1987 PHILIPPINE

CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 6
Section 5.
(1) The House of Representatives
shall be composed of not more
than two hundred and fifty
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
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.
(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
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,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women,
youth, and such other sectors as
may be provided by law, except
the religious sector.

(3) Each legislative district shall

comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact, and adjacent
territory. Each city with a
population of at least two hundred
fifty thousand, or each province,
shall have at least one
representative.
(4) Within three years following the
return of every census, the
Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative
districts based on the standards
provided in this section.

House of the Representatives

composition
1. House of the Senate (24
members)
2. House of the Representative
Can it be increased?
It can be increased because it is
provided in the Constitution. It
means that the Congress is given
the authority to increase the
number of membership in the
House of the Representative. There
is no way that it cannot be
increased because the overall
consideration is the population.
Who shall be elected?
It talks about the membership
which shall be elected from the
legislative districts apportioned

among provinces, cities and

metropolitan area in accordance
with the number of their respective
inhabitants. It is based on the
population or the inhabitants and
on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio. It is easier to
conclude that it is more to increase
than to decrease. Those who, as
provided by law shall be elected
through a party list system of
registered national, regional, and
sectoral parties or organizations.
Based on this provision of law, it is
clear that there are further
compositions in the HRET.
If you are to draw a diagram out of
the membership in a single
Congress, it would be between the
House of the Senate and HRET.
HRET is further divided into district
representative and a party list
representative. District
representative represents a
legislative district.
How is a Legislative District
apportioned?
Where can you get a
Legislative District?
We know that LGU consists of
provinces, cities and municipalities.
A legislative district is not a local
government unit. It is a district
intended to one representative. It is
a groupment of LGUs that is
entitled for a representative in a
Congress.

As the rule of apportion is met.

First. Under the paragraph 1 of
section 5, each shall be
apportioned among provinces,
cities and metropolitan Manila area
in accordance to their respective
inhabitants and on the basis of
uniform and progressive ratio. A
province should be entitled to a
district. A city is entitled to have a
legislature to be apportioned as a
legislative district. A legislative
district therefore, is formed out of
provinces, cities and the
metropolitan Manila area. Each
legislative district that is under
paragraph 3 shall comprise as far
as practicable, contiguous,
adjacent and compact. In other
words if there is district 1 and 2, it
cannot form a district out of
municipality A to entitle the same
portion of municipality X and the
other part of the territory that are
far to each other. It is because they
have different interests and
concerns at the time they are all
compact and adjacent to each
other. The basic intent of the law
however, is to prevent the practice
of GERRYMANDERING. It is a
practice of apportioning legislative
districts out of separate portions of
a territory for the purpose of
favoring a candidate.
How this rule/practice is
applied?
It will apply if it is an ethnic or
tribal consideration.

Second. Each city with a

population of at least 250,000 on
each province shall represent at
least one representative. One city
should have at least 250,000
population to be entitled of one
district representative. The
province, however, cannot exceed
the 250,000 population
requirement. In Davao City alone,
although it is one city has 3
districts. This is based on apportion
that is based on the number and is
based of its respective inhabitants.
Within 3 years (last paragraph of
section 5), the Congress shall make
the legislative district based on the
standard provided. It is not every 3
years. The last paragraph says that
it is within 3 years after the return
of every census. Congress is
mandated to make a
reapportionment of district to
check for there may be some
constituents that are deprived of
district representatives. This is
resolved owing to publication
movement in the population to
regularly check the sufficiency of
the number of legislative districts.
Congress is mandated to regularly
enact a general law of
reapportionment of legislative
district that is why they have to
increase the number of legislative
districts nationwide on national
meetings.
In the case of Mariano vs.
COMELEC decided in 1995

involving the enactment of the city

charter of Makati, the charter
converts the municipality of Makati
to a city. It is a component
organizing but there is a
conversion from municipality to
city, along with the conversion is
the increase of its legislative
districts and divided the barangay
within the city between 2
legislative districts.
The petition in this case was filed
because petitioners are objecting
to the creation of a new district.
First is contending that an
increase in the legislative district
can be done not only through a
general reapportionment law
mentioned (last paragraph of
section 5). It cannot be done
through a special law. In other
words, they have to wait for the
general apportionment. In this
case, the charter of Makati city was
increased so it is a special law. In
the contention of the petitioner, it
cannot be done. Second,
petitioner contends that the
increase in legislative district is
unconstitutional. Why? As of that
time, the population of Makati was
just around 450,000. Under the
Constitution, it should have a
population of at least 250,000 and
is entitled of one legislative district
congressional representative. In
other words, it was his idea that
since the other district cannot
reach the 250,000 mark, it is not

entitled to one additional

legislative representative.
Are the contentions correct?
The Supreme Court said that in the
first contention, the
reapportionment may be through a
special law. That law is a charter of
a new city as worded in the new
Constitution. It did not include the
Congress that increasing
membership by passing a law other
than a general reapportionment of
the law as worded in the
Constitution, unless otherwise fixed
by law. In enacting the charter of
Makati, it is that law that increases
the number of the legislative
district. It can be made only
through a general law of
reapportionment with a review on
the legislative district nationwide. It
would create an undependable
situation for a new city or province
mandated by Congress that will be
denied of a legislative
representative for an indeterminate
period of time. Why? If it is through
only a general apportionment law,
the law says that it is within 3
years and we have to wait for the
return of each census. After return,
the deadline is within 3 years. It
means that when you created a
city, you have to wait for a general
apportionment law in order to be
entitled or to be represented in the
Congress. This particular situation
will deprive the people of the new
city or province a particle of

sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be

in any subtraction but it is
indivisible. It must be in whole or it
is not sovereignty. The Supreme
Court in this case limited the
application of the 250,000
population published requirement
only as to the initial decision of
legislative district. In other words, if
a city has a population of 250,000
then it is entitled to a legislative
district. It does not therefore mean
that for additional legislative, there
should be another 250,000 in a
population. The constitution now
says that for every 250,000, there
should be one legislative district. In
fact, in the ordinance amended in
the Constitution provides that a
city must obtain and published
more than 250,ooo in a population
is entitled to at least one district
representative not discounting the
last paragraph that it could have
more than one because the
provision said at least one. Again,
250,000 requirement is only for the
initial creation of the legislative
district for a city as to the
additional legislative district. It
does not mean to attain the
250,000 requirement in the
published population in Makati. For
250,000 population, a legislative
district may still be increased to
more than 250,000 is entitled to at
least one congressional
representative.

In the case of Arcaba vs.

COMELEC decided in 2010
involves the city of Malolos. The
city of Malolos as of 2007 has a
population around 223,000. It has
attained a projection based on the
annual growth rate of its population
that by 2010, they will have the
population of 254,000 more or less.
They have this projection of
population.

Is it an invalid document?
The Supreme Court said that
whether actual or projected
population, the issue is does
Malolos has a population of
250,000? Is it entitled to have its
own legislative district in time for
the May 2010 election? This is
relevant because they said that by
the year 2010, they will have the
population of more or less 254,000
and they want to elect their
representative by May 2010. The
Supreme Court said that the city
that has a population of 250,000 is
entitled to a legislative district
represented only immediately
following an election. In short, the
city of 250,000 population should
attain this first to be entitled of a
congressional district
representative. What is the
problem in the case? They have a
projection of 250,000. Let us just
say that the projection is allowed,
250,000 population for the entire

2010. That is earlier that even one

half of the year is ongoing on May
2010. Therefore, it cannot be
concluded that by May 2010, they
have already attained the 250,000
population. So a city can only have
a representative only if it attains
the 250,000 requirement. In this
case, the projection is for the entire
year. It cannot be accepted as a
basis in giving it representation in
the Congress.
The case of Aquino vs. COMELEC
clarifies the earlier case in the
requirement of 250,000 population
to be entitled to a district
representative or to be apportioned
of a legislative district.
What do you mean when the
provision in the Constitution
states that a city of at least
250,000 population in a
province shall have at least one
representative?
You have this case of a law
enacted to increase the legislative
district of the province of
Camarines Sur. In comparison to
Mariano case, Mariano involves a
city (Makati) while Aquino case
involves a province (Camarines
Sur). From the 4 legislative
districts, the law increased it to 5.
The behind the scene alleged that
the reason for that is to
accommodate Datu Macapagal
Arroyo because he is intending to
win the one legislative district in

the province. He cannot be

accommodated because he is
already political making runners in
the district. Make one district.
Aquino with Robredo filed this case
questioning the validity of that
particular district. When it charged
the number of legislative district in
this province of Cam Sur, 4 of the
districts have reached the 250,000
population requirement. Some
even reach more than 400,000 but
that district has a population of
only 176,000. In other words, it did
not obtain the 250,000
requirement. This is the contention
of Pnoy that each legislative district
must be supported by at least
250,000 population in order to be
qualified to have a district
representative. Same in the cases
in newly created provinces. The
contention was that for every
legislative district, there must be a
population of 250,000.
What is the ruling of the
Supreme Court?
The provision of the Constitution
draws a plain and clear distinction
between the entitlement of the city
and a province for when a province
is entitled to at least a
representative, could have not
mentioned about a population. A
city must first meet a population
minimum of 250,000 in order to be
similarly entitled to at least a
representative. The use of subject
provision of each city, separating a

city from a province, therefore, the

Constitution requires 250,000
minimum population only for cities
to be entitled for representative
but not for province. A province or
a newly created province
regardless of population is entitled
to one district representative. As to
a city, not all are entitled to one
congressional representative. Why?
It is because the Constitution
requirement that each attains at
least 250,000 population. But if we
compare Mariano case to Aquino
case, when talking about additional
legislative district, both are the
same. The Supreme Court held that
for additional legislative district,
there is no need to comply with the
250,000 requirement in the
population so they are the same.
What the distinction is that only the
emphasis that when it comes to
province, there is no population
requirement. When it comes to a
city, there is population
requirement but only as to its initial
legislative district.
The second component of HRET is
the party list representative. In
section 5, the HRET shall be
composed of those members
elected from the legislative district
and the other one is provided to be
elected to a party list system of
registered national, regional and
sectoral parties or organization.
The second paragraph of section 5
is also relevant to party list

representative for it provides for

the ratio of district representative
as to party list representative in
the membership of HRET. So the
district representative shall
constitute 20% of the total number
of representative including those
under the party list. So you are
going to do some math, simple
math only.
Since the Constitution mandated
the Congress to enact a law
implementing the party list system,
Congress enacted RA 7941
providing for the election of party
list representative and
appropriation therefore. The law
was enacted on 1995. The
Constitution took effect on 1987;
the implementation was enacted 8
years later. We are now in 2013
and still we are in the dilemma of
what a party list system really is in
the system of the Philippines. It is
because, if you observed, the
Supreme Court had been changing
the interpretation in the provisions
of the Constitution and the law on
what really is a party list system in
the Philippines.
Who is allowed to participate?
How it should be computed?
What is party list system in the
Philippines?
From 1987 to 2013, I hope we are
now starting to establish what
should be the interpretation of

party list system. Based on the

interpretation in the Constitution
Commission particularly those that
were given out its main proponent
or of the party list system to be
written in the Constitution,
Commissioner Monsod in his idea is
that the party list system should
open up to move the political
system from a distinct society to a
multiparty system in the Congress.
This cannot be done because
usually only the later political
parties would dominate the
election. We are encouraging
multiparties and more often it is
just 2 or three parties that are
vying for the position so was his
introductory speech to open up the
political system to a pluralistic
society through a multiparty
system. We are opening up the
system and we would like to
rematch for the sectors also to be
there. The idea was that for
legislative district, the Constitution
only requires a constituent of
250,000. Now there are parties
which regularly participate in the
legislative district election but
regularly fall in the third and fourth
place. Hindi talaga sila mkakaabot
but if you think of the vote
nationwide, you would see that
these parties have constituency of
not just 250,000 only but more
than that and some with 500,000
votes nationwide and some with
millions of votes. So if a person is
entitled to represent 250,000

constituents, why not allow the

person or the other party
representing the 500,000 or more
constituents? It cannot be done
because it is dominated by some
parties. The idea is again to open
up the system para marami ang
mkakasali. Monsod talks about the
proponent.
Based on that, the party list is
supposed to be intended to
nepotize? political parties by giving
political parties that cannot wait in
the legislative district election a
chance to sit in the HRET. That is
the basic idea.
Under the party list system, the
voters elect 2 representatives in
the house. One is for her or his
legislative district and another for
his or her party list group or
organization of choice.
What would the organization
be?
Should it be a sector?
The deliberation actually revolved
around sector that is why there is
confusion in its interpretation
before. Anyway, Monsod is saying
(I forgot the term) but modern
times would have multifaceted
persons like for example a person
can be voted as a farmer or a
lawyer so we cannot say that or
how can we say that he represents
farmer or he would be under the
law not as a farmer or lawyer. The

idea of Monsod is that it would be

up to the person to determine
whether or not he is a
farmer/lawyer or a farmer/doctor or
fisherman/doctor. So that is why his
idea is to really open up the system
and it is up to the person to choose
his party or group. As we said,
there is a problem in the
interpretation of the party list
system. When Congress enacted
RA 7941, it also initiated the policy
of enacting the law. The policy
stated would be that the party list
system is a social justice tool
designed not only to give our law
for the mass or people but to
become lawmakers themselves,
empowered to participate directly
in the enactment of laws designed
to be interpreted. It depends to
make the marginalized and the
underrepresented not merely
passing recipients of the state but
active participants in the
mainstream of representative
democracy that the policy has
discarded in the Ang Bagong
Bayani vs. COMELEC.
Ang Bagong Bayani vs.
COMELEC decided in 2001. This is
a new case. It is a social justice tool
to those who are less in life to give
them more in law not just to
recipient of the state but to
become lawmakers themselves.
The policy would cover the
marginalized and the
underrepresented. That is the

policy. As mandated by the

Supreme Court in which who may
participate in the party list election.
This is a hundred thousand
questions. Relative or pertinent to
this question are the following
cases so if we discuss the decision
who may participate, the cases
that you have to remember are:
Ang Bagong Bayani decided in
2001, Banat case decided in 2009
and the recent case of Atong
Paglaum decided in 2013. The
latter case was just decided just
last 2013 election.
Who may participate in the
party list election?
Let us talk about the 2001 case
first that the Supreme Court
interpreted the Constitution in line
with RA 7941 on who may
participate. This is the
interpretation: The Constitution is
clear to give genuine power to the
people not only to those who have
less in life but also enabling them
to become lawmakers themselves.
So it is consistent with its intent.
The policy though we repeat is
likewise clear to enable full citizens
belonging to the marginalized and
the underrepresented sectors
organization and party list to
become members of HRET. As far
as the Supreme Court is concerned
at the time the language of the law
is here, so it concluded that the
party list system is only available

to the marginalized and the

underrepresented.
Who would be those
marginalized and
underrepresented?
They would refer to sectors. Sec 5
of the Constitution provides that
the sector shall include labor,
peasant, fisherfolks, urban poor,
indigenous culture and
communities, elderly, handicap,
women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers and professionals. In the
enumeration, it is not exclusive. It
gives us a clear idea and clear
intent of the law that not all sectors
can be represented under the party
list system. It refers only to the
marginalized and the
underrepresented. Therefore, it
cannot include bankers,
industrialist or sugar planters (the
megarich).
There are parties Ako Bisaya,
Ako. It starts with letter A
because initially the list of parties
in the ballot is in alphabetical
order. In 2013, it decided not to be
alphabetical. There is balloting on
what would be their number, kay
lahat na A so if you say you are a
sector representing one particular
cultural group like the tagalogs,
they cannot say that they are
marginalized. Now under this
interpretation, they cannot
participate in the party list system.

May political party participate

in the party list election?
This is the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ang Bagong
Bayani. Yes. Why? Sec 5, Article 6
of the Constitution provides that
the members of the House under
the system will be elected through
a party list system of registered
national, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations. It
mentioned parties. Now, even the
proponent stated to the purpose
which is to open up the system to
political parties in order to give a
chance to parties that start of
commercial to district election to
win a sitting in the Congress. Also,
under RA 7941, it defines a party
that can participate in the party list
election. A party is either political
party or sectoral party or coalition
of parties. In other words, a
political party can indeed
participate in the party list election.
Further other definition to what a
political party is that it is an
ideology that forms policies and
principles for the general conduct
of the government. But there is a
big but there that political parties
may however participate in the
party list election. It does not mean
however that if any political party
or any organization may do so.
Why? This is the same case which
interpreted the party list system to
become available to the
marginalized and the

underrepresented. So if you are a

political party, you have to be
marginalized and underrepresented
which is impossible to achieve. It
already disqualifies political party.
Now this interpretation is further
stretched by Banat vs. COMELEC
decided on 2009. Supreme Court
decided that yes, political parties
may participate in a party list
election. If read RA 7941 and the
Constitution together states that
major political parties are allowed
to establish or form coalition with
sectoral organization for election of
political purpose. There should not
be a problem if for example the
liberal party participates in the
party list election through KALIPI
(Kabataang Liberal ng Pilipinas) in
sectoral. The other political party
cooperates with this chosen sector.
In other words, if you are major
political party, you can participate
in the party list election but
through your sectoral wing. You
have to establish your own sectoral
wing. That sectoral wing must
represent the marginalized and
underrepresented but there is also
a but here however by vote of 8-7,
the court decided to continue in
Veterans disallowing major political
party from participating the party
list election directly or indirectly.
In Veterans vs. Akbayan, the
Supreme Court said that since it is
provided by law that for the first 3
consecutive years, the first 5 major

political parties are disqualified or

are not allowed to participate that
is in view of the fact that the major
political party regularly
denominated the election and to
give other political parties a time to
cope with their major political party
iiwanan muna sila for that
particular election in 1998 for that
particular election only. The
Supreme Court continue that the
disallowance by vote of 8-7. This
allows major political party from
participating in party list election
directly or indirectly meaning even
before their sectoral wings, they
are not allowed yet to participate.
This is component by the fact that
the COMELEC did not apply the
sectoral wing of the major political
party, not allowed to participate in
the party list election . Whether or
not political party may participate?
Yes through their sectoral wing but
they cannot yet participate or are
still disqualified.

We have new ruling decided in

2013. Ngkagulogulo ang buhay
natin kc , ako bikolano, ako
estranghero political party may
participate. They are contending
that the interpretation of the
Supreme Court is wrong. That the
party list system is only limited to
the marginalized and the
underrepresented so they filed this
case. We have the case of Atong
Paglaum vs. COMELEC decided

April 2, 2013. It is shocking kasi

this time Supreme Court said that it
is not limited only to the
marginalized and the
underrepresented. Anybody can
participate the party list election.
Ang Atong Paglaum. If you have a
copy of this case the 1st page of
this case would constitute the title
because it is actually a
consolidation of 1954 the
Supreme Court consolidated it in
one decision because the question
may be who can participate in the
party list election? The Supreme
Court overthrows its very earlier
2001 decision. It is now saying that
party list structure in Section 5 and
2, Article 6 of the Constitution
cannot be disputed. Party list
system is not for the sectoral party.
Let us read section 5 paragraph 1
again. It states that there shall be a
party list system of registered
national, regional and sectoral
party or organization. Based on
that, the party list system under
the Constitution is composed of 3
different groups: 1. National
parties or organizations, 2.
Regional parties or
organizations, and 3. Sectoral
parties or organizations. It did
not say registered national and
regional sectoral parties or
organization. It cannot be
interpreted to mean national
sectoral party, regional sectoral
party because each word is
separated by a comma. That is

basic statutory construction. In

other words, national party is
different from regional party and is
also different from sectoral party or
organization. National and regional
party or organization did not
deorganized acceptable lines and
did not represent any particular
sector because there is a different
category for sectoral party list. So
seek for the interpretation of the
Constitution that would really come
up to the conclusion that the party
list system is open not only for
sectoral parties, marginalized or
underrepresented. Economically,
marginalized and
underrepresented. Further, the law
itself which is RA 7941 does not
require national, regional parties or
organizations to represent the
marginalized or the
underrepresented sectors. Why?
Even if the law provided for
definitions of political and sectoral
parties, they are deprived under
different paragraph. The deficiency,
they are different and distinct from
each other under section 3 that
party is defined as either political
or sectoral party or coalition of
parties. So if you seek party, the
disallowed to participate in the
party list election would either be a
political party or sectoral party. It
does not mean a political sectoral
party. Section 3 (c) provides that a
political party refers to an
organization where organized
group of citizens with ideology or

platform, principles and policies for

the general contact to government.
A political party is different from a
sectoral party. Sectoral party would
be those with principal advocacy
pertains to those with special
interests and concerns of their
sector. Political party has its own
ideology or platform or principles or
policies. One sectoral yung may
mga advocacy pertaining to their
special interest and concern to
their sector. Under the party list
system therefore, an ideologybased or cause-oriented political
party is really different from a
sectoral party. A political party did
not be organized to sectoral party
and did not represent a particular
sector. There is no requirement in
the law that a national or regional
political party must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented
sector. It is sufficient that the
political party consists of citizens
who act as advocates with the
same ideology or platform for the
same governance or principles and
policies regardless of the economic
status of a citizen. The economic
status is not supposed to be the
qualified factor for a proof whether
a party or organization to
participate in the party list election.
Ideology-based and cause-oriented
political parties may now
participate. For example in the
case of Atong Paglaum, although
the ultimate decision of the
Supreme Court is that it is

changing the rules in the

interpretation, it remanded all the
application to the COMELEC based
on the new criteria so no decision
yet as to each case whether or
not. A party advocating
environmental protection the
COMELEC disqualified it because
according to them it does not
represent any sector which is true.
What does it represent? Mammal?
Reptiles? Its advocacy group based
on the prior interpretation of the
Supreme Court, the COMELEC did
not abuse its discretion under the
Constitution it does not represent a
marginalized or underrepresented
sector. It is an advocacy group but
under this interpretation, it may
now participate. Professional sector
are not considered marginalized
and underrepresented but they are
allowed. A group of professional
can in fact participate.

-JTU

08/07/13