The Supreme Court affirmed that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has the authority to review the qualifications of party-list nominees to ensure they meet constitutional and statutory requirements for membership in the House. This decision clarifies that while party-list organizations nominate representatives, the HRET is the sole judge of the qualifications of those individuals once they are elected and have assumed office. The ruling ensures that party-list representatives, like district representatives, are subject to scrutiny regarding their qualifications to hold office, upholding the integrity of the House of Representatives.
Who Gets to Decide? Examining HRET’s Power Over Party-List Seats
This case arose from challenges to the qualifications of Daryl Grace J. Abayon and Jovito S. Palparan, Jr., nominees of party-list organizations Aangat Tayo and Bantay, respectively. Registered voters and members of other party-list groups questioned their eligibility, arguing that they did not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors these organizations claimed to represent. Abayon, wife of a congressman, was alleged not to represent marginalized sectors, while Palparan was accused of human rights violations against the groups Bantay purported to represent. The central legal question was whether the HRET had jurisdiction to determine if these nominees met the constitutional qualifications for members of the House of Representatives elected through the party-list system.
The petitioners argued that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) should have the sole authority to determine their qualifications, given that the COMELEC approves the registration of party-list organizations. They contended that since they were nominees chosen by their respective organizations, the HRET had no power to inquire into their qualifications. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, emphasizing that the Constitution identifies members of the House as those elected from legislative districts and those elected through a party-list system. This distinction makes it clear that party-list representatives are indeed “elected” into office, and thus, subject to the same qualifications and scrutiny as district representatives.
The Court cited Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, which defines the composition of the House of Representatives, stating:
Sec. 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.
Building on this principle, the Court noted that the Party-List System Act itself recognizes party-list nominees as members of the House of Representatives. The Act’s declaration of policy states that the State shall promote proportional representation to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to become members of the House. Thus, the qualifications and disqualifications of party-list nominees are subject to legal requirements.
In Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 v. Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court previously held that a party-list representative is “an elected member of the House of Representatives.” The Court underscored that although votes are cast for parties in the party-list election, these votes are ultimately for the nominees who will sit in the House.
Both the Constitution and the Party-List System Act set the qualifications and grounds for disqualification of party-list nominees. Section 9 of R.A. 7941, echoing the Constitution, provides:
Sec. 9. Qualification 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, 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.
This section indicates that a nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or organization they seek to represent. The HRET is tasked with interpreting this qualification, especially regarding whether the nominees genuinely represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors their parties claim to embody. The Supreme Court emphasized that once a party-list nominee is proclaimed and has taken their oath, the HRET’s jurisdiction begins, mirroring the process for district representatives.
The Court addressed the petitioners’ claim that the authority to determine the qualifications of a party-list nominee belongs to the nominating party or organization. The Court acknowledged that while parties initially examine the fitness of nominees, the HRET assumes jurisdiction when there are allegations that the chosen nominee is disqualified. This ensures that disputes over the qualifications of party-list representatives are resolved by a constitutional body vested with the power to do so.
The Court acknowledged the COMELEC’s belief that it has the power to resolve challenges to party-list nominees. However, the Court did not rule on this matter, as it was not raised by the parties. Instead, the Court focused on Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, which grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the qualifications of members of the House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that the HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion by dismissing the petitions against the party-list organizations but upholding its jurisdiction over the qualifications of the nominees. This ruling underscores the HRET’s crucial role in ensuring that all members of the House of Representatives, including those elected through the party-list system, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications to hold office.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of party-list nominees who have been elected and taken office. |
| What did the petitioners argue? | The petitioners argued that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has sole authority over the qualifications of party-list nominees, as the COMELEC approves the registration of party-list organizations. |
| What was the Court’s ruling? | The Court ruled that the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon the qualifications of party-list nominees once they have been proclaimed and have taken their oath as members of the House of Representatives. |
| Why did the Court rule that the HRET has jurisdiction? | The Court based its decision on Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, which grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. |
| What is the significance of the Party-List System Act in this case? | The Party-List System Act recognizes party-list nominees as members of the House of Representatives and sets qualifications for them, reinforcing the HRET’s authority to review their qualifications. |
| What is the role of the COMELEC in relation to party-list nominees? | While the COMELEC approves the registration of party-list organizations, the HRET’s jurisdiction begins once the nominee is proclaimed and takes office, similar to the process for district representatives. |
| What does it mean to be a ‘bona fide’ member of a party-list organization? | Being a ‘bona fide’ member means genuinely representing the marginalized and underrepresented sectors the party claims to embody, a qualification the HRET is tasked with interpreting. |
| How does this ruling affect party-list representatives? | This ruling ensures that party-list representatives, like district representatives, are subject to scrutiny regarding their qualifications to hold office, upholding the integrity of the House of Representatives. |
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision affirms the HRET’s vital role in safeguarding the qualifications of all members of the House of Representatives, including those elected through the party-list system. This ensures that only those who meet constitutional and statutory requirements can serve in the House, upholding the integrity and representativeness of the legislative body.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DARYL GRACE J. ABAYON VS. THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, G.R. No. 189466, February 11, 2010