Republic of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN
BANC
G.R. No. 147589
June 25, 2003
ANG
BAGONG BAYANI-OFW
LABOR PARTY (UNDER THE ACRONYM OFW), REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
SECRETARY-GENERAL,
MOHAMMAD OMAR FAJARDO,
Petitioner,
-versus-
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS;
CITIZENS DRUG WATCH; MAMAMAYAN AYAW SA DROGA; GO! GO! PHILIPPINES; THE
TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES; PHILIPPINE LOCAL
AUTONOMY;
CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE; CHAMBER
OF REAL ESTATE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; SPORTS AND HEALTH ADVANCEMENT
FOUNDATION,
INC.; ANG LAKAS NG OVERSEAS CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW); BAGONG BAYANI
ORGANIZATION
AND OTHERS UNDER "ORGANIZATIONS/COALITIONS" OF OMNIBUS RESOLUTION
NO.
3785; PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO; LAKAS NUCD-UMDP; NATIONALIST PEOPLE’S
COALITION; LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO; AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO;
PDP-LABAN;
LIBERAL PARTY; NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG; AND
OTHERS
UNDER "POLITICAL PARTIES" OF OMNIBUS RESOLUTION NO. 3785,
Respondents.
|
G.R.
No.
147613
June 25, 2003
BAYAN
MUNA,
Petitioner,
-versus-
COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS;
NATIONALIST PEOPLE’S COALITION (NPC); LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO
(LDP);
PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP, LIBERAL PARTY;
MAMAMAYANG
AYAW SA DROGA; CREBA; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS; JEEP;
AND BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION,
Respondents. |
R E S O L U
T I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before the court are motions
for proclamation filed by various party-list participants. The
ultimate
question raised is this: Aside from those already validly
proclaimed[1]
pursuant to earlier Resolutions of this Court, are there other
party-list
candidates that should be proclaimed winners? The answer to this
question is circumscribed by the eight-point guideline given in our
June
26, 2001 Decision in these consolidated cases, as well as by the four
unique
parameters of the Philippine party-list system:
"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.chanrobles virtual law library
"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."[2] The
Antecedents
To fully understand
the matter on hand, we deem it wise to recapitulate some relevant
antecedents.cralaw:red
On June 26, 2001, the
Court promulgated in these consolidated cases its Decision requiring
Comelec
to do the following:
"x
x x Immediately conduct summary evidentiary hearings
on the qualifications of the party-list participants in the light of
the
guidelines enunciated in this Decision. Considering the extreme urgency
of determining the winners in the last party-list elections, the
Comelec
is directed to begin its hearings for the parties and organizations
that
appear to have garnered such number of votes as to qualify for seats in
the House of Representatives. The Comelec is further directed to submit
to this Court its compliance report within 30 days from notice hereof.
"The Resolution of
this
Court dated May 9, 2001, directing the Comelec ‘to refrain from
proclaiming
any winner’ during the last party-list election, shall remain in force
until after the Comelec itself will have complied and reported its
compliance
with the foregoing disposition."[3] Comelec’s First
Partial
Compliance Report
In its First Partial
Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001, Comelec recommended that the
following
party-list participants be deemed to have hurdled the eight-point
guideline
referred to in the aforementioned Court Decision:
1.
BAYAN MUNA (BAYAN MUNA)
2.
AKBAYAN! CITIZENS ACTION PARTY (AKBAYAN!)
3.
LUZON FARMERS PARTY (BUTIL)
4.
ANAK MINDANAO (AMIN)
5.
ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN NG MGA MAGSASAKA, MANGGAGAWANG BUKID AT MANGINGISDA
(ABA)
6.
PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA (PM)
7.
SANLAKAS
It also recommended
the disqualification of the following party-list participants for their
failure to pass the guidelines:
- MAMAMAYAN AYAW
SA
DROGA
(MAD)
- ASSOCIATION OF
PHILIPPINE
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES (APEC)
- VETERANS
FEDERATION
PARTY
(VFP)
- ABAG PROMDI
(PROMDI)
- NATIONALIST
PEOPLE’S COALITION
(NPC)
- LAKAS NUCD-UMDP
(LAKAS)
- CITIZENS BATTLE
AGAINST
CORRUPTION (CIBAC)
- LABAN NG
DEMOKRATIKONG
PILIPINO (LDP)
- BUHAY HAYAANG
YUMABONG
(BUHAY)chanrobles virtual law library
- COCOFED-PHILIPPINE
COCONUT
PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. (COCOFED)
- COOPERATIVE
NATCCO
NETWORK
PARTY (COOP-NATCCO)chanrobles virtual law library
- NATIONAL
CONFEDERATION
OF IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION (NCIA)
- ASOSASYON PARA
SA
KAUNLARAN
NG INDUSTRIYA NG AKLAT, INC. (AKLAT)
- THE TRUE MARCOS
LOYALIST
(FOR GOD, COUNTRY, AND PEOPLE) ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES
(MARCOS
LOYALIST)
- CHAMBER OF REAL
ESTATE
AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CREBA)
- BIGKIS PINOY
FOUNDATION
(BIGKIS)chanrobles virtual law library
- AKSYON
DEMOKRATIKO
(AKSYON)
In response to this Report,
the Court issued its August 14, 2001 Resolution which partially lifted
its May 9, 2001 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The Court did
so to enable Comelec to proclaim Bayan Muna as the first "winner in the
last party-list election, with the caveat that all proclamations should
be made in accordance not only with the Decision of the Court in the
instant
case but also with Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec, GR Nos.
136781,
136786, and 136795, October 6, 2000, on how to determine and compute
the
winning parties and nominees in the party-list elections."
In another Resolution
dated August 24, 2001, the Court again partially lifted its May 9, 2001
TRO to enable the Comelec to proclaim Akbayan and Butil "as winning
party-list
groups, in accordance not only with the Decision of the Court in the
instant
case but also with Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec, GR Nos.
136781,
136786, and 136795, October 6, 2000."
In its Consolidated
Reply dated October 15, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG),
on behalf of the Comelec, recommended that -- "except for the
modification
that the APEC, BUHAY, COCOFED and CIBAC be declared as having complied
with the guidelines set forth in the June 26, 2001 Decision in the
instant
cases [--] the Partial Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001 be
affirmed."[4]
But because of (1) the conflicting Comelec reports regarding the
qualifications
of APEC and CIBAC and (2) the disparity in the percentage of votes
obtained
by AMIN, the Court in a Resolution dated November 13, 2001, required
the
parties to file within 20 days from notice their respective final
position
papers on why APEC, CIBAC, and/or AMIN should or should not be
proclaimed
winners in the last party-list elections.cralaw:red
Thereafter, in another
Resolution dated January 29, 2002,[5]
the Court agreed to qualify APEC and CIBAC, which had previously been
disqualified
by Comelec in its First Compliance Report.chanrobles virtual law library
Thus, in the same Resolution,
the Court once more lifted its May 9, 2001 TRO to enable the Comelec to
proclaim APEC and CIBAC as winners in the party-list elections.
The
Court said:
"We accept
Comelec’s submission, per the OSG, that APEC and CIBAC have
sufficiently
met the 8-point guidelines of this Court and have garnered sufficient
votes
to entitle them to seats in Congress. Since these issues are factual in
character, we are inclined to adopt the Commission’s findings, absent
any
patent arbitrariness or abuse or negligence in its action. There is no
substantial proof that CIBAC is merely an arm of JIL, or that APEC is
an
extension of PHILRECA. The OSG explained that these are separate
entities
with separate memberships. Although APEC’s nominees are all
professionals,
its membership is composed not only of professionals but also of
peasants,
elderly, youth and women. Equally important, APEC addresses the issues
of job creation, poverty alleviation and lack of electricity. Likewise,
CIBAC is composed of the underrepresented and marginalized and is
concerned
with their welfare. CIBAC is particularly interested in the youth and
professional
sectors."[6]
To summarize, after the
Court had accepted and approved the First Partial Compliance Report and
its amendments, the following nominees were validly proclaimed winners:
BAYAN MUNA (Satur C. Ocampo, Crispin B. Beltran and Liza L. Maza),
AKBAYAN
(Loretta Ann P. Rosales), BUTIL (Benjamin A. Cruz), APEC (Ernesto C.
Pablo)
and CIBAC (Joel J. Villanueva).
Comelec’s Second
Partial Compliance Report
In its Second Compliance
Report dated August 22, 2001 and received by this Court on August 28,
2001,
Comelec recommended that the following party-list participants[7]
be deemed qualified under the Court’s guidelines:
10.
ABANSE! PINAY
11.
ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY, AT
HANAPBUHAY
(AKO)
12.
ALAGADchanrobles virtual law library
13.
SENIOR CITIZENS/ELDERY SECTORAL PARTY (ELDERLY)chanrobles virtual law library
14.
ALL TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (ATUCP)
15.
MARITIME PARTY (MARITIME)chanrobles virtual law library
16.
ANG BAGONG BAYANI - OFW LABOR PARTY (OFW)
17. ANIBAN NG MGA MAGSASAKA,
MANGINGISDA, AT MANGGAGAWA SA
AGRIKULTURA
- KATIPUNAN (AMMMA)chanrobles virtual law library
18.
ALYANSA NG NAGKAKAISANG KABATAAN NG SAMBAYANAN PARA SA KAUNLARAN
(ANAKBAYAN)
19.
ALYANSA NG MGA MAY KAPANSANAN SA PILIPINAS (AKAP)
20.
MINDANAO FEDERATION OF SMALL COCONUT FARMERS’ ORGANIZATION, INC. (MSCFO)
21.
WOMENPOWER, INC. (WPI)
22.
AGGRUPATION AND ALLIANCE OF FARMERS AND FISHERFOLKS OF THE PHILIPPINES
(AAAFPI)
23.
ALL WORKERS ALLIANCE TRADE UNIONS (AWATU)
In the same Compliance
Report, the poll body classified the following party-list groups as
unqualified:
• GREEN
PHILIPPINES
FOUNDATION (GREEN PHIL)
• PARTIDO NG MASANG
PILIPINO (PMP)
• ANG LAKAS NG BAGONG
KOOPERATIBA (ALAB)
• PARTIDO NG
MARALITANG
PILIPINO — PINATUBO PARTY (PMP-PINATUBO)
• REBOLUSYONARYONG
ALYANSANG MAKABANSA (RAM)
• BAYAN NG
NAGTATAGUYOD
NG DEMOKRATIKONG IDEOLOHIYA AT LAYUNIN, INC. (BANDILA)
• BAGONG BAYANI
ORGANIZATION
(BAGONG BAYANI)
• KABATAAN NG MASANG
PILIPINO (KAMPIL)
• AARANGKADA ANG MGA
HANDA ORAS-ORAS (AHOY)
• PHILIPPINE MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION (PMA)
• ALLIANCE TO
ALLEVIATE
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ORDER, INC. (AASENSO KA)
• PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKO
SOSYALISTA NG PILIPINAS (PDSP)
• COOPERATIVE UNION
OF THE PHILIPPINES (CUP)
• ATIN (FORMERLY
ABANTE
BISAYA)chanrobles virtual law library
• VOLUNTEERS AGAINST
CRIME AND CORRUPTION (VACC)
• ASSOCIATION OF
BUILDERS
CONSULTANTS AND DESIGNERS, INC. (ABCD)
• LIBERAL PARTY (LP)chanrobles virtual law library
• CITIZEN'S DRUGWATCH
FOUNDATION, INC. (DRUGWATCH)
• ALAY SA BAYAN PARA
SA KALAYAAN AT DEMOKRASYA (ABAKADA)
• ASOSASYON NG MGA
TAGA INSURANCE SA PILIPINAS, INC. (ATIP)
• ANG LAKAS NG
OVERSEAS
CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW)
• NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF SUGAR PLANTERS (NFSP)
• KABALIKAT NG BAYAN
PARTY (KABALIKAT)chanrobles virtual law library
• PARTIDO
DEMOKRATIKONG
PILIPINO LAKAS NG BAYAN (PDP-LABAN)
• BANTAY BAYAN
FOUNDATION
PARTY, INC. (BANTAY-BAYAN)
• ABANTE KILUSANG
KOOPERATIBA
SA GITNANG LUZON [AKK COALITION]
• GREEN PHILIPPINES
(GREEN)chanrobles virtual law library
• PHILIPPINE
ASSOCIATION
OF DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENCY OPERATORS (PADPAO)
• ALLIANCE FOR
GREATER
ACHIEVEMENTS IN PEACE AND PROSPERITY (AGAP)
• ALYANSA NG
KOOPERATIBANG
PANGKABUHAYAN PARTY (ANGKOP)
• NATIONAL ALLIANCE
FOR DEMOCRACY (NAD)chanrobles virtual law library
• PEOPLE POWER PARTY
(PEOPLE POWER)chanrobles virtual law library
• PHILIPPINE
TECHNOLOGICAL
COUNCIL (PTC)chanrobles virtual law library
• PHILIPPINE LOCAL
AUTONOMY MOVEMENT, INC. (PLAM)
• PROFESSIONAL
CRIMINOLOGIST
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PCAP)
• CITIZENS MOVEMENT
FOR JUSTICE, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT, AND PEACE (JEEP) Comelec's Final
Partial
Compliance Report
In its Final Partial
Compliance Report dated September 27, 2001 and received by the Court a
day later, Comelec recommended that the following be considered as
qualified
party-list participants:
24.
NATIONAL
CONFEDERATION OF TRICYCLE OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES
(NACTODAP)
25. NATIONAL
FEDERATION
OF SMALL COCONUT FARMERS ORGANIZATION, INC. (SCFO)
26. TRIBAL
COMMUNITIES
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (TRICAP)chanrobles virtual law library
27. PILIPINONG MAY
KAPANSANAN (PINOY MAY K)chanrobles virtual law library
28. VETERANS CARE AND
WELFARE ORGANIZATION (VETERANS CARE)
29. UNION OF THE
FILIPINO
OVERSEAS WORKERS, INC. (OCW-UNIFIL)
30. DEMOCRATIC
ALLIANCE
(DA)chanrobles virtual law library
31. PILIPINO WORKERS
PARTY (PWP)
32. PHILIPPINE
ASSOCIATION
OF RETIRED PERSONS (PARP)
33. ALLIANCE OF
RETIRED
POSTAL EMPLOYEES AND SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. (ARPES)
34. AGRARIAN REFORM
BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION, INC. (ARBA)
35. FEDERATION OF
JEEPNEY
OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FEJODAP)
36. GABAY NG
MANGGAGAWANG
PILIPINO PARTY (GABAY-OFW)
37. ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES
OF SETTLERS (AASAHAN)
38. ALLIANCE FOR
YOUTH
SOLIDARITY (AYOS)
39. PARTY FOR
OVERSEAS
WORKERS AND EMPOWERMENT AND RE-INTEGRATION (POWER)
40. KILOS KABATAAN
PILIPINO (KILOS)
41. KALOOB-KA ISANG
LOOB PARA SA MARANGAL NA PANINIRAHAN (KALOOB)
42. ALYANSA NG MGA
MAMAMAYAN AT MANDARAGAT SA LAWA NG LAGUNA, INC. (ALYANSA)
43. DEVELOPMENT
FOUNDATION
OF THE PHILIPPINES (DFP)
44. PARTIDO
KATUTUBONG
PILIPINO (KATUTUBO)
Further, the Comelec
recommended
the disqualification of the following party-list groups:
• AALAGAHAN
ANG ATING KALIKASAN (ALAS)
• PHILIPPINE SOCIETY
OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS (PSAE)
• PARTIDO PARA SA
DEMOKRATIKONG
REPORMA (PDR)
• CONSUMERS UNION OF
THE PHILIPPINES (CONSUMERS)
• CONFEDERATION OF
NON-STOCK SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC. (CONSLA)
• PEOPLE'S
PROGRESSIVE
ALLIANCE FOR PEACE AND GOOD GOVERNMENT TOWARDS ALLEVIATION OF POVERTY
AND
SOCIAL ADVANCEMENT (PAG-ASA)chanrobles virtual law library
• AHONBAYAN, INC.
(AHONBAYAN)
• ANGATchanrobles virtual law library
• SAMA-SAMA KAYA
NATIN
'TO FOUNDATION, INC. (KASAMA)
• A PEACEFUL
ORGANIZATION
LEADERSHIP, FRIENDSHIP, SERVICE MOVEMENT (APO)
• PHILIPPINE DENTAL
ASSOCIATION (PDA)
• PUSYON (BISAYA)
PILIPINO
(PUSYON)
• SOCIAL JUSTICE
SOCIETY
(SJS)
• CITIZEN'S
ANTI-CRIME
ASSISTANCE GROUP, INC. (CAAG)
• ASA AT SAMAHAN NG
KARANIWANG PILIPINO (ASAKAPIL)
• BUSINESSMEN AND
ENTREPRENEURS
ASSOCIATION, INC. (BEA)
• UNITED ARCHITECTS
OF THE PHILIPPINES (UAP)
• ABAY PAMILYA
FOUNDATION,
INC. (ABAY PAMILYA)
• PEOPLE'S REFORM
PARTY
(PRP)
• COALITION FOR
CONSUMER
PROTECTION AND WELFARE (COALITION 349)
• RIZALIST PARTY (RP)
• NATIONAL URBAN POOR
ASSEMBLY (NUPA)
• ALLIANCE FOR
MERITOCRACY
(AFM)
• BALIKATAN SA
KABUHAYAN
BUHAY COALITION (BSK)
• BANTAY DAGAT, INC.
(BDI)
• CONFEDERATION OF
HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR REFORMS IN GOVERNANCE AND ENVIRONMENT, INC.
(HOMEOWNERS)
• PORT USERS
CONFEDERATION,
INC. (PUC)
• LABAN PARA SA
KAPAYAPAAN,
KATARUNGAN, AT KAUNLARAN (KKK)
• BONDING IDEALISM
FOR NATIONAL HUMAN INITIATIVE (BINHI)
• KATIPUNAN NG MGA
BANTAY BAYAN SA PILIPINAS (KABAYAN)
• FEDERATION OF SONS
AND DAUGHTERS OF PHIL. VETERANS, INC. (LAHING VETERANO)
• PRIME MOVERS FOR
PEACE AND PROGRESS (PRIMO)
• PROGRESSIVE
ALLIANCE
OF CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY (PACD)
• COUNCIL OF
AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCERS (CAP)
• TAPAT FOUNDATION,
INC. (TAPAT)
• ALLIANCE FOR
ALLEVIATION
OF NATIONAL GOVERNANCE AND TRUST PARTY (AKA)
• ANG IPAGLABAN MO
FOUNDATION (AIM)
• PHILIPPINE MINE
SAFETY
AND ENVIRONMENT (PMSEA)
• BICOL SARO PARTY
(BSP)chanrobles virtual law library
• AABANTE KA
PILIPINAS
PARTY (SAGIP BAYAN MOVEMENT) (APIL)
• PHILIPPINE PEOPLE'S
PARLIAMENT (PPP-YOUTH)
• SPORTS AND HEALTH
ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (SHAF)
• KILUSAN TUNGO SA
PAMBANSANG TANGKILIKAN, INC. (KATAPAT)
• CITIZENS'
FOUNDATION
FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIMES AND INJUSTICES, INC. (CITIZEN)
• NACIONALISTA PARTY
(NP) (Withdrew participation in the party-list election)
• SANDIGANG MARALITA
(SM)chanrobles virtual law library
• ONEWAY PRINTING
TECHNICAL
FOUNDATION, INC. (ONEWAY PRINT)
• PHILIPPINE JURY
MOVEMENT
(JURY)
• ALTERNATIVE ACTION
(AA)chanrobles virtual law library
• DEMOCRATIC WORKERS'
PARTY (DWP)
• SECURITY UNITED
LEAGUE
NATIONWIDE GUARDS, INC. (SULONG)
• ORGANISASYONG
KAUGNAYAN
NASYONAL SA PAG-UNLAD (O.K. NAPU)
• PAMBANSANG
SANGGUNIANG
KATIPUNAN NG BARANGAY KAGAWAD SA PILIPINAS (KATIPUNAN)
• NATIONAL COUNCIL
FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZER (NCCO)
• NATIONWIDE
ASSOCIATION
OF CONSUMERS, INC. (NACI)
• LUZVIMINDA ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (LEDFI)
• TINDOG PARA HAN
KABUBUWASON
HAN WARAYNON (TINDOG WARAY)
• FEDERATION OF LAND
REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (FLRF)
• KATRIBU MINDANAO,
INC. (KATRIBU)chanrobles virtual law library
• DEMOKRATIKONG
UGNAYAN
TAPAT SA SAMBAYANAN (DUGTUNGAN)
• KATARUNGAN SA BAYAN
TAGAPAGTANGGOL NG SAMBAYANAN (KABATAS)
• GO! GO! PHILIPPINES
MOVEMENTchanrobles virtual law library
• PAMBANSANG SAMAHANG
LINGKOD NG BAYAN, INC. (PASALBA)
• PHILIPPINE
REFORMIST
SOCIETY (PRS)chanrobles virtual law library
• GABAYBAYAN (GAD)chanrobles virtual law library
• ALUHAY NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION, INC. (ALUHAI)
• ORGANIZED SUPPORT
FOR THE MOVEMENT TO ENHANCE THE NATIONAL AGENDA (OSMEÑA)
All these Compliance
Reports
have already been affirmed by this Court except that, in regard to the
First Compliance Report, it agreed — as earlier stated — to add APEC
and
CIBAC to the list of qualified groups.
Other Significant
Orders and Pleadings
Under its Resolution
No. NBC-02-001,[8]
Comelec motu proprio amended its Compliance Reports by, inter alia,
adding
four more party-list participants (BUHAY, COCOFED, NCIA and BAGONG
BAYANI)
to the list of qualified candidates for the May 14, 2001 elections.
In its Comment dated
November 15, 2002, the OSG opined that "Comelec acted correctly in
revising
its Party-List Canvass Report No. 26, so as to reflect the correct
number
of votes cast in favor of qualified party-list parties and
organizations."[9]
Consequently, it moved to lift our TRO with respect to COCOFED, BUHAY,
SANLAKAS and PM, because "[a]s shown in the revised COMELEC Party-list
Canvass Report No. 26, movants BUHAY, COCOFED, SANLAKAS and PM received
4.25%, 3.35%, 2.21% and 3.17%, respectively, of the total votes cast[10]
in the May 14, 2001 party-list election."[11]
It added that "the
proclamation by the COMELEC of BUHAY, COCOFED, SANLAKAS and PM (as well
as all other qualified parties and organizations which received at
least
2% of the total votes cast in the same party-list election) as winners
in the said party-list is in order."[12]
However, in its
November
25, 2002 Comment, the OSG contended that NCIA, "which is not a
qualified
party or organization per the Comelec [First] Partial Compliance Report
dated July 27, 2001, cannot be proclaimed as winner in the last
party-list
elections."[13]
It also recommended that ABA's Motion to lift the TRO with respect to
its
proclamation should be likewise granted, because it is a "qualified
party
or organization that hurdled the 2% threshold in the last party-list
elections.
For, ABA received 3.54% of the votes cast in the said party-list
elections,
as shown in COMELEC Resolution No. NBC-02-001. ABA's proclamation as
winner
is therefore in order."[14]
Preparatory to
resolving
the present Motions and in observance of due process, the Court
resolved
on February 18, 2003 to require the parties, including the OSG, to
submit
their respective Position Papers on the following issues:
(1) Whether
Labo v. Comelec,[15]
Grego v. Comelec[16]
and related cases should be deemed applicable to the determination of
winners
in party-list electionschanrobles virtual law library
(2) Whether the votes
cast for parties/organizations that were subsequently disqualified for
having failed to meet the eight-point guideline contained in our June
26,
2001 Decision should be deducted from the "total votes cast for the
party-list
system" during the said elections The Court's
Ruling
At the outset, the
Court needs to pass upon the claims of the OSG that the initial
recommendation
contained in Comelec's First Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001,
regarding
BUHAY and COCOFED should be reconsidered, and that these two party-list
groups should be deemed qualified.
Qualification
of BUHAY and COCOFED
In recommending the
disqualification of BUHAY for being "most probably merely an extension
of the El Shaddai," a religious group, Comelec said in the
above-mentioned
Report:
"Upon
hearing
the case for BUHAY, the Commission determined that, based upon BUHAY's
declarations of intent in its constitution, upon its avowed platform of
government — which both mirror the sentiments of the El Shaddai
Movement
— and upon the circumstances surrounding its relationship with the El
Shaddai
Movement, BUHAY is most probably merely an extension of the El Shaddai.
In this light, it is very likely that the relationship between the
leader
of the El Shaddai, and the nominee of BUHAY is less a matter of
serendipity
than an attempt to circumvent the statutory prohibition against sects
or
denominations from participating in the party-list elections."[17]
In the same Report,
Comelec
also stated that COCOFED did not deserve a seat in the House of
Representatives,
because it was allegedly an "adjunct of the government." Explained the
Commission:
"COCOFED is
a sectoral party representing the peasantry. It is a non-stock,
non-profit
organization of coconut farmers and producers, established in 1947. It
has no religious affiliations. However, the records indicate that it is
an adjunct of the government.
chan
robles virtual law library
"COCOFED's Amended
By-Laws specifically provides that:
'The Chairman of the
Philippine Coconut Authority or his duly authorized representative
shall
automatically be a member of the National Board.'
The Philippine
Coconut
Authority is an administrative agency of the government which receives
support and funding from the national government. Thus, to have the
Chairman
of the Philippine Coconut Authority sit on the National Board of
COCOFED
clearly amounts to 'participation of the government in the affairs of
candidate'
which, as this Court has said, would be 'unfair to the other parties,'
and 'deleterious to the objectives of the law.'
"Furthermore, in the
Articles of Incorporation of COCOFED, it declared, as one of its
primary
purposes, the obtaining of 'possible technical and financial assistance
for industry development from private or governmental sources.'"[18]
On the other hand, in
its
Consolidated Reply dated October 15, 2001, the OSG — in representation
of the poll agency — argued that the above findings of the Comelec in
regard,
inter alia, to BUHAY and COCOFED are "not supported by substantial
evidence"
and, thus, "should be modified accordingly." This opinion is buttressed
by the OSG's Comment dated November 15, 2002.[19]
The OSG stressed that
the Comelec report on BUHAY was "merely anchored on conjectures or
speculations."
On COCOFED, the OSG explained that the bylaws making the chairman of
the
Philippine Coconut Authority an automatic member of the COCOFED
National
Board "has already been deleted as early as May, 1988."
It added that while
the primary purposes of COCOFED's Articles of Incorporation authorize
the
organization "to help explore and obtain possible technical and
financial
assistance for industry development from private or governmental
sources,"
this statement does not "by itself constitute such substantial evidence
to support a conclusion that the COCOFED is an entity funded or
assisted
by the government."
We are convinced. For
the same reasons that we concurred in the earlier accreditation of APEC
and CIBAC, we accept the OSG's position that indeed Comelec erred in
disqualifying
BUHAY and COCOFED.[20]
Therefore, we now add
these two groups to the list of 44 qualified groups earlier mentioned
and
thereby increase the total to 46.
We shall now take up
the main question of which parties/organizations won during the last
party-list
election.
Legal Effect
of the Disqualifications on the "Total Votes Cast"
The instant Motions
for proclamation contend that the disqualification of many party-list
organizations
has reduced the "total number of votes cast for the party-list
elections."
Because of this reduction, the two-percent benchmark required by law
has
now been allegedly attained by movants. Hence, they now pray for their
proclamation as winners in the last party-list elections.
Recall that under
Section
11(b)[21]
of RA 7941 (the Party-List Act), only those parties garnering a minimum
of two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system are
entitled
to have a seat in the House of Representatives. The critical question
now
is this: To determine the "total votes cast for the party-list system,"
should the votes tallied for the disqualified candidates be deducted?
Otherwise
stated, does the clause "total votes cast for the party-list system"
include
only those ballots cast for qualified party-list candidates?
To answer this
question,
there is a need to review related jurisprudence on the matter,
especially
Labo v. Comelec[22]
and Grego v. Comelec,[23]
which were mentioned in our February 18, 2003 Resolution.
Labo and Grego
Not Applicable
In Labo, the Court
declared that "the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority
votes
does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest
number
of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate
cannot
be deemed elected to the office."[24]
In other words, the votes cast for an ineligible or disqualified
candidate
cannot be considered "stray."chanrobles virtual law library
However, "this rule
would be different if the electorate, fully aware in fact and in law of
a candidate's disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the
realm of notoriety, would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the
ineligible candidate. In such case, the electorate may be said to have
waived the validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously
misapplying
their franchise or throwing away their votes, in which case, the
eligible
candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed
elected."[25]
In short, the votes cast for a "notoriously disqualified" candidate may
be considered "stray" and excluded from the canvass.
The foregoing
pronouncement
was reiterated in Grego, which held that the exception mentioned in
Labo
v. Comelec "is predicated on the concurrence of two assumptions,
namely:
(1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified;
and
(2) the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate's
disqualification
so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would
nonetheless
cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate."[26]
Note, however, that
the foregoing pronouncements (1) referred to regular elections for
local
offices and (2) involved the interpretation of Section 6 of RA 6646.[27]
They were not meant to cover party-list elections, which are
specifically
governed by RA 7941. Section 10 of this latter law clearly provides
that
the votes cast for a party, a sectoral organization or a coalition "not
entitled to be voted for shall not be counted":
"SEC. 10.
Manner
of Voting. — Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes: the first
vote is a vote for candidate for membership of the House of
Representatives
in his legislative district, and the second, a vote for the party,
organization,
or coalition he wants represented in the House of Representatives:
Provided,
That a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not
entitled
to be voted for shall not be counted: Provided, finally, That the first
election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998."
(Emphasis
supplied.)
The language of the law
is clear; hence, there is room, not for interpretation, but merely for
application.[28]
Likewise, no recourse to extrinsic aids is warranted when the language
of the law is plain and unambiguous.[29]
Another reason for
not applying Labo and Grego is that these cases involve single elective
posts, while the present controversy pertains to the acquisition of a
number
of congressional seats depending on the total election results - such
that
even those garnering second, third, fourth or lesser places could be
proclaimed
winners depending on their compliance with other requirements.
RA 7941 is a special
statute governing the elections of party-list representatives and is
the
controlling law in matters pertaining thereto. Since Labo and Section 6
of RA 6646 came into being prior to the enactment of RA 7941, the
latter
is a qualification of the former ruling and law. On the other hand,
Grego
and other related cases that came after the enactment of RA 7941 should
be construed as inapplicable to the latter.[30]
Subtracting the votes
garnered by these disqualified party-list groups from the total votes
cast
under the party-list system will reduce the base figure to 6,523,185.
This
means that the two percent threshold can be more easily attained by the
qualified marginalized and under-represented groups. Hence,
disregarding
the votes of disqualified party-list participants will increase and
broaden
the number of representatives from these sectors. Doing so will further
concretize and give flesh to the policy declaration in RA 7941, which
we
reproduce thus:chanrobles virtual law library
"SEC. 2.
Declaration
of Policy. — The State shall promote proportional representation in the
election of representation in the election of representatives to the
House
of Representatives through a party-list system of registered, national
and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will
enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political
constituencies but who could contribute to the enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members
of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall
develop
and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the
broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests
in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete
for
and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme
possible." Need for Patience
and Perseverance
BAYAN MUNA contends
that the deduction of votes obtained by party-list candidates
disqualified
after the holding of the party-list elections will result in the
instability
of the system. The reason is that qualified party-list candidates would
be encouraged to seek the disqualification of the other candidates for
the sole purpose of attaining the needed percentage of the votes cast.
Although such scenario may be possible, we believe that the perceived
"instability"
can be alleviated because, (1) unlike in the past elections, Comelec
now
has the herein qualified and disqualified participants' list, which can
be used for future elections; and (2) in the light of recent
jurisprudential
developments, Comelec will now be guided accordingly when accrediting
new
candidates for the next party-list elections and will be able to set
the
period for accreditation in such time and manner as to enable it to
determine
their qualifications long before the elections are held.
Indeed, it takes
patience
and perseverance to have the marginalized and under-represented sectors
ably represented in Congress. The controversies churned during the 1998
and the 2001 party-list elections should further embolden, not
distract,
the nation in the process of implementing a genuine and sound
Philippine-style
party-list system. At this point, the Court needs to stress what it
said
in Veterans:
"The dismal
result of the first election for party-list representatives should
serve
as a challenge to our sectoral parties and organizations. It should
stir
them to be more active and vigilant in their campaign for
representation
in the State's lawmaking body. It should also serve as a clarion call
for
innovation and creativity in adopting this novel system of popular
democracy.
"With adequate
information
and dissemination to the public and more active sectoral parties, we
are
confident our people will be more responsive to future party-list
elections.
Armed with patience, perseverance and perspicacity, our marginalized
sectors,
in time, will fulfill the Filipino dream of full representation in
Congress
under the aegis of the party-list system, Philippine style."[31]
We also take this
opportunity
to emphasize that the formulas devised in Veterans for computing the
number
of nominees that the party-list winners are entitled to cannot be
disregarded
by the concerned agencies of government, especially the Commission on
Elections.
These formulas ensure that the number of seats allocated to the winning
party-list candidates conform to the principle of proportional
representation
mandated by the law.
The Party-List
Winners
As discussed earlier,
the votes obtained by disqualified party-list candidates are not to be
counted in determining the total votes cast for the party-list system.
In the present cases, the votes they obtained should be deducted from
the
canvass of the total number of votes cast during the May 14, 2001
elections.
Consequently, following Section 12 of RA 7941, a new tally and ranking
of qualified party-list candidates is now in order, according to the
percentage
of votes they obtained as compared with the total valid votes cast
nationwide.chanrobles virtual law library
Accordingly, we will
now tally and rank the qualified party-list participants during the
last
elections, pursuant to the approved Comelec Compliance Reports[32]
and our various Resolutions in these consolidated cases. Based on our
foregoing
discussion, we will deduct the votes obtained by the 116[33]
disqualified candidates from the total votes cast for the May 14, 2001
elections. The votes for these disqualified groups total 8,595,630.
Subtracting
this figure from 15,118,815 (the total votes cast as reported in the
Compliance
Reports) will result in a new total of 6,523,185 valid votes cast for
the
May 14, 2001 party-list elections. This new figure representing the
votes
cast for the 46 qualified party-list participants will now be the basis
for computing the two-percent threshold for victory and the number of
seats
the winners are entitled to.
To repeat, there are
only 46 qualified party-list participants. Be it remembered that the
Commission
recommended for qualification only 42 party-list candidates in its
three
Compliance Reports. To this figure should be added the two participants
we approved in our January 29, 2002 Resolution, plus another two (BUHAY
and COCOFED) per our earlier discussion in this ruling. Table No. 1
below-lists
the 46 qualified parties.
Table No. 1[34]
Rank
Party-List
Votes Cast Percentage
to
Group
Total Votes Cast (%)
1
BAYAN MUNA
1,708,253
26.19
2
APEC
802,060
12.29
3
AKBAYAN!
377,852
5.79
4
BUTIL
330,282
5.06
5
CIBAC
323,810
4.96
6
BUHAY
290,760
4.46
7
AMIN
252,051
3.86
8
ABA
242,199
3.71
9
COCOFED
229,165
3.51
10
PM
216,823
3.32
11
SANLAKAS
151,017
2.31
12
ABANSE! PINAY
135,211
2.07
13
AKO
126,012
1.93
14
ALAGAD
117,161
1.80
15
ELDERLY
106,496
1.63
16
ATUCP
103,273
1.58
17
MARITIME
98,946
1.52
18
OFW
97,085
1.49
19
AMMMA
65,735
1.01
20
ANAKBAYAN
63,312
0.97chanrobles virtual law library
21
AKAP
54,925
0.84chanrobles virtual law library
22
MSCFO
49,914
0.76chanrobles virtual law library
23
WPI
46,831
0.72
24
AAAFPI
43,882
0.67
25
AWATU
42,149
0.65
26
NACTODAP
38,898
0.60
27
SCFO
37,470
0.57
28
TRICAP
35,807
0.55
29
PINOY MAY
K
32,151
0.49
30
VETERANS CARE
31,694
0.49
31
OCW-UNIFIL
29,400
0.45
32
PWP
24,182
0.37
33
DA
24,029
0.37
34
PARP
23,297
0.36
35
ARPES
22,497
0.34
36
ARBA
22,345
0.34
37
FEJODAP
21,335
0.33
38
GABAY
OFW
17,777
0.27
39
AASAHAN
16,787
0.26
40
AYOS
15,871
0.24
41
POWER
13,050
0.20chanrobles virtual law library
42
KILOS
11,170
0.17
43
KALOOB
9,137
0.14chanrobles virtual law library
44
ALYANSA
7,882
0.12chanrobles virtual law library
45
KATUTUBO
6,602
0.10chanrobles virtual law library
46
DFP
6,600
0.10
————
Total
6,523,185
The Winners and
Their Nominees
Using simple
mathematics,
we find that only 12 of the 46 qualified parties obtained at least two
percent of the 6,523,185 total valid votes cast. Two percent of this
number
is 130,464. Hence, only those qualified parties that obtained at least
130,464 votes may be declared winners. On this basis, the winners are
as
follows:
Table No. 2
Rank
Party-List
Votes
Cast
Percentage to Group
Total Votes Cast (%)
1
BAYAN MUNA
1,708,253
26.19
2
APEC
802,060
12.29
3
AKBAYAN!
377,852
5.79
4
BUTIL
330,282
5.06
5
CIBAC
323,810
4.96
6
BUHAY
290,760
4.46chanrobles virtual law library
7
AMIN
252,051
3.86chanrobles virtual law library
8
ABA
242,199
3.71chanrobles virtual law library
9
COCOFED
229,165
3.51
10
PM
216,823
3.32
11
SANLAKAS
151,017
2.31
12
ABANSE!
PINAY
135,211
2.07
We shall now determine
the number of nominees each winning party is entitled to, in accordance
with the formula in Veterans. For purposes of determining the number of
its nominees, BAYAN MUNA (the party that obtained the highest number of
votes) is considered the first party. The applicable formula[35]
is as follows:
Number
of votes of first party Proportion of votes of first party relative to
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= total votes for party-list system
Total votes for party-list system
Applying this formula,
we arrive at 26.19 percent:
1,708,253
————— = 26.19%
6,523,185
Having obtained 26.19
percent,
BAYAN MUNA is entitled to three (3) seats. This finding is pursuant to
our ruling in Veterans, the pertinent portions of which we reproduce as
follows:
"If the
proportion
of votes received by the first party without rounding it off is equal
to
at least six percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party
list
groups, then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats
or a total of three seats overall. If the proportion of votes without a
rounding off is equal to or greater than four percent, but less than
six
percent, then the first party shall have one additional or a total of
two
seats. And if the proportion is less than four percent, then the first
party shall not be entitled to any additional seat."chanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Note that the above
formula will be applicable only in determining the number of additional
seats the first party is entitled to. It cannot be used to determine
the
number of additional seats of the other qualified parties. As explained
earlier, the use of the same formula for all would contravene the
proportional
representation parameter. For example, a second party obtains six
percent
of the total number of votes cast. According to the above formula, the
said party would be entitled to two additional seats or a total of
three
seats overall. However, if the first party received a significantly
higher
amount of votes — say, twenty percent — to grant it the same number of
seats as the second party would violate the statutory mandate of
proportional
representation, since a party getting only six percent of the votes
will
have an equal number of representatives as the one obtaining twenty
percent.
The proper solution, therefore, is to grant the first party a total of
three seats; and the party receiving six percent, additional seats in
proportion
to those of the first party."[36]
As adverted to earlier,
the issue of whether additional seats should be allocated to APEC,
AKBAYAN,
BUTIL and CIBAC will not be addressed in this Resolution; a separate
Motion
(with Supplemental Motion) challenging their entitlement thereto has
been
filed by BAYAN MUNA and is still pending completion as of this writing.
Hence, we shall compute only the additional seat or seats to be
allocated,
if any, to the other qualified parties — BUHAY, AMIN, ABA, COCOFED, PM,
SANLAKAS and ABANSE! PINAY.
Applying the relevant
formula in Veterans to BUHAY, we arrive at 0.51:
Votes
Cast for Qualified Party Additional Seats
=
--------------------------------------------------------------------
x Allotted Seats for First Partychanrobles virtual law library
Votes Cast for First Party
290,760
= —————— x 3
1,708,253
= 0.51
Since 0.51 is less than
one, BUHAY is not entitled to any additional seat.[37]
It is entitled to only one qualifying seat like all the other qualified
parties that are ranked below it, as shown in Table No. 3:
Table No. 3
Rank
Party-List
Votes
Percentage Additional (%) Seats[38]
2
APEC
802,060
12.29 n/c
3
AKBAYAN!
377,852
5.79 n/c
4
BUTIL
330,282
5.06 n/c
5
CIBAC
323,810
4.96 n/c
6
BUHAY
290,760
4.46 0.51
7
AMIN
252,051
3.86 0.44chanrobles virtual law library
8
ABA
242,199
3.71 0.42chanrobles virtual law library
9
COCOFED
229,165
3.51 0.40chanrobles virtual law library
10
PM
216,823
3.32 0.38chanrobles virtual law library
11
SANLAKAS
151,017
2.31 0.26chanrobles virtual law library
12
ABANSE! PINAY
135,211
2.07 0.24
In sum, the above-named
party-list winners, excluding those with a separate pending challenge,
are entitled to the following congressional seats:
1. BAYAN MUNA three
(3) seats [one qualifying and two additional seats]
2. BUHAY one qualifying
seat onlychanrobles virtual law library
3. AMIN one qualifying
seat onlychanrobles virtual law library
4. ABA one qualifying
seat onlychanrobles virtual law library
5. COCOFED one
qualifying
seat onlychanrobles virtual law library
6. PM one qualifying
seat onlychanrobles virtual law library
7. SANLAKAS one
qualifying
seat onlychanrobles virtual law library
8. ABANSE! PINAY one
qualifying seat only
Epilogue
The determination of
the winners in the last party-list elections has been neither easy nor
simple. The novelty of the party-list system in our country necessarily
demanded careful study and deliberation by the Court. Principles and
precedents
in other democracies of the world have not been very helpful, because
our
party-list law (RA 7941) has earmarked unique parameters, giving rise
to
an equally distinctive Philippine-style party-list system. Our
difficulties
have also been aggravated by the less than firm actions of the
Commission
on Elections referred to earlier, which had to be reversed based on the
OSG's later submissions.
To help all concerned,
especially the Commission on Elections, speed up the process of
determining
the party-list winners in the future, we deem it wise to summarize the
implementing process we followed in this Resolution, as follows:
1. After
the
promulgation of our Decision on June 26, 2001, we directed Comelec to
conduct
a factual determination as to which of the various party-list
candidates
had passed the eight-point guideline we instituted in that Decision.
Although
we gave Comelec only 30 days to undertake the work, it was able to
submit
its Final Compliance Report only on September 27, 2001.chanrobles virtual law library
2. Of the various
parties
and organizations[39]
which Comelec allowed to participate in the 2001 party-list elections,
it recommended — in its three Compliance Reports to the Court — 42 to
be
qualified. Later on, four more groups were added, for a total of 46.
3. Next, we
determined
which of the 46 qualified parties garnered at least two percent of the
total votes cast for the party-list system. To do so, we subtracted the
votes obtained by the disqualified candidates from the "total votes
cast."
Those parties, organizations and coalitions that had obtained at least
two percent of this balance were declared winners.
4. After identifying
the winners, we determined, by using the formulas mandated in Veterans
v. Comelec, how many nominees each winning party was entitled to.
5. The foregoing
process
would have been finished long ago and the winners proclaimed before the
end of the year 2002, had Comelec been more resolute and exacting in
the
factual determinations contained in its Compliance Reports.
6. In the interest
of due process, the Court required Position Papers on the issue of
whether
the votes of disqualified candidates should be deducted from the "total
votes cast" nationwide.
7. The two rollos of
these two consolidated cases contain about 14,000 pages, because almost
all of the original party-list participants filed — some repeatedly —
motions,
pleas, position papers and so on, which all needed attention. Thus, the
Court had to devote an enormous amount of time and effort poring over,
understanding, and ruling upon these submissions.
8. In the interest
of speedy justice, this matter was deliberated upon; and this
Resolution
was discussed, finalized and promulgated by the Court within weeks
after
it had received the last Position Paper mentioned in item 6 above.
IN THE FUTURE, the
determination
of the winners can truly be made much more expeditiously, now that
there
are precedents to guide all concerned, especially the Commission on
Elections.
For one thing, Comelec already has the herein base list of 46 qualified
parties. For another, given the lessons and experiences in these
proceedings,
it can now more speedily, more carefully and more prudently pass upon
the
qualifications of new candidates. Such process can even be done in
advance
under such rules and regulations it may issue, consistent with the law
and with our Decisions and Resolutions here and in Veterans, to
pre-qualify
participants well in advance of the elections.chanrobles virtual law library
In closing, the Court
hopes that, with each bit of wisdom they learned and after the arduous
journey they experienced in our one-of-a-kind Philippine-style
party-list
system, the marginalized and under-represented sectors of our country
will
be accorded ever-widening opportunities to participate in
nation-building,
so that they can help develop — in peace and harmony — a society that
is
just, humane, progressive and free.
WHEREFORE, we HOLD
that, having obtained at least two percent of the total valid votes
cast
in the last party-list elections, the following qualified participants
are DECLARED elected with one nominee each: BUHAY, AMIN, ABA, COCOFED,
PM, SANLAKAS and ABANSE! PINAY. To enable the Commission on Elections
to
proclaim — upon finality of this Resolution — these winners and their
respective
nominees, we hereby partially LIFT our Temporary Restraining Order
dated
May 9, 2001, in regard to them only. It is made permanent in regard to
the rest that did not qualify and win.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., with due
respect, reiterates his dissenting opinion, promulgated along with the
ponencia, on 26 June 2001 (359 SCRA
698, 733–741).
Austria-Martinez,
J., is on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
These are BAYAN MUNA with three nominees; and AKBAYAN, BUTIL, APEC and
CIBAC with one nominee each.
[2]
Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec, 342 SCRA 244, 255, October 6,
2000,
per Panganiban, J.
[3]
Pp. 42-43; rollo, GR No. 147613, Vol. I, pp. 377-378.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
P. 26; rollo, GR No. 147589, Vol. III, p. 2889. In a Manifestation
dated
December 5, 2001, the OSG reiterated its position that "APEC and CIBAC
be proclaimed as party-list winners in the last May 14, 2001 elections,
APEC having garnered 5.3654%, and CIBAC having received 2.1317%, of the
total votes cast," (Pp. 1-2; rollo, GR No. 147589, Vol. IV, pp.
3441–3442)
[5]
Rollo, GR No. 147589, Vol. IV, pp. 3746-3751.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
En Banc Resolution dated 29 January 2002, pp. 3-4; rollo, GR No.
147589,
Vol. IV, pp. 3748-3749.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Our enumeration here begins with "10" because, as earlier stated, we
have
added APEC and CIBAC to the group of seven deemed qualified under the
First
Compliance Report.
[8]
We shall not, at this point, rule on the legal effects of this
"Resolution"
especially insofar as it authorized the proclamation of additional
nominees
for APEC, AKBAYAN, BUTIL and CIBAC, because a separate Motion
challenging
it has been lodged in this Court, and the parties are still in the
process
of submitting their various pleadings thereon.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Comment dated November 15, 2002, p. 3; rollo, GR No. 147589, Vol. V, p.
4718. Emphasis in the original.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Although the OSG's Comment averred that the percentages were based on
"the
total votes cast," a check with the November 6, 2002 Comelec Resolution
shows that the basis was the total votes for only 48 parties.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Ibid. See also Comelec Resolution dated November 6, 2002, p. 2; rollo,
GR No. 147589, Vol. V, p. 4710.
[12]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Comment dated November 25, 2002, p. 2; rollo, GR No. 147589, Vol. V, p.
4801.
[14]
Ibid. See also Comelec Resolution dated November 6, 2002, p. 2; rollo,
GR No. 147589, Vol. V, p. 4710; and footnote 10 of this Resolution.
[15]
GR Nos. 105111 and 105384, 211 SCRA 297, July 3, 1992.
[16]
340 Phil. 591, June 19, 1997.
[17]
Comelec's First Partial Compliance Report dated July 27, 2001, pp.
36-37;
GR No. 147613, Vol. I, pp. 4129.
[18]
Id., pp. 38 & 4131.
[19]
Supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
The Court postponed its action in regard to the OSG's recommendation on
BUHAY and COCOFED, because at the time the Consolidated Reply was
filed,
they had not reached the two-percent benchmark required for victory. At
that point, there had been no ruling yet on the issue of whether the
votes
of disqualified participants should be deducted from the "total votes
cast."
On the other hand, regardless of whether such ballots were to be
deducted
or not, APEC and CIBAC - along with BAYAN MUNA, AKBAYAN and BUTIL - had
already obtained more than two percent of all the votes cast for all
participants.
Hence, there was urgency in ruling upon the qualifications of these
five.
[21]
"SEC. 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. -.chanrobles virtual law library
xxxchanrobles virtual law library
xxx chanrobles virtual law library
xxx
"(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 seats."
[22]
Supra.
[23]
Supra.
[24]
Supra, p. 311, per Bidin, J.
[25]
Id., p. 312.
[26]
Supra, p. 501, per Romero, J.chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
Section 6 of RA 6646 provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
"SEC.
6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who has been
declared
by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the
votes
cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not
declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he
is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election,
the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of
the
action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any
intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is
strong."chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
Sunga v. Comelec, 351 Phil. 310, 327, March 25, 1998.
[29]
Republic v. CA, 359 Phil. 530, 559, November 25, 1998.
[30]
Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 5th ed., 1998, p. 420.
[31]
Supra, p. 284.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
In its October 8, 2002 Resolution, the Court reiterated its affirmance
of the Compliance Reports when it denied the Motion for Reconsideration
of the VFP. It said: "VFP's Motion for Reconsideration.merely
rehashes
and reiterates arguments already debunked in the July 27, 2001 Comelec
Compliance Report, which, to repeat, has been affirmed by this Court.
It
presents no cogent or compelling reasons why we should reverse or
modify
our unanimous Resolution affirming the exhaustive Comelec Reports." (P.
4; rollo, GR. No. 147613, Vol. V, p. 6932)
[33]
Initially, Comelec disqualified 120 in its three Compliance Reports but
4 of them — APEC, BUTIL, BUHAY, and COCOFED - are now deemed qualified.chanrobles virtual law library
[34]
The figures in this table under "Votes Cast" are from Comelec Canvass
Report
No. 26 dated September 7, 2001; GR No. 147613, Vol. III, rollo, p.
5961.
The percentages are rounded off to two decimal places.chanrobles virtual law library
[35]
Supra, p. 279.chanrobles virtual law library
[36]
Id., pp. 279-280.chanrobles virtual law library
[37]
For a discussion of how to compute additional nominees for parties
other
than the first, see Veterans, supra, at pp. 280-282. There is no
"rounding
off" for this portion.chanrobles virtual law library
[38]
n/c refers to "not computed" since, to repeat, the Court is yet to
resolve
the validity of the proclamation of the additional nominees of APEC,
AKBAYAN,
BUTIL and CIBAC due to the Motion of BAYAN MUNA to set aside Comelec
Resolution
No. NBC-02-001 promulgated on November 6, 2002 and the related November
22, 2002 Comelec Order and the November 26, 2002 Comelec Resolution.
[39]
In our June 26, 2001 Decision, we said that the participation of 154
organizations
and parties was approved by Comelec. But a review of Comelec's Omnibus
Resolution No. 3785 dated March 26, 2001 shows that 159 sectoral
parties,
organizations/coalitions and political parties were allowed to
participate
during the May 14, 2001 party-list elections. Compare this figure with
162, the number of parties cited in the Comelec Compliance Reports. |