Case Digest (G.R. No. 179271)
Facts:
Arangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections (sitting as the National Board of Canvassers), G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295, April 21, 2009, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners in G.R. No. 179271 (BANAT) and in G.R. No. 179295 (Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher) separately sought relief under Rule 65 (certiorari, mandamus and prohibition) to challenge resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBC). BANAT filed NBC No. 07-041 (PL) — a petition to proclaim the full number of party-list representatives provided by the Constitution — docketed after the 14 May 2007 elections; intervenors in BANAT’s petition included ABS, Aangat Tayo, and Senior Citizens. Bayan Muna, Abono and A Teacher assailed NBC Resolution No. 07-60 (July 9, 2007), which partially proclaimed party-list winners and announced that seat allocation would follow the formula in Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC.
The 14 May 2007 party-list canvass recorded 15,950,900 total party-list votes. On 9 July 2007 NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60, partially proclaiming thirteen parties as winners (and deferring others) and stating that additional seats would be determined under the Veterans formula; NBC later issued Resolution No. 07-72 (interpreting and applying the Veterans method to allocate additional seats) and NBC Resolution No. 07-88 (3 August 2007), which adopted the recommendation to deny BANAT’s petition as moot and academic. BANAT did not move for reconsideration of NBC No. 07-88 before filing its Rule 65 petition. Bayan Muna, Abono and A Teacher sought reconsideration of NBC No. 07-60 on 9 July 2007 but were denied by the NBC.
COMELEC proceeded to proclaim additional parties (AGAP, AMIN, An Waray) and, by certification dated 19 May 2008, showed party-list seat tallies (e.g., Buhay 3 seats; Bayan Muna, CIBAC, Gabriela, APEC with multiple seats, etc.). Both petitions raised constitutional and statutory challenges to the manner of allocating party-list seats under R.A. No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act) and to the COMELEC’s adoption of the Veterans formula; issues included (inter alia) whether the Constitution’s twenty-percent rule is mandatory or merely a ceiling, whether the three-seat cap and the two-percent threshold are constitutional, how se...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the twenty-percent allocation for party-list representatives in Article VI, Section 5(2) of the Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling?
- Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 constitutional?
- Is the two-percent threshold and the “qualifier” construct in Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 constitutional as applied to the allocation of additional seats?
- How shall party-list representative seats be allocated under the Constitution and R.A. No. 7941?
- Does the Constitution prohibit major political parties from participating in the party-lis...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)