This article talks about the qualifications of party-list nominees pursuant to the Party-List System Act and relevant jurisprudence.
The Party-List System
Republic Act No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, defines the party-list system as a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (“COMELEC”). Thus, there are two (2) kinds of representatives which a person may vote for namely: a district representative (for his legislative district) and a party-list group (which has no geographical limitation).
In the case of Abayon vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal [G.R. No. 189466, 11 February 2010), the Supreme Court held that “from the Constitution’s point of view, it is the party-list representatives who are elected to office, not their parties or organizations. These representatives are elected, however, through that peculiar party-list system that the Constitution authorized and that Congress by law established where the voters cast their votes for the organizations or parties to which such party-list representatives belong.”
Section 8 of the Party-List System Act states that each registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-five (45) days before the election a list of names, not less than five (5) from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes. Furthermore, a person may be nominated in one (1) list only and only persons who have given their consent in writing may be named in the list.
Qualification of Party-List Nominees
So, what are the qualifications of party-list representatives? Pursuant to Section 9 of the Party-List System Act, the following are the qualifications of Party-List Nominees:
- 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
- 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 this term.
It must be noted that in the case of Albano vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 257610, 24 January 2023), the Supreme Court held that the provision in Section 8 of the Party-List Act disallowing person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding election to stand as party-list nominee and its corresponding provision in COMELEC Resolution 10717 as unconstitutional since it violates the equal protection clause and substantive due process enshrined in the Constitution. Although Congress has the power to legislate on the qualifications of party-list representatives, such exercise of power must be in consonance with the Constitution. Thus, the High Court held:
“Verily, no substantial distinction can be seen to exist between candidates who lost in the immediately preceding election on one hand, and those who won or did not participate therein, on the other. No unique circumstance exists that is attributable to losing candidates in the immediately preceding election which would result in subverting the objective of the party-list system should they be allowed to participate therein. The classification treating losing candidates in the immediately preceding election differently from other candidates does not find any rational basis.
Aside from violation of the equal protection clause, the prohibition placed on losing candidates likewise violates the constitutional guaranty of substantive due process.
x x x
It bears repeating then that while plenary power is vested in Congress, it may not wield such power arbitrarily. As meticulously explained by this Court, the phrase in the assailed provisions fail to surmount the rational basis. The qualifiers lost, and immediately preceding election do not have any rational basis that would bolster the objective of the party-list law. There is no showing that allowing those who lost as compared to those who won, or even those who did not participate in the immediately preceding election, will have a deleterious effect on the party-list system. Moreover, using as a reference the immediately preceding election, and separating it from the other previous elections does not in any way present a convincing basis that would promote the objective of the party-list system for a genuine representation. It would thus follow that the right to substantive due process was not afforded in the instant case. The prohibition is, in effect, an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion of the right of losing candidates in the immediately preceding elections, by needlessly restraining them from participating in the present elections.
Further, to sustain the prohibition would be inconsistent with, and instead fail to give life to the policy of R.A. No. 7941 in democratizing political power by developing a full, free, and open party system 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. Surely, the State cannot require eligibility for public office to be conditioned on the person’s ill performance in the previous election. Neither may such performance be used as a rubric to gauge his or her ability to serve.”
Jurisdiction over Party-List Groups and Nominees
It must be noted that it is the COMELEC who has jurisdiction determine the qualifications of a party-list and its nominees. As held in Layug vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 192984, 28 February 2012):
“On the other hand, Brother Mike, being the fifth nominee, did not get a seat and thus had not become a member of the House of Representatives. Indubitably, the HRET has no jurisdiction over the issue of Brother Mike’s qualifications.
x x x
Neither does the HRET have jurisdiction over the qualifications of Buhay Party-List, as it is vested by law, specifically, the Party-List System Act, upon the COMELEC. Section 6 of said Act states thatthe COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition.”
However, if the party-list nominee has been elected and has taken his oath of office, his qualifications may only be assailed before the House Electoral Tribunal. Thus, in Bello vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 191998, 07 December 2010), it was enunciated:
“The consistent judicial holding is that the HRET has jurisdiction to pass upon the qualifications of party-list nominees after their proclamation and assumption of office; they are, for all intents and purposes, elected members of the House of Representatives although the entity directly voted upon was their party. x x x
What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. Since, as pointed out above, party-list nominees are elected members of the House of Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.”
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
If you want to learn more on how to file a certificate of candidacy for Philippine elections, file an election protest or simply need assistance Philippine election law matters, we can help you. Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
