Free Essay

Earl

In:

Submitted By mrdubsterek9
Words 9621
Pages 39
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 179271 April 21, 2009
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (sitting as the National Board of Canvassers), Respondent.
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS, Intervenor.
AANGAT TAYO, Intervenor.
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR CITIZENS),Intervenor. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 179295 April 21, 2009
BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR TEACHER EMPOWERMENT THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION AND HARMONY TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., and ABONO, Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Petitioner in G.R. No. 179271 — Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) — in a petition for certiorari and mandamus,1 assails the Resolution2 promulgated on 3 August 2007 by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). The COMELEC’s resolution in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) approved the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Legal Group, to deny the petition of BANAT for being moot. BANAT filed before the COMELEC En Banc, acting as NBC, a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution.
The following are intervenors in G.R. No. 179271: Arts Business and Science Professionals (ABS), Aangat Tayo (AT), and Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizens).
Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295 — Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms (A Teacher) — in a petition for certiorari with mandamus and prohibition,3 assails NBC Resolution No. 07-604 promulgated on 9 July 2007. NBC No. 07-60 made a partial proclamation of parties, organizations and coalitions that obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party-List System. The COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC5 (Veterans).
Estrella DL Santos, in her capacity as President and First Nominee of the Veterans Freedom Party, filed a motion to intervene in both G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295.
The Facts
The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties under the Party-List System.6
On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-041 (PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because "[t]he Chairman and the Members of the [COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papers that the [COMELEC] is duty bound to and shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party-list seats."7 There were no intervenors in BANAT’s petition before the NBC. BANAT filed a memorandum on 19 July 2007.
On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60. NBC Resolution No. 07-60 proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as winners in the party-list elections, namely: Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), Gabriela’s Women Party (Gabriela), Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan! Citizen’s Action Party (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL), Cooperative-Natco Network Party (COOP-NATCCO), Anak Pawis, Alliance of Rural Concerns (ARC), and Abono. We quote NBC Resolution No. 07-60 in its entirety below:
WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections sitting en banc as National Board of Canvassers, thru its Sub-Committee for Party-List, as of 03 July 2007, had officially canvassed, in open and public proceedings, a total of fifteen million two hundred eighty three thousand six hundred fifty-nine (15,283,659) votes under the Party-List System of Representation, in connection with the National and Local Elections conducted last 14 May 2007;
WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation Groups of the National Board of Canvassers reveals that the projected/maximum total party-list votes cannot go any higher than sixteen million seven hundred twenty three thousand one hundred twenty-one (16,723,121) votes given the following statistical data:
Projected/Maximum Party-List Votes for May 2007 Elections
|i. |Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated |15,283,659 |
|ii. |Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/ untabulated (i.e. canvass |1,337,032 |
| |deferred) | |
|iii. |Maximum party-list votes (based on 100% outcome) from areas not yet |102,430 |
| |submitted for canvass (Bogo, Cebu; Bais City; Pantar, Lanao del Norte; and | |
| |Pagalungan, Maguindanao) | |
| |Maximum Total Party-List Votes |16,723,121 |

WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) provides in part:
The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each: provided, that those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: provided, finally, that each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based on the above projected total of party-list votes, the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold can be pegged at three hundred thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes;
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, in Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its ruling in Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC adopting a formula for the additional seats of each party, organization or coalition receving more than the required two percent (2%) votes, stating that the same shall be determined only after all party-list ballots have been completely canvassed;
WHEREAS, the parties, organizations, and coalitions that have thus far garnered at least three hundred thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-two (334,462) votes are as follows:
|RANK |PARTY/ORGANIZATION/ |VOTES |
| |COALITION |RECEIVED |
|1 |BUHAY |1,163,218 |
|2 |BAYAN MUNA |972,730 |
|3 |CIBAC |760,260 |
|4 |GABRIELA |610,451 |
|5 |APEC |538,971 |
|6 |A TEACHER |476,036 |
|7 |AKBAYAN |470,872 |
|8 |ALAGAD |423,076 |
|9 |BUTIL |405,052 |
|10 |COOP-NATCO |390,029 |
|11 |BATAS |386,361 |
|12 |ANAK PAWIS |376,036 |
|13 |ARC |338,194 |
|14 |ABONO |337,046 |

WHEREAS, except for Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS), against which anURGENT PETITION FOR CANCELLATION/REMOVAL OF REGISTRATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF PARTY-LIST NOMINEE (With Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has been filed before the Commission, docketed as SPC No. 07-250, all the parties, organizations and coalitions included in the aforementioned list are therefore entitled to at least one seat under the party-list system of representation in the meantime.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941, and other election laws, the Commission on Elections, sittingen banc as the National Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVES to PARTIALLY PROCLAIM, subject to certain conditions set forth below, the following parties, organizations and coalitions participating under the Party-List System:
|1 |Buhay Hayaan Yumabong |BUHAY |
|2 |Bayan Muna |BAYAN MUNA |
|3 |Citizens Battle Against Corruption |CIBAC |
|4 |Gabriela Women’s Party |GABRIELA |
|5 |Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives |APEC |
|6 |Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and |A TEACHER |
| |Harmony Towards Educational Reforms, Inc. | |
|7 |Akbayan! Citizen’s Action Party |AKBAYAN |
|8 |Alagad |ALAGAD |
|9 |Luzon Farmers Party |BUTIL |
|10 |Cooperative-Natco Network Party |COOP-NATCCO |
|11 |Anak Pawis |ANAKPAWIS |
|12 |Alliance of Rural Concerns |ARC |
|13 |Abono |ABONO |

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations, or coalitions which may later on be established to have obtained at least two percent (2%) of the total actual votes cast under the Party-List System.
The total number of seats of each winning party, organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant toVeterans Federation Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results.
The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS) is hereby deferred until final resolution of SPC No. 07-250, in order not to render the proceedings therein moot and academic.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
Let the Clerk of the Commission implement this Resolution, furnishing a copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.8 (Emphasis in the original)
Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60, the COMELEC, acting as NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-72, which declared the additional seats allocated to the appropriate parties. We quote from the COMELEC’s interpretation of the Veterans formula as found in NBC Resolution No. 07-72:
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, the Commission on Elections sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers proclaimed thirteen (13) qualified parties, organization[s] and coalitions based on the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold of 334,462 votes from the projected maximum total number of party-list votes of 16,723,121, and were thus given one (1) guaranteed party-list seat each;
WHEREAS, per Report of the Tabulation Group and Supervisory Committee of the National Board of Canvassers, the projected maximum total party-list votes, as of July 11, 2007, based on the votes actually canvassed, votes canvassed but not included in Report No. 29, votes received but uncanvassed, and maximum votes expected for Pantar, Lanao del Norte, is 16,261,369; and that the projected maximum total votes for the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalition[s] are as follows:
| |Party-List |Projected total number of votes |
|1 |BUHAY |1,178,747 |
|2 |BAYAN MUNA |977,476 |
|3 |CIBAC |755,964 |
|4 |GABRIELA |621,718 |
|5 |APEC |622,489 |
|6 |A TEACHER |492,369 |
|7 |AKBAYAN |462,674 |
|8 |ALAGAD |423,190 |
|9 |BUTIL |409,298 |
|10 |COOP-NATCO |412,920 |
|11 |ANAKPAWIS |370,165 |
|12 |ARC |375,846 |
|13 |ABONO |340,151 |

WHEREAS, based on the above Report, Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (Buhay) obtained the highest number of votes among the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, making it the "first party" in accordance withVeterans Federation Party versus COMELEC, reiterated in Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC;
WHEREAS, qualified parties, organizations and coalitions participating under the party-list system of representation that have obtained one guaranteed (1) seat may be entitled to an additional seat or seats based on the formula prescribed by the Supreme Court in Veterans;
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the "first party", the correct formula as expressed in Veterans, is:
|Number of votes of first party |= |Proportion of votes of first |
|[pic] | |party relative to total votes for |
|Total votes for party-list system | |party-list system |

wherein the proportion of votes received by the first party (without rounding off) shall entitle it to additional seats:
|Proportion of votes received |Additional seats |
|by the first party | |
|Equal to or at least 6% |Two (2) additional seats |
|Equal to or greater than 4% but less than 6% |One (1) additional seat |
|Less than 4% |No additional seat |

WHEREAS, applying the above formula, Buhay obtained the following percentage:
|1,178,747 |= |0.07248 or 7.2% |
|[pic] | | |
|16,261,369 | | |

which entitles it to two (2) additional seats.
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the other qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, the correct formula as expressed in Veterans and reiterated in CIBAC is, as follows:
|Additional seats for |= |No. of votes of |x |No. of additional |
|a concerned party | |concerned party | |seats allocated |
| | |[pic] | |to first party |
| | |No. of votes of | | |
| | |first party | | |

WHEREAS, applying the above formula, the results are as follows:
|Party List |Percentage |Additional Seat |
|BAYAN MUNA |1.65 |1 |
|CIBAC |1.28 |1 |
|GABRIELA |1.05 |1 |
|APEC |1.05 |1 |
|A TEACHER |0.83 |0 |
|AKBAYAN |0.78 |0 |
|ALAGAD |0.71 |0 |
|BUTIL |0.69 |0 |
|COOP-NATCO |0.69 |0 |
|ANAKPAWIS |0.62 |0 |
|ARC |0.63 |0 |
|ABONO |0.57 |0 |

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941 and other elections laws, the Commission on Elections en banc sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to proclaim the following parties, organizations or coalitions as entitled to additional seats, to wit:
|Party List |Additional Seats |
|BUHAY |2 |
|BAYAN MUNA |1 |
|CIBAC |1 |
|GABRIELA |1 |
|APEC |1 |

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations or coalitions which may later on be established to have obtained at least two per cent (2%) of the total votes cast under the party-list system to entitle them to one (1) guaranteed seat, or to the appropriate percentage of votes to entitle them to one (1) additional seat.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
Let the National Board of Canvassers Secretariat implement this Resolution, furnishing a copy hereof to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.9
Acting on BANAT’s petition, the NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-88 on 3 August 2007, which reads as follows:
This pertains to the Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution filed by the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT).
Acting on the foregoing Petition of the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) party-list, Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, National Board of Canvassers Legal Group submitted his comments/observations and recommendation thereon [NBC 07-041 (PL)], which reads:
COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS:
Petitioner Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), in its Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution prayed for the following reliefs, to wit: 1. That the full number -- twenty percent (20%) -- of Party-List representatives as mandated by Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution shall be proclaimed. 2. Paragraph (b), Section 11 of RA 7941 which prescribes the 2% threshold votes, should be harmonized with Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution and with Section 12 of the same RA 7941 in that it should be applicable only to the first party-list representative seats to be allotted on the basis of their initial/first ranking. 3. The 3-seat limit prescribed by RA 7941 shall be applied; and 4. Initially, all party-list groups shall be given the number of seats corresponding to every 2% of the votes they received and the additional seats shall be allocated in accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941, that is, in proportion to the percentage of votes obtained by each party-list group in relation to the total nationwide votes cast in the party-list election, after deducting the corresponding votes of those which were allotted seats under the 2% threshold rule. In fine, the formula/procedure prescribed in the "ALLOCATION OF PARTY-LIST SEATS, ANNEX "A" of COMELEC RESOLUTION 2847 dated 25 June 1996, shall be used for [the] purpose of determining how many seats shall be proclaimed, which party-list groups are entitled to representative seats and how many of their nominees shall seat [sic]. 5. In the alternative, to declare as unconstitutional Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 and that the procedure in allocating seats for party-list representative prescribed by Section 12 of RA 7941 shall be followed.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N:
The petition of BANAT is now moot and academic.
The Commission En Banc in NBC Resolution No. 07-60 promulgated July 9, 2007 re "In the Matter of the Canvass of Votes and Partial Proclamation of the Parties, Organizations and Coalitions Participating Under the Party-List System During the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections" resolved among others that the total number of seats of each winning party, organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant to the Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results."1awphi1
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the National Board of Canvassers RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve and adopt the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, NBC Legal Group, to DENY the herein petition of BANAT for being moot and academic.
Let the Supervisory Committee implement this resolution.
SO ORDERED.10
BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file a motion for reconsideration of NBC Resolution No. 07-88.
On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use the Veterans formula as stated in its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 because the Veterans formula is violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941). On the same day, the COMELEC denied reconsideration during the proceedings of the NBC.11
Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations proclaimed on 9 July 2007, the COMELEC proclaimed three other party-list organizations as qualified parties entitled to one guaranteed seat under the Party-List System: Agricultural Sector Alliance of the Philippines, Inc. (AGAP),12 Anak Mindanao (AMIN),13 and An Waray.14 Per the certification15 by COMELEC, the following party-list organizations have been proclaimed as of 19 May 2008:
|Party-List |No. of Seat(s) |
|1.1 |Buhay |3 |
|1.2 |Bayan Muna |2 |
|1.3 |CIBAC |2 |
|1.4 |Gabriela |2 |
|1.5 |APEC |2 |
|1.6 |A Teacher |1 |
|1.7 |Akbayan |1 |
|1.8 |Alagad |1 |
|1.9 |Butil |1 |
|1.10 |Coop-Natco [sic] |1 |
|1.11 |Anak Pawis |1 |
|1.12 |ARC |1 |
|1.13 |Abono |1 |
|1.14 |AGAP |1 |
|1.15 |AMIN |1 |

The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an Urgent Petition for Cancellation/Removal of Registration and Disqualification of Party-list Nominee (with Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has been filed before the COMELEC, was deferred pending final resolution of SPC No. 07-250.
Issues
BANAT brought the following issues before this Court: 1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? 2. Is the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional? 3. Is the two percent threshold and "qualifier" votes prescribed by the same Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional? 4. How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?16
Bayan Muna, A Teacher, and Abono, on the other hand, raised the following issues in their petition: I. Respondent Commission on Elections, acting as National Board of Canvassers, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60 to implement the First-Party Rule in the allocation of seats to qualified party-list organizations as said rule: A. Violates the constitutional principle of proportional representation. B. Violates the provisions of RA 7941 particularly: 1. The 2-4-6 Formula used by the First Party Rule in allocating additional seats for the "First Party" violates the principle of proportional representation under RA 7941. 2. The use of two formulas in the allocation of additional seats, one for the "First Party" and another for the qualifying parties, violates Section 11(b) of RA 7941. 3. The proportional relationships under the First Party Rule are different from those required under RA 7941; C. Violates the "Four Inviolable Parameters" of the Philippine party-list system as provided for under the same case of Veterans Federation Party, et al. v. COMELEC. II. Presuming that the Commission on Elections did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it implemented the First-Party Rule in the allocation of seats to qualified party-list organizations, the same being merely in consonance with the ruling in Veterans Federations Party, et al. v. COMELEC, the instant Petition is a justiciable case as the issues involved herein are constitutional in nature, involving the correct interpretation and implementation of RA 7941, and are of transcendental importance to our nation.17 Considering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the parties in these cases, we defined the following issues in our advisory for the oral arguments set on 22 April 2008: 1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling? 2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional? 3. Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 to qualify for one seat constitutional? 4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated? 5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties from participating in the party-list elections? If not, can the major political parties be barred from participating in the party-list elections?18
The Ruling of the Court
The petitions have partial merit. We maintain that a Philippine-style party-list election has at least four inviolable parameters as clearly stated in Veterans. For easy reference, these are: First, the twenty percent allocation — the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list; Second, the two percent threshold — only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are "qualified" to have a seat in the House of Representatives; Third, the three-seat limit — each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two additional seats; Fourth, proportional representation— the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to their total number of votes."19
However, because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical interpretation of the term "proportional representation," this Court is compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to party-list organizations.
Number of Party-List Representatives:
The Formula Mandated by the Constitution
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. — The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list. x x x
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the "House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law." The House of Representatives shall be composed of district representatives and party-list representatives. The Constitution allows the legislature to modify the number of the members of the House of Representatives.1avvphi1.zw+
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the ratio of party-list representatives to the total number of representatives. We compute the number of seats available to party-list representatives from the number of legislative districts. On this point, we do not deviate from the first formula in Veterans, thus:
|Number of seats | |Number of seats available to |
|available to legislative districts |x .20 = |party-list representatives |
|[pic] | | |
|.80 | | |

This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats available for party-list representatives whenever a legislative district is created by law. Since the 14th Congress of the Philippines has 220 district representatives, there are 55 seats available to party-list representatives.
|220 |x .20 = |55 |
|[pic] | | |
|.80 | | |

After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to the total number of representatives, the Constitution left the manner of allocating the seats available to party-list representatives to the wisdom of the legislature.
Allocation of Seats for Party-List Representatives:
The Statutory Limits Presented by the Two Percent Threshold and the Three-Seat Cap
All parties agree on the formula to determine the maximum number of seats reserved under the Party-List System, as well as on the formula to determine the guaranteed seats to party-list candidates garnering at least two-percent of the total party-list votes. However, there are numerous interpretations of the provisions of R.A. No. 7941 on the allocation of "additional seats" under the Party-List System. Veterans produced the First Party Rule,20 and Justice Vicente V. Mendoza’s dissent in Veterans presented Germany’s Niemeyer formula21 as an alternative.
The Constitution left to Congress the determination of the manner of allocating the seats for party-list representatives. Congress enacted R.A. No. 7941, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 11 and Section 12 of which provide:
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. — x x x
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote,22 the following procedure shall be observed: (a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections. (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives. — The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system. (Emphasis supplied)
In G.R. No. 179271, BANAT presents two interpretations through three formulas to allocate party-list representative seats.
The first interpretation allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section 11(b) on the 2% requirement with Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT described this procedure as follows: (a) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total Members of the House of Representatives including those from the party-list groups as prescribed by Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, Section 11 (1st par.) of RA 7941 and Comelec Resolution No. 2847 dated 25 June 1996. Since there are 220 District Representatives in the 14th Congress, there shall be 55 Party-List Representatives. All seats shall have to be proclaimed. (b) All party-list groups shall initially be allotted one (1) seat for every two per centum (2%) of the total party-list votes they obtained; provided, that no party-list groups shall have more than three (3) seats (Section 11, RA 7941). (c) The remaining seats shall, after deducting the seats obtained by the party-list groups under the immediately preceding paragraph and after deducting from their total the votes corresponding to those seats, the remaining seats shall be allotted proportionately to all the party-list groups which have not secured the maximum three (3) seats under the 2% threshold rule, in accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941.23
Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be awarded under BANAT’s first interpretation.
The second interpretation presented by BANAT assumes that the 2% vote requirement is declared unconstitutional, and apportions the seats for party-list representatives by following Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT states that the COMELEC: (a) shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis; (b) rank them according to the number of votes received; and, (c) allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.24
BANAT used two formulas to obtain the same results: one is based on the proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total nationwide party-list votes, and the other is "by making the votes of a party-list with a median percentage of votes as the divisor in computing the allocation of seats."25 Thirty-four (34) party-list seats will be awarded under BANAT’s second interpretation.
In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both the COMELEC’s original 2-4-6 formula and the Veterans formula for systematically preventing all the party-list seats from being filled up. They claim that both formulas do not factor in the total number of seats alloted for the entire Party-List System. Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher reject the three-seat cap, but accept the 2% threshold. After determining the qualified parties, a second percentage is generated by dividing the votes of a qualified party by the total votes of all qualified parties only. The number of seats allocated to a qualified party is computed by multiplying the total party-list seats available with the second percentage. There will be a first round of seat allocation, limited to using the whole integers as the equivalent of the number of seats allocated to the concerned party-list. After all the qualified parties are given their seats, a second round of seat allocation is conducted. The fractions, or remainders, from the whole integers are ranked from highest to lowest and the remaining seats on the basis of this ranking are allocated until all the seats are filled up.26
We examine what R.A. No. 7941 prescribes to allocate seats for party-list representatives.
Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the ranking of the participating parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
Table 1. Ranking of the participating parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the elections.27
|Rank |Party |Votes Garnered |Rank |Party |Votes Garnered |
|1 |BUHAY |1,169,234 |48 |KALAHI |88,868 |
|2 |BAYAN MUNA |979,039 |49 |APOI |79,386 |
|3 |CIBAC |755,686 |50 |BP |78,541 |
|4 |GABRIELA |621,171 |51 |AHONBAYAN |78,424 |
|5 |APEC |619,657 |52 |BIGKIS |77,327 |
|6 |A TEACHER |490,379 |53 |PMAP |75,200 |
|7 |AKBAYAN |466,112 |54 |AKAPIN |74,686 |
|8 |ALAGAD |423,149 |55 |PBA |71,544 |
|9 |COOP-NATCCO |409,883 |56 |GRECON |62,220 |
|10 |BUTIL |409,160 |57 |BTM |60,993 |
|11 |BATAS |385,810 |58 |A SMILE |58,717 |
|12 |ARC |374,288 |59 |NELFFI |57,872 |
|13 |ANAKPAWIS |370,261 |60 |AKSA |57,012 |
|14 |ABONO |339,990 |61 |BAGO |55,846 |
|15 |AMIN |338,185 |62 |BANDILA |54,751 |
|16 |AGAP |328,724 |63 |AHON |54,522 |
|17 |AN WARAY |321,503 |64 |ASAHAN MO |51,722 |
|18 |YACAP |310,889 |65 |AGBIAG! |50,837 |
|19 |FPJPM |300,923 |66 |SPI |50,478 |
|20 |UNI-MAD |245,382 |67 |BAHANDI |46,612 |
|21 |ABS |235,086 |68 |ADD |45,624 |
|22 |KAKUSA |228,999 |69 |AMANG |43,062 |
|23 |KABATAAN |228,637 |70 |ABAY PARAK |42,282 |
|24 |ABA-AKO |218,818 |71 |BABAE KA |36,512 |
|25 |ALIF |217,822 |72 |SB |34,835 |
|26 |SENIOR CITIZENS |213,058 |73 |ASAP |34,098 |
|27 |AT |197,872 |74 |PEP |33,938 |
|28 |VFP |196,266 |75 |ABA ILONGGO |33,903 |
|29 |ANAD |188,521 |76 |VENDORS |33,691 |
|30 |BANAT |177,028 |77 |ADD-TRIBAL |32,896 |
|31 |ANG KASANGGA |170,531 |78 |ALMANA |32,255 |
|32 |BANTAY |169,801 |79 |AANGAT KA PILIPINO |29,130 |
|33 |ABAKADA |166,747 |80 |AAPS |26,271 |
|34 |1-UTAK |164,980 |81 |HAPI |25,781 |
|35 |TUCP |162,647 |82 |AAWAS |22,946 |
|36 |COCOFED |155,920 |83 |SM |20,744 |
|37 |AGHAM |146,032 |84 |AG |16,916 |
|38 |ANAK |141,817 |85 |AGING PINOY |16,729 |
|39 |ABANSE! PINAY |130,356 |86 |APO |16,421 |
|40 |PM |119,054 |87 |BIYAYANG BUKID |16,241 |
|41 |AVE |110,769 |88 |ATS |14,161 |
|42 |SUARA |110,732 |89 |UMDJ |9,445 |
|43 |ASSALAM |110,440 |90 |BUKLOD FILIPINA |8,915 |
|44 |DIWA |107,021 |91 |LYPAD |8,471 |
|45 |ANC |99,636 |92 |AA-KASOSYO |8,406 |
|46 |SANLAKAS |97,375 |93 |KASAPI |6,221 |
|47 |ABC |90,058 | |TOTAL |15,950,900 |

The first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 states that "parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each." This clause guarantees a seat to the two-percenters. In Table 2 below, we use the first 20 party-list candidates for illustration purposes. The percentage of votes garnered by each party is arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for all party-list candidates.
Table 2. The first 20 party-list candidates and their respective percentage of votes garnered over the total votes for the party-list.28
|Rank |Party |Votes Garnered |Votes Garnered over Total Votes |Guaranteed Seat |
| | | |for Party-List, in % | |
|1 |BUHAY |1,169,234 |7.33% |1 |
|2 |BAYAN MUNA |979,039 |6.14% |1 |
|3 |CIBAC |755,686 |4.74% |1 |
|4 |GABRIELA |621,171 |3.89% |1 |
|5 |APEC |619,657 |3.88% |1 |
|6 |A TEACHER |490,379 |3.07% |1 |
|7 |AKBAYAN |466,112 |2.92% |1 |
|8 |ALAGAD |423,149 |2.65% |1 |
|9 |COOP-NATCCO |409,883 |2.57% |1 |
|10 |BUTIL |409,160 |2.57% |1 |
|11 |BATAS29 |385,810 |2.42% |1 |
|12 |ARC |374,288 |2.35% |1 |
|13 |ANAKPAWIS |370,261 |2.32% |1 |
|14 |ABONO |339,990 |2.13% |1 |
|15 |AMIN |338,185 |2.12% |1 |
|16 |AGAP |328,724 |2.06% |1 |
|17 |AN WARAY |321,503 |2.02% |1 |
| |Total | | |17 |
|18 |YACAP |310,889 |1.95% |0 |
|19 |FPJPM |300,923 |1.89% |0 |
|20 |UNI-MAD |245,382 |1.54% |0 |

From Table 2 above, we see that only 17 party-list candidates received at least 2% from the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates. The 17 qualified party-list candidates, or the two-percenters, are the party-list candidates that are "entitled to one seat each," or the guaranteed seat. In this first round of seat allocation, we distributed 17 guaranteed seats.
The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that "those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes." This is where petitioners’ and intervenors’ problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets the clause "in proportion to their total number of votes" to be in proportion to the votes of the first party. This interpretation is contrary to the express language of R.A. No. 7941.
We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are 50 million votes cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections. A party that has two percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the first 50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of 55 seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is always impossible for the number of occupied party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present.
We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of "the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives."30
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed: 1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections. 2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each. 3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated. 4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as "additional seats" are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats.
In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional, we do not limit our allocation of additional seats in Table 3 below to the two-percenters. The percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate is arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates. There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation. First, the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats, 38, which is the difference between the 55 maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the 17 guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer of the product of the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a party’s share in the remaining available seats. Second, we assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is entitled. Thus:
Table 3. Distribution of Available Party-List Seats
Rank |Party |Votes Garnered |Votes Garnered over
Total Votes for Party List, in %
(A) |Guaranteed Seat
(First Round)
(B) |Additional
Seats
(Second Round)
(C) |(B) plus (C), in whole integers
(D) |Applying the three seat cap
(E) | |1 |BUHAY |1,169,234 |7.33% |1 |2.79 |3 |N.A. | |2 |BAYAN MUNA |979,039 |6.14% |1 |2.33 |3 |N.A. | |3 |CIBAC |755,686 |4.74% |1 |1.80 |2 |N.A. | |4 |GABRIELA |621,171 |3.89% |1 |1.48 |2 |N.A. | |5 |APEC |619,657 |3.88% |1 |1.48 |2 |N.A. | |6 |A Teacher |490,379 |3.07% |1 |1.17 |2 |N.A. | |7 |AKBAYAN |466,112 |2.92% |1 |1.11 |2 |N.A. | |8 |ALAGAD |423,149 |2.65% |1 |1.01 |2 |N.A. | |931 |COOP-NATCCO |409,883 |2.57% |1 |1 |2 |N.A. | |10 |BUTIL |409,160 |2.57% |1 |1 |2 |N.A. | |11 |BATAS |385,810 |2.42% |1 |1 |2 |N.A. | |12 |ARC |374,288 |2.35% |1 |1 |2 |N.A. | |13 |ANAKPAWIS |370,261 |2.32% |1 |1 |2 |N.A. | |14 |ABONO |339,990 |2.13% |1 |1 |2 |N.A. | |15 |AMIN |338,185 |2.12% |1 |1 |2 |N.A. | |16 |AGAP |328,724 |2.06% |1 |1 |2 |N.A. | |17 |AN WARAY |321,503 |2.02% |1 |1 |2 |N.A. | |18 |YACAP |310,889 |1.95% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |19 |FPJPM |300,923 |1.89% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |20 |UNI-MAD |245,382 |1.54% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |21 |ABS |235,086 |1.47% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |22 |KAKUSA |228,999 |1.44% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |23 |KABATAAN |228,637 |1.43% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |24 |ABA-AKO |218,818 |1.37% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |25 |ALIF |217,822 |1.37% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |26 |SENIOR CITIZENS |213,058 |1.34% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |27 |AT |197,872 |1.24% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |28 |VFP |196,266 |1.23% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |29 |ANAD |188,521 |1.18% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |30 |BANAT |177,028 |1.11% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |31 |ANG KASANGGA |170,531 |1.07% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |32 |BANTAY |169,801 |1.06% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |33 |ABAKADA |166,747 |1.05% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |34 |1-UTAK |164,980 |1.03% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |35 |TUCP |162,647 |1.02% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |36 |COCOFED |155,920 |0.98% |0 |1 |1 |N.A. | |Total | | | |17 | |55 | | |Applying the procedure of seat allocation as illustrated in Table 3 above, there are 55 party-list representatives from the 36 winning party-list organizations. All 55 available party-list seats are filled. The additional seats allocated to the parties with sufficient number of votes for one whole seat, in no case to exceed a total of three seats for each party, are shown in column (D).
Participation of Major Political Parties in Party-List Elections
The Constitutional Commission adopted a multi-party system that allowed all political parties to participate in the party-list elections. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission clearly bear this out, thus:
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we suggested or proposed the party list system because we wanted to open up the political system to a pluralistic society through a multiparty system. x x x We are for opening up the system, and we would like very much for the sectors to be there. That is why one of the ways to do that is to put a ceiling on the number of representatives from any single party that can sit within the 50 allocated under the party list system. x x x. x x x
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats is not limited to political parties. My question is this: Are we going to classify for example Christian Democrats and Social Democrats as political parties? Can they run under the party list concept or must they be under the district legislation side of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these parties that the Commissioner mentioned can field candidates for the Senate as well as for the House of Representatives. Likewise, they can also field sectoral candidates for the 20 percent or 30 percent, whichever is adopted, of the seats that we are allocating under the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field district candidates and can also participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the party list system, they will be fielding only sectoral candidates.
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Tañada wants to run under BAYAN group and says that he represents the farmers, would he qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Tañada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party list system and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who would pass on whether he is a farmer or not?
MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang linawin ito. Political parties, particularly minority political parties, are not prohibited to participate in the party list election if they can prove that they are also organized along sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all political parties can participate because it is precisely the contention of political parties that they represent the broad base of citizens and that all sectors are represented in them. Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO na isang political party, it will dominate the party list at mawawalang saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang party list system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan ng diin ang "reserve." Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198 seats, reserved din ito sa political parties.
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run there. But my question to Commissioner Villacorta and probably also to Commissioner Tadeo is that under this system, would UNIDO be banned from running under the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral candidates. On that condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed to register for the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares that answer?
MR. TADEO. The same.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines. x x x x
MR. OPLE. x x x In my opinion, this will also create the stimulus for political parties and mass organizations to seek common ground. For example, we have the PDP-Laban and the UNIDO. I see no reason why they should not be able to make common goals with mass organizations so that the very leadership of these parties can be transformed through the participation of mass organizations. And if this is true of the administration parties, this will be true of others like the Partido ng Bayan which is now being formed. There is no question that they will be attractive to many mass organizations. In the opposition parties to which we belong, there will be a stimulus for us to contact mass organizations so that with their participation, the policies of such parties can be radically transformed because this amendment will create conditions that will challenge both the mass organizations and the political parties to come together. And the party list system is certainly available, although it is open to all the parties. It is understood that the parties will enter in the roll of the COMELEC the names of representatives of mass organizations affiliated with them. So that we may, in time, develop this excellent system that they have in Europe where labor organizations and cooperatives, for example, distribute themselves either in the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Party in Germany, and their very presence there has a transforming effect upon the philosophies and the leadership of those parties.
It is also a fact well known to all that in the United States, the AFL-CIO always vote with the Democratic Party. But the businessmen, most of them, always vote with the Republican Party, meaning that there is no reason at all why political parties and mass organizations should not combine, reenforce, influence and interact with each other so that the very objectives that we set in this Constitution for sectoral representation are achieved in a wider, more lasting, and more institutionalized way. Therefore, I support this [Monsod-Villacorta] amendment. It installs sectoral representation as a constitutional gift, but at the same time, it challenges the sector to rise to the majesty of being elected representatives later on through a party list system; and even beyond that, to become actual political parties capable of contesting political power in the wider constitutional arena for major political parties. x x x 32 (Emphasis supplied)
R.A. No. 7941 provided the details for the concepts put forward by the Constitutional Commission. Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:
Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the party-list system. (b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties. (c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office. It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region. (d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector, (e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns. (f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes.
Congress, in enacting R.A. No. 7941, put the three-seat cap to prevent any party from dominating the party-list elections.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political parties from participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to participate in party-list elections through their sectoral wings. In fact, the members of the Constitutional Commission voted down, 19-22, any permanent sectoral seats, and in the alternative the reservation of the party-list system to the sectoral groups.33 In defining a "party" that participates in party-list elections as either "a political party or a sectoral party," R.A. No. 7941 also clearly intended that major political parties will participate in the party-list elections. Excluding the major political parties in party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the exclusion of major political parties from the party-list elections in patent violation of the Constitution and the law.
Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission state that major political parties are allowed to establish, or form coalitions with, sectoral organizations for electoral or political purposes. There should not be a problem if, for example, the Liberal Party participates in the party-list election through the Kabataang Liberal ng Pilipinas (KALIPI), its sectoral youth wing. The other major political parties can thus organize, or affiliate with, their chosen sector or sectors. To further illustrate, the Nacionalista Party can establish a fisherfolk wing to participate in the party-list election, and this fisherfolk wing can field its fisherfolk nominees. Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (KAMPI) can do the same for the urban poor.
The qualifications of party-list nominees are prescribed in Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941:
Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. — No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the elections, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of his term.
Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list organization’s nominee "wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity"34 as there is no financial status required in the law. It is enough that the nominee of the sectoral party/organization/coalition belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors,35 that is, if the nominee represents the fisherfolk, he or she must be a fisherfolk, or if the nominee represents the senior citizens, he or she must be a senior citizen.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire 20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the Constitution. The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI, left the determination of the number of the members of the House of Representatives to Congress: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, x x x." The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of Representatives. However, we cannot allow the continued existence of a provision in the law which will systematically prevent the constitutionally allocated 20% party-list representatives from being filled. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that prevents any party from dominating the party-list elections. Seats for party-list representatives shall thus be allocated in accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 above.
However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list elections, directly or indirectly. Those who voted to continue disallowing major political parties from the party-list elections joined Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno in his separate opinion. On the formula to allocate party-list seats, the Court is unanimous in concurring with this ponencia.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August 2007 in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) as well as the Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC No. 07-60. We declare unconstitutional the two percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list seats. The allocation of additional seats under the Party-List System shall be in accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 of this Decision. Major political parties are disallowed from participating in party-list elections. This Decision is immediately executory. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Earl Warren Influence On Internment

...In the early 19th century, when the United States had not yet enforced the Bill of Rights in all states, Earl Warren grew up witnessing the injustices of crime and the court system on individual’s rights. From the time he was just a college student working in a law office in Berkeley to advancing his career as Chief Justice of the U.S Supreme Court, he envisioned a nation in which everyone was treated equal under the law. Having a more realistic philosophy of the law, Warren often went against the majority and was quick to put to action his leadership abilities in cases having to deal with individual’s rights. Warren stressed the importance of protecting individual’s civil rights and liberties by diminishing racial segregation and injustices of the court system. Warren’s experiences with crime in his young adulthood influenced many of the decisions he made during his 16-year term. He was very dedicated...

Words: 570 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

James Earl Ray's Assassination

...James Earl Ray had a long criminal history. You could even say he was a career criminal. Even the army would not keep him due to his behavior. He lacked discipline and from what I can tell a moral compass. During 1968 he assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, while he was on the run after escaping prison 11 months prior. (2017) James Earl Ray used several aliases while traveling and purchasing items. According to Saferstein, there was a package left at the scene after the assassination containing a package that held a high powered rifle equipped with a scope, beer cans, binoculars, a receipt for binoculars and clothes. Also there was a white ford mustang observed leaving the scene but prior a man fitting the description of James Earl Ray observed running down the hallway of the hotel shortly after the shot was fired. Now as an innocent person, hearing a...

Words: 615 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

How Far Was Pre-Conquest England a Prosperous and Well-Governed Kingdom?

...relatively well-governed and somewhat prosperous kingdom; the country was cleverly run. The division of land and the hierarchy as well as the coinage, trade, towns and frequent invasions all suggest that pre-conquest England was prosperous and well-governed. However, the possible threats from the Earls to the King, the Danegeld and the King not having an heir suggest, England was less prosperous and more unstable. In the eleventh century England had developed into a sophisticated and highly organised state. The kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and East Anglia had become earldoms. Earldoms were territorial units that covered large areas each of which was controlled by an Earl. Each earldom was further divided into shires. The shire was the administrative state and the unit of local government of England, the means of which the kings enforced taxation and law. Each shire was divided into hundreds, an area covering a dozen or so villages. The smallest unit of land was a hide and this was the measurement of productive agricultural land that was taxable. Each level of this hierarchy had its own mini leader. For example, each shire was managed by a sheriff and each sheriff was controlled by an earl. All parts of the Earldoms were controlled by the monarch. This organised system demonstrates that there was a very clear hierarchy in pre-conquest England. This would have made the country easy to run, especially for the kings of different countries such as Cnut the Great who was also king...

Words: 1722 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Letter in the Life of a Solider

...Harold, Earl of Wessex Today I leave my brother, King Edward, after long conversation. I will first go to the south coast with my Hawk, hunting dogs, and followers, to journey to my families estate in Sussex, Bosham. My companions and I have now reached Bosham. We will go to the church to pray to God that he watches over our voyage and keep us safe on our travels. After we have prayed we shale dine on a magnificent feast that will be prepared at the manor house. When morning comes I will board my ship hawk in hand and set sails. The morning had come and as planned we have set sails and are now crossing the channel. Land has been spotted by my lookout form upon the mast and I have been informed that it is Ponthieu, north of Normandy. This is the territory of the Count Guy. He is known to be a fierce man. I pray that this is not fact. The count is in fact a firce man. As soon we ported and I stepped from my ship I was seized by Count Guy’s soldiers as the Count sits horseback directing operations. I have now been taken prisoner but while the Count is a fierce man he did insure that I was treated with respect and allowed to ride in front with my hawk as we journeyed to his capital city of Beaurain. When we arrived to Beaurain, Count Guy...

Words: 832 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

How Far Was Pre Conquest England a Well Governed and Prosperous Nation

...all suggest that pre-conquest England was prosperous and well-governed. However, the possible threat to the king of the Earls and the countries comparatively undeveloped economy all suggest as less prosperous, more unstable England. My opinion is that they were given a good image due to how well they dealt with the invasion of the Scandinavians and their introduction of Danegeld it showed how wealthy and organised the kingdom was and how they could deal with all that tax. The land was divided into several parts. Primarily, the realm was divided into four earldoms (Mercia, Wessex, East Anglia and Northumbria) each of which was controlled by an Earl. These Earls were incredibly powerful. Each earldom was further divided into shires (like modern-day counties) hundreds and hides. Each level of this hierarchy had its own leader / representative, such as the sheriffs managing each shire under the Earls. This system demonstrates that there was a very clear hierarchy in pre-conquest England; which would have made the country far easier to manage and well governed because each division of land would have a local lord to manage it. I believe that it shows that Britain had a well devised system that meant that the country could run to its optimal ability. However, one issue of this system that could cause instability in the country was the power of the Earls. The Earls combined power easily eclipsed that of the Kings, meaning that if they worked together against him they could overthrow...

Words: 1033 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Mrs Earls

...Facebook Unethical Use of User Data for Social Experimentation Bonita V. Earls Longwood University Abstract His paper explores the ethical impact of Facebooks 2012 study on emotional contagion in a social web environment. The study is controversial due to the fact Facebook researchers failed to follow standard ethical guidelines as set forth in the healthcare industry, failed to clearly communicate the study, its intentions, and methodology to its users, and manipulated data in such a way it invoked emotional and mood changes of its unaware users. The idea of algorithmic program use in the social media sphere comes into question as well. Introduction In January 2012, the news feeds of approximately 700,000 users of the popular social media site, Facebook, were manipulated in a manner so that some of its users only had positive news stories show up on their pages and others had only negative news stories show up. The experiment was conducted over the span of a week, from the 11th to the 18th, without the knowledge of the users (Kramer, 2014). According to the researchers, the goal was to see if “emotional contagion” occurs without direct interaction between people and in the absence of nonverbal cues. By manipulating the news stories, either all positive or all negative, they could study what effects, if any, there was on the moods of the users (LaChance, 2014). This is only one of many social experiments that the Facebook Core Data Science Team, has performed...

Words: 3902 - Pages: 16

Premium Essay

Mike and Earl

...Venus.Caselberry Unit 1 IP MGMT250-1205B-1 Fundamentals of Entrepreneurship January 17, 2013 Professor Ted Framan American Intercontinental University Abstract In this paper I will explore a question and the question is would you go into business for yourself? Or would you buy someone else business if you have worked for a company and they see what you can do within the company but you don’t know the business side of the company what would you do? Well in this paper that is a question that Bill has to think about. Bill has been ask by his boss Mr. Hugo if he would like to buy his Hugo has watch Bill in the company and know what Bill can do. Introduction Over 12 years Bill had polished his skills under the watchful and critical eye of Mr. Hugo. He was quick to recognize Bills talent for the trade. Mr. Hugo knew that Bill had a good attitude about learning and a drive for perfection that Mr. Hugo admired. This is what you will read about in this paper. This is an e-mail to Bill. Which entrepreneurial/small business owner characteristics does Bill have that may be important to his success? The characteristics that Bill has that maybe important to his success is that Bill made sure that he polished his skills that were under the watchful eye of his boss Mr. Hugo. Hugo knew that Bill was a real craftsman when it came to him working with machinery. Bill also had a positive attitude in learning and displayed the drive for his perfection. Mr. Hugo loves...

Words: 1149 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Earl Miller Multitask

...Although, now researchers now have the data to back it up, proving that multitasking is in fact, a myth. Earl Miller, a Picower professor of neuroscience at MIT, stated that “switching from task to task, you think you're actually paying attention to everything around you at the same time. But you're actually not.” Therefore, what is done is shifting the focus from one thing to the next. Miller compares this to talking on the phone and writing and email, which is nearly impossible. “You cannot focus on one while doing the other. That's because of what's called interference between the two tasks,” Miller stated. “They both involve communicating via speech or the written word, and so there's a lot of conflict between the two of them.” In a lab at the University of Michigan, researchers used an MRI scanner to take photographs of the test subjects' brains...

Words: 1543 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Willis Earl Beal

...Buy a temporarily discounted copy of Acousmatic Sorcery Buy tickets for the Principles of a Protagonist tour ABOUT To say that 27-year-old Willis Earl Beal has lived a colourful life would be a serious understatement. The Chicago native will tell you that his life has been one of "monotony" - which it has at times - but stints in the army, an ongoing desire to be a superhero, bouts of serious illness and a stretch of sleeping rough in an unfamiliar desert town would suggest otherwise. As an outsider artist, Beal's career always existed just beyond his imagination, with a history of leaving homemade novels, artwork and CD-Rs across America to promote his work, suggesting a desperate desire to be heard. This practice of "gifting" - matched with a natural booming voice, rich with range and a talent for penning raw, beautiful melodies - led to early features in both Found and the Chicago Reader that changed his life's course. Beal's creativity caught the attention of Hot Charity / XL Recordings who released Acousmatic Sorcery in March, 2012 - an 11 song set Beal wrote and recorded on a discarded karaoke machine while living in Albuquerque, NM. Since the release of Acousmatic Sorcery, Willis Earl Beal has toured the world, performing in clubs and festivals with nothing more than his guitar and back-up tape machine to support him. Delivering soul baring performances night after night, Beal has been lauded for not only his vocal mastery but the intensity with which he performs...

Words: 591 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Earl Warren Influence

...Earl Warren was an incredibly influential figure in the political development of the United States during the twentieth century until now. Warren had been a part of several moving cases and movements which had strong ties to the termination of segregation, lack of equality, and several other cases. Earl Warren had been a major figure in politics, working his way up to becoming the elected district attorney of Alameda County, later on becoming the California attorney general in 1938, and last but not least, warren made his greatest mark in U.S. politics when he had become the governor of California in 1942. One of the most well renown and moving cases warren had been involved in was the Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka, where racial equality in schools was being stressed and...

Words: 889 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Clarence Earl Gideon: The Wainwright

...In 1963, a man named Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested for breaking and entering into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida. His objective was to break into the building’s vending machines to steal money from them. Clarence was a very poor man who ran away from his home at a young age. He had the education of an eighth-grader. Clarence then became a drifter. He committed little crimes in order to gain small amounts of cash here and there. He was often caught and had become a regular in the county jail. Gideon once again found himself in the Florida court house, but this time he was in danger of up to a five-year jail sentence. Clarence was too poor to afford an attorney, and was never granted one. He had to handle every aspect of his trial all...

Words: 669 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

U.S History

...• 1952- NAACP supported group of legal challenges to seg. In public schools. Brown v. Board of Edu.- Linda Brown, Af.Am. student from Topeka. Schools prevented her from attending all white elementary school. NAACP lawyer, Thurgood Marshall argued on Brown's behalf. • Written by Justice Earl Warren, the opinion declared racial seg. Illegal in public schools. • By 1956-57 vast majority of S. schools sys. Remained seg. In Arkansas, school deseg. Was progressing w/ little opposition. Little Rock school was 1st in S. to announce that it would comply w/ Brown decision. • Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus spoke against deseg. Plan, ordered Nat. Guard to surround Central High. Of the nine black students, Elizabeth Eckford did not receive message that instructed her not to go to school alone • Under court order, Faubus removed Nat. Guard, white mob rioted. Eisenhower ordered 1000 fed. Troops to Little Rock. Sept 25, 1957- Little Rock Nine entered • Rosa Parks- refused to give up seat to white passenger and was arrested. In protest, many Mont.'s 50,000 Af.Am. org. boycott against bus sys., Mont. Improvement Assoc.- group of local civil rights leaders, persuaded comm. To continue to boycott while naacp and parks appealed her conviction. • MIA chose MLK as spokesperson. 1956- Supreme Court declared both Mont/ Alabama seg. Laws unconstit. Mont had a deseg. Bus sys. • Civil Rights act 1957- fed. Crime to prevent qualified persons from voting. Also set up Civil Rights Commission to...

Words: 353 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Legal Studies

...U. S. Congressman, Alcee Hastings Alcee Lamar Hastings was appointed by former President Jimmy Carter and became the first African-American Federal Judge in the state of Florida. Currently, he is the U.S. Representative for Florida’s 23rd congressional district. Hastings has held this position since January 3, 1993. Prior to this position, Representative Hastings held the seat of Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida from November 2, 1979 until October 20, 1989. Representative Hastings just happens to be one of only eight federal officials in American history to be impeached and removed from office. Facts surrounding the Impeachment In 1983, Hastings was acquitted of conspiracy to solicit a $150,000 bribe. In 1989, while working as a Federal Judge, Alcee Hastings was found guilty of bribery and perjury and removed from office. However, in 1992 Hastings was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida. It was alleged that in 1985, Alcee Hastings improperly revelation of sensitive government information obtained through a federal wiretap. Third Chances A lawsuit has just been filed against Alcee Hastings (D-FL) by a former female employee is alleging that, over a period of two years, Hastings repeatedly made unwelcome sexual advances and crude comments towards her. The misconduct allegedly occurred while Hastings served as Chairman to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The former employee, Winsome...

Words: 1138 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Dbq 15

...Q 15DBQ 15: The Resurgence of Conservatism, 1964-2005 Liberals had dominated American society for most of the 1900s. The 1960s was widely known for being the age of counterculture, social reforms, and liberals. The era witnessed many advancements like racial equality such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a strong advancement in political liberalism, and a significant increase in the power and influence of government-funded social programs as a result of Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society reforms. Beginning with the election of Nixon, however, followed a gradual return to conservatism whether religiously, politically, or economically. The resurgence of conservatism in American politics and government in the years 1964-2005, was caused in reaction to 1960s liberal political, economic, and social policies as well as the rise of religious political groups and the controversy over the Vietnam War. The government's political and economic policies contributed to the rise of conservatism. Most notable of the federal reforms were initiated by liberal Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson and his Great Society schemes. His "War on Poverty" speech, delivered on March 16, 1964, called for a war on poverty to give people a second chance by spending millions on education, job training, housing, and healthcare. Johnson's intention was in some ways a conservative one. He wanted to give people a hand-up, not a hand-out and make them dependent on the money earned from taxing the more fortunate (Document...

Words: 1212 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Mendez V. Westminster Case In 1954

...14th Amendment. More specifically, it violated the equal protection clause by limiting them to a lesser learning environment and, therefore, not providing them with equal protection of the law. Marcus also brought in specialists who argued that segregation inhibits students’ abilities to learn by creating psychological problems and making them feel inferior. Based upon this argument, Judge Paul J. McCormick ruled that the equal protection clause had been violated and declared that separate could never be considered equal. This was the first time that the equal protection clause was used to combat segregation, and it proved itself to be utterly effective when the court ruled in favor of integration. Within months of this ruling, Governor Earl Warren had repealed the remaining school segregation statutes in the California Education Code. This included those of both Asian American and Native American students as well as Hispanic American students. While these races aren’t often thought of when it comes to the Civil Rights Movement, they certainly played a prominent role. Mendez v. Westminster is often overlooked because it was a state case and it did not involve African Americans, whom of which the...

Words: 1341 - Pages: 6