ATONG PAGLAUM v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 203766, etc. April 2, 2013 J. Carpio Cadorna
petitioners Madami mashado, basta iba-ibang party-list groups na nadisqualify kasi di daw sila marginalized
and underrepresented
responden COMELEC
ts
summary COMELEC disqualified a huge number of party-list groups who want to have a seat in the HOR via the party-
list system. The common reason for the said disqualification is that the said groups failed to show that they
represent the marginalized/underrepresented sectors. Thus, some of the said groups brought the instant
petition for certiorari and prohibition. SC held that COMELEC not in GAD in disqualifying petitioners
because in so doing, it was merely applying a long line of SC cases espousing the doctrines that only party-list
groups which represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors can participate in the party- list
system. Nevertheless, the SC overturned the COMELEC resolutions, in view of the new parameters that it is
now establishing with respect to determining the qualification of various groups into the party-list system. In
particular, the SC held that sectoral representation is not the be all and end all of the party-list system, since
the latter can also include political parties, whose members need not necessarily be marginalized or
underrepresented. In effect, the SC abandoned the old criteria and shifted to a new one which distinguishes
between political and sectoral parties, and lays down the circumstances where the requirement of representing
the marginalized and underrepresented may only be applied.

facts of the case (maiksi lang talaga yung facts; mahaba lang yung case dahil sa table showing why the
different party-list groups, around 280 sila, were disqualified pero halos same lang yung grounds for disqualification )
This case is a consolidation of 54 petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed by 52 party-list groups and
organizations assailing various COMELEC Resolutions disqualifying them from participating in the May 2013
elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the party-list system, or by cancellation of
their existing registration and accreditation.
Essentially, the disqualification was due to the failure of the said groups to show that they represent the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, as allegedly required under Sec. 5, Art. VI of the 1987
Constitution1 based on prevailing jurisprudence (Ang Bagong Bayani, Banat).

issue
WON COMELEC committed GAD in issuing the Resolutions – NO. Sinunod lang nila prevailing
jurisprudence.
WON the rule that only party-list groups representing the marginalized and underrepresented should be
allowed to enter the party-list system is still good law – NO. Iba ang political parties sa sectoral parties
(former can also join party-list system even if not marginalized/underrepresented).

ratio

WRT COMELEC GAD

COMELEC didn’t commit GAD because it only followed prevailing SC decisions, the criteria set by which
would naturally lead to the disqualification of the petitioners. However, the SC still overturned the COMELEC
Reso’s because it is now adopting new parameters in the qualification of national, regional, and sectoral parties
1(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.

(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the
party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-
list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the
religious sector.
1
under the party-list system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied by the COMELEC in
disqualifying petitioners. For this reason, the SC relaxed the rule that certiorari can only be availed of upon the
showing of GAD, and REMANDED the case to the COMELEC for it to determine petitioners’ qualifications
based on the new parameters.

WRT QUALIFICATION RULE FOR PARTY-LIST GROUPS IN THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM

Rationale behind the party-list system

The SC looked at the legislative history behind the party-list system and found that the intent of the
framers was really to distinguish between political parties and sectoral parties, such that the previous
decisions equating the party-list system to sectoral representation is in effect erroneous, as sectoral parties only
form part of the party-list system.
Based on the deliberations of the ConCom, particularly the statements of Commissioner Monsod who
sponsored the party-list system, the purpose of the party-list system is to open the political system to a
pluralistic society through a multiparty system. This cannot be achieved by limiting the party-list system
merely to sectoral party-lists. In fact, the framers voted down, 19-22, a proposal to reserve permanent seats to
sectoral parties in the HOR, or alternatively, to reserve the party-list system exclusively to sectoral parties, as
this could actually lead to stunting said parties’ development into full-pledged parties equipped with electoral
machinery potent enough to further the sectoral interests to be represented. As a compromise however, one-
half of seats for party-list representatives were reserved for sectoral parties from the labor, peasant, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, but
only for the first three consecutive terms after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.

Constitutional and statutory bases showing intent to differentiate between political and sectoral parties
1. Sec. 5(1), Art. VI of the Constitution: states that there shall be “a party-list system of registered national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations”
- The commas after the words “national,” and “regional,” separate national and regional parties from
sectoral parties. Had the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended national and regional parties to
be at the same time sectoral, they would have stated “national and regional sectoral parties.”
- This shows the clear intent of the framers to include in the party-list system both sectoral and non-
sectoral parties.
- Thus, the party-list system is composed of three different groups:
(1) national parties or organizations;
(2) regional parties or organizations; and
(3) sectoral parties or organizations.
- National and regional parties or organizations are different from sectoral parties or organizations.
National and regional parties or organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines and need
not represent any particular sector.
2. Sec. 5(2), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution - mandates that, during the first three consecutive terms of
Congress after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, “one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
provided by law, except the religious sector.”
- This provision clearly shows that the party-list system is not exclusively for sectoral parties for two
obvious reasons:
o The other one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives would naturally be
open to non-sectoral party-list representatives, clearly negating the idea that the party-list
system is exclusively for sectoral parties representing the “marginalized and
underrepresented.”

2
 o The reservation applies only for the first “three consecutive terms after the ratification of
this Constitution,” clearly making the party-list system fully open after the end of the first
three congressional terms.
3. Under RA 7941 or the Party-List System Act, which is the implementing law of the party-list system in
the Constitution, political parties and sectoral parties are treated differently and have different
definitions.
a. Political parties - can either be national or regional; 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.
b. Sectoral parties - organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Sec.
5 of the said law whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their
sector.
- Clearly, RA 7941 provides for different definitions for a political and a sectoral party, making it
obvious that they are separate and distinct from each other.
- Further, RA 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented” sectors. It is sufficient that the political party consists of
citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same governance principles and
policies, regardless of their economic status as citizens.
Nevertheless, sectoral and non-sectoral parties (ie. political parties) have a common denominator: they
cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the
same number of votes that winning candidates can garner in legislative district elections. The party-list system
will be the entry point to membership in the House of Representatives for both these non-traditional parties
that could not compete in legislative district elections.

Non-sectoral/political parties, as well as certain sectoral parties, need not represent marginalized and underrepresented
sectors
1. A reading of Sec. 5 or RA 7941, which lists the sectors to be represented by sectoral parties, would
show that not all of them are necessarily marginalized or underrepresented. For sure it lists the labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans and overseas
workers as sectors, but along the same line, it also lists professionals, the elderly, women and youth,
which are not, by their nature “marginalized and underrepresented.”
2. Sec. 6 of RA 7941, which contains the grounds for refusal/cancellation of registration of party-list
groups, does not include non-representation of the marginalized and underrepresented as among
the grounds for such refusal or cancellation. Clearly then, the law does not require national or
regional parties, as well as certain sectoral parties in Sec. 5 of RA 7941, to represent the “marginalized
and underrepresented.”
3. The phrase “marginalized and underrepresented” appears only once in RA 7941, in Sec. 2 on
Declaration of Policy. The proper way to interpret this phrase, so as not to render Sec. 2 of RA 7941
violative of the Constitution or inconsistent with the other provisions of the said law, is to limit it to
the sectors listed in Sec. 5 of RA 7941 which are, by their nature, economically “marginalized and
underrepresented:”
o Labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,
veterans, overseas workers, and other similar sectors.
o For these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party must belong to the
“marginalized and underrepresented.” The nominees of the sectoral party either must
belong to the sector, or must have a track record of advocacy for the sector represented.
- The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral parties consisting of
professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, need not be “marginalized and

3
 underrepresented” will allow small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who lack “well-
defined political constituencies” a chance to win seats in the HOR.
- This interpretation will harmonize the 1987 Constitution and RA 7941, and will give rise to a multi-
party system where those “marginalized and underrepresented,” both in economic and
ideological status, will have the opportunity to send their own members to the HOR.

Major political parties can also join the party-list system, but only through their sectoral wing
The major political parties are those that field candidates in the legislative district elections. They cannot
participate in the party-list elections since they neither lack “well-defined political constituencies” nor
represent “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors. In fact, Sec. 11 of RA 7941 expressly prohibited the
first 5 major political parties on the basis of party representation in the HOR at the start of the Tenth Congress
from participating in the May 1988 party-list elections. However, this prohibition no longer applies since it was
limited to the 1988 party-list elections.
Nevertheless, major political parties should participate in party-list elections only through their sectoral
wings. The participation of major political parties through their sectoral wings, a majority of whose members
are “marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constituencies,” will facilitate
the entry of the “marginalized and underrepresented’ and those who “lack well-defined political
constituencies” as members of the HOR. Such sectoral wing must in itself be an independent sectoral party,
linked to a major political party through a coalition, as allowed under Sec. 3 of RA 7941.

New paramaters to be observed in determining the qualification of national, regional, and sectoral parties
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system:
a. national parties or organizations;
b. regional parties or organizations; and
c. sectoral parties or organizations.
2. A and B, which are political parties, do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to
represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector.
3. A and B can participate in party-list elections:
a. By themselves, if they register under the party-list system, do not field candidates in legislative
district elections, and are not major political parties; or
b. By their sectoral wing, if they are major political parties, or if they field candidate in legislative
district elections, whether they are major or not.
o The sectoral wing can separately register under the party-list system, and is by itself an
independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
4. C may either be:
a. Marginalized and underrepresented - labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers.
b. Lacking in well-defined political constituencies - professionals, the elderly, women, and the
youth.
5. A majority of the members of C that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong
to the said sector, while a majority of the members of C that lack “well-defined political constituencies”
must belong to the sector they represent. For nominees:
a. Nominees of A and B - bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
b. Nominees of C - must either:
o Belong to their respective sectors (marginalized and underrepresented or lack “well-defined
political constituencies”), or
o Have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors.
6. A, B, and C shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have
at least one nominee who remains qualified.