just a few. Job Creation;
Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs)
Development;
Infrastructure
Development;
Agriculture
Development; and
Foreign Investment
Promotion
AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO

1. Transparency and
Accountability - The party
believes in promoting
transparency and
accountability in
government. They have
proposed measures to
increase transparency in
government transactions
and reduce corruption,
such as the passage of
the Freedom of
Information Act and the
strengthening of
anti-corruption agencies.
2. Participatory
Governance - The party
believes in promoting
participatory governance.
They have proposed
measures to increase
citizen participation in
government
decision-making
processes and to
strengthen people's
participation in
governance.
3. Anti-Corruption
Measures - The party has
proposed measures to
strengthen anti-corruption
agencies and increase
their independence. They
also support the
implementation of
effective anti-corruption
measures and the
imposition of stiff penalties
on corrupt officials.
4. Public Service
Excellence - The party
believes in promoting
public service excellence.
 They have proposed
measures to improve the
quality of public service
delivery and to promote
meritocracy in the public
sector.
5. Education - The party
believes in the importance
of education and has
proposed measures to
improve the country's
education system, such as
increasing funding for
education, providing
better training for
teachers, and improving
the quality of education in
public schools.

Veteran’s Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri200

Federation [G.R. No. 136781. October 6, 2000] 0/oct2000/gr_136781_2000.html
Party v. Facts: Veterans Federation Party v.
Comelec COMELEC proclaimed 14 party-list
COMELEC [G.R. No. 136781.
Topic: representatives from 13 parties which October 6, 2000]
PARTY-LIST obtained at least 2% of the total number of Facts:
METHOD OF votes cast for the party-list system as COMELEC proclaimed 14
REPRESENTAT members of the House of Representatives. party-list representatives from 13
ION Upon petition for respondents, who were parties which obtained at least
ISIDRO party-list organizations, it proclaimed 38 2% of the total number of votes
additional party-list representatives althoughcast for the party-list system as
they obtained less than 2% of the total members of the House of
number of votes cast for the party-list Representatives. Upon petition for
system on the ground that under the respondents, who were party-list
Constitution, it is mandatory that at least organizations, it proclaimed 38
20% of the members of the House of additional party-list
Representatives come from the party-list representatives although they
representatives. obtained less than 2% of the total
number of votes cast for the
Issue 1: Whether or not the Twenty Percent party-list system on the ground
Constitutional Allocation Is Mandatory. that under the Constitution, it is
Ruling: No. It is not mandatory. According mandatory that at least 20% of
to Section 5 (2), Article VI of the 1987 the members of the House of
Philippine Constitution, it merely provides a Representatives come from the
ceiling for party-list seats in Congress. party-list representatives.
 The Constitution vested Congress Issue 1: Whether or not the
with the broad power to define and Twenty Percent Constitutional
prescribe the mechanics of the party-list Allocation Is Mandatory.
system of representation. The Constitution Ruling: No. It is not mandatory.
explicitly sets down only the percentage of According to Section 5 (2), Article
the total membership in the House of VI of the 1987 Philippine
Representatives reserved for party-list Constitution, it merely provides a
representatives. In the exercise of its ceiling for party-list seats in
constitutional prerogative, Congress Congress.
deemed it necessary to require parties
participating in the system to obtain at least Issue 2: Whether or not the two
2% of the total votes cast for the party-list percent threshold requirement
system to be entitled to a party-list seat. and the three-seat limit provided
Congress wanted to ensure that only those in Section 11 (B) of RA 7941 are
parties having a sufficient number of constitutional?
constituents deserving of representation are Ruling: Yes. The two percent
actually represented in Congress. threshold requirement and the
three-seat limit provided in
Issue 2: Whether or not the two percent Section 11 (B) of RA 7941 are
threshold requirement and the three-seat constitutional. In imposing a two
limit provided in Section 11 (B) of RA 7941 percent threshold, Congress
are constitutional? wanted to ensure that only those
Ruling: Yes. The two percent threshold parties, organizations, and
requirement and the three-seat limit coalitions having a sufficient
provided in Section 11 (B) of RA 7941 are number of constituents deserving
constitutional. In imposing a two percent of representation are actually
threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that represented in Congress.
only those parties, organizations, and
coalitions having a sufficient number of Issue 3: Methods of Allocating
constituents deserving of representation are Additional Seats to Qualified Party
actually represented in Congress. Ruling: (1) All parties with at least
The two percent threshold is two percent of the total votes are
consistent not only with the intent of the guaranteed one seat each. From
framers of the Constitution and the law, but that, only these parties shall be
with the very essence of "representation." considered in the computation of
Under a republican or representative state, additional seats. (2) Determine
all government authority emanates from the the number of seats the first party
people, but is exercised by representatives is entitled to. (3) Solve for the
chosen by them. But to have meaningful number of additional seats that
representation, the elected persons must the other qualified parties are
have the mandate of a sufficient number of entitled to, based on proportional
people. Otherwise, in a legislature that representation.
features the party-list system, the result
might be the proliferation of small groups
which are incapable of contributing
significant legislation, and which might even
pose a threat to the stability of Congress.
Thus, even legislative districts are
apportioned according to "the number of
their respective inhabitants, and on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" to
ensure meaningful local representation.
Congress set the seat limit to three
(3) for each qualified party, organization, or
coalition. "Qualified" means having hurdled
the two percent vote threshold. Such a
three-seat limit ensures the entry of various
interest representations into the legislature;
thus, no single group, no matter how large
its membership, would dominate the
party-list seats, if not the entire House.

Issue 3: Methods of Allocating Additional

Seats to Qualified Party
Ruling:
Step 1. There is no dispute among the
petitioners, the public, and the private
respondents, as well as the members of this
Court that the initial step is to rank all the
participating parties, organizations, and
coalitions from the highest to the lowest
based on the number of votes they each
received. Then the ratio for each party is
computed by dividing its votes by the total
votes cast for all the parties participating in
the system. All parties with at least two
percent of the total votes are guaranteed
one seat each. Only these parties shall be
considered in the computation of additional
seats. The party receiving the highest
number of votes shall thenceforth be
referred to as the “first” party.
Step 2. The next step is to determine the
number of seats the first party is entitled to,
in order to be able to compute that for the
other parties. Since the distribution is based
on proportional representation, the number
of seats to be allotted to the other parties
cannot possibly exceed that to which the
 first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining
the most number of votes.
Step 3. The next step is to solve for the
number of additional seats that the other
qualified parties are entitled to, based on
proportional representation.

Bengson Jr. v https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/nov1991

Senate Blue /gr_89914_1991.html The Right to form an alliance and
Ribbon organization, privacy, speech and
Committee religion are based under Article III
LABAJO The Right to form an alliance and Bill of Rights of the 1987
organization, privacy, speech and religion Constitution, that acts as a cloak
are based under Article III Bill of Rights of of protection from government
the 1987 Constitution, that acts as a cloak of abuses. It is important for it is only
protection from government abuses. It is the protection against the inherent
important for it is only the protection against powers of the government. When
the inherent powers of the government. individual rights are intruded, the
When individual rights are intruded, the same rights can be invoked by
same rights can be invoked by Political Political Parties; for they are
Parties; for they are human like us. human like us.

(E. Qureshi, Personal Communication [Class (E. Qureshi, Personal

Discussion], March 13, 2023) Communication [Class
Discussion], March 13, 2023)

[G.R. No. 89914. November 20, 1991.]

G.R. No. 89914. November 20,
JOSE F.S. BENGZON JR. v. THE SENATE 1991.]
BLUE RIBBON
JOSE F.S. BENGZON JR. v. THE
Topic: RULES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT’S POWER TO
CONDUCT INQUIRIES IN AID OF Topic: RULES AND LIMITATIONS
LEGISLATION. OF THE LEGISLATIVE
DEPARTMENT’S POWER TO
FACTS: CONDUCT INQUIRIES IN AID OF
LEGISLATION.
· A petition for prohibition with prayer
for the issuance of a temporary restraining A petition for prohibition with
order and/or injuective relief, to enjoin the prayer for the issuance of a
respondent Senate Blue Ribbon committee temporary restraining order
from requiring the petitioners to testify and and/or injuective relief, to enjoin
produce evidence at its inquiry into the the respondent Senate Blue
alleged sale of the equity of Benjamin Ribbon committee from requiring
"Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group in the petitioners to testify and
thirty-six (36) or thirty-nine (39) corporations.
produce evidence at its inquiry
into the alleged sale of the equity
· On 30 July 1987, the Republic of the of Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez
Philippines, represented by the Presidential to the Lopa Group in thirty-six (36)
Commission on Good Government (PCGG), or thirty-nine (39) corporations.
filed the Sandiganbayan Civil Case No.
0035 (PCGG Case No. 35) in allegations On 13 September 1988, the
with the Marcoses and their crony Senate Minority Floor Leader,
corporations unjustly enriching themselves. Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile delivered
Meanwhile, from 2 to 6 August 1988, a speech "on a matter of personal
conflicting reports on the disposition by the privilege" before the Senate on
PCGG of the "Romualdez corporations" the alleged "take-over personal
were carried in various metropolitan privilege" before the Senate on
newspapers. the alleged "take-over of SOLOIL
Incorporated, the flaship of the
· On 13 September 1988, the Senate First Manila Management of
Minority Floor Leader, Hon. Juan Ponce Companies (FMMC) by Ricardo
Enrile delivered a speech "on a matter of Lopa" and called upon "the
personal privilege" before the Senate on the Senate to look into the possible
alleged "take-over personal privilege" violation of the law in the case,
before the Senate on the alleged "take-over particularly with regard to
of SOLOIL Incorporated, the flaship of the Republic Act No. 3019, the
First Manila Management of Companies Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
(FMMC) by Ricardo Lopa" and called upon Act." On motion of Senator
"the Senate to look into the possible Orlando Mercado, the matter was
violation of the law in the case, particularly referred by the Senate to the
with regard to Republic Act No. 3019, the Committee on Accountability of
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." On Public Officers (Blue Ribbon
motion of Senator Orlando Mercado, the Committee).
matter was referred by the Senate to the
Committee on Accountability of Public · Claiming that the Senate
Officers (Blue Ribbon Committee). Blue Ribbon Committee is poised
to subpoena them and required
· Claiming that the Senate Blue Ribbon their attendance and testimony in
Committee is poised to subpoena them and proceedings before the
required their attendance and testimony in Committee, in excess of its
proceedings before the Committee, in jurisdiction and legislative
excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose, in clear and blatant
purpose, in clear and blatant disregard of disregard of their constitutional
their constitutional rights, and to their grave rights, and to their grave and
and irreparable damage, prejudice and irreparable damage, prejudice and
injury, and that there is no appeal nor any injury, and that there is no appeal
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in nor any other plain, speedy and
the ordinary course of law, the petitioners adequate remedy in the ordinary
filed the present petition for prohibition with course of law, the petitioners filed
a prayer for temporary restraining order the present petition for prohibition
and/or injunctive relief. Meanwhile, one of with a prayer for temporary
the defendants in Civil Case No. 0035 restraining order and/or injunctive
before the Sandiganbayan, Jose S. relief. Meanwhile, one of the
Sandejas, filed with the Court of motion for defendants in Civil Case No. 0035
intervention. before the Sandiganbayan, Jose
S. Sandejas, filed with the Court
ISSUES: of motion for intervention.
1. Whether or not the court has
ISSUES:
jurisdiction;
1. Whether or not the court
Yes. The Judicial department have the
has jurisdiction;
power to determine the scope and extent of
the power of the legislative committees to Yes. Under the under the doctrine
conduct inquiries into private affairs in of separation of powers, the
purported aid of legislation. Under the under "allocation of constitutional
the doctrine of separation of powers, the boundaries" is a task that this
"allocation of constitutional boundaries" is a Court must perform under the
task that this Court must perform under the Constitution. Moreover, as held in
Constitution. Moreover, as held in a recent a recent case," (t)he political
case," (t)he political question doctrine question doctrine neither
neither interposes an obstacle to judicial interposes an obstacle to judicial
determination of the rival claims. The determination of the rival claims.
jurisdiction to delimit constitutional The jurisdiction to delimit
boundaries has been given to this Court. It constitutional boundaries has
cannot abdicate that obligation mandated been given to this Court. It cannot
by the 1987 Constitution, although said abdicate that obligation
provision by no means does away with the mandated by the 1987
applicability of the principle in appropriate Constitution, although said
cases." The Court is thus of the considered provision by no means does away
view that it has jurisdiction over the present with the applicability of the
controversy for the purpose of determining principle in appropriate cases."
the scope and extent of the power of the The Court is thus of the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct considered view that it has
inquiries into private affairs in purported aid
of legislation. jurisdiction over the present
controversy for the purpose of
determining the scope and extent
of the power of the Senate Blue
2. Whether or not the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct
Ribbon Committee's inquiry has no valid inquiries into private affairs in
legislative purpose, i.e., it is not done in purported aid of legislation.
aid of legislation;

No. the speech of Senator Enrile

contained no suggestion of 2. Whether or not the Senate
contemplated legislation; he merely Blue Ribbon Committee's
called upon the Senate to look into a inquiry has no valid legislative
possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA purpose, i.e., it is not done in
No. 3019, otherwise known as "The aid of legislation;
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act." In other words, the purpose of
No. the speech of Senator Enrile
the inquiry to be conducted by contained no suggestion of
respondent Blue Ribbon commiteecontemplated legislation; he
was to find out whether or not the
merely called upon the Senate to
relatives of President Aquino,
look into a possible violation of
particularly Mr. ricardo Lopa, had
Sec. 5 of RA No. 3019, otherwise
violated the law in connection with
known as "The Anti-Graft and
the alleged sale of the 36 or 39
Corrupt Practices Act." In other
corporations belonging to Benjamin
words, the purpose of the inquiry
"Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa to be conducted by respondent
Group. There appears to be, Blue Ribbon commitee was to
therefore, no intended legislation
find out whether or not the
involved. The Court is also notrelatives of President Aquino,
impressed with the respondent particularly Mr. ricardo Lopa, had
Committee's argument that the violated the law in connection
questioned inquiry is to bewith the alleged sale of the 36 or
conducted pursuant to Senate 39 corporations belonging to
Resolution No. 212. The inquiryBenjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to
under Senate Resolution No. 212 is
the Lopa Group. There appears to
to look into the charges against the
be, therefore, no intended
PCGG filed by the three (3) legislation involved. The Court is
stockholders of Oriental Petroleum in
also not impressed with the
connection with the implementation
respondent Committee's
of Section 26, Article XVIII of the
argument that the questioned
Constitution. inquiry is to be conducted
pursuant to Senate Resolution
3. Whether or not the sale or No. 212. The inquiry under Senate
disposition of the Romualdez Resolution No. 212 is to look into
corporations is a "purely private the charges against the PCGG
transaction" which is beyond the power filed by the three (3) stockholders
of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to of Oriental Petroleum in
inquire into. connection with the
implementation of Section 26,
Yes. The contemplated inquiry on Article XVIII of the Constitution.
the subject of the privilege speech of
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, i.e., the 3. Whether or not the sale or
alleged sale of the 36 (or 39) disposition of the Romualdez
corporations belonging to Benjamin corporations is a "purely private
"Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa transaction" which is beyond
Group is to be conducted pursuant the power of the Senate Blue
to Senate Resolution No. 212 Ribbon Committee to inquire
because, firstly, Senator Enrile did into.
not indict the PCGG, and, secondly,
neither Mr. Ricardo Lopa nor the Yes. The contemplated inquiry on
herein petitioners are connected with the subject of the privilege
the government but are private speech of Senator Juan Ponce
citizens. It appeals, therefore, that Enrile, i.e., the alleged sale of the
the contemplated inquiry by 36 (or 39) corporations belonging
respondent Committee is not really to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez
"in aid of legislation" because it is to the Lopa Group is to be
not related to a purpose within the conducted pursuant to Senate
jurisdiction of Congress, since the Resolution No. 212 because,
aim of the investigation is to find out firstly, Senator Enrile did not
whether or not the relatives of the indict the PCGG, and, secondly,
President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had neither Mr. Ricardo Lopa nor the
violated Section 5 RA No. 3019, the herein petitioners are connected
"Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices with the government but are
Act", a matter that appears more private citizens. It appeals,
within the province of the courts therefore, that the contemplated
rather than of the legislature and the inquiry by respondent Committee
complaint in Civil No. 0035 had is not really "in aid of legislation"
already been filed with the because it is not related to a
Sandiganbayan. In short, the issue purpose within the jurisdiction of
had been pre-empted by that court. Congress, since the aim of the
Besides, the Court may take judicial investigation is to find out
notice that Mr. Ricardo Lopa died whether or not the relatives of the
during the pendency of this case. President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa
had violated Section 5 RA No.
3019, the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act", a matter that
4. Whether or not the inquiry violates appears more within the province
the petitioners right to due process. of the courts rather than of the
legislature and the complaint in
No. One of the basic rights guaranteed by Civil No. 0035 had already been
the Constitution to an individual is the right filed with the Sandiganbayan. In
against self-incrimination. It has been held short, the issue had been
that "a congressional committee’s right to pre-empted by that court.
inquire is ‘subject to all relevant limitations Besides, the Court may take
placed by the Constitution on governmental judicial notice that Mr. Ricardo
action,’ including `the relevant limitations of Lopa died during the pendency of
the Bill of Rights’." In another case —." . . this case.
the mere semblance of legislative purpose
would not justify an inquiry in the face of the 4. Whether or not the
Bill of Rights. The critical element is the inquiry violates the petitioners
existence of, and the weight to be ascribed right to due process.
to, the interest of the Congress in
demanding disclosures from an unwilling No. One of the basic rights
witness. We cannot simply assume, guaranteed by the Constitution to
however, that every congressional an individual is the right against
investigation is justified by a public need self-incrimination. It has been
that over-balances any private rights held that "a congressional
affected. To do so would be to abdicate the committee’s right to inquire is
responsibility placed by the Constitution ‘subject to all relevant limitations
upon the judiciary to insure that the placed by the Constitution on
Congress does not unjustifiably encroach governmental action,’ including
upon an individual’s right to privacy nor `the relevant limitations of the Bill
abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion of Rights’." In another case —." . .
or assembly." (Watkins v. US, 354 USS 178 the mere semblance of legislative
citing US v. Rumely, 345 US 41). Thus, as purpose would not justify an
granted by the court that the inquiry is not in inquiry in the face of the Bill of
aid of legislation, the petitioners therein Rights. The critical element is the
cannot be compelled to testify. existence of, and the weight to be
ascribed to, the interest of the
Congress in demanding
disclosures from an unwilling
witness. We cannot simply
assume, however, that every
congressional investigation is
justified by a public need that
over-balances any private rights
affected. To do so would be to
abdicate the responsibility placed
by the Constitution upon the
judiciary to insure that the
Congress does not unjustifiably
encroach upon an individual’s
right to privacy nor abridge his
liberty of speech, press, religion
or assembly." (Watkins v. US, 354
USS 178 citing US v. Rumely, 345
US 41). Thus, as granted by the
 court that the inquiry is not in aid
of legislation, the petitioners
therein cannot be compelled to
testify.

Velasco v Velasco TOPIC: Ministerial and

Belmonte v. Belmonte Discretionary duties, Jurisdiction
Topic: GR. No. 211140 January 12, 2016 of HRET or the Electoral Tribunal.
Legislature,
Topic: ISSUE: WON, HRET have the
Ministerial and Doctrine: The rule of law demands that its jurisdiction over the case
Discretionary Decision be obeyed by all officials of the
duties, land. There is no alternative to the rule of HELD: The jurisdiction of the
Jurisdiction of law except the reign of chaos and HRET begins only after the
HRET or the confusion. candidate is considered a
Electoral Member of the House of
Tribunal. Facts: Representatives.
MON concurrence of the following
Before the court is a petition for mandamus
requisites:
filed under rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as
amended by Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco
(i) a valid proclamation,
(Velasco) against Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr. (
(ii) a proper oath, and
Speaker Belmonte Jr.), Speaker House of
(iii) assumption of office.
Representatives, Hon. Marilyn B. Barua-Yap
(Sec. Gen. Barua-Yap) Secretary General,
House of Representatives and Hon. Regina
Onsiako Reyes (Reyes) Representatives
Lone District of the Province of Marinduque.
respondent Regina Reyes was proclaimed
on May 18, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc,
in its Resolution of May 14, 2013 in SPA No.
13-053 (DC), had already resolved that the
COMELEC First Division correctly cancelled
her COC on the ground that she lacked the
Filipino citizenship and residency
requirements. Thus, the COMELEC nullified
her proclamation. When Regina Reyes
challenged the COMELEC actions, the
Supreme Court En Banc, in its Resolution of
June 25, 2013 in G.R. No. 207246, upheld
the same. Velasco contended
that he must be proclaimed because
COMELEC resolution that Reyes COC is
null and void and thus he must be
proclaimed to be the winner of the
congressional district of Marinduque. He
has a well-defined and clear legal right and
basis to warrant the grant of the writ of
mandamus. He insists that the final and
executory decisions of the COMELEC in
SPA No. 13-053 (DC), and this Court in G.R.
No. 207264, as well as the nullification of
respondent Reyes's proclamation and his
subsequent proclamation as the duly
elected Representative of the Lone District
of Marinduque, collectively give him the
legal right to claim the congressional seat.
Velasco also posits that the "continued
usurpation and unlawful holding of such
position by respondent Reyes has worked
injustice and serious prejudice to him in that
she has already received the salaries,
allowances, bonuses and emoluments that
pertain to the position of Marinduque
Representative since June 30, 2013 up to
the present in the amount of around several
hundreds of thousands of pesos On the
other hand, Reyes contended that a petition
for quo warranto must file before the HRET
to settle the dispute who among them
should be the representative of
Congressional district of Marinduque and
determine the qualification of Reyes. In her
Comment, Reyes contends that the petition
is actually one for quo warranto and not
mandamus given that it essentially seeks a
declaration that she usurped the subject
office; and the installation of Velasco in her
place by Speaker Belmonte, Jr. when the
latter administers his oath of office and
enters his name in the Roll of Members. She
argues that, being a collateral attack on a
title to public office, the petition must be
dismissed. Reyes questions the jurisdiction
of the Court over Quo Warranto cases
involving Members of the House of
Representatives. She posits that "even if the
Petition for Mandamus be treated as one of
Quo Warranto, it is still dismissible for lack
of jurisdiction and absence of a clear legal
right on the part of Velasco.

Application:

First. At the time of Reyes's proclamation,

her COC was already cancelled by the
COMELEC En Banc in its final finding in its
resolution dated May 14, 2013, the
effectivity of which was not enjoined by this
Court, as Reyes did not avail of the
prescribed remedy which is to seek a
restraining order within a period of five (5)
days as required by Section 13(b), Rule 18
of COMELEC Rules. Since no restraining
order was forthcoming, the PBOC should
have refrained from proclaiming Reyes.

Second. This Court upheld the COMELEC

decision cancelling respondent Reyes's
COC in its Resolutions of June 25, 2013 and
October 22, 2013 and these Resolutions are
already final and executory.

Third. As a consequence of the above

events, the COMELEC in SPC No. 13-010
cancelled respondent Reyes's proclamation
and, in turn, proclaimed Velasco as the duly
elected Member of the House of
Representatives in representation of the
Lone District of the Province of Marinduque.
The said proclamation has not been
challenged or questioned by Reyes in any
proceeding.

Fourth. When Reyes took her oath of office

before respondent Speaker Belmonte, Jr. in
open session, Reyes had NO valid COC
NOR a valid proclamation. Thus, to consider
Reyes' s proclamation and treating it as a
material fact in deciding this case will
paradoxically alter the well-established legal
milieu between her and Velasco.
Fifth. In view of the foregoing, Reyes HAS
ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL BASIS to serve as
a Member of the House of Representatives
for the Lone District of the Province of
Marinduque, and therefore, she HAS NO
LEGAL PERSONALITY to be recognized as
a party-respondent at a quo warranto
proceeding before the HRET.