ATONG PAGLAUM vs.

COMELEC

Doctrine: This Court has modified to a great extent the jurisprudential doctrines on
who may register under the party-list system and the representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented. For purposes of registration under the party-list
system, national or regional parties or organizations need not represent any
marginalized and underrepresented sector; that representation of the marginalized
and underrepresented is only required of sectoral organizations that represent the
sectors stated under Section 5 of R.A. 7941 that are, by their nature, economically
marginalized and underrepresented.

Indeed, it is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. Otherwise stated, it is sufficient that the ideals represented
by the sectoral organizations are geared towards the cause of the sector/s, which they
represent. If at all, the evidence showing a track record in representing the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors is only required from nominees of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented who do
not factually belong to the sector represented by their organization.

FACTS:

These consolidated petitions were filed by 52 party-lists groups assailing the

resolution issued by the COMELEC disqualifying them from participating in the May
2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their new petitions for registration under
the party-list system, or by cancellation of their existing registration and accreditation
as party-list organizations.

In a Resolution dated 5 December 2012, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the

COMELEC Second Division’s resolution to grant Partido ng Bayan ng Bida’s (PBB)
registration and accreditation as a political party in the National Capital Region.
However, PBB was denied participation in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections because
PBB does not represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. 13 petitioners
were not able to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court.

The COMELEC, on 7 January 2013 issued Resolution No. 9604, and excluded the
names of these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the 13 May 2013
party-list elections. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC
En Banc scheduled summary evidentiary hearings to determine whether the groups
and organizations that filed manifestations of intent to participate in the 13 May 2013
party-list elections have continually complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 7941
and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC (Ang Bagong Bayani), which
COMELEC later disqualified several groups. 39 petitioners were able to secure a
mandatory injunction from this Court, directing the COMELEC to include the names
of these 39 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the 13 May 2013 party-
list elections. Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction. This Court issued Status Quo Ante Orders in all
petitions.

ISSUE:
WON the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid down in Ang Bagong
Bayani vs. Comelec (BANAT case) should be applied by the COMELEC in the coming
May 2013 party-list elections.

Held:

Comelec could not have committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the
petitioners following the doctrines laid down in Banat v. COMELEC. However,
for the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections, this court provides new
parameters in determining who are qualified to participate in the party-list
elections.

The present petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC not because the
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioners, but
because petitioners may now possibly qualify to participate in the coming 13 May
2013 party-list elections under the following new 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. A
political party, 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.

Banat v. Comelec, G.R. Nos 179271 and 179295, July 8, 2009

Facts:

COMELEC applied the Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC formula (aka

Panganiban formula or First Party Rule) upon the completion of the canvass and
party-list results, thereby proclaiming 15 party-lists to have obtained 21 seats in
Congress.

In this case, BUHAY has the most number of votes (1,178,747, which is 7.2% of the
total votes for the party-list system). Therefore, BUHAY is the “first party” according to
Veterans and CIBAC. With 7.2% votes, it is entitled to 2 additional seats according to
Veterans formula for allocating additional seats for the first party. Other parties
entitled to additional seats follow a different formula, based on number of additional
seats allocated to first party

Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed a

petition to proclaim the full number of party-list representatives (all 55 seats have to
be proclaimed) provided by the Constitution before the COMELEC en banc. The
COMELEC denied the said petition, stating that it had already become moot and
academic.

Doctrine/Ruling:

Party List System- Four Inviolable Parameters

1. Twenty percent of the total number of the membership of the HoR is the
maximum number of seats available to party-list organizations, such that there
is automatically one party-list seat for every four existing legislative district;

Note Formula for 20%:

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦 − 𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠

Number of Seats available to legislative districts
= 𝑥 .20
0.80

2. Garnering two percent (2%) of the total votes cast in the party-list elections
guarantees a party-list organization one seat. The guaranteed seats shall be
distributed in the first round of seat allocation to parties receiving atleast two
percent (2%) of the total party-list votes;

Note Allocation of First Round:

(a) The parties shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of
votes they garnered during the elections.
(b) The parties receiving at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list
system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.

(c) Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision in RA 7941 allowing
for a rounding off of fractional seats.

3. The additional seats, that is, the remaining seats after allocation of the
guaranteed seats, shall be distributed to the party-list organizations including
those that received less than two (2%) of the total votes.

Note Allocation of Second Round:

(d) The remaining available seats for allocation as ‘additional seats’ are the maximum
seats reserved under the Party List System (20 percent ceiling) less the guaranteed or
qualified seats.

(e) First, The percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate is multiplied by
the remaining available seats. The resulting number (integer only, no rounding up)
corresponds to a party's share in the remaining available seats.

(f) Second, one party-list seat is assigned to each of the parties next in rank until all
available seats are completely distributed.

(g) Finally, apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each qualified
party-list candidate is entitled.

4. The 3-seat cap is constitution. The 3-seat cap is intended by the Legislature to
prevent any party from dominating the party-list system. There is no violation of
the Constitution because the 1987 Constitution does not require absolute
proportionality for the party-list system. The well-settled rule is that courts will
not question the wisdom of the Legislature so long as it is not violative of the
Constitution: