SC: Party-lists need not represent marginalized sectors

(Updated 4:51 p.m.) Saying party-list groups need not represent marginalized sectors, the Supreme Court on Friday granted the petition of 54 disqualified groups and remanded their cases to the Commission on Elections (Comelec), which has been ordered to conduct "evidentiary hearings" to determine whether they are qualified to join in next months's midterm elections. In a decision promulgated Tuesday but released to the media Friday, the SC magistrates sitting en banc said that while the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the party-list groups, the high court still decided to adopt "new parameters" in the qualification of national, regional and sectoral parties under the party-list system. The court said it was returning the cases so the Comelec can further "determine who are qualified to register under the party-list system, and to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this Decision.” The SC set the following parameters:

• Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1)  national parties or organizations, (20 regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
• National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent “any marginalized and underrepresented” sector.
• Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidate in legislative district elections. A polictical party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district election can participate in party-list electons only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an indepedent party, and is linked to a political party through a coaltion.
• Sectoral parties or organizations may either be  “marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constitutencies.” It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concersn of the sector. The sectors that are marginalized and underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans and overseas workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political constitutencies include professionals, the elderly, women and the youth.
• A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organization that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector that they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organization that lack “well defined political constituencies” must belong to the sector that they represent. The nominees of either sector must either belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy.
• National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least five other nominees who remain qualified.

The magistrates came up with the parameters after reviewing the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, which crafted the 1987 Constitution, to determine the "intent of the framers in arriving at the party-list system." The SC cited the main sponsor of the provision on Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-list System Act, former Comelec chief Christian Monsod, in ruling that “the party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation.” "Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-list system to include not only sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the party-list system," the SC said. Explaining the parameter that does not require national and regional parties to represent marginalized sectors, the SC said: "To require [them] under the party-list system to represent the 'marginalized and underrepresented' is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system." The court said that While the term "marginalized and underrepresented" appears in Section 2 of the Party-list System Act, it was not cited as one of the eight grounds by which groups can be disqualified under Section 6. Covered by ruling The cases to be remanded to the Comelec are those of the 13 party-list groups that have been granted status quo ante orders but without mandatory injunction, as well as the 41 groups that have been granted mandatory injunctions.

• Atong Paglaum Inc
• Ako Bicol
• Association of Philippine - Electric Cooperatives (APEC)
• Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM)
• Kapatiran ng mga Nakulong na Walang Sala, Inc. (KAKUSA)
• 1st Consumers Alliance For Rural Energy, Inc. (1-CARE) - ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION INC. (ARARO)
• ASSOCIATION FOR RIGHEOUSNESS ADVOCACY ON LEADERSHIP (ARAL)
• Alliance for Rural Concerns (ARC)
• ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY (ANAD)
• 1-BRO PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (1BRO-PGBI)
• 1Guardians Nationalist Philippines, Inc. (1GANAP/GUARDIANS)
• Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance, Inc. (A-IPRA)
• Kaagapay ng Nagkakaisang Agilang Pilipinong Magsasaka (KAP) formerly known as Ako Agila ng Nagkakaisang Magsasaka (AKO AGILA)
• Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM)
• Bantay Party List
• Abroad Party-List
• Pasang Masda Nationwide
• Aangat Tayo
• ABANG LINGKOD
• FIRM 24-K ASSOCIATION, INC.
• Alliance of Bicolnon Party (ABP)
• Green Force for the Environment Sons and Daughters of Mother Earth (GREENFORCE)
• Agri-Agra na Reporma para sa Magsasaka ng Pilipinas Movement (AGRI)
• A Blessed Party List (A.K.A Blessed Federation of Farmers and Fishermen International, Inc)
• United Movement against Drugs Foundation (UNIMAD)
• Ang Agrikultura Natin Isulong (AANI)
• Bayani
• Action League of Indigenous Masses (ALIM)
• Butil Farmers Party
• Alliance of Advocates in Mining Advancement for National Progress (AAMA)
• Social Movement for Active Reform and Transparency (SMART)
• Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong Tao Para sa Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at Kaunlaran (AKO BAHAY)
• Akbay Kalusugan [AKIN] Incorporation
• Ako An Bisaya Party
• Binhi – Partido ng mga Magsasaka para sa mga Magsasaka
• Alagad ng Sining (ASIN)
• GUARDJAN (Association of Guard, Utility Helper, Aider, Rider, Driver/Domestic Helper, Janitor, Agent and Nanny of the Philippines, Inc.)
• Kalikasan
• Pilipino Association for Country – Urban Poor Youth Advancement and Welfare (PACYAW)
• 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK)
• Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc.
• Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc.
• Association of Local Athletics Entrepreneurs and Hobbyists, Inc. (ALA-EH)
• Ang Galing Pinoy (AG),
• Alliance Advocating Autonomy Party (1AAAP)
• Abyan Ilonggo Party (AI) ,
• Manila Teachers Savings and Loan Association, Inc.
• PARTIDO NG BAYAN ANG BIDA (PBB)
• ALLIANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS, NETWROLS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES INC (ALONA)
• 1st Kabalikat ng Bayan Ginhawang Sangkatauhan (1st Kabagis)
• Pilipinas para sa Pinoy v. Commission on Elections.

Voting Of the 15 justices, only Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco and Lourdes Perlas-Bernabe did not participate. Velasco did not take part due to his relatives' participation the party-list elections, while Bernabe was on leave. The ruling was penned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio. Four justices issued concurring and dissenting opinions to the ruling—Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Bienvenido Reyes, and Marvic Leonen. In a summary of the ruling, Supreme Court Public Information Office chief Theodore Te said the magistrates had different positions on several issues in the petitions. Six of the 13 justices who participated said the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the groups, while the remaining seven said otherwise. Associate Justice Jose Mendoza noted that he thinks Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in respect to disqualification of nominees separate from the party organization. Meanwhile, 11 justices said all 54 petitions should be remanded to the Comelec, while Sereno said only nine petitions should be sent back to the poll body, while Reyes said 10. For his part, Leonen wanted the registration of the 39 existing party-list groups to be reinstated, while the cases of 13 new applicants should be remanded to Comelec. As for the new parameters, the high court unanimously voted (13-0) in favor of having three different groups that can participate in teh party-list polls. Meanwhile, 11 justices agreed to the parameter that says national or regional groups do not need to represent any marginalized group to participate in the polls. Only Sereno and Reyes dissented. Concurrence and dissents In her concurring and dissenting opinion, Sereno said she agreed with the all six new parameters, except for the ones that allows national and regional parties not to be "marginalized and underrepresented." “I believe that the ponencia may have further marginalized the already marginalized and underrepresented of this country. In the guise of political plurality, it allows national and regional parties or organizations to invade what is and should be constitutionally and statutorily protected space," she said. "What the ponencia fails to appreciate is that the party-list system under the 1987 Constitution and RA 7941 is not about mere political plurality, but plurality with a heart for the poor and disadvantaged," she added. Sereno also said the term "marginalized and underrepresented" must be applied not only to sectoral groups, but national and regional groups as well. "To argue otherwise is to divorce national and regional parties or organizations from the primary objective of attaining social justice, which objective surrounds, permeates, imbues, underlies the entirety of both the 1987 Constitution and RA 7941," she said. She also dissented to the parameter that accepts groups that are either "marginalized and underrepresented" or "lack a well-defined political constituency." "They are cumulative requirements, not alternative. Thus, sectoral parties and organizations intending to run in the party-list elections must meet both," Sereno said. Unlike Sereno, Brion - in his concurrence and dissent - said the party-list system's aim is not to provide a social justice mechanism, but primarily for electoral reform. "If the concept of marginalized would be applied to the party-list system, the term should apply to the national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations that cannot win in the traditional legislative elections, not necessarily those claiming marginalization in the social justice context or because of their special interests or characteristics," Brion said. Since the Comelec disqualified a number of party-list groups late last year, a deluge of petitions questioning the Comelec's move has flooded the high court, which eventually issued status quo ante (Latin for "the way thing were before") orders in favor of several of the disqualified party-list groups. The SQA orders directed the Comelec to observe the status before the disqualification resolutions were issued last year. This meant that the disqualified groups that were able to secure SQAs from the high court would still have to be included on the ballots that the Comelec just finished printing this week. — KBK, GMA News