“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”
– Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, 2013
The party list system finds its origin in Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution[1], to wit;
“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.”
It created representation in the House of Representatives for national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations through an electoral process that exists alongside district representation.[2] The framers intended the system to be a democratic tool that would replace reserved seats and allow historically marginalized communities to elect their own representatives.
Because the constitutional provision was not self executing, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7941 in 1995. The law sought to promote proportional representation by enabling Filipino citizens who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to secure seats in the legislature.
RA 7941 requires parties, organizations, or coalitions to register with the Commission on Elections and sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications for participation. It also mandates the submission of nominee lists and sets the basic standards for nominees, including citizenship, residency, literacy, membership in the party, and age requirements.
While these statutory procedures create the legal framework, the substantive interpretation of the party list system has largely been shaped throughout the years by the Supreme Court.
Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC was the first major case that defined the operation of the party list system following the monumental 1998 elections.[3] The Court established four inviolable parameters:
-
-
- The total number of party list seats shall not exceed twenty percent of the House’s membership.
- A party must obtain at least two percent of the total party list votes to qualify for one guaranteed seat.
- A qualified party may hold no more than three seats.
- Additional seats must reflect proportional representation based on total votes cast.
-
Veterans became the foundation of party list allocation and represented an early attempt to harmonize RA 7941 with the Constitution’s mandate.
In 2009, BANAT v. COMELEC revisited the Veterans formula.[4] The Court struck down the two percent threshold as applied to additional seats, reasoning that it obstructed the constitutional command to fill the full twenty percent allocation and limited the representation of parties that received substantial but not threshold reaching support. BANAT introduced a revised four step allocation method. Thus, the Court ruled that in determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Sec. 11 of RA 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:
“1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.”
Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as “additional seats” are the maximum seats reserved under the party-list system less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats.
It must be noted that RA 7941 emphasizes representation of marginalized and underrepresented sectors. The Court in Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC gave weight to this policy and clarified that mere declarations of sectoral identity are insufficient, to wit;[5]
“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.”
The Court likewise emphasized representation requires actual connection to the sector and a demonstration of shared interests that warrant legislative voice. COMELEC later recognized that the absence of a clear statutory definition of “marginalized and underrepresented” created confusion and inconsistency in screening applicants, which led to recurring disputes during registration periods.
Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC however marked a significant departure from earlier jurisprudence.[6] The Court abandoned the Bagong Bayani doctrine and announced that national and regional parties need not represent marginalized or underrepresented sectors. The ruling explained that the Constitution does not restrict party list participation solely to such groups and therefore allows political parties and other organizations to run under the system even if they do not advocate for marginalized communities.
This interpretation reshaped the party list landscape. It opened the door to participation by a broader range of groups, including those with substantial political resources or distinct ideological platforms independent of sectoral identity and purpose laid down in Bagong Bayani.
The evolution of jurisprudence demonstrates that the party list system has shifted from a mechanism designed primarily to empower marginalized sectors to a “free for all” type of representation that accommodates any qualified national, regional, or sectoral party. While this broadened access reflects the current reading of the Constitution, it also raises concerns regarding the dilution of representation intended for those originally envisioned by RA 7941.
The Court has consistently recognized that party list representatives must immerse themselves in the needs of their constituents and provide meaningful representation in the legislative process. Over time, the Supreme Court’s interpretations, particularly in Atong Paglaum, have expanded the system to include a wider array of parties.
If the system is to fulfill the social justice objectives envisioned by the framers and by RA 7941, reforms must restore a focus on genuine sectoral representation. The continued success of the party list system depends on returning to its roots and ensuring that those who have historically lacked political power are given meaningful opportunities to participate in legislative governance, giving more to the saying “Those who have less in life should have more in law”.
[1] Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 5 [2] Sec. 3, RA 7491 or the “Party-List System Act” [3] Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 136781, 06 October 2000. [4] BANAT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, 21 April 2009 [5] Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, 26 June 2001. [6] Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, 02 April 2013