723 Phil. 160
LEONEN, J.:
PARTY | NUMBER OF SEATS | |
1 | COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. | 2 |
2 | AKBAYAN! CITIZEN’S ACTION PARTY | 2 |
3 | GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY | 2 |
4 | COOPERATIVE NATCCO NETWORK PARTY | 2 |
5 | ABONO | 2 |
6 | BAYAN MUNA | 2 |
7 | AN WARAY | 2 |
8 | AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ALLIANCE SECTOR OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. | 1 |
9 | ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS PARTY | 1 |
10 | ANAKPAWIS | 1 |
11 | KABATAAN PARTYLIST | 1 |
12 | ABANTE MINDANAO, INC. | 1 |
13 | ACT TEACHERS | 1 |
14 | YOU AGAINST CORRUPTION AND POVERTY | 1 |
15 | KASANGGA SA KAUNLARAN, INC. | 1 |
16 | BAGONG HENERASYON | 1 |
17 | ANG GALING PINOY | 1 |
18 | AGBIAG! TIMPUYOG ILOCANO, INC. | 1 |
19 | PUWERSA NG BAYANing ATLETA | 1 |
20 | ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS | 1 |
21 | TRADE UNION CONGRESS PARTY | 1 |
22 | ALYANSA NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA MAMAMAYAN, INC. | 1 |
23 | DEMOCRATIC INDEPENDENT WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. | 1 |
24 | KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA | 1 |
25 | KALINGA-ADVOCACY FOR SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT AND NATION BUILDING THROUGH EASING POVERTY, INC. | 1 |
26 | ALAGAD PARTY-LIST | 1 |
27 | UNA ANG PAMILYA FORMERLY ALLIANCE OF NEO-CONSERVATIVES | 1 |
28 | ALLIANCE OF VOLUNTEER EDUCATORS | 1 |
TOTAL SEATS | 35 |
This Court did not issue any Temporary Restraining Order.[11]
- modify the Commission on Elections’ interpretation of the formula stated in BANAT v. COMELEC[9] by making the divisor for the computation of the percentage votes, from total number of votes cast minus the votes for the disqualified party-list candidates, to the total number of votes cast regardless whether party-list groups are disqualified;
- enjoin the public respondent Commission on Elections from proclaiming the remaining winning party-list candidates until it modifies the interpretation of the formula used in BANAT v. COMELEC to the formula proposed by the petitioner; and
- issue a Temporary Restraining Order against the public respondent until it modifies the present formula for computing the number of seats for the winning party-list candidates to the formula proposed by the petitioner.[10]
WHEREAS, as of May 17, 2010, the projected/maximum total party-list votes cannot go any higher than thirty million two hundred sixty[-]four thousand five hundred seventy[-] nine (30,264,579) given the following statistical data:
DESCRIPTION REGISTERED VOTERS Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated 29,750,041Less: Votes garnered by the eight (8) disqualified parties 308,335Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated after deducting votes of the eight (8) disqualified parties
29,441,706Add: Party-list votes still uncanvassed Lanao del Sur 515,488 Local Absentee Voting 19,071 Overseas Absentee Voting 9,299 Due to lowering of threshold 92,740 Precincts reporting Final Testing and Sealing results 186,275 Maximum Total Party-List Votes 30,264,579
WHEREAS, since there are two hundred twenty-nine (229) legislative districts, the total number of party-list seats available for the May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections is fifty-seven (57) based on the following formula: number of legislative districts/0.80 x 0.20;
WHEREAS, the provision of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 provides, in part, that:
“(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 [sic] (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 coalitions shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.”
WHEREAS, applying the formula in the case of Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections, and [sic] Bayan Muna, Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms, Inc., and Abono [v.] Commission on Elections, the ranking of the participating parties, organizations and coalitions from highest to lowest based on the number of votes garnered as of May 17, 2010, and the seats that may be obtained by each party to complete the allocation of the available 57 party-list seats, are shown below:[13]
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) |
1 | AKO BICOL POLITICAL PARTY | 1,522,986 | 5.0322% | 1 | 2.26 | 3 |
2 | COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. | 1,292,182 | 4.2696% | 1 | 1.92 | 2 |
3 | BUHAY HAYAAN YUMABONG | 1,249,555 | 4.1288% | 1 | 1.85 | 2 |
4 | AKBAYAN! CITIZEN'S ACTION PARTY | 1,058,691 | 3.4981% | 1 | 1.57 | 2 |
5 | GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY | 1,001,421 | 3.3089% | 1 | 1.48 | 2 |
6 | COOPERATIVE NATCCO NETWORK PARTY | 943,529 | 3.1176% | 1 | 1.40 | 2 |
7 | 1ST CONSUMERS ALLIANCE FOR RURAL ENERGY | 768,829 | 2.5404% | 1 | 1.14 | 2 |
8 | ABONO | 766,615 | 2.5330% | 1 | 1.13 | 2 |
9 | BAYAN MUNA | 746,019 | 2.4650% | 1 | 1.10 | 2 |
10 | AN WARAY | 711,631 | 2.3514% | 1 | 1.05 | 2 |
11 | CITIZEN'S BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION | 647,483 | 2.1394% | 1 | 0.96 | 1 |
12 | ADVOCACY FOR TEACHER EMPOWERMENT THROUGH ACTION COOPERATION AND HARMONY TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL REFORMS | 614,725 | 2.0312% | 1 | 0.91 | 1 |
13 | AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ALLIANCE SECTOR OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. | 515,501 | 1.7033% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
14 | BUTIL FARMERS PARTY | 506,703 | 1.6742% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
15 | ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS PARTY | 469,093 | 1.5500% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
16 | ANAKPAWIS | 445,628 | 1.4724% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
17 | KABATAAN PARTYLIST | 417,923 | 1.3809% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
18 | LPG MARKETERS ASSOCIATION, INC. | 417,600 | 1.3798% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
19 | ABANTE MINDANAO, INC. | 376,011 | 1.2424% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
20 | ACT TEACHERS | 369,564 | 1.2211% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
21 | ANG ASOSASYON SANG MANGUNGUMA NGA BISAYA-OWA MANGUNGUMA, INC. | 357,009 | 1.1796% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
22 | YOU AGAINST CORRUPTION AND POVERTY | 335,635 | 1.1090% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
23 | ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES | 313,359 | 1.0354% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
24 | KASANGGA SA KAUNLARAN, INC. | 296,368 | 0.9793% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
25 | BAGONG HENERASYON | 292,875 | 0.9677% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
26 | ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY | 292,057 | 0.9650% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
27 | ANG GALING PINOY | 269,009 | 0.8889% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
28 | AGBIAG! TIMBUYOG ILOCANO, INC. | 262,298 | 0.8667% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
29 | PUWERSA NG BAYANING ATLETA | 258,498 | 0.8541% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
30 | ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS | 257,301 | 0.8502% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
31 | TRADE UNION CONGRESS PARTY | 244,623 | 0.8083% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
32 | ALYANSA NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA MAMAMAYAN, INC. | 241,898 | 0.7993% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
33 | DEMOCRATIC INDEPENDENT WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. | 238,675 | 0.7886% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
34 | KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA WALANG SALA | 234,717 | 0.7756% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
35 | KALINGA-ADVOCACY FOR SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT AND NATION BUILDING THROUGH EASING POVERTY, INC. | 229,198 | 0.7573% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
36 | ALAGAD PARTY-LIST | 227,116 | 0.7504% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
37 | 1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON | 220,002 | 0.7269% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
38 | UNA ANG PAMILYA FORMERLY ALLIANCE OF NEO-CONSERVATIVES | 217,032 | 0.7171% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
39 | ALLIANCE OF VOLUNTEER EDUCATORS | 214,760 | 0.7096% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
40 | AANGAT TAYO | 176,074 | 0.5818% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
41 | ADHIKAING TINATAGUYOD NG KOOPERATIBA | 173,711 | 0.5740% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
42 | ANG LABAN NG INDIGONG FILIPINO | 170,304 | 0.5627% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
43 | ASSOCIATION OF LABORERS AND EMPLOYEES | 167,654 | 0.5540% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
44 | KASOSYO PRODUCER-CONSUMER EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION, INC. | 166,432 | 0.5499% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
45 | ALAY BUHAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC. | 163,164 | 0.5391% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
46 | AKSYON MAGSASAKA PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA | 161,674 | 0.5342% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
47 | KATIPUNAN NG MGA ANAK NG BAYAN ALL FILIPINO DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT | 160,745 | 0.5311% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
48 | ANAK MINDANAO | 157,733 | 0.5212% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
49 | VETERANS FREEDOM PARTY | 154,183 | 0.5095% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
50 | ALLIANCE FOR RURAL RECONSTRUCTION, INC. | 147,204 | 0.4864% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
51 | ATONG PAGLAOM | 145,435 | 0.4805% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
52 | PILIPINO ASSOCIATION FOR COUNTRY-URBAN POOR YOUTH ADVANCEMENT AND WELFARE | 143,151 | 0.4730% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
53 | ABANTE TRIBUNG MAKABANSA | 142,013 | 0.4692% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
54 | ANGAT ATING KABUHAYAN PILIPINAS, INC. | 141,780 | 0.4685% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
55 | PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA | 140,000 | 0.4626% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
56 | ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN NG MGA MAGSASAKA, MANGGAGAWANG-BUKID AT MANGINGISDA | 137,842 | 0.4555% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
57 | ALLIANCE TRANSPORT SECTOR | 136,710 | 0.4517% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
58 | KAUNLARAN NG AGRIKULTURA ASENSADONG PROBINSYA ANGAT NG BAYAN | 130,270 | 0.4304% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
59 | BARANGAY NATIN | 126,462 | 0.4179% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
60 | 1-AKO BABAENG ASTIG AASENSO | 120,734 | 0.3989% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
61 | 1GUARDIANS NATIONALIST OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. | 120,727 | 0.3989% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
62 | BABAE PARA SA KAUNLARAN | 117,299 | 0.3876% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
63 | BAGONG BAYAN NAGTATAGUYOD SA DEMOKRATIKONG IDEOLOHIYA AT LAYUNIN | 115,428 | 0.3814% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
64 | AHON PINOY | 115,197 | 0.3806% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
65 | ACTION FOR DYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT, INC. | 115,058 | 0.3802% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
66 | KATRIBU INDIGINOUS PEOPLES SECTORAL PARTY | 114,891 | 0.3796% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
67 | ANG LADLAD LBGT PARTY | 113,187 | 0.3740% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
68 | CONFEDERATION OF NON-STOCK SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, INC. | 110,759 | 0.3660% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
69 | KABALIKAT NG MGA MAMAMAYAN | 109,739 | 0.3626% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
70 | ONE ADVOCACY FOR HEALTH, PROGRESS AND OPPORTUNITY | 109,682 | 0.3624% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
71 | BINHI; PARTIDO NG MGA MAGSASAKA PARA SA MGA MAGSASAKA | 108,005 | 0.3569% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
72 | 1-AANI | 107,970 | 0.3568% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
73 | AKAP BATA, INC. | 107,154 | 0.3541% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
74 | ANG ASOSASYON NG MGA TRABAHADOR AT PAHINANTE | 107,135 | 0.3540% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
75 | AGILA NG MGA KATUTUBONG PILIPINO, INC. | 105,009 | 0.3470% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
First, the total number of votes for disqualified party-lists is deducted from the total number of voters that actually voted. The total number of votes for disqualified party-list groups is three hundred eight thousand three hundred thirty-five (308,335).[15] The total number of voters that actually voted is thirty-seven million six hundred eighty-five thousand seven hundred six (37,685,706).[16] After subtracting the amounts, the result is thirty-seven million three hundred seventy-seven thousand three hundred seventy-one (37,377,371) votes.
37,377,371 (Number of voters who actually voted LESS votes for disqualified party lists) less 30,264,579 (Number of votes for party-list candidates LESS number of votes for disqualified party-list candidates) 7,112,792 (Total number of disregarded votes according to petitioner ARARO)
Number of seats available to legislative districts | x .20 = | Number of seats available to party-list representatives |
.80 |
229 | x .20 = | 57 | |
.80 |
Number of votes of party-list | = | Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list |
Total number of votes for party-list candidates |
Total number of party-list seats available | - | Number of seats allocated in first round | x | Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list | = | Additional seats awarded |
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.The petitioner argues that the correct interpretation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-list Law does not distinguish between valid and invalid votes, to wit:
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system.
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, 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.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 provided)
(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.
Therefore, votes for specific party lists are not the same as votes for the party-list system. Hence, people whose votes were spoiled for instance (like checking or failure to properly shade the ovals in the ballots, or voted for two party lists when the requirement is only one, or had erasures on their ballots for instance), or did not vote for any party-list at all are still voters for the party-list system. The votes for the party-list system [include] all those people who voted whether their votes were counted or not as long as the mechanism for the selection of party-list is in place.[20] (Emphasis provided)In its November 12, 2010 Comment,[21] the Commission on Elections through the Office of the Solicitor General took the position that invalid or stray votes should not be counted in determining the divisor. The Commission on Elections argues that this will contradict Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) v. COMELEC[22] and Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC.[23] It asserts that:
Neither can the phrase be construed to include the number of voters who did not even vote for any qualified party-list candidate, as these voters cannot be considered to have cast any vote “for the party-list system.”[24]The issues in this case are as follows:
The third issue requires our determination of the computation of the correct divisor to be used. The options are:
- Whether the case is already moot and academic
- Whether petitioners have legal standing
- Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in its interpretation of the formula used in BANAT v. COMELEC[25] to determine the party-list groups that would be proclaimed in the 2010 elections
We decide as follows:
- All votes cast for the party-list system less the votes cast for subsequently disqualified party-list groups and votes declared spoiled
- The total votes cast
- The total number of valid votes cast for the party-list system including votes cast for party-list groups listed in the ballot even if subsequently declared disqualified. The divisor should not include votes that are declared spoiled or invalid.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.[27]Several supervening events have already rendered this case moot and academic. First, the Commission on Elections En Banc already proclaimed other winning party-list groups.[28] Second, the term of office of the winning party-list groups in the May 2010 national elections ended on June 30, 2013. Finally, the conduct of the May 13, 2013 elections resulted in a new set of party-list groups.
With Divisor of total valid votes cast for party-list system minus votes cast for disqualified party-lists or invalid votes (30,264,579) | With Divisor of votes cast for the party-list system as proposed by ARARO (37,377,371) | |
Votes garnered | 147,204 | 147,204 |
Votes garnered over total votes cast for party-lists (%) | 0.4864 | 0.3939 |
Guaranteed Seat | 0 | 0 |
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.Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 7941, thus, provide:
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.
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.In Veterans Federation Party v. Commission on Elections,[37] we reversed the Commission on Elections’ ruling that the respondent parties, coalitions, and organizations were each entitled to a party-list seat despite their failure to reach the 2% threshold in the 1998 party-list election. Veterans also stated that the 20% requirement in the Constitution is merely a ceiling.
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system.
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, 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 provided)
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.In Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) and Butil Farmers Party (Butil) v. COMELEC,[39] the petitioning party-list groups sought the immediate proclamation by the Commission on Elections of their respective second nominee, claiming that they were entitled to one (1) additional seat each in the House of Representatives. We held that the correct formula to be used is the one used in Veterans and reiterated it in Ang Bagong Bayani – OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC.[40] This Court in CIBAC v. COMELEC[41] differentiates the formula used in I>A
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.”[38] (Emphasis provided)
x x x 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.” (Republic Act No. 7941, Section 2)The most recent Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC[44] does not in any way modify the formula set in Veterans. It only corrects the definition of valid party-list groups. We affirmed that party-list groups may be national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. We abandoned the requirement introduced in Ang Bagong Bayani that all party-list groups should prove that they represent a “marginalized” or “under-represented” sector.
x x x x
x x x 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.[43]
The party list system is not just for the specific party lists as provided in the ballot, but pertains to the system of selection of the party list to be part of the House of Representatives.[49]The petitioner claims that there should be no distinction in law between valid and invalid votes. Invalid votes include those votes that were made for disqualified party-list groups, votes that were spoiled due to improper shading, erasures in the ballots, and even those that did not vote for any party-list candidate at all.[50] All of the votes should be included in the divisor to determine the 2% threshold.
(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. (Emphasis provided)The total votes cast do not include invalid votes. The invalid votes, for the determination of the denominator, may be votes that were spoiled or votes that resulted from the following: improper shading or having no shade at all;[51] existence of stray or ambiguous marks;[52] tears in the ballot; and/or ballots rejected by the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines under the paper-based[53] automated election system. All these are causes that nullify the count for that vote that can be attributable to the voter’s action.
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible. (Emphasis provided)Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7941, which governs party-list elections, states that votes cast for a party-list “not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted.” It does not specify any reckoning period of the finding of disqualification or cancellation of registration for the validity or the invalidity of votes unlike that in Section 72 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by Section 6, Republic Act No. 6646.[60] Taking Sections 2 and 10 together, this Court must consider the intention of the law and the nature of Philippine style party-list elections. Party-list groups provide for a different and special representation in Congress. To disregard votes of party-list groups disqualified after the conduct of the elections means the disenfranchisement of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of votes, of the Filipino people. Definitely, it is not the voter’s fault that the party-list group in the ballot it votes for will be subsequently disqualified. The voter should not be penalized.
Number of votes of party-list | = | Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list |
---------------------------------------------------- | ||
Total number of valid votes for party-list candidates |
Number of votes of party-list | = | Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list |
---------------------------------------------------- | ||
Total number of valid votes for party-list candidates |
Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. (Emphasis supplied.)In Cayat v. COMELEC,[3] this Court declared as “stray” the votes cast in favor of a candidate disqualified with finality before the election even if his name remained in the ballot. We held, thus:
The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted. This is a mandatory provision of law. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, states:Of particular importance is this Court’s June 25, 2003 Resolution in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC,[4] where We emphasized the relevance of Section 10 of RA 7941, which states that “a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted x x x.” This Court held that the “total votes cast for the party-list system” include only the votes cast for PLOs qualified to be voted on the day of election, viz:Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case.— Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. (Emphasis added)Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 covers two situations. The first is when the disqualification becomes final before the elections, which is the situation covered in the first sentence of Section 6. The second is when the disqualification becomes final after the elections, which is the situation covered in the second sentence of Section 6.
The present case falls under the first situation. Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law governing the first situation is categorical: a candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted. The Resolution disqualifying Cayat became final on 17 April 2004, way before the 10 May 2004 elections. Therefore, all the 8,164 votes cast in Cayat’s favor are stray. Cayat was never a candidate in the 10 May 2004 elections. Palileng’s proclamation is proper because he was the sole and only candidate, second to none.
x x x x
To allow a candidate disqualified by final judgment 23 days before the elections to be voted for and have his votes counted is a blatant violation of a mandatory provision of the election law. It creates confusion in the results of the elections and invites needless new litigations from a candidate whose disqualification had long become final before the elections. The doctrine on the rejection of the second placer was never meant to apply to a situation where a candidate’s disqualification had become final before the elections.
Legal Effect of the Disqualifications on the “Total Votes Cast”It is therefore in keeping with both the spirit and language of the law on the party-list system that the votes cast in favor of PLOs disqualified with finality before the day of the election be considered invalid and not included in the computation of the “total votes cast for the party-list system.”
….. The critical question now is this: To determine the “total votes cast for the party-list system,” should the votes tallied for the disqualified candidates be deducted? Otherwise stated, does the clause “total votes cast for the party-list system” include only those ballots cast for qualified party-list candidates?
To answer this question, there is a need to review related jurisprudence on the matter, especially Labo v. Comelec and Grego v. Comelec, which were mentioned in our February 18, 2003 Resolution.
Labo and Grego
Not Applicable
In Labo, the Court declared that “the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.” In other words, the votes cast for an ineligible or disqualified candidate cannot be considered “stray.”
However, “this rule would be different if the electorate, fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety, would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. In such case, the electorate may be said to have waived the validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their franchise or throwing away their votes, in which case, the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected.” In short, the votes cast for a “notoriously disqualified” candidate may be considered “stray” and excluded from the canvass.
The foregoing pronouncement was reiterated in Grego, which held that the exception mentioned in Labo v. Comelec “is predicated on the concurrence of two assumptions, namely: (1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified; and (2) the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate.”
Note, however, that the foregoing pronouncements (1) referred to regular elections for local offices and (2) involved the interpretation of Section 6 of RA 6646. They were not meant to cover party-list elections, which are specifically governed by RA 7941. Section 10 of this latter law clearly provides that the votes cast for a party, a sectoral organization or a coalition “not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted”:“SEC. 10. Manner of Voting. — Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes: the first vote is a vote for candidate for membership of the House of Representatives in his legislative district, and the second, a vote for the party, organization, or coalition he wants represented in the House of Representatives: Provided, That a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted: Provided, finally, That the first election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998.” (Emphasis supplied)The language of the law is clear; hence, there is room, not for interpretation, but merely for application. Likewise, no recourse to extrinsic aids is warranted when the language of the law is plain and unambiguous.
Another reason for not applying Labo and Grego is that these cases involve single elective posts, while the present controversy pertains to the acquisition of a number of congressional seats depending on the total election results — such that even those garnering second, third, fourth or lesser places could be proclaimed winners depending on their compliance with other requirements.
RA 7941 is a special statute governing the elections of party-list representatives and is the controlling law in matters pertaining thereto. Since Labo and Section 6 of RA 6646 came into being prior to the enactment of RA 7941, the latter is a qualification of the former ruling and law. On the other hand, Grego and other related cases that came after the enactment of RA 7941 should be construed as inapplicable to the latter.
Subtracting the votes garnered by these disqualified party-list groups from the total votes cast under the party-list system will reduce the base figure to 6,523,185. This means that the two-percent threshold can be more easily attained by the qualified marginalized and under-represented groups. Hence, disregarding the votes of disqualified party-list participants will increase and broaden the number of representatives from these sectors. Doing so will further concretize and give flesh to the policy declaration in RA 7941, which we reproduce thus:“SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered, national and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.”