Navarro vs Executive Secretary Ermita
G.R. 180050 | February 10, 2010 | Case 1 | Legislative Department |
Composition, Appointment, Reappointment
Facts
 Petitioners seek to nullify R.A 9355 or the act known creating
the Province of Dinagat Islands for being Unconstitutional.
Petitioners also aver that the creation of Dinagat Islands as a
new province perpetuates an illegal act of Congress which
deprives the people of Surigao del Norte a large chunk of its
territory, Internal Revenue Allocation and rich resources from
the area.
 The mother province of Surigao del Norte was created and
established under R.A. No. 2786 on June 1960 which
composes of three groups. The mainland and Surigao City,
Siargao Island and Bucas Grande, and Dinagat Island.
Additionally, a census was down and found that the
population of Dinagat Island is 106,951
o Accordingly, under section 461 of R.A 7160 which
is the LGC a province may be created if it has an
average annual income of not less than 20 million
and a population of not less than 250,000 as
certified by NSO or a contiguous territory of at
least 2,000 square kilometers. Territory need not
to be contiguous if it comprises two or more
islands
April 3, 2002
 The Office of the President advised the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the Province of Surigao del Norte of the
deficient population in the proposed Province of Dinagat
Islands
July 2003
 Provincial Government of Surigao del Norte conducted a
special census in Dinagat Islands to determine its actual
population. The census found that Dinagat Island has
371,576 inhabitants. However, the NSO did not certify
the result of the census.
 On July 30, the Governor then proclaimed the Special
Census as official.
 Furthermore, the Bureau of Local Government Finance
certified the annual income of the Province of Dinagat
Islands based on 1991 princes was 82,696,433, and its land
area is 802.12 square kilometers.
August 2006
 Senate and House of Representatives passed the bill
creating the Province of Dinagat Islands. The bill was duly
approved on October 2006 by PGMA now known as R.A.
9355
December 2006
 A plebiscite was held in the Provicne of Surigao del Norte to
determine whether the Local Government Units directly
affected approved the creation of the Province of Dinagat
Islands into a dinstinct and independent province. The result
of the plebiscite yielded 69,943 affirmative and 63,502
negative.
 The provincial board of canvassers proclaimed the creation
of Dinagat Islands into a separate and dinstinct province.
January 2007
 A new set of provincial officials took their oath of office after
appointment by PGMA. Another set of officials was elected
during the national and local elections on May 14, 2007.
 The elected officials took their oath of office which began the
Province’s corporate existence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
 Petitioners argue that the creation of the Province of Dinagat
Islands under R.A. 9355 as it did not comply with the
population or land area requirements under the LGC
 Petitioners pray that RA 9355 declared unconstitutional and
all appointments and elections to the new vacant positions in
the newly created Province be declared null and void. They
add the return for the municipalities of Dinagat Islands and
its districts to Surigao del Norte.
Issue
 WON R.A 9355 complied with the requirements under
Section 461 of RA 7160.
 WON the Creation of Dinagat as a new province is an act of
gerrymandering
 Whether or not the result of the plebiscite is credible and
truly reflects the mandate of the people
Ruling
 The Court granted the petition.
 The Constitution explicit provides the provision on the
creation of a province in Section 10, Article 10.
 While it is true that R.A 9355 complied with the income
requirements provided by the LGC however, it failed to
comply with the land area requirement and the population
requirement.
o The Court also added that the IRR went beyond
the criteria prescribed by Section 461 of the LGC
as the IRR states that the land area requirement
can be dispensed with if the population
requirement is satisfied.
o However, the Constitution requires that any
exemption for the criteria for creating a province
must be written in the Local Government Code.
 While the Respondents argue that the lack of certification
was cured by the presence of NSO officials, the result was
agreed to not be certified by the NSO which is a requirement
of the LGC
o Moreover, the NSO representative stated that the
population requirement would be attained by the
Province only by the year 2065 which was based
on the growth of population.
 With the requirements the court declared R.A 9355
unconstitutional for failing to comply with the criteria of the
Local Government Code
Whether or not the creation of the Province of Dinagat Islands is
an act of Gerrymandering
 Another issue the petitioners raised was that the
creation of the province was an act of gerrymandering
for the dominance of Congresswoman Ecleo-Villaroman.
 According to the petitioners if Siargao were included in
the new province, the territorial requirement of 2,000
square km would be satisfied and would have a bigger
population based on the census of the NSO.
o Petitioners further add that the inclusion of
Siargao Island would result into an uncertain
political control for the said Congresswoman.
As the said Congresswoman lost her seat
twice to a member of an influential family
based in Siargao. Therefore, the only way to
compete is through gerrymandering
 According to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas
o Gerrymandering is the formation of one
legislative district out of separate territories for
the purpose of favoring a candidate or a party.
Allegations of Fraud
 The Court ruled that the allegations of fraud are factual in
nature; hence they cannot be covered by a special civil
action for certiorari as it is only designed for the correction of
errors of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion.
 The Court granted the petition and declared R.A 9355 as
unconstitutional and the subsequent election as null
and void.
 Moreover, the Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Local Government Code of 1991 which modifies the land
area requirement is declared null and void.
 Aldaba v. Comelec only have a population of 249,333. The projections conflict
G.R. No. 188078 | January 25, 2010 | Case 2 | Topic 7 | with the certification issued by R.D Miranda.
Composition, Appointment, Reappointment |  The Supreme Court further added that any population
projection forming the basis for the creation of a legislative
Facts district must be based on an official and credible source.
 Before May 1, 2009 the province of Bulacan was o Therefore, the OSG cited Executive Order No. 135
represented in Congress through four legislative districts. as stating otherwise would mean that the
The First district was comprised of the City of Malolos and projection would be unreliable or speculative.
municipalities of Hagonoy, Calumpit, Pulilan, Bulacan and  Moreover, the Section 3 of the Ordinance states that
Paombong. o Any province or any city whose population may
 Then, on May 1 2009, RA 9591 lapsed into a law amending hereafter increase to more than 250,000 shall be
the Malolos Charter through the creation a separate entitled in following the immediately following
legislative district for the city. At the time of the legislative election to at least one member.
bills for RA 9591 were filed, the population of Malolos City  With the fact that there is no showing that the City of Malolos
was 223,069 has attained or will attain the required 250,000 population
 Petitioners as taxpayers, registered voters, and residents requirement whether actual or projected. The Court
filed the petition contending that RA 9591 is unconstitutional Granted the Petition and declare R.A 9591
for failing to meet the minimum population threshold of unconstitutional.
250,000 for a city to merit representation in Congress as
provided in Sec 5 par 3 Article 6 of the Constitution and
Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution.
 The OSG replied that the use of Congress of the projected
population is non-justiciable as it involves the determination
of the wisdom of the standard adopted by the legislature.
Issue
 Whether or not RA 9591 is unconstitutional for violating
Section 5 Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of
the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.
 Whether the City of Malolos has a population of at least
250,000 whether actual or projected for the purpose of
creating a legislative district for the City of Malolos for the
May 10, 2010 elections.
Ruling
 The Court granted the petition and stated that for a city to
have a legislative district, the city must have a population of
at least 250,000.
 Accordingly the House Bill cites the undated Certification of
Regional Director of the NSO which states that the City of
Malolos will have the population of 254,03 by 2010.
o The said certification of Regional Director Miranda
which is based on demographic projections has no
legal effect as he has no basis and authority to
issue the certification.
o Moreover, the Certification is void on its face as
according to the growth rate assumption, the
population of Malolos will be less than 250,000 in
the year 2010.
o Finally, the intercensal demographic projections
cannot be made for the entire year. As a city
whose population has increased to 250,000 is
entitled to have a legislative district only in the
‘immediately’ following election’ after the
attainment of the 250,000 population.
 Accordingly, certifications on demographic projections can
be issued only if those projections are declared official by the
National Statistics Coordination Board.
 Second is that the certification based on demographic
projections can be issued only by the NSO Administrator or
his designated certifying officer.
 Lastly, the intercensal population projections must be as of
the middle of the year.
o These said rules is based on Section 6 of
Executive Order No. 135 issued by President
Ramos.
 The Court however, found out that the certification issued by
R.D Miranda does not state that the demographic projections
he certified have been declared official by the NSCB nor do
the records of the case show it.
 Accordingly, the Corut found out that according to the growth
rate of the population of Malolos, by August 1 2010, it will
Senator Benigno Simeon Aquino III and Mayor Jesse Robredo vs
COMELEC
G.R. No. 189793 | April 7, 2010 | Topic 7 | Consti Law I |
Composition; Appointment; Reapportionment |
Facts
o Petitioners as public officers, taxpayers, and citizens seek
the nullification as unconstitutional Republic Act No. 9716
which is an act reapportioning1 the Composition of the First
and Second Legislative Districts in the Province of
Camarines Sur and thereby creating a new legislative district
from such reapportionment.
o R.A 9716 originated as House Bill No. 4264 which was
signed into law on October 12, 2009 which took effect on
October 31, 15 days following its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation.
o Before the enactment of RA 9716 the province of
Camarines Sur was estimated to have a
population 1,693,821 among four legislative
districts.
o After the enactment of RA 9716, the first and
second districts of Camarines Sur were
reconfigured in order to create an additional
legislative district for the province.
o The said reapportionment resulted into the first district
municipalities of Libamanan, Minalabac, Pamplona,
Pasacao and San Fernando were combined with the
second district municipalities of Milaor and Gainza to
form a new second legislative district, which resulted
the first district to only have 176,383 as its population.
Petitioners’ Arguments
o Petitioners argue that the reapportionment introduced by R.A
9716 runs afoul against the constitutional standard that
requires a minimum of 250,000 for the creation of a
legislative district. This is because the reapportionment
would result into the first district with less than 250,000 or
176,383.
o To support their contention, petitioners point to the intent of
the framers to adopt a population minimum of 250,000 in the
creation of additional legislative seats. Petitioners submit the
following:
o R.A 9716 is unconstitutional because it failed to
meet the population requirement.
o R.A 9716 violates the principle of proportional
representation as provided in Article 6 Section 5
paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the Constitution.
Respondent’s Arguments
o The Respondents argued in two matters first is the
procedural and the substantive matters.
o For the purposes of the topic, we should discuss
the substantive matter argument of the
Respondents.
o Respondents recognize the 250,000-population requirement,
but they argue that a plain and simple reading to the
provision will show the questioned provision will show that it
does not apply to the legislative districts in provinces.
Respondents contend that the population requirement
only applies for the creation of a legislative district in a
city.
Issue
o WON the 250,000 is an indispensable constitutional
requirement for the creation of a new legislative district
in a province.
Ruling
o The Court denied the petition.
o The Court ruled that the petitioner’s reliance on the second
sentence coupled with the intent of the framers of the
Constitution to adopt a minimum population 250,000 for
each legislative district.
1 Reapportionment is the realignment of a legislative district’s boudnaries to
reflect changes in population (Blacks Law 8th Edition p. 3967)
o The second sentence of Sec 5 Par 3 of Article 6 states that
“Each city with a population of at least 250,000 or each
province”
o With the provision using a comma to separate
each city from each province. Would mean that
the 250,000-minimum population is only required
for a city, but not for a province.
o The Court cited their ruling in Mariano Jr. V COMELEC
wherein they stated that Sec 5 par 3 of Article 6 requires
a city to have a minimum population of 250,000 to be
entitled to a representative, it does not have to increase
its population by another 250,000 to be entitled an
additional district.
o The Court also cited the Local Government Code in the
creation of a province which is entitled to at least one
legislative district and cited the requirement of population
which is not an indispensable requirement but an alternative
addition to the indispensable income requirement.
o For the reason of the population of requirement was gleaned
upon by the Court from the records of the Constitutional
commission wherein the 250,000-population benchmark
was used for the 1986 nationwide apportionment of
legislative district among provinces, cities and Metro
Manila.
o Moreover, the court stated that the requirement
was not taken as an absolute minimum for one
legislative district.
o Finally, the court stated that population as a
factor was not the sole though it was among
several determinants.
o From the records, the Constitutional Commission originally
divided the entire country into 200 districts which were
distributed to the 73 provinces and 10 cities with at least
250,000. Afterwards, they were distributed among the
provinces, cities and Metropolitan area.
o For the second manner, Fomer Chief Justice
Davide and member of the Commission stated
that they then proceeded to increase whenever
appropriate the number of seats for provinces
and cities in accordance to their inhabitants on
the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.
o The Supreme Court cited the case of Palawan wherein
Mr. Nolledo inquired on the reason of the inclusion of
Puerto Princesa in the northern towns when it was more
affinity with the southern towns of Palawan wherein the
districting of Palawan disregarded the 250,000-
population figure.
o In his reply, Commissioner Davide explained that
the Committee took into account the standards set
in Section 5 wherein:
 Legislative seats should be apportioned
among the provinces and cities and
Metro Manila area in accordance to its
inhabitants
 And that legislative districts must be
compact, adjacent and contiguous.
o The Court then added that “The Constitution, however,
does not require mathematical exactitude or rigid
equality as a standard in gauging equality of
representation”
o To ensure quality representation through
commonality of interests and ease of access
by the representative to the constituents, all
tha the constitution requires is that every
legislative district should comprise, as far as
practicable contiguous, compact and adjacent
territory.
o The Court ruled that the reapportionment of the first and
second legislative districts in the Province of Camarines
 Sur is valid even if the population of the new district is
176,383 due to the factors mentioned during the
deliberations on House Bill 4264 which are
o Dialects spoken in the municipalities
o Size of the original groupings compared to the
regrouped municipalities
o Natural division separating the municipality subject
of the discussion from the reconfigured District
One
o Balancing of the areas of the three districts
resulting from the redistricting of the first and
second district.
o The court furthermore added that the number of
inhabitants of a district should be considered, but
population is not the only factor but is just one of
the several other factors in reapportionment.
Sema vs COMELEC
G.R. 177597 | July 16, 2008 | Case 6 | Composition; Appointment;
Reapportionment
Facts
o On August 2006, the ARMM’s Regional Assembly exercised
its power to create provinces under Section 19, Article 6 of
R.A 9054 wherein they enacted Muslim Mindanao Autonomy
Act 201 which creates the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan.
o The said province is composed of eight
municipalities in the first district of Maguindanao.
o After the enactment of the law, three new
municipalities were carved out of the original 9
municipalities constituting Shariff Kabunsuan
bringing its total number to 11.
o Cotabato city, although not part of Maguindanao’s
first legislative district is not a part of the Province
of Maguindanao.
October 2006
o Voters of Maguindanao ratified Shariff Kabunsuan’s creation
in a plebiscite on October 2006.
February 2007
o The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cotabato City passed a
resolution which requested the COMELEC to clarify the
status of Cotabato City in view of the conversion of the First
District of Maguindanao into a regular province under MMA
Act 201.
o In its reply, the COMELEC issued a resolution to
main the status quo with Cotabato City as part of
Shariff Kabunsuan in the first legislative district of
Maguindanao.
March 2007
o To prepare for the upcoming May 14 2007 elections, the
COMELEC promulgated R.A 6845 which states that
Maguindanao’s legislative district is composed only of
Cotabato City.
May 2007
o Then on May 2007, the COMELEC issued Resolution 7902
which renamed the legislative district in question as Shariff
Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City (formerly First
District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City).
Petitioner’s Arguments
o Sema who was a candidate for the elections that year for
Representative of Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City
prayed for the nullification of COMELEC resolution 7902 and
exclusion from canvassing of the votes cast in Cotabato City
for that office.
o According to Sema, Shariff Kabunsuan is entitled to one
representative under Section 5 par 3 Article 6 of the
Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the
Constitution.
o The OSG Replied that Sema wrongly availed the writ of
certiorari and that the writ of prohibition became moot with
the proclamation of respondent Dilangalen as representative
of Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City.
Issue.
o Whether Section 19, Article 6 of R.A 9054 delegating the
ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces,
cities, municipalities and barangays is constitutional.
o if in the affirmative, whether a province created by the
ARMM Regional Assembly under MMA Act 201 pursuant to
Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 is entitled to one
representative in the House of Representatives without need
of a national law creating a legislative district for such
province.
Ruling
o For the first issue, the court ruled tha the creation of LGUs is
governed by Section 10 Article X of the Constitution.
o Moreover, the creation of any of the four local
government units – province city, municipality or
barangay must comply with three conditions.
 First – creation of the LGU must follow
the crtieria in the LGC
 Second – the creation must not conflict
with any provision of the Constitution
 Third – there must be a plebiscite in the
political units affected.
o While there is no express prohibition regarding Congress
delegating to regional or local legislative bodies to create
LGUs. Under its plenary legislative powers, Congress can
delegate to local legislative bodies to create LGUs subject to
reasonable standards and that no conflict arises with the
Constitution.
o An example of this would be the delegation to
provincial boards, and city and municipal councils
the power to create Barangays.
o However, under the LGC only an Act of Congress can create
provinces, cities or municipalities.
o Under Section 19, Article 6 of R.A 9054 Congress
delegated to the ARMM regional assembly the
power to create provinces, cities, municipalities
and barangays within the ARMM.
o The Court found that while there is no conflict with the
delegation to create municipalities and barangays, provided
that Sec 10 Article X of the Constitution is followed.
o However, the creation of cities and provinces is a different
matter as Section 5 par 3 Article 6 requires that a city has
250,000 as its population or each province shall have at
least one representative.
o The Creation of a province cannot be created without a
legislative district because it will violate Sec 5 par 3 Article 6
of the Constitution, and Section 3 of the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution.
o The same can be said for a city with a population of
250,000 or more as it cannot be created without a
legislative district. Thus, the power to create a city or
province requires the power to create a legislative
district.
o With this fact known, the question is that whether
Congress can delegate to the ARMM Regional
Assembly the power to create legislative districts
for the House of Rep? The Court ruled in the
negative.
o The Court ruled that Legislative Districts are created or
reapportioned only by an act of Congress.
o This textual commitment to Congress of the
exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative
districts is logical. Congress is a national
legislature and any increase in its allowable
membership or in its incumbent membership
through the creation of legislative districts must be
embodied in a national law. Only Congress can
enact such a law. It would be anomalous for
regional or local legislative bodies to create or
reapportion legislative districts for a national
legislature like Congress. An inferior legislative
body, created by a superior legislative body,
 cannot change the membership of the superior
legislative body.
o Moreover, nothing in Section 20 Article X authorizes
Autonomous Regions expressly or impliedly to create or
reapportion legislative districts for congress.

o Petitioner Sema then invoked the ruling Felwa to support her

contention that Section 5 par 3 of Article 6 and Section 3 of
the Ordiance appended to the Constitution serves as bases
that the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan is automatically
entitled to one member in the house of Rep. where it states
that “a province is created by statute, the corresponding
representative district comes into existence neither by
atuthority of that statute – which cannot provide
otherwise – nor by appointment, but by operation of the
Constitution without a reapportionment”

o The court found her contention without merit as in Felwa, the

issue was regarding whether R.A 4695 which created the
provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugay and
Kalinga-Apayao and providing congressional representation
to the old and new provinces was unconstitutional.
o The court sustained the constitutionality of the
law in that case as it was created validly
through a special law enacted by congress.
o And that the creation of the districts did not
result into the breaching of maximum number
of legislative districts under the 1935 consti
o Felwa also does not apply as the law in the Felwa case was
a national law. However, in this instant case it was a regional
law enacted by the ARMM-Regional Assembly.
o The Court ruled that the Felwa case teaches that
the creation of a legislative district by congress
does not emanate alone from the Power of
Congress to Reapportion legislative districts but
also from Congress’ power to create provinces
which cannot be created without a legislative
district.
o Only an act of Congress can trigger the
creation of a legislative district.
o “The constitution empowered Congress to create or
reapportion legislative districts, not the regional
assemblies”
o The Court held that Section 19 Article 6 of R.A 9054 as
unconstitutional as it grants to the Regional Assembly
of ARMM the power to create provinces and cities.
Furthermore, the court declared MMA Act 201 void.

Veterans Federation Party v. Cmission on Elections
G.R. No. 136781 | Case No. 1 | Topic: Legislative Department;
Party-List |
Facts
 Before heading to the case proper, the Court in its decision
cited the parameters on how a Party-list is deemed as a
winner. The following are the ‘four parameters’
o First is the twenty percent allocation – which is
the combined number of all party-list congressmen
shall not exceed twenty percent of the total
membership of the House of Representatives
o Second is the two percent threshold – wherein
only those parties who garner 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
o Third is the three-seat limit – wherein each
qualified party regardless of the number of votes
it obtained is entitled to a maximum of three seats;
one which is qualifying and two additional
seats.
 The instant case are three consolidated Petitions for
Certiorari assailing two resolutions made by the COMELEC
o One on October 15, 1998 made by the
COMELEC’s Second Division
o And the January 7, 1999 Resolution made by the
COMELEC en banc, wherein they affirmed the first
resolution.
o The resolutions ordered the proclamation of 38
additional party-list representatives to complete
the full complement of 52 seats in the House of
Representatives as provided under Section 5,
Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution and R.A 7941
 The 1987 Constitution, introduced a new feature found in
Section 5, Article 6 of the Constitution, which is the party-
list method of representation. Under the party-list system,
any national, regional or sectoral party or organization
registered with the COMELEC may participate in the
election of party-list representatives. With the new party-
list system, a voter now has two votes for the House of
Representatives – one for a district congressman and
another for a party-list representative.
o According to Section 5 par 1, Article 6 of the
Constitution.
 “The House of Representatives shall
be composed of not more than 250
members, UNLESS OTHERWISE
FIXED BY LAW, xxxx”
o Furthermore, on Section 5 Par 2 of the same
Article states that
 Party-list representatives shall
constitute 20 per centum of the total
number of representatives including
those under the party-list.
 Moreover, Paragraph 2 adds that “one
half of the seats allocated 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”
 In order to comply with the “provided by law” clause of Par. 2
of Sec 5 Art. 6, Congress enacted R.A 7941 on March 3,
1995
o R.A 7941 seeks to promote proportional
representation in the election of representatives to
the House of Representatives through a party-list
system of registered national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof, which will enable Filipinos belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties who lack well-defined
political constituencies but who could contribute
to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the
nation as a whole
 Congress then set the requirements for the party-list seat.
After the enactment of the said law, in pursuance to Section
18 of R.A 7941, the COMELEC en banc promulgated
Resolution 2847 which prescribes the rules and regulations
governing the election of party list representatives.
May 11, 1998 (First Election for Party-list representation)
 On May 11, 1998 the first election for party-list
representation was held simultaneously with the national
elections. 123 parties, organizations and coalitions
participated.
June 26, 1998
 Then on June 26, the COMELEC en banc proclaimed 13
party-list representatives from 12 parties and organizations
which obtained at least two percent of the total number of
votes.
 After passing upon the results of the special elections on
July 4, 18 and 25, 1998 the COMELEC determined that one
of the winners, COCOFED was entitled only to one part-list
seat as they have garnered 2.04 percent of the total votes
cast.
July 6, 1998
 On July 6, PAG-ASA filed a Petition to “Proclaim the Full
Number of Party-List Representatives provided by the
Constitution”
 PAG-ASA alleges that the filling up of the twenty percent
membership of party-list representatives in the House of
Representatives was mandatory under the Constitution.
 After PAG-ASA’s petition, nine other organizations filed the
same on the same grounds.
October 15, 1998 (COMELEC Second Division Resolution)
 COMELEC Second Division then promulgated the assailed
resolution by granting PAG-ASA’s Petition. The said
 resolution ordered the proclamation of the 38 respondents in
addition to the 14 currently sitting.
 The said resolution states that congressional seats must be
filled up by 80% district representatives and 20% party-
list representatives. The COMELEC stated that in
allocating 52 seats, it would disregard the two percent-vote
requirement under R.A 7941’s Section 11 par b.
 In its Resolution, the COMELEC’s second division identified
three elements of the party list system.
o First – The system was conceived to enable
the marginalized sectors of the Philippine
society to be represented in the House of
Representatives.
o Second – The system should present the
broadest sectors of Philippine Society.
o Third – it should encourage the multi-party
system.
 The COMELEC considered the three elements but ignored
the two-percent threshold requirement of RA 7941. The
resolution states that party-list groups ranked 1 to 51
should have at least one representative.
 The previous decision by the COMELEC en banc on June
25, 1996 unanimously promulgated a set of Rules and
Regulations governing the election of party-list
representatives.
o The said rule states that one additional seat
shall be given for every two percent of the
vote.
 Accordingly, the COMELEC relied on the said method
when it proclaimed the 14-incumbent party-list solons.
COMELEC also abandoned the unanimous resolution
 However, they abandoned the said formula and then
used the three elements rule stated by the second
division.
COMELEC En Banc Resolution
 After noting that all parties had agreed that the twenty
percent membership of part-list memberships should be
filled up. The COMELEC en banc resolved only the issue
of the apportionment of the remaining seats.
 The Comelec en banc sought to resolve the following issue
in either two ways.
o Whether the 38 unfilled seats should be given to
the thirteen qualified parties.
o To the Group of 38 even if they had not passed
the two percent threshold
 The COMELEC then ruled that to allocate the remaining
seats to the thirteen qualified parties would mean that there
would be a concentration of representation in the House of
Representatives to thirteen organizations. The strict
application of the threshold would not serve the essence of
and object of the constitution.
 Furthermore, the COMELEC held that there were more
important considerations than the two percent threhshold.
 This prompted petitioners to file petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with prayers for issuance of
TROs.
January 12, 1999
 Supreme Court issued a status quo order.
July 1, 1999
 The Court started hearing oral arguments of the parties.
Issue
 Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives
mentioned in Sec 5 par 2 of Article 6, mandatory or is it
merely a ceiling? Should the twenty percent allocation
for party-list solons be filled up completely and all the
time?
 Are the two percent threshold requirement and the three-
seat limit provided in Sec 11 par b of RA 7941
constitutional?
 If the answer to the second questions is affirmative, how
should the additional seats of a qualified party be
determined?
Ruling
 The Court agrees with the contention that the assailed
Resolutions should be nullified but disagrees that they
should all be granted additional seats.
 In determining the total member of party-list lawmakers, the
court made a mathematical formula.
o Number of District Representatives divided by
0.80 then multiplied by 0.20 to get the number of
party list representatives.
 After getting the seat allocation, the Court ruled that the
Twenty percent allocation is merely a ceiling
 As the legislature enacted RA 7941 which states that party-
lists should have at least 2% votes to be entitled to one seat.
And that those garnering more than 2% shall be entitled to
additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes.
Provided that they shall not have more than 3 seats
Two Percent Threshold
 Accordingly, the imposition of the two percent threshold was
to ensure that the parties who are in congress have a
sufficient number of constituents to deserve representation,
which was discussed by the framers of the bill.
Three Seat Per Party limit
 Furthermore, in consonance to the Constitutional
Commissions pronouncements, Cognress set the seat limit
to three. This is to ensure the entry of various interest
groups so that no single group can dominate the party-
list seats.
Methods for Allocating Seats
 The Court the ruled on the third issue which was the
allocation of additional seats. The Court then laid the method
step by step, but before that they addressed the formula and
method of allocating seats.
Methods of Allocating seats
 The first step is to rank all the participating parties according
to the votes they each obtained. The percentage of their
votes as against the total number of votes cast for the party-
list is then determined.
 All those who garnered at least two percent have a
guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives. While
those who have more than two percent shall be entitled
to additional seats.
Additional Seats
 The Court considered two methods for the additional seats
one is the One Additional Seat Per Two Increment and the
Niemeyer Formula which is used in the Bundestag of
Germany.
 The Court ruled that the two methods are not applicable in
the Philippine setting as the two methods would violate the
three-seat limit
Formula for the Philippines
 For the First Step – Is to rank all the participating parties,
organizations and coalitions from the highest to lowest
based on the number of votes they received. After this, a
ratio for each party is computed by dividing its votes by
the total votes cast for all the parties.
o The parties will at least two percent of the total
votes are guaranteed one seat each. And only
these parties shall be considered in the
computation of additional seats. The party
receiving the highest number of votes shall be
referred as the first party.
 For the Second Step – Is to determine the number of seats
first party is entitled to, in order to compute that for the
other parties as the system is based on proportional
representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the
other parties cannot exceed that to which the first party is
entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes.
 o According to the Court, the seats of the second
party should be given less than to which the first
one is entitled.
o Other qualified parties will have less additional
seats than the first party as:
 Ratio between parties and the first party
is always less than 1:1
 The formula does not admit rounding off
as there is no fraction as a seat and
rounding off could violate the twenty
percent allocation.
 To determine the seats that the first
party is entitled to is to get the number
of votes of first party and then divide
it to the total votes for party-list
system
 For the Third Step – is to solve for the additional seats that
the other qualified parties that are entitled to. The formula for
other qualified parties is
o Number of votes of concerned party divided by
the number of votes of first party and then
multiplied to the number of additional seats
allocated to the first party
 The Court ruled that the COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion in ruling that the 38 respondent parties are entitled
a seat because it violated RA 7941’s requirements
 The Petitions are partially granted, resolutions of the
COMELEC are set aside and nullified. Proclamations of
the 14 party-list representatives – two for APEC and one
each for the remaining twelve qualified parties are
affirmed.