The Supreme Court clarified the formula for determining additional seats for party-list representatives in the Philippine Congress. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Veterans formula to ensure proportional representation as mandated by Republic Act No. 7941. This decision affirmed that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) must accurately apply the established legal principles when allocating seats, thus preventing any misinterpretation or deviation from the prescribed method.
CIBAC’s Quest for an Additional Seat: A Test of Electoral Formulas
At the heart of this case is the Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC)’s petition challenging the COMELEC’s decision to deny them an additional seat in the House of Representatives under the party-list system. The dispute arose from differing interpretations of the proper formula for calculating additional seats, specifically whether to use the COMELEC’s “simplified formula” or the formula purportedly derived from Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC. This legal battle underscores the complexities involved in ensuring fair and proportional representation in the Philippine electoral system.
The foundation of the party-list system is enshrined in Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7941, known as the “Party-List System Act.” Section 2 explicitly declares the State’s policy to promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives. This is designed to empower marginalized and underrepresented sectors, allowing them to contribute to legislation that benefits the entire nation. The law envisions a full, free, and open party system that enhances the chances of various interests to compete for and win seats in the legislature through the simplest scheme possible.
Section 11 of R.A. 7941 further details the mechanics of determining the number of seats a party-list is entitled to. It states that parties receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each. Those garnering more than two percent (2%) are entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes. However, the law sets a limit, stating that each party shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
In the landmark case of Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court outlined four inviolable parameters to determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election:
First, the twenty percent allocation—the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list.
Second, the two percent threshold—only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the House of Representatives.
Third, the three-seat limit—each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one “qualifying” and two additional seats.
Fourth, proportional representation—the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes.”
Proportional representation is the guiding principle in determining the number of additional seats for each party-list that has met the 2% threshold. In the same Veterans case, the Supreme Court clearly explicated the correct formula to ascertain the entitlement to additional seats:
[H]ow do we determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to? The only basis given by the law is that a party receiving at least two percent of the total votes shall be entitled to one seat. Proportionally, if the first party were to receive twice the number of votes of the second party, it should be entitled to twice the latter’s number of seats and so on. The formula, therefore, for computing the number of seats to which the first party is entitled is as follows:
Number of votes of first party = Proportion of votes of first party relative to total votes for party-list system Total votes for party-list system
If the proportion of votes received by the first party is equal to at least six percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party list groups, then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats overall. If the proportion of votes is equal to or greater than four percent, but less than six percent, then the first party shall have one additional or a total of two seats. If the proportion is less than four percent, then the first party shall not be entitled to any additional seat.
The Supreme Court also laid out the formula for calculating additional seats for other qualified parties. This formula is as follows:
|
Additional seats for concerned party |
= | No. of votes of concerned party | x | No. of additional seats allocated to the first party |
| No. of votes of first party |
The above formula does not give an exact mathematical representation of the number of additional seats to be awarded since, in order to be entitled to one additional seat, an exact whole number is necessary. In fact, most of the actual mathematical proportions are not whole numbers and are not rounded off. To repeat, rounding off may result in the awarding of a number of seats in excess of that provided by the law. The three-seat-per-party limit restricts obtaining absolute proportional representation to a maximum of two additional slots.
In Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, the Court applied the Veterans formula to determine the additional seats for other qualified parties such as BUHAY, AMIN, ABA, COCOFED, PM, SANLAKAS, and ABANSE! PINAY. The Supreme Court stated that it was applying the relevant formula in Veterans to BUHAY, which admits of no other conclusion than that the Court merely applied the Veterans formula to Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna in resolving the additional seats by the other qualified party-list groups.
The Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “[number] of additional seats allocated to the first party” prescribed in the Veterans formula pertains to a multiplier of two (2) seats. On the other hand, the multiplier “allotted seats for the first party” in Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna formula can mean a multiplier of maximum three (3) seats, since the first party can garner a maximum of three (3) seats. Thus, the Court held that the claimed Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna formula has not modified the Veterans formula.
In applying the Veterans formula in petitioner’s case, the Court reached the conclusion that CIBAC is not entitled to an additional seat. Party-List Canvass Report No. 20 shows that the first party, Bayan Muna, garnered the highest number of votes, that is, a total of 1,203,305 votes. Petitioner CIBAC, on the other hand, received a total of 495,190 votes. A computation using the Veterans formula would therefore lead us to the following result:
495,190 / 1,203,305 x 2 = 0.82304986
Since petitioner CIBAC got a result of 0.82304986 only, which is less than one (1), then it did not obtain or reach a whole number. In Veterans, the Court ruled that “in order to be entitled to one additional seat, an exact whole number is necessary.” Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to an additional seat.
The Supreme Court also clarified that the COMELEC’s application of the Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna formula is incorrect. The Court lamented the fact that the COMELEC insisted in using a simplified formula when it is fully aware of the ruling in the Veterans case. As judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, the COMELEC cannot just ignore or be oblivious to the rulings issued by the Court.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether COMELEC correctly denied CIBAC an additional seat in the House of Representatives under the party-list system, based on the proper formula for computation. |
| What is the Veterans formula? | The Veterans formula is the method established by the Supreme Court for calculating additional seats for party-list representatives, based on proportional representation. It ensures fairness in seat allocation. |
| Why did CIBAC argue it was entitled to an additional seat? | CIBAC argued it was entitled to an additional seat based on a formula purportedly derived from Ang Bagong Bayani, which they claimed modified the earlier Veterans formula. |
| Did the Supreme Court agree with CIBAC’s argument? | No, the Supreme Court did not agree with CIBAC, holding that the Veterans formula remains the prevailing method and that CIBAC did not meet the requirements for an additional seat under this formula. |
| What did the Supreme Court say about the COMELEC’s actions? | The Supreme Court criticized the COMELEC for using a simplified formula, which deviated from the established Veterans formula, thus underscoring the importance of adherence to judicial rulings. |
| What is proportional representation? | Proportional representation is a principle that ensures parties receive seats in proportion to their total number of votes, allowing for fair representation of different groups and interests. |
| What is the significance of R.A. 7941? | R.A. 7941, or the Party-List System Act, is the enabling law that promotes proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives, empowering marginalized sectors. |
| What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? | The Supreme Court denied CIBAC’s petition and affirmed the COMELEC’s decision to deny CIBAC an additional seat, while also directing the COMELEC to strictly apply the Veterans formula in future elections. |
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the need for strict adherence to established legal formulas to maintain the integrity of the party-list system and ensure genuine proportional representation in the Philippine Congress. This case serves as a reminder to electoral bodies to consistently apply judicial precedents in their decision-making processes.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CITIZENS’ BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC) VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), G.R. NO. 172103, April 13, 2007