G.R. No. 257610 , January 24, 2023
GLEN QUINTOS ALBANO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. [UDK No. 17230] CATALINA G. LEONEN-PIZARRO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves petitions challenging the constitutionality of the phrase “person who has lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election” in Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act) and its counterpart phrases in COMELEC Resolution No. 10717. This provision disqualifies such persons from being nominated as party-list representatives.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as addressed in the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Gesmundo, revolves around the constitutionality of the statutory disqualification for party-list nominees who lost in the immediately preceding election, and the proper test to examine such constitutionality.

RULING

The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia in granting the petitions and declaring the assailed phrase unconstitutional. The opinion provides two main points of concurrence:
1. It expounds on the constitutionally enshrined qualifications for congressional positions, noting that while the U.S. constitutional framework views such qualifications as exclusive and unalterable by the legislature, the Philippine context is different. Article VI, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution authorizes Congress, through the phrase “as provided by law,” to determine the mechanics of the party-list system, including qualifications for party-list representatives. The Philippine legal framework has long implemented additional statutory disqualifications for candidates (e.g., under the Omnibus Election Code and civil service rules), demonstrating it does not strictly adhere to the U.S. philosophy of exclusive constitutional qualifications.
2. It stresses that the rational basis test is the proper standard to examine the constitutionality of the assailed provisions. The opinion clarifies that the right to run for public office is a mere statutory privilege, not a fundamental right. Since the challenged provision does not involve a suspect classification or infringe upon a fundamental right, the strict scrutiny test is inapplicable. The rational basis test requires only that the law be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. The opinion finds the disqualification lacks a rational connection to a legitimate state purpose, as it does not address the nominee’s competence, integrity, or the party-list system’s objective of representing marginalized sectors. It arbitrarily and permanently bans a whole class of individuals from party-list nomination based solely on a recent electoral loss, without regard to the circumstances of that loss.