Summary: It is
beyond human expectations that we charge voters with knowledge as to which
among the many party-list groups listed in the ballot they are presented with
during election day is disqualified. To do so will amount to their
disenfranchisement and the failure to comply with the proportionality for
party-list representatives required by the Constitution and by law.
FACTS: Petitioner,
ARARO was a duly accredited party-list garnered a total of 147,204 votes in the
May 10, 2010 elections and ranked 50th. The COMELEC En Banc sitting as the
National Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed twenty-eight (28) party-list
organizations as winners involving a total of thirty-five (35) seats guaranteed
and additional seats. The petitioner questioned the formula used by the COMELEC
and filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order
The petitioner suggests that the formula used by the
Commission on Elections is flawed because votes that were spoiled or that were
not made for any party-lists were not counted. According to the petitioner,
around seven million (7,000,000) votes were disregarded as a result of the
Commission on Elections’ erroneous interpretation. 7,112,792 (Total number of
disregarded votes according to petitioner
ARARO)
On the other hand, the formula used by the Commission on
Elections En Banc sitting as the
National Board of Canvassers is the following:
Number of seats available to legislative districts_x .20
=Number of seats available to party-list representatives .80
Thus, the total number of party-list seats available for
the May 2010 elections is 57 as shown below:
229__x .20 =57 .80
The National Board of Canvassers’ Resolution No. 10-009
applies the formula used in Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC18 to
arrive at the winning party-list groups and their guaranteed seats, where:
Number of votes of party-list
______________________________=
Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list
Total number of votes for party-list candidates
The Commission on Elections through the Office of the
Solicitor General took the position that invalid or stray votes should not be
counted in determining the divisor. The Commission on Elections argues that
this will contradict Citizens’ Battle
Against Corruption (CIBAC) v. COMELEC and Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT)
v. COMELEC.23 It
asserts that:
Neither can the phrase be construed to include the number
of voters who did not even vote for any qualified party-list candidate, as
these voters cannot be considered to have cast any vote "for the
party-list system."
ISSUES: 1.
Whether the case is already moot and academic
2. Whether
petitioners have legal standing
3. Whether
the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in its
interpretation of the formula used in BANAT
v. COMELEC to determine the party-list groups that would be proclaimed in
the 2010 elections
The third issue requires our determination of the
computation of the correct divisor to be used. The options are
HELD: 1. This case is moot and academic but the Court
discussed the issues raised by the petitioner as these are capable of
repetition yet evading review32 and
for the guidance of the bench, bar, and public.
2.
The computation proposed by petitioner ARARO even
lowers its chances to meet the 2% threshold required by law for a guaranteed
seat. Its arguments will neither benefit nor injure the party. Thus, it has no
legal standing to raise the argument in this Court.
3.
The Court agree with the petitioner but only to the
extent that votes later on determined to be invalid due to no cause
attributable to the voter should not be excluded in the divisor. In other
words, votes cast validly for a party-list group listed in the 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 contained all the qualified candidates. However, following this
rationale, 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.
Section 11(b) 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 percentage of representation:
1. (b) The parties,
organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total
votes cast for the party-list systemshall be entitled to one seat each:
Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes:
Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be
entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment