29
 BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR G.R. No. 179271 NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), Petitioner,  - versus - 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  BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR G.R. No. 179295 TEACHER EMPOWERMENT THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION Present: AND HARMONY TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., PUNO, C.J., and ABONO, QUISUMBING,  Petitioners,  YNARES-SANTIAGO,  CARPIO,  AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,  CORONA, - versus - CARPIO MORALES,  TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,  

149 Banat vs. Comelec

  • Upload
    yanex2

  • View
    231

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 1/29

 

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR G.R. No. 179271 

NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT 

AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), 

Petitioner, 

- versus - 

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 

BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR G.R. No. 179295 

TEACHER EMPOWERMENT 

THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION Present: 

AND HARMONY TOWARDS 

EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., PUNO, C.J., and ABONO, QUISUMBING, 

Petitioners,  YNARES-SANTIAGO,  

CARPIO, 

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, 

CORONA,

- versus - CARPIO MORALES, 

TINGA, 

CHICO-NAZARIO, 

Page 2: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 2/29

  VELASCO, JR., 

 NACHURA, 

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, 

BRION,

PERALTA, and 

BERSAMIN, JJ. 

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated: 

Respondent. 

 _______________________  

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x  

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 theResolution[2]  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-Lis

 Representatives Provided by the Constitution. 

The following are intervenors in G.R. No. 179271: Arts Business and ScienceProfessionals (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. 07-60[4]  promulgated on 9 July 2007. NBC No. 07-60 made a partia

 proclamation of parties, organizations and coalitions that obtained at least two percent of the

Page 3: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 3/29

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

COMELEC [5]  (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-Lis

 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 ElectricCooper atives (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, inconnection with the National and Local Elections conducted last 14 May 2007;

WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation Groups of the NationalBoard of Canvassers reveals that the projected/maximum total party-list votes cannot go any

higher thansixteen 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 

Page 4: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 4/29

i. Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated 15,283,659

ii. Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/

untabulated (i.e. canvass deferred) 1,337,032

iii. Maximum party-list votes (based on 100%

outcome) from areas not yet submitted for canvass

(Bogo, Cebu; Bais City; Pantar, Lanao del Norte; andPagalungan, Maguindanao) 102,430

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 aformula 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/ 

COALITION 

VOTES 

RECEIVED 

1 BUHAY 1,163,2182 BAYAN MUNA 972,730

3 CIBAC 760,260

4 GABRIELA 610,451

5 APEC 538,971

6 A TEACHER 476,036

Page 5: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 5/29

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 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 Commission, docketed as SPC No. 07-

250, all the parties, organizations and coalitions included in the aforementioned list are thereforeentitled 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, theOmnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941, and

other election laws, the Commission on Elections, sitting en banc  as the National Board of

Canvassers, hereby RESOLVES to PARTIALLY PROCLAIM, subject to certain conditions setforth 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 Harmony

Towards Educational Reforms, Inc.

A TEACHER

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

Page 6: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 6/29

12 Alliance of Rural Concerns ARC

13 Abono ABONO

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations, or coalitionswhich 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 to Veterans 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 theirrespective 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] andcoalitions 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, votesreceived 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

Page 7: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 7/29

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 with Veterans 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 anadditional 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 formulaas expressed in Veterans, is:

 Number of votes of first party Proportion of votes of first- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = 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 by the first party 

Additional seats 

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:

Page 8: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 8/29

  1,178,747

- - - - - - - - = 0.07248 or 7.2%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:

 No. of votes of

concerned party No. of additionalAdditional seats for = ------------------- x seats allocated to

a concerned party No. of votes of first party

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, OmnibusElection 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

Page 9: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 9/29

BAYAN MUNA 1

CIBAC 1

GABRIELA 1

APEC 1

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations or coalitionswhich 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 andcoalitions 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 acopy 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 andTransparency (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% thresholdvotes, 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

Page 10: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 10/29

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 seatscorresponding 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 totalnationwide 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.

RECOMMENDATION:

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 FederationParty versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list

results.” 

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 andacademic.

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

Page 11: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 11/29

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 certification[15]  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: 

Page 12: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 12/29

 

1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives provided in Section5(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 allocationof 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 Rulein allocating additional seats for the “First Party”  violates the

 principle of proportional representation under RA 7941.

2. The use of two formulas in the allocationof 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-listsystem 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 ofdiscretion 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]

 

Page 13: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 13/29

  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), ArticleVI 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 itactually 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-L ist Representati ves:  

Page 14: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 14/29

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 legislativedistricts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area inaccordance 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. 

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, wedo not deviate from the first formula in Veterans, thus: 

 Number of seats available

to legislative districts x .20 =

 Number of seats available to

 party-list representatives

.80

Page 15: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 15/29

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 14 thCongress of

the Philippines has 220 district representatives, there are 55 seats available to party-list

representatives. 

220 x .20 = 55

.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. 

Al location of Seats for Party-L ist Representati ves:  

The Statutor y 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 Niemeyerformula[21] 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 procedureshall 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 totalvotes 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, orcoalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

Page 16: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 16/29

 

Section 12.  Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives. —  TheCOMELEC 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 Membersof 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 the14

th 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, inaccordance 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 votesobtained 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

Page 17: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 17/29

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 ofseats 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 wholeintegers 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 numberof 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

Page 18: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 18/29

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

Page 19: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 19/29

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 overthe total votes for the party-list.

[28] 

Rank   Party Votes

Garnered 

Votes Garnered

over Total

Votes for Party-

List, in % 

Guaranteed

Seat 

1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1

Page 20: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 20/29

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 BATAS[29]

  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. 

Page 21: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 21/29

  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 ofRepresentatives 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 votescast 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 Houseof 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. 

Page 22: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 22/29

 

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 theremaining 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) 

Page 23: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 23/29

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. 

9[31]  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. 

Page 24: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 24/29

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). 

Parti cipation of Major Politi cal Parties in Party-L ist Elections  

The Constitutional Commission adopted a multi-party system that allowed all politicalparties to participate in the party-list elections.  The deliberations of the Constitutiona

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 Democratsand 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

Page 25: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 25/29

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 saysthat 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. Lalamuninmismo 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 thatcondition 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

Page 26: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 26/29

  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 theUNIDO. 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 thatthey 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 createconditions 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 representativesof 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 theleadership 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 RepublicanParty, 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 moreinstitutionalized 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 ConstitutionalCommission. 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 theCommission 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.

Page 27: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 27/29

  (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 interestsand 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 theelections, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks

Page 28: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 28/29

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 theexpiration 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 paragraph1, 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 validstatutory 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

Page 29: 149 Banat vs. Comelec

8/11/2019 149 Banat vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/149-banat-vs-comelec 29/29

Decision. Major political parties are disallowed from participating in party-list elections. This

Decision is immediately executory. No pronouncement as to costs. 

SO ORDERED.