ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. Nos. 152013-15.February 26, 2002]

PHIL. ASSN. OF RETIRED PERSONS, INC., vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 26 2002.

G.R. Nos. 152013-15(Philippine Association of Retired Persons, Inc., otherwise known as PARP vs. Commission on Elections, et al.)

Petitioner Philippine Association of Retired Persons, Inc. is a non-governmental organization.Having received less than two percent (2%) of the votes cast for party-list candidates in the May 14, 2001 elections, petitioner was not included in the assailed resolutions of the Commission on Elections proclaiming those elected in the party-list elections.Petitioner contends that �11(b) of R.A. No. 7941, which provides that

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,

is unconstitutional because Art. VI, �5(2) of the Constitution provides that, "the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list."Petitioner argues that the two percent (2%) requirement in R.A. No. 7941 renders it "mathematically impossible" to fill all 53 seats representing the twenty percent (20%) set by the Constitution because at most only fifty (50) party-list representatives can be elected following such requirement.

The petition has no merit.Petitioner's contentions have already been disposed of in the decision of this Court in Veterans Federation Party v. Commission on Elections (342 SCRA 244, 268-272 (2000)) in which it was held through Justice Artemio Panganiban:

In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress enacted RA 7941.As said earlier, Congress declared therein a policy to promote "proportional representation" in the election of party-list representatives in order to enable Filipinos belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation that would benefit them.It however deemed it necessary to require parties, organizations and coalitions participating in the system to obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system in order to be entitled to a party-list seat.Those garnering more than this percentage could have "additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes."Furthermore, no winning party, organization or coalition can have more than three seats in the House of Representatives.

. . . Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution is not mandatory.It merely provides a ceiling for party-list seats in Congress.

On the contention that a strict application of the two percent threshold may result in a "mathematical impossibility," suffice it to say that the prerogative to determine whether to adjust or change this percentage requirement rests in Congress. . . .

In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties, organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. . . .Under a republican or representative state, all government authority emanates from the people, but is exercised by representatives chosen by them.But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of people.Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list system, the result might be the proliferation of small groups which are incapable of contributing significant legislation, and which might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress.

Moreover, no certified true copies or duplicate originals of the COMELEC resolutions, which are the subject of this petition for certiorari and prohibition, are attached to the said petition.Hence, pursuant to Rule 64, �5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for certiorari and prohibition should be dismissed.

WHEREFORE , the petition is DISMISSED for being insufficient in form and substance.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE