Subject Matter: Stare Decisis

Relevant Codal Provisions/Doctrine (if given):

NCC Art. 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC

G.R. NO. 147589, 147613 / Brief 359 Phil 698 / 26 June 2001
Ponente: Imperial, J.

Facts: Petitions for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by the
Commission on Elections (Comelec) on March 26, 2001. This Resolution approved the participation of 154 organizations and
parties, including those herein impleaded (note: respondents in the case not only COMELEC but also other political parties), in
the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the party-list
system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the non-
marginalized or overrepresented.

How the case reached the SC:

 Various sectoral parties, organizations and political parties petitioned the COMELEC that they be included in the 2001
Party-List elections. The COMELEC can only accommodate so much and in the interest of time and efficiency, it decided
to approve the applications of 151 parties and organizations but denied those of others through Omnibus Resolution
No. 3785, stating to wit:

“However, in the course of our review of the matters at bar, we must recognize the fact that there is a need to
keep the number of sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions, down to a manageable level, keeping only
those who substantially comply with the rules and regulations and more importantly the sufficiency of the
Manifestations or evidence on the Motions for Reconsiderations or Oppositions.”

 One of the petitioners (Akbayan) initially filed a Petition with COMELEC praying that a number of the 151 parties and
organizations approved for participation in the party-list elections under Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 be either: (1)
removed from the list of participating parties in the 2001 elections; and/or (2) any votes canvassed for the said parties
to not be counted.

 However, due to the slow pace of the COMELEC in resolving the above matter, one of the other petitioners (Ang
Bagong Bayani) filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court. Bayan Muna, also one of the petitioners, filed
its own Petition for Certiorari with the SC as well.

Issue/s:

1. WON Certiorari is the proper remedy for the petitioners to assail Omnibus Resolution No. 3785
2. WON political parties may participate in the Party-List Elections
3. WON the Party-List system is exclusive to “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors and organizations
4. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. 3785

Holding:
1. Yes. Certiorari is the proper remedy.
Respondent COMELEC argued that the petitioner, instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari, should have filed a petition for
disqualification or cancellation of registration instead. COMELEC argues that there are other plain, speedy and adequate
remedies available to the Petitioners and therefore, Certiorari was not warranted.
However, the SC held that the issues raised by the Petitioners are “purely of law, where public interest is involved, and there is
urgency.” This is the exception to the rule that Certiorari may only be availed when there are no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedies available.
The SC held that the issue raised by the Petitioners is of public interest because it involves the composition of the House of
Representatives and it raise transcendental constitutional issues on the party-list system.

2. Yes. Political Parties may participate in the party-list elections.

Petitioners argued that the participation of political parties in the party-list system is objectionable.

Respondent COMELEC however argues that (1) the Constitution and RA 7941 (An Act Providing for the Election of Party-List
Representatives) allows political parties to participate in the party-list elections; and (2) the party-list system is open to all
registered national, regional and sectoral parties.

The SC agrees with the respondents, citing the following as basis:

1. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a party-
list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations." – purpose according to Father
Bernas is 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.
2. Sections 7&8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution:
"Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered
under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
"Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented in
the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However,
they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law."
3. Section 11 of RA 7941 – “"For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis
of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not
be entitled to participate in the party-list system.”
Indubitably, thereafter, political parties – even the major ones – may participate in the party-list elections.

3. Yes. The Party-List system is exclusive to the marginalized and underrepresented.

Notwithstanding its stand that political parties may participate in the party-list elections, the SC went on to argue that this does
not mean that any political party—or any organization or group for that matter—may do so. The requisite 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.

Citing again Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, the SC held that 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.

The SC also cited Section 2 of RA 7941 which 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.
1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.

Proportional representation refers to the representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented" as exemplified by the
enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals."

"lack of well-defined constituenc[y] " refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group, like voters of a
congressional district or territorial unit of government.

While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors under Sec. 5 of RA 7941 is not exclusive, it demonstrates
the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system. It is a fundamental principle of
statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by
reference to, the words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may
be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association.

The assertion of the OSG that the party-list system is not exclusive to the marginalized and underrepresented disregards the
clear statutory policy. Its claim that even the super-rich and overrepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of the party-
list system.

4. Yes. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion

The SC argued that by issuing the Omnibus Resolution No. 3875, the COMELEC failed to appreciate fully the clear policy of the
law and the Constitution and ignored the facet of the party-list system as discussed above. When a quasi-judicial agency like the
COMELEC violates or ignores the Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down by this Court on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion.

However, the SC deemed it 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. In this light, the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the following guidelines, culled from the law and
the Constitution:
1. First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups
identified in Section 5 of RA 7941.
2. Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the
party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling “Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives.”
3. Third, the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system.
4. Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941
5. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the
government
6. Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so
7. Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so
also must its nominees.
8. Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to
contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.

Dispositive:
The case was 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 by the SC in this decision.