Facts:

The case involves the Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, Inc. (ARARO), a party-list group that participated in the May 10, 2010 national elections in the Philippines. ARARO, duly accredited under Republic Act No. 7941, garnered 147,204 votes but ranked fiftieth among the candidates. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, acting as the National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed 28 party-list organizations as winners, filling 35 guaranteed legislative seats based on their count of 121 Certificates of Canvass which totaled approximately 29,750,041 votes in the party-list system. Following this, ARARO filed an election protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal contesting the results. However, before the Tribunal could resolve the matter, ARARO pursued a Petition for Review on Certiorari with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and an injunction against COMELEC’s decision, claiming that the Commission's interpretation of the formula

...

Facts:

Background and Accreditation

• ARARO, also known as Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, Inc., was a duly accredited party‐list organization under Republic Act No. 7941.
• In the May 10, 2010 national elections, ARARO garnered 147,204 votes and ranked 50th among the party-list groups.

Proclamation of Winning Party-List Groups

• The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, acting as the National Board of Canvassers, initially proclaimed 28 party-list groups as winners, awarding them a total of 35 seats.
• The computation was based on a formula set forth in BANAT v. COMELEC, relying on a specific divisor involving the total number of votes cast for the party-list system after excluding certain votes.
• Detailed statistical data were submitted, including votes canvassed, votes for disqualified parties, uncanvassed votes, and projections for the maximum total party-list votes.

ARARO’s Challenge and Computation

• ARARO challenged the formula used by COMELEC, arguing that voters were being unfairly disenfranchised by excluding certain votes improperly.
• The petitioner argued that the vote count should include all votes cast for party-list groups—even those later declared disqualified—because such votes were cast in good faith.
• ARARO’s computation juxtaposed two totals: one based on the current COMELEC method (using 30,264,579 votes) and another based on its proposed formula (using 37,377,371 votes), resulting in roughly 7,112,792 votes supposedly disregarded by the Commission’s approach.

Filing of Election Protest and Petition for Review

• ARARO initially filed an election protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal challenging the resolution that proclaimed the 28 winning party-list groups.
• Without waiting for the tribunal’s resolution, ARARO filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with a prayer for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order against COMELEC.
• The petitioner also proposed a modification of the computing formula, which would change the divisor from “total votes cast minus votes for disqualified groups” to “total votes cast” (including votes for party-list candidates validly appearing on the ballot).

Subsequent Developments and Mootness

• By the time of filing, COMELEC had already proclaimed the winning party-list groups, and the term of office for the challenged seats had expired (June 30, 2013).
• New elections subsequently produced a fresh set of party-list groups, further rendering the issue academic and moot in practical terms.

Detailed Computation Methodologies

• COMELEC’s methodology:
• Utilized the BANAT formula to first allocate one seat to parties obtaining at least 2% of the valid votes for the party-list system.
• Calculated additional seats in a second round by proportionately applying the formula to the remaining available seats, with a three-seat cap per party-list.
• ARARO’s proposed modifications focused on the determination of the divisor for vote percentage calculation, contending that:
• All votes cast on the ballot (including those later invalidated through disqualification not attributable to the voters’ actions) should be counted.
• Only spoiled, stray, or votes for groups disqualified with finality before the election should be excluded.

Issue:

Mootness and Academic Nature of the Petition

• Whether the case is moot and academic due to the expiration of the challenged party-list term and the occurrence of subsequent elections.
• Whether a ruling now would have any practical or immediate effect on the allocation of seats.

Legal Standing of the Petitioner

• Whether ARARO, given its vote count and ranking, is the real party in interest suffering a direct, substantial, and material injury by the method of computation used by COMELEC.
• Whether the petitioner’s challenge affects its electoral fortunes, based on the comparative computation showing no advantage or direct injury.

Interpretation and Application of the Vote-Counting Formula

• Whether COMELEC’s interpretation of the formula in BANAT v. COMELEC, particularly the composition of the divisor (i.e., the total valid votes cast for the party-list system), is correct and in accordance with the law.
• Whether the divisor should be computed by excluding votes for party-list candidates who were disqualified due to valid electoral causes (spoiled, stray, or pre-election final disqualification) versus including those votes cast in good faith.

Determination of the Correct Votes to Include in the Divisor

• Whether votes cast for a party-list group that appears on the ballot but is later disqualified (when such disqualification is not final prior to the election) should be counted in the divisor.
• Whether excluding such votes would amount to disenfranchising the voters who cast ballots based on the ballot’s listings.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)