SC shakes up party list in new verdict

Political parties do not have to represent the marginalized sectors to

be able to participate in the party-list elections, says the High Tribunal
in a landmark ruling

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court ruled on Friday, April 5, that

the party list is not only for the marginalized sectors, debunking an
argument that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) used in
disqualifying 54 party-list groups for the May 13 elections.

Voting 10-2-1, the SC said political parties do not have to represent the
marginalized sector to participate in the party-list elections.

"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," the High
Court said in a decision penned by Justice Antonio Carpio.

The ruling effectively upholds what the Constitution and the party list
law intended the system to be: a system of proportional representation
open to various kinds of groups and parties, and not an exercise
exclusive to the so-called marginalized sectors.

It reverses the interpretation that the SC, under then Chief Justice
Artemio Panganiban, promulgated in 2001 that caused the retroactive
disqualification of some of the groups that got the highest number of
votes.

In the new decision, those who concurred with Carpio are Justices
Teresita Leonaro de Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas
Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama, Jose
Perez, Jose Mendoza and Marvic Leonen.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Justice Bienvenido Reyes

dissented, while Justice Estela Perlas-Bermabe was on leave when
they voted on it.

The SC also remanded all 54 petitions of disqualified party-list groups

to the Comelec.

Applicable in 2016

Out of these 54, a total of 13 petitions are from party-list groups which
were granted a status quo ante order but failed to get a mandatory
injunction from the SC. Their names therefore were excluded in the
ballot for May.
The Comelec previously explained that getting a status quo ante order
allowed these groups to retain their status as new applicants for the
party-list system, but that they still needed a mandatory injunction to
stop their disqualification.

The SC said the Comelec in the future must decide whether the 13
groups are qualified to register under the party-list system based on
the new parameters.

But it stressed they would not be able to participate in the coming

elections.

The 13 include:

 Ako An Bisaya (AAB)

 Alagad ng Sining (Asin)
 Alab ng Mamahayag (Alam)
 Association of Guard, Utility Helper, Aider, Rider,
Driver/Domestic Helper, Janitor, Agent and Nanny of the
Philippines Inc. (Guardian)
 Abyan Ilonggo
 Alliance of Organizations, Networks and Associations of the
Philippines (Alona)
 Partido ng Bayan and Bida (PBB)
 Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP)
 1-Alliance Advocating Autonomy Part (1AAP)
 Kalikasan
 Akbay Kalusugan (Akin)
 Manila Teachers Savings and Loans Association (Manila
Teachers)
 Association of Local Athletics, Entrepreneurs and Hobbyists
(Ala-Eh)

Regarding the 41 other party-list groups which secured mandatory

injunctions to have their names included in the ballot, the SC said the
Comelec must decide whether these groups are qualified to register
under the party list and to participate in the 2013 elections.

Other Stories
64 lawmakers cross party lines to 'demand' end to crackdown on
progressive groups
Among those who signed the petition are House deputy speakers Rosemarie Arenas,
Evelina Escudero, and Eduardo Villanueva, as well as House Minority Leader
Bienvenido Abante Jr

Military seeks dialogue after lawmakers slammed crackdown on

progressive groups
The military deny that they are cracking down on progressive groups, whom they call
'communist terrorists' and whose offices they have raided in recent weeks

Angelica Panganiban apologizes for ‘disrespectful' Holocaust Memorial

OOTD post
'While there is no malice and intention to malign and disrespect the memories of the
Holocaust, I would like to apologize for offending the sensibilities of others,' Angelica
writes on Twitter

The SC earlier defined the party-list system as one that caters to the
poor sectors. In the 2001 case Bagong Bayani v. Comelec, then Justice
Artemio Panganiban (he would later become Chief Justice) wrote that
"the law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas
hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of
Forbes Park."

Carpio in effect reversed Panganiban in the new ruling.

New guidelines

The SC set new guidelines on the types of parties that may qualify for
the party-list system. The SC Public Information listed the new
parameters:

1. National parties or organizations, regional parties or organizations,

and sectoral parties or organizations could participate in the party-list
elections.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or
organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not
need to represent "any marginalized and underrepresented" sector.

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

register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in
legislative district elections.

A political party, whether or not it fields candidates in legislative

district election, can participate in party-list elections only through its
sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system.
The sectoral wing is by itself an independent party, and is linked to a
political party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and

underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies."
It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special
interest and concerns of 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 constituencies
include professionals, the elderly, women and the youth.

5. 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.

6. National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be

disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that
they have at least one nominee who remains qualified (The Supreme
Court Public Information office earlier said 5 other nominees, but
corrected itself on Saturday, April 6).

What the Charter says

When the Constitutional Commission crafted the party-list provision in

the 1987 Constitution, it did so with the goal of slowly building
“proportional representation” in the House of Representatives. Simply
put, this would allow political parties unable to wage national
campaigns to take part in lawmaking, allotting them 20% of the seats
in the lower chamber.
But the implementing law, Republic Act 7941, which took effect in
1998, took that a step further and limited the system to the
marginalized and the political underclass.

Yet, it put a cap—3 seats—on the maximum maximum seats that one
party could have and came up with percentages of votes that made it
difficult, to this day, to fill up the 55 slots.

Then in June 2001, Panganiban made his own computations and

declared that only one party deserved to have 3 seats. The rest could
have one or two depending on a new round of percentages that the
justice wrote down.

Called a form of judicial legislation, the Panganiban verdict reinforced

the law’s bias for the marginalized sector, because it described the
party-list system as "a social justice tool…to make the…
underrepresented…active participants in the mainstream
representative democracy.”

Lawyers disagreed with him then. The point of the Constitution is to

give leeway to the marginalized sectors only for the first term but
allow the other parties to join the fray subsequently, they said.