G.R.
No. 192803 December 10, 2013
ALLIANCE
FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS ARARO PARTY-LIST,Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
LEONEN, J:
NATURE:
This
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by a party-list group that ran for
the 2010 national elections. The petitioner questions the validity of the
formula used by the Commission on Elections in determining and proclaiming the
winning party-list groups.
FACTS:
Petitioner,
ARARO was a duly accredited party-list garnered a total of 147,204 votes in the
May 10, 2010 elections and ranked 50th. The COMELEC 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. The petitioner questioned the formula used by the COMELEC
and filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order
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. 7,112,792 (Total number of disregarded
votes according to petitioner ARARO)
On
the other hand, the formula used by the Commission on Elections En Banc sitting
as the National Board of Canvassers is the following:
Number of seats available to legislative districts_x .20 =Number of
seats available to party-list representatives .80
Thus, the total number of party-list seats available for the May
2010 elections is 57 as shown below:
229__x .20 =57 .80
The National Board of Canvassers’ Resolution No. 10-009 applies the
formula used in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency
(BANAT) v. COMELEC18 to
arrive at the winning party-list groups and their guaranteed seats, where:
Number of votes of party-list
______________________________=
Proportion or Percentage of votes garnered by party-list
Total number of votes for party-list candidates
the Commission on Elections through the Office of the Solicitor
General took the position that invalid or stray votes should not be counted in
determining the divisor. The Commission on Elections argues that this will
contradict Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) v. COMELEC22 and Barangay
Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC.23 It
asserts that:
Neither
can the phrase be construed to include the number of voters who did not even
vote for any qualified party-list candidate, as these voters cannot be
considered to have cast any vote "for the party-list system."24
I. Whether the case is already moot and academic
II. Whether petitioners have legal standing
III. Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of
discretion in its interpretation of the formula used in BANAT v. COMELEC25 to
determine the party-list groups that would be proclaimed in the 2010 elections
The
third issue requires our determination of the computation of the correct
divisor to be used. The options are
HELD:
1.
This
case is moot and academic but the Court discussed the issues raised by the
petitioner as these are capable of repetition yet evading review32 and
for the guidance of the bench, bar, and public.33
2.
The computation proposed by petitioner ARARO even lowers its chances
to meet the 2% threshold required by law for a guaranteed seat. Its arguments
will neither benefit nor injure the party. Thus, it has no legal standing to
raise the argument in this Court.
3.
The Court agree with the petitioner but only to the extent that
votes later on determined to be invalid due to no cause attributable to the
voter should not be excluded in the divisor. In other words, votes cast validly
for a party-list group listed in the ballot but later on disqualified should be
counted as part of the divisor. To do otherwise would be to disenfranchise the
voters who voted on the basis of good faith that that ballot contained all the
qualified candidates. However, following this rationale, party-list groups
listed in the ballot but whose disqualification attained finality prior to the
elections and whose disqualification was reasonably made known by the
Commission on Elections to the voters prior to such elections should not be
included in the divisor.
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:
1.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list systemshall 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.
The formula in determining the winning party-list groups, as
used and interpreted in the case of BANAT v. COMELEC, is MODIFIED
as follows:
Number of votes. of party-list Total number of
valid votes for party-list candidates Proportion or Percentage of votes
garnered by party-list
The divisor shall be the total number of valid
votes cast for the party-list system including votes cast for party-list groups
whose names are in the ballot but are subsequently disqualified. Party-list
groups listed in the ballot but whose disqualification attained finality prior
to the elections and whose disqualification was reasonably made known by the
Commission on Elections to the voters prior to such elections should not be
included in the divisor. The divisor shall also not include votes that are
declared spoiled or invalid.
FALLO:
1.
The prayer to enjoin the Commission on Elections from proclaiming the qualified
party-list groups is denied for being moot and academic;
2.
The formula in determining the winning party-list groups, as used and
interpreted in the case of BANAT v. COMELEC, is MODIFIED
No comments:
Post a Comment