G.R. No. 190582

G.R. No. 190582 — ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair, Danton Remoto versus THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.

Promulgated: April 8, 2010

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

CORONA, J.:

Stripped of the complicated and contentious issues of morality and religion, I believe the basic issue here is simple: does petitioner Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualify, under the terms of the Constitution and RA 7941, as a marginalized and underrepresented sector in the party-list system?

The relevant facts are likewise relatively uncomplicated. Petitioner seeks accreditation by the respondent Commission on Elections as a political organization of a marginalized and underrepresented sector under the party-list system. Finding that petitioner is not a marginalized sector under RA 7941, the Commission on Elections denied its petition.

A System For Marginalized

And Underrepresented Sectors

The party-list system is an innovation of the 1987 Constitution. It is essentially a tool for the advancement of social justice with the fundamental purpose of affording opportunity to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to participate in the shaping of public policy and the crafting of national laws. It is premised on the proposition that the advancement of the interests of the marginalized sectors contributes to the advancement of the common good and of our nation’s democratic ideals.

But who are the marginalized and underrepresented sectors for whom the party-list system was designed?

The Texts of the Constitution

And of RA[1] 7941

The resolution of a constitutional issue primarily requires that the text of the fundamental law be consulted. Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution directs the course of our present inquiry. It provides:

SEC. 5. x x x

(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. (emphasis supplied)

The Constitution left the matter of determining the groups or sectors that may qualify as “marginalized” to the hands of Congress. Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, RA 7941 or the Party-List System Act was enacted in 1995. The law provides:

Section 2. Declaration of policy. — The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and under-represented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.

x x x x x x x x x

Section 5. Registration. — Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, That the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.

The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for decision but in no case not later than sixty (60) days before election.

Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. — The COMELEC may, motu propio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:

(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes;

(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

(3) It is a foreign party or organization;

(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;

(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;

(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;

(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or

(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. (emphasis supplied)

The Court’s Previous Pronouncements

As the oracle of the Constitution, this Court divined the intent of the party-list system and defined its meaning in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections:[2]

That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean, however, that any political party -- or any organization or group for that matter -- may do so. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941. x x x

The Marginalized and Underrepresented to Become Lawmakers Themselves

[Section 2 of RA 7941] mandates a state policy of promoting proportional representation by means of the Filipino-style party-list system, which will “enable” the election to the House of Representatives of Filipino citizens,

1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and

2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but

3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.

The key words in this policy are “proportional representation,” “marginalized and underrepresented,” and “lack [of] well-defined constituencies.”

“Proportional representation” here does not refer to the number of people in a particular district, because the party-list election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the “marginalized and underrepresented” as exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely, “labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.”

However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the marginalized and underrepresented, because representation is easy to claim and to feign. The party-list organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5. Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must be “Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.”

Finally, “lack of well-defined constituenc[y]” refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group, like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of government. Rather, it points again to those with disparate interests identified with the “marginalized or underrepresented.”

In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos who are “marginalized and underrepresented” become members of Congress under the party-list system, Filipino-style.

The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people, not only by giving more law to those who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves. Consistent with this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we repeat, is likewise clear: “to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, x x x, to become members of the House of Representatives.” Where the language of the law is clear, it must be applied according to its express terms.

The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the party-list system are enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:

“SEC. 5. Registration. -- Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, that the sector shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.”

While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association.

x x x x x x x x x

Indeed, the law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park. The interests of these two sectors are manifestly disparate; hence, the OSG’s position to treat them similarly defies reason and common sense. In contrast, and with admirable candor, Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan admitted during the Oral Argument that a group of bankers, industrialists and sugar planters could not join the party-list system as representatives of their respective sectors.

While the business moguls and the mega-rich are, numerically speaking, a tiny minority, they are neither marginalized nor underrepresented, for the stark reality is that their economic clout engenders political power more awesome than their numerical limitation. Traditionally, political power does not necessarily emanate from the size of one’s constituency; indeed, it is likely to arise more directly from the number and amount of one’s bank accounts.

It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized and underrepresented in our midst are the majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity. It was for them that the party-list system was enacted -- to give them not only genuine hope, but genuine power; to give them the opportunity to be elected and to represent the specific concerns of their constituencies; and simply to give them a direct voice in Congress and in the larger affairs of the State. In its noblest sense, the party-list system truly empowers the masses and ushers a new hope for genuine change. Verily, it invites those marginalized and underrepresented in the past – the farm hands, the fisher folk, the urban poor, even those in the underground movement – to come out and participate, as indeed many of them came out and participated during the last elections. The State cannot now disappoint and frustrate them by disabling and desecrating this social justice vehicle.

x x x x x x x x x

Verily, allowing the non-marginalized and overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the party-list system would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the marginalized and underrepresented, contrary to the intention of the law to enhance it. The party-list system is a tool for the benefit of the underprivileged; the law could not have given the same tool to others, to the prejudice of the intended beneficiaries.

This Court, therefore, cannot allow the party-list system to be sullied and prostituted by those who are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. It cannot let that flicker of hope be snuffed out. The clear state policy must permeate every discussion of the qualification of political parties and other organizations under the party-list system. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Hence, in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, the Court stressed that the party-list system is reserved only for those sectors marginalized and underrepresented in the past (e.g., labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, professionals and even those in the underground movement who wish to come out and participate). They are those sectors traditionally and historically marginalized and deprived of an opportunity to participate in the formulation of national policy although their sectoral interests are also traditionally and historically regarded as vital to the national interest. That is why Section 2 of RA 7941 speaks of “marginalized and under-represented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.”

How should the matter of whether a particular sectoral interest is vital to national interest (and therefore beneficial to the nation as a whole) be determined? Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno’s opinion[3] in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections[4] offers valuable insight:

… Similarly, limiting the party-list system to the marginalized and excluding the major political parties from participating in the election of their representatives is aligned with the constitutional mandate to “reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good”; the right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making; the right of women to opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation; the right of labor to participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits in keeping with its role as a primary social economic force; the right of teachers to professional advancement; the rights of indigenous cultural communities to the consideration of their cultures, traditions and institutions in the formulation of national plans and policies, and the indispensable role of the private sector in the national economy.

As such, the interests of marginalized sectors are by tradition and history vital to national interest and therefore beneficial to the nation as a whole because the Constitution declares a national policy recognizing the role of these sectors in the nation’s life. In other words, the concept of marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the party-list scheme has been carefully refined by concrete examples involving sectors deemed to be significant in our legal tradition. They are essentially sectors with a constitutional bond, that is, specific sectors subject of specific provisions in the Constitution, namely, labor,[5] peasant,[6] urban poor,[7] indigenous cultural communities,[8] women,[9] youth,[10] veterans,[11] fisherfolk,[12] elderly,[13] handicapped,[14] overseas workers[15] and professionals.[16]

The premise is that the advancement of the interests of these important yet traditionally and historically marginalized sectors promotes the national interest. The Filipino people as a whole are benefited by the empowerment of these sectors.

The long-muffled voices of marginalized sectors must be heard because their respective interests are intimately and indispensably woven into the fabric of the national democratic agenda. The social, economic and political aspects of discrimination and marginalization should not be divorced from the role of a particular sector or group in the advancement of the collective goals of Philippine society as a whole. In other words, marginalized sectors should be given a say in governance through the party-list system, not simply because they desire to say something constructive but because they deserve to be heard on account of their traditionally and historically decisive role in Philippine society.

A Unifying Thread

Fidelity to the Constitution requires commitment to its text. Thus, in the exercise of its function as official interpreter of the Constitution, the Court should always bear in mind that judicial prudence means that it is safer to construe the Constitution from what appears upon its face.[17]

With regard to the matter of what qualifies as marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the party-list system, Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mentions “the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.” On the other hand, the law speaks of “labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.”[18]

Surely, the enumeration of sectors considered as marginalized and underrepresented in the fundamental law and in the implementing law (RA 7941) cannot be without significance. To ignore them is to disregard the texts of the Constitution and of RA 7941. For, indeed, the very first of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party’s eight guidelines for screening party-list participants is this: the parties, sectors or organizations “must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941.”[19]

For this reason, I submit the majority’s decision is cryptic and wanting when it makes short shrift of the issue of whether petitioner is a marginalized and underrepresented sector in the following manner:

The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.

The resolution of petitions for accreditation in the party-list system on a case-to-case basis not tethered to the enumeration of the Constitution and of RA 7941 invites the exercise of unbridled discretion. Unless firmly anchored on the fundamental law and the implementing statute, the party-list system will be a ship floating aimlessly in the ocean of uncertainty, easily tossed by sudden waves of flux and tipped by shifting winds of change in societal attitudes towards certain groups. Surely, the Constitution and RA 7941 did not envision such kind of a system.

Indeed, the significance of the enumeration in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941 is clearly explained in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party:

x x x x x x x x x

The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the party-list system are enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941, which states:

While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association.[20] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

More importantly, in defining the concept of a “sectoral party,” Section 3(d) of RA 7941 limits “marginalized and underrepresented sectors” and expressly refers to the list in Section 5 thereof:

Section 3. Definition of Terms. — x x x

(d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector, x x x. (emphasis supplied)

Petitioner does not question the constitutionality of Sections 2, 3(d) and 5 of RA 7941. (Its charges of violation of non-establishment of religion, equal protection, free speech and free association are all leveled at the assailed resolutions of the Commission on Elections.) Thus, petitioner admits and accepts that its case must rise or fall based on the aforementioned provisions of RA 7941.

Following the texts of the Constitution and of RA 7941, and in accordance with established rules of statutory construction and the Court’s pronouncement in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, the meaning of “marginalized sectors” under the party list system is limited and qualified. Hence, other sectors that may qualify as marginalized and underrepresented should have a close connection to the sectors mentioned in the Constitution and in the law. In other words, the marginalized and underrepresented sectors qualified to participate in the party-list system refer only to the labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, professionals and other related or similar sectors.

This interpretation is faithful to and deeply rooted in the language of the fundamental law and of its implementing statute. It is coherent with the mandate of the Constitution that marginalized sectors qualified to participate in the party-list system but not mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VI are “such other sectors as may be provided by law” duly enacted by Congress. It is also consistent with the basic canon of statutory construction, ejusdem generis, which requires that a general word or phrase that follows an enumeration of particular and specific words of the same class, the general word or phrase should be construed to include, or to be restricted to persons, things or cases, akin to, resembling, or of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.[21] Moreover, it reins in the subjective elements of passion and prejudice that accompany discussions of issues with moral or religious implications as it avoids the need for complex balancing and undue policy-making.

What is the unifying thread that runs through the marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the party-list system? What are the family resemblances that would characterize them?[22]

Based on the language of the Constitution and of RA 7941 and considering the pronouncements of this Court in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and BANAT, the following factors are significant:

(a) they must be among, or closely connected with or similar to, the sectors mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941;

(b) they must be sectors whose interests are traditionally and historically regarded as vital to the national interest but they have long been relegated to the fringes of society and deprived of an opportunity to participate in the formulation of national policy;

(c) the vinculum that will establish the close connection with or similarity of sectors to those expressly mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 is a constitutional provision specifically recognizing the special significance of the said sectors (other than people’s organizations, unless such people’s organizations represent sectors mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941)[23] to the advancement of the national interest and

(d) while lacking in well-defined political constituencies, they must have regional or national presence to ensure that their interests and agenda will be beneficial not only to their respective sectors but, more importantly, to the nation as a whole.

For Purposes of the Party-List System,

Petitioner is Not a Marginalized Sector

In this case, petitioner asserts that it is entitled to accreditation as a marginalized and underrepresented sector under the party-list system. However, the Commission on Elections disagrees.

The majority reverses the Commission on Elections. While it focuses on the contentious issues of morality, religion, equal protection, and freedom of expression and association, by granting the petition, the majority effectively rules that petitioner is a qualified marginalized and underrepresented sector, thereby allowing its accreditation and participation in the party-list system.

I disagree.

Even assuming that petitioner was able to show that the community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals (LGBT) is underrepresented, it cannot be properly considered as marginalized under the party-list system. First, petitioner is not included in the sectors mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941. Unless an overly strained interpretation is resorted to, the LGBT sector cannot establish a close connection to any of the said sectors. Indeed, petitioner does not even try to show its link to any of the said sectors. Rather, it represents itself as an altogether distinct sector with its own peculiar interests and agenda.

Second, petitioner’s interest as a sector, which is basically the legal recognition of its members’ sexual orientation as a right, cannot be reasonably considered as an interest that is traditionally and historically considered as vital to national interest. At best, petitioner may cite an emergent awareness of the implications of sexual orientation on the national human rights agenda. However, an emergent awareness is but a confirmation of lack of traditional and historical recognition.[24] Moreover, even the majority admits that there is no “clear cut consensus favorable to gay rights claims.”[25]

Third, petitioner is cut off from the common constitutional thread that runs through the marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the party-list system. It lacks the vinculum, a constitutional bond, a provision in the fundamental law that specifically recognizes the LGBT sector as specially significant to the national interest. This standard, implied in BANAT, is required to create the necessary link of a particular sector to those sectors expressly mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941.

Finally, considering our history and tradition as a people, to consider the promotion of the LGBT agenda and “gay rights” as a national policy as beneficial to the nation as a whole is debatable at best. Even the majority (aside from extensively invoking foreign practice and international conventions rather than Philippine laws) states:

We do not suggest that public opinion, even at its most liberal, reflect a clear cut strong consensus favorable to gay rights claims….[26]

This is so unlike the significance of the interests of the sectors in Section 5 of RA 7941 which are, without doubt, indisputable.

Regardless of the personal beliefs and biases of its individual members, this Court can only apply and interpret the Constitution and the laws. Its power is not to create policy but to recognize, review or reverse the policy crafted by the political departments if and when a proper case is brought before it. Otherwise, it will tread on the dangerous grounds of judicial legislation.

In this instance, Congress, in the exercise of its authority under Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, enacted RA 7941. Sections 2, 3(d) and (5) of the said law instituted a policy when it enumerated certain sectors as qualified marginalized and underrepresented sectors under the party-list system. Respect for that policy and fidelity to the Court’s duty in our scheme of government require us to declare that only sectors expressly mentioned or closely related to those sectors mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 are qualified to participate in the party-list system. That is the tenor of the Court’s rulings in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and BANAT. As there is no strong reason for the Court to rule otherwise, stare decisis compels a similar conclusion in this case.

The Court is called upon to exercise judicial restraint in this case by strictly adhering to, rather than expanding, legislative policy on the matter of marginalized sectors as expressed in the enumeration in Section 5 of RA 7941. The Court has no power to amend and expand Sections 2, 3(d) and 5 of RA 7941 in the guise of interpretation. The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests the authority to determine “such other [marginalized] sectors” qualified to participate in the party-list system to Congress. Thus, until and unless Congress amends the law to include the LGBT and other sectors in the party-list system, deference to Congress’ determination on the matter is proper.

A Final Word

To be succinctly clear about it, I do not say that there is no truth to petitioner’s claim of discriminatory and oppressive acts against its members. I am in no position to make that claim. Nor do I claim that petitioner has no right to speak, to assemble or to access our political departments, particularly the legislature, to promote the interests of its constituency. Social perceptions of sexual and other moral issues may change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best.[27] But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing and insisting on a right to participate in the party-list system is something else. Considering the facts, the law and jurisprudence, petitioner cannot properly insist on its entitlement to use the party-list system as a vehicle for advancing its social and political agenda.

While bigotry, social stereotyping and other forms of discrimination must be given no place in a truly just, democratic and libertarian society, the party-list system has a well-defined purpose. The party-list system was not designed as a tool to advocate tolerance and acceptance of any and all socially misunderstood sectors. Rather, it is a platform for the realization of the aspirations of marginalized sectors whose interests are, by nature and history, also the nation’s but which interests have not been sufficiently brought to public attention because of these sectors’ underrepresentation.

Congress was given by the Constitution full discretion to determine what sectors may qualify as marginalized and underrepresented. The Court’s task is to respect that legislative determination by strictly adhering to it. If we effectively and unduly expand such congressional determination, we will be dabbling in policy-making, an act of political will and not of judicial judgment.

Accordingly, I respectfully vote to dismiss the petition.

RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice

[2] 412 Phil. 308 (2001).

[3] The Chief Justice’s stance is the official stance of the Court on the matter because majority of the members of the Court sided with him on the issue of disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list elections, directly or indirectly.

[4] G.R. No. 179271, 21 April 2009, 586 SCRA 210, 258-259.

[5] Section 18, Article II; Section 3, Article XIII.

[6] Section 21, Article II; Section 4, Article XIII.

[7] Section 9, Article II; Section 10, Article XIII.

[8] Section 22, Article II; Section 5, Article XII.

[9] Section 14, Article II; Section 14, Article XIII.

[10] Section 13, Article II; Section 3(2), Article XV.

[11] Section 7, Article XVI.

[12] Paragraph three of Section 2, Article XII, Section 7, Article XIII.

[13] Section 11, Article XIII.

[14] Sections 11 and 13 XIII.

[15] Section 18, Article II; Section 3, Article XIII.

[16] Section 14, Article XII.

[17] Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.83896, 22 February 1991, 194 SCRA 317, 337.

[18] See proviso of the first paragraph of Section 5, RA 7941.

[19] Supra note 2 at 342.

[21] Miranda v. Abaya, 370 Phil. 642, 658 (1999).

[22] The notion of family resemblances (familienähnlichkeit) was introduced by the leading analytic philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his book Philosophical Investigations. As used in this opinion, however, family resemblances specifically refer to the DNA, the basic component unit, that identifies a sector as a member of the family of marginalized and underrepresented sectors enumerated in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 5 of RA 7941.

[23] The reason behind this exception is obvious. If all people’s organizations are automatically considered as marginalized and underrepresented, then no sector or organization may be disqualified on the grounds of non-marginalization and lack of underrepresentation. The Court’s guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party would have been unnecessary after all and, worse, the constitutional requirement that the sectors qualified to participate in the party-list system be determined by law would have been merely superfluous and pointless.

[24] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), (Scalia, J., dissenting).

[27] Lawrence v. Texas, supra note 29 (J. Scalia, dissenting).