CIBAC vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 172103, April 13, 2007 [Case Digest]

 

CIBAC vs. Comelec,

G.R. No. 172103,   April 13, 2007

EN BANC [VELASCO, JR., J.]

Facts:

            The COMELEC, sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers for the Party-List System, issued Resolution No. NBC 04-004, which proclaimed petitioner CIBAC as one of those which qualified to occupy a seat in Congress having received the required two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list representatives. In the computation for additional seats for the parties, the COMELEC adopted a simplified formula of one additional seat per additional 2%, thereby foreclosing the chances of CIBAC to gain an additional seat under the party-list system for having received less than what was prescribed by the poll body.

            Comelec Commissioner resolves to adopt the simplified formula of one additional seat per additional two percent of the total party-list votes in the proclamation of the party-list winners in the coming 10 May 2004 National and Local Elections.’

                        CIBAC - 3.8638

                        BUTIL - 3.3479

                        PM - 3.4947

            Following the simplified formula of the Commission, after the first 2% is deducted from the percentage of votes of the above-named party-lists, they are no longer entitled to an additional seat. It is worth mentioning that the Commission, consistent with its formula, denied the petition for a seat of ABA-AKO and ANAD after garnering a percentage of votes of 1.9900 and 1.9099 respectively.

            Petitioner CIBAC asseverates that the COMELEC committed a serious departure from settled jurisprudence amounting to grave abuse of discretion when it mistakenly relied on the "simplified formula" as the basis for its resolution. Moreover, it stressed that the COMELEC simplified formula runs counter to the Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna formula which used the "number of allotted seats for the first party" as multiplier. If the Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna formula were applied, CIBAC would be entitled to one additional seat, thus:

Issue:

            Whether CIBAC is entitled for an additional seat.

 

Held:

           

            The Court, in the leading case of Veterans, listed the four (4) inviolable parameters to determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election mandated by the Constitution and R.A. 7941, as follows:

First, the twenty percent allocation––the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list.

Second, the two percent threshold––only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are "qualified" to have a seat in the House of Representatives.

Third, the three-seat limit––each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two additional seats.

Fourth, proportional representation––the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to their total number of votes."

            In determining the number of additional seats for each party-list that has met the 2% threshold, "proportional representation" is the touchstone to ascertain entitlement to extra seats.

            The correct formula in ascertaining the entitlement to additional seats of the first party and other qualified party-list groups was clearly explicated in Veterans.

            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 the 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.

            Formula for Additional Seats of Other Qualified Parties: 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 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.

            Applying the Veterans formula in petitioner’s case, we reach the conclusion that CIBAC is not entitled to an additional seat. Party-List Canvass Report No. 20 contained in the petition shows that the first party, Bayan Muna, garnered the highest number of votes, that is, a total of 1,203,305 votes. Petitioner CIBAC, on the other hand, received a total of 495,190 votes. It was proclaimed that the first party, Bayan Muna, was entitled to a maximum of three (3) seats based on June 2, 2004 Resolution No. NBC 04-004 of the COMELEC. A computation using the Veterans formula would therefore lead us to the following result:

            Since petitioner CIBAC got a result of 0.82304986 only, which is less than one (1), then it did not obtain or reach a whole number. Petitioner has not convinced us to deviate from our ruling in Veterans that "in order to be entitled to one additional seat, an exact whole number is necessary." Clearly, petitioner is not entitled to an additional seat.

            WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed March 7, 2006 Comelec Resolution No. 06-0248 is hereby AFFIRMED only insofar as it denied petitioner CIBAC’s motion for the proclamation of its second nominee to an additional seat under the 2004 party-list elections. The portion of Comelec Resolution No. 06-0248, which adopted and applied the "simplified formula of the Commission on the matter per Comelec Resolution No. 6835 promulgated 08 May 2004," is annulled and set aside. Respondent Comelec is ordered to strictly apply the Veterans formula in determining the entitlement of qualified party-list groups to additional seats in the party-list system.