SUPREME COURT: PARTY-LIST SYSTEM IS NOT LIMITED TO THE MARGINALIZED

In its decision dated April 2, 2013, the Supreme Court has abandoned its previous rulings that the party-list system is limited to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, and that major political parties are not eligible to field their candidates under said system.

With the new decision, the Supreme Court has emphasized that based on the express provision of the Constitution and as can be culled from the records of the Constitutional convention, the party-list system is not meant to be exclusively for sectoral parties or organizations representing marginalized and underrepresented sectors but also for non-sectoral or political parties or organizations.

Moreover, the High Court also clarified that the sectoral parties or organizations are not limited to “marginalized and underrepresented sectors”  like labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, but also to sectors which are lacking of “well-defined political constituencies” like the elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals. These sectors are all expressly mentioned in Republic Act 7941 or the Party-List System Act.

The Supreme Court also underscored that even major political parties (i.e. those that have been fielding candidates and winning in regular legislative district elections) are qualified to field their candidates under the party-list system as long as they do it through their “sectoral wings”.

The salient pronouncements in the High Court’s decision as summarized therein are quoted as follows:

1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.

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 major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in partylist elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral 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 their sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas 62 Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.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 organizations that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized and underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack “well-defined political constituencies” must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or rganizations that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent  those who lack “well-defined political constituencies,” either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.

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.

Read the full decision here: ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013