Atong Paglaum VS COMELEC

694 SCRA 477; 02 April 2013

Petitioner/s:
Respondent/s:
Doctrine:

Atong

Paglaum,
Inc.
Commission

and

51
on

other

party-list
groups
Elections

and

organizations
(COMELEC)

Nature of the case: Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition
Facts: 54 Petitions by 52 Petitioners assail the Resolutions issued by COMELEC disqualifying them from
participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the
party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list organizations; primarily for
not being qualified as representatives for marginalized or underrepresented sectors. Petitioners now allege that
COMELEC
committed
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
disqualifying
them.
Issue/s: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the said party-lists.
Held: NO. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT.
However, the Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the COMELEC as the Supreme Court now provides
for new guidelines which abandoned some principles established in the two aforestated cases. The new
guidelines are as follows:
I. Parameters. In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC must use the following parameters:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1)national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or
organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not
need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates
in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can
participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral
wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in well-defined political
constituencies. It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that
are marginalized and underrepresented include 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.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented must belong
to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or
organizations that lack well-defined political constituencies must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented, or that represent those who lack well-defined
political constituencies, either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective
sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided
that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are disallowed, as has always been the practice, from participating
in the party-list elections. But, since theres really no constitutional prohibition nor a statutory prohibition,
major political parties can now participate in the party-list system provided that they do so through their
bona fide sectoral wing.

Allowing major political parties to participate, although indirectly, in the party-list elections will
encourage them to work diligently in extending their constituencies to the marginalized and underrepresented
and to those who lack well-defined political constituencies.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave weight to the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission when they
were drafting the party-list system provision of the Constitution. The Commissioners deliberated that it was
their intention to include all parties into the party-list elections in order to develop a political system which is
pluralistic and multiparty. (In the BANAT case, Justice Puno emphasized that the will of the people should
defeat the intent of the framers; and that the intent of the people, in ratifying the 1987 Constitution, is that the
party-list system should be reserved for the marginalized sectors.)
III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list system is NOT RESERVED for the marginalized
and underrepresented or for parties who lack well-defined political constituencies. It is also for national or
regional parties. It is also for small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who lack well-defined political
constituencies. The common denominator however is that all of them cannot, they do not have the machinery
unlike major political parties, to field or sponsor candidates in the legislative districts but they can acquire the
needed votes in a national election system like the party-list system of elections.
If the party-list system is only reserved for marginalized representation, then the system itself unduly excludes
other cause-oriented groups from running for a seat in the lower house.
As explained by the Supreme Court, party-list representation should not be understood to include only labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and
other sectors that by their nature are economically at the margins of society. It should be noted that Section 5 of
Republic Act 7941 includes, among others, in its provision for sectoral representation groups of professionals,
which are not per se economically marginalized but are still qualified as marginalized, underrepresented, and
do not have well-defined political constituencies as they are ideologically marginalized.