EN BANC 7941.

2Itgarnered a total of one hundred forty-seven thousand two

hundred four (147,204) votes in the May 10, 2010 elections and
G.R. No. 192803               December 10, 2013 ranked fiftieth (50th).  The Commission on Elections En Banc
3

sitting as the National Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed

ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN twenty-eight (28) party-list organizations as winners involving a
RECONSTRUCTION, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS ARARO PARTY- total of thirty-five (35) seats guaranteed and additional seats.  The
4

LIST, Petitioner, result was based on the Commission on Elections’ count of one

vs. hundred twenty-one (121) Certificates of Canvass or a total of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. twenty-nine million seven hundred fifty thousand and forty-one
(29,750,041) votes for the Party-List System. 5

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

4 COOPERATIVE NATCCO NETWORK 2

We rule that the Petition is moot and academic. However, we PARTY
provide guidance for the bench and the bar with respect to the
formula used in determining the winning party-list groups. We 5 ABONO 2
refine the divisor in the formula use din getting the percentage of
votes garnered by a party-list. 6 BAYAN MUNA 2

The facts as established on record are as follows:

7 AN WARAY 2
Petitioner, Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, Inc.,
(ARARO) was a duly accredited party-list under Republic Act No.
8 AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ALLIANCE 1 22 ALYANSA NG MGA GRUPONG HALIGI NG 1
SECTOR OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. AGHAM AT TEKNOLOHIYA PARA SA
MAMAMAYAN, INC.
9 ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS 1
PARTY 23 DEMOCRATIC INDEPENDENT WORKERS’ 1
ASSOCIATION, INC.
10 ANAKPAWIS 1
24 KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAKULONG NA 1
11 KABATAAN PARTYLIST 1 WALANG SALA

12 ABANTE MINDANAO, INC. 1 25 KALINGA-ADVOCACY FOR SOCIAL 1

EMPOWERMENT AND NATION BUILDING
THROUGH EASING POVERTY, INC.
13 ACT TEACHERS 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

28 ALLIANCE OF VOLUNTEER EDUCATORS 1

16 BAGONG HENERASYON 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

20 ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE 1

PROFESSIONALS Without waiting for the resolution of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present Petition for
Review on Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
21 TRADE UNION CONGRESS PARTY 1 Temporary Restraining Order.  The petitioner asks that this Court:
8
 1. modify the Commission on Elections’ interpretation of
Less: Votes garnered by the eight (8) 308,335
the formula stated in BANAT v. COMELEC  by making the
9

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

Maximum Total Party-List Votes 30,264,579

WHEREAS, as of May 17, 2010, the projected/maximum total
party-list votes cannot go any higher than thirty million two
hundred sixty[-]four thousand five hundred seventy[-]nine
WHEREAS, since there are twohundred twenty-nine (229)
(30,264,579)given the following statistical data:
legislative districts, the total number of party-list seats available
for the May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections is
REGISTERED fifty-seven (57) based on the following formula: number of
DESCRIPTION legislative districts/0.80 x 0.20;
VOTERS

WHEREAS, the provision of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941

Total party-list votes already 29,750,041
provides, in part, that:
canvassed/tabulated
"(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system
shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering
more than two [sic] (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional
OF 82 %
seats in proportion to their total number of votes: Provided, finally,
ASSOCIATI
That each party, organization or coalitions shall be entitled to not
more than three (3) seats." ONS OF
SENIOR
WHEREAS, applying the formula in the case of Barangay CITIZENS
Association for National Advancement and Transparency OF THE
(BANAT) v. Commission on Elections, and [sic] Bayan Muna, PHILIPPINE
Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment, Cooperation and Harmony S, INC.
Towards Educational Reforms, Inc., and Abono [v.]Commission
on Elections, the ranking of the participating parties, 3 BUHAY 1,249,5 4.1288 1 1.85 2
organizations and coalitions from highest to lowest based on the HAYAAN 55 %
number of votes garnered as of May 17, 2010, and the seats that YUMABON
may be obtained by each party to complete the allocation of the
G
available 57 party-list seats, are shown below: 13

4 AKBAYAN! 1,058,6 3.4981 1 1.57 2

VOTE CITIZEN'S 91 %
S ACTION
(B)
GARN PARTY
plus
ERED GUARA ADDITI
(C),
VOTE OVER NTEED ONAL
in 5 GABRIELA 1,001,4 3.3089 1 1.48 2
RA S TOTAL SEAT SEATS
PARTY whol WOMEN’S 21 %
NK GARN VOTE First Second
e PARTY
ERED S FOR Round Round
integ
PARTY (B) (C)
ers 6 COOPERAT 943,52 3.1176 1 1.40 2
LIST,
(D) IVE 9 %
in %
(A) NATCCO
NETWORK
PARTY
1 AKO BICOL 1,522,9 5.0322 1 2.26 3
POLITICAL 86 %
PARTY 7 1ST 768,82 2.5404 1 1.14 2
CONSUME 9 %
RS
2 COALITION 1,292,1 4.2696 1 1.92 2
ALLIANCE
 FOR 13 AGRICULT 515,50 1.7033 0 1 1
RURAL URAL 1 %
ENERGY SECTOR
ALLIANCE
8 ABONO 766,61 2.5330 1 1.13 2 SECTOR
5 % OF THE
PHILIPPINE
S, INC.
9 BAYAN 746,01 2.4650 1 1.10 2
MUNA 9 %
14 BUTIL 506,70 1.6742 0 1 1
FARMERS 3 %
10 AN WARAY 711,63 2.3514 1 1.05 2
PARTY
1 %

15 ALLIANCE 469,09 1.5500 0 1 1

11 CITIZEN'S 647,48 2.1394 1 0.96 1
FOR 3 %
BATTLE 3 %
BARANGAY
AGAINST
CONCERNS
CORRUPTI
PARTY
ON

16 ANAKPAWI 445,62 1.4724 0 1 1

12 ADVOCACY 614,72 2.0312 1 0.91 1
S 8 %
FOR 5 %
TEACHER
EMPOWER 17 KABATAAN 417,92 1.3809 0 1 1
MENT PARTYLIST 3 %
THROUGH
ACTION 18 LPG 417,60 1.3798 0 1 1
COOPERAT MARKETER 0 %
ION AND S
HARMONY ASSOCIATI
TOWARDS ON, INC.
EDUCATIO
NAL 19 ABANTE 376,01 1.2424 0 1 1
REFORMS MINDANAO, 1 %
 INC. 25 BAGONG 292,87 0.9677 0 1 1
HENERASY 5 %
20 ACT 369,56 1.2211 0 1 1 ON
TEACHERS 4 %
26 ALLIANCE 292,05 0.9650 0 1 1
21 ANG 357,00 1.1796 0 1 1 FOR 7 %
ASOSASYO 9 % NATIONALI
N SANG SM AND
MANGUNG DEMOCRA
UMA NGA CY
BISAYA-
OWA 27 ANG 269,00 0.8889 0 1 1
MANGUNG GALING 9 %
UMA, INC. PINOY

22 YOU 335,63 1.1090 0 1 1 28 AGBIAG! 262,29 0.8667 0 1 1

AGAINST 5 % TIMBUYOG 8 %
CORRUPTI ILOCANO,
ON AND INC.
POVERTY
29 PUWERSA 258,49 0.8541 0 1 1
23 ASSOCIATI 313,35 1.0354 0 1 1 NG 8 %
ON OF 9 % BAYANING
PHILIPPINE ATLETA
ELECTRIC
COOPERAT 30 ARTS 257,30 0.8502 0 1 1
IVES BUSINESS 1 %
AND
24 KASANGGA 296,36 0.9793 0 1 1 SCIENCE
SA 8 % PROFESSI
KAUNLARA ONALS
N, INC.
31 TRADE 244,62 0.8083 0 1 1
 UNION 3 % EMPOWER
CONGRESS MENT AND
PARTY NATION
BUILDING
32 ALYANSA 241,89 0.7993 0 1 1 THROUGH
NG MGA 8 % EASING
GRUPONG POVERTY,
HALIGI NG INC.
AGHAM AT
TEKNOLOH 36 ALAGAD 227,11 0.7504 0 1 1
IYA PARA PARTY- 6 %
SA LIST
MAMAMAY
AN, INC. 37 1-UNITED 220,00 0.7269 0 1 1
TRANSPOR 2 %
33 DEMOCRAT 238,67 0.7886 0 1 1 T
IC 5 % KOALISYO
INDEPEND N
ENT
WORKERS' 38 UNA ANG 217,03 0.7171 0 1 1
ASSOCIATI PAMILYA 2 %
ON, INC. FORMERLY
ALLIANCE
34 KAPATIRAN 234,71 0.7756 0 1 1 OF NEO-
NG MGA 7 % CONSERVA
NAKULONG TIVES
NA
WALANG 39 ALLIANCE 214,76 0.7096 0 1 1
SALA OF 0 %
VOLUNTEE
35 KALINGA- 229,19 0.7573 0 1 1 R
ADVOCACY 8 % EDUCATOR
FOR S
SOCIAL
40 AANGAT 176,07 0.5818 0 1 1 Y
TAYO 4 % DEVELOPM
ENT
41 ADHIKAING 173,71 0.5740 0 1 1 FOUNDATI
TINATAGUY 1 % ON, INC.
OD NG
KOOPERAT 46 AKSYON 161,67 0.5342 0 1 1
IBA MAGSASAK 4 %
A PARTIDO
42 ANG LABAN 170,30 0.5627 0 1 1 TINIG NG
NG 4 % MASA
INDIGONG
FILIPINO 47 KATIPUNAN 160,74 0.5311 0 0 0
NG MGA 5 %
43 ASSOCIATI 167,65 0.5540 0 1 1 ANAK NG
ON OF 4 % BAYAN ALL
LABORERS FILIPINO
AND DEMOCRAT
EMPLOYEE IC
S MOVEMEN
T
44 KASOSYO 166,43 0.5499 0 1 1
PRODUCER 2 % 48 ANAK 157,73 0.5212 0 0 0
- MINDANAO 3 %
CONSUME
R 49 VETERANS 154,18 0.5095 0 0 0
EXCHANGE FREEDOM 3 %
ASSOCIATI PARTY
ON, INC.
50 ALLIANCE 147,20 0.4864 0 0 0
45 ALAY 163,16 0.5391 0 1 1 FOR 4 %
BUHAY 4 % RURAL
COMMUNIT RECONSTR
 UCTION, 56 ALYANSAN 137,84 0.4555 0 0 0
INC. G 2 %
BAYANIHA
51 ATONG 145,43 0.4805 0 0 0 N NG MGA
PAGLAOM 5 % MAGSASAK
A,
MANGGAG
52 PILIPINO 143,15 0.4730 0 0 0
AWANG-
ASSOCIATI 1 %
BUKID AT
ON FOR
MANGINGIS
COUNTRY-
DA
URBAN
POOR
YOUTH 57 ALLIANCE 136,71 0.4517 0 0 0
ADVANCEM TRANSPOR 0 %
ENT AND T SECTOR
WELFARE
58 KAUNLARA 130,27 0.4304 0 0 0
53 ABANTE 142,01 0.4692 0 0 0 N NG 0 %
TRIBUNG 3 % AGRIKULTU
MAKABANS RA
A ASENSADO
NG
PROBINSY
54 ANGAT 141,78 0.4685 0 0 0
A ANGAT
ATING 0 %
NG BAYAN
KABUHAYA
N
PILIPINAS, 59 BARANGAY 126,46 0.4179 0 0 0
INC. NATIN 2 %

55 PARTIDO 140,00 0.4626 0 0 0 60 1-AKO 120,73 0.3989 0 0 0

NG 0 % BABAENG 4 %
MANGGAG ASTIG
AWA AASENSO
61 1GUARDIA 120,72 0.3989 0 0 0 S PEOPLES
NS 7 % SECTORAL
NATIONALI PARTY
ST OF THE
PHILIPPINE 67 ANG 113,18 0.3740 0 0 0
S, INC. LADLAD 7 %
LBGT
62 BABAE 117,29 0.3876 0 0 0 PARTY
PARA SA 9 %
KAUNLARA 68 CONFEDER 110,75 0.3660 0 0 0
N ATION OF 9 %
NON-
63 BAGONG 115,42 0.3814 0 0 0 STOCK
BAYAN 8 % SAVINGS
NAGTATAG AND LOAN
UYOD SA ASSOCIATI
DEMOKRAT ONS, INC.
IKONG
IDEOLOHIY 69 KABALIKAT 109,73 0.3626 0 0 0
A AT NG MGA 9 %
LAYUNIN MAMAMAY
AN
64 AHON 115,19 0.3806 0 0 0
PINOY 7 % 70 ONE 109,68 0.3624 0 0 0
ADVOCACY 2 %
65 ACTION 115,05 0.3802 0 0 0 FOR
FOR 8 % HEALTH,
DYNAMIC PROGRESS
DEVELOPM AND
ENT, INC. OPPORTUN
ITY
66 KATRIBU 114,89 0.3796 0 0 0
INDIGINOU 1 % 71 BINHI; 108,00 0.3569 0 0 0
 erroneous interpretation. The figure presented by petitioner
PARTIDO 5 %
resulted from the following computations: 14

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)

74 ANG 107,13 0.3540 0 0 0

ASOSASYO 5 % First, the total number of votes for disqualified party-lists is
N NG MGA deducted from the total number of voters that actually voted. The
TRABAHAD total number of votes for disqualified party-list groups is three
OR AT hundred eight thousand three hundred thirty-five (308,335).   The15

PAHINANTE total number of voters that actually voted is thirty-seven million six

hundred eighty-five thousand seven hundred six
(37,685,706).  After subtracting the amounts, the result is thirty-
16

75 AGILA NG 105,00 0.3470 0 0 0

seven million three hundred seventy-seven thousand three
MGA 9 %
hundred seventy-one (37,377,371)votes.
KATUTUBO
NG
Second, the number of votes for disqualified party-list groups is
PILIPINO, again deducted from the number of votes for party-list candidates
INC. which the petitioner pegged at thirty million five hundred seventy-
two thousand nine hundred fourteen votes (30,572,914).  The 17

difference then is thirty million two hundred sixty-four thousand

The petitioner suggests that the formula used by the Commission five hundred seventy-nine (30,264,579) votes.
on Elections is flawed because votes that were spoiled or that
were not made for any party-lists were not counted. According to Lastly, to get the total number of votes disregarded by the
the petitioner, around seven million (7,000,000) votes were Commission on Elections’ interpretation, 30,264,579 is subtracted
disregarded as a result of the Commission on Elections’ from 37,377,371.The computation then results to seven million
one hundred twelve thousand seven hundred ninety-two party-list candidates
(7,112,792) votes disregarded using the Commission on
Elections’ interpretation.
The Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-
On the other hand, the formula used by the Commission on list should be greater than or equal to 2% or 0.02 to entitle a
Elections En Banc sitting as the National Board of Canvassers is party-list candidate to one (1) seat in the first round. There will be
the following: a second round if the total number of guaranteed seats awarded
in the first round is less than the total number of party-list seats
Number of seats available to available. Thus:
legislative districts Number of seats
x .20 = available to party-list Total Proportion or
Number of
representatives number of Percentage Additional
seats
.08 party-list - x of votes = seats
allocated in
seats garnered by awarded
first round
available party-list
Thus, the total number of party-list seats available for the May
2010 elections is 57 as shown below:
If the total seats available for party-lists are not yet awarded after
the second round (this is computed by getting the sum of the
229
seats awarded in the first round and the additional seats awarded
x .20 = 57 in the second round), the next in the party-list ranking will be
given one (1) seat each until all seats are fully distributed. A
.80 three-seat cap per party-list, however, is imposed on winning
groups. Fractional seats are not rounded off and are disregarded.

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

votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to

their total number of votes: Provided, finally, That each Neither can the phrase be construed to include the number of
party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not voters who did not even vote for any qualified party-list candidate,
more than three (3) seats. as these voters cannot be considered to have cast any vote "for
the party-list system." 24

Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List

Representatives. The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the The issues in this case are as follows:
parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank
them according to the number of votes received and allocate I. Whether the case is already moot and academic
party-list representatives proportionately according to the
percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or II. Whether petitioners have legal standing
coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-
list system.(Emphasis provided) III. Whether the Commission on Elections committed
grave abuse of discretion in its interpretation of the
formula used in BANAT v. COMELEC  to determine the
25
 party-list groups that would be proclaimed in the 2010 2013. Finally, the conduct of the May 13, 2013 elections resulted
elections in a new set of party-list groups.

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

leaves any ruling on the issues raised by the petitioner with no

A. All votes cast for the party-list system less the votes practical or useful value. 30

cast for subsequently disqualified party-list groups and

votes declared spoiled However, the following exceptions to the rule of declining
jurisdiction over moot and academic cases are allowed: (1) there
B. The total votes cast was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involved a
situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public
C. The total number of valid votes cast for the party-list interest; (3) the issues raised required the formulation of
system including votes cast for party-list groups listed in controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public;
the ballot even if subsequently declared disqualified. The and (4) the case was capable of repetition yet evading
divisor should not include votes that are declared spoiled review.  On the importance of the assailed formula, this Court will
31

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

bench, bar, and public. 33

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

moot and academic case:

"A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgement in the suit, or the party entitled to the
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a
avails of the suit."  The party’s interest must be direct,
34

justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a

substantial, and material.  In this case, the petitioner attacks the
35

declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule,

validity of the formula used and upheld in BANAT. It also
courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground
proposes its own interpretation of the formula to determine the
of mootness. 27

proportional representation of party-list candidates in the House

of Representatives. However despite any new computation,
Several supervening events have already rendered this case ARARO’s proposed divisor of total votes cast for the party-list
moot and academic. First, the Commission on Elections En system whether valid or invalid still fails to secure one seat for
Banc already proclaimed other winning party-list ARARO. Reviewing the figures presented by the petitioner: 36

groups.  Second, the term of office of the winning party-list

28

groups in the May 2010 national elections ended on June 30,

 The textual references for determining the formula to be used are
With Divisor of total With Divisor of votes
found in the Constitution and the statute interpreting the relevant
valid votes cast for cast for the party-list
provisions.
party-list system system as proposed
minus votes cast for by ARARO
Article VI, Section 5,paragraphs 1 and 2 of the 1987 Constitution
disqualified party- (37,377,371) provide the following:
lists or invalid votes
(30,264,579) 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of
not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
Votes garnered 147,204 147,204 otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces,
Votes garnered 0.4864 0.3939 cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the
over
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who,
total votes cast as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
for party-lists (%) system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations.
Guaranteed Seat 0 0
2. The party-list representatives shall constitute
twenty per centum of the total number of representatives
This table clearly shows that the petitioner does not suffer a including those under the party list. For three consecutive
direct, substantial or material injury from the application of the terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of
formula interpreted and used in BANAT in proclaiming the the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be
winning party-lists in the assailed National Board of Canvassers filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the
Resolution. The computation proposed by petitioner ARARO labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
even lowers its chances to meet the 2% threshold required by law communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as
for a guaranteed seat. Its arguments will neither benefit nor injure may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
the party. Thus, it has no legal standing to raise the argument in
this Court. Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 7941,thus, provide:

III Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The party-list

representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the
However, we review the interpretation of the formula used for the total number of the members of the House of Representatives
determination of wining party-list candidates with respect to the including those under the party-list.
divisor used for the guidance of bench and bar and for future
elections. For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major
political parties on the basis of party representation in the House
of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Veterans laid down the "four inviolable parameters" in
Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list determining the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election
system. based on a reading of the Constitution and Republic Act No.
7941:
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the
following procedure shall be observed: First, the twenty percent allocation-the combined number
of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be percent of the total membership of the House of
ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the Representatives, including those elected under the party
number of votes they garnered during the elections. list.

(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

party-list representatives proportionately according to the provided)

percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or
coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party- In Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) and Butil Farmers Party (Butil)
list system.(Emphasis provided) v. COMELEC,  the petitioning party-list groups sought the
39

immediate proclamation by the Commission on Elections of their

In Veterans Federation Party v. Commission on Elections,  we 37
respective second nominee, claiming that they were entitled to
reversed the Commission on Elections’ ruling that the respondent one (1) additional seat each in the House of Representatives. We
parties, coalitions, and organizations were each entitled to a held that the correct formula to be used is the one used in
party-list seat despite their failure to reach the 2% threshold in the Veterans and reiterated it in Ang Bagong Bayani – OFW Labor
1998 party-list election. Veterans also stated that the 20% Party v. COMELEC.  This Court in CIBAC v.
40

requirement in the Constitution is merely a ceiling. COMELEC  differentiates the formula used in Ang Bagong
41

Bayani but upholds the validity of the Veterans formula.

In BANAT v. COMELEC,  we declared the 2% threshold in
42
that the interpretation that only those that obtained at least 2% of
relation to the distribution of the additional seats as void. We said the votes may get additional seats will not result in proportional
in that case that: representation because it will make it impossible for the party-list
seats to be filled completely. As demonstrated in BANAT, the
x x x The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted 20% share may never be filled if the 2% threshold is maintained.
obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of
the Constitution and prevents the attainment of "the broadest The divisor, thus, helps to determine the correct percentage of
possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the representation of party-list groups as intended by the law. This is
House of Representatives." (Republic Act No. 7941, Section 2) part of the index of proportionality of the representation of a party-
list to the House of Representatives.  It measures the relation
46

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

should be no distinction in law between valid and invalid votes.

The most recent Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC  does not in any
44 Invalid votes include those votes that were made for disqualified
way modify the formula set in Veterans. It only corrects the party-list groups, votes that were spoiled due to improper
definition of valid party-list groups. We affirmed that party-list shading, erasures in the ballots, and even those that did not vote
groups maybe national, regional, and sectoral parties or for any party-list candidate at all.  All of the votes should be
50

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

improper shading or having no shade at all;  existence of stray or

51
treated as stray, void or meaningless58for purposes of the divisor
ambiguous marks;  tears in the ballot; and/or ballots rejected by
52
in the party-list elections. Assuming arguendo that petitions
the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines under the for certiorari do not stay the execution of the judgment or final
paper-based53automated election system. All these are causes order or resolution sought to be reviewed,  the finality of the
59

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.

WHEREFORE from the above discussion:

1. The prayer to enjoin the Commission on Elections from

proclaiming the qualified party-list groups is denied for
being moot and academic;

2. The formula in determining the winning party-list

groups, as used and interpreted in the case of BANAT v.
COMELEC, is MODIFIED as follows:

Number of votes. of party-list Total number of valid votes for

party-list candidates Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered
by party-list

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.