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

FACTS

Petitioners Glen Quintos Albano and Catalina G. Leonen-Pizarro lost their respective bids for local elective positions in the 2019 elections. Albano later became the second nominee of the Talino at Galing ng Pinoy Party-List, and Pizarro became the first nominee of the Arts, Business and Science Professionals Party-List for the 2022 elections. Their nominations were disallowed by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7941 and Sections 5(d) and 10 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10717, which prohibit a person who lost a bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election from being included in a party-list list of nominees. Petitioners filed consolidated petitions for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of these provisions on two grounds: (1) they impose an additional qualification for party-list nominees, violating the exhaustive list of qualifications under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; and (2) they violate the equal protection clause.

ISSUE

Whether Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 and Sections 5(d) and 10 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10717, which prohibit election losers from being party-list nominees, are unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause.

RULING

The concurring opinion of Justice Caguioa agrees with the ponencia’s grant of the petitions and declaration of the assailed provisions as unconstitutional. The opinion concurs that the provisions violate the equal protection clause. It finds that Congress, under Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, is empowered to determine the qualifications of party-list representatives. However, any additional qualification imposed by statute is subject to general constitutional limitations, including the equal protection clause. Applying the rational basis test, the opinion concludes that the classification made by the law—between party-list nominees who lost in the previous election and those who won or did not participate—fails to demonstrate a rational basis. The prohibition is not germane to the purpose of the party-list system, which is to enhance representation of marginalized sectors, and instead arbitrarily restricts the sectoral groups’ choice of nominees. The classification does not rest on substantial distinctions and is repugnant to the policy behind the party-list system of representation. Therefore, the assailed law and rules are unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause.