Paglaum v COMELEC April 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 marginalized and underrepresented 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 allocated to 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 represent the sectors may 2) -

party-list system fully open after the end of the first 3 congressional terms. 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 of terms, 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 partylist elections so as to encourage them to work

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 the marginalized 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.

4.

5.

6.

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. 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 to the 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. 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 bonafide members of such parties or organizations. 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 to proclaim the full number of party list representatives provided by the Constitution. However, the recommendation of the head of the legal group of COMELECs national board of canvassers to declare the petition moot and academic was approved by the COMELEC en banc. BANAT filed for petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the resolution of COMELEC to their petition to proclaim the full number of party list representatives provided by the Constitution. The COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated a resolution proclaiming thirteen (13) parties as winners in the party-list elections in May 2007. The COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC formula.

New parameters in determining who may participate in party-list elections 1. Three different groups may participate in the partylist system: (a) national parties/organizations, (b) regional parties/rganizations, and (c) sectoral parties or organizations. National and regional parties/organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector. 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

2.

3.

Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms (A Teacher) asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use the Veterans formula. COMELEC denied the consideration. Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher filed for certiorari with mandamus and prohibition assailing the resolution of the COMELEC in its decision to use the Veterans formula. SC in the April 21, 2009 Decision held that: o The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of Representatives. The three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 is constitutional. The threeseat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that prevents any party from dominating the party-list elections. The second clause of Section 11(b) of R. A. 7941 those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes is unconstitutional. The two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of "the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives." In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed: 1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.

4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall 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-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to participate in party-list elections through their sectoral wings. Also, in defining a "party" that participates in party-list elections as either "a political party or a sectoral party," R.A. No. 7941 also clearly intended that major political parties will participate in the party-list elections. Excluding the major political parties in party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. However, by the vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the partylist elections, directly or indirectly.

(July 8, 29009 Decision) The House of Representatives filed a motion for clarification in intervention on the April 21, 2009 Decision and enumerated the issues for clarification as follows: A. There are only 219 legislative districts and not 220. Accordingly, the alloted seats for party-list representation should only be 54 and not 55. WON admit 55 or only 54 considering that the Court declared as winners 55 party-list representatives? Held: 54 B. WON admit 32 or only such number of representatives that would complete the 250 member maximum prescribed by Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution? If it admits 32, will it violates the Consti considering that the total members would now rise to 270? Held: NOT violative. Admit 32 or even more. C. How the 2% threshold applies. Held: st 2% threshold applies only on the 1 round seat allocation. In the second round allocation of additional seats, there is no minimum vote requirement. D. WON the principle laid down in Veterans that "the filling up of the allowable seats for party-list representatives is not mandatory," has been abandoned. Held: NO On the other hand, Armi Jane Roa-Borje (RoaBorje), third nominee of Citizens Battle Against

2.

3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.

Corruption (CIBAC), filed a motion for leave for partial reconsideration-in-intervention, alleging that: The Supreme Court, in ruling on the procedure for distribution of seats, has deprived without due process and in violation of the equal protection clause, parties with more significant constituencies, such as CIBAC, Gabriela and APEC, 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]his formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats available for party-list representatives whenever 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 partylist seat whenever four additional legislative districts are created by law. Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution automatically creates such additional party-list seat. The filling-up of all available party-list seats is not mandatory. 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 not violate any provision of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the Court upholds this 2% threshold for the guaranteed seats as a valid exercise of legislative power. In the second round allocation of additional seats, there is no minimum vote requirement to obtain a party-list seat because 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 seat allocation. What is deemed a sufficient number of votes is dependent upon the circumstances of each election, such as the number of participating parties, the number of available party-list seats, and the number of parties with guaranteed seats received in the first round of seat allocation. To address Roa-Borjes motion for partial reconsideration-inintervention and for purposes of computing the results in future party-list elections, we reiterate that in the second step of the second round of seat allocation, the preference in the distribution of seats should be in accordance with the higher percentage and higher rank, without limiting the distribution to parties receiving two-percent of the votes. To limit the distribution of seats to the two-percenters would mathematically prevent the filling up of all the available party-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 basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" in Section 5(1) of Article VI requires that legislative districts shall be apportioned according to proportional representation. However, this

principle of proportional representation applies only to legislative districts, not to the party-list system. The allocation of seats under the party-list system is governed by the last phrase of Section 5(1), which states that the partylist representatives shall be "those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system," giving the Legislature wide discretion in formulating the allocation of party-list seats. Clearly, there is no constitutional requirement for absolute proportional representation in the allocation of party-list seats in the House of Representatives. To summarize, there are four parameters in a Philippinestyle party-list election system: 1. Twenty percent of the total number of the membership of the House of Representatives is the maximum number of seats available to partylist organizations, such that there is automatically one party-list seat for every four existing legislative districts. 2. Garnering two percent of the total votes cast in the party-list elections guarantees a party-list organization one seat. The guaranteed seats shall be distributed in a first round of seat allocation to parties 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 organizations including those that received less than two percent of the total votes. The continued operation of the two percent threshold as it applies to the allocation of the additional seats is now unconstitutional because this threshold mathematically and physically prevents the filling up of the available party-list seats. The additional seats shall be distributed to the parties in a second round of seat allocation according to the two-step procedure laid down in the Decision of 21 April 2009 as clarified in this Resolution. 4. The three-seat cap is constitutional. The threeseat cap is intended by the Legislature to prevent any party from dominating the party-list system. There is no violation of the Constitution because the 1987 Constitution does not require absolute proportionality for the party-list system. The wellsettled rule is that courts will not question the wisdom of the Legislature as long as it is not violative of the Constitution. These four parameters allow the mathematical and practical fulfillment of the Constitutional provision that party-list representatives shall comprise twenty percent of the members of the House of Representatives. At the same time, these four parameters uphold as much as possible the Party-List Act, striking down only that provision of the PartyList Act that could not be reconciled anymore with the 1987 Constitution.