Christian Dominic Diola

BAYAN vs COMELEC GR No. 179271 April 21, 2009 Case Digest

Facts: BANAT Party-list filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus against COMELEC to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives provided by the Constitution, along with this is also a same petition by BAYAN MUNA, ATEACHER, and ABONO, both petitions were pursued due to COMELECs allocation of congressional seats to Party-lists not pursuant and in adherence to Sec. 5 Art. VI of the Constitution in which an allocation of 20% with regards to the total number of seats in the House of Congress should be reserved for the Party-list Representatives, which during that time it has been computed that there should be an allocation of 55 seats for the Party-list Representatives in Congress. In their combined petition, referring to the Veterans formula (Veterans vs. COMELEC) and the 2% threshold qualifier of Sec 11(b) of RA 7941, they questioned whether or not these computations used by COMELEC was constitutional because results of said computation showed no adherence to Sec. 5 Art. VI, if so it was insufficient. Issue: Whether or not the Veterans formula and the 2% threshold qualifier of Sec 11(b) of RA 7941 was constitutional. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated? Ruling: The Veterans formula is said to be flawed in its mathematical interpretation of the term proportional representation with regards to its computations on additional seats. The 2% threshold qualifier rule of Sec 11(b) of RA 7941 is said to also frustrate the 20% permissive ceiling provided for in Sec. 5 Art. VI of the Constitution. Since both agents of computation go against the fulfillment of a certain Constitutional provision, therefore they are deemed unconstitutional and inapplicable. Court ruled that the 2% rule of Sec. 11(b) of RA 7941 simply guarantees 1 seat but does not limit the allocation of seats exclusively to Party-lists that fall under the said rule, it is merely a guaranty not a threshold, therefore, inorder to fillup the 55 seats in Congress, succeeding Party-lists next in rank notwithstanding having not reached 2% of the total number of votes may be entitled seats when all rightful seats are properly distributed to rightful parties. Thus the Supreme Court devised two steps for proper seat allocation: 1.) The percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats, 38, which is the difference between the maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the 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. Thus for BUHAY Party-List who garnered at least 7.33% of the total number of votes casted to the Party-List system, the following computation should be made applicable: BUHAY = 7.33% x 38 = 278.54 / 100 = 2.79 = therefore, 2 additional seats 2.) Assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed. Distribute all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of seat allocation. Finally, apply the three-seat cap of Sec. 11(b) of RA 794 to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is entitled. Therefore, the Court partially granted the petition of petitioners, and declared unconstitutional the 2% threshold distribution of additional party-list seats. The allocation of additional seats under the PartyList System shall be in accordance to the procedures stated above.