Document: Petition for Quo Warranto Vs. Jovito Palparan

CAUSES OF ACTION

I

RESPONDENT JOVITO S. PALPARAN, JR., A RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, IS INELIGIBLE TO BECOME A PARTY LIST NOMINEE AND REPRESENTATIVE BECAUSE HE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED SECTORS BANTAY PURPORTS TO REPRESENT. RESPONDENT ALSO COMMITTED GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST MARGINALIZED AND UNDERREPRESENTED SECTORS AND ORGANIZATIONS.

• 1. In several news reports, respondent Jovito Palparan has been quoted as saying that his Bantay Party-List purportedly represents victims of communist rebels, Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGUs), former rebels and security guards.

• 1. From respondent Palparan’s own admission, Bantay, which he seeks to represent in the House of Representatives, is a party-list that will supposedly represent the following sectors, namely, (1) victims of communist rebels, (2) Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGUs), (3) former rebels and (4) security guards.

• 1. Section 9 of R.A. 7941, or the Party-List Law provides that:

“Sec. 9. Qualification of Party-List Nominees. – No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.” [Emphasis supplied]

• 1. Relevantly, the Honorable Supreme Court, in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani – OFW Labor Party vs. Ang Bagong Bayani – OFW Labor Party Go! Go! Philippines, et al., has defined the qualification of a party-list nominee as above-quoted, and which is reiterated hereunder, thus:

““However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the marginalized and underrepresented, because it is easy to claim and 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, organization, or parties.” [Emphasis supplied]

• 1. In the same case, the Honorable Supreme Court came out with the “Guidelines in Screening Party-List Participants”, number seven of which states that:

“Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens “who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.” Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or the working class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine representation to the marginalized and underrepresented.”

• 1. The Honorable Supreme Court, in the recent case of Banat vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 179271, 21 April 2009], has reiterated the above-described qualification of a party-list representative, thus:

“Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list organization’s nominee “wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity” as there is no financial status required in the law. It is enough that the nominee of the sectoral party/organization/coalition belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, that is, if the nominee represents the fisherfolk, he or she must be a fisherfolk, or if the nominee represents the senior citizens, he or she must be a senior citizen.”[Emphasis supplied]

• 1. Verily, the Honorable Supreme Court could not be clearer as to the qualification of a party-list nominee, that is, he/she must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector he/she claims to represent.

• 1. In this wise, it must be emphasized that respondent Jovito S. Palparan, Jr., does not belong to the alleged marginalized and underrepresented sectors that he publicly pronounced to represent.

• 1. Respondent Jovito Palparan, Jr. is not an alleged victim of communist rebels, and neither is he a former rebel.

• 1. Furthermore, respondent is definitely not a security guard. In fact, several news reports indicate that he is a co-owner of the 24-Hour Security Agency, which figured in two mining disputes in the provinces of Bulacan and Zambales last year. As an owner of a security agency he certainly cannot claim to belong to underrepresented sector of private security guards.

• 1. Significantly, the Honorable Tribunal may well take judicial notice that members of the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) cannot participate in the party-list elections, it being a government-funded entity, pursuant to the “Guidelines for Screening Participants” enunciated by the Honorable Supreme Court in the Bagong Bayani case, to wit: