G.R. No. L-47771, L-47803, L-47816, L-47767, L-47791, L-47827. March 11, 1978.
Pedro G. Peralta, Juan T. David, Youth Democratic Movement, et al., Gualberto J. De La Llana, B. Asuncion Buenafe, and Reynaldo T. Fajardo, petitioners, vs. The Commission on Elections, The National Treasurer, The Budget Commissioner, Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, and Lakas Ng Bayan, respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions challenged the constitutionality of specific provisions of the 1978 Election Code (Presidential Decree No. 1296) governing the first election for the interim Batasang Pambansa. The assailed provisions, particularly Sections 140 and 155 (subparagraphs 26-28), introduced a “block voting” or “straight ticket” system. This system allowed a voter to vote for all candidates of a single political party, group, or aggrupation by merely writing the party’s name in a designated space on the ballot, instead of writing the names of individual candidates.
Petitioners argued this system violated constitutional guarantees. They contended it infringed on the equal protection clause by granting an undue advantage to organized political parties over independent candidates and voters who wished to split their votes. They also argued it impaired the secrecy of the ballot, as the act of writing a party name could be more easily observed than writing multiple candidate names. Further, it was alleged to violate the constitutional principle of secrecy by effectively compelling a voter to adopt a party’s entire slate.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the block voting system established under Sections 140 and 155 of the 1978 Election Code violated the constitutional mandates of equal protection, secrecy of the ballot, and the right to a free and informed choice.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. The Court’s legal logic centered on legislative discretion, the absence of a constitutional prohibition, and the nature of the rights involved.
On equal protection, the Court ruled the classification between party-list voting and individual-candidate voting was reasonable and based on substantial distinctions. The law did not prohibit individual voting; it merely provided an additional, convenient method for voters aligned with a party. Both options—writing a party name or writing individual names—remained equally available to all voters. The state has a legitimate interest in simplifying the voting process for a multi-member district election, and the method was deemed a practical response to the logistical challenge of electing multiple regional representatives simultaneously.
Regarding the secrecy of the ballot, the Court found no constitutional violation. The act of writing, whether a party name or multiple names, is performed inside a voting booth. The law does not compel a voter to use the party option; it is merely permissive. The choice of method rests solely with the voter, and the state’s provision of an alternative procedure does not, by itself, breach the constitutional guarantee of secrecy. The Court emphasized that the constitutional requirement is that the ballot be cast in secret, not that the specific mechanics of marking it be immune from all observation during the act of writing.
Finally, the Court held the system did not infringe on the right to a free and informed choice. A voter retains full liberty to vote for individuals across different parties. The block vote is merely an optional shortcut for those who have already decided to support a full party slate. The law does not coerce this choice but facilitates it for willing voters, thereby respecting the electorate’s freedom of association and political preference.