Considering pronouncements made by some PL groups about their proclamations, it would be interesting to know the

jurisprudence that forms the basis for how winners are determined in the PL system.
And so, presenting (drumroll) Banat v. COMELEC!
A bit of background. The PL Law says that parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of
the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each. In addition, the law says those
garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of votes.
In Banat, the Court said that:
In computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941
is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve
the maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The
continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of
the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list
representatives.
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are 50 million votes cast for the 100 participants
in the party list elections.

A party that has two percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed

seat. Let us further assume that the first 50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the
availability of 55 seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will repeat itself even if
we increase the available party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, even
if the maximum number of parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is always impossible for the number
of occupied party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present.
We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found
in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle
to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of the broadest
possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives.
Whew. So, after having basically upended everything we thought we knew about the PL, the SC goes ahead and lays
down the rules:
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following
procedure shall be observed:
1.

The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the

number of votes they garnered during the elections.

2.

The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for

the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.

3.

Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to

additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.

4.

Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included because they have already been
allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as additional
seats are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are
disregarded in the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats.
Didja get that? No? Dont worry. Not a lot of people did, I imagine. But the Court did clarify with this:
In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional, we do not limit our allocation of additional seats in Table 3
below to the two-percenters. The percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate is arrived at by dividing
the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for party-list
candidates. There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation. First, the percentage is multiplied by the
remaining available seats, 38, which is the difference between the 55 maximum seats reserved under the Party-List
System and the 17 guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer of the product of the percentage and
of the remaining available seats corresponds to a partys share in the remaining available seats. Second, we assign
one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed. We distributed
all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine
the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is entitled.
Its really not that hard to understand. Just remember a coupla basics. First, there are two rounds of allocation of
seats. The first round deals with those who get at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for the PL system. Those
lucky bastards get one sure seat in the House.
And second, the second round of allocations deals with additional seats. In this round, the 2% threshold of the first
round no longer applies. Here, the basis for allocation of seats is more pro-rated, i.e., you get as many seats as may
be proportional to the number of votes you got.
Some of the 2%ers can get as much as two additional seats. Theres a cap to the number of seats a PL group can
win and hold THREE. So, the front runners will probably max out at three seats each, while everybody else gets
less with most getting just one seat. The main objective of this second round is to ensure that the seats guaranteed
to PL Representation, by the Constitution, are completely filled up.

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR G.R. No. 179271

NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT
AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT),
Petitioner,
- versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers),
Respondent.
ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCE
PROFESSIONALS,
Intervenor.
AANGAT TAYO,
Intervenor.
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS
OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR
CITIZENS),
Intervenor.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
BAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FOR G.R. No. 179295
TEACHER EMPOWERMENT
THROUGH ACTION, COOPERATION Present:
AND HARMONY TOWARDS
EDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC., PUNO, C.J.,
and ABONO, QUISUMBING,
Petitioners, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,

TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA, and
BERSAMIN, JJ.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promulgated:

Respondent.
_______________________
x---------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Petitioner in G.R. No. 179271 Barangay Association for National Advancement
and Transparency (BANAT) in a petition for certiorari and mandamus, [1] assails the
Resolution[2] promulgated on 3 August 2007 by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL). The COMELECs resolution in NBC No.
07-041 (PL) approved the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the
National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Legal Group, to deny the petition of BANAT
for being moot. BANAT filed before the COMELEC En Banc, acting as NBC,
a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by
the Constitution.
The following are intervenors in G.R. No. 179271: Arts Business and Science
Professionals (ABS), Aangat Tayo (AT), and Coalition of Associations of Senior
Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizens).

Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295 Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher
Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational
Reforms (A Teacher) in a petition for certiorari with mandamus and prohibition,
[3]
assails NBC Resolution No. 07-60[4] promulgated on 9 July 2007. NBC No. 0760 made a partial proclamation of parties, organizations and coalitions that
obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party-List
System. The COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the
party-list results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning
party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v.
COMELEC[5] (Veterans).
Estrella DL Santos, in her capacity as President and First Nominee of the Veterans
Freedom Party, filed a motion to intervene in both G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295.
The Facts
The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list
representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties
under the Party-List System.[6]
On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of PartyList Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-041
(PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because [t]he Chairman and the
Members of the [COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papers that
the [COMELEC] is duty bound to and shall implement theVeterans ruling, that is,
would apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party-list seats. [7] There were no
intervenors in BANATs petition before the NBC. BANAT filed a memorandum on
19 July 2007.
On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution
No. 07-60. NBC Resolution No. 07-60 proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as winners
in the party-list elections, namely: Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY), Bayan
Muna, Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), Gabrielas Women Party
(Gabriela), Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher,
Akbayan! Citizens Action Party (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party
(BUTIL), Cooperative-Natco Network Party (COOP-NATCCO), Anak Pawis,

Alliance of Rural Concerns (ARC), and Abono. We quote NBC Resolution No. 0760 in its entirety below:
WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections sitting en banc as National
Board of Canvassers, thru its Sub-Committee for Party-List, as of 03
July 2007, had officially canvassed, in open and public proceedings, a
total of fifteen million two hundred eighty three thousand six
hundred fifty-nine (15,283,659) votes under the Party-List System of
Representation, in connection with the National and Local Elections
conducted last 14 May 2007;
WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation Groups of
the National Board of Canvassers reveals that the projected/maximum
total party-list votes cannot go any higher than sixteen million seven
hundred twenty three thousand one hundred twenty-one
(16,723,121) votes given the following statistical data:
Projected/Maximum Party-List Votes for May 2007 Elections
i. Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated

15,283,659

ii. Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/

untabulated (i.e. canvass deferred)

1,337,032

iii. Maximum party-list votes (based on 100%

outcome) from areas not yet submitted for canvass
(Bogo, Cebu; Bais City; Pantar, Lanao del Norte; and
Pagalungan, Maguindanao)

102,430

Maximum Total Party-List Votes

16,723,121

WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System

Act) provides in part:
The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list
system shall 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.

WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based on the above projected total
of party-list votes, the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold can be
pegged at three hundred thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-two
(334,462) votes;
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, in Citizens Battle Against Corruption
(CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its ruling in Veterans Federation
Party versus COMELEC adopting a formula for the additional seats of
each party, organization or coalition receving more than the required two
percent (2%) votes, stating that the same shall be determined only after
all party-list ballots have been completely canvassed;
WHEREAS, the parties, organizations, and coalitions that have thus far
garnered at least three hundred thirty four thousand four hundred
sixty-two (334,462) votes are as follows:
RANK

PARTY/ORGANIZATION/
COALITION

VOTES
RECEIVED

BUHAY

1,163,218

BAYAN MUNA

972,730

CIBAC

760,260

GABRIELA

610,451

APEC

538,971

A TEACHER

476,036

AKBAYAN

470,872

ALAGAD

423,076

BUTIL

405,052

10

COOP-NATCO

390,029

11

BATAS

386,361

12

ANAK PAWIS

376,036

13

ARC

338,194

14

ABONO

337,046

WHEREAS, except for Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng

Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an URGENT
PETITION FOR CANCELLATION/REMOVAL OF REGISTRATION
AND DISQUALIFICATION OF PARTY-LIST NOMINEE (With Prayer
for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has been filed before the
Commission, docketed as SPC No. 07-250, all the parties, organizations
and coalitions included in the aforementioned list are therefore entitled
to at least one seat under the party-list system of representation in the
meantime.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the
Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144,
Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941, and other election laws, the
Commission on Elections, sitting en banc as the National Board of
Canvassers, hereby RESOLVES to PARTIALLY PROCLAIM, subject to
certain conditions set forth below, the following parties, organizations
and coalitions participating under the Party-List System:
1 Buhay Hayaan Yumabong

BUHAY

2 Bayan Muna

BAYAN MUNA

3 Citizens Battle Against Corruption

CIBAC

4 Gabriela Womens Party

5 Association
Cooperatives

of

GABRIELA
Philippine

Electric

6 Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through

Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards
Educational Reforms, Inc.

APEC
A TEACHER

7 Akbayan! Citizens Action Party

AKBAYAN

8 Alagad

ALAGAD

9 Luzon Farmers Party

10 Cooperative-Natco Network Party
11 Anak Pawis
12 Alliance of Rural Concerns

BUTIL
COOP-NATCCO
ANAKPAWIS
ARC

13 Abono

ABONO

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties,

organizations, or coalitions which may later on be established to have
obtained at least two percent (2%) of the total actual votes cast under the
Party-List System.
The total number of seats of each winning party, organization or
coalition shall be determined pursuant to Veterans Federation Party
versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the partylist results.
The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing
Sambayanan (BATAS) is hereby deferred until final resolution of SPC
No. 07-250, in order not to render the proceedings therein moot and
academic.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties,
organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be held
in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
Let the Clerk of the Commission implement this Resolution, furnishing a
copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the
Philippines.
SO ORDERED.[8] (Emphasis in the original)

Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60, the COMELEC, acting as NBC,

promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-72, which declared the additional seats
allocated to the appropriate parties. We quote from the COMELECs interpretation
of the Veterans formula as found in NBC Resolution No. 07-72:

WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, the Commission on Elections sitting en

banc as the National Board of Canvassers proclaimed thirteen (13)
qualified parties, organization[s] and coalitions based on the presumptive
two percent (2%) threshold of 334,462 votes from the projected

maximum total number of party-list votes of 16,723,121, and were thus

given one (1) guaranteed party-list seat each;
WHEREAS, per Report of the Tabulation Group and Supervisory
Committee of the National Board of Canvassers, the projected maximum
total party-list votes, as of July 11, 2007, based on the votes actually
canvassed, votes canvassed but not included in Report No. 29, votes
received but uncanvassed, and maximum votes expected for Pantar,
Lanao del Norte, is 16,261,369; and that the projected maximum total
votes for the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalition[s]
are as follows:
Party-List

Projected total number of votes

BUHAY

1,178,747

BAYAN MUNA

977,476

CIBAC

755,964

GABRIELA

621,718

APEC

622,489

A TEACHER

492,369

AKBAYAN

462,674

ALAGAD

423,190

BUTIL

409,298

10

COOP-NATCO

412,920

11

ANAKPAWIS

370,165

12

ARC

375,846

13

ABONO

340,151

WHEREAS, based on the above Report, Buhay Hayaan

Yumabong (Buhay) obtained the highest number of votes among the
thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, making it the
first party in accordance with Veterans Federation Party versus
COMELEC, reiterated in Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC)
versus COMELEC;

WHEREAS, qualified parties, organizations and coalitions participating

under the party-list system of representation that have obtained one
guaranteed (1) seat may be entitled to an additional seat or seats based
on the formula prescribed by the Supreme Court in Veterans;
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the first party, the
correct formula as expressed in Veterans, is:
Number of votes of first party Proportion of votes of first
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = party relative to total votes for
Total votes for party-list system party-list system
wherein the proportion of votes received by the first party (without
rounding off) shall entitle it to additional seats:
Proportion of votes received
by the first party
Equal to or at least 6%

Additional seats
Two (2) additional seats

Equal to or greater than 4% but less than 6% One (1) additional seat
Less than 4%

No additional seat

WHEREAS, applying the above formula, Buhay obtained the following

percentage:
1,178,747
- - - - - - - - = 0.07248 or 7.2%
16,261,369
which entitles it to two (2) additional seats.
WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the other qualified
parties, organizations and coalitions, the correct formula as expressed
in Veterans and reiterated in CIBAC is, as follows:
No. of votes of
concerned party No. of additional
Additional seats for = ------------------- x seats allocated to
a concerned party No. of votes of first party
first party

WHEREAS, applying the above formula, the results are as follows:

Party List

Percentage

Additional Seat

BAYAN MUNA

1.65

CIBAC

1.28

GABRIELA

1.05

APEC

1.05

A TEACHER

0.83

AKBAYAN

0.78

ALAGAD

0.71

BUTIL

0.69

COOP-NATCO

0.69

ANAKPAWIS

0.62

ARC

0.63

ABONO

0.57

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the

Constitution, Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144,
Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941 and other elections laws, the
Commission on Elections en banc sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers, hereby RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to proclaim
the following parties, organizations or coalitions as entitled to additional
seats, to wit:
Party List

Additional Seats

BUHAY

BAYAN MUNA

CIBAC

GABRIELA

APEC

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties,

organizations or coalitions which may later on be established to have
obtained at least two per cent (2%) of the total votes cast under the partylist system to entitle them to one (1) guaranteed seat, or to the
appropriate percentage of votes to entitle them to one (1) additional seat.
Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties,
organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be held
in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.
Let the National Board of Canvassers Secretariat implement this
Resolution, furnishing a copy hereof to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.[9]

Acting on BANATs petition, the NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-88 on
3 August 2007, which reads as follows:

This pertains to the Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List

Representatives Provided by the Constitution filed by the Barangay
Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT).
Acting on the foregoing Petition of the Barangay Association for
National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) party-list, Atty.
Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, National Board of Canvassers Legal Group
submitted his comments/observations and recommendation thereon
[NBC 07-041 (PL)], which reads:
COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS:
Petitioner Barangay Association for National Advancement
and Transparency (BANAT), in its Petition to Proclaim the
Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the
Constitution prayed for the following reliefs, to wit:
1. That the full number -- twenty percent (20%) -- of PartyList representatives as mandated by Section 5, Article VI of
the Constitution shall be proclaimed.

2. Paragraph (b), Section 11 of RA 7941 which prescribes

the 2% threshold votes, should be harmonized with Section
5, Article VI of the Constitution and with Section 12 of the
same RA 7941 in that it should be applicable only to the
first party-list representative seats to be allotted on the basis
of their initial/first ranking.
3. The 3-seat limit prescribed by RA 7941 shall be applied;
and
4. Initially, all party-list groups shall be given the number of
seats corresponding to every 2% of the votes they received
and the additional seats shall be allocated in accordance
with Section 12 of RA 7941, that is, in proportion to the
percentage of votes obtained by each party-list group in
relation to the total nationwide votes cast in the party-list
election, after deducting the corresponding votes of those
which were allotted seats under the 2% threshold rule. In
fine, the formula/procedure prescribed in the
ALLOCATION OF PARTY-LIST SEATS, ANNEX A of
COMELEC RESOLUTION 2847 dated 25 June 1996, shall
be used for [the] purpose of determining how many seats
shall be proclaimed, which party-list groups are entitled to
representative seats and how many of their nominees shall
seat [sic].
5. In the alternative, to declare as unconstitutional Section
11 of Republic Act No. 7941 and that the procedure in
allocating seats for party-list representative prescribed by
Section 12 of RA 7941 shall be followed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The petition of BANAT is now moot and academic.
The Commission En Banc in NBC Resolution No. 07-60
promulgated July 9, 2007 re In the Matter of the Canvass of
Votes and Partial Proclamation of the Parties, Organizations
and Coalitions Participating Under the Party-List System
During the May 14, 2007 National and Local
Elections resolved among others that the total number of

seats of each winning party, organization or coalition shall

be determined pursuant to the Veterans Federation
Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the
canvass of the party-list results.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the National Board of Canvassers
RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve and adopt the
recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, NBC Legal Group, to
DENY the herein petition of BANAT for being moot and academic.
Let the Supervisory Committee implement this resolution.
SO ORDERED.[10]

BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC
Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file a motion for reconsideration of NBC
Resolution No. 07-88.
On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting
as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use theVeterans formula as stated in its NBC
Resolution No. 07-60 because the Veterans formula is violative of the Constitution
and of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941). On the same day, the COMELEC
denied reconsideration during the proceedings of the NBC.[11]
Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations proclaimed on 9 July 2007, the
COMELEC proclaimed three other party-list organizations as qualified parties
entitled to one guaranteed seat under the Party-List System: Agricultural Sector
Alliance of the Philippines, Inc. (AGAP),[12] Anak Mindanao (AMIN),[13] and An
Waray.[14] Per the certification[15] by COMELEC, the following party-list
organizations have been proclaimed as of 19 May 2008:
Party-List

No. of Seat(s)

1.1

Buhay

1.2

Bayan Muna

1.3

CIBAC

1.4

Gabriela

1.5

APEC

1.6

A Teacher

1.7

Akbayan

1.8

Alagad

1.9

Butil

1.10

Coop-Natco [sic]

1.11

Anak Pawis

1.12

ARC

1.13

Abono

1.14

AGAP

1.15

AMIN

The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing

Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an Urgent Petition for Cancellation/Removal
of Registration and Disqualification of Party-list Nominee (with Prayer for the
Issuance of Restraining Order) has been filed before the COMELEC, was deferred
pending final resolution of SPC No. 07-250.
Issues
BANAT brought the following issues before this Court:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives provided
in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or is it merely a
ceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit
7941 constitutional?

provided in Section 11(b) of RA

3. Is the two percent threshold and qualifier votes prescribed by the same
Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
4. How shall the party-list representatives be allocated? [16]

Bayan Muna, A Teacher, and Abono, on the other hand, raised the following issues
in their petition:
I. Respondent Commission on Elections, acting as National Board
of Canvassers, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60 to
implement the First-Party Rule in the allocation of seats to qualified
party-list organizations as said rule:
A. Violates the constitutional principle of proportional representation.
B. Violates the provisions of RA 7941 particularly:
1. The 2-4-6 Formula used by the First Party Rule in allocating
additional seats for the First Party violates the principle of proportional
representation under RA 7941.
2. The use of two formulas in the allocation of additional seats, one for
the First Party and another for the qualifying parties, violates
Section 11(b) of RA 7941.
3. The proportional relationships under the First Party Rule are different
from those required under RA 7941;
C. Violates the Four Inviolable Parameters of the Philippine party-list
system as provided for under the same case of Veterans Federation
Party, et al. v. COMELEC.
II. Presuming that the Commission on Elections did not commit
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it implemented the First-Party Rule in the allocation of
seats to qualified party-list organizations, the same being merely
in consonance with the ruling in Veterans Federations Party, et al.
v. COMELEC, the instant Petition is a justiciable case as the
issues involved herein are constitutional in nature, involving the
correct interpretation and implementation of RA 7941, and are
of transcendental importance to our nation.[17]

Considering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the parties in
these cases, we defined the following issues in our advisory for the oral arguments
set on 22 April 2008:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives
in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely
aceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
3. Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 to
qualify for one seat constitutional?
4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated?
5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties
from participating in the party-list elections? If not, can the
major political parties be barred from participating in the partylist elections?[18]

The Ruling of the Court

The petitions have partial merit. We maintain that a Philippine-style party-list
election has at least four inviolable parameters as clearly stated in Veterans. For
easy reference, these are:
First, the twenty percent allocation the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of
the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party
list;
Second, the two percent threshold only those parties garnering 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;
Third, the three-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of the number
of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that
is, one qualifying and two additional seats;

Fourth, proportional representation the additional seats which a qualified

party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number
of votes.[19]

However, because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical

interpretation of the term proportional representation, this Court is compelled to
revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to party-list organizations.
Number of Party-List Representatives:
The Formula Mandated by the Constitution

Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:

Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not
more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by
law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among
the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall
be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional,
and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of
the total number of representatives including those under the partylist. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution,
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.

The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:

Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The party-list
representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total
number of the members of the House of Representatives including those
under the party-list.

xxx

Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the House of Representatives
shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law. The House of Representatives shall be composed of district
representatives and party-list representatives. The Constitution allows the
legislature to modify the number of the members of the House of Representatives.
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the ratio of
party-list representatives to the total number of representatives. We compute the
number of seats available to party-list representatives from the number of
legislative districts. On this point, we do not deviate from the first formula
in Veterans, thus:
Number of seats available
to legislative districts

x .20 =

Number of seats available to

party-list representatives

.80

This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats available
for party-list representatives whenever a legislative district is created by law. Since
the 14th Congress of the Philippines has 220 district representatives, there are 55
seats available to party-list representatives.
220

x .20 =

55

.80

After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to the total
number of representatives, the Constitution left the manner of allocating the
seats available to party-list representatives to the wisdom of the legislature.
Allocation of Seats for Party-List Representatives:
The Statutory Limits Presented by the Two Percent Threshold
and the Three-Seat Cap

All parties agree on the formula to determine the maximum number of seats
reserved under the Party-List System, as well as on the formula to determine the
guaranteed seats to party-list candidates garnering at least two-percent of the total
party-list votes. However, there are numerous interpretations of the provisions of
R.A. No. 7941 on the allocation of additional seats under the Party-List
System. Veterans produced the First Party Rule,[20] and Justice Vicente V.
Mendozas dissent in Veterans presented Germanys Niemeyer formula[21] as an
alternative.
The Constitution left to Congress the determination of the manner of allocating the
seats for party-list representatives. Congress enacted R.A. No. 7941, paragraphs (a)
and (b) of Section 11 and Section 12 of which provide:
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. x x x
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, [22] the
following procedure shall be observed:
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the
highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during
the elections.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two
percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall 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.
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List
Representatives. The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties,
organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according
to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives
proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each
party, organization, or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast
for the party-list system. (Emphasis supplied)

In G.R. No. 179271, BANAT presents two interpretations through three formulas
to allocate party-list representative seats.
The first interpretation allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section 11(b) on the
2% requirement with Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT described this
procedure as follows:
(a) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of
the total Members of the House of Representatives including those from
the party-list groups as prescribed by Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution, Section 11 (1 st par.) of RA 7941 and Comelec Resolution
No. 2847 dated 25 June 1996. Since there are 220 District
Representatives in the 14th Congress, there shall be 55 Party-List
Representatives. All seats shall have to be proclaimed.
(b) All party-list groups shall initially be allotted one (1) seat for every
two per centum (2%) of the total party-list votes they obtained; provided,
that no party-list groups shall have more than three (3) seats (Section 11,
RA 7941).
(c) The remaining seats shall, after deducting the seats obtained by the
party-list groups under the immediately preceding paragraph and after
deducting from their total the votes corresponding to those seats, the
remaining seats shall be allotted proportionately to all the party-list
groups which have not secured the maximum three (3) seats under the
2% threshold rule, in accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941. [23]

Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be awarded under BANATs first interpretation.
The second interpretation presented by BANAT assumes that the 2% vote
requirement is declared unconstitutional, and apportions the seats for party-list
representatives by following Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941. BANAT states that the
COMELEC:
(a) shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on
a nationwide basis;

(b) rank them according to the number of votes received; and,

(c) allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to
the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization or coalition
as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.[24]

BANAT used two formulas to obtain the same results: one is based on the
proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total
nationwide party-list votes, and the other is by making the votes of a party-list with
a median percentage of votes as the divisor in computing the allocation of seats.
[25]
Thirty-four (34) party-list seats will be awarded under BANATs second
interpretation.
In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both the
COMELECs original 2-4-6 formula and the Veteransformula for systematically
preventing all the party-list seats from being filled up. They claim that both
formulas do not factor in the total number of seats alloted for the entire Party-List
System. Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher reject the three-seat cap, but accept
the 2% threshold. After determining the qualified parties, a second percentage is
generated by dividing the votes of a qualified party by the total votes of all
qualified parties only. The number of seats allocated to a qualified party is
computed by multiplying the total party-list seats available with the second
percentage. There will be a first round of seat allocation, limited to using the whole
integers as the equivalent of the number of seats allocated to the concerned partylist. After all the qualified parties are given their seats, a second round of seat
allocation is conducted. The fractions, or remainders, from the whole integers are
ranked from highest to lowest and the remaining seats on the basis of this ranking
are allocated until all the seats are filled up.[26]
We examine what R.A. No. 7941 prescribes to allocate seats for party-list
representatives.
Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the ranking of the participating
parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they
garnered during the elections.

Table 1. Ranking of the participating parties from the highest to the

lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the elections. [27]

Rank

Party

Votes
Rank
Garnered

1 BUHAY

1,169,234

2 BAYAN
MUNA

Party

Votes
Garnered

48KALAHI

88,868

979,039

49APOI

79,386

3 CIBAC

755,686

50BP

78,541

4 GABRIELA

621,171

51AHONBAYAN

78,424

5 APEC

619,657

52BIGKIS

77,327

6 A TEACHER

490,379

53PMAP

75,200

7 AKBAYAN

466,112

54AKAPIN

74,686

8 ALAGAD

423,149

55PBA

71,544

9 COOPNATCCO

409,883

56GRECON

62,220

10 BUTIL

409,160

57BTM

60,993

11 BATAS

385,810

58A SMILE

58,717

12 ARC

374,288

59NELFFI

57,872

13 ANAKPAWIS

370,261

60AKSA

57,012

14 ABONO

339,990

61BAGO

55,846

15 AMIN

338,185

62BANDILA

54,751

16 AGAP

328,724

63AHON

54,522

17 AN WARAY

321,503

64ASAHAN MO

51,722

18 YACAP

310,889

65AGBIAG!

50,837

19 FPJPM

300,923

66SPI

50,478

20 UNI-MAD

245,382

67BAHANDI

46,612

21 ABS

235,086

68ADD

45,624

22 KAKUSA

228,999

69AMANG

43,062

23 KABATAAN

228,637

70ABAY PARAK

42,282

24 ABA-AKO

218,818

71BABAE KA

36,512

25 ALIF

217,822

72SB

34,835

26 SENIOR
CITIZENS

213,058

73ASAP

34,098

27 AT

197,872

74PEP

33,938

28 VFP

196,266

75ABA ILONGGO

33,903

29 ANAD

188,521

76VENDORS

33,691

30 BANAT

177,028

77ADD-TRIBAL

32,896

31 ANG
KASANGGA

170,531

78ALMANA

32,255

32 BANTAY

169,801

79AANGAT
PILIPINO

33 ABAKADA

166,747

80AAPS

26,271

34 1-UTAK

164,980

81HAPI

25,781

35 TUCP

162,647

82AAWAS

22,946

36 COCOFED

155,920

83SM

20,744

37 AGHAM

146,032

84AG

16,916

38 ANAK

141,817

85AGING PINOY

16,729

39 ABANSE!
PINAY

130,356

86APO

16,421

40 PM

119,054

87BIYAYANG
BUKID

16,241

41 AVE

110,769

88ATS

14,161

KA

29,130

42 SUARA

110,732

89UMDJ

9,445

43 ASSALAM

110,440

90BUKLOD
FILIPINA

8,915

44 DIWA

107,021

91LYPAD

8,471

45 ANC

99,636

92AA-KASOSYO

8,406

46 SANLAKAS

97,375

93KASAPI

6,221

47 ABC

90,058

TOTAL

15,950,900

The first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 states that parties, organizations,
and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the
party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each. This clause guarantees a seat to
the two-percenters. In Table 2 below, we use the first 20 party-list candidates for
illustration purposes. The percentage of votes garnered by each party is arrived at
by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total
number of votes cast for all party-list candidates.
Table 2. The first 20 party-list candidates and their respective percentage
of votes garnered over the total votes for the party-list. [28]

Rank

Party

1 BUHAY

Votes Garnered
Votes
over Total Votes Guaranteed
Garnered for Party-List, in
Seat
%
1,169,234

7.33%

2 BAYAN MUNA

979,039

6.14%

3 CIBAC

755,686

4.74%

4 GABRIELA

621,171

3.89%

5 APEC

619,657

3.88%

6 A TEACHER

490,379

3.07%

7 AKBAYAN

466,112

2.92%

8 ALAGAD

423,149

2.65%

9 COOP-NATCCO

409,883

2.57%

10 BUTIL

409,160

2.57%

11 BATAS[29]

385,810

2.42%

12 ARC

374,288

2.35%

13 ANAKPAWIS

370,261

2.32%

14 ABONO

339,990

2.13%

15 AMIN

338,185

2.12%

16 AGAP

328,724

2.06%

17 AN WARAY

321,503

2.02%

Total

17

18 YACAP

310,889

1.95%

19 FPJPM

300,923

1.89%

20 UNI-MAD

245,382

1.54%

From Table 2 above, we see that only 17 party-list candidates received at least 2%
from the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates. The 17 qualified
party-list candidates, or the two-percenters, are the party-list candidates that are
entitled to one seat each, or the guaranteed seat. In this first round of seat
allocation, we distributed 17 guaranteed seats.
The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides 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. This is where petitioners and
intervenors problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets the
clause in proportion to their total number of votes to be in proportion to the votes
of the first party. This interpretation is contrary to the express language of R.A.
No. 7941.
We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued
operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as

found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941

is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it
mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party list
seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued
operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats
frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the
House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are 50 million
votes cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections. A party that has two
percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us further
assume that the first 50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat
despite the availability of 55 seats. Because of the operation of the two percent
threshold, this situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list
seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, even if
the maximum number of parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is
always impossible for the number of occupied party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as
long as the two percent threshold is present.
We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of
R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the
full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the
attainment of the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group
interests in the House of Representatives.[30]
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11
of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:
1.
The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest
to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
2.
The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent
(2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one
guaranteed seat each.

3.
Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number
of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4.
Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three
(3) seats.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included
because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every twopercenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as additional
seats are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System less the
guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision in
R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats.
In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional, we do not limit our
allocation of additional seats in Table 3 below to the two-percenters. The
percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate is arrived at by dividing
the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of
votes cast for party-list candidates. There are two steps in the second round of seat
allocation. First, the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats, 38,
which is the difference between the 55 maximum seats reserved under the PartyList System and the 17 guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer
of the product of the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds
to a partys share in the remaining available seats. Second, we assign one party-list
seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely
distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of seat
allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats
each qualified party-list candidate is entitled. Thus:

Table 3. Distribution of Available Party-List Seats

Votes

Guaranteed

Garnered

Seat

Additiona
l
Seats

over
Total
Rank

Party

Votes
Garnered

(B) plus Applying

(C), in

the

whole

three

integers seat cap

Votes for
Party
List, in %
(First

(Second

Round)
(A)

Round)

(B)

(D)

(C)

(E)

BUHAY

1,169,234

7.33%

2.79

N.A.

BAYAN

979,039

6.14%

2.33

N.A.

MUNA
3

CIBAC

755,686

4.74%

1.80

N.A.

GABRIELA

621,171

3.89%

1.48

N.A.

APEC

619,657

3.88%

1.48

N.A.

A Teacher

490,379

3.07%

1.17

N.A.

AKBAYAN

466,112

2.92%

1.11

N.A.

ALAGAD

423,149

2.65%

1.01

N.A.

COOP-

409,883

2.57%

N.A.

9[31]

NATCCO
10

BUTIL

409,160

2.57%

N.A.

11

BATAS

385,810

2.42%

N.A.

12

ARC

374,288

2.35%

N.A.

13

ANAKPAWIS

370,261

2.32%

N.A.

14

ABONO

339,990

2.13%

N.A.

15

AMIN

338,185

2.12%

N.A.

16

AGAP

328,724

2.06%

N.A.

17

AN WARAY

321,503

2.02%

N.A.

18

YACAP

310,889

1.95%

N.A.

19

FPJPM

300,923

1.89%

N.A.

20

UNI-MAD

245,382

1.54%

N.A.

21

ABS

235,086

1.47%

N.A.

22

KAKUSA

228,999

1.44%

N.A.

23

KABATAAN

228,637

1.43%

N.A.

24

ABA-AKO

218,818

1.37%

N.A.

25

ALIF

217,822

1.37%

N.A.

26

SENIOR

213,058

1.34%

N.A.

CITIZENS
27

AT

197,872

1.24%

N.A.

28

VFP

196,266

1.23%

N.A.

29

ANAD

188,521

1.18%

N.A.

30

BANAT

177,028

1.11%

N.A.

31

ANG

170,531

1.07%

N.A.

KASANGGA
32

BANTAY

169,801

1.06%

N.A.

33

ABAKADA

166,747

1.05%

N.A.

34

1-UTAK

164,980

1.03%

N.A.

35

TUCP

162,647

1.02%

N.A.

36

COCOFED

155,920

0.98%

N.A.

Total

17

55

Applying the procedure of seat allocation as illustrated in Table 3 above, there are
55 party-list representatives from the 36 winning party-list organizations. All 55
available party-list seats are filled. The additional seats allocated to the parties with
sufficient number of votes for one whole seat, in no case to exceed a total of three
seats for each party, are shown in column (D).
Participation of Major Political Parties in Party-List Elections
The Constitutional Commission adopted a multi-party system that allowed all
political parties to participate in the party-list elections. The deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission clearly bear this out, thus:
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to say that we suggested
or proposed the party list system because we wanted to open up the
political system to a pluralistic society through a multiparty system. x x
x We are for opening up the system, and we would like very much
for the sectors to be there. That is why one of the ways to do that is
to put a ceiling on the number of representatives from any single
party that can sit within the 50 allocated under the party list system.
x x x.
xxx
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats is not
limited to political parties. My question is this: Are we going to classify
for example Christian Democrats and Social Democrats as political
parties? Can they run under the party list concept or must they be under
the district legislation side of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query, I think these parties that the
Commissioner mentioned can field candidates for the Senate as well as
for the House of Representatives. Likewise, they can also field sectoral
candidates for the 20 percent or 30 percent, whichever is adopted, of
the seats that we are allocating under the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Christian Democrats can field
district candidates and can also participate in the party list system?

MR. VILLACORTA. Why not? When they come to the party list
system, they will be fielding only sectoral candidates.
MR. MONSOD. May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO participate in
the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, why not? For as long as they field
candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors that
we shall designate in this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD. Suppose Senator Taada wants to run under BAYAN
group and says that he represents the farmers, would he qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA. No, Senator Taada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD. But UNIDO can field candidates under the party list
system and say Juan dela Cruz is a farmer. Who would pass on whether
he is a farmer or not?
MR. TADEO. Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang linawin
ito. Political parties, particularly minority political parties, are not
prohibited to participate in the party list election if they can prove
that they are also organized along sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD. What the Commissioner is saying is that all political
parties can participate because it is precisely the contention of political
parties that they represent the broad base of citizens and that all sectors
are represented in them. Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. TADEO. Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO
na isang political party, it will dominate the party list at mawawalang
saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang party
list system. Gusto ko lamang bigyan ng diin ang reserve. Hindi ito
reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198
seats, reserved din ito sa political parties.
MR. MONSOD. Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run there. But
my question to Commissioner Villacorta and probably also to
Commissioner Tadeo is that under this system, would UNIDO be banned
from running under the party list system?

MR. VILLACORTA. No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral

candidates. On that condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed to
register for the party list system.
MR. MONSOD. May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares
that answer?
MR. TADEO. The same.
MR. VILLACORTA. Puwede po ang UNIDO, pero sa sectoral lines.
xxxx
MR. OPLE. x x x In my opinion, this will also create the stimulus for
political parties and mass organizations to seek common ground. For
example, we have the PDP-Laban and the UNIDO. I see no reason why
they should not be able to make common goals with mass organizations
so that the very leadership of these parties can be transformed through
the participation of mass organizations. And if this is true of the
administration parties, this will be true of others like the Partido ng
Bayan which is now being formed. There is no question that they will be
attractive to many mass organizations. In the opposition parties to which
we belong, there will be a stimulus for us to contact mass organizations
so that with their participation, the policies of such parties can be
radically transformed because this amendment will create conditions that
will challenge both the mass organizations and the political parties to
come together. And the party list system is certainly available, although
it is open to all the parties. It is understood that the parties will enter in
the roll of the COMELEC the names of representatives of mass
organizations affiliated with them. So that we may, in time, develop this
excellent system that they have in Europe where labor organizations and
cooperatives, for example, distribute themselves either in the Social
Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Party in Germany, and
their very presence there has a transforming effect upon the philosophies
and the leadership of those parties.
It is also a fact well known to all that in the United States, the AFL-CIO
always vote with the Democratic Party. But the businessmen, most of
them, always vote with the Republican Party, meaning that there is no
reason at all why political parties and mass organizations should not
combine, reenforce, influence and interact with each other so that the

very objectives that we set in this Constitution for sectoral representation

are achieved in a wider, more lasting, and more institutionalized way.
Therefore, I support this [Monsod-Villacorta] amendment. It installs
sectoral representation as a constitutional gift, but at the same time, it
challenges the sector to rise to the majesty of being elected
representatives later on through a party list system; and even beyond
that, to become actual political parties capable of contesting political
power in the wider constitutional arena for major political parties.
x x x [32] (Emphasis supplied)
R.A. No. 7941 provided the details for the concepts put forward by the
Constitutional Commission. Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:
Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of
proportional representation in the election of representatives to the
House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or organizations of a
coalition may participate independently provided the coalition of which
they form part does not participate in the party-list system.
(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition
of parties.
(c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating
an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct
of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their
adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and
members as candidates for public office.
It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a regional
party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at
least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region.
(d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to
any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal
advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector,

(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of

groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics,
employment, interests or concerns.
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national,
regional, sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or election
purposes.

Congress, in enacting R.A. No. 7941, put the three-seat cap to prevent any party
from dominating the party-list elections.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political parties from
participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the
Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to participate in party-list
elections through their sectoral wings. In fact, the members of the Constitutional
Commission voted down, 19-22, any permanent sectoral seats, and in the
alternative the reservation of the party-list system to the sectoral groups. [33] In
defining a party that participates in party-list elections as either a political party or
a sectoral party, R.A. No. 7941 also clearly intended that major political parties
will participate in the party-list elections. Excluding the major political parties in
party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the
Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot engage in
socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the exclusion of major political
parties from the party-list elections in patent violation of the Constitution and the
law.
Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission state that major political parties are allowed to establish, or form
coalitions with, sectoral organizations for electoral or political purposes. There
should not be a problem if, for example, the Liberal Party participates in the partylist election through the Kabataang Liberal ng Pilipinas (KALIPI), its sectoral
youth wing. The other major political parties can thus organize, or affiliate with,
their chosen sector or sectors. To further illustrate, the Nacionalista Party can
establish a fisherfolk wing to participate in the party-list election, and this
fisherfolk wing can field its fisherfolk nominees. Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino
(KAMPI) can do the same for the urban poor.

The qualifications of party-list nominees are prescribed in Section 9 of R.A. No.

7941:

Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as

party-list representative unless he is a natural born citizen of the
Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period
of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the
elections, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days
preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of
age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five
(25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the
election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty
(30) during his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of
his term.

Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list
organizations nominee wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity [34] as there is no
financial status required in the law. It is enough that the nominee of the sectoral
party/organization/coalition belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors,[35] that is, if the nominee represents the fisherfolk, he or she must be a
fisherfolk, or if the nominee represents the senior citizens, he or she must be a
senior citizen.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire
20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the Constitution. The
Constitution, in paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI, left the determination of the
number of the members of the House of Representatives to Congress: The House
of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, x x x. The 20% allocation of party-list
representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than
20% of the members of the House of Representatives. However, we cannot allow
the continued existence of a provision in the law which will systematically prevent

the constitutionally allocated 20% party-list representatives from being filled. The
three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a qualified party-list
organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that prevents any party
from dominating the party-list elections. Seats for party-list representatives shall
thus be allocated in accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 above.
However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling
in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list
elections, directly or indirectly. Those who voted to continue disallowing major
political parties from the party-list elections joined Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno
in his separate opinion. On the formula to allocate party-list seats, the Court is
unanimous in concurring with this ponencia.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the
Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August 2007 in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) as
well as the Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC No. 07-60. We declare
unconstitutional the two percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list
seats. The allocation of additional seats under the Party-List System shall be in
accordance with the procedure used in Table 3 of this Decision. Major political
parties are disallowed from participating in party-list elections. This Decision is
immediately executory. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR: