ATONG PAGLAUM vs COMELEC

FACTS:

Background of the case

52 party-list groups and organizations filed separate petitions totaling 54 with the Supreme Court (SC) in
an effort to reverse various resolutions by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) disqualifying them
from the May 2013 party-list race. The Comelec, in its assailed resolutions issued in October, November
and December of 2012, ruled, among others, that these party-list groups and organizations failed to
represent a “marginalized and underrepresented sector,” their nominees do not come from a
“marginalized and underrepresented sector,” and/or some of the organizations or groups are not truly
representative of the sector they intend to represent in Congress.

Petitioners argued that the poll body committed grave abuse of discretion in denying some of the
petitioners’ application for accreditation and cancelling the existing accreditation of the rest. They also
lamented the poll body’s “denial” to accord them due process in the evaluation proceedings.

The high court consolidated these cases; Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio was tasked as the
Member-in-charge of the case.

Status quo ante orders (SQAO) were issued in all 54 petitions which restored the status quo prior to the
disqualification of petitioners. However, only 39 of the 52 petitioners or only 41 petitions were able to
secure a mandatory injunction, directing the COMELEC to include their names in the printing of official
ballots.

ISSUE:

Whether or not COMELEC committ ed grave abuse of discreti on in following prevailing

decisions of this court in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the coming 13 may 2013 party-
list elections

HELD:

SC held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following prevailing decisions of
this court in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
However, since the court adopts in this decision new parameters in the qualification of national,
regional, and sectoral parties under the party-list system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the
decisions applied by the COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, we remand to all the present petitions for
the COMELEC to determine who are qualifi ed to register under the party-list system, and to
parti cipate in the coming 13 may 2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters
prescribed in this decision.

What is the objective of the party list system under the 1987 constitution?

To democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a
chance to win seats in the House of Representatives.
Political parties can participate in the party-list system “for as long as they filed candidates who come
from the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this constitution.”

Who are included in the party list system?

Sectoral and Non-sectoral parties.

Three different groups: (1) national parties or organizations; ( 2 ) regional parties or organizations;
a n d ( 3 ) sectoral parti es or organizations

What is the proof that the party list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties?
Section 5(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution - Mandates that, during the first three consecutive terms
of congress after the ratification of the 1987 constitution, “one-half of the seats allocated to party-
list representati ves shall be fi lled, as provided by law, by selecti on or electi on 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.”

THE RULING

In a Decision promulgated on April 2, 2013, the high court, through Carpio’s ponencia, ruled in favor of
the 54 petitions and remanded these petitions to the Comelec. The party-list groups and organizations
covered by the 41 petitions that obtained mandatory injunction orders from the high court still stand a
chance to make it to the 2013 party-list race as the high court ordered the poll body to determine
“whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-list system and to participate in the 13
May 2013 party-list elections” under the new parameters set forth in the Decision. The rest, meaning,
the 13 other petitions, were remanded to the poll body merely for purposes of determining whether
they may be granted accreditation under the new parameters but may not participate in the May 2013
elections.
The Decision, however, clarified that the poll body may not be faulted for acting on the basis of previous
rulings (Ang Bagong Bayani, BANAT) of the high court regarding the party-list system. These earlier
rulings enumerated guidelines on who may participate in the party-list system.

New parameters set forth in the Decision on who may participate in the May 2013 party-list race and
subsequent party-list elections

The Decision identified three groups that may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or
organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.

On the part of national parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations which intend to
participate in the party-list race, the new guidelines state that these parties “do not need to organize
along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any ‘marginalized or underrepresented sector.'”

As for political parties, they may participate in the party-list race by registering under the party-list
system and no longer field congressional candidates. These parties, if they field congressional
candidates, however, are not barred from participating in the party-list elections; what they need to do
is register their sectoral wing or party under the party-list system. This sectoral wing shall be considered
an “independent sectoral party” linked to a political party through a coalition.

The question is: where does representation of “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors come in?

The answer: on the sectoral parties or organizations that intend to participate in the party-list system.
The high court held that purely sectoral parties or organizations may either represent “marginalized and
underrepresented” constituencies or those “lacking well-defined political constituencies.” The high court
went on to enumerate “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors, as follows: labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers.
The sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies” include professionals, the elderly, women,
and the youth.

The rule on nominees and members coming from the sector they intend to represent also applies only
to the sectoral parties or organizations. The high court ruled that it is enough that “[a] majority of the
members of the sectoral parties or organizations… must belong to the ‘marginalized and
underrepresented sector they represent.'” The same is true for those who lack “well-defined political
constituencies.”

As for the nominees of these sectoral parties and organizations, the new guidelines provide that they
must either be members of the sector or have a track record of advocacy for their sector.
Should some of the nominees of these national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations be
disqualified, the party or organization itself will not be disqualified “provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified.”

The party-list system, according to the Decision

Quoting Christian Monsod, the main proponent of the party-list system, the high court stated that it is
“not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation.” The high court stressed that the framers of
the 1987 Constitution did not intend to leave out “non-sectoral parties” in the party-list system and
exclusively limit it to sectoral groups.

“The framers intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the party-list
system… In fact, the framers voted down, 19-22, a proposal to reserve the party-list system exclusively
to sectoral parties.

“There can be no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the 1987 Constitution expressly rejected the
proposal to make the party-list system  exclusively for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly
intended the party-list system to include both sectoral and non-sectoral parties,” the Decision read.

To amplify its position, the high court pointed out Sec. 5(1), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which
states:

Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided
by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties
or organizations.

The Decision also pointed out pertinent provisions of Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, also known as the
Party-list System Act, specifically from Sec. 3 (Definition of Terms):

(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties
(c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles
and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing
their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for
public office
(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
Again, the high court noted that defining these parties or groups, one from the others, could only mean
that they are not one and the same.

Previous rulings reversed by Atong Paglaum

As earlier stated, there are previous rulings on the party-list system in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani v.
Comelec

BANAT v. Comelec

In Ang Bagong Bayani’s parameters for the party-list system, guideline 2 states that “while even major
political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list
system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling ‘Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors… to be elected to the House of Representatives.'”

However, in its latest Decision, in Atong Paglaum, the high court pointed out that there was an
“inherent inconsistency” in the Ang Bagong Bayani guidelines since the requirement that the major
political parties should represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors essentially
“automatically disqualified” these major parties from the party-list system.

As for BANAT, incidentally also penned by Carpio, the high court said that the guidelines in this ruling
“merely formalized the prevailing practice” when it prohibited major political parties from participating
in the party-list elections even if through their allied sectoral organizations.