1.

There is a massive disinformation about the true nature of the party-list

system by some groups who are motivated not by their adherence to the
rule of law, but by their mistaken conviction that the party-list system is
their personal dominion and not open to other groups which have contrary
beliefs, ideologies and programs of action.

2. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, Your Honors.

3. To borrow the words of Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, It is not

necessary that the party-list organization’s nominee ‘wallow in poverty,
destitution and infirmity' as there is no financial status required by the law.

4. What the Constitution and the Party-list law intended to uphold is to have a
system of proportional representation open to various kinds of groups and
parties, and not an exercise exclusive to the so-called marginalized sectors.

5. In the 2013 case of Atong Paglaom vs Comelec, the court ruled that the
nominees must either belong to their respective sectors, or must have a
track record of advocacy for their respective sectors.

6. Considering the Constitution’s solicitous concern for the marginalized and

under-represented sectors as understood in the social justice context, and
RA 7941’s requirement of mere bona fide membership of a nominee in the
party-list group, a nominee who does not actually possess the marginalized
and underrepresented status represented by the party-list group but
proves to be a genuine advocate of the interest and concern of the
marginalized and underrepresented sector represented is still qualified to
be a nominee.

7. Your Honors, this has been highlighted in the seventh Ang Bagong Bayani
guideline, that is, that the nominees must also represent the marginalized
and underrepresented sectors – refers not only to the actual possession of
the marginalized and underrepresented status represented by the sectoral
 party or organization but also to one who genuinely advocates the interest
or concern of the marginalized and underrepresented sector represented
by the sectoral party or organization.

8. As explained by Justice Reyes in the case of Atong Paglaom v Comelec in his

concurring opinion, aside from the qualifications similarly required of
candidates seeking to represent their respective districts, the nominee is
required to be a bona fide member of the party, a status he acquires when
he enters into the membership of the organization for at least ninety (90)
days before the election. From that point in time when the person acquires
the status of being a bona fide member, he becomes one "belonging to the
marginalized and underrepresented sector.

9. We in the negative humbly submits our concession backed up by law and

jurisprudence that the foregoing interpretation accommodate two types of
nominees:

a. One who actually shares the attribute or characteristic which makes

the sector marginalized or underrepresented; and

b. An advocate or one who is genuinely and actively promoting the

causes of the sector he wishes to represent.

10. Your honors, the burden to prove their track record is already heavy for
the nominees as enumerated in the case of Lokin vs Comelec, to deny them
of their right is not only feeble and misplaced but an outright violation.

11.The language of the law is clear and unambiguous; it must be given its plain
and literal meaning.

12. And that I end my speech. Thank you!