Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Ang Bagong Bayani

8/3/2019 Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Ang Bagong Bayani

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ang-bagong-bayani-vs-ang-bagong-bayani 1/19

EN BANC

[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 MAR COS LOYALIST ASSOCIATION

OF THE PHILIPPINES; PHILIPPINE LOCAL AUTONOMY;

CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE, ECONOMY,

ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE; CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION; SPORTS & HEALTH ADVANCEMENT

FOUNDATION, INC.; ANG LAKAS NG OVERSEAS CONTRACT

WORKERS (OCW); BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION and

others under ³Organizations/Coalitions´ of Omnibus Resolution No.

3785; PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO; LAKAS NUCD-UMDP;

NATIONALIST PEOPLE¶S COALITION; LABAN NG

DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO; AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO; PDP-

LABAN; LIBERAL PARTY; NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG

BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG; and others under ³Political

Parties´ of Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. respondents.

[G.R. No. 147613. June 26, 2001]

BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS;

NATIONALIST PEOPLE¶S COALITION (NPC); LABAN NG

DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP); PARTIDO NG MASANG

PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP; LIBERAL PARTY;MAMAMAYANG AYAW SA DROGA; CREBA; NATIONAL

FEDERATION OF SUGAR CANE PLANTERS; JEEP; and BAGONG

BAYANI ORGANIZATION, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J .:



The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give mor e law to the gr eatmasses of our people who have less in lif e, but also to enable them to become veritable

lawmak ers themselves, em power ed to participate dir ectly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to mak e the marginalized and the underr e pr esented not mer ely passive

r ecipients of the State¶s benevolence, but active participants in the mainstr eam of r e pr esentative

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 woulddesecrate this lofty objective and mongr elize the social justice mechanism into an atrocious

veneer for traditional politics.

TheCase

Befor e us ar e two Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging OmnibusR esolution No. 3785[1] issued by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on March 26,

2001. This R esolution approved the participation of 154 organizations and parties, including

those her ein im pleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification of private r espondents, arguing mainly that the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underr e pr esented; not the mainstr eam political parties, the non-marginalized or

overr e pr esented.

The Factual Antecedents

With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec r eceived several Petitions for r egistrationfiled by sectoral parties, organizations and political parties. According to the Comelec,

³[v]erifications wer e made as to the status and capacity of these parties and organizations andhearings wer e scheduled day and night until the last party w[as] heard. With the num ber of these

petitions and the observance of the legal and procedural r equir ements, r eview of these petitionsas well as deliberations tak es a longer process in order to arrive at a decision and as a r esult the

two (2) divisions promulgated a se parate Omnibus R esolution and individual r esolution on political parties. These numerous petitions and processes observed in the disposition of these

petition[s] hinder the early r elease of the Omnibus R esolutions of the Divisions which wer e promulgated only on 10 Fe bruary 2001.´[2]

Ther eafter , befor e the Fe bruary 12, 2001 deadline pr escribed under Comelec R esolution No. 3426 dated Decem ber 22, 2000, the r egister ed parties and organizations filed their r espective

Manif estations, stating their intention to participate in the party-list elections. Other sectoral and

political parties and organizations whose r egistrations wer e denied also filed Motions for R econsideration, together with Manif estations of their intent to participate in the party-listelections. Still other r egister ed parties filed their Manif estations beyond the deadline.

The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manif estations (or accr editations) of 154 parties and organizations, but denied those of several others in its assailed March 26, 2001

Omnibus R esolution No. 3785, which we quote:



³We car efully deliberated the for egoing matters, having in mind that this system of proportional r e pr esentation scheme will encourage multi-partisan [sic] and enhance the inability of small, new or sectoral parties or organization to dir ectly participate in

this electoral window.

³It will be noted that as defined, the µparty-list system¶ is a µmechanism of proportional r e pr esentation¶ in the election of r e pr esentatives to the House of R e pr esentatives from national, r egional, and sectoral parties or organizations or

coalitions ther eof r egister ed with the Commission on Elections.

³However , in the course of our r eview of the matters at bar , we must r ecognize the

fact that ther e is a need to k ee p the num ber of sectoral parties, organizations andcoalitions, down to a manageable level, k ee ping only those who substantially com ply

with the rules and r egulations and mor e im portantly the sufficiency of the

Manif estations or evidence on the Motions for R econsiderations or Oppositions.´[3]

On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed befor e the Comelec a Petition praying that ³the names of [some of her ein r espondents] be deleted from the µCertified 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

ask ed, as an alternative, that the votes cast for the said r espondents not be counted or canvassed, and that the latter ¶s nominees not be proclaimed.[4] On April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and Bayan

Muna-Youth also filed a Petition for Cancellation of R egistration and Nomination against some of her ein r espondents.[5]

On April 18, 2001, the Comelec r equir ed the r espondents in the two disqualification cases to

file Comments within thr ee days from notice. It also set the date for hearing on April 26, 2001,[6] but subsequently r eset it to May 3, 2001.[7] During the hearing, however , Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion mer ely dir ected the parties to submit their r espective memoranda.[8]

Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the Comelec, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party filed a Petition[9] befor e this Court on April 16, 2001. This Petition, dock eted as GR No.

147589, assailed Comelec Omnibus R esolution No. 3785. In its R esolution dated April 17, 2001,[10] the Court dir ected r espondents to comment on the Petition within a non-extendible

period of five days from notice.[11]

On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna also filed befor e this Court a Petition,[12] dock eted

as GR No. 147613, also challenging Comelec Omnibus R esolution No. 3785. In its R esolution

dated May 9, 2001,[13]

the Court order ed the consolidation of the two Petitions befor e it; dir ectedr espondents named in the second Petition to file their r espective Comments on or befor e 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 barr ed the proclamation of any winner ther ein, until further orders of the Court.

Ther eafter , Comments[14] on the second Petition wer e r eceived by the Court and, on May 17, 2001, the Oral Argument was conducted as scheduled. In an Order given in open court, the



parties wer e dir ected to submit their r espective Memoranda simultaneously within a non-extendible period of five days.[15]

Issues:

During the hearing on May 17, 2001, the Court dir ected the parties to addr ess the following

issues:

³1. Whether or not r ecourse under Rule 65 is proper under the pr emises. Mor e specifically, is ther e no other plain, speedy or adequate r emedy in the ordinary course

of law?

³2. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections.

³3. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to µmarginalized andunderr e pr esented¶ sectors and organizations.

³4. Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of discr etion in promulgating

Omnibus R esolution No. 3785.´[16]

TheCourt¶s Ruling

The Petitions ar e partly meritorious. These cases should be r emanded to the Comelec which

will deter mine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizationsenumerated in the assailed Omnibus R esolution satisfy the r equir ements of the Constitution andRA 7941, as specified in this Decision.

First Issue:

Recourse Under Rule 65

R espondents contend that the r ecourse of both petitioners under Rule 65 is im proper because ther e ar e other plain, speedy and adequate r emedies in the ordinary course of law.[17] The Office

of the Solicitor General argues that petitioners should have filed befor e the Comelec a petitioneither for disqualification or for cancellation of r egistration, pursuant to Sections 19, 20, 21 and

22 of Comelec R esolution No. 3307-A[18]dated Novem ber 9, 2000.[19]

We disagr ee. At bottom, petitioners attack the validity of Comelec Omnibus R esolution

3785 for having been issued with grave abuse of discr etion, insofar as it allowed r espondents to participate in the party-list elections of 2001. Indeed, under both the Constitution[20] and the

Rules of Court, such challenge may be brought befor e this Court in a verified petitionfor certiorari under Rule 65.



Mor eover , the assailed Omnibus R esolution was promulgated by R espondent Commissionen banc; hence, no motion for r econsideration was possible, it being a prohibited pleading under

Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedur e.[21]

The Court also notes that Petitioner Bayan Muna had filed befor e the Comelec a Petition for

Cancellation of R egistration and Nomination against some of her ein r espondents.[22] 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 ther e was no other adequate r ecourse at the time. Subsequent events have proven the urgency of petitioner ¶s action; to this date, the

Comelec has not yet for mally r esolved the Petition befor e it. But a r esolution may just be afor mality because the Comelec, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has made its position

on the matter quite clear .

In any event, this case pr esents an exce ption to the rule that certiorari shall lie only in the

absence of any other plain, speedy and adequate r emedy.[23] It has been held that certiorari isavailable, notwithstanding the pr esence of other r emedies, ³wher e the issue raised is one pur ely

of law, wher e public inter est is involved, and in case of urgency.´[24] Indeed, the instant case is

indubitably im bued with public inter est and with extr eme urgency, for it potentially involves the com position of 20 percent of the House of R e pr esentatives.

Mor eover , this case raises transcendental constitutional issues on the party-list system,

which this Court must urgently r esolve, consistent with its duty to ³for mulate guiding andcontrolling constitutional principles, pr ece pts, doctrines, or rules.´[25]

Finally, procedural r equir ements ³may be glossed over to pr event 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 r elief is extr emely urgent and certiorari is the onlyadequate and speedy r emedy available.´[26]

Second Issue: Participation of P olitical Parties

In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party contends that ³the inclusion of political parties in the party-list system is the most objectionable portion of the questioned

R esolution.´[27] For its part, Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the participation of ³major political parties.´[28] On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, lik e the im pleaded 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 ³r egister ed national,

r egional and sectoral parties or organizations.´[29]

We now rule on this issue. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private r espondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, mer ely on the ground that they ar e political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that mem bers of the House of

R e pr esentatives may ³be elected through a party-list system of r egister ed national , regional , andsectoral parties or organizations.´

Further mor e, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political parties may be r egister ed under the party-list system.



³Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, exce pt for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this

Constitution.

³Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list

system, shall not be r e pr esented in the voters' r egistration boards, boards of electioninspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However , they shall be

entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.´[30]

During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Comm. Christian S. Monsod

pointed out that the participants in the party-list system may ³be a r egional party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO,[31] Magsasaka, or a r egional party in Mindanao."[32] This was also

clear from the following exchange between Comms. Jaime Tadeo and Blas Ople:[33]

³MR . 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 toopen up the system, in order to give a chance to parties that consistently place third or fourth in

congr essional district elections to win a seat in Congr ess.[34] He ex plained: ³The purpose of this isto open the system. In the past elections, we found out that ther e wer e certain groups or parties

that, if we count their votes nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they wer e always third or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assem bly. But

this way, they would have five or six r e pr esentatives in the Assem bly even if they would not winindividually in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose andobjectives of the party-list system.´

For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for ³a party-list system of r egister ednational, r egional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions ther eof , x x x.´ Section 3

ex pr essly states that a ³party´ is ³either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.´ Mor e to the point, the law defines ³political party´ as ³an organized group of citizens

advocating an ideology or platfor m, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, r egularly

nominates and supports certain of its leaders and mem bers as candidates for public office.´

Further mor e, 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:

³x x x x x x x x x

³For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties onthe basis of party r e pr esentation in the House of R e pr esentatives at the start of the

Tenth Congr ess of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list

system.

³x x x x x x x x x´



Indubitably, ther efor e, political parties ± even the major ones -- may participate in the party-list elections.

Third Issue:

M arginalized and Underrepresented

That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean, however , that an y political party -- or any organization or group for that matter -- may do so. The

r equisite 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:

³(1) The House of R e pr esentatives shall be com posed of not mor e than two hundr ed

and fifty mem bers, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from

legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the MetropolitanManila ar ea in accordance with the num ber of their r espective inhabitants, and on the

basis of a unifor m and progr essive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be

elected through a party-list system of r egister ed national, r egional, and sectoral parties

or organizations.

(2) The party-list r e pr esentatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total

num ber of r e pr esentatives including those under the party list. For thr ee consecutive ter ms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-

list r e pr esentatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from

the labor , peasant, urban poor , indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, andsuch other sectors as may be provided by law, exce pt the r eligious sector .´ (Em phasis

supplied.)

Notwithstanding the sparse language of the provision, a distinguished mem ber of the Constitutional Commission declar ed that the purpose of the party-list provision was to give

³genuine power to our people´ in Congr ess. Hence, when the provision was discussed, he exultantly announced: ³On this first day of August 1986, we shall, hopefully, usher in a new

chapter to our national history, by giving genuine power to our people in the legislatur e.´[35]

The for egoing provision on the party-list system is not self-executory. It is, in fact,

interspersed with phrases lik e ³in accordance with law´ or ³as may be provided by law´; it wasthus up to Congr ess to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941

was enacted. It laid out the statutory policy in this wise:

³SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -- The State shall promote proportionalr e pr esentation in the election of r e pr esentatives to the House of R e pr esentatives

through a party-list system of r egister ed national, r egional and sectoral parties or

organizations or coalitions ther eof , which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to



marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack

well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the for mulation andenactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become

mem bers of the House of R e pr esentatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop

and guarantee a full, fr ee and open party system in order to attain the broadest

possible r e pr esentation of party, sectoral or group inter ests in the House of R e pr esentatives by enhancing their chances to com pete for and win seats in the

legislatur e, and shall provide the sim plest scheme possible.´

The M arginalized and Underrepresented to Become Lawmak ers Themselves

The for egoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional r e pr esentation bymeans of the Filipino-style party-list system, which will ³enable´ the election to the House of

R e pr esentatives of Filipino citizens,

1. who belong to marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors, organizations and parties; and

2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but

3. who could contribute to the for mulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will

benefit the nation as a whole.

The k ey words in this policy ar e ³proportional r e pr esentation,´ ³marginalized and

underr e pr esented,´ and ³lack [of] well-defined constituencies.´

³Proportional r e pr esentation´ her e does not r ef er to the num ber of people in a particular

district, because the party-list election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to numericalstr ength in a distr essed or oppr essed group. Rather , it r ef ers to the r e pr esentation of the

³marginalized and underr e pr esented´ as exem plified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the law;namely, ³labor , peasant, fisherfolk , urban poor , indigenous cultural communities, elderly,

handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas work ers, and prof essionals.´

However , it is not enough for the candidate to claim r e pr esentation of the marginalized and

underr e pr esented, because r e pr esentation is easy to claim and to f eign. The party-listorganization or party must factually and truly r e pr esent the marginalized and underr e pr esented

constituencies mentioned in Section 5.[36] Concurr ently, the persons nominated by the party-listcandidate-organization must be ³Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and

underr e pr esented sectors, organizations and parties.´

Finally, ³lack of well-defined constituenc[y]´ r ef ers to the absence of a traditionally

identifiable electoral group, lik e voters of a congr essional district or territorial unit of government. Rather , it points again to those with disparate inter ests identified with the

³marginalized or underr e pr esented.´

In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos who ar e

³marginalized and underr e pr esented´ become mem bers of Congr ess under the party-list system, Filipino-style.



The intent of the Constitution is clear : to give genuine power to the people, not only bygiving mor e law to those who have less in lif e, but mor e so by enabling them to become veritable

lawmak ers themselves. Consistent with this intent, the policy of the im plementing law, we r e peat, is lik ewise clear : ³to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and

underr e pr esented sectors, organizations and parties, x x x, to become mem bers of the House of

R e pr esentatives.´ Wher e the language of the law is clear , it must be applied according to itsex pr ess ter ms.[37]

The marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors to be r e pr esented under the party-list system

ar e enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:

³SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized group of persons may r egister as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the

COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days befor e the election a petition verified by its

pr esident or secr etary stating its desir e to participate in the party-list system as a

national, r egional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or

organizations, attaching ther eto its constitution, by-laws, platfor m or program of government, list of officers, coalition agr eement and other r elevant infor mation as the

COMELEC may r equir e: Provided, that the sector shall include labor , peasant, fisherfolk , urban poor , indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,

women, youth, veterans, overseas work ers, and prof essionals.´

While the enumeration of marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors is not exclusive, itdemonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be r e pr esented under the party-list

system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that words em ployed in a statute ar e interpr eted in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by r ef er ence to, the words

and the phrases with which they ar e associated or r elated. Thus, the meaning of a ter m in a

statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association.[38]

The Party-List System Desecr ated by t he OSG Contentions

Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy, the Office of the Solicitor General

submits that RA No. 7941 ³does not limit the participation in the party-list system to the marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors of society.´[39] In fact, it contends that any party or

group that is not disqualified under Section 6[40]of RA 7941 may participate in the elections. Hence, it admitted during the Oral Argument that even an organization r e pr esenting

the super rich of Forbes Park or Dasmariñas Village could participate in the party-listelections.[41]

The declar ed policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). We str ess that the party-list system seeks to enable certain Filipino citizens ±

specifically those belonging to marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors, organizations and parties ± to be elected to the House of R e pr esentatives. The assertion of the OSG that the party-

list system is not exclusive to the marginalized and underr e pr esented disr egards the clear



statutory policy. Its claim that even the super-rich and overr e pr esented can participate desecratesthe spirit of the party-list system.

Indeed, the law crafted to addr ess the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellerscannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park . The inter ests of these two sectors

ar e manif estly disparate; hence, the OSG¶s position to tr eat them similarly defies r eason and

common sense. In contrast, and with admirable candor , Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan[42] admittedduring the Oral Argument that a group of bank ers, industrialists and sugar planters could not jointhe party-list system as r e pr esentatives of their r espective sectors.[43]

While the business moguls and the mega-rich ar e, numerically speaking, a tiny minority, they ar e neither marginalized nor underr e pr esented, for the stark r eality is that their economic

clout engenders political power mor e awesome than their numerical limitation. Traditionally, political power does not necessarily emanate from the size of one¶s constituency; indeed, it is

lik ely to arise mor e dir ectly from the num ber and amount of one¶s bank accounts.

It is ironic, ther efor e, that the marginalized and underr e pr esented in our midst ar e the

majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and infir mity. It was for them that the party-list

system was enacted -- to give them not only genuine hope, but genuine power; to give them the opportunity to be elected and to r e pr esent the specific concerns of their constituencies; andsim ply to give them a dir ect voice in Congr ess and in the larger affairs of the State. In its noblest

sense, the party-list system truly em powers the masses and ushers a new hope for genuine change. Verily, it invites those marginalized and underr e pr esented in the past ± the far m hands,

the fisher folk , the urban poor , even those in the underground movement ± to 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 underr e pr esented had not been able to win in the

congr essional district elections nor mally dominated by traditional politicians and vested groups, 20 percent of the seats in the House of R e pr esentatives wer e set aside for the party-listsystem. In arguing that even those sectors who nor mally controlled 80 percent of the seats in the

House could participate in the party-list elections for the r emaining 20 percent, the OSG and the Comelec disr egard the fundamental diff er ence between the congr essional district elections and

the party-list elections.

As earlier noted, the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the system,[44] in

order to enhance the chance of sectoral groups and organizations to gain r e pr esentation in the House of R e pr esentatives through the sim plest scheme possible.[45] Logic shows that the system

has been opened to those who have never gotten a foothold within it -- those who cannototherwise win in r egular elections and who ther efor e need the ³sim plest scheme possible´ to do

so. Conversely, it would be illogical to open the system to those who have long been within it --those privileged sectors that have long dominated the congr essional district elections.

The im port of the open party-list system may be mor e vividly understood when com par ed toa student dor mitory ³open house,´ which by its natur e allows outsiders to enter the facilities.

Obviously, the ³open house´ is for the benefit of outsiders only, not the dor mers themselves whocan enter the dor mitory even without such special privilege. In the same vein, the open party-list



system is only for the ³outsiders´ who cannot get elected through r egular elections otherwise; itis not for the non-marginalized or overr e pr esented who alr eady fill the ranks of Congr ess.

Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and overr e pr esented to vie for the r emaining seatsunder the party-list system would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the

marginalized and underr e pr esented, 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 pr e judice of the intended beneficiaries.

This Court, ther efor e, cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied and prostituted by

those who ar e neither marginalized nor underr e pr esented. It cannot let that flick er of hope be snuff ed out. The clear state policy must per meate every discussion of the qualification of

political parties and other organizations under the party-list system.

Refut ation of t he Separ ate Opinions

The Se parate Opinions of our distinguished colleagues, Justices Jose C. Vitug and Vicente V. Mendoza, ar e anchor ed 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 provisionitself . The pr esum ption is that the words in which the constitutional provisions ar e couched

ex pr ess the objective sought to be attained.[46] In other words, verba legis still pr evails. Onlywhen the meaning of the words used is unclear and equivocal should r esort be made to

extraneous aids of construction and interpr etation, such as the proceedings of the ConstitutionalCommission or Convention, in order to shed light on and ascertain the true intent or purpose of

the provision being construed.[47]

Indeed, as cited in the Se parate Opinion of Justice Mendoza, this Court stated in Civil

Liberties U nion v. Executive Secretary[48] that ³the de bates and proceedings of the constitutionalconvention [may be consulted] in order to arrive at the r eason and purpose of the r esulting

Constitution x x x only when other guides fail as said proceedings ar e powerless to vary the ter ms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear . De bates in the constitutional convention

µar e of value as showing the views of the individual mem bers, and as indicating the r eason 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 f ellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it saf er to construe the constitution from what appears upon its face.¶

The proper interpr etation ther efor e de pends mor e on how it was understood by the people

adopting it than in the framers¶ understanding ther eof .´

Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, r elative to the party-list system, is couched in clear ter ms: the mechanics of the system shall be provided by law. Pursuant ther eto, Congr ess

enacted RA 7941. In understanding and im plementing party-list r e pr esentation, we shouldther efor e look at the law first. Only when we find its provisions am biguous should the use of

extraneous aids of construction be r esorted to.



But, as discussed earlier , the intent of the law is obvious and clear from its plainwords. Section 2 ther eof unequivocally states that the party-list system of electing congr essional

r e pr esentatives was designed to ³enable underr e pr esented sectors, organizations and parties, andwho lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the for mulation and

enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole x x x.´ The criteria for

participation is well defined. Thus, ther e is no need for r ecourse to constitutional deliberations, not even to the proceedings of Congr ess. In any event, the framers¶ deliberations mer ely ex pr esstheir individual opinions and ar e, at best, only persuasive in construing the meaning and purpose

of the constitution or statute.

Be it r emem ber ed that the constitutionality or validity of Sections 2 and 5 of RA 7941 is not

an issue her e. Hence, they r emain parts of the law, which must be applied plainly and sim ply.

Fourth Issue:

Gr ave Abuse of Discretion

From its assailed Omnibus R esolution, it is manif est that the Comelec failed to appr eciate

fully the clear policy of the law and the Constitution. On the contrary, it seems to have ignor edthe facet of the party-list system discussed above. The OSG as its counsel admitted befor e the

Court that any group, even the non-marginalized and overr e pr esented, could field candidates inthe party-list elections.

When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency lik e the Commission on Elections, violates or ignor es the Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down by this Court on the ground of

grave abuse of discr etion.[49] Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasi-judicialinstrumentalities is to apply the law as they find it, not to r einvent or second-guess it.[50]

In its Memorandum, Petitioner Bayan Muna passionately pleads for the outrightdisqualification of the major political parties ± R espondents Lakas-NUCD, LDP, NPC, LP and

PMP ± on the ground that under Comelec R esolution No. 4073, they have been accr edited 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 ³advantage of getting official Comelec Election R eturns, Certificates of Canvass, pr ef err ed poll watchers x x x.´ We note, however , that this accr editation

does not r ef er to the party-list election, but, inter alia, to the election of district r e pr esentativesfor the purpose of deter mining which parties would be entitled to watchers under Section 26 of

R e public Act No. 7166.

What is needed under the pr esent circumstances, however , is a factual deter mination of

whether r espondents her ein and, for that matter , all the 154 pr eviously approved groups, have the

necessary qualifications to participate in the party-list elections, pursuant to the Constitution andthe law.

Bayan Muna also urges us to immediately rule out R espondent Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga

(MAD), because ³it is a government entity using government r esources and privileges.´ ThisCourt, however , is not a trier of facts.[51] It is not equipped to r eceive evidence and deter mine the

truth of such factual allegations.



Basic rudiments of due process r equir e that r espondents should first be given an opportunityto show that they qualify under the guidelines promulgated in this Decision, befor e they can be

de prived of their right to participate in and be elected under the party-list system.

Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants

The Court, ther efor e, deems it proper to r emand the case to the Comelec for the latter todeter mine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations

allowed to participate in the party-list elections com ply with the r equir ements of the law. In thislight, 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 .

F irst , the political party, sector , organization or coalition must r e pr esent the marginalized

and underr e pr esented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words, it must show --through its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platfor m of government and

track r ecord -- that it r e pr esents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors. Verily, majority of its mem bership should belong to the marginalized and

underr e pr esented. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of inter ests, it has chosen or islik ely to choose the inter est of such sectors.

Second , while even major political parties ar e ex pr essly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must com ply with the declar ed statutory

policy of enabling ³Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of R e pr esentatives.´ In other words, while they ar e not disqualified

mer ely on the ground that they ar e political parties, they must show, however , that they r e pr esentthe inter ests of the marginalized and underr e pr esented. The counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko and

other similarly situated political parties admitted as much during the Oral Argument, as the

following quote shows:

³JUSTICE PANGANIBAN: I am not disputing that in my question. All I am saying is, the political

party must claim to r e pr esent the marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors?

ATTY. KAPUNAN: Yes, Your Honor , the answer is yes.´[52]

Third , in view of the objections[53] dir ected against the r egistration of Ang Buhay HayaangYumabong, which is allegedly a r eligious group, the Court notes the ex pr ess constitutional

provision that the r eligious sector may not be r e pr esented in the party-list system. The extent of the constitutional proscription is demonstrated by the following discussion during the

deliberations of the Constitutional Commission:

³MR . OPLE. x x x

In the event that a certain r eligious sect with nationwide and even international networks

of mem bers and supporters, in order to circumvent this prohibition, decides to for m its own

political party in emulation of those parties I had mentioned earlier as deriving their inspirationand philosophies from well-established r eligious 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 certainlythe Comelec can pierce through the legal fiction.´[54]



The following discussion is also pertinent:

³MR . VILLACOR TA. When the Commissioner proposed ³EXCEPT RELIGIOUS GROUPS,´ he isnot, of course, prohibiting priests, imams or pastors who may be elected by, say, the indigenous

community sector to r e pr esent their group.

REV. RIGOS. Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who r e pr esents the Iglesia ni Kristo, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church et cetera.´[55]

Further mor e, the Constitution provides that ³r eligious denominations and sects shall not be

r egister ed.´[56] The prohibition was ex plained by a mem ber [57] of the Constitutional Commissionin this wise: ³[T]he prohibition is on any r eligious organization r egistering as a political party. Ido not see any prohibition her e against a priest running as a candidate. That is not prohibited

her e; it is the r egistration of a r eligious sect as a political party.´[58]

F ourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941,

which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows:

³(1) It is a r eligious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for r eligious

purposes;(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

(3) It is a for eign party or organization;

(4) It is r eceiving support from any for eign government, for eign political party, foundation,

organization, whether dir ectly or through any of its officers or mem bers or indir ectly through

third parties for partisan election purposes;

(5) It violates or fails to com ply with laws, rules or r egulations r elating to elections;

(6) It declar es 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) pr eceding elections or fails to obtain at leasttwo per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) pr eceding

elections for the constituency in which it has r egister ed.´[59]

Note should be tak en of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a party or group for violation of or failur e to com ply with election laws and r egulations. These laws include Section 2 of RA 7941,

which states that the party-list system seeks to ³enable Filipino citizens belonging tomarginalized and underr e pr esented sectors, organizations and parties x x x to become mem bers

of the House of R e pr esentatives.´ A party or an organization, ther efor e, that does not com plywith this policy must be disqualified.

F ifth, 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 natur e 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 inde pendent of the government. The participation of the government or its officials in the

affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal[60] and unfair to other parties, but alsodeleterious to the objective of the law: to enable citizens belonging to marginalized and

underr e pr esented sectors and organizations to be elected to the House of R e pr esentatives.



Sixth, the party must not only com ply with the r equir ements of the law; its nominees mustlik ewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 r eads as follows:

³SEC. 9. Qualification s of Party-List Nominees. ± No person shall be nominated as party-list r e pr esentative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a

r egister ed voter , a r esident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately pr eceding the day of the election, able to r ead and write, a bona

fide mem ber of the party or organization which he seeks to r e pr esent for at least

ninety (90) days pr eceding 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

mor e than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral

r e pr esentative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his ter m shall be allowed to

continue in office until the ex piration of his ter m.´

Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must r e pr esent marginalized and

underr e pr esented sectors; so also must its nominees. To r e peat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens ³who belong to marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors,

organizations and parties.´ Sur ely, the inter ests of the youth cannot be fully r e pr esented by ar etir ee; 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 r e pr esentation to the marginalized andunderr e pr esented.

Eighth, as pr eviously discussed, while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must lik ewise be able to contribute to the for mulation and enactment of appropriate

legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. Senator Jose Lina ex plained during the bicameral committee proceedings that ³the nominee of a party, national or r egional, is not going

to r e pr esent a particular district x x x.´[61]

Epilogue

The linch pin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the law: ³to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underr e pr esented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack

well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the for mulation and enactmentof appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become mem bers of the

House of R e pr esentatives.´

Crucial to the r esolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those

who have less in lif e should have mor e in law. The party-list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have less in lif e. It gives the gr eat masses of our people genuine hope and

genuine power . It is a message to the destitute and the pr e judiced, and even to those in the underground, that change is possible. It is an invitation for them to come out of their lim bo and

seize the opportunity.



Clearly, ther efor e, the Court cannot acce pt the submissions of the Comelec and the other r espondents that the party-list system is, without any qualification, open to all. Such position

does not only weak en the electoral chances of the marginalized and underr e pr esented; it also pr e judices them. It would gut the substance of the party-list system. Instead of generating hope,

it would cr eate a mirage. Instead of enabling the marginalized, it would further weak en them

and aggravate their marginalization. In eff ect, the Comelec would have us believe that the party-list provisions of the

Constitution and RA 7941 ar e nothing mor e than a play on dubious words, a mock ery of noble

intentions, and an em pty off ering on the altar of people em power ment. Sur ely, this could nothave been the intention of the framers of the Constitution and the mak ers of RA 7941.

WHEREFORE, this case is R EMANDED to the Comelec, which is her e by DI R ECTED toimmediately conduct summary evidentiary hearings on the qualifications of the party-list

participants in the light of the guidelines enunciated in this Decision. Considering the extr eme urgency of deter mining the winners in the last party-list elections, the Comelec is dir ected to

begin its hearings for the parties and organizations that appear to have garner ed such num ber of

votes as to qualify for seats in the House of R e pr esentatives. The Comelec isfurther DI R ECTED to submit to this Court its com pliance r e port within 30 days from notice her eof .

The R esolution of this Court dated May 9, 2001, dir ecting the Comelec ³to r efrain from proclaiming any winner ́ during the last party-list election, shall r emain in force until after the

Comelec itself will have com plied and r e ported its com pliance with the for egoing disposition.

This Decision is immediately executory upon the Commission on Elections¶ r eceipt

ther eof . No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Melo, Pu

n

o, Kapun

an

, Pardo, B

uen

a, and Gonz

aga- R

eyes, JJ .

, concur .

Davide, Jr . , C . J . , in the r esult.

Vitug and Mendo z a , JJ . , see dissenting opinion. Quisumbin g, De Leon , Jr . , and Sandoval-Gutierre z , JJ . , join the dissent of J. Vicente M.

Mendoza. Y nares-Santiago, J . , abroad on official business.

[1] Signed by Chair man Alfr edo L. Benipayo and Commissioners Luzviminda G. Tancangco, Rufino S. B. Javier ,

Ralph C. Lantion, Mehol K . Sadain, R esurr eccion Z. Borra and Flor entino A. Tuason Jr .

[2] Omnibus R esolution No. 3785, p. 13; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 40.

[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 wer e filed by MAD, Bagong Bayani, The True Marcos Loyalists, the Comelec, Partido ng MasangPilipino, the Liberal Party, the Office of the Solicitor General, CREBA, Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, the Philippine 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 wer e 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 wer e filed by Petitioners Bayan Muna and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party; and R espondents

Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga, CREBA, the Bagong Bayani Organization, the Office of the Solicitor General, and

Aksyon Demokratiko. Manif estations instead of memoranda wer e filed by Lakas-NUCD and OCW.

[16] See the May 17, 2001 R esolution, p. 2; rollo (GR No. 147613), p. 88.

[17] See, e.g., the Bagong Bayani Organization¶s Memorandum, pp. 3-4; Aksyon Demokratiko¶s Memorandum, pp. 2-

3; and MAD¶s Memorandum, pp. 3-6.

[18] Rules and r egulations governing the filing of a petition for r egistration, a manif estation to participate, and the names of nominees under the party-list system of r e pr esentation in connection with the May 14, 2001 national and

local elections.

[19] OSG¶s Memorandum, pp. 6-14; rollo (GR No. 147613), pp. 151-159.

[20] Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, provides: ³Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to

settle actual controversies involving rights which ar e legally demandable and enforceable, and to deter mine whether or not ther e has been a grave abuse of discr etion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any

branch or instrumentality of the Government.´

[21] ³SECTION 1. What pleadin gs are not allowed . The following pleadings ar e not allowed:

x x x x x x x x x

d) motion for r econsideration of an en banc ruling, r esolution, order or decision exce pt in election off ense cases;

x x x x x x x x x´

[22] Dock eted as SPA 01-113. As earlier noted, Akbayan also filed befor e the Comelec a similar Petition, dock eted

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.

[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; Sahali v.Comelec, GR No. 134169, Fe bruary 2, 2000

[24] R e public 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; Central Bank v. Cloribel,

44 SCRA 307, April 11, 1972.

[25] Salonga v. Cruz Paño , 134 SCRA 438, Fe bruary 18, 1985, per Gutierr ez, Jr ., J . See also Tañada v. Angara, 272SCRA 18, May 2, 1997; Guingona v. Gonzales, 219 SCRA 326, March 1, 1993.

[26] ABS-CBN v. Comelec , GR No. 133486, January 28, 2000, per Panganiban, J .

[27] Petition of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, p. 15; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 18.



[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] Em phasis 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, UNIDOwas the dominant political party.

[32] R ecord of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p. 86.




[36] I n fra.

[37] Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 747, Fe bruary 26, 1997; Ramir ez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590, Se ptem ber 28,

1995.

[38] 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 331.

[39] OSG Comment, p. 18; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 244. [40] I n fra.

[41] TSN, May 17, 2001, pp. 147-148.

[42] Counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko.

[43] TSN, May 17, 2001, pp. 178-180.

[44] Supra. See also §6, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, which r eads: ³A fr ee and open party system shall be

allowed to evolve according to the fr ee choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this Article.´

[45] Section 2 of RA 7941 states in part as follows: ³x x x. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a

full, fr ee and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible r e pr esentation of party, sectoral or group

inter ests in t

heHous

eof R

e pr

esentativ

es by

enhancing t

heir c

hanc

es to co

m pete

for and win seats in t

helegislatur

e, and shall provide the sim plest scheme possible.´

[46] JM Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenur e Administration, 31 SCRA 413, Fe bruary 18, 1970; cited in Ruben C.

Agpalo, Statutory Con struction , 1990 ed., p. 311. See also Gold Cr eek Mining Corp. v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil 259, 264(1938).

[47] See Agpalo, ibid ., p. 313.

[48] 194 SCRA 317, Fe bruary 22, 1991, per Fernan, CJ; quoting Commonwealth v. Ralph , 111 Pa 365, 3 Atl 220.

[49] Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997. See also Santiago v. Guingona, 298 SCRA 756, Novem ber 18, 1998; Miranda v. Aguirr e, 314 SCRA 603, Se ptem ber 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.

[51] See Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 278, Fe bruary 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 Jr . v. CA, 269

SCRA 283, March 7, 1997; Sesbr eño v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, 270 SCRA 360, March 24, 1997;

PCGG v. Cojuangco Jr ., 302 SCRA 217, January 27, 1999.

[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] R ecord of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. I, p. 636.




[56] §2 (5), Article IX (C).

[57] Christian S. Monsod.

[58] R ecord of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. I, p. 634

[59] See also §11, Comelec R esolution No. 3307-A.

[60] See §2 (4), Article IX (B) of the Constitution . See also Article 261 (o), BP 881.

[61] The bicameral conf er ence committee on the disagr eeing provision of Senate Bill No. 1913 and House Bill No.

3040, January 31, 1994, p. 4.

Documents

Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Ang Bagong Bayani