This case partially abandoned the rulings in Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC andBANAT vs COMELEC.

Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified by the Commission onElections in the May 2013 party-list elections for various reasons but primarily fornot being qualified as representatives for marginalized or underrepresented sectors.

Atong Paglaum et al then filed a petition for certiorari against COMELEC alleginggrave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in disqualifying them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion indisqualifying the said party-lists.

HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set in the cases of AngBagong Bayani and BAN AT. However, the Supreme Court remanded the cases backto the COMELEC as the Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines whichabandoned some principles established in the two aforestated cases. The newguidelines are as follows:

I. Parameters. In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC must use the followingparameters:

1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) nationalparties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoralparties or organizations.

2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do notneed 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 registerunder the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative districtelections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates inlegislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through itssectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. Thesectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to apolitical party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized andunderrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constituencies.” It isenough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest andconcerns of their sector. The sectors that are “marginalized andunderrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenouscultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectorsthat 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 representthe “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized andunderrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members ofsectoral 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 thatrepresent those who lack “well-defined political constituencies,” either mustbelong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy fortheir respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties ororganizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.

6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not bedisqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have atleast one nominee who remains qualified.

II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are disallowed, as has always beenthe practice, from participating in the party-list elections. But, since there’s really noconstitutional prohibition nor a statutory prohibition, major political parties can nowparticipate in the party-list system provided that they do so through theirbona fide sectoral wing (see parameter 3 above).

Allowing major political parties to participate, albeit indirectly, in the party-listelections will encourage them to work assiduously in extending their constituenciesto the “marginalized and underrepresented” and to those who “lack well-definedpolitical constituencies.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave weight to the deliberations of the ConstitutionalCommission when they were drafting the party-list system provision of theConstitution. The Commissioners deliberated that it was their intention to include allparties into the party-list elections in order to develop a political system which ispluralistic and multiparty. (In the BANAT case, Justice Puno emphasized that the willof the people should defeat the intent of the framers; and that the intent of thepeople, in ratifying the 1987 Constitution, is that the party-list system should bereserved for the marginalized sectors.)

III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list system is NOT RESERVEDfor the “marginalized and underrepresented” or for parties who lack “well-definedpolitical constituencies”. It is also for national or regional parties. It is also for smallideology-based and cause-oriented parties who lack “well-defined politicalconstituencies”. The common denominator however is that all of them cannot, theydo not have the machinery – unlike major political parties, to field or sponsorcandidates in the legislative districts but they can acquire the needed votes in anational election system like the party-list system of elections.

If the party-list system is only reserved for marginalized representation, then thesystem itself unduly excludes other cause-oriented groups from running for a seat inthe lower house.

As explained by the Supreme Court, party-list representation should not beunderstood to include only labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenouscultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other sectorsthat by their nature are economically at the margins of society. It should be notedthat Section 5 of Republic Act 7941 includes, among others, in its provision forsectoral representation groups of professionals, which are not per se economicallymarginalized but are still qualified as “marginalized, underrepresented, and do nothave well-defined political constituencies” as they are ideologically marginalized.