Atong Paglaum v.

Commission on Elections
April 9, 2013 by 1inareformina

The Decision courtesy of the Supreme Court website Background of the case 52 party-list groups and organizations filed separate petitions totaling 54 with the Supreme Court (SC in an effort to re!erse !arious resolutions by the Commission on "lections (Comelec dis#ualifying them from the $ay 2%&' party-list race( The Comelec) in its assailed resolutions issued in *ctober) +o!ember and December of 2%&2) 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 representati!e of the sector they intend to represent in Congress( /etitioners argued that the poll body committed gra!e abuse of discretion in denying some of the petitioners0 application for accreditation and cancelling the e1isting accreditation of the rest( They also lamented the poll body0s ,denial- to accord them due process in the e!aluation proceedings( The high court consolidated these cases2 Senior 3ssociate 4ustice 3ntonio Carpio was tas5ed as the $ember-in-charge of the case( Status #uo ante orders (S63* were issued in all 54 petitions which restored the status #uo prior to the dis#ualification of petitioners( 7owe!er) only '8 of the 52 petitioners or only 4& petitions were able to secure a mandatory in9unction) directing the Comelec to include their names in the printing of official ballots( THE RULING :n a Decision promulgated on 3pril 2) 2%&') the high court) through Carpio0s ponencia) ruled in fa!or of the 54 petitions and remanded these petitions to the Comelec( The party-list groups and organizations co!ered by the 4& petitions that obtained mandatory in9unction orders from the high court still stand a chance to ma5e it to the 2%&' partylist race as the high court ordered the poll body to determine ,whether petitioners are #ualified to register under the party-list system and to participate in the &' $ay 2%&' party-list elections- under the new parameters set forth in the Decision( The rest) meaning) the &' 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 $ay 2%&' elections(

The Decision) howe!er) clarified that the poll body may not be faulted for acting on the basis of pre!ious rulings (3ng ;agong ;ayani) ;3+3T 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 ay

!"#$ party%&ist race and su'se(uent party%&ist e&ections The Decision identified three groups that may participate in the party-list system< (& national parties or organizations) (2 regional parties or organizations) and (' sectoral parties or organizations( *n 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(03s for political parties) they may participate in the party-list race by registering under the party-list system and no longer field congressional candidates( These parties) if they field congressional candidates) howe!er) are not barred from participating in the partylist elections2 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- lin5ed to a political party through a coalition( The #uestion is< where does representation of ,marginalized and underrepresentedsectors 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 ,lac5ing well-defined political constituencies(- The high court went on to enumerate ,marginalized and underrepresented- sectors) as follows< labor) peasant) fisherfol5) urban poor) indigenous cultural communities) handicapped) !eterans) and o!erseas wor5ers( The sectors that lac5 ,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@ ma9ority of the members of the sectoral parties or organizationsA must belong to the =marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent(0- The same is true for those who lac5 ,well-defined political constituencies(3s for the nominees of these sectoral parties and organizations) the new guidelines pro!ide that they must either be members of the sector or ha!e a trac5 record of ad!ocacy for their sector( Should some of the nominees of these national) regional) and sectoral parties or organizations be dis#ualified) the party or organization itself will not be dis#ualified ,pro!ided that they ha!e at least one nominee who remains #ualified(The party%&ist system) according to the Decision 6uoting Christian $onsod) the main proponent of the party-list system) the high court stated that it is ,not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation(- The high court stressed that the framers of the &8BC Constitution did not intend to lea!e out ,non-sectoral parties- in the party-list system and e1clusi!ely limit it to sectoral groups( ,The framers intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part) but not the entirety) of the party-list systemA :n fact) the framers !oted down ) &8-22) a proposal to reser!e the party-list system e1clusi!ely to sectoral parties( ,There can be no doubt whatsoe!er that the framers of the &8BC Constitution e1pressly re9ected the proposal to ma5e the party-list system e1clusi!ely for sectoral parties only) and that they clearly intended the party-list system to include both sectoral and nonsectoral parties)- the Decision read( To amplify its position) the high court pointed out Sec( 5(& ) 3rt( D: of the &8BC Constitution) which states< Section 5. (1) The Hou e of !epre entati"e hall be compo e# of not more than t$o hun#re# an# fifty member , unle other$i e fi%e# by la$, $ho hall be electe# from le&i lati"e #i trict apportione# amon& the pro"ince , citie , an# the 'etropolitan 'anila area in accor#ance $ith the number of their re pecti"e inhabitant , an# on the ba i of a uniform an# pro&re i"e ratio, an# tho e $ho, a pro"i#e# by la$, hall be electe# throu&h a party(li t y tem of re&i tere# national, re&ional, an# ectoral partie or or&ani)ation . The Decision also pointed out pertinent pro!isions of Eepublic 3ct (E3 +o( C84&) also 5nown as the /arty-list System 3ct) specifically from Sec( ' (Definition of Terms <

(b) A party mean either a political party or a ectoral party or a coalition of partie (c) A political party refer to an or&ani)e# &roup of citi)en a#"ocatin& an i#eolo&y or platform, principle an# policie for the &eneral con#uct of &o"ernment an# $hich, a the mo t imme#iate mean of ecurin& their a#option, re&ularly nominate an# upport certain of it lea#er an# member a can#i#ate for public office (#) A ectoral party refer to an or&ani)e# &roup of citi)en belon&in& to any of the ector enumerate# in Section 5 hereof $ho e principal a#"ocacy pertain to the pecial intere t an# concern of their ector 3gain) 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( *re+ious ru&ings re+ersed 'y ,tong *ag&aum 3s earlier stated) there are pre!ious rulings on the party-list system in the case of 3ng ;agong ;ayani !( Comelec (http<..sc(9udiciary(go!(ph.9urisprudence.2%%&.9un2%%&.&4C5B8Fdecision(htm and ;3+3T !( Comelec (http<..sc(9udiciary(go!(ph.9urisprudence.2%%8.april2%%8.&C82C&(htm ( :n 3ng ;agong ;ayani0s parameters for the party-list system) guideline 2 states that ,while e!en ma9or political parties are e1pressly allowed by E3 C84& and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system) they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling =Gilipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectorsA to be elected to the 7ouse of Eepresentati!es(07owe!er) in its latest Decision) in 3tong /aglaum) the high court pointed out that there was an ,inherent inconsistency- in the 3ng ;agong ;ayani guidelines since the re#uirement that the ma9or political parties should represent the ,marginalized and underrepresented- sectors essentially ,automatically dis#ualified- these ma9or parties from the party-list system( 3s for ;3+3T) incidentally also penned by Carpio) the high court said that the guidelines in this ruling ,merely formalized the pre!ailing practice- when it prohibited ma9or political parties from participating in the party-list elections e!en if through their allied sectoral organizations( y !%cents Glip-flopped as it may ha!e in the case of 3tong /aglaum) : agree with the Supreme Court in this Decision( +o less than the Constitution pro!ides in Sec( 5(& ) 3rt( D: that ,national) regional) and sectoral parties and organizations- may participate in the partylist system H 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(

:f we want the party-list system to truly represent ,marginalized and underrepresentedsectors 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 legislati!e branch( Doing so would be tantamount to 9udicial legislation( : totally agree that allowing national and ma9or political parties to participate in the party-list elections does not ma5e any sense if there were no distinction or re#uirement that the ,marginalized and underrepresented- should be the constituency( Ihy then create a separate system if it is) in fact) free for all> ;ut this is an issue best left to Congress to resol!e) heart-wrenching as this may sound to those whose desire is to pro!ide a platform for a truly non-traditional mode of politics( Gor now) let us accept that we cannot go beyond what the law pro!ides(