FELICIANO,LUIGI MARVIC G.

MARCH 19,
2017
2012-0630 ATTY. EDWIN REY
SANDOVAL
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (PARTY-LIST SYSTEM)

Purpose of the Party-List System

In the case of Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766,

April 2, 2013, the Supreme Court said that the party list system
is intended to democratize political power by giving political
parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to
win seats in the House of Representatives.

Sec. 2, R.A. 7941 provides for the promotion of proportional

representation in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives through a party-list system of registered national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof
which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized
and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who
lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute
to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the
House of Representatives.

Definition

The Party-List system is a mechanism of proportional

representation in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives from national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the COMELEC.
[R.A. No. 7941(Party-List System Act)]
There are two kinds of members in the House of
Representatives:
(1) District Representatives
(2) Party-List Representatives

District Representatives are elected directly and personally

from the territorial unit he is seeking to represent. They are
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Area.
The Party-List Representative is chosen indirectly, through the
party he represents, which is the one voted for by the electorate.
(Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014)

Every voter is entitled to two (2) votes: one for the district
representative and another for the party-list representative.

The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total

number of the members of the House of Representatives
including those under the party-list. For every four (4) district
representatives, there shall be one (1) party-list representative.
The ratio is 4:1. Since the party-list representatives constitute
20% of the total number of representatives, it follows that the
remaining 80% is reserved for the district representatives.

Qualification of Party-List Representatives

1. Natural Born Citizen of the Philippines;

2. A registered voter;
3. A resident of the Philippines for at least one (1)year
immediately preceding the day of the election;
4. Able to read and write;
5. A bona fide member of the party or organization which he
seeks to represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of
the election; and
6. At least 25 years of age on the day of the election

Note: For the youth sector, he must be at least 25 years of age

but not more than 30 years of age on the day of the election. Any
youth representative who attains the age of 30 during his term
shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his
term.

Groups that are disqualified under the Party-List System

1. Religious sects;
2. Those which advocate violence or unlawful means to seek
their goal;
3. Foreign parties;
4. Parties which receive support from any foreign government
or foreign political party;
5. Those which violate or fail to comply with laws, rules, or
regulations relating to election laws;
6. Those which declare untruthful statements in their petitions;
7. Those which have ceased to exist for at least one (1) year;
and
8. Those who failed to participate in the last two preceding
elections

Note: The other ground, to wit, Failure to obtain at least two

percent of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two
preceding elections for the constituency in which it has
registered, has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court. (BANAT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, July 8, 2009)

The case of Atong Paglaum, Inc v. Commission on Elections

(G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013,694 SCRA 477), the Supreme
Court in setting the parameters for participation in party-list
elections, clarified that consistent with the provisions of Sec. 5(1),
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution, the party-list system provides for three
(3) different groups:

(1) National Parties or Organizations,

(2) Regional Parties or Organization,

(3) Sectoral Parties or Organizations.

In turn, sectoral parties or organizations can be classified into two
(2): (a) Marginalized and underrepresented and (2) Lacking in well
defined political constitutencies.

There are two reasons provided by the Supreme Court why the
party-list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties:

1. The other half of the seats allocated to party list

representatives would naturally be open to non-sectoral
party-list representatives, clearly negating the idea that the
party-list system is exclusively for sectoral parties
representing the marginalized and underrepresented.
2. The reservation of one half of the party-list seats to sectoral
parties applies only for the first three consecutive terms
after the ratification of this Constitution, clearly making the
party-list system fully open after the end of the first three
congressional terms.

The common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral

parties is that they cannot expect to win in the legislative district
elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the
same number of votes that winning candidates can garner in the
legislative elections.

The Marginalized and underrepresented sector include:

labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. On
the other hand, the sectors that lack well defined political
constituencies include: professionals, the elderly, women, and
youth.

According to the Supreme Court, the enumeration of marginalized

and under-represented sectors in Section 5, Art. VI is not
exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a sector is
specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization
complies with the requirements of the Constitution and R.A. 7941.
(Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. 190582, April 8, 2010,
618 SCRA 32) It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains
to the special interests and concerns of their sector.

Change of Affiliation; Effect of

Any elected party-list representative who changes his political
party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his
seat; provided that if he changes his political party or sectoral
affiliation within 6 months before an election, he shall not be
eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new
party or organization.

Vacancy
The vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next
representative from the list of nominees in the order submitted to
the COMELEC by the same party, organization, or coalition who
shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the
party, organization, or coalition concerned shall submit additional
nominees.

Term of Office; Rights

Party-List representative shall be elected for a term of three (3)
years, and shall be entitled to the same salaries and emoluments
as regular members of the House of Representatives. The party-
list representative shall have the same rights and be subject to
the same inhibitions and disqualifications as the district
representatives.

FIRST CASE: ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., ET. AL V.COMELEC

G.R. No. 203766 : April 2, 2013

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr.

Alan Igot v. COMELEC
CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:
52 party-list groups and organizations filed separate petitions
totaling 54 with the Supreme Court (SC) in an effort to reverse
various resolutions by the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
disqualifying them from the May 2013 party-list race. The
COMELEC, in its assailed resolutions issued in October, November
and December of 2012, ruled, among others, that these party-list
groups and organizations failed to represent a marginalized and
underrepresented sector, their nominees do not come from a
marginalized and underrepresented sector, and/or some of the
organizations or groups are not truly representative of the sector
they intend to represent in Congress.

Petitioners argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
disqualifying petitioners from participating in the 13 May 2013
party-list elections, either by denial of their new petitions for
registration under the party-list system, or by cancellation of their
existing registration and accreditation as party-list organizations;
and second, whether the criteria for participating in the party-list
system laid down inAng Bagong Bayani and Barangay Association
for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on
Elections(BANAT) should be applied by the COMELEC in the
coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of

discretion

HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines

set in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT.
However, the Supreme Court remanded the cases back to
the COMELEC as the Supreme Court now provides for new
guidelines which abandoned some principles established
in the two aforestated cases.

Political Law- Party-list system

Commissioner Christian S. Monsod, the main sponsor of the party-

list system, stressed that "the party-list system is not
synonymous with that of the sectoral representation."
Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the
party-list system to include not only sectoral parties but also non-
sectoral parties. The framers intended the sectoral parties to
constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the party-list system. As
explained by Commissioner Wilfredo Villacorta, political parties
can participate in the party-list system "For as long as they field
candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors that
we shall designate in this Constitution."

Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List System Act is the law that
implements the party-list system prescribed in the Constitution.

Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party" as "either a

political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." Clearly,
a political party is different from a sectoral party. Section 3(c) of
R.A. No. 7941 further provides that a "political party refers to an
organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform,
principles and policies for the general conduct of government."On
the other hand, Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that a
"sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging
to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose
principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of
their sector."R.A. No. 7941 provides different definitions for a
political and a sectoral party. Obviously, they are separate and
distinct from each other.

Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or cause-oriented

political party is clearly different from a sectoral party. A political
party need not be organized as a sectoral party and need not
represent any particular sector. There is no requirement in R.A.
No. 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.

Political Law- parameters in qualifying party- lists

The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013

party-list 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. Petitioners may have
been disqualified by the COMELEC because as political or regional
parties they are not organized along sectoral lines and do not
represent the "marginalized and underrepresented."

Also, petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the sectors they

represent may have been disqualified, although they may have a
track record of advocacy for their sectors. Likewise, nominees of
non-sectoral parties may have been disqualified because they do
not belong to any sector. Moreover, a party may have been
disqualified because one or more of its nominees failed to qualify,
even if the party has at least one remaining qualified nominee.

In determining who may participate in the coming 13 May 2013

and subsequent party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to
the following parameters:

1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system:

(1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or
organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.

2. 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.

3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided

they register under the party-list system and do not field
candidates in legislative district elections. A political party,
whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district
elections 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 sectoral
party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized

and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political
constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains
to the special interest and concerns of their 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. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations

that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" must
belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they
represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties
or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies"
must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of
sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized
and underrepresented," or that represent those who lack "well-
defined political constituencies," either must belong to their
respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for
their respective sectors. 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.

This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its

provisions faithfully, and desist from engaging in socio-economic
or political experimentations contrary to what the Constitution
has ordained. Judicial power does not include the power to re-
write the Constitution. Thus, the present petitions should be
remanded to the COMELEC not because the COMELEC committed
grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioners, but because
petitioners may now possibly qualify to participate in the coming
13 May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters
prescribed by this Court.

SECOND CASE: ANG LADLAD PARTYLIST V. COMELEC

YOGYAKARTA PRINCIPLE

A universal guide to human rights which affirm binding

international legal standards with which all States must comply.
They promise a different future where all people born free and
equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious birthright.

G.R. No. 190582 : April 8, 2010

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair,

DANTON REMOTO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:
Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who
identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-
gendered individuals (LGBTs). Incorporated in 2003, Ang Ladlad
first applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006. The
application for accreditation was denied on the ground that the
organization had no substantial membership base. On August 17,
2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a Petition for registration with the
COMELEC.

Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT community

is a marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly
disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender
identity; that LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and
violence; that because of negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are
constrained to hide their sexual orientation; and that Ang Ladlad
complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court in
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections.
Ang Ladlad laid out its national membership base consisting of
individual members and organizational supporters, and outlined
its platform of governance.

On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioners evidence,

the COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the Petition on moral
grounds, stating that: This Petition is dismissible on moral
grounds. Petitioner defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender (LGBT) Community, thus a marginalized and under-
represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of
their sexual orientation and gender identity. and proceeded to
define sexual orientation as that which refers to a persons
capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction
to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a
different gender, of the same gender, or more than one gender.

ANG LADLAD collides with Article 695 of the Civil Code which
defines nuisance as Any act, omission, establishment, business,
condition of property, or anything else which (3) shocks, defies; or
disregards decency or morality.
It also collides with Article 1306 of the Civil Code: The contracting
parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy. Art 1409 of the Civil Code provides that Contracts whose
cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy are inexistent and void from the
beginning.

Finally to safeguard the morality of the Filipino community, the

Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes Immoral doctrines,
obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows as
follows:

Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions,

and indecent shows.

When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration, three commissioners

voted to overturn the First Assailed Resolution (Commissioners
Gregorio Y. Larrazabal, Rene V. Sarmiento, and Armando Velasco),
while three commissioners voted to deny Ang Ladlads Motion for
Reconsideration (Commissioners Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Lucenito N.
Tagle, and Elias R. Yusoph). The COMELEC Chairman, breaking the
tie and speaking for the majority in his Separate Opinion, upheld
the First Assailed Resolution, stating that:

Ladlad is applying for accreditation as a sectoral party in the

party-list system. Even assuming that it has properly proven its
under-representation and marginalization, it cannot be said that
Ladlads expressed sexual orientations per se would benefit the
nation as a whole.

Thus, even if societys understanding, tolerance, and acceptance

of LGBTs is elevated, there can be no denying that Ladlad
constituencies are still males and females, and they will remain
either male or female protected by the same Bill of Rights that
applies to all citizens alike.

There is no question about not imposing on Ladlad Christian or

 Muslim religious practices. Neither is there any attempt to any
particular religious groups moral rules on Ladlad. Rather, what are
being adopted as moral parameters and precepts are generally
accepted public morals. They are possibly religious-based, but as
a society, the Philippines cannot ignore its more than 500 years of
Muslim and Christian upbringing, such that some moral precepts
espoused by said religions have sipped [sic] into society and
these are not publicly accepted moral norms.

On January 4, 2010, Ang Ladlad filed this Petition, praying that the
Court annul the Assailed Resolutions and direct the COMELEC to
grant Ang Ladlads application for accreditation. Ang Ladlad also
sought the issuance ex parte of a preliminary mandatory
injunction against the COMELEC, which had previously announced
that it would begin printing the final ballots for the May 2010
elections by January 25, 2010.

ISSUE: Whether the Application for accreditation by Ang Ladlad

should be granted.

HELD: The decision of the COMELEC is overruled.

POLITICAL LAW : equal protection clause

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender have the same

interest in participating in the party-list system on the same basis
as other political parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this
case is equally burdensome. Hence, laws of general application
should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to
participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other
marginalized and under-represented sectors.

It bears stressing that our finding that COMELECs act of

differentiating LGBTs from heterosexuals insofar as the party-list
system is concerned does not imply that any other law
distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals under
different circumstances would similarly fail. The Court disagree
with the OSGs position that homosexuals are a class in
themselves for the purposes of the equal protection clause. It
 should not single out homosexuals as a separate class meriting
special or differentiated treatment. We have not received
sufficient evidence to this effect, and it is simply unnecessary to
make such a ruling today. Petitioner itself has merely demanded
that it be recognized under the same basis as all other groups
similarly situated, and that the COMELEC made "an unwarranted
and impermissible classification not justified by the circumstances
of the case."

POLITICAL LAW : freedom of expression and of association

Under our system of laws, every group has the right to promote
its agenda and attempt to persuade society of the validity of its
position through normal democratic means. It is in the public
square that deeply held convictions and differing opinions should
be distilled and deliberated upon.

In a democracy, this common agreement on political and moral

ideas is distilled in the public square. Where citizens are free,
every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, and every moral
discernment has access to the public square where people
deliberate the order of their life together. Citizens are the bearers
of opinion, including opinion shaped by, or espousing religious
belief, and these citizens have equal access to the public square.
In this representative democracy, the state is prohibited from
determining which convictions and moral judgments may be
proposed for public deliberation. Through a constitutionally
designed process, the people deliberate and decide. Majority rule
is a necessary principle in this democratic governance. Thus,
when public deliberation on moral judgments is finally crystallized
into law, the laws will largely reflect the beliefs and preferences of
the majority, i.e., the mainstream or median groups.
Nevertheless, in the very act of adopting and accepting a
constitution and the limits it specifies including protection of
religious freedom "not only for a minority, however small not only
for a majority, however large but for each of us" the majority
imposes upon itself a self-denying ordinance. It promises not to do
what it otherwise could do: to ride roughshod over the dissenting
minorities.

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential

foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom applies not
only to those that are favorably received but also to those that
offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere
must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any
compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court
to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the
COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no
better reason than promoting an approved message or
discouraging a disfavored one.

CIVIL LAW: principle of non-discrimination

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect,
the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all
persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on
any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.
In this context, the principle of non-discrimination
requires that laws of general application relating to
elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless of
sexual orientation. Although sexual orientation is not
specifically enumerated as a status or ratio for
discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR, the ICCPR Human
Rights Committee has opined that the reference to "sex"
in Article 26 should be construed to include "sexual
orientation." Additionally, a variety of United Nations
bodies have declared discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation to be prohibited under various international
agreements.