Bagong Bayani v.

COMELEC
SUBJECT MATTER: Political Parties

[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 PEOPLE'S 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
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 SUGARCANE PLANTERS; JEEP; and BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION, respondents.

G.R. NO 147589, 147613 June 26, 2001 Panganiban

Araceli Celine Enriquez

DOCTRINE

POLICY OF THE LAW: To enable Filipinos belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors who lack
well defined political constituencies but who could contribute to legislation.
- The party list group (even political parties) must factually and truly represent the marginalized and
underrepresented.

FACTS :

● For the 2001 elections, several sectoral parties, organizations and political parties filed petitions for
registration before the Comelec.
● Thereafter, the registered parties and organizations filed their respective Manifestations stating their
intention to participate in the party-list elections.
● In its assailed March 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, Comelec gave due course or approved the
Manifestations (or accreditations) of 151 parties and organizations, but denied those of several others.
● Akbayan Citizens Action Party (Akbayan) 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’.
 ● Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth also filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration and
Nomination against some of herein respondents.
● Dissatisfied with Comelec’s pace, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and Bayan Muna filed their
respective Petitions before the SC assailing Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785.

● SC: ordered the consolidation of the two petitions.

○ SC set a hearing and directed respondents to comment on the petitions within a specified period.
○ Oral arguments were conducted on May 17, 2001.
● Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and Bayan Muna objects to the participation or the inclusion of
political parties in the party-list system.
● Petitioners Argument: challenged the participation of mainstream political parties and non-marginalized
groups in the party-list elections, arguing that the party-list system was specifically designed for
marginalized and underrepresented groups, asserting that mainstream political parties and
overrepresented organizations should not be allowed to participate as it would undermine the system's
purpose.
● OSG’s Argument: 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, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations.”

ISSUE HELD

W/N political parties could participate in party-list elections. YES

RATIO

● SC ruled that 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.
● 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.”
● 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
State's benevolence, but active participants in the mainstream of representative democracy. → The
SC emphasized that the fundamental social justice principle that those who have less in life should
have more in law.
○ 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.
○ 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.
● 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."
○ During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission (ConCom), Commissioner Monsod
 pointed out that the the participants in the party-list system may “be a regional party, a sectoral
party, a national party, UNIDO2, Magsasaka, or a regional party in Mindanao.”
○ It was also 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 congressional district elections
to win a seat in Congress
● Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution provides that:
○ political parties may be registered under the party-list system.
● Section 2 and 3 of RA 7941 also provides for:
○ “a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof, xxx,”
○ section 3 expressly states that a “party” is “either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition
of parties.”
● This, political parties—even the major ones—may participate in the party-list elections.

NOTES

1. ON whether party-list system is exclusive to ‘marginalized and underrepresented’ sectors and organizations
→ NO
- Although the law provides that political parties may participate in the party-list elections, this does not
mean that any political party or any organization or group may do so.
- The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the
party-list system laid down by Sec 65, Art VI of the Constitution and Sec 27 of RA 7941
- The constitutional provision on the party-list system is not self-executory, hence, RA 7941 was
enacted.
- RA 7941 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 who:
1. belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and
2. .lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole.
- “Proportional representation” 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 Sec. 5 of RA 7941, namely:
- “labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.”
- ENUMERATION IS NOT EXCLUSIVE.
- 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 must
factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented.
- Additionally, the nominee of such party-list 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.”
 - 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.

2. W/N Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution 3785- YES
- SC held that it is 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.
- The following guidelines provided for by law and the Constitution, would assist the Comelec:
- 1.Party-list must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Sec. 58 of
RA 7941 → Majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented.
- 2. While political parties are not disqualified, they must show that they represent the interests of
the marginalized and underrepresented.
- 3. the religious sector may not be represented, but a religious leader may be a nominee
- 4. Must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941
- GROUNDS for disqualification:
- A. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious
purposes;
- B. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
- C. It is a foreign party or organization;
- D. 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;
- E. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
- F. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
- G. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
- H. 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.
- 5. Must be independent from the government (not adjunct, not funded, not assisted)
- 6. BOTH the party and its nominee must comply with the requirements of the law (age, residence,
citizenship)
- 7. BOTH party and its nominee must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors;
- 8. Nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation
that will benefit the nation as a whole.

FYI: in the next case (Nov 23, 2003)

- The Supreme Court had previously issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on May 9, 2001, which
COMELEC allegedly violated by proclaiming additional nominees for certain party-list groups.
- COMELEC had issued Resolution No. NBC-02-001 which allocated seats to various party-list groups,
including APEC, AKBAYAN, BUTIL, CIBAC, and BUHAY.
- Some nominees from these groups had already taken their oaths and assumed office as members of the
House of Representatives.
- Ruling: The SC found that the COMELEC's actions in proclaiming additional nominees for APEC, BUTIL,
CIBAC, and AKBAYAN were in violation of the Court's TRO.
- However, since these nominees had already taken their oaths and assumed office, the Court decided to
 consider the issue as closed and terminated.

DISPOSITIVE

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.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

DISSENT - Justice Vitug - Neither Article 6, Section 5(2), nor R.A. 7941 was designed to
ensure representation for all sectors of society, nor was it meant to
exclusively benefit underrepresented and marginalized groups.
- The primary objective, if the majority of the Commissioners'
intentions were to be honored, was to establish the concept of
party-list representation.
- The party-list system is confined to four categories:
- 1) political parties- an organized group of citizens that
promotes an ideology or platform, principles, or policies for
governing and regularly nominates and supports its leaders
and members as candidates for public office to achieve
these goals.
- 2) sectoral parties- consists of an organized group of
citizens from identifiable sectors, such as those listed in
Article 6, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which
includes laborers, farmers, urban poor individuals,
indigenous cultural communities, and women, along with
additional groups recognized by R.A. 7941 like fisherfolk, the
elderly, persons with disabilities, veterans, overseas workers,
and professionals.
- 3) sectoral organizations- a group of citizens who share
similar attributes, characteristics, employment backgrounds,
interests, or concerns.
- 4) coalitions-refers to a grouping of duly registered
national, regional, or sectoral parties or organizations
formed for electoral purposes.

DISSENT- Justice Mendoza - Textually, Article VI, §5(1)(2) of the Constitution does not support
 the petitioners' claim that the purpose of either sectoral
representation or the party-list system is to provide exclusive
representation for "marginalized sectors," which the petitioners
define as labor, farmers, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, and youth.
- The discussions of the Constitutional Commission indicate that the
party-list system is not restricted to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sectors identified by the petitioners—namely
labor, farmers, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, and youth.
- Instead, it serves as a form of proportional representation
aimed at amplifying the voices of groups that may not have
enough support to secure a seat in a specific district but are
numerous enough to earn representation on a national
level.
- Therefore, it is a misinterpretation of the debates surrounding
Article VI, §5(1)(2) to assert that “Although Commissioners
Villacorta and Monsod had different proposals regarding the
specifics of the party-list system, both proponents operated under
the belief that it was intended for the 'marginalized,' as defined by
Commissioner Villacorta, and the 'underrepresented,' as defined by
Commissioner Monsod—those who typically finish third or fourth in
district elections.”
- The Supreme Court cannot conclude that the party-list
system is exclusively for laborers, farmers, urban poor
individuals, indigenous cultural communities, women, and
youth without fundamentally altering the meaning of the
Constitution.
- In fact, it mandates the opposite of a reserved seats system by
stating in Article IX, C, §6 that “A free and open party system shall
be allowed to develop according to the free choice of the people,
subject to the provisions of this Article.”