G.R. No. 257610 - Glenn Quintos Albano vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 257610)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Decision date: January 24, 2023. Constitutional basis used: 1987 Constitution (Article VI, Sections 5(1) and 6; Article III equal protection and due process provisions). Statutory and regulatory texts at issue: Republic Act No. 7941 (Party‑List System Act), Section 8; COMELEC Resolution No. 10717, Sections 5(d) and 10; ancillary reference to Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Issues Presented

Two principal legal questions: (1) Whether Congress may prescribe additional qualifications for party‑list representatives beyond Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; and (2) Whether the provisions barring a person who “has lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election” from being a party‑list nominee violate the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution.

Factual Antecedents

Albano: natural‑born Filipino, resident since birth, registered voter, >25 years old, able to read/write, member of the Philippine Bar, ran and lost as Taguig city councilor in 2019; later nominated as second nominee of TGP for 2022. Pizarro: founder and former three‑term party‑list representative (2007–2016), ran and lost for mayor of Sudipen, La Union in 2016 and 2019; nominated as first nominee of ABS for 2022. Both were prevented from serving as party‑list nominees under the challenged statutory and COMELEC provisions.

Text of the Challenged Provisions

RA No. 7941, Section 8: requires party lists to submit nominees and states, among other things, “The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election.” COMELEC Resolution No. 10717, Sections 5(d) and 10: implement similar prohibitions, specifically referencing loss in the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework; Congressional Delegation

The Court reaffirmed that Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution—“those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party‑list system”—delegates to Congress the authority to provide the mechanics of the party‑list system and to prescribe qualifications for party‑list representatives. Congress therefore legitimately enacted RA No. 7941 to operationalize the party‑list system and to set nomination rules and qualifications (including bona fide membership requirements).

Distinction from Social Justice Society (SJS)

The Court distinguished Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board (which struck down a mandatory drug test for senatorial candidates as an impermissible addition to exclusive constitutional qualifications applicable to senators). The distinction is that Section 5(1) expressly empowers Congress to determine “who shall be elected” through the party‑list system; hence Congress may legislate qualifications for party‑list representatives in ways it could not for senators or district representatives whose qualifications are not similarly delegated.

Standard of Review — Equal Protection and Choice of Test

The Court applied the rational basis test because seeking elective office is not a fundamental constitutional right and petitioners do not belong to a suspect or quasi‑suspect class. Under rational basis review, a legislative classification survives if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Court’s Equal Protection Analysis and Conclusion

The Court identified two classifications: (a) the constitutionally permitted distinction between district representatives and party‑list representatives (on which Congress may legislate additional qualifications), and (b) a statutory distinction among party‑list nominees—specifically between those who lost in the immediately preceding election and those who won or did not participate. While (a) is permissible, (b) was found to lack a rational basis. The prohibition against persons who “lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election” does not rest on a substantial distinction germane to the party‑list law’s purpose and does not rationally further the legitimate governmental interest (protecting the integrity of the party‑list system). The classification arbitrarily bars certain nominees and unduly restricts party choice, undermining the inclusivity objective of RA No. 7941 and the constitutional policy to promote proportional representation for marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

Substantive Due Process Finding

In addition to equal protection, the Court found the challenged prohibition violated substantive due process. Under rational‑basis review, the law must at least be rationally related to a legitimate purpose; the qualifiers “lost” and “immediately preceding election” were arbitrary and not shown to have any meaningful connection to the statute’s objectives, thereby depriving affected persons of adequate justification for the restraint.

Interpretation and Upheld Limitation (Simultaneous Candidacy)

The Court construed the phrase “any candidate for any elective office” in Section 8 as addressing simultaneous candidacy in the same election (i.e., the list may not include a person who is likewise a candidate for another elective office in the same election). That particular prohibition was upheld as consistent with Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code (which bars filing for more than one office in the same election) and congressional intent to prevent dual candidacies; the Court thus invalidated only the time‑limited prohibition targeting losers of the immediately preceding election.

Specific Holding and Relief

The petitions were GRANTED in part. The Court declared unconstitutional and invalid:

the phrase “a person who has lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election” in Section 8 of RA No. 7941;
the phrases in Sections 5(d) and 10 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10717 referring to having “lost in their bid for an elective office in the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections.” The Court left intact the portion of Section 8 reading “The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office” (i.e., the bar on simultaneous candidacy in the same election).

Emphasis on Party‑List Purpose and Legislative Limits

The Court stressed the constitutional and policy role of the party‑list system: to democratize political power and provide legislative access to marginalized and underrepresented groups. While Congress may legislate mechanics and qualifications for party‑list representatives, such measures must not be arbitrary or contravene equal protection or due process guarantees.

Concurring Opinions (Summaries)

Chief Justice Gesmundo concurred, agreeing with invalidation of the “lost in the immediate

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 257610)

Antecedents / Factual Background

Two consolidated petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition (UDK No. 17230; G.R. No. 257610) challenge portions of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) and implementing COMELEC rules (COMELEC Resolution No. 10717).
Glenn Quintos Albano: second nominee of Talino at Galing ng Pinoy (TGP) for May 9, 2022 elections; alleges natural-born Filipino, resident since birth, registered voter, over 25, literate, member in good standing of the Philippine Bar with 15 years of practice; ran for Taguig City councilor in 2019 and lost; subsequently served TGP as Chief Political Affairs Officer and Chief of Staff.
Catalina G. Leonen-Pizarro: president and first nominee of Arts Business and Science Professionals (ABS), founder of ABS in 2007; served as ABS representative in House for three consecutive terms (2007–2016); ran for mayor of Sudipen, La Union in 2016 and 2019 and lost both; selected as first nominee for 2022 elections but affected by COMELEC pronouncements and Resolution No. 10717 barring nominees who lost in 2019.
Petitioners separately sought this Court to declare: Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 and Sections 5(d) and 10 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10717 unconstitutional for adding to constitutional minimum qualifications and for violating the equal protection clause. The petitions were consolidated by Resolution dated August 23, 2022.

Text of the Challenged Statutory and Regulatory Provisions (as presented)

Section 8, R.A. No. 7941 (excerpted):
- "The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election."
- Full Section 8 provided in source includes nomination procedure, requirement of lists of not less than five names, consent in writing, prohibition on changes after submission except substitution circumstances, and that incumbent sectoral representatives nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned.
COMELEC Resolution No. 10717 excerpts:
- Section 5(d) certificate of nomination must include: certification that nominees "are not candidates for any elective office or have lost in their bid for an elective office in the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections."
- Section 10: "The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections."

Issues Framed by the Petitions

Whether Congress may prescribe additional qualifications other than those provided in Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution (i.e., whether statutes may add qualifications for membership in the House).
Whether Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 and Sections 5(d) and 10 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10717 are unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution by barring persons who "lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election" from party-list nomination.

Parties’ Principal Contentions (as presented)

Petitioners:
- Assert Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution sets the qualifications for members of the House and that Congress/COMELEC cannot add qualifications; the challenged provisions impose an additional qualification/disqualification (bar on persons who lost in immediately preceding election).
- Argue the challenged provisions violate the equal protection clause because there is no substantial distinction between (a) nominees who have not previously participated in elections, (b) nominees who won in the immediately preceding election, and (c) nominees who lost in the immediately preceding election; singling out prior losers is not germane to the purpose of party-list representation.
Office of the Solicitor General / Respondent COMELEC (as presented):
- OSG contends Congress acted within authority conferred by Section 5(1), Article VI ("those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system") to legislate mechanics, qualifications, and implementation; therefore the statute and COMELEC Rule are valid and COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 10717.
- OSG maintains the challenged provisions serve legitimate purposes, notably preventing abuse of the party-list system as a fallback for persons who lost in prior elections.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework (as presented)

Constitution:
- Section 5(1), Article VI: House composition provision and delegation: "and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations."
- Section 6, Article VI: Qualifications for Members of the House (natural-born, at least 25 years old, able to read and write, and except party-list representatives, registered voter in district and resident for one year).
- Equal protection clause: Article III, Section 1.
R.A. No. 7941:
- Section 2: Declaration of policy promoting proportional representation and "a full, free and open party system" to attain broadest possible representation and provide simplest scheme.
- Section 9: bona fide membership requirement (requiring nominees to be bona fide members of party or organization for at least 90 days preceding election) (referenced).
Other statutory context referenced:
- Omnibus Election Code, Section 73: bars filing certificates of candidacy for more than one position in same election (quoted in analysis).
- Prior COMELEC resolutions adopting similar nomination qualifications across previous elections (listed in separate opinions and discussion).

Jurisprudential Antecedents Referred To

Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board, et al. — Court struck down statutory requirement of mandatory drug testing as adding a qualification to constitutional requirements for Senators; petitioners invoked SJS to argue exclusivity of constitutional qualifications.
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC; BANAT v. COMELEC; Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal; Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC; Quinto v. COMELEC; and other decisions interpreting party-list system, Congress’ delegation, allocation of seats, and the scope of legislative authority referenced and applied in analysis.
U.S. authorities (referenced in concurring opinions and comparative discussion) such as U.S. Term Limits, Bart v. Telford, Letter Carriers, Broadrick, Clements — referenced in various opinions for doctrinal guidance (source presents them as cited materials).

Court’s Ruling — Disposition (majority opinion by Lopez, J.)

Petitions are partly meritorious; Court grants petitions and strikes down certain portions as unconstitutional.
The following are declared INVALID and UNCONSTI
...continue reading