Approximately 280 groups registered with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to participate in the May 13, 2013 party-list elections. However, Comelec disqualified 52 groups for not representing the “marginalized and underrepresented sector,” or for failing to prove their nominees belong to the sectoral group they aim to represent, or for lacking a track record as an organization uplifting the “marginalized and underrepresented”. Among these groups, 39 petitioners obtained a mandatory injunction from the Supreme Court to include their names in the official ballot. Meanwhile, 13 groups were excluded.
The Court received petitions from all 52 groups, who argued that Comelec had abused its power by canceling their registrations or disqualifying them from the 2013 May elections. The petitioners also challenged the rulings of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT under RA 7941, or the Party-List System Act, which had been used to interpret party-list selection and qualification. These cases previously established that only marginalized and underrepresented groups, along with political parties through their sectoral wings, could participate in the party-list elections. However, in a vote of 11-2, the Court reversed these decisions and decided to include national parties and organizations, regional parties and organizations, as well as sectoral parties or organizations.
According to RA 7941, certain sectoral groups, including farmers, laborers, fisherfolk, urban poor, overseas workers, indigenous cultural communities, and others may be marginalized or underrepresented. Additionally, there are groups that lack well-defined political constituencies such as professionals, the elderly, women and the youth. National and regional groups are not required to represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Political parties can participate in party-list elections by nominating candidates through their sectoral wings. The Court has also mandated that nominees for sectoral parties must either belong to the sector they represent or have a track record of advocacy in that particular sector. Similarly, nominees of national and regional parties must be authentic members of their respective parties or groups.
The party-list system in the Philippines is a proportional representation electoral system. It is used to determine the members of the House of Representatives alongside the regular plurality/majority system for legislative districts. Both systems operate independently, meaning votes in one do not impact votes in the other. This allows party-lists, different from major political parties, to compete for seats in the House at a national or regional level.
The introduction of this electoral system was unique to the 1987 Constitution. However, since the 1898 Philippine Republic, Congress has alternated between a unicameral and bicameral legislature, with members being appointed or elected at different times. Prior to the current 1987 Constitution, the 1973 Constitution replaced Congress with a National Assembly called Batasang Pambansa. This National Assembly consisted of 200 members elected from various provinces, cities, districts, and appointed from different agricultural, labor, and youth sectors. With the 1987 Constitution, the framers experimented with proportional representation in the House of Representatives through the party-list system.
For three consecutive election terms since the Constitution came into force, sectoral groups reserved one-half of the seats allotted for party-list representatives. However, in 1998, the Constitution’s provision for reserved-seat allocation for sectoral representation ended, as it was hoped that these groups would have enough time to strengthen their electoral support and compete with more experienced political groups. In 1995, Congress enacted RA 7941 to regulate party-list elections, which was later interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Veterans Federation Party v. case.
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has established four criteria for determining winners in party-list elections. These include the twenty percent allocation, which ensures that the total number of party-list congressmen does not exceed twenty percent of the House’s total membership. Parties must also receive at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast to qualify for a seat, known as the two percent threshold. Additionally, each qualified party is limited to a maximum of three seats under the three-seat limit rule. Lastly, proportional representation allocates additional seats to winning party-lists based on their total number of votes.
It should be noted that major political parties are prohibited from participating in party-list elections, even if they enter through their sectoral wings. The Supreme Court ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani v. Comelec was significant as it involved clarifying the qualifications of party-lists and their nominees as outlined in RA 7941.
The Court determined that party-lists must encompass the “marginalized and underrepresented” as stated in Section 2 of the law’s Declaration of Policy. In its ruling, the Court emphasized that the party-list system is meant to aid the underprivileged. As a result, the Court cannot tolerate the manipulation and exploitation of the party-list system by those who do not fall under the marginalized or underrepresented category. Consequently, nominees for party-lists must also represent these specific sectoral groups. The Court further asserted that it is insufficient for a candidate to simply assert representation of the marginalized and underrepresented, as claiming representation can easily be falsified.
The party-list organization or party must accurately represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5 [RA7941]. This sentiment was echoed in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Comelec. The Court reaffirmed its previous ruling in Veterans, prohibiting major political parties from participating in the party list elections, either directly or indirectly, with a vote of 8-7. The ruling in Atong Paglaum overturned the decision in Ang Bagong Bayani, which had previously barred ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system through judicial decree. This was not the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.
According to the records of the Constitutional Commission, the framers of the 1987 Constitution were concerned that giving permanent seats to sectoral parties might hinder their development into fully-functioning parties with strong electoral machinery. Atong Paglaum also highlighted two main problems faced by the framers in deciding which sectors to include and who should be members of these sectoral groups. The first issue was that if all sectors were specifically mentioned and designated, it could limit the list and exclude other groups. The second problem was that defining membership within sectoral groups could be confusing; for example, a farmer who is also a laborer, doctor, or lawyer should have the freedom to join the sectoral group they represent.
Ultimately, the framers rejected the idea of permanent reserved seats for sectoral groups and emphasized that the party-list system should include both sectoral and non-sectoral parties. Atong Paglaum also noted that the 1987 Constitution allows national and regional parties to participate in the party-list system, separate from sectoral groups. RA 7941 also explicitly permits these groups to participate, without requiring them to be “marginalized and underrepresented”. The Court clarified that the term “marginalized and underrepresented” should only apply to economically marginalized sectors mentioned in Section 5.
The nominees of sectoral parties must either belong to the sector they represent or have a track record of advocacy for that sector. A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the party they seek to represent. This applies to sectoral parties, as national or regional parties do not belong to major political parties. However, political parties from major or minority parties can field candidates for the party-lists from their sectoral wings, which is a reversal of the Court’s ruling in BANAT. The intent of including sectoral parties within the party-list system is evident in the records of the Constitutional Commission.
Commissioner Christian Monsod stated during constitutional deliberations that the party list system is not the same as sectoral representation. After three consecutive terms, sectoral groups no longer have reserved seats. Commissioner Monsod emphasized the need to open up the system and ensure sector representation by placing a limit on the number of representatives from a single party within the allocated 50 seats under the party-list system.
The party-list system was designed to prevent a majority block from dominating and to protect sectoral parties. Measures such as capping the number of seats a party can win were implemented for this purpose. The ruling in Atong Paglaum aligns with the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution and the provisions set forth in Sections 5(1) and (2) of the same constitution and RA 7941. This intent was explicitly stated and acknowledged in the 1987 Constitution.
In Bagong Bayani, the Court emphasized that Comelec’s role is to ensure that only marginalized and underrepresented Filipinos become members of Congress through the party-list system. The Constitution aims to empower the people by giving more power to those with fewer resources and enabling them to become lawmakers themselves. The law should be applied according to its clear terms. While not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system, the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors demonstrates the intent of the law. However, the Ang Bagong Bayani ruling contradicts the explicit provisions of the 1987 Constitution and RA 7941, as it interprets the law based on reason and intention instead. Atong Paglaum also criticizes the ruling for overly focusing on the “marginalized and underrepresented” phrase and disregarding non-sectoral organizations and groups.
In order to adhere to the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, RA 7941 must follow certain guidelines. The phrase “marginalized and underrepresented” is mentioned once in the entire law, specifically in Section 2, where it serves as a general statement of policy. However, this specific phrase does not appear in Section 5(1) and (2) of the Constitution. Instead, terms like “national” and “regional… parties” are consistently used throughout RA 7941, particularly in sections concerning ‘Declaration of Policy’, ‘Definition of Terms’, ‘Registration’, ‘Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration’, and ‘Certified List of Registered Parties’. These terms are explicitly stated in Section 5(1) of the Constitution. The guiding principle for legal interpretation is to rely on the explicit content provided within the law itself.
Although the number of times these words appear in the law do not immediately include national and regional parties within those eligible groups for the party-list system, the fact that they appear together with “sectoral groups”, defined under law and led through the sections on registration, cancellation and certification of registered parties, reveal the intent of the lawmakers to include the former within the party-list system. Atong Paglaum also harmonizes the law with the Constitution so that the intent and express wording of the law and the 1987 Constitution include, rather than exclude national and regional parties. By returning to the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, Atong Paglaum also overturns the ruling in BANAT that major political parties may not participate in party-list elections through their sectoral arm which was formalized the ruling in Veterans, and became the practiced norm with Comelec since its ruling and leading up to the 2013 elections. As Commissioner Jaime Tadeo affirmed in the Constitutional Commission, “Political parties, particularly minority political parties, are not prohibited to participate in the part list election if they can prove that they are also organized along sectoral lines”.
The ruling in the Atong Paglaum case emphasizes the purpose of the party-list system in pursuing electoral reform in the Philippines, as argued by Justice Brion. According to his opinion, solely focusing on sectoral representation of the “marginalized and underrepresented” goes against this system’s main objective. The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended to establish separate systems for national elections: one for district representation and another for party-list representation. This allowed those who struggled to win in districts to compete at national and regional levels, where they could gather enough votes to secure a seat in the House of Representatives. The ultimate goal behind implementing the party-list system, as stated by these framers, was to achieve electoral reform.
By implementing a parallel or hybrid system with proportional representation, the aim is to promote a multi-party electoral system, which typically leads to the formation of multiple parties. Hence, the objective of the framers regarding electoral reform was to ensure a diversity of groups within the party-list framework. Commissioner Monsod emphasized their intention to establish a pluralistic society by adopting a multiparty system. Consequently, restricting party-list elections solely to marginalized and underrepresented individuals obstructs the progress of electoral reform.
The initial implementation of social justice involved the inclusion of three consecutive terms with reserved seats for sectoral groups. However, this arrangement was not intended to be permanent. Instead, it provided an opportunity for these groups to gain influence in the House of Representatives until the designated period ended. The main objective of the electoral system’s proportional representation aspect was to ensure that all parties participating in elections had a fair chance at securing a seat in Congress.
Contrary to the Labo doctrine’s disregard for votes casted for disqualified candidates and its prohibition on electing candidates next in line, the party-list representation outlined in law (RA 794) explicitly states that votes for ineligible parties or organizations should not be counted. This is crucial because any additional seats assigned to party-lists are determined based on the actual number of votes cast.
If many party-lists are disqualified for not meeting the qualifications set by Ang Bagong Bayani, which state that they must belong to a marginalized and underrepresented sector, this could potentially disenfranchise voters who supported these party-lists but had their votes discarded when Comelec rejected them. This highlights the important role of Comelec in determining eligibility for the party-list elections. The ruling in the Atong Paglaum case reduces the arbitrary decision-making power of Comelec, an agency of the government, in determining who can participate in the party-list elections. The case arose because Comelec disqualified or cancelled certification for 52 organizations and groups based solely on its own discrimination.
The previous ruling of Ang Bagong Bayani demonstrated that using the term “marginalized and underrepresented” to determine the eligibility of a party or organization to participate in party-list elections goes against the original intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, which aimed for a more diverse and vibrant multi-party system. Additionally, it grants an unnecessary and excessive authority to Comelec in selecting the parties for the party-list system. Rather than declaring the law unconstitutional, Atong Paglaum opted to reconcile RA 7941 with the Constitution. Contrary to the ruling, I believe that Section 2 of RA 7941 refers to “those belonging to marginalized and under-represented sectors, organizations, and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies” in a collective sense rather than individually.
Interpreting the law in this manner would create a conflict with the Constitution. As stated in the ruling, the youth, women, and professionals do not always represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups. Additionally, the law should not be interpreted to exclude national and regional parties. If given weight, this interpretation would be inconsistent with the Constitution as it only expresses the general intent and declaration of RA 7941.
A well-known legal principle is that the law should be interpreted with a view of upholding rather than destroying it. Therefore, I believe it was appropriate for the Court to holistically interpret the law and give it a meaning that does not conflict with the explicit words of the Constitution. Additionally, in regards to the impact of this case on law, the rule of law was adhered to. I am of the opinion that the Court chose to adhere to the original intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, which is crucial in determining the true interpretation of the Constitution and all its subsequent laws.
There is a ongoing debate about balancing social justice with “free elections”, however, this debate was settled in the Constitutional Commission and the courts need to respect that decision. In terms of its impact on public policy, this ruling will require sectoral arms to compete on an equal footing and work harder to gather enough voters to be able to compete effectively. This is in line with Section 2 of RA 7941, which states that party lists also have a responsibility to help create and pass beneficial legislation for the entire nation. These words in the law also acknowledge the importance of party lists being able to gather enough national and regional support to have the necessary political machinery and ability to represent the voters who chose them.
The decision to apply the Ang Bagong Bayani ruling to the party-list system for the 2010 and 2013 elections has resulted in many groups being disqualified for not representing the “marginalized and underrepresented”. It is deemed a positive change from the previous wide discretion granted to the Comelec. The party-lists serve as a means of proportional representation in the Philippine electoral system. The Constitutional Commission aimed to create a separate arena for groups to be represented in the House of Representatives, distinct from the legislative districts. This allows groups with strong support on the national and regional level, but previously struggled to secure a seat in legislative districts, to have a chance at representation. The groups that were initially considered are farmers, laborers, fisherfolk, as well as women, youth, cultural, and ideological groups.
Having a greater variety of parties and organizations is crucial for promoting diversity in the multi-party system. This diversity can enhance the vibrancy and dynamism of the system. To achieve this, these groups must genuinely represent sectors that have a significant number of voters nationwide, rather than being the only remaining parties that were not disqualified from the party-list race.
