Party List Seat Allocation

7/29/2019 Party List Seat Allocation

1/35

EN BANC

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR G.R. No. 179271

NATIONAL ADVANCEMENTAND 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,


2/35

TINGA,

CHICO-NAZARIO,

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 the Resolution[2]promulgated on 3 August 2007 by the

Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). The

COMELECs 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, aPetition to Proclaim the Full Number

of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution.

The following are intervenors in G.R. No. 179271: Arts Business and

Science Professionals (ABS), Aangat Tayo (AT), and Coalition of Associations of

Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizens).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn1


3/35

Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295Bayan 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 partial proclamation of parties, organizations andcoalitions that obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party-

List System. The COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of

the party-list results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning

party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v.

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 aPetition to Proclaim the Full Number of

Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-

041 (PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because [t]he Chairman and

the Members of the [COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papersthat 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 BANATs 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), GabrielasWomen Party (Gabriela), Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC),

A Teacher, Akbayan! Citizens 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:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn3


4/35

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 offifteen million

two hundred eighty three thousand six hundred fifty-nine (15,283,659) votes

under the Party-List System of Representation, in connection with the National

and Local Elections conducted last 14 May 2007;

WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation Groups of

the National Board of Canvassers reveals that the projected/maximum total party-

list votes cannot go any higher than sixteen million seven hundred twenty three

thousand one hundred twenty-one (16,723,121) votes given the following

statistical data:

Projected/Maximum Party-List Votes for May 2007 Elections

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

ii. Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/

untabulated (i.e. canvass 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; and

Pagalungan, 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 systemshall 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 ofparty-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 Citizens Battle Against Corruption

(CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its ruling in Veterans Federation Party

versus COMELECadopting a formula for the additional seats of each party,


5/35

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 1,163,218

2 BAYAN MUNA 972,730

3 CIBAC 760,260

4 GABRIELA 610,4515 APEC 538,971

6 A TEACHER 476,036

7 AKBAYAN 470,872

8 ALAGAD 423,076

9 BUTIL 405,052

10 COOP-NATCO 390,029

11 BATAS 386,361

12 ANAK PAWIS 376,036

13 ARC 338,194

14 ABONO 337,046

WHEREAS, except for Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing

Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an URGENT PETITION FORCANCELLATION/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, allthe parties, organizations and coalitions included in the aforementioned list aretherefore entitled to at least one seat under the party-list system of representation

in the meantime.

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by theConstitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144, Republic Act

Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941, and other election laws, the Commission on Elections,


6/35

sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVES to

PARTIALLY PROCLAIM, subject to certain conditions set forth below, the

following parties, organizations and coalitions participating under the Party-ListSystem:

1 Buhay Hayaan Yumabong BUHAY

2 Bayan Muna BAYAN MUNA

3 Citizens Battle Against Corruption CIBAC

4 Gabriela Womens 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! Citizens Action Party AKBAYAN

8 Alagad ALAGAD

9 Luzon Farmers Party BUTIL

10 Cooperative-Natco Network Party COOP-NATCCO

11 Anak Pawis ANAKPAWIS

12 Alliance of Rural Concerns ARC

13 Abono ABONO

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties,

organizations, or coalitions which may later on be established to have obtained atleast 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 coalitionshall be determined pursuant to Veterans Federation Party versusCOMELECformula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results.

The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng AdhikaingSambayanan (BATAS) is hereby deferred until final resolution of SPC No. 07-

250, in order not to render the proceedings therein moot and academic.

Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties,organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be held in

abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.


7/35

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 COMELECs

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) qualifiedparties, organization[s] and coalitions based on the presumptive two percent (2%)

threshold of 334,462 votes from the projected maximum total number of party-listvotes 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 totalparty-list votes, as of July 11, 2007, based on the votes actually canvassed, votes

canvassed but not included in Report No. 29, votes received but uncanvassed, and

maximum votes expected for Pantar, Lanao del Norte, is 16,261,369; and that the

projected maximum total votes for the thirteen (13) qualified parties,organizations and coalition[s] are as follows:

Party-List Projected total number of votes

1 BUHAY 1,178,747

2 BAYAN MUNA 977,476

3 CIBAC 755,964

4 GABRIELA 621,718

5 APEC 622,489

6 A TEACHER 492,369

7 AKBAYAN 462,674

8 ALAGAD 423,190

9 BUTIL 409,298

10 COOP-NATCO 412,920

11 ANAKPAWIS 370,165
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn8


8/35

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, reiteratedin Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC;

WHEREAS, qualified parties, organizations and coalitions participatingunder the party-list system of representation that have obtained one guaranteed (1)

seat may be entitled to an additional seat or seats based on the formula prescribed

by the Supreme Court in Veterans;

WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the first party, the

correct formula as expressed in Veterans, is:

Number of votes of first party Proportion of votes of first

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = 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:

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 qualifiedparties, organizations and coalitions, the correct formula as expressed

in Veterans and reiterated in CIBACis, as follows:


9/35

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 0ABONO 0.57 0

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the

Constitution, Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144, Republic Act

Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941 and other elections laws, the Commission on Elections enbanc sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVED, as it

hereby RESOLVES, to proclaim the following parties, organizations or coalitions

as entitled to additional seats, to wit:

Party List Additional Seats

BUHAY 2

BAYAN MUNA 1

CIBAC 1


10/35

GABRIELA 1

APEC 1

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties,

organizations or coalitions which may later on be established to have obtained atleast 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 toentitle them to one (1) additional seat.

Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties,organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be held in

abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.

Let the National Board of Canvassers Secretariat implement thisResolution, furnishing a copy hereof to the Speaker of the House of

Representatives of the Philippines.

SO ORDERED.[9]

Acting on BANATs 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 Associationfor National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT).

Acting on the foregoing Petition of the Barangay Association for National

Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) party-list, Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig,

Head, National Board of Canvassers Legal Group submitted hiscomments/observations and recommendation thereon [NBC 07-041 (PL)], which

reads:

COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS:

Petitioner Barangay Association for National Advancement andTransparency (BANAT), in its Petition to Proclaim the FullNumber 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.


11/35

2. Paragraph (b), Section 11 of RA 7941 which prescribes the

2% threshold votes, should be harmonized with Section 5, ArticleVI of the Constitution and with Section 12 of the same RA 7941 in

that it should be applicable only to the first party-list representative

seats to be allotted on the basis of their initial/first ranking.

3. The 3-seat limit prescribed by RA 7941 shall be applied;

and

4. Initially, all party-list groups shall be given the number of

seats corresponding to every 2% of the votes they received and the

additional seats shall be allocated in accordance with Section 12 of

RA 7941, that is, in proportion to the percentage of votes obtainedby each party-list group in relation to the total nationwide votes

cast in the party-list election, after deducting the corresponding

votes of those which were allotted seats under the 2% thresholdrule. 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 beproclaimed, 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. 07-60promulgated July 9, 2007 reIn 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 Electionsresolved amongothers that the total number of seats of each winning party,

organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant to

the Veterans Federation Party versus COMELECformula 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


12/35

of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, NBC Legal Group, to DENY the herein

petition of BANAT for being moot and academic.

Let the Supervisory Committee implement this resolution.

SO ORDERED.

[10]

BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in

NBC Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file a motion for reconsideration of

NBC Resolution No. 07-88.

On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC,

acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use the Veterans formula as stated in

its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 because the Veterans formula is violative of the

Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941). On the same day, theCOMELEC 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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn10


13/35

1.11 Anak Pawis 1

1.12 ARC 1

1.13 Abono 1

1.14 AGAP 1

1.15 AMIN 1

The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing

Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an Urgent Petition for

Cancellation/Removal of Registration and Disqualification of Party-list Nominee

(with Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has been filed before the

COMELEC, was deferred pending final resolution of SPC No. 07-250.

Issues

BANAT brought the following issues before this Court:

1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list

representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitutionmandatory 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 Boardof Canvassers, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack orexcess of jurisdiction when it promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60 to

implement the First-Party Rule in the allocation of seats to qualified party-list

organizations as said rule:

A. Violates the constitutional principle of

proportional representation.


14/35

B. Violates the provisions of RA 7941 particularly:

1. The 2-4-6 Formula used by the First Party Rule

in allocating additional seats for the First

Party violates the principle of proportionalrepresentation under RA 7941.

2. The use of two formulas in the allocation

of additional seats, one for the First Partyand another for the qualifying parties, violates

Section 11(b) of RA 7941.

3. The proportional relationships under the FirstParty Rule are different from those required under

RA 7941;

C. Violates the Four Inviolable Parameters of the

Philippine party-list system as provided for under the same case

of Veterans Federation Party, et al. v. COMELEC.

II. Presuming that the Commission on Elections did not commit

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction when it implemented the First-Party Rule in the allocation ofseats 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 thecorrect interpretation and implementation of RA 7941, and are

of transcendental importance to our nation.[17]

Considering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the parties

in these cases, we defined the following issues in our advisory for the oral

arguments set on 22 April 2008:

1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives

in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely

a ceiling?

2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

3. Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 to

qualify for one seat constitutional?

4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated?


15/35

5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties

from participating in the party-list elections? If not, can the major politicalparties 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 allocationthe combined number ofallparty-

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 thresholdonly 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 limiteach qualified party, regardless of the

number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; thatis, one qualifying and two additional seats;

Fourth, proportional representationthe 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:

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 notmore 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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn18


16/35

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 threeconsecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seatsallocated 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 ofthe 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, we do 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

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


17/35

the 14th Congress 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 Thresholdand 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 ofadditional seats under the Party-List

System. Veterans produced the First Party Rule,[20]and Justice Vicente V.

Mendozas dissent inVeteranspresented Germanys Niemeyer formula[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 followingprocedure shall be observed:

(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highestto 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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn20


18/35

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 beentitled to not more than three (3) seats.

Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-ListRepresentatives.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, orcoalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.

(Emphasis supplied)

In G.R. No. 179271, BANAT presents two interpretations through three

formulas to allocate party-list representative seats.

The first interpretation allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section 11(b)

on the 2% requirement with Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT described this

procedure as follows:

(a) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the

total Members of the House of Representatives including those from the party-listgroups as prescribed by Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, Section 11

(1st

par.) of RA 7941 and Comelec Resolution No. 2847 dated 25 June

1996. Since there are 220 District Representatives in the 14th

Congress, there shall

be 55 Party-List Representatives. All seats shall have to be proclaimed.

(b) All party-list groups shall initially be allotted one (1) seat for every two

per centum (2%) of the total party-list votes they obtained; provided, that noparty-list groups shall have more than three (3) seats (Section 11, RA 7941).

(c) The remaining seats shall, after deducting the seats obtained by the party-list groups under the immediately preceding paragraph and after deducting from

their total the votes corresponding to those seats, the remaining seats shall be

allotted proportionately to all the party-list groups which have not secured the

maximum three (3) seats under the 2% threshold rule, in accordance with Section

12 of RA 7941.[23]

Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be awarded under BANATs first

interpretation.


19/35

The second interpretation presented by BANAT assumes that the 2% vote

requirement is declared unconstitutional, and apportions the seats for party-list

representatives by following Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT states that the

COMELEC:

(a) shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a

nationwide basis;

(b) rank them according to the number of votes received; and,(c) allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to

the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization or coalition as

against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.[24]

BANAT used two formulas to obtain the same results: one is based on the

proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total

nationwide party-list votes, and the other is by making the votes of a party-list

with a median percentage of votes as the divisor in computing the allocation of

seats.[25] Thirty-four (34) party-list seats will be awarded under BANATs second

interpretation.

In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both the

COMELECs original 2-4-6 formula and the Veterans formula for systematically

preventing all the party-list seats from being filled up. They claim that both

formulas do not factor in the total number of seats alloted for the entire Party-List

System. Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher reject the three-seat cap, but accept

the 2% threshold. After determining the qualified parties, a second percentage isgenerated by dividing the votes of a qualified party by the total votes of all

qualified parties only. The number of seats allocated to a qualified party is

computed by multiplying the total party-list seats available with the second

percentage. There will be a first round of seat allocation, limited to using the

whole integers as the equivalent of the number of seats allocated to the concerned

party-list. After all the qualified parties are given their seats, a second round of

seat allocation is conducted. The fractions, or remainders, from the whole integers

are ranked from highest to lowest and the remaining seats on the basis of this

ranking are allocated until all the seats are filled up.[26]

We examine what R.A. No. 7941 prescribes to allocate seats for party-list

representatives.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn24


20/35

Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the ranking of the participating

parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered

during the elections.

Table 1. Ranking of the participating parties from the highest to the lowest based

on the number of votes garnered during the elections.[27]

Rank PartyVotes

GarneredRank Party

Votes

Garnered

1 BUHAY 1,169,234 48 KALAHI 88,868

2 BAYANMUNA

979,039 49 APOI 79,386

3 CIBAC 755,686 50 BP 78,541

4 GABRIELA 621,171 51 AHONBAYAN 78,424

5 APEC 619,657 52 BIGKIS 77,327

6 A TEACHER 490,379 53 PMAP 75,200

7 AKBAYAN 466,112 54 AKAPIN 74,686

8 ALAGAD 423,149 55 PBA 71,544

9 COOP-

NATCCO

409,883 56 GRECON 62,220

10 BUTIL 409,160 57 BTM 60,993

11 BATAS 385,810 58 A SMILE 58,717

12 ARC 374,288 59 NELFFI 57,872

13 ANAKPAWIS 370,261 60 AKSA 57,012

14 ABONO 339,990 61 BAGO 55,846

15 AMIN 338,185 62 BANDILA 54,751

16 AGAP 328,724 63 AHON 54,522

17 AN WARAY 321,503 64 ASAHAN MO 51,722

18 YACAP 310,889 65 AGBIAG! 50,837


21/35

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 ABAILONGGO

33,903

29 ANAD 188,521 76 VENDORS 33,691

30 BANAT 177,028 77 ADD-TRIBAL 32,896

31 ANG

KASANGGA

170,531 78 ALMANA 32,255

32 BANTAY 169,801 79 AANGAT KA

PILIPINO

29,130

33 ABAKADA 166,747 80 AAPS 26,271

34 1-UTAK 164,980 81 HAPI 25,781

35 TUCP 162,647 82 AAWAS 22,946

36 COCOFED 155,920 83 SM 20,744

37 AGHAM 146,032 84 AG 16,916

38 ANAK 141,817 85 AGING PINOY 16,729

39 ABANSE!

PINAY

130,356 86 APO 16,421

40 PM 119,054 87 BIYAYANG

BUKID

16,241

41 AVE 110,769 88 ATS 14,161

42 SUARA 110,732 89 UMDJ 9,445


22/35

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 byeach party is arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by

15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for all party-list candidates.

Table 2. The first 20 party-list candidates and their respective percentage of

votes garnered over the total votes for the party-list.[28]

Rank PartyVotes

Garnered

Votes Garnered

over Total

Votes for Party-List, in %

Guaranteed

Seat

1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1

2 BAYAN MUNA 979,039 6.14% 1

3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1

4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1

5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1

6 A TEACHER 490,379 3.07% 1

7 AKBAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1

8 ALAGAD 423,149 2.65% 1

9 COOP-NATCCO 409,883 2.57% 1

10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1


23/35

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 additionalseats in proportion to their total number of votes. This is where petitioners

and intervenors problem with the formula inVeterans lies. Veterans interprets

the clause in proportion to their total number of votes to bein proportion to the

votes of the first party. This interpretation is contrary to the express language of

R.A. No. 7941.

We rule that, in computing the allocation ofadditional 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. 7941is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it

mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party list

seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued

operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats

frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the

House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn29


24/35

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 partiesget a seat despite the availability of 55 seats. Because of the operation of the two

percent threshold, this situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available

party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast to 100

million. Thus, even if the maximum number of parties get two percent of the votes

for every party, it is always impossible for the number of occupied party-list seats

to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present.

We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the

distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of

R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the

full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the

attainment of the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group

interests in the House of Representatives.[30]

In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under

Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:

1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest

to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.

2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent

(2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one

guaranteed seat each.

3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in

paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number

of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.

4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three

(3) seats.

In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be

included because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-

percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as additional


25/35

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 ourallocation 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 partys share in the remaining available seats. Second, we assign one party-list

seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely

distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of

seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of

seats each qualified party-list candidate is entitled. Thus:

Table 3. Distribution of Available Party-List Seats

Rank PartyVotes

Garnered

VotesGarnered

overTotal Votes

for PartyList, in %

(A)

GuaranteedSeat

(First Round)

(B)

AdditionalSeats

(SecondRound)

(C)

(B) plus(C), inwhole

integers

(D)

Applyingthe threeseat cap

(E)


26/35

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.


27/35

28 VFP 196,266 1.23% 0 1 1 N.A.

29 ANAD 188,521 1.18% 0 1 1 N.A.

30 BANAT 177,028 1.11% 0 1 1 N.A.

31 ANGKASANGGA

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 political parties to participate in the party-list elections. The deliberations

of the Constitutional Commission clearly bear this out, thus:

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we suggested or

proposed the party list system because we wanted to open up the political system

to a pluralistic society through a multiparty system. x x x We are for opening

up the system, and we would like very much for the sectors to be there. That

is why one of the ways to do that is to put a ceiling on the number of

representatives from any single party that can sit within the 50 allocated

under the party list system. x x x.

x x x

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats is notlimited to political parties. My question is this: Are we going to classify for

example Christian Democrats and Social Democrats as political parties? Can they


28/35

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 forthe 20 percent or 30 percent, whichever is adopted, of the seats that we areallocating under the party list system.

MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field districtcandidates 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 Taada wants to run under BAYAN

group and says that he represents the farmers, would he qualify?

MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify.

MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party listsystem 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 thatthey 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 UNIDOna isang political party, it will dominate the party list at mawawalang saysay din

yung sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang party list system. Gusto

ko lamang bigyan ng diin ang reserve. Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalizedsectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198 seats, reserved din ito sa political parties.


29/35

MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run there. But

my question to Commissioner Villacorta and probably also to CommissionerTadeo is that under this system, would UNIDO be banned from running under the

party list system?

MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral

candidates. On that condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed to register for

the party list system.

MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares

that answer?

MR. TADEO. The same.

MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines.

x x x x

MR. OPLE. x x x In my opinion, this will also create the stimulus for

political parties and mass organizations to seek common ground. For example,we have the PDP-Laban and the UNIDO. I see no reason why they should not be

able to make common goals with mass organizations so that the very leadership of

these parties can be transformed through the participation of massorganizations. And if this is true of the administration parties, this will be true of

others like the Partido ng Bayan which is now being formed. There is no question

that they will be attractive to many mass organizations. In the opposition parties

to which we belong, there will be a stimulus for us to contact mass organizationsso that with their participation, the policies of such parties can be radically

transformed because this amendment will create conditions that will challenge

both the mass organizations and the political parties to come together. And theparty list system is certainly available, although it is open to all the parties. It is

understood that the parties will enter in the roll of the COMELEC the names of

representatives of mass organizations affiliated with them. So that we may, intime, 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 Republican Party, meaning that there is no reason at all why

political parties and mass organizations should not combine, reenforce, influence

and interact with each other so that the very objectives that we set in thisConstitution for sectoral representation are achieved in a wider, more lasting, and


30/35

more institutionalized way. Therefore, I support this [Monsod-Villacorta]

amendment. It installs sectoral representation as a constitutional gift, but at the

same time, it challenges the sector to rise to the majesty of being electedrepresentatives later on through a party list system; and even beyond that, to

become actual political parties capable of contesting political power in the wider

constitutional arena for major political parties.

x x x[32]

(Emphasis supplied)

R.A. No. 7941 provided the details for the concepts put forward by the

Constitutional Commission. Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:

Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of

proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of

Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations orcoalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

Component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently

provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the party-listsystem.

(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalitionof parties.

(c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an

ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct ofgovernment 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 thecities and provinces comprising the region.

(d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging toany of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy

pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector,

(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of

groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics,employment, interests or concerns.

(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national,

regional, sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes.


31/35

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 theConstitution 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, aregistered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)

year immediately preceding the day of the elections, able to read and write, bona

fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at leastninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25)

years of age on the day of the election.


32/35

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. Anyyouth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his

term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of his term.

Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list

organizations 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 theentire 20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the Constitution. The

Constitution, in paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI, left the determination of the

number of the members of the House of Representatives to Congress: The House

of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty

members, unless otherwise fixed by law, x x x. The 20% allocation of party-list

representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than

20% of the members of the House of Representatives. However, we cannot allow

the continued existence of a provision in the law which will systematically prevent

the constitutionally allocated 20% party-list representatives from being filled. Thethree-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a qualified party-list

organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that prevents any party

from dominating the party-list elections. Seats for party-list representatives shall

thus be allocated in accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 above.

However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling

in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list

elections, directly or indirectly. Those who voted to continue disallowing major

political parties from the party-list elections joined Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno

in his separate opinion. On the formula to allocate party-list seats, the Court is

unanimous in concurring with thisponencia.

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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftn34


33/35

unconstitutional the two percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list

seats. The allocation of additional seats under the Party-List System shall be in

accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 of this Decision. Major political

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

immediately executory. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

[1] Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[2] Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), pp. 86-87. Signed by Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos,

Sr., Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., Romeo A. Brawner, Rene

V. Sarmiento, and Nicodemo T. Ferrer.[3] Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[4] Rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 103-108. Signed by Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos,

Sr., Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., Romeo A. Brawner, Rene V.

Sarmiento, and Nicodemo T. Ferrer.[5]

396 Phil. 419 (2000).[6] Rollo (G.R. No. 179271),pp. 969-986; rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 798-815. Party-List Canvass Report

No. 32, as of 31 August 2007, 6:00 p.m.[7] Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), p. 70.[8] Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), pp. 88-92.[9] Id. at 150-153.[10] Id. at 86-87.[11] Rollo (G.R. No. 179295), p. 112.[12] Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), pp. 158-159. NBC Resolution No. 07-74, 24 July 2007.[13] Id. at 160-161. NBC Resolution No. 07-87, 3 August 2007.[14] NBC Resolution No. 07-97, 4 September 2007.[15] Rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 816-817. This COMELEC certification should have included An Waray, which

was proclaimed on 4 September 2007 under NBC Resolution No. 07-97.[16] Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), p. 14.[17] Rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 21-22.[18] Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), p. 553; rollo (G. R. No. 179295), p. 341.[19] Supra note 5 at 424.[20] Id. at 446-451. We quote below the discussion in Veterans explaining the First Party Rule:

Formula for Determining

Additi onal Seats for the Fi rst Party

Now, how 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 latters 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 total votes for party-list system

party -list system
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref1


34/35

If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off 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 without a rounding off 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. And if the proportion is less than four percent, then the first party shall not be entitled to any

additional seat.

We adopted this six percent bench mark, because the first party is not always entitled to the

maximum number of additional seats. Likewise, it would prevent the allotment of more than the total

number of available seats, such as in an extreme case wherein 18 or more parties tie for the highest rank

and are thus entitled to three seats each. In such scenario, the number of seats to which all the parties are

entitled may exceed the maximum number of party-list seats reserved in the House of Representatives.

x x x

Note that the above formula will be applicable only in determining the number of additional seats

thefirst party is entitled to. It cannot be used to determine the number of additional seats of the other

qualified parties. As explained earlier, the use of the same formula for all would contravene the

proportional representation parameter. For example, a second party obtains six percent of the total number

of votes cast. According to the above formula, the said party would be entitled to two additional seats or a

total of three seats overall. However, if the first party received a significantly higher amount of votes say, twenty percentto grant it the same number of seats as the second party would violate the statutory

mandate of proportional representation, since a party getting only six percent of the votes will have an

equal number of representatives as the one obtaining twenty percent. The proper solution, therefore, is to

grant the first party a total of three seats; and the party receiving six percent, additional seats in proportion

to those of the first party.

Formula for Additional

Seats of Other Qualif ied Parties

Step Three The next step is to solve for the number of additional seats that the other qualified parties

are entitled to, based on proportional representation. The formula is encompassed by the following

complex fraction:

No. of votes of

concerned party

------------------

Total no. of votes

Additional seats for party-list system No. of additional

for concerned = ----------------------- x seats allocated to

party No. of votes of the first party

first party

--------------

Total no. of votes

for party list system

In simplified form, it is written as follows:

No. of votes of

Additional seats concerned party No. of additional

for concerned = ------------------ x seats allocated to

party No. of votes of the first party

first party

x x x


35/35

Incidentally, if the first party is not entitled to any additional seat, then the ratio of the number of

votes for the other party to that for the first one is multiplied by zero. The end result would be zero

additional seat for each of the other qualified parties as well.

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 for the

reasons explained earlier. To repeat, rounding off may result in the awarding of a number of seats in excess

of that provided by the law. Furthermore, obtaining absolute proportional representation is restricted by the

three-seat-per-party limit to a maximum of two additional slots. An increase in the maximum number of

additional representatives a party may be entitled to would result in a more accurate proportional

representation. But the law itself has set the limit: only two additional seats. Hence, we need to work within

such extant parameter.

[21] Id. at 475-481.[22] The second vote cast by a registered voter is for the party-list candidates as provided in Section

10 of R.A. No. 7941.[23] Rollo (G.R. No. 179271), p. 47.[24] Id. at 48.[25] Id. at 1076.[26] Rollo (G.R. No. 179295),pp. 66-81.[27] Rollo (G.R. No. 179271),pp. 969-974; rollo (G.R. No. 179295), pp. 798-803. Party-List Canvass Report

No. 32, as of 31 August 2007, 6:00 p.m.[28] Id.[29] Proclamation deferred by COMELEC.[30] Section 2, R.A. No. 7941.[31] The product of the percentage and the remaining available seats of all parties ranked nine and below

is less than one.[32] II RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 256-257 (25 July 1986), 568 (1 August 1986).[33] Id. at 584 (1 August 1986). Dissenting opinion of Justice Jose C. Vitug inAng Bagong Bayani- OFW

Labor Party v. COMELEC, 412 Phil. 308, 350 (2001).[34]

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 412 Phil. 308, 336 (2001).[35] Section 2, R.A. No. 7941.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/179271.htm#_ftnref21

Party List Seat Allocation

Documents

Transcript of Party List Seat Allocation