Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 203766)

 

Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 203766)

April 2, 2013 | G.R. No. 203766

 

Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other disqualified party list groups, petitioners

COMELEC, respondent

 

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: 

 

Whether or not COMELEC erred in disqualifying 52 party list groups from participating in the May 2013 elections. 

 

HELD:

 

No, what COMELEC did was merely follow existing jurisprudence set forth by the SC in its earlier rulings. So for purposes of setting uniform standards and understanding of the party-list system in the Philippines, the Court provides a lengthy account of the history and dynamics of the party-list system as embodied in the 1987 Constitution and as envisioned by the Framers, and institutes new guidelines to be used in resolving issues of similar nature in the future. 

 

Q: Where can the party-list system be found in the 1987 Constitution? 

A: Section 5, Art. VI; Sections 7 and 8, Art. IX-C

 

Q: What is the rationale behind the party-list system?

A: 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.

 

Q: Is the party-list system synonymous with sectoral representation?

A: No. 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 communitoes, 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.

 

Q: Is the party-list system exclusive to sectoral parties?

A: No. 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.

 

Q: Who can participate in party-list elections?

A: 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.  

 

Q: What is the enabling law of the party-list system?

A: RA No. 7941, or the Party-List System Act.

 

Q: Do party-list groups need to represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors?

A: No. 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.

 

Q: What are the marginalized and underrepresented sectors?

A: 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. 

 

Q: Can major political parties join in party-list elections?

A: Yes, 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.

 

Q: Should party-list nominees be part of the sector they seek to represent?

A: 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.

 

Q: What are the new parameters that party-list groups should adhere to according to the Court in the instant case?

A: The Court enumerated six 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.

Q: What is the final ruling of the Court in this case?

A: 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.