Paglaum vs.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 203766 April 2, 2013
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent

In relation to Sec. 5(2) Article VI party-list system

FACTS:
Pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 7941 and COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531,
approximately 280 groups and organizations registered and manifested their desire to participate in
the 13 May 2013 party-list elections. Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified
(either by denial of their petitions for registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of
their registration and accreditation as party-list organizations) by the COMELEC in the 13 May 2013
party-list elections for various reasons but primarily for not being qualified as representatives for
marginalized or underrepresented sectors. Atong Paglaum et al then filed a petition for certiorari
against COMELEC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in disqualifying them.
The Supreme Court resolved to consolidate the 54 petitions in the Resolutions dated 13 November
2012, 20 November 2012, 27 November 2012, 4 December 2012, 11 December 2012, and 19
February 2013. 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.
Another argument of the petitioners was that whether the criteria for participating in the
party-list system laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani and Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on Elections (BANAT) should be applied by the
COMELEC in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
HELD:

NO. In a Decision promulgated on April 2, 2013, the high court, through Carpios 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 COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections those that
did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral groups or organizations
must represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong
to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. Petitioners may have been
disqualified by the COMELEC because as political or regional parties they are not organized along
sectoral lines and do not represent the "marginalized and underrepresented."
In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC must use the following parameters as set forth in the
Decision:
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 partylist 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.
This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its provisions faithfully, and desist
from engaging in socio-economic or political experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has
ordained. Judicial power does not include the power to re-write the Constitution. Thus, the present
petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC not because the COMELEC committed grave abuse
of discretion in disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may now possibly qualify to
participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed by
this Court.
Additional info:
All the 54 petitions were granted.
The COMELEC held that Atong Paglaums nominees do not belong to the sectors which the party represents, i.e.,
the urban poor, consumer, women and youth. While these include the women and youth sectors, five of the partys six
nominees are all male, and all of its nominees are above 30 years of age. Further, the COMELEC ruled that the personal
circumstances of the nominees belie the claim that they belong to the urban poor sector: (1) its first nominee served as
vice-president in a multinational corporation; (2) its second nominee is the owner of a corporation engaged in the business
of pineapple contract growing with Del Monte Philippines; (3) its third nominee is the owner and manager of two business
establishments; and (4) its sixth nominee is an electrical engineer and three-term member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod
of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. Finally, the COMELEC cited the partys failure to file its Statement of Contributions and
Expenditures when it participated in the 2010 Elections, despite having been ordered to do so during the summary
evidentiary hearing.
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 (see parameter 3
above). In Ang Bagong Bayanis 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 partylist 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.
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.