Earlier today, the Commission en banc ruled against former Secretary Angelo Reyes’ eligibility to be the nominee of Party-List group 1UTAK.
The en banc held Reyes to be unqualified to represent 1UTAK because he does not belong to a marginalized or under-represented sector.
“We believe that Reyes is not qualified to become a nominee of 1-UTAK Party-list for the simple reason that he does not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector which 1-UTAK seeks to represent.”
Chairman Jose A.R. Melo and Commissioner Gregorio Y. Larrazabal joined Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento in the majority opinion.
In a separate concurring opinion, Commissioner Lucenito Tagle argues that because Reyes’ acts which Reyes claims tended to support the advocacy of 1UTAK were actually performed by him in his official capacity as a Cabinet Secretary, they could not be rightfully considered as being in furtherance of his membership in the PL group.
“Without any single activity engaged into by respondent as member of 1-UTAK, he failed to meet the requirement of bona fide membership as mandated by law. Consequently, he cannot qualify as 1-UTAK’s nominee.”
Now…
In the case of Mikey Arroyo, the majority opinion held that the nominee need not be a member of the marginalized or underrepresented sector himself; that it was enough for him to be a bona fide member of the PL group and that it was only the PL group which was required by law to represent the marginalized and underrepresented.
Dissenting were Commissioners Sarmiento and Larrazabal who both argued that the nominee himself should be a member of the marginalized and underrepresented sector.
Let’s visualize voting patterns, shall we?
The key here – and perhaps the most important reason why there appears now to be two conflicting decisions – is Commissioner Tagle’s vote.
In the case involving Arroyo, Commissioner Tagle essentially voted that the embattled nominee was, in fact, a bona fide member of the PL group that he wanted to represent. There was, therefore, no pronouncement on whether Mikey Arroyo was actually marginalized. Remember that the cornerstone of that ponencia was that the law required only the PL group to be marginalized or underrepresented.
In the subsequent case involving Reyes, Commissioner Tagle registered a NO-vote – and this is important – on the basis of the fact that Reyes was NOT a member of the PL Group he sought to represent. So again, there was no pronouncement as to Reyes being marginalized or underrepresented. Or not.
The other key element that made the Reyes decision possible was the entry of the Chairman’s vote. Normally, the Chairman will not vote on a case if there is no tie. In the earlier case, with Commissioners Ferrer, Tagle, Velasco, and Yusoph concurring, there was no tie, hence no need for the Chairman’s vote.
In the second case, however, Commissioner Tagle’s NO vote resulted in a tie. Sarmiento and Larrazabal – dissenters in the Arroyo case – added a third vote to their side balancing out the YES votes of Ferrer, Velasco, and Yusoph. The tie was then broken by the Chairman who sided with the NO votes.
It would seem, therefore, that there has been no clear cut ideological victory for either side, which makes me wonder how the two decisions will be harmonized. The fact is, the two cases might not be exactly the same since Reyes was found to be NOT a member of 1UTAK whereas Arroyo was apparently found to be a bona fide member of Ang Galing.
This razor thin distinction is probably going to shape up to be more significant than it might first appear. Remember, if only there had been no doubt about his membership in 1UTAK – note, membership in the group, not personal status as marginalized – then Reyes would have gotten all the YES votes he needed. There would have been no tie and the Chairman’s vote would not have been required to break that tie. The outcome would then have been identical to the Arroyo case: 4 in favor, 2 against; and one Abstention.