PAGLAUM VS.

COMELEC (Newly decided case on Party-List System) NEW PARAMETERS:

1.

First, the justices said, voting 13-0, three different groups are allowed to participate in the party-list system: national parties or organizations; regional parties or organizations; and sectoral parties or organizations. Second, national parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector.

Similarly, the justices added, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organization that lack well-defined political constituencies must belong to the sector that they represent. The nominees of either sector must either belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors; while the nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona fide members of such parties or organizations. NOTE: The justices pointed out that Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-list System Act of 1995, the law that implements the party-list system prescribed in the Constitution, does not require national and regional parties or organizations to represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. To require all national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the marginalized and underrepresented is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideologybased and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system. The Court distinguished between ideologybased and cause-oriented political party from a sectoral party.There is no requirement in RA 7941 that a national or regional political party must represent a marginalized and underrepresented sector. It is sufficient that the political party consists of citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same governance principles and policies regardless of their economic status as citizens, the justices said. Thus, professionals, elderly, women and the youth are not, by definition, marginalized and underrepresented, may be considered as lacking well-defined political constituencies and can organize themselves into sectoral parties advocating their interests, they added.
6.

2.

3.

Third, Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the partylist system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district election can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition,

4.

Fourth, sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in well-defined political constituencies. Here, the justices voted 11-2, adding: It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of the sector. The sectors that are marginalized and underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans and overseas workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political constituencies include professionals, the elderly, women and the youth.

5.

Fifth, the justices, voting 13-0 again, ruled that the majority of the members of sectoral parties or organization that represent the marginalized and underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector that they represent.

Lastly, the justices, also voting 13-0, said 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.

According for BERNAS: XXX since the original inspiration for the partylist system was the economically disadvantaged sectors, the national and regional parties, when included in the system, must, under the rule of eiusdem generis, also have the disadvantage of being marginalized and underrepresentedbut not necessarily in the sense of being economically disadvantaged.

Sereno also quoted one Concom member, Serafin Guingona, who said the Constitution "provides that Congress shall give the highest priority to the enactment of measures that would reduce social, economic and political inequalities." "I believe that the ponencia (decision) may have further marginalized the already marginalized and underrepresented of this country. In the guise of political plurality, it allows national and regional parties or organizations to invade what is and should be constitutionally and statutorily protected space," she wrote. "What the ponencia fails to appreciate is that the party-list system under the 1987 Constitution is not about mere political plurality, but plurality with a heart for the poor and disadvantaged."

What I understand from the Supreme Court decision in its entirety is that economic marginalization remains a requirement for the economic sectors because that is the source of their weakness, but not necessarily for the national and regional parties. For these latter parties, what is sufficient is political or ideological marginalization, even if the ponencia prefers to limit the word marginalization. In this sense, the new decision is a partial departure from the decision in Ang Bagong Bayani. Thus, social justice as the soul of the system remains intact. XXX the 1987 Constitution has expanded the meaning of social justice to include political justice. It can cover not just the economically marginalized but also the politically or ideologically marginalized. In the ponencias own language, The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that they cannot expect to win in legislative district elections.

According to Justice Antonio Carpio:

Justice Antonio Carpio, who penned the SC decision, quoted Concom member Christian Monsod, who said however that "the partylist system is not synonymous with that of sectoral representation." Carpio also cited the opinion of Concom members Wilfrido Villacorta and Jaime Tadeo, who agreed during 1986 deliberations that United Nationalist Democratic Organization or UNIDO - the main political party then - could join the party-list system, as long as they field candidates from sectoral lines.

According to CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:

Sereno disagreed with the majority decision of the high court. She said the party-list system should only be confined to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors as social justice was the foundation of the 1987 Constitution. Sereno quoted Cecilia Muoz-Palma, president of the 1986 Constitutional Commission (Concom), who said the charter "is a document which in clear and unmistakable terms reaches to the underprivileged, the paupers, the sick, the elderly, disabled, veterans and other sectors of the society."

NOTES:
The Comelec previously explained that getting a status quo ante order allowed these groups to retain their status as new applicants for the party-list system, but that they still needed a mandatory injunction to stop their disqualification.