7. BANAT v COMELEC-( RA. 7941, Sec.
11 (b) , ART 6 SEC 5PAR 2)how may the additional seats be allocated for party list systems.
FACTS ISSUES
1) 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.
2) 27 June 2007, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full
Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the
Constitution, docketed as before the National Board of
Canvassers.
3) 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.
4) COMELEC used section 11 of RA 7941, AND the
interpretation of it from the veterans ruling in the computation.
a) Partylist system shall comprise 20% of the house of
representative. It means that if there are 250 seats in congress
20% of which will be for the Partylist system.
b) 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:
c) provided, that those garnering more than two percent (2%) of
the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
computation of seats for party lists
total number of votes:
d) provided, finally, that each party, organization, or coalition
shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
a. the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold can be pegged at
three hundred thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-two
(334,462) votes.
b. Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (Buhay) obtained the highest
number of votes among the thirteen (13) qualified parties,
organizations and coalitions, making it the "first party".
e) Number of Seats Available to Party-List
Representatives(Q)=(Current Number of Legislative
DistrictRepresentatives 0.80) x (0.20) {(55=220/0.80)x(0.20)}
f) Partylists are ranked from highest to lowest, those with votes
equal to atleast 2%(R) are the only ones qualified to get a seat.
And then those who have more than 2% gets additional seats
computed accordingly:
g) Additional seats:
a) (T)First party=total no. Of votes of FP/total no. Of votes PLS.
(IF: 6=2 AS, 4=1AS, <4=NO AS)
b) Other party=total no of votes/total no. Of votes of FP x T
RLAC
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-
list representatives in Section 5(2), Article
VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely
a ceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of
RA 7941 constitutional
? device that prevents any party from dominating the party-list elections.
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 party-list elections?
Issue Ruling
I Just a ceiling. Art 6 sec 5 par 2. PLS cannot be more than 20%of HOP.
II Yes, it is const. Veterans held that 3 seat limit is essential. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to
the number of seats that a qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory
III It is void and unconstitutional 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. Article 6 sec 5 par 2 states that 20% of
the HOP shall be comprised of TPL. There is no mention of a 2% threshold.
RA 7941 sec 11(b) stipulates the 2%, but the 2% 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.
If there are 100 partylist and 100 million votes, if one party gets 50million votes and is the
only one who reached 2%, the total no. of seats that will be occupied is just 3!
That line creates an unwarranted obstacle of the full impementation of art 6 sec 5 par 2, to have
the broadest proportional representaion in the HOP. Therefore unconstitutional.
IV 1. Get Total No. Of available Seat For Party List: Q=(total no. Of legislative
distrct/0.80)x0.20
2. Get R; R=(total no. of votes of PLx/ total no. of votes all PL)100, 2%=1 seat=(Ri).
3. Additional seats(for those Ri): Y=R(Q-Ri)
4. Remaining seats shall be filled up by party lists next to Ri, after 2 and 3 are allocated. To Ri.
V No, major PP are not prohibited by the consti. RA 7941 sec 3(b)(b) A party means either a
political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties. 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.sec 9 provides for the
qualification, which includes being a member of a marginalized groups.
No, 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.
 8. ARARO v. COMELEC-Should invalid votes be included in the divisor of the computation for the seat allocation?

FACTS ISSUES RLAC

1. MAY 10 2010-Election is held and the the
petitioner is one of the accredited partylists. It
garnered 147, 204 votes (rank 50th). There were 229
Legislative districts and therefore 57 seats will be for
party list groups.
2. The Commission on Elections 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 from a total of twenty-nine
million seven hundred fifty thousand and forty-one
(29,750,041) votes for the Party-List System.
1.Which votes shall be included to determine the party-list
groups that would be proclaimed in the 2010 elections.
1. Not all votes cast in the elections should be included in the divisor. Contrary to the argument
of the petitioner, 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.
We review the interpretation of the formula used for the determination of winning party-list
candidates with respect to the divisor used for the guidance of bench and bar and for future
elections. The divisor helps to determine the correct percentage of representation of party-list
groups as intended by the law. This is part of the index of proportionality of the representation of
a party-list to the House of Representatives. It measures the relation between the share of the total
seats and the share of the total votes of the party-list.
THEREFORE:

a) The total votes cast for the party-list system include those votes made for party-list
3. Petitioner then filed an election protest before the groups indicated in the ballot regardless of the pendency of their motions for
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) reconsideration or petitions before any tribunal in relation to their cancellation or
questioning the Resolution of the Commission on
Elections that proclaimed the 28 party-list groups,
disqualification cases.
Without waiting for the resolution of the HRET, the b) votes made for those party-list groups whose disqualification attained finality prior
petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on to the elections should be excluded if the electorate is notified of the finality of their
Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
disqualification by the Commission on Elections.
Temporary Restraining Order. ARARO wants the
court to: c) The divisor also shall not include invalid votes.

a) modify the Commission on Elections

interpretation of the formula stated in BANAT v.
COMELEC by making the divisor for the
computation of the percentage votes, from total
number of votes cast minus the votes for the
disqualified party-list candidates, to the total number
of votes cast regardless whether party-list groups are
disqualified

4. 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.