any event, this case presents an exception to the rule that certiorari shall lie only in the absence
of any other
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.
* Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
G.R. No. 147613. June 26, 2001.
BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; NATIONALIST PEOPLE’s
COALITION (NPC); LABAN NG DE
_______________
* EN BANC.
699
VOL. 359, JUNE 6, 2001 699
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
MOKRATIKONG 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.
Election Law; Actions; Certiorari; Pleadings and Practice; Under both the Constitution and the Rules of
Court, a challenge on the validity of a Comelec Resolution for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion may be brought before the Supreme Court in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65.—At
bottom, petitioners attack the validity of Comelec Omnibus Resolution 3785 for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion, insofar as it allowed respondents to participate in the party-list elections of 2001.
Indeed, under both the Constitution and the Rules of Court, such challenge may be brought before this
Court in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Motions for Reconsideration; No motion for reconsideration of a Comelec en
banc resolution, order or decision is possible, the same being a prohibited pleading.—The assailed Omnibus
Resolution was promulgated by Respondent Commission en banc; hence, no motion for reconsideration was
possible, it being a prohibited pleading under Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Certiorari is available, notwithstanding the presence of other remedies,
“where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved, and in case of urgency.”—In
plain, speedy and adequate remedy. It has been held that certiorari is available, notwithstanding the
presence of other remedies, “where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved,
and in case of urgency.” Indeed, the instant case is indubitably imbued with public interest and with
extreme urgency, for it potentially involves the composition of 20 percent of the House of Representatives.
Same;  Same;  Same;  Educative Function of the Supreme Court.—Moreover, this case raises
transcendental constitutional issues on the party-list system, which this Court must urgently resolve,
consistent with its duty to “formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines,
or rules.”
700
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Commission on Elections
Same; Same; Same;  Procedural requirements “may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice,
when the issue involves the principle of social justice x x x when the decision sought to be set aside is a nullity,
or when the need for relief is extremely urgent.”—Procedural requirements “may be glossed over to prevent a
miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the principle of social justice x x x when the decision sought
to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate
and speedy remedy available.”
Same; Party-List System; Under the Constitution and Republic Act (RA) 7941, political parties cannot be
disqualified from the party-list elections merely on the ground that they are political parties.—We now rule
on this issue. 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. 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.”
Same; Same; The key words in the statutory policy set out in RA 7941 are “proportional representation,”
“marginalized and underrepresented,” and “lack [of] well-defined constituencies.”—The foregoing provision
mandates a state policy of promoting proportional representation by means of the Filipino-style party-list
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. The key words in this policy are “proportional representation,”
“marginalized and underrepresented,” and “lack [of] well-defined constituencies.”
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; “Proportional representation” does not refer to the number of people in
a particular district, but rather 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.”—“Proportional representation” here 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 Section 5 of the
701
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 701

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
law; namely, “labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.”
Same; Same; The party-list organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized
and underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5, and the persons nominated by the party-list
candidate-organization must be “Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties.”—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 partylist organization or
party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned
in Section 5. Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must be “Filipino
citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.”
Same;  Same;  Words and Phrases;  “Lack of well-defined constituenc[y]” refers to the absence of a
traditionally identifiable electoral groups, like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of
government.—“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. Rather, it points
again to those with disparate interests identified with the “marginalized or underrepresented.”
Same;  Same;  Statutory Construction;  Noscitur A Sociis;  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.—While the
enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors 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.
Same; Same; The party-list system seeks to enable certain Filipino citizens.—specifically those belonging
to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties—to be elected to the House of
Representatives, and the assertion of the Office of the Solicitor General that the party-list system is not
exclusive to the marginalized and underrepre
702
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
sented disregards the clear statutory policy.—The declared policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position of
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). We stress that the party-list system seeks to enable certain
Filipino citizens—specifically those belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations
and parties—to be elected to the House of Representatives. 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.
Same; Same; Allowing the non-matginalized and overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the
party-list system would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the marginalized and
underrepresented, contrary to the intention of the law to enhance it.—Verily, allowing the non-marginalized
and overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the party-list system would not only dilute,  but
also  prejudice  the chance of the marginalized and underrepresented, contrary to the intention of the law
to enhance it. The party-list system is a tool for the benefit of the underprivileged; the law could not have
given the same tool to others, to the prejudice of the intended beneficiaries.
Same;  Same;  Constitutional Law;  Statutory Construction;  Verba Legis;  The fundamental principle in
constitutional construction is that the primary source from which to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose
is the language of the provision itself.—The fundamental principle in constitutional construction, however, is
that the primary source from which to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the
provision itself. The presumption is that the words in which the constitutional provisions are couched
express the objective sought to be attained. In other words, verba legis still prevails. Only when the meaning
of the words used is unclear and equivocal should resort be made to extraneous aids of construction and
interpretation, such as the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission or Convention, in order to shed
light on and ascertain the true intent or purpose of the provision being construed.
Same; Same; Same; The function of all judicial and quasi-judicial instrumentalities is to apply the law
as they find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it.—When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the
Commission on Elections, 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. Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasi-judicial
instrumentalities is to apply the law as they find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it.
703
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 703
Ang Bagong Bayqni-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
Same; Same; Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants,—The Court, therefore, deems it proper to
remand the case to the Comelec fqr 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, to assist the Comelec in its work. First, the political party, sector,
organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section
5 of RA 7941.  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
enabling Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be elected to the House
of Representatives. Third,  the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system.  Fourth,  a
party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941.  Fifth,  the party or
organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the
government. Sixth, the party must not only comply with t)ie requirements of the law. Its nominees must
likewise do so.  Seventh,  not only candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors. So also must its nominees.  Eighth,  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.
VITUG, J,, Separate (Dissenting) Opinion:
Election Law;  Party-List System;  Neither Article 6, Section 5(2) of the Constitution, nor R.A. 7941
intended to guarantee representation to all sectors of society and, let alone, hand it over only to
underrepresented and marginalized sectors.—It would seem to me that, construed along with Section 3(d) of
the statute, defining a “sectoral party,” the enumeration was intended to qualify only “sectoral parties” and
not the other eligible groups (e.g., political parties, sectoral organizations and coalitions). Neither Article 6,
Section 5(2), nor R,A, 7941 intended to guarantee representation to all sectors of society and, let alone, hand
it over only to underrepresented and marginalized sectors. The real aim, if the will of the majority of the
Commissioners were to be respected, was to introduce the concept of party-list representation.
Same;  Same;  Words and Phrases;  “Political Party,” “Sectoral Party,” “Sectoral Organization,” and
“Coalition,” Defined; The party-list system is limited to four groups—1) political parties, 2) sectoral parties, 3)
sectoral
704
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
organizations, and 4) coalitions.—The party-list system is limited to four groups—1) political parties, 2)
sectoral parties, 3) sectoral organizations, and 4) coalitions. A political party is an organized group of
citizens advocating an ideology, or platform, principles or 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. A sectoral party is an organized group of citizens
belonging to identifiable sectors, such as those enumerated in Article 6, Section 5(2), of the 1987
Constitution, which includes the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities and women
and those added by R.A. 7941 like the fisherfolk, elderly, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers and
professionals. A sectoral organization is a group of citizens who share the same or similar attributes or
characteristics, employment, interests or concerns. Coalition is an aggrupation of duly registered national,
regional, sectoral parties or organizations for election purposes.
Same; Same; A feature of the party-list system is that political parties, sectoral groups and organizations,
coalitions and aggrupation acquire the status of “candidates” and their nominees relegated to mere agents.—
A feature of the party-list system is that political parties, sectoral groups and organizations, coalitions and
aggrupation acquire the status of “candidates” and their nominees relegated to mere agents. Thus, if a
party-list representative dies, becomes physically incapacitated, removed from office by the party or the
organization he represents, resigns, or is disqualified during his term, his party can send another person to
take his place for the remaining period, provided the replacement is next in succession in the list of
nominees submitted to the COMELEC upon registration. Furthermore, a party-list representative who
switches party affiliations during his term forfeits his seat. So, also, if a person changes his sectoral
affiliation within 6 months before the election, he will not be eligible for nomination in party-list
representative under his new party or organization.
Same;  Same;  Constitutional Law;  Statutory Construction;  Judicial Legislation;  Courts are bound to
suppose that any inconveniences involved in the application of constitutional provisions according to their
plain terms and import have been considered in advance and accepted as less intolerable than those avoided,
or as compensated by countervailing advantages; The ponencia itself, in ruling as it does, may unwittingly, be
crossing the limits of judicial review and treading the dangerous waters of judicial legislation, and more
importantly, of a constitutional amendment.—The polestar in the constructions of constitutions always
remains—“effect
705
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 705
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it.” The law, in
its clear formulation cannot give this tribunal the elbow-room for construction. Courts are bound to suppose
that any inconveniences involved in the application of constitutional provisions according to their plain
terms and import have been considered in advance and accepted as less intolerable than those avoided, or as
compensated by countervailing advantages. The  ponencia  itself, in ruling as it does, may unwittingly, be
crossing the limits of judicial review and treading the dangerous waters of judicial legislation, and more
importantly, of a constitutional amendment. While, the lament of herein petitioners is understandable, the
remedy lies not with this Court but with the people themselves through an amendment of their work as and
when better counsel prevails.
MENDOZA, J., Dissenting opinion:
Election Law; Party-List System; Constitutional Law; Statutory Construction; The most important single
factor in determining the intention of the people from whom the Constitution emanated is the language in
which it is expressed; Textually, Art. VI, §5(1)(2) of the Constitution provides no basis for petitioners’
contention that whether it is sectoral representation or party-list system the purpose is to provide exclusive
representation for “marginalized sectors,” by which term petitioners mean the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth sectors.—“The most important single factor in
determining the intention of the people from whom the Constitution emanated is the language in which it is
expressed.” The text of Art. VI, §5(1)(2) is quite clear. It provides for a party-list system of “registered,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations,” not for sectoral representation. Only for three consecutive
terms following the ratification of the Constitution and only with respect to one-half of the seats allotted to
party-list representatives does it allow sectoral representation. Textually, Art. VI, §5(1)(2) provides no basis
for petitioners’ contention that whether it is sectoral representation or party-list system the purpose is to
provide exclusive representation for “marginalized sectors,” by which term petitioners mean the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth sectors.
Same; Same; Same; Same; To the extent that it assures parties or candidates a percentage of seats in the
legislature that reflects their public support, the party-list system enables marginalized and underrepresented
sectors to obtain seats in the House of Representatives.—Under the partylist system, a party or candidate
need not come in first in order to win seats in the legislature. On the other hand, in the “winner-take-all”
single
706
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
seat district, the votes cast for a losing candidate are wasted as only those who vote for the winner are
represented. To the extent then that it assures parties or candidates a percentage of seats in the legislature
that reflects their public support, the party-list system enables marginalized and underrepresented sectors
(such as, but not limited to, the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, and
youth sectors) to obtain seats in the House of Representatives. Otherwise, the party-list system does not
guarantee to these sectors seats in the legislature.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission show that the party-list
system is not limited to the “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors referred to by petitioners, but that it
is a type of proportional representation intended to give voice to those who may not have the necessary
number to win a seat in a district but are sufficiently numerous to give them a seat nationwide.—The
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission show that the party-list system is not limited to the
“marginalized and underrepresented” sectors referred to by petitioners,  i.e.,  labor, peasants, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, and the youth, but that it is a type of proportional representation
intended to give voice to those who may not have the necessary number to win a seat in a district but are
sufficiently numerous to give them a seat nationwide. It, therefore, misreads the debates on Art. VI, §5(1)(2)
to say that “Although Commissioners Villacorta and Monsod differed in their proposals as to the details of
the party-list system, both proponents worked within the framework that the party-list system is for the
‘marginalized’ as termed by Comm. Villacorta and the ‘underrepresented’ as termed by Comm. Monsod,
which he defined as those which are “always third or fourth place in each of the districts.”
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court cannot hold that the partylist system is reserved for the labor,
peasants, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth without changing entirely the
meaning of the Constitution which in fact mandates exactly the opposite of the reserved seats system when it
provides in Art. IX, C, §6 that “A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free
choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this Article.”—A problem was placed before the
Constitutional Commission that the existing “winner-take-all” one-seat district system of election leaves
blocks of voters underrepresented. To this problem of underrepresentation two solutions were proposed:
sectoral representation and party-list system or proportional representation. The Constitutional
Commission chose the party-list system, This Court cannot hold that the party-list system is reserved for
the labor,
707
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 707
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
peasants, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth as petitioners contend
without changing entirely the meaning of the Constitution which in fact mandates exactly the Opposite of
the reserved seats system when it provides in Art. IX, C, §6 that “A free and open party system shall be
allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this Article.” Thus,
neither textual nor historical consideration yields support for the view that the party-list system is designed
exclusively for labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, and youth sectors.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Neri, Javier, Colmenares for petitioner Bayan Muna.
     The Solicitor General for COMELEC.
     Chan, Robles and Associates for Citizens Drug Watch Foundation, Inc.
     Cruz, Cruz & Navarro III for Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga.
          Brillantes,  Navarro,  Jumamil,  Arcilla,  Escolin & Martinez Law Offices  for The True
Marcos Loyalist Association of the Philippines.
     Fracis A, Ver for Phil. Local Autonomy Movement.
     Yap, Crisanto, Salvador & Calderon and Fornier & Fornier Law Office for Chamber of Real
Estate Builders Association.
     McAskell, Equilla, & Associates for Ang Lakas ng Overseas Contract Workers.
     Juan Carlos T. Cuna and Antonio Dollete &Associates for Partido ng Masang Pilipino.
     Buhag, Kapunan, Migallos & Perez for Aksyon Demokratiko.
     Tonisito M.C. Umali for Liberal Party.
     Yulo and Bello Law Offices for LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP.
     Ceferino Padua Law Office, Gerardo A. Del Afundo Law Office and Antonio R. Bautista &
Partners for Bagong Bayani Organization.
708
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
PANGANIBAN, J.:
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.
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.
The Case
Before us1 are two Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rales 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, 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.
The Factual Antecedents
With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received several Petitions for registration filed
by sectoral parties, organizations and political parties. According to the Comelec, “[verifications
were made as to the status and capacity of these parties and organizations and hearings were
scheduled day and night until the last party w[as] heard. With the number of these petitions and
the
_______________
1 Signed by Chairman Alfredo L. Benipayo and Commissioners Luzviminda G. Tancangco, Rufino S.B. Javier, Ralph C.
Lantion, Mehol K. Sadain, Resurrecion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr.
709
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 709
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
 6 7
Commission on Elections 2001,   but subsequently reset it to May 3, 2001. During the hearing, however, Commissioner
8
Ralph C. Lantion merely directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the Comelec, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party
observance of the legal and procedural requirements, review of these petitions as well as 9
filed a Petition before this Court on April 16, 2001. This Petition, docketed as  GR No. 147589,
deliberations takes a longer process in order to arrive at a decision and as a result the two (2) 10
assailed Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated April 17, 2001,   the
divisions promulgated a separate Omnibus Resolution and individual resolution on political
Court directed respondents to comment on the Petition within a non-extendible period of five
parties. These numerous petitions and processes observed in the disposition of these petition [s] 11
days from notice.
hinder the early release of2 the Omnibus Resolutions of the Divisions which were promulgated
only on 10 February 2001.”
Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 deadline prescribed under Comelec Resolution No. _______________
3426 dated December 22, 2000, the registered parties and organizations filed their respective 3 Ibid., pp. 21-22; rollo, pp. 48-49.
Manifestations, stating their intention to participate in the party-list elections. Other sectoral 4 Rollo (GR No. 147589), pp. 272-273.
and political parties and organizations whose registrations were denied also filed Motions for 5 Rollo (GR No. 147589), pp. 250-263.
6 Rollo (GR No. 147589), pp. 282-283.
Reconsideration, together with Manifestations of their intent to participate in the party list 7 See rollo (GR No. 147613), p. 223.
elections. Still other registered parties filed their Manifestations beyond the deadline. 8 TSN (GR No. 147589 and 147613), May 17, 2001, p. 49.
The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manifestations (or accreditations) of 151 parties 9 Rollo (GR No. 147589), pp. 4-73.

and organizations, but denied those of several others in its assailed March 26, 2001 Omnibus 10 Rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 74.

Resolution No. 3785, which we quote: 11 Comments were filed by MAD, Bagong Bayani, The True Marcos Loyalists, the Comelec, Partido ng Masang Pilipino,

the Liberal Party, the Office of the Solicitor General, CREBA, Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, the Philip
“We carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in mind that this system of proportional
representation scheme will encourage multi-partisan [sic] and enhance the inability of small, new or sectoral 711
parties or organization to directly participate in this electoral window.
“It will be noted that as defined, the ‘party-list system’ is a ‘mechanism of proportional representation’ in
the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional, and sectoral parties VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 711
or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections.
“However, in the course of our review of the matters at bar, we must recognize the fact that there is a
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
need to keep the number of sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions, down to a manageable level, Commission on Elections
keeping only those who substantially comply with the rules and regulations and
12
On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna also filed before this Court a Petition,   docketed
_______________
as  GR No. 147613,13also challenging Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution
2 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, p. 13; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 40. dated May 9, 2001,  the Court ordered the consolidation of the two Petitions before it; directed
respondents named in the second Petition to file their respective Comments on or before noon of
710
May 15, 2001; and called the parties to an Oral Argument on May 17, 2001. It added that the
Comelec may proceed with the counting and canvassing of votes cast for the party-list elections,
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED but barred the proclamation14
of any winner therein, until further orders of the Court.
Thereafter, Comments   on the second Petition were received by the Court and, on May 17,
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. 2001, the Oral Argument was conducted as scheduled. In an Order given in open court, the
Commission on Elections parties were directed to submit their respective Memoranda simultaneously within a non-
15
extendible period of five days.
more importantly
3
the sufficiency of the Manifestations or evidence on the Motions for Reconsiderations or
Oppositions.”
Issues:
On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed before the Comelec a Petition praying
that “the names of [some of herein respondents] be deleted from the ‘Certified List of Political During the hearing on May 17, 2001, the Court directed the parties to address the following
Parties/Sectoral Parties/Organizations/Coalitions Participating in the Party List System for the issues:
May 14, 2001 Elections’ and that said certified list be accordingly amended.” It also asked, as an
alternative, that the votes cast for the4 said respondents not be counted or canvassed, and that the “1. Whether or not recourse under Rule 65 is proper under the premises. More specifically, is
latter’s nominees not be proclaimed.   On April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth there no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law?
also filed a 5Petition for Cancellation of Registration and Nomination against some of herein
respondents. _______________
On April 18, 2001, the Comelec required the respondents in the two disqualification cases to
pine Local Autonomy Movement, Aksyon Demokratiko, Citizens Drug Watch Foundation, Ang Buhay Hayaang
file Comments within three days from notice. It also set the date for hearing on April 26,
Yumabong, Ang Lakas ng OCW, and Sports and Health Foundation.
12 Rollo (GR No. 147613), pp. 3-45.
6 7
 13 Rollo
(GR No. 147613), p. 46.
14 These
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 713
were filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Comelec, The Bagong Bayani Organization, Mamamayan
Ayaw sa Droga, and the Philippine Local Autonomy Movement. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
15 Memoranda were filed by Petitioners Bayan Muna and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party; and Respondents

Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga, CREBA, the Bagong Bayani Organization, the Office of the Solicitor General, and Aksyon
Commission on Elections
Demokratiko. Manifestations instead of memoranda were filed by Lakas-NUCD and OCW.
20

712
in the party-list elections of 2001. Indeed, under both the Constitution  and the Rules of Court,
such challenge may be brought before this Court in a verified petition for certiorari under Rule
65.
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Moreover, the assailed Omnibus Resolution was promulgated by Respondent Commission en
banc; hence, no motion for reconsideration was possible, it being a prohibited pleading under
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Section 1 (d), Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
21

Commission on Elections
“2. Whether or not political parties may participate in the partylist elections.
“3. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to ‘marginalized and underrepresented’
sectors and organizations.
“4. Whether or not the Comelec 16committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785.”  quite clear.
The Court’s Ruling
The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded to the Comelec which will
determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations
enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and
RA 7941, as specified in this Decision.
The Court also notes that Petitioner Bayan Muna had filed before the Comelec a Petition for
22
Cancellation of Registration and Nomination against some of herein respondents.  The Comelec,
however, did not act on that Petition. In view of the pendency of the elections, Petitioner Bayan
Muna sought succor from this Court, for there was no other adequate recourse at the time.
Subsequent events have proven the urgency of petitioner’s action; to this date, the Comelec has
not yet formally resolved the Petition before it. But a resolution may just be a formality because
the Comelec, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has made its position on the matter
In any event, this case presents an exception to the rule that certiorari shall lie only in the
absence of any other plain, speedy
_______________
20 Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, provides: “Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.”
21 SECTION 1. What pleadings are not allowed.—The following pleadings are not allowed:

x x x     x x x     x x x
First Issue:  d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except in election offense cases;
Recourse Under Rule 65 x x x     x x x     x x x
22  Docketed as  SPA 01-113. As earlier noted, Akbayan also filed before the Comelec a similar Petition, docketed

as SPA-01-109. See Annexes 1 and 2, Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General; rollo (GR No. 147589), pp. 250 et seq.
Respondents contend that the recourse of both petitioners under Rule 65 is improper 17
because and 266 et seq.
there are other plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law.  The Office of
the Solicitor General argues that petitioners should have filed before the Comelec a petition 714
either for disqualification or for cancellation
18
of registration, pursuant
19
to Sections 19, 20, 21 and
22 of Comelec Resolution No. 3307-A  dated November 9, 2000.
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
We disagree. At bottom, petitioners attack the validity of Comelec Omnibus Resolution 3785
for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, insofar as it allowed respondents to Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
participate Commission on Elections

_______________
16 See the May 17, 2001 Resolution, p. 2; rollo (GR No. 147613), p. 88.
17 See, e.g., the Bagong Bayani Organization’s Memorandum, pp. 3-4; Aksyon Demokratiko’s Memorandum, pp. 2-3;
and MAD’s Memorandum, pp. 3-6.
18  Rules and regulations governing the filing of a petition for registration, a manifestation to participate, and the
23
and adequate remedy.  It has been held that certiorari is available, notwithstanding the presence
of other remedies, “where24
the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved,
and in case of urgency.”  Indeed, the instant case is indubitably imbued with public interest and
with extreme urgency, for it potentially involves the composition of 20 percent of the House of

names of nominees under the party-list system of representation in connection with the May 14, 2001 national and local
Representatives.
elections. Moreover, this case raises transcendental constitutional issues on the party-list system, which
19 OSG’s Memorandum, pp. 6-14; rollo (GR No. 147613), pp. 151-159. this Court must urgently resolve, consistent with its duty25
to “formulate guiding and controlling
constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules.”
713
 31
Finally, procedural requirements “may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice, national party, UNIDO, Magsasaka, or a regional party in Min-
when the issue involves the principle of social justice x x x when the decision sought to be set
aside is a nullity, or when the need for
26
relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only _______________
adequate and speedy remedy available.”
28 Petition of Bayan Muna, p. 18; rollo (GR No. 147613), p. 20.
29 OSG Comment, p. 18; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 244.
30 Emphasis supplied. See also §§17 and 18, Article VI of the Constitution.
Second Issue:  31 It may be noted that when the Constitution was being drafted in the early days of the post-Marcos era, UNIDO was
Participation of Political Parties the dominant political party.

In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party contends that “the inclusion of political 716
parties in 27the party-list system is the most objectionable portion of the questioned
Resolution.”  For its
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
23 Section 1, Rule 65. See Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222, October 16, 1996; BF Corporation v. CA, 288 SCRA Commission on Elections
267, March 27, 1998; GSIS v. Olisa, 304 SCRA 421, March 10, 1999; National Steel Corporation v. CA, GR No. 134437,
32
January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 208; Sahali v. Comelec, GR No. 134169, February 2, 2000, 324 SCRA 510.
24 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 269 SCRA 316, March 7, 1997, per Panganiban, J. See  also  ABS-CBN Broadcasting danao.”
33
 This was also clear from the following exchange between Comms. Jaime Tadeo and Blas
Corporation v. Commission on Elections, GR No. 133486, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 811; Central Bank v. Cloribel, 44 Ople:
SCRA 307, April 11, 1972.
25 Salonga v. Cruz Paño, 134 SCRA 438, February 18, 1985, per Gutierrez, Jr.,  J.  See also  Tañada v. Angara,  272 “MR. TADEO. Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay pwedeng paghati-hatian ng UNIDO,
SCRA 18, May 2, 1997; Guingona v. Gonzales, 219 SCRA 326, March 1, 1993. PDP-Laban, PNP, Liberal at Nacionalista?
26 ABS-CBN v. Comelec, GR No. 133486, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 811, per Panganiban, J.
27 Petition of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, p. 15; rollo (GR No, 147589), p. 18.
MR. OPLE. Maaari yan sapagkat bukas ang party-list system sa lahat ng mga partido.”

715 Indeed, Commissioner Monsod stated that the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up
the system, in order to give a chance to parties that34 consistently place third or fourth in
congressional district elections to win a seat in Congress.  He explained: The purpose of this is to
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 715 open the system. In the past elections, we found out that there were certain groups or parties
that, if we count their votes nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. always third or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But
Commission on Elections this way, they would have five or six representatives in the Assembly even if they would not win
28
individually in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose and
part, Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the participation of “major political parties.”   On the objectives of the partylist system.”
other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, like the impleaded political parties, submits that For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for “a party-list system of registered national,
the Constitution and RA No. 7941 allow political parties to participate in the party-list elections. regional and sectoral  parties  or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x x.” Section 3 expressly
It argues that the party-list system29
is, in fact, open to all “registered national, regional and states that a “party” is “either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.” More
sectoral parties or organizations.” to the point, the law defines “political party” as “an organized group of citizens advocating an
We now rule on this issue. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as
be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties. the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides that members of the House of Representatives of its leaders and members as candidates for public office.”
may “be elected through a party-list system of registered  national, regional,  and  sectoral Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as to the participation of political parties
parties or organizations.” in the party-list system. We quote the pertinent provision below:
Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political parties may
be registered under the party-list system. _______________

“Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a  political party,  organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for 32 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p. 86.
33 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p. 570.
those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
34 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p. 86.
“Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be
represented in the voter’s registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other
30
717
similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.”

During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Comm. Christian S. Monsod pointed
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 717
out that the participants in the party-list system may “be a regional party, a sectoral party, a
31
 Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.
Commission on Elections It laid out the statutory policy in this wise:
“SEC. 2.  Declaration of Policy.—The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of
“x x x     x x x     x x x representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional
“For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to
representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political
not be entitled to participate in the party-list system. constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
“x x x     x x x     x x x will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end,
the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest
Indubitably, therefore, political parties—even the major ones—may participate in the party-list possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing
elections. their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme
possible.”

Third Issue: 
Marginalized and Underrepresented The Marginalized and Underrepresented 
to Become Lawmakers Themselves
That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean, however, The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional representation by
that any political party—or any organization or group for that matter—may do so. The requisite means of the Filipino-style partylist system, which will “enable” the election to the House of
character of these parties or organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list Representatives of Filipino citizens.
system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution,
provides as follows: 1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and
“(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty 2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
members,  unless otherwise fixed by law,  who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance _______________
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and 35 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p. 561.
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. 719
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 719
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other Commission on Elections
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.” (Emphasis supplied.)
3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will
Notwithstanding the sparse language of the provision, a distinguished member of the
benefit the nation as a whole.
Constitutional Commission declared that the purpose of the party-list provision was to give
“genuine power
The key words in this policy are “proportional representation,” “marginalized and
718 underrepresented,” and “lack [of] well-defined constituencies.”
“Proportional representation” here 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
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED strength in a distressed or oppressed group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. “marginalized and underrepresented” as exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the law;
Commission on Elections namely, “labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.”
However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the marginalized and
to our people” in Congress. Hence, when the provision was discussed, he exultantly announced: underrepresented, because representation is easy to claim and to feign. The party-list
“On this first day of August 1986, we shall, hopefully, usher in35 a new chapter to our national organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented
history, by giving genuine power to our people in the legislature.” 36
constituencies mentioned in Section 5.   Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list
The foregoing provision on the party-list system is not self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed candidate-organization must be “Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
with phrases like “in accordance with law” or “as may be provided by law”; it was thus up to underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.”
 Finally, “lack of well-defined constituency]” refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
electoral group, like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of government. Rather, it
Commission on Elections
points again to those with disparate interests identified with the “marginalized or
underrepresented.”
In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos who are
“marginalized and underrepresented” become members of Congress under the party-list system, The Party-List System Desecrated 
Filipino-style. by the OSG Contentions
The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people, not only by giving Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy, the Office of the Solicitor General submits
more law to those who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to become veritable that RA No. 7941 “does not limit the participation in the party-list system to the marginalized
39
lawmakers themselves. Consistent with this intent, the policy of the imple- and underrepresented sectors40 of society.”  In fact, it contends that any party or group that is not
disqualified under Section 6   of RA 7941 may participate in the elections. Hence, it admitted
_______________ during the Oral Argument that even an organization representing41 the super rich of Forbes Park
36 Infra.
or Dasmarinas Village could participate in the party-list elections.
The declared policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position of the Office of the Solicitor General
720 (OSG). We stress that the party-list system seeks to enable certain Filipino citizens—specifically
those belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties—to be
elected to the House of Representatives. The assertion of the OSG that the party-list system is
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED not exclusive to the marginalized and underrepresented disregards the clear statutory policy. Its
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. claim that even the super-rich and overrepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of the
Commission on Elections party-list system.
Indeed, the law grafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot
be appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park. The interests of these two sectors are
menting law, we repeat, is likewise clear: “to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized manifestly disparate; hence, the OSG’s position to treat them similarly defies reason and common
42
and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, x x x, to become members of the House sense. In contrast, and with admirable candor, Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan  admitted during the
of Representatives.”Where
37
the language of the law is clear, it must be applied according to its Oral Argument that a group of bankers, industrialists and 43sugar planters could not join the
express terms. party-list system as representatives of their respective sectors.
The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the party-list system While the business moguls and the mega-rich are, numerically speaking, a tiny minority, they
are enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941, which states: are neither marginalized nor un-
“SEC. 5. Registration.—Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition for
purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the _______________
election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list 39 OSG Comment, p. 18; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 244.
system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or 40 Infra.
organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers, 41 TSN, May 17, 2001, pp. 147-148.
coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, that the sector 42 Counsel of Aksyon Demokratiko.
shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, 43 TSN, May 17, 2001, pp. 178-180.
women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.”
722
While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors 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 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
statute are interpreted in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in
38 Commission on Elections
a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association.

_______________ derrepresented, for the stark reality is that their economic clout engenders political power more
awesome than their numerical limitation. Traditionally, political power does not necessarily
37 Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 747, February 26, 1997; Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590, September 28, 1995.
38 82
emanate from the size of one’s constituency; indeed, it is likely to arise more directly from the
C.J.S. Statutes §331.
number and amount of one’s bank accounts.
721 It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized and underrepresented in our midst are the
majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity. It was for them that the party-list
system was enacted—to give them not only genuine hope, but genuine power; to give them the
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 721 opportunity to be elected and to represent the specific concerns of their constituencies; and simply
 45 Section 2 of RA 7941 states in part as follows: “x x x. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full,
to give them a direct voice in Congress and in the larger affairs of the State. In its noblest sense,
the party-list system truly empowers the masses and ushers a new hope for genuine change. free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in
the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall
Verily, it invites those marginalized and underrepresented in the past—the farm hands, the provide the simplest scheme possible.”
fisher folk, the urban poor, even those in the underground movement—to come out and
participate, as indeed many of them came out and participated during the last elections. The 724
State cannot now disappoint and frustrate them by disabling and desecrating this social justice
vehicle.
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Because the marginalized and underrepresented had not been able to win in the congressional
district elections normally dominated by traditional politicians and vested groups, 20 percent of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
the seats in the House of Representatives were set aside for the party-list system. In arguing that Commission on Elections
even those sectors who normally controlled 80 percent of the seats in the House could participate
in the party-list elections for the remaining 20 percent, the OSG and the Comelec disregard the
fundamental difference between the congressional district elections and the party-list44elections.
Refutation of the 
As earlier noted, the purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the system,  in order to
Separate Opinions
enhance the chance of sectoral groups and organizations to gain representation in the House of
The Separate Opinions of our distinguished colleagues, Justices Jose C. Vitug and Vicente V.
_______________ Mendoza, are anchored mainly on the supposed intent of the framers of the Constitution as culled
from their deliberations.
44 Supra. See also §6, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, which reads: “A free and open party system shall be allowed to
The fundamental principle in constitutional construction, however, is that the primary source
evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this Article.”
from which to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the provision itself.
723 The presumption is that the words46
in which the constitutional provisions are couched express the
objective sought to be attained.  In other words, verba legis still prevails. Only when the meaning
of the words used is unclear and equivocal should resort be made to extraneous aids of
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 723 construction and interpretation, such as the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission or
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Convention, in order
47
to shed light on and ascertain the true intent or purpose of the provision
being construed.
Commission on Elections
Indeed, as cited in the Separate Opinion
48
of Justice Mendoza, this Court stated in  Civil
45
Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary   that “the debates and proceedings of the constitutional
Representatives through the simplest scheme possible. Logic shows that the system has been convention [may be consulted] in order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting
opened to those who have never gotten a foothold within it—those who cannot otherwise win in Constitution x x x only when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless to vary the terms
regular elections and who therefore need the “simplest scheme possible” to do so. Conversely, it of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates in the constitutional convention ‘are of
would be illogical to open the system to those who have long been within it—those privileged value as showing the views of the individual members, and as indicating the reason for their
sectors that have long dominated the congressional district elections. votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the large majority who did not talk, much less of
The import of the open party-list system may be more vividly understood when compared to a the mass or our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of
student dormitory “open house,” which by its nature allows  outsiders  to enter the facilities. fundamental law. We think it safer to construe the constitution from what appears upon its face’
Obviously, the “open house” is for the benefit of outsiders only, not the dormers themselves who The
can enter the dormitory even without such special privilege. In the same vein, the open party-list
system is only for the “outsiders” who cannot get elected through regular elections otherwise; it is _______________
not for the non-marginalized or overrepresented who already fill the ranks of Congress.
46 JM Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413, February 18, 1970; cited in Ruben C. Agpalo,
Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats
Statutory Construction, 1990 ed., p. 311. See also Gold Creek Mining Corp. v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil. 259,264(1938).
under the party-list system would not only  dilute,  but also  prejudicethe chance of the 47 See Agpalo, ibid., p. 313.
marginalized and underrepresented, contrary to the intention of the law to enhance it. The party- 48 194 SCRA 317, February 22, 1991, per Fernan, C.J.; quoting Commonwealth v. Ralph, 111 Pa 365, 3 Atl. 220.
list system is a tool for the benefit of the underprivileged; the law could not have given the same
tool to others, to the prejudice of the intended beneficiaries. 725
This Court, therefore, cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied and prostituted by those
who are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. It cannot let that flicker of hope be snuffed
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 725
out. The clear state policy must permeate every discussion of the qualification of political parties
and other organizations under the party-list system. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
_______________
proper interpretation therefore depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it
than in the framers’ understanding thereof.”
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, relative to the party-list system, is couched in clear
terms: the mechanics of the system shall be provided by law. Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted
RA 7941. In understanding and implementing party-list representation, we should therefore look
at the law first. Only when we find its provisions ambiguous should the use of extraneous aids of
construction be resorted to.
But, as discussed earlier, the intent of the law is obvious and clear from its plain words.
Section 2 thereof unequivocally states that the party-list system of electing congressional
representatives was designed to “enable underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and
who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole x x x.” The criteria for
participation is well defined. Thus, there is no need for recourse to constitutional deliberations,
not even to the proceedings of Congress. In any event, the framers’ deliberations merely express
their individual opinions and are, at best, only persuasive in construing the meaning and purpose
of the constitution or statute.
Be it remembered that the constitutionality or validity of Sections 2 and 5 of RA 7941 is not an
issue here. Hence, they remain parts of the law, which must be applied plainly and simply.
Fourth Issue: 
Grave Abuse of Discretion
From its assailed Omnibus Resolution, it is manifest that the Comelec failed to appreciate fully
the clear policy of the law and the Constitution. On the contrary, it seems to have ignored the
facet of the party-list system discussed above. The OSG as its counsel admitted before the Court
that any group, even the non-marginalized and overrepresented, could field candidates in the
party-list elections.
726
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial agency like the Commission on Elections, violates or
ignores the Constitution or the law, its action can be struck down by this Court on the ground of
49
grave abuse of discretion. Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasijudicial instrumentalities
50
is to apply the law as they find it, not to reinvent or second-guess it.
In its Memorandum, Petitioner Bayan Muna passionately pleads for the outright
disqualification of the major political parties—Respondents Lakas-NUCD, LDP, NPC, LP and
PMP—on the ground that under Comelec Resolution No. 4073, they have been accredited as the
five (six, including PDP-Laban) major political parties in the May 14, 2001 elections. It argues
that because of this, they have the “advantage of getting official Comelec Election Returns,
Certificates of Canvass, preferred poll watchers x x x.” We note, however, that this accreditation
does not refer to the partylist election, but, inter alia, to the election of district representatives for
the purpose of determining which parties would be entitled to watchers under Section 26 of
Republic Act No. 7166.
What is needed under the present circumstances, however, is a factual determination of
whether respondents herein and, for that matter, all the 154 previously approved groups, have
the necessary qualifications to participate in the party-list elections, pursuant to the Constitution
and the law.
Bayan Muna also urges us to immediately rule out Respondent Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga
(MAD), because “it is a government 51entity using government resources and privileges.” This
Court, however, is not a trier of facts,  It is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the
truth of such factual allegations.
_______________
49  Tañada v. Angara,  272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997. See also  Santiago v. Guingona,  298 SCRA 756, November 18,
1998; Miranda v. Aguirre, 314 SCRA 603, September 16, 1999; Garcia v. HRET, 312 SCRA 353, August 12, 1999.
50 Veterans Federation Party, et al v. Comelec, et al., GR No. 136781, October 6, 2000, 342 SCRA 244.
51 See Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 278, February 18, 1999; Inciong, Jr. v. CA, 257 SCRA 578, June 26,
1996; Palomado v. NLRC, 257 SCRA 680, June 28, 1996; Heirs of the Late Teodoro Guaring,
727
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 727
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
Basic rudiments of due process require that respondents should first be given an opportunity to
show that they qualify under the guidelines promulgated in this Decision, before they can be
deprived of their right to participate in and be elected under the party-list system.
Guidelines for Screening 
Party-List Participants
The Court, therefore, deems 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, to assist the Comelec in its work.
First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and
underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words, it must show—
through its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and
track record—that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. And
it must demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest
of such sectors.
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.” In other words, while they are not disqualified
merely on the ground that they are political parties, they must show, however, that they
represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented. The counsel of Aksyon
Demokratiko and other simi-
_______________
Jr. v. CA, 269 SCRA 283, March 7, 1997; Sebreño v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, 270 SCRA 360, March 24,
1997; PCGG v. Cojuangco, Jr., 302 SCRA 217, January 27, 1999.
 728
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
larly situated political parties admitted as much during the Oral Argument, as the following
quote shows:
“JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:  I am not disputing that in my question. All I am saying is, the
political party must claim to represent the marginalized
52
and underrepresented sectors?
ATTY. KAPUNAN: Yes, Your Honor, the answer is yes.”
53
Third,  in view of the objections   directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang
Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express constitutional
provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. The extent of
the constitutional proscription is demonstrated by the following discussion during the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission:
“MR. OPLE.  x x x In the event that a certain religious sect with nationwide and even
international networks of members and supporters, in order to circumvent this prohibition,
decides to form its own political party in emulation of those parties I had mentioned earlier as
deriving their inspiration and philosophies from well-established religious faiths, will that also
not fall within this prohibition?
MR. MONSOD. If the evidence shows that the intention is 54to go around the prohibition, then
certainly the Comelec can pierce through the legal fiction.”
this wise: “[T]he prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a political party. I do
not see any prohibition here against a priest running as a 58candidate. That is not prohibited here;
it is the registration of a religious sect as a political party.”
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which
enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows:
“(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious
purposes;
2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
3. It is a foreign party or organization;
4. 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;
5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
8. 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-list59 system in the two (2) preceding
elections for the constituency in which it has registered.”
_______________
55 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, p. 589.
56 §2 (5), Article IX (C).
57 Christian S. Monsod.
58 Record of the Constitutional Commission. Vol. I, p. 634.
59 See also §11, Comelec Resolution No. 3307-A.

The following discussion is also pertinent: 730

“MR. VILLACORTA. When the Commissioner proposed “EXCEPT RELIGIOUS GROUPS,” he is

not, of course, prohibiting priests, imams or pastors who may be elected by, say, the indigenous 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
community sector to represent their group.
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
_______________
52 TSN, May 17, 2001, p. 180.
53 Petition
Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a party or group for violation of or failure
of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, p. 16; rollo (GR No. 147589), p. 19.
54 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. I, p. 636. to comply with election laws and regulations. These laws include Section 2 of RA 7941, which
states that the party-list system seeks to “enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
729 underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties x x x to become members of the House of
Representatives.” A party or an organization, therefore, that does not comply with this policy
must be disqualified.
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 729
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. funded or assisted by, the government. By the very nature of the party-list system, the party or
Commission on Elections organization must be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It must
be independent of the government. The participation60of the government or its officials in the
affairs, of a party-list candidate is not only illegal   and unfair to other parties, but also
REV. RIGOS. Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody
55
who represents the Iglesia ni Kristo, the deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable citizens belonging to marginalized and
Catholic Church, the Protestant Church et cetera.” underrepresented sectors and organizations to be elected to the House of Representatives.
Sixth,  the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must
Furthermore, the Constitution provides that “religious denominations and sects shall not be
56 57
likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
registered.”  The prohibition was explained by a member  of the Constitutional Commission in
“SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees.—No person shall be nominated as party-list representative
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a
period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write,
a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days
preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30)
years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30)
during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term.”
_______________
60 See §2 (4), Article IX (B) of the Constitution. See also Article 261 (o), BP 881.
731
VOL. 359, JUNE 26, 2001 731
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
Seventh,  not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the
nominees must be Filipino citizens “who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties.” Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented by a
retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or the working class, by an industrialist.  To allow
otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine representation to the marginalized and
underrepresented.
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. Senator Jose Lina explained during the
bicameral committee proceedings that 61“the nominee of a party, national or regional, is not going
to represent a particular district x x x.”
732
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Commission on Elections
Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions of the Comelec and the other
respondents that the party-list system is, without any qualification, open to all. Such position
does not only weaken the electoral chances of the marginalized and underrepresented; it also
prejudices them. It would gut the substance of the party-list system. Instead of generating hope,
it would create a mirage. Instead of enabling the marginalized, it would further weaken them and
aggravate their marginalization.
In effect, the Comelec would have us believe that the party-list provisions of the Constitution
and RA 7941 are nothing more than a play on dubious words, a mockery of noble intentions, and
an empty offering on the altar of people empowerment. Surely, this could not have been the
intention of the framers of the Constitution and the makers of RA 7941.
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. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

Epilogue

The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the law: “to enable Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack
well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of
Representatives.”
Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those who
have less in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one such tool intended to
benefit those who have less in life. It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and
genuine power. 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.

_______________
61 The bicameral conference committee on the disagreeing provision of Senate Bill No. 1913 and House Bill No. 3040,

January 31, 1994, p. 4.