Atong Paglaum Inc. v.

COMELEC

G.R. No. 203766

April 2, 2013 

FACTS: 

In line with the then upcoming national elections in May 2013, approximately 280
groups and organizations manifested their desire to participate in the party-list elections.
However, 52 of these groups were subsequently disqualified by COMELEC, including some that
were duly registered and accredited as political parties. The reasons for their exclusion were
based on the contention that said groups failed to establish they were representatives of
marginalized and underrepresented sectors and that their nominees were indeed members of
the sectors they were seeking to represent. 

ISSUE:  WON COMELEC erred in disqualifying 52 party list groups from participating in the May
2013 elections. 

DECISION:

No. COMELEC merely followed existing jurisprudence set forth by the SC in its earlier rulings.
The Court provides a lengthy account of the history and dynamics of the party-list system as
embodied in the 1987 Constitution Section 5, Art. VI; Sections 7 and 8, Art. IX-C, and as
envisioned by the Framers, and institutes new guidelines to be used in resolving issues of
similar nature in the future. 

RATIO DECIDENDII:

The party list system was created 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.

Under the party-list system, all voters get to have two votes: one for their choice of legislative
district representative, and another for their choice of party-list representative. But under
sectoral representation, majority of the electorate will only have one vote, which is for their
choice of legislative district representative. In contrast, members of sectoral communities (e.g.
farmers, laborers, indigenous cultural communities, etc.) will have two votes: one for their
district representative and another for their choice of sectoral representative. In other words,
sectoral representation is discriminatory. The party-list system is open to both sectoral and
non-sectoral groups. The framers intended sectoral groups to constitute a part, but not the
entirety, of the party-list system.
As per Section 5(1) of Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, any of the following can take part
in party-list elections: national parties and organizations, regional parties and organizations,
and sectoral parties and organizations.  RA No. 7941, or the Party-List System Act provides a
more comprehensive look into the party list system. Art. 6 of RA No. 7941 identifies six grounds
for disqualification of a party-list group, and none of these grounds touches on the failure of a
party to represent the marginalized and underrepresented. For non-sectoral groups, it is
enough that its members are united in their cause or ideology. But for sectoral groups, a
majority of their members must come from marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
Section 5 of RA No. 7941 lists the following as marginalized and underrepresented sectors:
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans,
overseas workers, and other similar sectors. 

Major political parties may join in party-list elections but only through their sectoral
wings. The initial impression is that: (a) major political parties do not represent marginalized
and underrepresented sectors, and (b)  major political parties have well-defined constituencies.
However, the 1987 Constitution and RA No. 7941 allow them to participate in party-list
elections so as to encourage them to work assiduously in extending their constituencies to the
marginalized and underrepresented and those who lack well-defined constituencies. The
creation of sectoral wings is allowed as per Section 3 of RA No. 7941.

In BANAT v. COMELEC, the Court held that party-list nominees must come from the
sector they seek to represent. Thus, a party-list representing farmers should have farmer
nominees, too. This was one of COMELEC's bases in disqualifying the 52 petitioners. However,
the Court reverses its ruling in BANAT v. COMELEC by instituting new parameters, including the
guidelines for the choice of nominees. Under the new parameters, a nominee may either be a
member of the sector he seeks to represent or at the very least, should have a track record of
advocacy for such sector.

The Court remands the cases back to COMELEC to determine whether or not the 52
petitioners are qualified to participate in the May 2013 elections using the six parameters laid
down by the Court.