CASE 2013-0006: ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTION AND OTHER CASES (G.R. NO. 203766 ETC.

, 02 APRIL 2013, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECT/S: PARTY LIST (BRIEF TITLE: ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC) 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 party-list 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 partylist 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 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 partylist 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. My 2-cents Flip-flopped as it may have in the case of Atong Paglaum, I agree with the Supreme Court in this Decision. No less than the Constitution provides in Sec. 5(1), Art. VI that national, regional, and sectoral parties and organizations may participate in the party-list system a fact that may not be denied in spite of where public discourse and sentiment tend to sway in as far as the party-list system is concerned. If we want the party-list system to truly represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors and party-list groups to come from the non-traditional political parties, then what needs to be done is amend the law. The Supreme Court cannot go beyond its duty of interpreting the law and may not perform a constitutional function and mandate which is solely that of the legislative branch. Doing so would be tantamount to judicial legislation. I totally agree that allowing national and major political parties to participate in the party-list elections does not make any sense if there were no distinction or requirement that the marginalized and underrepresented should be the constituency. Why then create a separate system if it is, in fact, free for all? But this is an issue best left to Congress to resolve, heart-wrenching as this may sound to those whose desire is to provide a platform for a truly non-traditional mode of politics. For now, let us accept that we cannot go beyond what the law provides.