Albano vs COMELEC

G.R. NO. 257610

JANUARY 24, 2023

MAINPOINT: Supreme Court declares as unconstitutional both the Party-List SystemAct

and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Rules and Regulations governing the
submission of nominees under the party-list-system which prohibit candidateswho lost in
the immediately preceding election from being included in the list of nominees for party-
list representatives.

FACTS: Petitioner Albano was the second nominee of the party Talino at Galing ng
Pinoy Party-List (TGP) for the 2022 national elections. He had previously run for city
councilor in 2019 and lost. And, Pizarro was the first nominee of the ArtsBusiness and
Science Professionals (ABS) party-list in the 2022 elections. She had previously served
as the representative of ABS in the House of Representatives for three consecutive
terms but lost in her bid for mayor in the 2016 and 2019 elections. The petitioners argue
that these provisions are unconstitutional and
violate the equal protection clause:

Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act; and
Sections 5(d) and 10 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10717 insofar as the said
provisions prevent a candidate for any elective office or a person who has lost in the
immediately preceding elections from being included in the list of nominees for party-list
representatives. That the Congress does not have the power to add additional
qualifications set forth in Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution with respect to
party-list representatives.

List of nominees - list of names, not less than five (5), submitted before elections from
which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtained the required number
of votes

ISSUE: Whether the provisions of section 8 of R.A. No. 7941, otherwise known as
the Party-List System Act; and Sections 5(d) and 10 of COMELEC Resolution No.
10717 constitutional?

RULING: NO. The Court upholds the petitioners' arguments and declares the
provisions invalid and unconstitutional. The SC declared invalid and
unconstitutional the following phrases:

“a person who has lost his bid for elective office in the
immediately preceding election” (Section 8 of the Party-List System
Act);

“have lost in their bid for an elective office in the May 13, 2019
National and Local Elections” (Section 5(d) of Comelec Resolution
No. 10717);
“or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the May 13,
2019 National and Local Elections” (Section 10 of Comelec
Resolution No. 10717).

The Court found that the ban on losing candidates “violates the constitutional guaranty of
substantive due process, as it effectively intrudes on the right of losing candidates in
the immediately preceding elections from participating in the present elections. It
is the SC’s opinion that eligibility for public office should not be based on a candidate’s
failure to win in a previous election. The state should not use a failed election
performance as a way to gauge a person’s ability to serve, the Court said. But the Court
did rule that Congress has the power to provide for the qualifications of party list
representatives based on Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution. Still, Congress must
yield to the general limitations on legislation, particularly its duty to equal protection, the
SC said.

Applying the rational basis test, the Court held that the assailed portion of the
provisions under R.A. No. 7941 and COMELEC Resolution No. 10717 must be struck
down, as no substantial distinction exists between candidates who lost in the
immediately preceding election vis-à- vis those who won or did not participate therein.

Rational Basis Test refers only that there be a legitimate government interest and that
there is a reasonable connect between it and the means to achieve it.