Scribd
Upload
90 views

Atung Paglaum Vs Comelec

1) 54 party-list groups filed petitions challenging their disqualification by the COMELEC from participating in the 2013 national elections. 2) The COMELEC used the criteria from previous cases (Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT) in disqualifying the petitioners. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC correctly followed precedent, but that certain criteria used for disqualification contradicted the Constitution and relevant laws. The Court provided clarified parameters for participation in future party-list elections.

Uploaded by

Melanie Rojo Boiser
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
90 views

Atung Paglaum Vs Comelec

1) 54 party-list groups filed petitions challenging their disqualification by the COMELEC from participating in the 2013 national elections. 2) The COMELEC used the criteria from previous cases (Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT) in disqualifying the petitioners. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC correctly followed precedent, but that certain criteria used for disqualification contradicted the Constitution and relevant laws. The Court provided clarified parameters for participation in future party-list elections.

Uploaded by

Melanie Rojo Boiser
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ADMIN AND ELECTION LAW – ASSIGNMENT MELANIE R.

BOISER

G.R. No. 203766               April 2, 2013

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot,  vs. COMELEC

FACTS:

These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition1 filed by 52


party-list groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating in the 13 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections?

RULING:

In disqualifying petitioners, the COMELEC used the criteria prescribed in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT.
Ang Bagong Bayani laid down the guidelines for qualifying those who desire to participate in the party-
list system.

We cannot, however, fault the COMELEC for following prevailing jurisprudence in disqualifying
petitioners. In following prevailing jurisprudence, the COMELEC could not have committed grave abuse
of discretion.

The court ruled that in determining who may participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent
party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to 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. 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.
ADMIN AND ELECTION LAW – ASSIGNMENT MELANIE R. BOISER

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 COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections those that did not
satisfy these two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral groups or organizations must represent
the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong to the
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. Petitioners may have been disqualified by
the COMELEC because as political or regional parties they are not organized along sectoral lines and do
not represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." Also, petitioners' nominees who do not belong
to the sectors they represent may have been disqualified, although they may have a track record of
advocacy for their sectors. Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties may have been disqualified
because they do not belong to any sector. Moreover, a party may have been disqualified because one or
more of its nominees failed to qualify, even if the party has at least one remaining qualified nominee. As
discussed above, the disqualification of petitioners, and their nominees, under such circumstances is
contrary to the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.

You might also like