Atong Paglaum v.

Commission on Elections

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 partylist 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 bodys 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.

THE RULING
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 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

(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/147589_decision.htm) and
BANAT

v.

Comelec

(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm).
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 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.