Case Summary (G.R. No. 145425)
Key Dates
1987 Philippine Constitution ratified February 2, 1987. RA No. 7941 enacted March 3, 1995. May 11, 1998: first party-list election held. June 26 and September 8, 1998: initial 13 and 14 party-list representatives proclaimed. Comelec Second Division Resolution October 15, 1998; Comelec en banc Resolution January 7, 1999. SC Status Quo Order January 12, 1999; oral arguments July 1, 1999. Decision promulgated October 6, 2000.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 5 mandates that party-list representatives constitute twenty percent of the House, elected by registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. RA No. 7941 (1995) implements the system: Section 11(b) requires at least two percent of valid party-list votes to qualify for one seat, additional seats “in proportion to their total number of votes,” and caps each party at three seats.
Constitutional and Statutory Parameters
The Constitution and RA No. 7941 establish four inviolable parameters: (1) party-list seats shall be twenty percent of the House; (2) a two-percent vote threshold for qualification; (3) a three-seat limit per party; (4) additional seats allocated proportionally to total votes obtained.
1998 Party-List Elections and Initial Proclamations
In the May 1998 election, 123 groups vied for party-list seats. On June 26, 1998, Comelec en banc proclaimed 13 representatives from parties that cleared two percent of votes; on September 8, 1998, it added COCOFED as the 14th after special elections.
Petition to Proclaim Full Complement
On July 6, 1998, PAG-ASA filed with Comelec a petition to proclaim the full 52 party-list seats, arguing the two-percent threshold and three-seat cap defeated the constitutional twenty-percent requirement. Multiple other party-list groups intervened seeking the same relief.
Comelec Second Division Resolution
October 15, 1998: Comelec Second Division granted PAG-ASA’s petition and proclaimed 38 additional party-list groups—despite their failure to meet the two-percent threshold—reasoning that all 52 seats must be filled and broad sectors must be represented.
Comelec En Banc Resolution
January 7, 1999: By a 3–2 vote, Comelec en banc affirmed the Second Division’s proclamation of 38 additional parties (holding in abeyance one party), sidestepping the statutory two-percent threshold and proportional-representation rule to ensure full fill-up of party-list seats.
SC Proceedings and Status Quo Order
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed before the Supreme Court by parties that had obtained at least two percent of votes, joined by the initial 14 proclaimed representatives. On January 12, 1999, the Court issued a status quo order preventing further proclamations pending resolution.
Issues Presented
- Is the twenty-percent party-list allocation mandatory or merely a ceiling?
- Are the two-percent threshold and three-seat limit in RA 7941 constitutional?
- If threshold and limit stand, what method should be used to compute additional seats proportionally?
Mandatory Nature of Twenty-Percent Allocation
The Court held that the constitutional twenty-percent figure is a ceiling, not a mandatory fill-up requirement. Congress, exercising its authority, provided in RA 7941 that parties must meet a two-percent vote threshold and three-seat limit. The Constitution empowers Congress to define the mechanics; the allocation ratio changes with the number of district representatives.
Constitutionality of Two-Percent Threshold and Three-Seat Limit
Reviewing legislative history and debates in the Constitutional Commission and Congress, the Court affirmed that the two-percent threshold ensures meaningful representation and avoids proliferation of small groups, and the three-seat cap promotes a multiparty system. Both provisions are precise and within legislative prerogative and do not violate the Constitution.
Proportional-Representation Formula Adopted
Consistent with statutory parameters, the Court devised a legal and logical formula:
Step 1: Rank parties by votes and guarantee one seat to those with at least two percent.
Step 2: Determine additional se
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 145425)
Prologue
- The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 set four inviolable parameters for party-list elections:
• Twenty-percent allocation of House seats to party-list representatives
• Two-percent vote threshold for qualification
• Three-seat cap per party
• Proportional representation in allocating additional seats - The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolutions proclaiming 38 additional party-list winners, purportedly to fill all 52 slots, but in doing so violated the statutory and constitutional parameters.
- The COMELEC’s role is to enforce, not to amend or refuse to apply, election laws enacted by Congress.
Case Before the Court
- Three petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 challenge:
- The October 15, 1998 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division
- The January 7, 1999 COMELEC en banc Resolution affirming the Second Division
- The assailed resolutions ordered the proclamation of 38 additional party-list representatives “to complete the full complement of 52 seats” in the House.
Facts and Antecedents
- The 1987 Constitution introduced a party-list system giving each voter two votes: one for a district representative and one for a party-list group.
- Article VI, Section 5, mandates that party-list representatives comprise 20% of the House membership.
- Congress enacted R.A. No. 7941 (March 3, 1995) to implement the party-list system, declaring a policy to “promote proportional representation.”
- Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 provides:
• Party-list seats = 20% of House membership
• A two-percent vote threshold to earn one seat
• Proportional additional seats for votes > 2%, up to three seats per party - COMELEC en banc promulgated Resolution No. 2847 (June 25, 1996) to implement these rules.
- May 11,