[G.R. No. 136781. November 14, 2000]

VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY et al vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 14 2000.

G.R. No. 136781 (Veterans Federation Party, et al vs. Commission on Elections, et al.)

G.R. No. 136786 (Akbayan, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al.)

G.R. No. 136795 (Alagad, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al.)

Before us are (a) a Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Petitioners Veterans Federation Party et al.; and (b) two separate Motions for Reconsideration filed by Private Respondents PAG-ASA, ALU, KATIPUNAN, ANAKBAYAN, OCW-UNIFIL, PMP, BIGAS, WOMEN POWER, PRP arid ARBA; and ONE WAY/PRINT.

In their Motion for Partial Reconsideration, movants agree with the Court in nullifying the Comelec Resolution proclaiming 39 additional party list representatives from parties that did not hurdle the two-percent-vote threshold required under Republic Act 7941. They, however, seek the proclamation of two additional representatives for each of them (one for APEC), on two grounds: (1) the formula adopted by the Court in determining the additional seats has allegedly no basis in law; and (2) the Niemeyer formula espoused in the Dissent of Mr. justice Vicente V. Mendoza is the lawful and proper method.

The Court believes that it has sufficiently discussed in its Decision the inapplicability of the Niemeyer formula to the Philippine setting. Movants have not presented any substantial arguments why the Court should change its position.

Having said that, the Court stresses however that contrary to movants claims, our "home-grown" formula on proportional representation took into account Section 11 of the Party-List Law. In attacking our formula, movants cited only its simplified format, which is:

����������������������������������������������� No. of votes of�����������������������������������

Additional seats for��������������� Concerned party������������������� No. of additional seats

Concerned party������������������� -------------------����������� x��������� allocated to first party

����������������������������������������������� No. of votes of

����������������������������������������������� First party

They overlooked the complete original complex fraction from which this was derived, which is:

����������������������������������������������� No. of votes of

����������������������������������������������� Concerned party

����������������������������������������������� -------------------

����������������������������������������������� Total no. of votes

����������������������������������������������� For party-list system������������� No. of additional seats

Additional seats�������� ----------------------------------------- x����� allocated to the first party

For concerned party�������������� No. of votes of

����������������������������������������������� first party

����������������������������������������������� ---------------------

����������������������������������������������� Total no. of votes

����������������������������������������������� for party list system

In the simplified form, the "Total no. of votes for party-list system" was eliminated because in mathematics, the common denominators of component fractions may both be cancelled without affecting the result. In other words, the common denominators would just unnecessarily prolong the computation, but the end result would be exactly the same. Thus, in the final simplified formula, the "total number of the votes cast for the party-list system" no longer appeared. Obviously then, movants are wrong in stating that the Court's formula was based only on the votes of the highest party. Clearly also, the Court followed Section 11 of RA 7941.

Needless to repeat, the prayer of the Motion to grant movants two additional seats violates the Party-List Law, particularly the "proportional representation" parameter, because the party that garnered only 2.04 percent (COCOFED) of the votes cast would have the same number of representatives as the one that garnered 5.5 percent (APEC). Furthermore, it is possible that 18 or more parties would obtain between 2-3 percent of the total votes and thus qualify for party-list representation. In such a case, granting them 3 seats each (or a total of 54 or more) will exceed the total membership reserved (20% or 52) for party-list representatives in Congress, as provided under the Constitution.

The other two Motions filed by private respondents are totally without merit. They merely reiterate the same arguments earlier raised and do not present substantial reasons not previously invoked or any matter not already considered and passed upon by the Court. We just wish to point out that the Court was unanimous is resolving that none of private respondents legally qualified for party-list representation. The dissent was confined to the issue of additional seats proposed for petitioners.

Accordingly, the Court hereby Resolves to DENY the petitioners' Motion for Partial Reconsideration and the private respondents' Motions for Reconsideration for lack of merit. This denial is FINAL . No further pleadings from movants will be entertained. (JJ Kapunan, Mendoza and Quisumbing maintain their dissent.)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court�


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com