Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ARARO V COMELEC
ARARO V COMELEC
DECISION
The winning party-list groups were the following: 6
LEONEN, J.:
NUMBER
PARTY
It is beyond human expectations that we charge voters with OF SEATS
knowledge as to which among the many party-list groups listed in
the ballot they are presented with during election day is
1 COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF 2
disqualified. To do so will amount to their disenfranchisement and
SENIOR CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES,
the failure to comply with the proportionality for party-list
representatives required by the Constitution and by law. INC.
We are asked to decide the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed 2 AKBAYAN! CITIZEN’S ACTION PARTY 2
by a party-list group that ran for the 2010 national elections. The
petitioner questions the validity of the formula used by the 3 GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY 2
Commission on Elections in determining and proclaiming the
winning party-list groups.1
26 ALAGAD PARTY-LIST 1
14 YOU AGAINST CORRUPTION AND 1
POVERTY
27 UNA ANG PAMILYA FORMERLY 1
ALLIANCE OF NEO-CONSERVATIVES
15 KASANGGA SA KAUNLARAN, INC. 1
TOTAL SEATS 35
17 ANG GALING PINOY 1
18 AGBIAG! TIMPUYOG ILOCANO, INC. 1 Petitioner then filed an election protest before the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal questioning the Resolution of
19 PUWERSA NG BAYANing ATLETA 1 the Commission on Elections that proclaimed the 28 party-list
groups listed above.7
disqualified parties
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 Total party-list votes already 29,441,706
votes cast regardless whether party-list groups are canvassed/tabulated after deducting votes of
disqualified; the eight (8) disqualified parties
2. enjoin the public respondent Commission on Elections Add: Party-list votes still uncanvassed Lanao 515,488
from proclaiming the remaining winning party-list del Sur
candidates until it modifies the interpretation of the
formula used in BANAT v. COMELEC to the formula
proposed by the petitioner; and Local Absentee Voting 19,071
3. issue a Temporary Restraining Order against the public Overseas Absentee Voting 9,299
respondent until it modifies the present formula for
computing the number of seats for the winning party-list
Due to lowering of threshold 92,740
candidates to the formula proposed by the
petitioner.10This Court did not issue any Temporary
Restraining Order.11By Resolution, the National Board of Precincts reporting Final Testing and Sealing 186,275
Canvassers proclaimed the winning party-list groups with results
the following computation:12
NG MGA
MAGSASAK
A PARA SA 37,377,371 (Number of voters who actually voted LESS
MGA votes
MAGSASAK for disqualified party lists)
A
less 30,264,579 (Number of votes for party-list candidates
72 1-AANI 107,97 0.3568 0 0 0 LESS
0 % number of votes for disqualified party-list
candidates)
73 AKAP 107,15 0.3541 0 0 0
7,112,792 (Total number of disregarded votes
BATA, INC. 4 %
according to petitioner ARARO)
The National Board of Canvassers’ Resolution No. 10-009 The petitioner argues that the Commission on Elections’
applies the formula used in Barangay Association for National interpretation of the formula used in BANAT v. COMELEC is
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC to 18 flawed because it is not in accordance with the law. The
19
arrive at the winning party-list groups and their guaranteed seats, petitioner distinguishes the phrases, valid votes cast for party-list
where: candidates on the one hand as against votes cast for the party-
list system on the other.
Number of votes of party-list = Proportion or
The petitioner puts in issue the interpretation of Sections 11 and
Percentage of votes
12 of Republic Act No.7941 or "An Act Providing for the Election
garnered by party-list of Party-List Representatives Through the Party-List System, and
Total number of votes for Appropriating Funds Therefor." The sections provide the
guidelines in allocating seats to party-list representatives:
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The party-list The petitioner argues that the correct interpretation of the
representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-list Law does not
total number of the members of the House of Representatives distinguish between valid and invalid votes, to wit:
including those under the party-list.
Therefore, votes for specific party lists are not the same as votes
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major for the party-list system. Hence, people whose votes were spoiled
political parties on the basis of party representation in the House for instance (like checking or failure to properly shade the ovals in
of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the the ballots, or voted for two party lists when the requirement is
Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list only one, or had erasures on their ballots for instance), or did not
system. 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
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the voted whether their votes were counted or not as long as the
following procedure shall be observed: mechanism for the selection of party-list is in place. (Emphasis
20
provided)
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be
ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the In its November 12, 2010 Comment, the Commission on
21
number of votes they garnered during the elections. Elections through the Office of the Solicitor General took the
position that invalid or stray votes should not be counted in
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at determining the divisor. The Commission on Elections argues that
least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party- this will contradict Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) v.
list system shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, COMELEC and Barangay Association for National Advancement
22
That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC. It asserts that:
23
The third issue requires our determination of the computation of We held that the expiration of the challenged term of office
the correct divisor to be used. The options are: renders the corresponding Petition moot and academic. This
29
or invalid. discuss the issues raised by the petitioner as these are capable
of repetition yet evading review and for the guidance of the
32
We decide as follows:
II
I
The petitioner is not the real party in interest
This case is moot and academic. Mendoza v. Villas defines a
26
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at Second, the two percent threshold-only those parties
least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party- garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid
list systemshall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, votes cast for the party-list system are "qualified" to have
That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the a seat in the House of Representatives.
votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to
their total number of votes: Provided, finally, That each Third, the three-seat limit-each qualified party, regardless
party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
more than three(3) seats. maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two
additional seats.
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List
Representatives. The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the Fourth, proportional representation-the additional seats
parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed "in
them according to the number of votes received and allocate proportion to their total number of votes." (Emphasis
38
requirement in the Constitution is merely a ceiling. COMELEC differentiates the formula used in Ang Bagong
41
xxxx between the share of the total seats and the share of the total
votes of the party-list. In Veterans, where the 20% requirement
47
x x x There are two steps in the second round of seat in the Constitution was treated only as a ceiling, the mandate for
allocation. First, the percentage is multiplied by the remaining proportional representation was not achieved, and thus, was held
available seats, 38, which is the difference between the 55 void by this Court.
maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the 17
guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer of the The petitioner now argues that the votes of all the registered
product of the percentage and of the remaining available seats voters who actually voted in the May 2010 elections should be
corresponds to a party’s share in the remaining available included in the computation of the divisor whether valid or
seats. Second, we assign one party-list seat to each of the parties invalid. According to the petitioner, votes cast for the party-list
48
next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed. candidates is not the same as the votes cast under or for the
We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round party-list system. Specifically, it said that: The party list system is
of seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to not just for the specific party lists as provided in the ballot, but
determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate pertains to the system of selection of the party list to be part of
is entitled.
43 the House of Representatives. The petitioner claims that there
49
organizations. We abandoned the requirement introduced in Ang included in the divisor to determine the 2% threshold.
Bagong Bayani that all party-list groups should prove that they
represent a "marginalized" or "under-represented" sector. We agree with the petitioner but only to the extent that votes
later on determined to be invalid due to no cause attributable
Proportional representation is provided in Section 2 of Republic to the voter should not be excluded in the divisor. In other
Act No. 7941. BANAT overturned Veterans’ interpretation of the
45 words, votes cast validly for a party-list group listed in the
phrase in proportion to their total number of votes. We clarified ballot but later on disqualified should be counted as part of
the divisor. To do otherwise would be to disenfranchise the
voters who voted on the basis of good faith that that ballot component of the House of Representatives should be amended
contained all the qualified candidates. However, following accordingly.
this rationale, party-list groups listed in the ballot but whose
disqualification attained finality prior to the elections and We qualify that the divisor to be used in interpreting the formula
whose disqualification was reasonably made known by the used in BANAT is the total votes cast for the party-list system.
Commission on Elections to the voters prior to such This should not include the invalid votes. However, so as not to
elections should not be included in the divisor. disenfranchise a substantial portion of the electorate, total votes
cast for the party-list system should mean all the votes validly
Not all votes cast in the elections should be included in the cast for all the candidates listed in the ballot. The voter relies
divisor. Contrary to the argument of the petitioner, Section 11(b) on the ballot when making his or her choices.
of Republic Act No. 7941 is clear that only those votes cast for
the party-list system shall be considered in the computation of the To the voter, the listing of candidates in the official ballot
percentage of representation: represents the extent of his or her choices for an electoral
exercise. He or she is entitled to the expectation that these
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least names have properly been vetted by the Commission on
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list Elections. Therefore, he or she is also by right entitled to the
systemshall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those expectation that his or her choice based on the listed names in
garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be the ballot will be counted.
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of
votes: Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition In Reyes v.COMELEC as cited in Loreto v. Brion, this Court
54 55
shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats. said "that the votes cast for the disqualified candidate are
(Emphasisprovided) presumed to have been cast in the belief that he is
qualified." Therefore, the votes cast for disqualified candidates
56
The total votes cast do not include invalid votes. The invalid are presumed to be made with a sincere belief that the voters’
votes, for the determination of the denominator, may be votes choices were qualified candidates and that they were without any
that were spoiled or votes that resulted from the following: intention to misapply their franchise. Their votes may not be
57
that nullify the count for that vote that can be attributable to the disqualification of a candidate should not be a means for the
voter’s action. disenfranchisement of the votes cast for the party-list system.
Votes cast for the party-list system should, however, include all Section 10 of the Party-list Law should thus be read in
votes cast for party-list groups contained in the ballot even if conjunction with the intention of the law as seen in Section 2, to
subsequently they are disqualified by the Commission on wit:
Elections or by our courts. Thus, the content of the divisor in the
formula to determine the seat allocation for the party-list
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. -The State shall promote them." It is also part of the right of suffrage, and the law’s
61
proportional representation in the election of representatives to intention to ensure a more representative Congress should be
the House of Representatives through a party-list system of given priority.
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations
or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging Therefore, the divisor should now include all votes cast for party-
to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations list groups that are subsequently disqualified for so long as they
and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but were presented as a choice to the electorate.
who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to If his or her vote is not counted as part of the divisor, then this
become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this would amount to a disenfranchisement of a basic constitutional
end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open right to be able to choose representatives of the House of
party system in order to attain the broadest possible Representatives in two ways. First, his or her vote will be nullified.
representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Second, he or she will be deprived of choosing another party-list
Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and group to represent his or her interest should the party listed in the
win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest ballot be declared disqualified.
scheme possible. (Emphasis provided)
However, there are instances when the Commission on Elections
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7941, which governs party-list include the name of the party-list group in the ballot but such
elections, states that votes cast for a party-list "not entitled to be group is disqualified with finality prior to the elections. In applying
voted for shall not be counted." It does not specify any reckoning and interpreting the provisions of Section 6 of Republic Act No.
period of the finding of disqualification or cancellation of 6646,we said in Cayat v. Commission on Elections that votes
62
registration for the validity or the invalidity of votes unlike that in cast in favor of a candidate "disqualified with finality" should be
Section 72 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by considered stray and not be counted. To be consistent, the party-
Section 6, Republic Act No. 6646. Taking Sections 2 and 10
60
list group in the ballot that has been disqualified with finality and
together, this Court must consider the intention of the law and the whose final disqualification was made known to the electorate by
nature of Philippine style party-list elections. Party-list groups the Commission on Elections should also not be included in the
provide for a different and special representation in Congress. To divisor. This is to accord weight to the disqualification as well as
disregard votes of party-list groups disqualified after the conduct accord respect to the inherent right of suffrage of the voters.
of the elections means the disenfranchisement of thousands, if
not hundreds of thousands of votes, of the Filipino people.
Thus, the formula to determine the proportion garnered by the
Definitely, it is not the voter’s fault that the party-list group in the
party-list group would now henceforth be:
ballot it votes for will be subsequently disqualified. The voter
should not be penalized.
Number of votes of party-list Proportion or
The counting of votes for party-list groups in the ballot but Percentage of
=
subsequently declared as disqualified is, thus, corollary to the votes garnered by
"fundamental tenet of representative democracy that the people party-list
Total number of valid votes for party-
should be allowed to choose whom they please to govern
list candidates The refined formula shall apply prospectively to succeeding party-
list elections from the date of finality of this case.
The total votes cast for the party-list system include those votes SO ORDERED.
made for party-list groups indicated in the ballot regardless of the
pendency of their motions for reconsideration or petitions before
any tribunal in relation to their cancellation or disqualification
cases. However, votes made for those party-list groups whose
disqualification attained finality prior to the elections should be
excluded if the electorate is notified of the finality of their
disqualification by the Commission on Elections. The divisor also
shall not include invalid votes.
The divisor shall be the total number of valid votes cast for the
party-list system including votes cast for party-list groups whose
names are in the ballot but are subsequently disqualified. Party-
list groups listed in the ballot but whose disqualification attained
finality prior to the elections and whose disqualification was
reasonably made known by the Commission on Elections to the
voters prior to such elections should not be included in the
divisor. The divisor shall also not include votes that are declared
spoiled or invalid.