ATONG PAGLAUM vs COMELEC
A political party,
FACTS:
52 party-list groups and organizations
filed separate petitions totaling 54 with the
Supreme Court in an effort to reverse various
resolutions by the COMELEC disqualifying them
from the May 2013 party-list elections, either by
denial of their petitions for registration under the
party-list system, or cancellation of their
registration and accreditation as party-list
organizations.
The COMELEC, in its assailed resolutions
issued in October, November and December of
2012, ruled 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC committed
grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the said
party-lists from participating in the elections.
RULING:
No. The COMELEC merely followed the
guidelines set in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani
and BANAT. However, the Supreme Court
remanded the cases back to the COMELEC as the
Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines
which abandoned some principles established in
the two cases. The new guidelines are as follows:
In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC
must use the following 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.
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.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that
the party-list system is NOT RESERVED for the
“marginalized and underrepresented” or for
parties who lack “well-defined political
constituencies”. It is also for national or regional
parties. It is also for small ideology-based and
cause-oriented parties who lack “well-defined
political constituencies”. The common
denominator however is that all of them cannot,
they do not have the machinery – unlike major
political parties, to field or sponsor candidates in
the legislative districts but they can acquire the
needed votes in a national election system like the
party-list system of elections.
If the party-list system is only reserved for
marginalized representation, then the system itself
unduly excludes other cause-oriented groups from
running for a seat in the lower house.
As explained by the Supreme Court, party-
list representation should not be understood to
include only labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,
veterans, overseas workers, and other sectors that
by their nature are economically at the margins of
society. It should be noted that Section 5 of
Republic Act 7941 includes, among others, in its
provision for sectoral representation groups of
professionals, which are not per se economically
marginalized but are still qualified as
“marginalized, underrepresented, and do not have
well-defined political constituencies” as they are
ideologically marginalized

1) In the event that the HRET would conclude

that terrorism indeed existed in the said
precincts, then it could annul the election
results in the said precincts to the extent of
deducting the votes received by Daza and
Abayon in order to remain faithful to its
constitutional mandate to determine who
among the candidates received the
majority of the valid votes cast.