september 17 digest

7/29/2019 September 17 Digest

1/4

1

Paglaum v COMELECApril 2, 2013

Carpio

FACTS:

52 party-list groups and organizations filed separate petitions

with the SC to reverse the COMELEC resolutions

disqualifying them from the May 2013 elections. The

COMELEC The COMELEC excluded from participating in

the 13 May 2013 partylist elections those that did not satisfy

these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral

groups or organizations must represent the marginalized

and underrepresented sectors, and (2) all nominees must

belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector

they represent.

ISSUE: W/N parties which do not represent the

marginalized and underrepresented sectors may

participate in the party-list elections.

RULING: YES.

The party-list system is not exclusively for sectoral

parties.

1) Constitutional basis

- The framers of the Constitution intended the

party-list system to include not only sectoral but

also non-sectoral parties. They intended the

sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the

entirety, of the party-list system.

- Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution is

crystal-clear that there shall be a party-list system

of registered national, regional, and sectoral

parties or organizations. The commas after the

words, national and regional separate national

and regional parties from sectoral parties. Had the

framers intended national and regional parties to

be at the same time sectoral, they would have

stated national and regional sectoral parties.

- Thus, the party-list system is composed of three

(3) different groups: (1) national

parties/organizations; (2) regional

parties/organizations; and (3) sectoral

parties/organizations. National and regional

parties or organizations need to be organized

along sectoral lines and need not represent

any particular sector.

- Moreover, Section 5(2) of Article VI mandates that

during the first 3 consecutive terms of Congress

after the ratification, one-half of the seats allocatedto party-list representatives shall be filled by

selection or election from labor, peasant, urban

poor, indigenous cultural communities, women,

youth, and such other sectors as may be provided

by law, except the religious sector. It clearly shows

that the party-list system is not exclusively for

sectoral parties for 2 reasons: (1) The other half

would naturally be open to non-sectoral party-list

representatives; (2) The reservation applies only

for the first 3 consecutive terms clearly making the

party-list system fully open after the end of the first

3 congressional terms.

2) Statutory basis: The Party-List System Act

- RA 7941, or the Party-List System Act, does not

require national and regional parties or

organizations to represent the marginalized and

underrepresented sectors. In its definition ofterms, a party means either a political party or a

sectoral party or a coalition of parties.

- The phrase marginalized and underrepresented

should refer only to the sectors that are by their

nature, economically marginalized and

underrepresented. These sectors are: labor,

peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural

communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas

workers, and other similar factors.

o For these sectors, a majority of the

members of the sectoral party must

belong to the marginalized and

underrepresented. The nominees of the

sectoral party either must belong to the

sector, or must have a track record of

advocacy for the sector represented.

o Belonging to the marginalized and

underrepresented sector does not

mean one must wallow in poverty,

destitution or infirmity. It is sufficient

that one, or his or her sector, is below

the middle class. More specifically, the

economically marginalized and

underrepresented are those who fall in

the low income group as classified by

the NSCB.

Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT rulings overturned

- Ang Bagong Bayani expressly declared, in its

second guideline for the accreditation of parties

under the party-list system, that while even major

political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941

and the Constitution to participate in the party-list

system, they must comply with the declared

statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens

belonging to marginalized and underrepresented

sectors xxx to be elected to the HoR.

- However, the requirement that the political party

must represent the marginalized and

underrepresented automatically disqualified major

political parties from participating.

- This inherent inconsistency has been

compounded by the COMELECs refusal to

register sectoral wings officially organized by

major political parties.

- BANAT merely formalized the prevailing practice

when it expressly prohibited major political parties

from participating in the party-list system, even

through their sectoral wings.

- The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 allow

major political parties to participate in party-

list elections so as to encourage them to work


2/4

2

assiduously in extending their constituencies to

the marginalized and underrepresented and to

those who lack well-defined political

constituencies.

o The participation of major political

parties in party-list elections must be

geared towards the entry, as members

of the House of Representatives, of themarginalized and underrepresented

and those who lack well-defined

political constituencies, giving them a

voice in lawmaking.

o Thus, to participate in party-list

elections, a major political party that

fields candidates in the legislative

district elections must organize a

sectoral wing, like a labor, peasant,

fisherfolk, urban poor, professional,

women or youth wing, that can register

under the party-list system. Such

sectoral wing of a major political party

must have its own constitution, by-laws,

platform or program of government,

officers and members, a majority of

whom must belong to the sector

represented.

o The sectoral wing is in itself an

independent sectoral party, and is linked

to a major political party through a

coalition. This linkage is allowed by

Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941, which

provides that component parties or

organizations of a coalition may

participate independently (in party-list

elections) provided the coalition of which

they form part does not participate in the

party-list system.- It would not be in accord with the Constitution and

RA 7941 to apply the criteria in Ang Bagong

Bayani and BANAT.

New parameters in determining who may participate in

party-list elections

1. Three different groups may participate in the party-

list system:

(a) national parties/organizations,

(b) regional parties/rganizations, and

(c) sectoral parties or organizations.

2. National and regional parties/organizations do not

need to organize along sectoral lines and do

not need to represent any marginalized and

underrepresented sector.

3. Political parties can participate provided they

register under the party-list system and do not field

candidates in legislative district elections.

o A political party, whether major or not,

that fields candidates in legislative

district elections can participate in

partylist elections only through its

sectoral wing that can separately

register under the party-list system. The

sectoral wing is by itself an independent

sectoral party, and is linked to a political

party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be (a)

marginalized and underrepresented OR (b)

lacking in well-defined political constituencies. It

is enough that their principal advocacy pertains tothe special interest and concerns of their sector.

o marginalized and underrepresented

include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban

poor, indigenous cultural communities,

handicapped, veterans, and overseas

workers.

o well-defined political constituencies

include professionals, the elderly,

women, and the youth.

5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or

organizations that represent the marginalized and

underrepresented or that lack well-defined

political constitutencies must belong to the sector

they represent.

o The nominees of sectoral parties must

belong to their respective sectors, or

must have a track record of advocacy

for their respective sectors.

o The nominees of national and regional

parties or organizations must be bona-

fide members of such parties or

organizations.

6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or

organizations shall not be disqualified if some of

their nominees are disqualified, provided that they

have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

Banat v Comelec (July 8, 2009, Carpio)

FACTS:

(April 21, 2009 Decision) Barangay Association for National Advancement

and Transparency (BANAT) filed before the

National Board of Canvassers(NBC) a petition toproclaim the full number of party listrepresentatives provided by the Constitution.

However, the recommendation of the head of thelegal group of COMELECs national board ofcanvassers to declare the petition moot and

academic was approved by the COMELEC enbanc.

BANAT filed for petition for certiorari and

mandamus assailing the resolution of COMELEC

to their petition to proclaim the full number of partylist representatives provided by the Constitution.

The COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated aresolution proclaiming thirteen (13) parties aswinners in the party-list elections in May 2007. The

COMELEC announced that, upon completion ofthe canvass of the party-list results, it woulddetermine the total number of seats of each

winning party, organization, or coalition inaccordance with Veterans Federation Party v.COMELEC formula.


3/4

3

Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for TeacherEmpowerment Through Action, Cooperation and

Harmony Towards Educational Reforms (ATeacher) asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC, toreconsider its decision to use

the Veterans formula. COMELEC denied theconsideration.

Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher filed for

certiorari with mandamus and prohibition assailingthe resolution of the COMELEC in its decision touse the Veterans formula.

SC in the April 21, 2009 Decision held that:

o The 20% allocation of party-listrepresentatives is merely a ceiling;

party-list representatives cannot bemore than 20% of the members of theHouse of Representatives.

o The three-seat limit in Section 11(b) ofRA 7941 is constitutional. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number

of seats that a qualified party-listorganization may occupy, remains a

valid statutory device that prevents anyparty from dominating the party-listelections.

o The second clause of Section 11(b) of

R. A. 7941 those garnering more thantwo percent (2%) of the votes shall beentitled to additional seats in

proportion to their total number of votesis unconstitutional. The two percentthreshold only in relation to the

distribution of the additional seatspresents an unwarranted obstacle to thefull implementation of Section 5(2),

Article VI of the Constitution andprevents the attainment of "the broadestpossible representation of party,

sectoral or group interests in the Houseof Representatives."

o In determining the allocation of seats for

party-list representatives under Section11 of R.A. No. 7941, the followingprocedure shall be observed:

1. The parties, organizations, andcoalitions shall be ranked from thehighest to the lowest based on the

number of votes they garneredduring the elections.

2. The parties, organizations, and

coalitions receiving at least twopercent (2%) of the total votes castfor the party-list system shall be

entitled to one guaranteed seateach.

3. Those garnering sufficient number ofvotes, according to the ranking in

paragraph 1, shall be entitled toadditional seats in proportion totheir total number of votes until all

the additional seats are allocated.

4. Each party, organization, or coalitionshall be entitled to not more than

three (3) seats.

o Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No.7941 prohibits major political parties

from participating in the party-listsystem. On the contrary, the framers ofthe Constitution clearly intended the

major political parties to participate inparty-list elections through their sectoralwings. Also, in defining a "party" that

participates in party-list elections aseither "a political party or a sectoralparty," R.A. No. 7941 also clearly

intended that major political parties willparticipate in the party-list elections.Excluding the major political parties inparty-list elections is manifestly againstthe Constitution, the intent of theConstitutional Commission, and R.A.

No. 7941. However, by the vote of 8-7,the Court decided to continue the rulingin Veteransdisallowingmajor political

parties from participating in the party-

list elections, directly or indirectly.

(July 8, 29009 Decision)

The House of Representatives filed a motion forclarification in intervention on the April 21, 2009

Decision and enumerated the issues forclarification as follows:

A. There are only 219 legislative districts

and not 220. Accordingly, the allotedseats for party-list representation should

only be 54 and not 55. WON admit 55 oronly 54 considering that the Courtdeclared as winners 55 party-list

representatives? Held: 54

B. WON admit 32 or only such number

of representatives that would completethe 250 member maximum prescribedby Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the

Constitution? If it admits 32, will itviolates the Consti considering that thetotal members would now rise to 270?

Held: NOT violative. Admit 32 or evenmore.

C. How the 2% threshold applies. Held:2% threshold applies only on the 1

st

round seat allocation. In the second

round allocation of additional seats,

there is no minimum voterequirement.

D. WON the principle laid down inVeterans that "the filling up of theallowable seats for party-list

representatives is not mandatory," hasbeen abandoned. Held: NO

On the other hand, Armi Jane Roa-Borje (Roa-Borje), third nominee of Citizens Battle Against


4/4

4

Corruption (CIBAC), filed a motion for leave forpartial reconsideration-in-intervention, alleging

that: The Supreme Court, in ruling on theprocedure for distribution of seats, has deprivedwithout due process and in violation of the equal

protection clause, parties with more significantconstituencies, such as CIBAC, Gabriela andAPEC, in favor of parties who did not even meet

the 2% threshold.

SC Ruling:

As we stated in our Decision of 21 April 2009, "[t]hisformula allows for the corresponding increase in the

number of seats available for party-list representativeswhenever a legislative district is created by law." Thus,for every four district representatives, the 1987 Constitution

mandates that there shall be one party-list representative.There is no need for legislation to create an additional party-list seat whenever four additional legislative districts are

created by law. Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987Constitution automatically creates such additional party-listseat.

The filling-up of all available party-list seats is notmandatory. Actual occupancy of the party-list seats depends

on the number of participants in the party-list election.

Under Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941, garnering 2% of the

total votes cast guarantees a party one seat. This 2%threshold for the first round of seat allocation does notviolate any provision of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the

Court upholds this 2% threshold for the guaranteed seats asa valid exercise of legislative power.

In the second round allocation of additional seats, there is nominimum vote requirement to obtain a party-list seatbecause the Court has struck down the application of the 2%

threshold in the allocation of additional seats.

However, a party-list organization has to obtain a sufficient

number of votes to gain a seat in the second round of seatallocation. What is deemed a sufficient number of votes isdependent upon the circumstances of each election, such as

the number of participating parties, the number of availableparty-list seats, and the number of parties with guaranteedseats received in the first round of seat allocation.

To address Roa-Borjes motion for partial reconsideration-in-intervention and for purposes of computing the results in

future party-list elections, we reiterate that in the second stepof the second round of seat allocation, the preference in thedistribution of seats should be in accordance with the higher

percentage and higher rank, without limiting the distributionto parties receiving two-percent of the votes. To limit thedistribution of seats to the two-percenters would

mathematically prevent the filling up of all the availableparty-list seats.

The 1987 Constitution does not require absolute

proportionality in the allocation of party-list seats. The phrase"legislative districts apportioned among the provinces,cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with

the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basisof a uniform and progressive ratio" in Section 5(1) of ArticleVI requires that legislative districts shall be apportioned

according to proportional representation. However, this

principle of proportional representation applies onlyto legislative districts, not to the party-list system. The

allocation of seats under the party-list system is governed bythe last phrase of Section 5(1), which states that the party-list representatives shall be "those who, as provided by

law, shall be elected through a party-list system," givingthe Legislature wide discretion in formulating the allocationof party-list seats. Clearly, there is no constitutional

requirement for absolute proportional representation in theallocation of party-list seats in the House of Representatives.

To summarize, there are four parameters in a Philippine-style party-list election system:

1. Twenty percent of the total number of themembership of the House of Representatives isthe maximum number of seats available to party-

list organizations, such that there is automaticallyone party-list seat for every four existing legislativedistricts.

2. Garnering two percent of the total votes cast inthe party-list elections guarantees a party-list

organization one seat. The guaranteed seats shallbe distributed in a first round of seat allocation toparties receiving at least two percent of the total

party-list votes.

3. The additional seats, that is, the remaining

seats after allocation of the guaranteed seats,shall be distributed to the party-list organizationsincluding those that received less than two percent

of the total votes. The continued operation of thetwo percent threshold as it applies to the allocationof the additional seats is now unconstitutional

because this threshold mathematically andphysically prevents the filling up of the availableparty-list seats. The additional seats shall be

distributed to the parties in a second round of seat

allocation according to the two-step procedure laiddown in the Decision of 21 April 2009 as clarified

in this Resolution.

4. The three-seat cap is constitutional. The three-

seat cap is intended by the Legislature to preventany party from dominating the party-list system.There is no violation of the Constitution because

the 1987 Constitution does not require absoluteproportionality for the party-list system. The well-settled rule is that courts will not question the

wisdom of the Legislature as long as it is notviolative of the Constitution.

These four parameters allow the mathematical and practicalfulfillment of the Constitutional provision that party-list

representatives shall comprise twenty percent of themembers of the House of Representatives. At the sametime, these four parameters uphold as much as possible theParty-List Act, striking down only that provision of the Party-List Act that could not be reconciled anymore with the 1987

Constitution.

september 17 digest

Documents