Ang Bagong Bayani-OfW Labor Party vs. Commission On Elections, 359 SCRA 698, G.R. No. 147589, G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

Elections
*
G.R. No. 147589. June 26, 2001.
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the

acronym OFW), represented herein by its secretary-
general, MOHAMMAD OMAR FAJARDO, petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; CITIZENS DRUG
WATCH; MAMAMAYAN AYAW SA DROGA; GO! GO!
PHILIPPINES; THE TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES; PHILIPPINE
LOCAL AUTONOMY; CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR
JUSTICE, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE;
CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION; SPORTS & HEALTH ADVANCEMENT
FOUNDATION, INC.; ANG LAKAS NG OVERSEAS
CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW); BAGONG BAYANI
ORGANIZATION and others under
Organizations/Coalitions of Omnibus Resolution No.
3785; PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO; LAKAS NUCD-
UMDP; NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION; LABAN
NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO; AKSYON
DEMOKRATIKO; PDP-LABAN; LIBERAL PARTY;
NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG BUHAY HAYAANG
YUMABONG; and others under Political Parties of
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, respondents.
*
G.R. No. 147613. June 26, 2001.
BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS; NATIONALIST PEOPLEs COALITION
(NPC); LABAN NG DE
_______________
* EN BANC.
699
VOL. 359, JUNE 6, 2001 699

Elections
MOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP); PARTIDO NG
MASANG PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP;
LIBERAL PARTY; MAMAMAYANG AYAW SA DROGA;
CREBA; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE
PLANTERS; JEEP; and BAGONG BAYANI
ORGANIZATION, respondents.
Election Law; Actions; Certiorari; Pleadings and Practice;

Under both the Constitution and the Rules of Court, a challenge on
the validity of a Comelec Resolution for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion may be brought before the Supreme Court
in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65.At bottom,
petitioners attack the validity of Comelec Omnibus Resolution
3785 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion,
insofar as it allowed respondents to participate in the party-list
elections of 2001. Indeed, under both the Constitution and the
Rules of Court, such challenge may be brought before this Court
in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Motions for Reconsideration; No
motion for reconsideration of a Comelec en banc resolution, order
or decision is possible, the same being a prohibited pleading.The
assailed Omnibus Resolution was promulgated by Respondent
Commission en banc; hence, no motion for reconsideration was
possible, it being a prohibited pleading under Section 1 (d), Rule
13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Certiorari is available,
notwithstanding the presence of other remedies, where the issue
raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved, and
in case of urgency.In any event, this case presents an exception
to the rule that certiorari shall lie only in the absence of any other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy. It has been held that
certiorari is available, notwithstanding the presence of other
remedies, where the issue raised is one purely of law, where
public interest is involved, and in case of urgency. Indeed, the
instant case is indubitably imbued with public interest and with
extreme urgency, for it potentially involves the composition of 20
percent of the House of Representatives.
Same; Same; Same; Educative Function of the Supreme
Court.Moreover, this case raises transcendental constitutional
issues on the party-list system, which this Court must urgently
resolve, consistent with its duty to formulate guiding and
controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules.
700

Elections
Same; Same; Same; Procedural requirements may be glossed

over to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the
principle of social justice x x x when the decision sought to be set
aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely
urgent.Procedural requirements may be glossed over to
prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the
principle of social justice x x x when the decision sought to be set
aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely urgent
and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available.
Same; Party-List System; Under the Constitution and
Republic Act (RA) 7941, political parties cannot be disqualified
from the party-list elections merely on the ground that they are
political parties.We now rule on this issue. Under the
Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be
disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground
that they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution, provides that members of the House of
Representatives may be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
Same; Same; The key words in the statutory policy set out in
RA 7941 are proportional representation, marginalized and
underrepresented, and lack [of] well-defined constituencies.
The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting
proportional representation by means of the Filipino-style party-
list system, which will enable the election to the House of
Representatives of Filipino citizens, 1. who belong to marginalized
and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and 2.
who lack well-defined constituencies; but 3. who could contribute
to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
will benefit the nation as a whole. The key words in this policy are
proportional representation, marginalized and
underrepresented, and lack [of] well-defined constituencies.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Proportional
representation does not refer to the number of people in a
particular district, but rather to the representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented as exemplified by the
enumeration in Section 5 of the lawnamely, labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals.Proportional representation here does not refer
to the number of people in a particular district, because the party-
list election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to
numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group. Rather, it
refers to the representation of the marginalized and
underrepresented as exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5
of the
701
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 701

Elections
law; namely, labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous

cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,
veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
Same; Same; The party-list organization or party must
factually and truly represent the marginalized and
underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5, and the
persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must
be Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.It is not
enough for the candidate to claim representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented, because representation is
easy to claim and to feign. The partylist organization or party
must factually and truly represent the marginalized and
underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5.
Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-
organization must be Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized
and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Lack of well-defined
constituenc[y] refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable
electoral groups, like voters of a congressional district or territorial
unit of government.Lack of well-defined constituenc[y] refers
to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group, like
voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of government.
Rather, it points again to those with disparate interests identified
with the marginalized or underrepresented.
Same; Same; Statutory Construction; Noscitur A Sociis; It is a
fundamental principle of statutory construction that words
employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with, and their
meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases
with which they are associated or related.While the
enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not
exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all
sectors can be represented under the party-list system. It is a
employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with, and
their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the
phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the
meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified or
specialized by those in immediate association.
Same; Same; The party-list system seeks to enable certain
Filipino citizens.specifically those belonging to marginalized
and underrepresented sectors, organizations and partiesto be
elected to the House of Representatives, and the assertion of the
Office of the Solicitor General that the party-list system is not
exclusive to the marginalized and underrepre
702

Elections
sented disregards the clear statutory policy.The declared policy

of RA 7941 contravenes the position of the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG). We stress that the party-list system seeks to
enable certain Filipino citizensspecifically those belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
partiesto be elected to the House of Representatives. The
assertion of the OSG that the party-list system is not exclusive to
the marginalized and underrepresented disregards the clear
statutory policy. Its claim that even the super-rich and
overrepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of the party-
list system.
Same; Same; Allowing the non-matginalized and
overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the party-list
system would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the
marginalized and underrepresented, contrary to the intention of
the law to enhance it.Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and
overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the party-
list system would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of
the marginalized and underrepresented, contrary to the intention
of the law to enhance it. The party-list system is a tool for the
benefit of the underprivileged; the law could not have given the
same tool to others, to the prejudice of the intended beneficiaries.
Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Statutory Construction;
Verba Legis; The fundamental principle in constitutional
construction is that the primary source from which to ascertain
constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the provision
itself.The fundamental principle in constitutional construction,
however, is that the primary source from which to ascertain
constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the provision
itself. The presumption is that the words in which the
constitutional provisions are couched express the objective sought
to be attained. In other words, verba legis still prevails. Only
when the meaning of the words used is unclear and equivocal
should resort be made to extraneous aids of construction and
interpretation, such as the proceedings of the Constitutional
Commission or Convention, in order to shed light on and ascertain
the true intent or purpose of the provision being construed.
Same; Same; Same; The function of all judicial and quasi-
judicial instrumentalities is to apply the law as they find it, not to
reinvent or second-guess it.When a lower court, or a quasi-
judicial agency like the Commission on Elections, violates or
ignores the Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down
by this Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. Indeed,
the function of all judicial and quasi-judicial instrumentalities is
to apply the law as they find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it.
703
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 703
Ang Bagong Bayqni-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

Elections
Same; Same; Guidelines for Screening Party-List

Participants,The Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand
the case to the Comelec fqr the latter to determine, after
summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
organizations allowed to participate in the party-list elections
comply with the requirements of the law. In this light, the Court
finds it appropriate to lay down the following guidelines, culled
from the law and the Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its
work. First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition
must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups
identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. Second, 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 enabling Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors
to be elected to the House of Representatives. Third, the religious
sector may not be represented in the party-list system. Fourth, a
party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6
of RA 7941. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an
adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted
by, the government. Sixth, the party must not only comply with
t)ie requirements of the law. Its nominees must likewise do so.
Seventh, not only candidate party or organization must represent
marginalized and underrepresented sectors. So also must its
nominees. Eighth, while lacking a well-defined political
constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to
the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole.
VITUG, J,, Separate (Dissenting) Opinion:
Election Law; Party-List System; Neither Article 6, Section

5(2) of the Constitution, nor R.A. 7941 intended to guarantee
representation to all sectors of society and, let alone, hand it over
only to underrepresented and marginalized sectors.It would
seem to me that, construed along with Section 3(d) of the statute,
defining a sectoral party, the enumeration was intended to
qualify only sectoral parties and not the other eligible groups
(e.g., political parties, sectoral organizations and coalitions).
Neither Article 6, Section 5(2), nor R,A, 7941 intended to
guarantee representation to all sectors of society and, let alone,
hand it over only to underrepresented and marginalized sectors.
The real aim, if the will of the majority of the Commissioners
were to be respected, was to introduce the concept of party-list
representation.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Political Party, Sectoral
Party, Sectoral Organization, and Coalition, Defined; The
party-list system is limited to four groups1) political parties, 2)
sectoral parties, 3) sectoral
704

Elections
organizations, and 4) coalitions.The party-list system is limited

to four groups1) political parties, 2) sectoral parties, 3) sectoral
organizations, and 4) coalitions. A political party is an organized
group of citizens advocating an ideology, or platform, principles or
policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the
most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly
nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as
candidates for public office. A sectoral party is an organized group
of citizens belonging to identifiable sectors, such as those
enumerated in Article 6, Section 5(2), of the 1987 Constitution,
which includes the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities and women and those added by R.A. 7941 like the
fisherfolk, elderly, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers and
professionals. A sectoral organization is a group of citizens who
share the same or similar attributes or characteristics,
employment, interests or concerns. Coalition is an aggrupation of
duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or
organizations for election purposes.
Same; Same; A feature of the party-list system is that political
parties, sectoral groups and organizations, coalitions and
aggrupation acquire the status of candidates and their nominees
relegated to mere agents.A feature of the party-list system is
that political parties, sectoral groups and organizations, coalitions
and aggrupation acquire the status of candidates and their
nominees relegated to mere agents. Thus, if a party-list
representative dies, becomes physically incapacitated, removed
from office by the party or the organization he represents, resigns,
or is disqualified during his term, his party can send another
person to take his place for the remaining period, provided the
replacement is next in succession in the list of nominees
submitted to the COMELEC upon registration. Furthermore, a
party-list representative who switches party affiliations during
his term forfeits his seat. So, also, if a person changes his sectoral
affiliation within 6 months before the election, he will not be
eligible for nomination in party-list representative under his new
party or organization.
Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Statutory Construction;
Judicial Legislation; Courts are bound to suppose that any
inconveniences involved in the application of constitutional
provisions according to their plain terms and import have been
considered in advance and accepted as less intolerable than those
avoided, or as compensated by countervailing advantages; The
ponencia itself, in ruling as it does, may unwittingly, be crossing
the limits of judicial review and treading the dangerous waters of
judicial legislation, and more importantly, of a constitutional
amendment.The polestar in the constructions of constitutions
always remainseffect
705
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 705

Elections
must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and
of the people adopting it. The law, in its clear formulation cannot
give this tribunal the elbow-room for construction. Courts are
bound to suppose that any inconveniences involved in the
application of constitutional provisions according to their plain
terms and import have been considered in advance and accepted
as less intolerable than those avoided, or as compensated by
countervailing advantages. The ponencia itself, in ruling as it
does, may unwittingly, be crossing the limits of judicial review
and treading the dangerous waters of judicial legislation, and
more importantly, of a constitutional amendment. While, the
lament of herein petitioners is understandable, the remedy lies
not with this Court but with the people themselves through an
amendment of their work as and when better counsel prevails.
MENDOZA, J., Dissenting opinion:
Election Law; Party-List System; Constitutional Law;

Statutory Construction; The most important single factor in
determining the intention of the people from whom the
Constitution emanated is the language in which it is expressed;
Textually, Art. VI, 5(1)(2) of the Constitution provides no basis for
petitioners contention that whether it is sectoral representation or
party-list system the purpose is to provide exclusive representation
for marginalized sectors, by which term petitioners mean the
labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, and youth sectors.The most important single factor in
determining the intention of the people from whom the
Constitution emanated is the language in which it is expressed.
The text of Art. VI, 5(1)(2) is quite clear. It provides for a party-
list system of registered, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations, not for sectoral representation. Only for three
consecutive terms following the ratification of the Constitution
and only with respect to one-half of the seats allotted to party-list
representatives does it allow sectoral representation. Textually,
Art. VI, 5(1)(2) provides no basis for petitioners contention that
whether it is sectoral representation or party-list system the
purpose is to provide exclusive representation for marginalized
sectors, by which term petitioners mean the labor, peasant,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth
sectors.
Same; Same; Same; Same; To the extent that it assures parties
or candidates a percentage of seats in the legislature that reflects
their public support, the party-list system enables marginalized
and underrepresented sectors to obtain seats in the House of
Representatives.Under the partylist system, a party or
candidate need not come in first in order to win seats in the
legislature. On the other hand, in the winner-take-all single
706

Elections
seat district, the votes cast for a losing candidate are wasted as
only those who vote for the winner are represented. To the extent
then that it assures parties or candidates a percentage of seats in
the legislature that reflects their public support, the party-list
system enables marginalized and underrepresented sectors (such
as, but not limited to, the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women, and youth sectors) to obtain seats
in the House of Representatives. Otherwise, the party-list system
does not guarantee to these sectors seats in the legislature.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission show that the party-list system is not
limited to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors
referred to by petitioners, but that it is a type of proportional
representation intended to give voice to those who may not have the
necessary number to win a seat in a district but are sufficiently
numerous to give them a seat nationwide.The deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission show that the party-list system is
not limited to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors
referred to by petitioners, i.e., labor, peasants, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, and the youth, but that
it is a type of proportional representation intended to give voice to
those who may not have the necessary number to win a seat in a
district but are sufficiently numerous to give them a seat
nationwide. It, therefore, misreads the debates on Art. VI, 5(1)(2)
to say that Although Commissioners Villacorta and Monsod
differed in their proposals as to the details of the party-list
system, both proponents worked within the framework that the
party-list system is for the marginalized as termed by Comm.
Villacorta and the underrepresented as termed by Comm.
Monsod, which he defined as those which are always third or
fourth place in each of the districts.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court cannot hold that the
partylist system is reserved for the labor, peasants, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth without
changing entirely the meaning of the Constitution which in fact
mandates exactly the opposite of the reserved seats system when it
provides in Art. IX, C, 6 that A free and open party system shall
be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people,
subject to the provisions of this Article.A problem was placed
before the Constitutional Commission that the existing winner-
take-all one-seat district system of election leaves blocks of voters
underrepresented. To this problem of underrepresentation two
solutions were proposed: sectoral representation and party-list
system or proportional representation. The Constitutional
Commission chose the party-list system, This Court cannot hold
that the party-list system is reserved for the labor,
707
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 707

Elections
peasants, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women,

and youth as petitioners contend without changing entirely the
meaning of the Constitution which in fact mandates exactly the
Opposite of the reserved seats system when it provides in Art. IX,
C, 6 that A free and open party system shall be allowed to
evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the
provisions of this Article. Thus, neither textual nor historical
consideration yields support for the view that the party-list
system is designed exclusively for labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth sectors.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Neri, Javier, Colmenares for petitioner Bayan Muna.
The Solicitor General for COMELEC.
Chan, Robles and Associates for Citizens Drug Watch
Foundation, Inc.
Cruz, Cruz & Navarro III for Mamamayan Ayaw sa
Droga.
Brillantes, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla, Escolin &
Martinez Law Offices for The True Marcos Loyalist
Association of the Philippines.
Fracis A, Ver for Phil. Local Autonomy Movement.
Yap, Crisanto, Salvador & Calderon and Fornier &
Fornier Law Office for Chamber of Real Estate Builders
Association.
McAskell, Equilla, & Associates for Ang Lakas ng
Overseas Contract Workers.
Juan Carlos T. Cuna and Antonio Dollete &
Associates for Partido ng Masang Pilipino.
Buhag, Kapunan, Migallos & Perez for Aksyon
Demokratiko.
Tonisito M.C. Umali for Liberal Party.
Yulo and Bello Law Offices for LAKAS-NUCD-
UMDP.
Ceferino Padua Law Office, Gerardo A. Del Afundo
Law Office and Antonio R. Bautista & Partners for Bagong
Bayani Organization.
708

Elections
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not

only to give more law to the great masses of our people who
have less in life, but also to enable them to become
veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate
directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them.
It intends to make the marginalized and the
underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the
States benevolence, but active participants in the
mainstream of representative democracy. Thus, allowing
all individuals and groups, including those which now
dominate district elections, to have the same opportunity to
participate in party-list elections would desecrate this lofty
objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanism into
an atrocious veneer for traditional politics.
The Case
Before us are two Petitions under Rule 65 of the 1
Rales of
Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by
the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on March 26, 2001.
This Resolution approved the participation of 154
organizations and parties, including those herein
impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners seek
the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly
that the party-list system was intended to benefit the
marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream
political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented.
The Factual Antecedents
With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received

several Petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties,
organizations and political parties. According to the
Comelec, [verifications were made as to the status and
capacity of these parties and organizations and hearings
were scheduled day and night until the last party w[as]
heard. With the number of these petitions and the
_______________
1 Signed by Chairman Alfredo L. Benipayo and Commissioners

Luzviminda G. Tancangco, Rufino S.B. Javier, Ralph C. Lantion, Mehol K.
Sadain, Resurrecion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr.
709
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 709

Elections
observance of the legal and procedural requirements,

review of these petitions as well as deliberations takes a
longer process in order to arrive at a decision and as a
result the two (2) divisions promulgated a separate
Omnibus Resolution and individual resolution on political
parties. These numerous petitions and processes observed
in the disposition of these petition [s] hinder the early
release of the Omnibus Resolutions of the Divisions
2
which
were promulgated only on 10 February 2001.
Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 deadline
prescribed under Comelec Resolution No. 3426 dated
December 22, 2000, the registered parties and
organizations filed their respective Manifestations, stating
their intention to participate in the party-list elections.
Other sectoral and political parties and organizations
whose registrations were denied also filed Motions for
Reconsideration, together with Manifestations of their
intent to participate in the party list elections. Still other
registered parties filed their Manifestations beyond the
deadline.
The Comelec gave due course or approved the
Manifestations (or accreditations) of 151 parties and
organizations, but denied those of several others in its
assailed March 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785,
which we quote:
We carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in mind

that this system of proportional representation scheme will
encourage multi-partisan [sic] and enhance the inability of small,
new or sectoral parties or organization to directly participate in
this electoral window.
It will be noted that as defined, 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 Commission on Elections.
However, in the course of our review of the matters at bar, we
must recognize the fact that there is a need to keep the number of
sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions, down to a
manageable level, keeping only those who substantially comply
with the rules and regulations and
_______________
2 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, p. 13; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 40.
710

Elections
more importantly the sufficiency of the Manifestations

3
or evidence
on the Motions for Reconsiderations or Oppositions.
On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed

before the Comelec a Petition praying that the names of
[some of herein respondents] be deleted from the Certified
List of Political Parties/Sectoral
Parties/Organizations/Coalitions Participating in the Party
List System for the May 14, 2001 Elections and that said
certified list be accordingly amended. It also asked, as an
alternative, that the votes cast for the said respondents not
be counted or canvassed,
4
and that the latters nominees not
be proclaimed. On April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and Bayan
Muna-Youth also filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Registration 5 and Nomination against some of herein
respondents.
On April 18, 2001, the Comelec required the respondents
in the two disqualification cases to file Comments within
three days from 6
notice. It also set the date for hearing on7
April 26, 2001, but subsequently reset it to May 3, 2001.
During the hearing, however, Commissioner Ralph C.
Lantion merely directed 8
the parties to submit their
respective memoranda.
Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the Comelec,9
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party filed a Petition
before this Court on April 16, 2001. This Petition, docketed
as GR No. 147589, assailed Comelec Omnibus 10Resolution
No. 3785. In its Resolution dated April 17, 2001, the Court
directed respondents to comment on the Petition 11
within a
non-extendible period of five days from notice.
_______________
3 Ibid., pp. 21-22; rollo, pp. 48-49.

4 Rollo (GR No. 147589), pp. 272-273.
5 Rollo (GR No. 147589), pp. 250-263.
6 Rollo (GR No. 147589), pp. 282-283.
7 See rollo (GR No. 147613), p. 223.
8 TSN (GR No. 147589 and 147613), May 17, 2001, p. 49.
9 Rollo (GR No. 147589), pp. 4-73.
10 Rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 74.
11 Comments were filed by MAD, Bagong Bayani, The True Marcos
Loyalists, the Comelec, Partido ng Masang Pilipino, the Liberal Party, the
Office of the Solicitor General, CREBA, Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, the Philip
711
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 711

Elections
On April 17, 2001, Petitioner

12
Bayan Muna also filed before
this Court a Petition, docketed as GR No. 147613, also
challenging Comelec Omnibus Resolution
13
No. 3785. In its
Resolution dated May 9, 2001, the Court ordered the
consolidation of the two Petitions before it; directed
respondents named in the second Petition to file their
respective Comments on or before noon of May 15, 2001;
and called the parties to an Oral Argument on May 17,
2001. It added that the Comelec may proceed with the
counting and canvassing of votes cast for the party-list
elections, but barred the proclamation of any winner
therein, until further orders
14
of the Court.
Thereafter, Comments on the second Petition were
received by the Court and, on May 17, 2001, the Oral
Argument was conducted as scheduled. In an Order given
in open court, the parties were directed to submit their
respective Memoranda simultaneously
15
within a non-
extendible period of five days.
Issues:
During the hearing on May 17, 2001, the Court directed the
parties to address the following issues:
1. Whether or not recourse under Rule 65 is proper

under the premises. More specifically, is there no
other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law?
_______________
pine Local Autonomy Movement, Aksyon Demokratiko, Citizens Drug

Watch Foundation, Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, Ang Lakas ng OCW,
and Sports and Health Foundation.
12 Rollo (GR No. 147613), pp. 3-45.
13 Rollo (GR No. 147613), p. 46.
14 These were filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Comelec,
The Bagong Bayani Organization, Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga, and the
Philippine Local Autonomy Movement.
15 Memoranda were filed by Petitioners Bayan Muna and Ang Bagong
Bayani-OFW Labor Party; and Respondents Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga,
CREBA, the Bagong Bayani Organization, the Office of the Solicitor
General, and Aksyon Demokratiko. Manifestations instead of memoranda
were filed by Lakas-NUCD and OCW.
712

Elections
2. Whether or not political parties may participate in

the partylist elections.
3. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors and
organizations.
4. Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse
of discretion
16
in promulgating Omnibus Resolution
No. 3785.
The Courts Ruling
The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be

remanded to the Comelec which will determine, after
summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties
and organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus
Resolution satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and
RA 7941, as specified in this Decision.
First Issue:
Recourse Under Rule 65
Respondents contend that the recourse of both petitioners

under Rule 65 is improper because there are other plain,
speedy
17
and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of
law. The Office of the Solicitor General argues that
petitioners should have filed before the Comelec a petition
either for disqualification or for cancellation of registration,
pursuant to Sections18 19, 20, 21 and 22 of19 Comelec
Resolution No. 3307-A dated November 9, 2000.
We disagree. At bottom, petitioners attack the validity of
Comelec Omnibus Resolution 3785 for having been issued
with grave abuse of discretion, insofar as it allowed
respondents to participate
_______________
16 See the May 17, 2001 Resolution, p. 2; rollo (GR No. 147613), p. 88.
17 See, e.g., the Bagong Bayani Organizations Memorandum, pp. 3-4;
Aksyon Demokratikos Memorandum, pp. 2-3; and MADs Memorandum,
pp. 3-6.
18 Rules and regulations governing the filing of a petition for
registration, a manifestation to participate, and the names of nominees
under the party-list system of representation in connection with the May
14, 2001 national and local elections.
19 OSGs Memorandum, pp. 6-14; rollo (GR No. 147613), pp. 151-159.
713
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 713

Elections
in the party-list
20
elections of 2001. Indeed, under both the
Constitution and the Rules of Court, such challenge may
be brought before this Court in a verified petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.
Moreover, the assailed Omnibus Resolution was
promulgated by Respondent Commission en banc; hence,
no motion for reconsideration was possible, it being a
prohibited pleading under 21Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of the
Comelec Rules of Procedure.
The Court also notes that Petitioner Bayan Muna had
filed before the Comelec a Petition for Cancellation of
Registration 22 and Nomination against some of herein
respondents. The Comelec, however, did not act on that
Petition. In view of the pendency of the elections, Petitioner
Bayan Muna sought succor from this Court, for there was
no other adequate recourse at the time. Subsequent events
have proven the urgency of petitioners action; to this date,
the Comelec has not yet formally resolved the Petition
before it. But a resolution may just be a formality because
the Comelec, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
has made its position on the matter quite clear.
In any event, this case presents an exception to the rule
that certiorari shall lie only in the absence of any other
plain, speedy
_______________
20 Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, provides: Judicial power

includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
21 SECTION 1. What pleadings are not allowed.The following
pleadings are not allowed:
x x xx x xx x x
d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or
decision except in election offense cases;
x x xx x xx x x
22 Docketed as SPA 01-113. As earlier noted, Akbayan also filed before
the Comelec a similar Petition, docketed as SPA-01-109. See Annexes 1
and 2, Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General; rollo (GR No.
147589), pp. 250 et seq. and 266 et seq.
714

Elections
23
and adequate remedy. It has been held that certiorari is
available, notwithstanding the presence of other remedies,
where the issue raised is one purely of law, 24where public
interest is involved, and in case of urgency. Indeed, the
instant case is indubitably imbued with public interest and
with extreme urgency, for it potentially involves the
composition of 20 percent of the House of Representatives.
Moreover, this case raises transcendental constitutional
issues on the party-list system, which this Court must
urgently resolve, consistent with its duty to formulate
guiding and controlling
25
constitutional principles, precepts,
doctrines, or rules.
Finally, procedural requirements may be glossed over
to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves
the principle of social justice x x x when the decision sought
to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is
extremely urgent and certiorari
26
is the only adequate and
speedy remedy available.
Second Issue:
Participation of Political Parties
In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party

contends that the inclusion of political parties in the
party-list system is the27 most objectionable portion of the
questioned Resolution. For its
_______________
23 Section 1, Rule 65. See Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222,

October 16, 1996; BF Corporation v. CA, 288 SCRA 267, March 27, 1998;
GSIS v. Olisa, 304 SCRA 421, March 10, 1999; National Steel Corporation
v. CA, GR No. 134437, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 208; Sahali v.
Comelec, GR No. 134169, February 2, 2000, 324 SCRA 510.
24 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 269 SCRA 316, March 7, 1997, per
Panganiban, J. See also ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v.
Commission on Elections, GR No. 133486, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA
811; Central Bank v. Cloribel, 44 SCRA 307, April 11, 1972.
25 Salonga v. Cruz Pao, 134 SCRA 438, February 18, 1985, per
Gutierrez, Jr., J. See also Taada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997;
Guingona v. Gonzales, 219 SCRA 326, March 1, 1993.
26 ABS-CBN v. Comelec, GR No. 133486, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA
811, per Panganiban, J.
27 Petition of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, p. 15; rollo (GR
No, 147589), p. 18.
715
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 715

Elections
part, Petitioner Bayan Muna28

objects to the participation of
major political parties. On the other hand, the Office of
the Solicitor General, like the impleaded political parties,
submits that the Constitution and RA No. 7941 allow
political parties to participate in the party-list elections. It
argues that the party-list system is, in fact, open to all
registered national,
29
regional and sectoral parties or
organizations.
We now rule on this issue. Under the Constitution and
RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified from
the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are
political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution,
provides that members of the House of Representatives
may be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of
the Constitution, political parties may be registered under
the party-list system.
Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or

coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the
party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions
registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented in
the voters registration boards, boards of election inspectors,
boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they30 shall
be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.
During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission,

Comm. Christian S. Monsod pointed out that the
participants in the party-list system may be a regional 31
party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO,
Magsasaka, or a regional party in Min-
_______________
28 Petition of Bayan Muna, p. 18; rollo (GR No. 147613), p. 20.

29 OSG Comment, p. 18; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 244.
30 Emphasis supplied. See also 17 and 18, Article VI of the
Constitution.
31 It may be noted that when the Constitution was being drafted in the
early days of the post-Marcos era, UNIDO was the dominant political
party.
716

Elections
32
danao. This was also clear from the following
33
exchange
between Comms. Jaime Tadeo and Blas Ople:
MR. TADEO. Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay

pwedeng paghati-hatian ng UNIDO, PDP-Laban, PNP,
Liberal at Nacionalista?
MR. OPLE. Maaari yan sapagkat bukas ang party-list
system sa lahat ng mga partido.
Indeed, Commissioner Monsod stated that the purpose of

the party-list provision was to open up the system, in order
to give a chance to parties that consistently place third or
fourth in 34congressional district elections to win a seat in
Congress. He explained: The purpose of this is to open the
system. In the past elections, we found out that there were
certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes
nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But
they were always third or fourth place in each of the
districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this
way, they would have five or six representatives in the
Assembly even if they would not win individually in
legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics,
the purpose and objectives of the partylist system.
For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for a
party-list system of registered national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x
x. Section 3 expressly states that a party is either a
political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.
More to the point, the law defines political party as an
organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of
government and which, as the most immediate means of
securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports
certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public
office.
Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as
to the participation of political parties in the party-list
system. We quote the pertinent provision below:
_______________
32 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p. 86.

717
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 717

Elections
x x xx x xx x x
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major
political parties on the basis of party representation in the House
of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the
Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list
system.
x x xx x xx x x
Indubitably, therefore, political partieseven the major

onesmay participate in the party-list elections.
Third Issue:
Marginalized and Underrepresented
That political parties may participate in the party-list
elections does not mean, however, that any political party
or any organization or group for that mattermay do so.
The requisite character of these parties or organizations
must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list
system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941.
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides as
follows:
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of

not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected
from 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, and those who, as provided by
law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute
twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party
list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the
seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be
filled, as provided by law, by selection or election
from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women, youth, and such
other sectors as may be provided by law, except the
religious sector. (Emphasis supplied.)
Notwithstanding the sparse language of the provision, a

distinguished member of the Constitutional Commission
declared that the purpose of the party-list provision was to
give genuine power
718

Elections
to our people in Congress. Hence, when the provision was

discussed, he exultantly announced: On this first day of
August 1986, we shall, hopefully, usher in a new chapter to
our national history,
35
by giving genuine power to our people
in the legislature.
The foregoing provision on the party-list system is not
self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like
in accordance with law or as may be provided by law; it
was thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty
objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.
It laid out the statutory policy in this wise:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.The State shall promote

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 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. Towards this end, the
State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party
system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of
party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives
by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the
legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.
The Marginalized and Underrepresented

to Become Lawmakers Themselves
The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of
promoting proportional representation by means of the
Filipino-style partylist system, which will enable the
election to the House of Representatives of Filipino
citizens.
1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented

sectors, organizations and parties; and
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
_______________
719
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 719

Elections
3. who could contribute to the formulation and

enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole.
The key words in this policy are proportional

representation, marginalized and underrepresented, and
lack [of] well-defined constituencies.
Proportional representation here does not refer to the
number of people in a particular district, because the party-
list election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to
numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group.
Rather, it refers to the representation of the marginalized
and underrepresented as exemplified by the enumeration
in Section 5 of the law; namely, labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers,
and professionals.
However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim
representation of the marginalized and underrepresented,
because representation is easy to claim and to feign. The
party-list organization or party must factually and truly
represent the marginalized and 36 underrepresented
constituencies mentioned in Section 5. Concurrently, the
persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization
must be Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.
Finally, lack of well-defined constituency] refers to the
absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group, like
voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of
government. Rather, it points again to those with disparate
interests identified with the marginalized or
underrepresented.
In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that
only those Filipinos who are marginalized and
underrepresented become members of Congress under the
party-list system, Filipino-style.
The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine
power to the people, not only by giving more law to those
who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to
become veritable lawmakers themselves. Consistent with
this intent, the policy of the imple-
_______________
36 Infra.
720

Elections
menting law, we repeat, is likewise clear: to enable

Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, x x x,
to become members of the House of Representatives.
Where the language of the law 37
is clear, it must be applied
according to its express terms.
The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be
represented under the party-list system are enumerated in
Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:
SEC. 5. Registration.Any organized group of persons may

register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the
party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than
ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its
president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the
party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or
organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations,
attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of
government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other
relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided,
that the sector shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women,
youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
While the enumeration of marginalized and

underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates
the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be
represented under the party-list system. It is a
employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with,
and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words
and the phrases with which they are associated or related.
Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, 38
qualified or specialized by those in immediate association.
_______________
37 Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 747, February 26, 1997;

Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590, September 28, 1995.
38 82 C.J.S. Statutes 331.
721
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 721

Elections
The Party-List System Desecrated

by the OSG Contentions
Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy, the
Office of the Solicitor General submits that RA No. 7941
does not limit the participation in the party-list system to
the marginalized
39
and underrepresented sectors of
society. In fact, it contends that any40 party or group that
is not disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941 may
participate in the elections. Hence, it admitted during the
Oral Argument that even an organization representing the
super rich of Forbes Park or Dasmarinas 41
Village could
participate in the party-list elections.
The declared policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position
of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). We stress that
the party-list system seeks to enable certain Filipino
citizensspecifically those belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and partiesto be
elected to the House of Representatives. The assertion of
the OSG that the party-list system is not exclusive to the
marginalized and underrepresented disregards the clear
statutory policy. Its claim that even the super-rich and
overrepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of the
party-list system.
Indeed, the law grafted to address the peculiar
disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be
appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park. The
interests of these two sectors are manifestly disparate;
hence, the OSGs position to treat them similarly defies
reason and common sense. In contrast, 42
and with admirable
candor, Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan admitted during the
Oral Argument that a group of bankers, industrialists and
sugar planters could not join the party-list 43
system as
representatives of their respective sectors.
While the business moguls and the mega-rich are,
numerically speaking, a tiny minority, they are neither
marginalized nor un-
_______________
39 OSG Comment, p. 18; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 244.

40 Infra.
41 TSN, May 17, 2001, pp. 147-148.
42 Counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko.
43 TSN, May 17, 2001, pp. 178-180.
722

Elections
derrepresented, for the stark reality is that their economic

clout engenders political power more awesome than their
numerical limitation. Traditionally, political power does
not necessarily emanate from the size of ones constituency;
indeed, it is likely to arise more directly from the number
and amount of ones bank accounts.
It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized and
underrepresented in our midst are the majority who
wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity. It was for
them that the party-list system was enactedto give them
not only genuine hope, but genuine power; to give them the
opportunity to be elected and to represent the specific
concerns of their constituencies; and simply to give them a
direct voice in Congress and in the larger affairs of the
State. In its noblest sense, the party-list system truly
empowers the masses and ushers a new hope for genuine
change. Verily, it invites those marginalized and
underrepresented in the pastthe farm hands, the fisher
folk, the urban poor, even those in the underground
movementto come out and participate, as indeed many of
them came out and participated during the last elections.
The State cannot now disappoint and frustrate them by
disabling and desecrating this social justice vehicle.
Because the marginalized and underrepresented had not
been able to win in the congressional district elections
normally dominated by traditional politicians and vested
groups, 20 percent of the seats in the House of
Representatives were set aside for the party-list system. In
arguing that even those sectors who normally controlled 80
percent of the seats in the House could participate in the
party-list elections for the remaining 20 percent, the OSG
and the Comelec disregard the fundamental difference
between the congressional district elections and the party-
list elections.
As earlier noted, the purpose
44
of the party-list provision
was to open up the system, in order to enhance the chance
of sectoral groups and organizations to gain representation
in the House of
_______________
44 Supra. See also 6, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, which reads: A

free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free
choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this Article.
723
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 723

Elections
45
Representatives through the simplest scheme possible.
Logic shows that the system has been opened to those who
have never gotten a foothold within itthose who cannot
otherwise win in regular elections and who therefore need
the simplest scheme possible to do so. Conversely, it
would be illogical to open the system to those who have
long been within itthose privileged sectors that have long
dominated the congressional district elections.
The import of the open party-list system may be more
vividly understood when compared to a student dormitory
open house, which by its nature allows outsiders to enter
the facilities. Obviously, the open house is for the benefit
of outsiders only, not the dormers themselves who can
enter the dormitory even without such special privilege. In
the same vein, the open party-list system is only for the
outsiders who cannot get elected through regular
elections otherwise; it is not for the non-marginalized or
overrepresented who already fill the ranks of Congress.
Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and
overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the
party-list system would not only dilute, but also prejudice
the chance of the marginalized and underrepresented,
contrary to the intention of the law to enhance it. The
party-list system is a tool for the benefit of the
underprivileged; the law could not have given the same tool
to others, to the prejudice of the intended beneficiaries.
This Court, therefore, cannot allow the party-list system
to be sullied and prostituted by those who are neither
marginalized nor underrepresented. It cannot let that
flicker of hope be snuffed out. The clear state policy must
permeate every discussion of the qualification of political
parties and other organizations under the party-list
system.
_______________
45 Section 2 of RA 7941 states in part as follows: x x x. Towards this

end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party
system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party,
sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing
their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall
provide the simplest scheme possible.
724

Elections
Refutation of the
Separate Opinions
The Separate Opinions of our distinguished colleagues,
Justices Jose C. Vitug and Vicente V. Mendoza, are
anchored mainly on the supposed intent of the framers of
the Constitution as culled from their deliberations.
The fundamental principle in constitutional
construction, however, is that the primary source from
which to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the
language of the provision itself. The presumption is that
the words in which the constitutional provisions are
46
46
couched express the objective sought to be attained. In
other words, verba legis still prevails. Only when the
meaning of the words used is unclear and equivocal should
resort be made to extraneous aids of construction and
interpretation, such as the proceedings of the
Constitutional Commission or Convention, in order to shed
light on and ascertain the 47
true intent or purpose of the
provision being construed.
Indeed, as cited in the Separate Opinion of Justice
Mendoza, this Court 48
stated in Civil Liberties Union v.
Executive Secretary that the debates and proceedings of
the constitutional convention [may be consulted] in order to
arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting
Constitution x x x only when other guides fail as said
proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the
Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates in the
constitutional convention are of value as showing the
views of the individual members, and as indicating the
reason for their votes, but they give us no light as to the
views of the large majority who did not talk, much less of
the mass or our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls
gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. We
think it safer to construe the constitution from what
appears upon its face The
_______________
46 JM Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413,

February 18, 1970; cited in Ruben C. Agpalo, Statutory Construction,
1990 ed., p. 311. See also Gold Creek Mining Corp. v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil.
259,264(1938).
47 See Agpalo, ibid., p. 313.
48 194 SCRA 317, February 22, 1991, per Fernan, C.J.; quoting
Commonwealth v. Ralph, 111 Pa 365, 3 Atl. 220.
725
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 725

Elections
proper interpretation therefore depends more on how it

was understood by the people adopting it than in the
framers understanding thereof.
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, relative to the
party-list system, is couched in clear terms: the mechanics
of the system shall be provided by law. Pursuant thereto,
Congress enacted RA 7941. In understanding and
implementing party-list representation, we should
therefore look at the law first. Only when we find its
provisions ambiguous should the use of extraneous aids of
construction be resorted to.
But, as discussed earlier, the intent of the law is obvious
and clear from its plain words. Section 2 thereof
unequivocally states that the party-list system of electing
congressional representatives was designed to enable
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 x x x.
The criteria for participation is well defined. Thus, there is
no need for recourse to constitutional deliberations, not
even to the proceedings of Congress. In any event, the
framers deliberations merely express their individual
opinions and are, at best, only persuasive in construing the
meaning and purpose of the constitution or statute.
Be it remembered that the constitutionality or validity
of Sections 2 and 5 of RA 7941 is not an issue here. Hence,
they remain parts of the law, which must be applied plainly
and simply.
Fourth Issue:
Grave Abuse of Discretion
From its assailed Omnibus Resolution, it is manifest that

the Comelec failed to appreciate fully the clear policy of the
law and the Constitution. On the contrary, it seems to have
ignored the facet of the party-list system discussed above.
The OSG as its counsel admitted before the Court that any
group, even the non-marginalized and overrepresented,
could field candidates in the party-list elections.
726

Elections
When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the

Commission on Elections, violates or ignores the
Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down by 49
this Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasijudicial
instrumentalities is to apply
50
the law as they find it, not to
reinvent or second-guess it.
In its Memorandum, Petitioner Bayan Muna
passionately pleads for the outright disqualification of the
major political partiesRespondents Lakas-NUCD, LDP,
NPC, LP and PMPon the ground that under Comelec
Resolution No. 4073, they have been accredited as the five
(six, including PDP-Laban) major political parties in the
May 14, 2001 elections. It argues that because of this, they
have the advantage of getting official Comelec Election
Returns, Certificates of Canvass, preferred poll watchers x
x x. We note, however, that this accreditation does not
refer to the partylist election, but, inter alia, to the election
of district representatives for the purpose of determining
which parties would be entitled to watchers under Section
26 of Republic Act No. 7166.
What is needed under the present circumstances,
however, is a factual determination of whether respondents
herein and, for that matter, all the 154 previously approved
groups, have the necessary qualifications to participate in
the party-list elections, pursuant to the Constitution and
the law.
Bayan Muna also urges us to immediately rule out
Respondent Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD), because
it is a government entity using government resources and 51
privileges. This Court, however, is not a trier of facts, It
is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth
of such factual allegations.
_______________
49 Taada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997. See also Santiago v.
Guingona, 298 SCRA 756, November 18, 1998; Miranda v. Aguirre, 314
SCRA 603, September 16, 1999; Garcia v. HRET, 312 SCRA 353, August
12, 1999.
50 Veterans Federation Party, et al v. Comelec, et al., GR No. 136781,
October 6, 2000, 342 SCRA 244.
51 See Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 278, February 18, 1999;
Inciong, Jr. v. CA, 257 SCRA 578, June 26, 1996; Palomado v. NLRC, 257
SCRA 680, June 28, 1996; Heirs of the Late Teodoro Guaring,
727
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 727

Elections
Basic rudiments of due process require that respondents

should first be given an opportunity to show that they
qualify under the guidelines promulgated in this Decision,
before they can be deprived of their right to participate in
and be elected under the party-list system.
Guidelines for Screening

Party-List Participants
The Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand the case to
the Comelec for the latter to determine, after summary
evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
organizations allowed to participate in the party-list
elections comply with the requirements of the law. In this
light, the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the
following guidelines, culled from the law and the
Constitution, to assist the Comelec in its work.
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition
must represent the marginalized and underrepresented
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words, it
must showthrough its constitution, articles of
incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and
track recordthat it represents and seeks to uplift
marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily,
majority of its membership should belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented. And it must
demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or
is likely to choose the interest of such sectors.
Second, 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 x x x to be
elected to the House of Representatives. In other words,
while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that
they are political parties, they must show, however, that
they represent the interests of the marginalized and
underrepresented. The counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko and
other simi-
_______________
Jr. v. CA, 269 SCRA 283, March 7, 1997; Sebreo v. Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, 270 SCRA 360, March 24, 1997; PCGG v. Cojuangco,
Jr., 302 SCRA 217, January 27, 1999.
728

Elections
larly situated political parties admitted as much during the

Oral Argument, as the following quote shows:
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN: I am not disputing that in my

question. All I am saying is, the political party must
claim to represent the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors? 52
ATTY. KAPUNAN: Yes, Your Honor, the answer is yes.
53
Third, in view of the objections directed against the
registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, which is
allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express
constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be
represented in the party-list system. The extent of the
constitutional proscription is demonstrated by the following
discussion during the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission:
MR. OPLE. x x x In the event that a certain religious sect

with nationwide and even international networks of
members and supporters, in order to circumvent this
prohibition, decides to form its own political party in
emulation of those parties I had mentioned earlier as
deriving their inspiration and philosophies from well-
established religious faiths, will that also not fall within
this prohibition?
MR. MONSOD. If the evidence shows that the intention is
to go around the prohibition, then certainly
54
the Comelec
can pierce through the legal fiction.
The following discussion is also pertinent:
MR. VILLACORTA. When the Commissioner proposed

EXCEPT RELIGIOUS GROUPS, he is not, of course,
prohibiting priests, imams or pastors who may be
elected by, say, the indigenous community sector to
represent their group.
_______________
52 TSN, May 17, 2001, p. 180.

53 Petition of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, p. 16; rollo (GR
No. 147589), p. 19.
54 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. I, p. 636.
729
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 729

Elections
REV. RIGOS. Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who

represents the Iglesia ni Kristo,55 the Catholic Church,
the Protestant Church et cetera.
Furthermore, the Constitution provides that religious 56

denominations and sects shall not be registered. 57
The
prohibition was explained by a member of the
Constitutional Commission in this wise: [T]he prohibition
is on any religious organization registering as a political
party. I do not see any prohibition here against a priest
running as a candidate. That is not prohibited here;58it is
the registration of a religious sect as a political party.
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be
disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates
the grounds for disqualification as follows:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization

or association organized for religious purposes;
2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its
goal;
3. It is a foreign party or organization;
4. It is receiving support from any foreign
government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its
officers or members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;
5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
regulations relating to elections;
6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
8. It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding
elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in
the two (2) preceding elections
59
for the constituency
in which it has registered.
_______________

56 2 (5), Article IX (C).
57 Christian S. Monsod.
58 Record of the Constitutional Commission. Vol. I, p. 634.
59 See also 11, Comelec Resolution No. 3307-A.
730

Elections
Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a

party or group for violation of or failure to comply with
election laws and regulations. These laws include Section 2
of RA 7941, which states that the party-list system seeks to
enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties x x x
to become members of the House of Representatives. A
party or an organization, therefore, that does not comply
with this policy must be disqualified.
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct
of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by,
the government. By the very nature of the party-list
system, the party or organization must be a group of
citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It
must be independent of the government. The participation
of the government or its officials in60 the affairs, of a party-
list candidate is not only illegal and unfair to other
parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to
enable citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors and organizations to be elected to
the House of Representatives.
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so.
Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees.No person shall

be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the
Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a bona
fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to
represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the
election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of
the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be
twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the
day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains
the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue
in office until the expiration of his term.
_______________
60 See 2 (4), Article IX (B) of the Constitution. See also Article 261 (o),
BP 881.
731
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 731

Elections
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must

represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so
also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA
7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens who belong to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations
and parties. Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be
fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the
urban poor or the working class, by an industrialist. To
allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine
representation to the marginalized and underrepresented.
Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-
defined political constituency, the nominee must likewise
be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a
whole. Senator Jose Lina explained during the bicameral
committee proceedings that the nominee of a party,
national or regional,
61
is not going to represent a particular
district x x x.
Epilogue
The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the
law: to enable Filipino citizens belonging to 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.
Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental
social justice principle that those who have less in life
should have more in law. The party-list system is one such
tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It gives
the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine
power. It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced,
and even to those in the underground, that change is
possible. It is an invitation for them to come out of their
limbo and seize the opportunity.
_______________
61 The bicameral conference committee on the disagreeing provision of

Senate Bill No. 1913 and House Bill No. 3040, January 31, 1994, p. 4.
732

Elections
Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions

of the Comelec and the other respondents that the party-
list system is, without any qualification, open to all. Such
position does not only weaken the electoral chances of the
marginalized and underrepresented; it also prejudices
them. It would gut the substance of the party-list system.
Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage.
Instead of enabling the marginalized, it would further
weaken them and aggravate their marginalization.
In effect, the Comelec would have us believe that the
party-list provisions of the Constitution and RA 7941 are
nothing more than a play on dubious words, a mockery of
noble intentions, and an empty offering on the altar of
people empowerment. Surely, this could not have been the
intention of the framers of the Constitution and the makers
of RA 7941.
WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the
Comelec, which is hereby DIRECTED to immediately
conduct summary evidentiary hearings on the
qualifications of the party-list participants in the light of
the guidelines enunciated in this Decision. Considering the
extreme urgency of determining the winners in the last
partylist elections, the Comelec is directed to begin its
hearings for the parties and organizations that appear to
have garnered such number of votes as to qualify for seats
in the House of Representatives. The Comelec is further
DIRECTED to submit to this Court its compliance report
within 30 days from notice hereof.
The Resolution of this Court dated May 9, 2001,
directing the Comelec to refrain from proclaiming any
winner during the last party-list election, shall remain in
force until after the Comelec itself will have complied and
reported its compliance with the foregoing disposition.
This Decision is immediately executory upon the
Commission on Elections receipt thereof. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, Buena and Gonzaga-

Reyes, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.) and Bellosillo, J., In the result.
Vitug, J., Please see dissenting opinion.
733
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 733

Elections
Mendoza, J., See dissenting opinion.

Quisumbing, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez,
JJ., Join the dissenting opinion of Justice V. Mendoza.
Ynares-Santiago, J., Abroad on Official Business.
SEPARATE (DISSENTING) OPINION
VITUG, J.:
The 1987 Constitution, crafted at a time when the euphoria

of the 1986 People Power had barely subsided, recognized
the vigor infused by civilian society in a cleansing political
reform and focused itself on institutionalizing civilian
participation in daily governance. A cause for concern was
the not-too-unlikely perpetuation of a single party in power
a convenient contrivance for authoritarian rule. Article
VI, Section 5, subsection 2, of the 1987 Charter
THE PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CONSTITUTE

TWENTY PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES INCLUDING THOSE UNDER THE
PARTY LIST FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS. AFTER
THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, ONE-HALF
OF THE SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTYLIST
REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE FILLED, AS PROVIDED BY
LAW, BY SELECTION OR ELECTION FROM THE LABOR,
PEASANT, URBAN POOR, INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES, WOMEN, YOUTH, AND SUCH OTHER
SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, EXCEPT THE
RELIGIOUS SECTOR.
was the result of long-drawn deliberations and

compromises.
Immediately, after the resumption of the next Congress,
then president Corazon C. Aquino, exercising her
transitory appointing powers, assigned to the reserved
seats in the Lower House, representatives of the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women and youth sector. The assignment was made from a
selected list of names submitted by the sectors themselves.
The sectors would continue to enjoy these reserved seats
for the next three terms; thenceforth, they would have to
participate in an electoral contest to secure their
representation in Congress.
734

Elections
Article 6, Section 5(2), however, not being self-executing,

would wait for the legislature to ordain the enabling law.
Congress was to be circumscribed by the terms expressed
in Article 6, Section 5(2).First, the system should only
apply to the election of 20% of the total composition of the
House of Representatives, second, it would prescribe a
mandatory proportional representation scheme, and, third,
it would allow participating parties and organizations to be
represented in voters registration boards, board of election
inspectors, parties and organizations or similar entities.
On 03 March 1995, Republic Act 7941, also known as
An Act Providing for the Election of Party-List
Representatives Through the Party-List System, and
Appropriating Funds Therefor, was enacted. The enabling
law laid the basis for COMELEC Resolution No. 2847,
issued on July 1996, prescribing the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Elections of the Party-List
Representatives through the Party-List System. In the
May 1998 first party-list elections, the sectors were
required, to test, for the first time, their political mettle in
an open electoral contest with other parties, groups and
organizations under a party-list system. While the elections
had a low-voter turnout, seen largely as a result of public
unawareness of an electoral innovation, the recent 2001
multiparty list elections, however, were different. This
time, a huge number of parties, groups and coalitions
applied for registration with, and subsequently obtained
accreditation from, the COMELEC. Six of these groups
were established political parties, namely PARTIDO NG
MASANG PILIPINO, LAKAS NUCD-UMDP,
NATIONALIST PEOPLES COALITION, LABAN NG
DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO, AKSYON
DEMOKRATIKO, LIBERAL PARTY, NACIONALISTA
PARTY and PDP-LABAN.
The instant petition prays for the exclusion of these
major parties on the ground that their participation does
not level the playing field for less known and less organized
sectoral groups still in dire need of election logistics and
machinery. Arguing that the system is open to the
underrepresented and marginalized sectors, as well as
other parties but only on the condition that the latter field
sectoral candidates themselves, herein petitioner sought
the disqualification of the large major political parties and
groups which do not represent any genuine sectoral
interest.
735
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 735

Elections
A perusal of the novel electoral engineering, introduced by

the Constitution into the electoral system, would show the
pertinent provisions to be stoically quiet on the
qualifications of a party, group or coalition to participate
under the party-list system. Instead, it has opted to rely on
a subsequent statutory enactment to provide for the
systems focal particulars, which now lead us to the
enabling law itself. Section 2 of R.A. 7941 reads
The State shall promote 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 the Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who
lacked well-defined political constituencies but who could
party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives,
The draft provisions on what was to become Article VI,

Section 5, subsection (2), of the 1987 Constitution took off
from two staunch positionsthe first headed by
Commissioner Villacorta, advocating that of the 20 per
centum of the total seats in Congress to be allocated to
party-list representatives half were to be reserved to
appointees from the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors. The proposal was opposed by some Commissioners.
Mr. Monsod expressed the difficulty in delimiting the
sectors that needed representation. He was of the view that
reserving seats for the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors would stunt their development into full-pledged
parties equipped with electoral machinery potent enough to
further the sectoral interests to be represented. The
Villacorta group, on the other hand, was apprehensive that
pitting the unorganized and less-moneyed sectoral groups
in an electoral contest would be like placing babes in the
lions den, so to speak, with the bigger and more
established political parties ultimately gobbling them up.
R.A. 7941 recognized this concern when it banned the first
five major political parties on the basis of party
736

Elections
representation in the House of Representatives from

participating in the party-list system for the first party-list
elections held in 1998 (and to be automatically lifted
starting with the 2001 elections). The advocates for
permanent seats for sectoral representatives made an
effort towards a compromisethat the party-list system be
open only to underrepresented and marginalized sectors.
This proposal was further whittled down by allocating only
half of the seats under the party-list system to candidates
from the sectors which would garner the required number
of votes. The majority was unyielding. Voting 19-22, the
proposal for permanent seats, and in the alternative the
reservation of the party-list system to the sectoral groups,
was voted down. The only concession the Villacorta group
was able to muster was an assurance of reserved seats for
selected sectors for three consecutive terms after the
enactment of the 1987 Constitution, by which time they
would be expected to gather and solidify their electoral
base and brace themselves in the multi-party electoral
contest with the more veteran political groups.
The system, designed to accommodate as many groups
as possible, abhors the monopoly of representation in the
Lower House. This intent is evident in the statutory
imposition of the three-seat cap, which prescribes the limit
to the number 1
of seats that may be gained by a party or
organization. Votes garnered in excess of 6% of the total
votes cast do not entitle the party to more than three seats.
There is no express provision of the Constitution or in
the enabling law that disallows major political parties from
participating in the party-list system and, at the same
time, from fielding candidates for legislative district
representatives.
Perhaps the present controversy stems from a confusion
of the actual character of the party-list system. At first
glance, it gives the impression of being a combination of
proportional representation for non-traditional parties and
sectoral representation. The first, proportional
representation, on one end, is intended for no other reason
than to open up the electoral process for broader
participation and representation. Sectoral representation
on the other,
_______________
1 Section 11(b), R.A. 7941.
737
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 737

Elections
presupposes that every underrepresented sector be

represented in Congress. This impression of sectoral-based
representation stems from the provisions of Article 6,
Section 5(2), of the Constitution, as well as R.A. 7941, in
enumerating specific sectors to be represented. In holding
that the party list system is open only to the
underrepresented and marginalized sectors, the ponencia
places much reliance on Section 5 of R.A. 7941:

party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or
organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations,
attaching thereto its constitution, bylaws, platform or program of
government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other
relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided,
That the sectors shall include labor peasant, fisherfolk, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation.
The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve
the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was
submitted for decision but in no case not later than sixty (60) days
before election.
It would seem to me that, construed along with Section 3(d)

of the statute, defining a sectoral party, the enumeration
was intended to qualify only sectoral parties and not the
other eligible groups (e.g., political parties, sectoral
organizations and coalitions). Neither Article 6, Section
5(2), nor R.A. 7941 intended to guarantee representation to
all sectors of society and, let alone, hand it over only to
underrepresented and marginalized sectors. The real aim,
if the will of the majority of the Commissioners were to be
respected, was to introduce the concept of party-list
representation.
The party-list system is limited to four groups1)
political parties, 2) sectoral parties, 3) sectoral
organizations, and 4) coalitions. A political party is an
organized group of citizens advocating an ideology, or
platform, principles or policies for the general conduct of
government and which, as the most immediate means of
secur-
738

Elections
ing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports

certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public
office. A sectoral party is an organized group of citizens
belonging to identifiable sectors, such as those enumerated
in Article 6, Section 5(2), of the 1987 Constitution, which
includes the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities and women and those added by R.A.
7941 like the fisherfolk, elderly, handicapped, veterans,
overseas workers and professionals. A sectoral organization
is a group of citizens who share the same or similar
attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or
concerns. Coalition is an aggrupation of duly registered
national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for
election purposes.
A party or organization desiring to join the party-list
system is required to register with the COMELEC,
together with a list of its five nominees for party-list
representatives, arranged according to the groups order of
preference. In every election for the House of
Representatives, each voter casts two votesone for the
district representative of his choice and another for the
party or organization of his choice. The votes cast for the
parties and organizations are totaled nationwide. In
contrast to the election of all other officials where the rule
of plurality (i.e., the candidate with the highest number of
votes wins) is adopted, the number of seats under the
party-list system depends on the number of votes received
in proportion to the total number of votes cast nationwide.
On the basis of the number of registered voters in the
recent elections, a group under the party-list system,
should get approximately half a million votes to be entitled
to one seat.
At the center stage of this controversy are the political
parties themselves. Undeniably, political parties are an
important feature in both democratic and authoritarian
regimes. By legitimizing the individuals and institutions
that control political power, parties add an important
element of stability to a political system and also help
organize the government and electorate by recruiting
candidates, conducting campaigns, encouraging partisan
attachments and generally educating the public,
stimulating voter participation and providing varying
degrees of policy direction to government. The idea could
also be seen as a good training and recruiting ground for
potential leaders. Advocates commend the multi-party
739
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 739

Elections
as allowing the expression and the compromise of the many

interests of a complex society, including a range of
ideological differences, conflicting political values and
philosophies. Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution is explicit
A free and open party system shall be 2allowed to evolve
according to the free choice of the people. The multi-party
system of proportional representation broadens the
composition of the House of Representatives to
accommodate sectors and organizations that do not have
well-defined political constituencies and to facilitate access
to minority or small parties.
A party-list nominee is subject to basically the same3
qualifications applicable to legislative districts candidates,
with the exception of the additional requirement that he be
nominated in one list only, and provided, further, that he is
not a candidate for any elective office or has lost his bid 4for
an elective office in the immediately preceding election. A
nominee must actually belong to the sector which they
purport to represent,
5
otherwise, there can be no true
representation. A nominee of the youth sector is further
required to be at least 25 but
6
not more than 30 years of age
on the day of the election. Should he, however, attain the
age of 30 during his term, 7he is allowed to continue until
the expiration thereof. Once elected, party-list
representatives also enjoy the same term, rights and
privileges as do district representatives, except that
_______________
2 Bernas, pp. 355-358.

3 The Constitutional qualifications for legislative districts
representatives apply to party-list nominees
Section 6, Article 6, 1987 Constitution. No person shall be a member of the House

of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and on
the day of the election, at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write,
and except the party-list representative, a registered voter in the district in which
he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period not less than one year
immediately preceding the day of the elections.
4 Sections 8, R.A. 7941.

5 Supangan, Jr. vs. Santos, 189 SCRA 56 (1990).
6 Section 9, R.A. 7941.
7 Ibid.
740

Elections
they are not8 entitled to the Country-wide Development

Fund (CDF).
A feature of the party-list system is that political
parties, sectoral groups and organizations, coalitions and
aggrupation acquire the status of candidates and their
nominees relegated to mere agents. Thus, if a party-list
representative dies, becomes physically incapacitated,
removed from office by the party or the organization he
represents, resigns, or is disqualified during his term, his
party can send another person to take his place for the
remaining period, provided the replacement is next in
succession in the list of nominees submitted to the
COMELEC upon registration. Furthermore, a party-list
representative who switches
9
party affiliations during his
term forfeits his seat. So, also, if a person changes his
sectoral affiliation within 6 months before the election, he
will not be eligible for nomination in party-list 10
representative under his new party or organization.
The argument raised by petitioners could not be said to
have been overlooked as they precisely were the same
points subjected to intense and prolonged deliberations by
the members of the Constitutional Commission.
And, the polestar in the constructions of constitutions
always remainseffect must be given to the intent of the11
framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it.
The law, in its clear formulation cannot give this tribunal
the elbow-room for construction. Courts are bound to
suppose that any inconveniences involved in the
application of constitutional provisions according to their
plain terms and import have been considered in advance
and accepted as less intolerable than those12avoided, or as
compensated by countervailing advantages. The ponencia
itself, in ruling as it does, may unwittingly, be crossing the
limits of judicial review and
_______________
8 See the plenary deliberations (2nd reading) of House Bill No. 3043.
9 Section 15, R.A. 7941.
10 Ibid.
11 Whitman vs. Oxford National Bank, 176 US 559, 44 L. Ed. 587, 20
Set. 477.
12 People ex rel. Snowball vs. Pendegast, 96 Cal. 289 St. 126, 110 NE
485.
741
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 741

Elections
treading the dangerous waters of judicial legislation, and

more importantly, of a constitutional amendment. While,
the lament of herein petitioners is understandable, the
remedy lies not with this Court but with the people
themselves through an amendment of their work as and
when better counsel prevails.
WHEREFORE, I regret my inability to concur with my
colleagues in their judgment. I am thus constrained to vote
for the dismissal of the petitions.
SEPARATE OPINION
MENDOZA, J., dissenting:
I vote to dismiss the petitions in these cases. I will

presently explain my vote, but before I do so it seems to me
necessary to state briefly the facts and the issues.
The Facts
Petitioner Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party (OFW for
short) is the political agency of the Overseas Filipino
Workers Movement, a non-stock and non-profit
organization. On the other hand, petitioner Bayan Muna is
a political party representing peasants, workers, women,
the youth, and other marginalized sectors. Both were
accredited by the Commission on Elections in connection
with the election for party-list representatives on May 14,
2001.
Petitioners brought these suitsin G.R. No. 147589, for
certiorari and, in G.R. No. 147613, for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamusfor the purpose of seeking the
annulment of the registration of the following parties
classified as political parties and
organizations/coalitions by the Commission on Elections:
Political Parties:
Partido ng Masang Pilipino (PMP),

Lakas NUCD-UMDP (LAKAS NUCD-UMDP),
Nationalist Peoples Coalition (NPC),
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP),
Aksyon Demokratiko (AKSYON),
Partido Demokratiko Pilipino Lakas ng Bayan
(PDP-LABAN),
742

Elections
Liberal Party (LP),

Nacionalista Party (NP),
Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong
Organizations/Coalitions:
Citizens Drug Watch Foundation, Inc. (DRUG

WATCH),
Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD),
Go! Go! Philippines Movement (GO, GO
PHILIPPINES),
The True Marcos Loyalist (MARCOS LOYALIST),
Philippine Local Autonomy Movement, Inc. (PLAM),
Citizens Movement for Justice, Economy
Environment and Peace
(JEEP),
Chamber of Real Estate Builders Association

(CREBA),
Sports and Health Advancement Foundation, Inc.
(SHAF),
Ang Lakas ng Overseas Contract Workers (OCW),
Bagong Bayani Organization (BAGONG BAYANI),
National Federation of Sugar Planters (NFSP)
R.A. No. 7941, 5 provides that any party, organization, or

coalition desiring to participate in the party-list system
must apply to the COMELEC for registration not later
than 90 days before the election. On the other hand, 4 of
the same law requires that any party, organization, or
coalition which is already registered with the COMELEC
should declare its intention to participate in the party-list
system 90 days before the election.
In its Resolution No. 3785, dated March 26, 2001, the
COMELEC passed upon the applications for registration or
manifestations of intention of several parties,
organizations, and coalitions. On March 28, 2001, it issued
a certified list of parties, organizations, or coalitions
entitled to participate in the May 14, 2001 elections. All in
all, 148 parties, organizations, and coalitions were
accredited, including private respondents herein.
Petitioners OFW and Bayan Muna contend that the
party-list system is exclusively for the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors of the Philippine society and
that there is no way by which other sectors not so
identified, much less the major political parties, can
participate in the party-list elections. Petitioner Bayan
Muna in particular calls attention to the fact that seven of
the respondent political parties (PMP, Lakas NUCD-
UMDP, NPC, LDP, AKSYON, PDP-LABAN, and LP) are
actually the major po-
743
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 743

Elections
litical parties in the country today as determined by the
COMELEC in its Resolution No. 4073, dated May 3, 2001,
and charges that the rest of private respondents are
pseudo party-list organizations which are actually
satellites of the major political parties and of big
businesses.
Bayan Muna argues that the party-list system is
intended to address the problem of ineffective
representation of underprivileged sectors of society and
enhance direct peoples action and participation in the
decision-making process to counter-balance the territorial
representation of 80% of the House of Representatives, and
that to allow participation in the party-list system of
respondent political parties and parties/coalitions would be
to defeat this purpose because these parties do not1
represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
For this reason, Bayan Muna prays that R.A. No. 7941,
11, par. 2 be declared unconstitutional on the ground that,
by banning the five major political parties from
participating in the party-list system only in the May 1998
elections, it leaves them free to participate in subsequent
elections.
On the other hand, the COMELEC argues:
[B]oth the Constitution and the Party-List System Act clearly

allow, and they do not prohibit, the participation of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations to
participate in the party-list system, whether or not said parties or
organizations represent
2
the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors of society.
It cites the proviso of Art. VI, 5(2) of the Constitution that
For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this

Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
provided by law, except the religious sector,
as proof that marginalized sectors are not entitled to

permanent seats in the House of Representatives. In any
event, it is contended
_______________
1 Memorandum for Petitioner Bayan Muna, 17-18.

2 Memorandum for the COMELEC, 23-24.
744

Elections
that petitioners recourse is not to this Court but to the

COMELEC because whether a party, organization, or
coalition represents marginalized and underrepresented
sectors is a question of fact, and this Court is not a trier of
facts. The COMELEC states that, as a matter of fact,
petitioner Bayan Muna has pending petitions to disqualify,
based on this ground, respondents NPC, LDP, PMP,
LAKAS NUCD-UMDP, LP, MAD, CREBA, NFSP, JEEP,
and BAGONG BAYANI.
The Issues
The issues in these cases actually come down to the
following:
(1) Whether the petitions filed in these cases should be

dismissed for failure of petitioners to exhaust
administrative remedies in the COMELEC; and
(2) Whether the party-list system is exclusively for
marginalized and underrepresented sectors of
society.
We shall deal with these issues in the order they are

stated.
Discussion
I.
While it is true that petitioner Bayan Muna has filed
petitions for the disqualification of respondents, the fact is
that when the petitions in these cases were filed on April
16 and 17, 2001, the elections were just a month away, and
there was doubt whether a resolution of the petitions for
disqualifications was forthcoming. In fact, up to the time of
the elections on May 14, 2001, the cases were still
unresolved. Petitioners, therefore, had no other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
within the meaning of Rule 65, 1-2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and were justified in resorting to the
extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus.
From another point of view, there is no need for
petitioners to await formal resolution of their petitions as
the COMELEC had already indicated in press statements
its stand that parties, organizations, or coalitions, whether
or not representing marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, could participate in the elec-
745
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 745
Elections
tion for the party-list systema fact confirmed by it in its

comment and memorandum in these cases. There is thus
no basis for insisting that petitioners should have
exhausted administrative remedies before coming to this
Court.
Nor are the issues raised in these cases factual as the
statement of the second issue above plainly shows. It is
only if the question whether the party-list system is limited
to, marginalized and underrepresented sectors is
answered in the affirmative will it be necessary to
determine the status of respondents.
II.
At the core of the controversy in these cases is the following
provision of the Constitution:
ART. VI, 5(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of

not more than two hundred fifty members, unless Otherwise fixed
by law, who shall be elected from 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, and those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those
under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law except the religious sector.
To carry out this provision of the Constitution, Congress

enacted the Party-List System Act (R.A. No. 7941), the
pertinent provisions of which read:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Party.The State shall promote

or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipinp citizens belonging
parties, and who lack well-defined po-
746
Elections
litical 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. Towards this end, the State shall develop and
guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the
broadest possible representation of party, bsectoral or group
interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their
chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall
provide the simplest scheme possible.
SEC. 11. Number of Party-List Representatives.The party-list
representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the
total number of the members of the House of Representatives
including those under the party-list.
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major
political parties on the basis of party representation in the House
of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the
Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list
system.
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the
following procedure shall be observed:
(a) 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.
(b) 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 seat each; Provided,
That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the
votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to
their total number of votes: Provided, finally, That each
party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not
more than three (3) seats.
The most important single factor in determining the

intention of the people from whom the Constitution 3
emanated is the language in which it is expressed. The
text of Art. VI, 5(1)(2) is quite clear. It provides for a
party-list system of registered, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations, not for sectoral representation.
Only for three consecutive terms following the ratification
of the Constitution and only with respect to one-half of the
seats allotted to party-list representatives does it allow
sectoral representation. Textually, Art. VI, 5(1X2)
provides no basis for
_______________
3 Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao v. Land
Registration Commission, 102 Phil. 596, 627 (1957).
747
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 747

Elections
petitioners contention that whether it is sectoral

representation or party-list system the purpose is to
provide exclusive representation for marginalized sectors,
by which term petitioners mean the labor, peasant, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth
sectors.
Indeed, the two systems of representation are not
identical. Party-list representation is a type of proportional
representation designed to give those who otherwise cannot
win a seat in the House of Representatives in district
elections a chance to win if they have sufficient strength on
a nationwide basis. (In this sense, these groups are
considered marginalized and underrepresented.) Under
the party-list system, representatives are elected from
multi-seat districts in proportion to the number of votes
received in contrast to the winner-take-all single-seat
district in which, even if a candidate garners 49.9% of the
votes, he gets no seat.
Thus, under the party-list system, a party or candidate
need not come in first in order to win seats in the
legislature. On the other hand, in the winner-take-all
single-seat district, the votes cast for a losing candidate are
wasted as only those who vote for the winner are
represented. To the extent then that it assures parties or
candidates a percentage of seats in the legislature that
reflects their public support, the party-list system enables
marginalized and underrepresented sectors (such as, but
not limited to, the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women, and youth sectors) to obtain
seats in the House of Representatives. Otherwise, the
party-list system does not guarantee to these sectors seats
in the legislature.
This is the method of representation adopted in the
Constitution as answer to the problem of
underrepresentation.
In arguing that the party-list system is exclusively for
the marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
petitioner Bayan Muna argues that the constitutional
intent in adopting the party-list system must be searched
for in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.
748
Elections
The polestar of constitutional interpretation has been

stated by 4this Court in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
Secretary, as follows:
While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates

and proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive
at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort
thereto may be had only when other guides fail as said
proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution
when the meaning is clear. Debates in the constitutional
convention are of value as showing the views of the individual
members, and as indicating the reason for their votes, but they
give Us no light as to the views of the large majority who did not
talk, much less of the mass or our fellow citizens whose votes at
the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. We
think it safer to construe the constitution from what appears upon
its face. The proper interpretation therefore depends more on
how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the
framers understanding thereof.
It is worth recalling the celebrated comment of Charles P.

Curtis, Jr. on the role of history in constitutional exegesis:
The intention of the framers of the Constitution, even assuming

we could discover what it was, when it is not adequately
expressed in the Constitution, that is to say, what they meant
when they did not say it, surely that has no binding force upon us.
If we look behind or beyond what they set down in the document,
prying into what else they wrote and what they said, anything we
may find is only advisory. They may sit in at our5
councils. There
is no reason why we should eavesdrop on theirs.
Be that as it may, the Record of the Constitutional

Commission speaks clearly against petitioners reading of
Art. VI, 5(1)(2). It shows clearly that the Constitutional
Commission rejected sectoral representation in preference
to proportional representation.
As originally written, 5 of the Draft Article on the
Legislative Department read:
_______________
4 194 SCRA 317, 337-338 (1991), quoting Commonwealth v. Ralph, 111

Pa. 365, 3 Atl. 220 (1886).
5 LIONS UNDER THE THRONE 2 (1947) (emphasis in the original).
749
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 749
Elections
SEC. 5. The House of Representatives shall be composed of not

more than two hundred and fifty members who shall be elected
from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces and
cities in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors
and party list. The sectoral or party list representatives shall in no
case exceed twenty percent of the entire membership of the House of
Representatives.
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, provided, however,
that each city with a population of more than two hundred
thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.
Within three years following the return of every census, the
Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts
based on the standards provided in this section.
As petitioner Bayan Muna states, two proposals for

additional representation in the House of Representatives
were submitted by the Committee on Legislative
Department: one for sectoral representation, advocated by
Commissioner Villacorta, and another one for party-list
system, advocated by Commissioner Monsod. The two are
not the same. As Commissioner Monsod said in explaining
his proposal:
MR. MONSOD. . . .
I would like to make a distinction from the beginning that the
proposal for the party list system is not synonymous with that of
the sectoral representation. Precisely, the party list system seeks
to avoid the dilemma of choice of sectors and who constitute the
members of the sectors. . . . In effect, a sectoral representation in
the Assembly would mean that certain sectors would have
reserved seats; that they will choose among themselves who
would sit in those reserved seats. And then, we have the problem
of which sector because as we will notice in Proclamation No. 9,
the sectors cited were the farmers, fishermen, workers, students,
professionals, business, military, academic, ethnic and other
similar groups. So these are the nine sectors that were identified
here as sectoral representatives to be represented in this
Commission. The problem we had in
_______________
6 Committee on Legislative Power, Committee Report No. 22 (emphasis added).
750
Elections
trying to approach sectoral representation in the Assembly was

whether to stop at these nine sectors or include other sectors . . . .
Second, we had the problem of who comprise the farmers. . . . A
doctor may be a farmer; a lawyer may also be a farmer. And so, it
is up to the discretion of the person to say I am a farmer so he
would be included in that sector.
. . .Under the party-list system, there are no reserved seats for
sectors . . . .This can be a regional party, a sectoral party, a
national party, UNIDO, Magsasaka or a regional party in
Mindanao. One need not be a farmer to say that he wants the
farmers party to be represented in the Assembly. Any citizen can
vote for any party. At the end of the day, the COMELEC will then
tabulate the votes that had been garnered by each party or each
organizationone does not have to be a political party and
register in order to participate as a partyand count the votes
and from there derive the percentage of the votes that had been
cast in favor of a party, organization or coalition.
....
We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of
sectoral representation while at the same time making sure that
those who really have a national constituency or sectoral
constituency will get a chance to have a seat in the National
Assembly. These sectors or these groups may not have the
constituency to win a seat on a legislative district basis. They may
not be able to win a seat on a district basis but surely, they will
have votes on a nationwide basis.
The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past elections,
we found out that there were certain groups or parties that, if we
count their votes nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000
votes. But they were always third place or fourth place in each of
the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this
way, they would have five or six representatives in the Assembly
even if they would not win individually in legislative districts. So,
that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives of
the party list system.
Commissioner Monsod, therefore, proposed to amend the

phrase shall be elected from the sectors and party list in
5 by replacing it with the following
_______________
7 2 RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 85-86,

session of Tuesday, July 22, 1986 (emphasis added).
751
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 751

Elections
THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM OF REGISTERED

NATIONAL, REGIONAL 8
OR SECTORAL PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS.
Attention should be paid to this proposal because with slight
modification it later became the basis of the present Art. VI, 5(1)
(2).
The following exchange took place on the Monsod amendment:
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, before accepting the

proposed amendment, the Committee would like to get
some clarifications.
When the proponent speaks of OR SECTORAL PARTIES OR

ORGANIZATIONS, is he referring to any sector which the law
may subsequently define?
MR. MONSOD: . . . The party list system that is being

advocated by this amendment is a system that opens up
the list to any regional, national or sectoral party. . . .
....
MS. AQUINO: The Committee would like to be clarified on

this. Do we understand the proponent correctly that this
party list system is not necessarily synonymous to
sectoral representation?
MR. MONSOD: No, it is not necessarily synonymous, but it
does include the right of sectoral parties or
organizations to register, but it is not exclusive to
sectoral parties or organizations.
MS. AQUINO: And that it does not likewise reserve any
institutional seat for any sector? In other words, it only
enables it to be a part of the party list if it has the
capacity to do so, but it does not reserve any seat for the
sectors.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, 9 Madam President, this is not a
reserve seat system.
The proposed amendment was opposed by a group headed

by Commissioner Villacorta, which included
Commissioners Tadeo, Lerum, and Bernas. Lerum said:
MR. LERUM. Madam President, in view of the

explanation, I am objecting to this amendment because
it is possible that the la
_______________
8 Id. at 252-253, session of Friday, July 25, 1986.

9 Id. at 253 (emphasis added).
752

Elections
bor sector will not be represented considering that those

who will vote are all the voters of the Philippines. In other
words, the representative of labor will be chosen-by all the
electors of the Philippines, and that is not correct. My
contention is that the sectoral representative must be
selected by his own constituents,
10
and for that reason, I am
objecting to this amendment.
On the other hand, Tadeo objected on the ground that if

allowed to participate in the party-list system, the major
political parties could gobble up the sectoral parties. He
said:
MR. TADEO. . . . .Kapag inilagay natin ang party list,

papasukin ng political parties. Mangigibabaw 11
at
kakainin din niyan hanggang mawala ang sektor.
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo
ang UNIDO na isang political party, it will dominate the
party list at mawawalang saysay din iyong sector.
Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang party list
system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan ng diin ang reserve.
Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. Kung
titingnan natin itong 198 seats, reserved din ito sa
political parties.
Villacorta said he was objecting to the party-list system

because it would not solve the problem of ineffective
representation of the underprivileged sectors. He said:
For too long since our people attained a semblance of self-

government at the start of this century, our legislators were
elected based on their promise that they would represent the little
people of our land. With the exception of a few patriotic
legislators, some of whom are in our Commission today, members
of the National Assemblies, the Congresses, and the Batasans of
the past did not devote themselves enough to the alleviation of the
dismal condition of our countrys poor and lower classes.
....
_______________
10 Id. at 254, session of Friday, July 25, 1986.

11 Id. at 254.
12 Id. at 257.
753
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 753
Elections
These realities convince us that there are no spokesmen and

legislators who can best represent the poor, the underprivileged,
13
the marginalized than those coming from within their ranks.
To Commissioner Villacorta, only reserved seats for the

sectors would give them effective representation:
MR. MONSOD. My amendment merely says that it is

NATIONAL, RE GIONAL OR SECTORAL PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS.
My question is: Does the Honorable Commissioner object to
this amendment?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, because it does not guarantee
that the seats reserved for the party
14
list representatives
will be reserved for the sectors.
Because of the impasse, the discussion on Friday, July 25,

1986, on 5 was suspended to allow the commissioners to
come to an agreement. After one week, a compromise
formula was reached by the two groups and presented to
the plenary session of the Commission on August 1, 1986.
In lieu of the phrase shall be elected from the sectors and
the party list, it was proposed that the following be
inserted in 5 of the Draft Article:

NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS AS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE PARTY LIST
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CONSTITUTE TWENTY
PERCENT OF THE TOTAL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES PROVIDED THAT FOR THE FIRST TWO
TERMS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THIS
CONSTITUTION TWENTY-FIVE OF THE SEATS ALLOCATED
TO PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE FILLED BY
SELECTION OR ELECTION, AS PROVIDED BY LAW FROM
THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR AND YOUTH
SECTORS.
However, although an agreement had apparently been

reached, the advocates of sectoral representation were not
satisfied that it
_______________
13 Id. at 255.
14 Id. at 258.
754
Elections
would be allowed only for two terms and only with respect
to one-half of the seats allocated for party-list
representatives. Commissioner Aquino proposed instead
the following amendment of 5:
ELECTED THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM OF

REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL
PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS, AS PROVIDED BY LAW THE
PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CONSTITUTE
TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TWENTY-FIVE OF THE
SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES
SHALL BE FILLED BY ELECTION, AS PROVIDED BY LAW,
FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR, WOMEN AND
YOUTH SECTORS
When put to vote, however, Aquinos proposal was defeated

with-nineteen 15(19) voting in favor, and twenty-two (22)
voting against.
The Commission then voted on the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Monsod. With only a few minor changes,
it was approved
16
by a vote of thirty-two (32) commissioners
against none. As finally worded, the amendment reads:
SHALL BE FILLED AS PROVIDED BY LAW, BY SELECTION

OR ELECTION, FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR,
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES, WOMEN, YOUTH,
AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY
LAW, EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS SECTOR
Thus, the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission

show that the party-list system is not limited to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors referred to by
petitioners, i.e., labor, peasants, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women, and the youth, but that it is
a type of proportional representation intended to give voice
to those who may not have the necessary number to win a
seat in a district but are sufficiently numerous to give them
a seat nationwide. It, therefore, misreads the debates on
Art. VI, 5(1) (2) to say that Although Commissioners
Villacorta and Monsod differed in their proposals as to the
details of the
_______________
15 Id. at 584, session of Friday, Aug. 1, 1986.

16 Id. at 589.
755
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 755
Elections
party-list system, both proponents worked within the

framework that the party-list system is for the
marginalized as termed by Comm. Villacorta and the
underrepresented as termed by Comm. Monsod, which he
defined as those which17 are always third or fourth place in
each of the districts.
Indeed, the two proposals put forth by them are
basically different, and they do not have the same basis.
What the advocates of sectoral representation wanted was
permanent reserved seats for marginalized sectors by
which they mean the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth
sectors. Under Art. VI, 5(2), these sectors were given only
one-half of the seats in the House of Representatives and
only for three terms. On the other hand, the third or
fourth place(rs) in district elections, for whom the party-
list system was intended, refer to those who may not win
seats in the districts but nationwide may be sufficiently
strong to enable them to be represented in the House. They
may include Villacortas marginalized or
underprivileged sectors, but they are not limited to them.
There would have been no need to give the marginalized
sectors one-half of the seats for the party-list system for
three terms if the two systems are identical.
The objections raised against the accreditation of private
respondents are the same ones raised by Commissioners
Villacorta, Tadeo, and Lerum, among others, to the Monsod
proposal which became the present Art. VI, 5(1)(2),
namely, that certain sectors, like labor, may not win seats
in the House under the party-list system; that the big
parties might gobble up the sectoral parties; that the party-
list system will not solve the problem of ineffective
representation of the underprivileged sectors. These
objections, however, did not carry the day, as the members
of the Constitutional Commission voted 32-0 in favor of the
Monsod proposal. It is noteworthy that even those who
spoke against the Monsod proposal did not vote against it.
To uphold these objections now would be to overrule the
Constitutional Commission and in effect amend the
Constitution.
_______________
17 Memorandum for petitioner Bayan Muna 13.
756
Elections
In sum, a problem was placed before the Constitutional

Commission that the existing winner-take-all one-seat
district system of election leaves blocks of voters
underrepresented. To this problem of underrepresentation
two solutions were proposed: sectoral representation and
party-list system or proportional representation. The
Constitutional Commission chose the party-list system.
This Court cannot hold that the party-list system is
reserved for the labor, peasants, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women, and youth as petitioners
contend without changing entirely the meaning of the
Constitution which in fact mandates exactly the opposite of
the reserved seats system when it provides in Art. IX, C, 6
that A free and open party system shall be allowed to
evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to
the provisions of this Article.
Thus, neither textual nor historical consideration yields
support for the view that the party-list system is designed
exclusively for labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women, and youth sectors. As
Commissioners Ople said in supporting the Monsod
proposal:
In my opinion, this will also create the stimulus for political

parties and mass organizations to seek common ground. For
example, we have the PDP-Laban and the UNIDO. I see no
reason why they should not be able to make common goals with
mass organizations so that the very leadership of these parties
can be transformed through the participation of mass
organizations. And if this is true of the administration parties,
this will be true of others like the Partido ng Bayan which is now
being formed. There is no question that they will be attractive to
many mass organizations. In the opposition parties to which we
belong, there will be a stimulus for us to contact mass
organizations so that with their participation, the policies of such
parties can be radically transformed because this amendment will
create conditions that will challenge both the mass organizations
and the political parties to come together. And the party list
system is certainly available, although it is open to all the parties.
It is understood that the parties will enter in the roll of the
COMELEC the names of representatives of mass organizations
affiliated with them. So that we may, in time, develop this
excellent system that they have in Europe where labor
organizations and cooperatives, for example, distribute
themselves either in the Social Democratic Party and the
Christian
757
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 757
Elections
Democratic Party in Germany, and their very presence there has

a transforming18
effect upon the philosophies and the leadership of
those parties.
With respect to the cancellation of any party registered

under the party-list system, 6 of the Party-List System
Act provides:
SEC. 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration.The

COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any
interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing,
the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or

association organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government,
foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether
directly or through any of its officers or members or
indirectly through third parties for partisan election
purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections
or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes
cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding
elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
Petitioners allegations that certain parties or

organizations, such as private respondents MAD and Ang
Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, are disqualified under this
provision are for the COMELEC to determine after due
notice and hearing. They are unfit for resolution in these
proceedings.
III.
On the other hand, the majority states:
_______________
18 II RECORD 568, session of Friday, Aug. 1, 1986.
758
Elections
The presumption is that the words in which the constitutional

provisions are couched express the objective sought to be attained.
In other words, verba legis still prevails. Only when the meaning
of the words used is unclear and equivocal should resort be made
to extraneous aids of construction and interpretation, such as the
proceedings of the Constitutional Commission or Convention, in
order to shed light on and ascertain the true intent or purpose of
the provision being construed.
....
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, relative to the party-
list system, is couched in clear terms: the mechanics of the system
shall be provided by law. Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted RA
7941. . . . Section 2 thereof unequivocally states that the party-list
system of electing congressional representatives was designed to
enable underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole . . .
With due respect, I think the majority misapprehends the

meaning of 2 of R.A. No. 7941. The provision reads:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Party.The State shall promote

or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging
parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who
could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives
What this provision simply states is that the purpose of the

party-list system is to promote proportional representation
in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives and, that to achieve this end, a full, free
and open party system in order to attain the broadest
possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests
in the House of Representatives shall be guar-
759
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 759
Elections
anteed. Contrary to what the majority claims, 2 does not

say that the party-list system is intended to enable
underrepresented sectors, organizations, and parties, and
legislation to win seats in the House of Representatives.
What it says is that the policy of the law is to promote
proportional representation through a party-list system of
organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable
underrepresented sectors, organizations, and parties, and
legislation to win seats in the House. For while the
representation of marginalized and underrepresented
sectors is a basic purpose of the law, it is not its only
purpose. As already explained, the aim of proportional
representation is to enable those who cannot win in the
winner-take-air district elections a chance of winning.
These groups are not necessarily limited to the sectors
mentioned in 5, i.e., labor, peasants, fisherfolk, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, the elderly, the
handicapped, women, the youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals. These groups can possibly
include other sectors.
Indeed, how can there be a full, free and open party
system if the election for the party list system is to be
limited to the sectors which are enumerated in 5 of the
law, i.e., labor, peasants, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, the elderly, handicapped, women,
the youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals?
After all, what is provided for is a party-list system of
organizations each of which is separately defined in 3 of
the law.
That the party-list system is not limited to these groups
is also clear from 5 of the law:

party-list system as a national, regional or
760
Elections
sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or

organiza tions, attaching thereto its constitution, bylaws,
platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition
agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may
require: Provided, That the sectors shall include labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas work ers, and
professionals.
There would be no need to provide specifically for the

sectors if the party-list system is reserved for them.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the petitions in
these cases should be dismissed.
Case remanded to COMELEC for further proceedings.
Notes.Courts will decide a question otherwise moot

and academic if it is capable of repetition, yet evading
review. (Alunan III vs. Mirasol, 276 SCRA 501 [1997])
To have meaningful representation, the elected persons
must have the mandate of a sufficient number of people.
Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list
system, the result might be the proliferation of small
groups which are incapable of contributing significant
legislation, and which might even pose a threat to the
stability of Congress. (Veterans Federation Party vs.
Commission on Elections, 342 SCRA 244 [2000])
o0o
761
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ang Bagong Bayani-OfW Labor Party vs. Commission On Elections, 359 SCRA 698, G.R. No. 147589, G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ang Bagong Bayani-OfW Labor Party vs. Commission On Elections, 359 SCRA 698, G.R. No. 147589, G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the

BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

VOL. 359, JUNE 6, 2001 699

Election Law; Actions; Certiorari; Pleadings and Practice;

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

Same; Same; Same; Procedural requirements may be glossed

VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 701

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

law; namely, labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

sented disregards the clear statutory policy.The declared policy

VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 703

Ang Bagong Bayqni-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

Same; Same; Guidelines for Screening Party-List

VITUG, J,, Separate (Dissenting) Opinion:

Election Law; Party-List System; Neither Article 6, Section

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

organizations, and 4) coalitions.The party-list system is limited

VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 705

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

MENDOZA, J., Dissenting opinion:

Election Law; Party-List System; Constitutional Law;

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 707

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on

peasants, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women,

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not

The Factual Antecedents

With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received

1 Signed by Chairman Alfredo L. Benipayo and Commissioners

VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 709

observance of the legal and procedural requirements,

We carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in mind

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

more importantly the sufficiency of the Manifestations

On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed

3 Ibid., pp. 21-22; rollo, pp. 48-49.

VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 711

On April 17, 2001, Petitioner

1. Whether or not recourse under Rule 65 is proper

pine Local Autonomy Movement, Aksyon Demokratiko, Citizens Drug

712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

2. Whether or not political parties may participate in

The Courts Ruling

The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be

Respondents contend that the recourse of both petitioners

VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 713

20 Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, provides: Judicial power

714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party

23 Section 1, Rule 65. See Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222,

VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 715

part, Petitioner Bayan Muna28

Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or

During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission,