In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the complex issue of determining qualified parties in the Philippine party-list system and the proportional allocation of seats in the House of Representatives. The Court clarified that votes cast for disqualified party-list candidates should not be counted when determining the total votes for the party-list system. This decision ensures that only votes for qualified parties are considered, which affects the threshold for representation and the allocation of additional seats. The ruling emphasizes the importance of proportional representation, reinforcing the intent of the party-list system to give marginalized and under-represented sectors genuine opportunities to participate in nation-building.

Who Gets a Seat? The Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Party-List Proclamation

The consolidated cases of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on Elections and Bayan Muna vs. Commission on Elections arose from the 2001 party-list elections and the need to determine which parties were qualified for representation in the House of Representatives. The main contention was whether the votes cast for parties subsequently disqualified should be deducted from the “total votes cast for the party-list system.” The Supreme Court, in its resolution, addressed the criteria for qualifying parties and how to proportionally allocate seats, guided by the Party-List System Act (RA 7941) and its previous ruling in Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec.

The Court underscored that only parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are entitled to seats. The calculation of this threshold became central to the dispute. Should the votes cast for disqualified parties be included when determining the overall total? This decision directly influences which marginalized groups get representation in Congress. Central to the court’s decision was Section 10 of RA 7941. Here, the language is explicit:

“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”

Building on this principle, the Court clarified that relevant jurisprudence on regular elections, such as the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not automatically entitle the eligible candidate with the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. Moreover, in regular elections votes are generally not considered “stray” just because a candidate is found to be ineligible or disqualified, unless the electorate was fully aware in fact and in law of the candidates disqualification. Because party-list elections are different, with many potentially acquiring seats from what seems like second, third or fourth place, votes cast for ineligible parties in the party-list system, should not be included when calculating overall valid votes.

This approach contrasts with regular elections and underscores the proportional representation parameters unique to the party-list system, ensuring those gaining seats at these “lower levels,” do not see their chances of entering into Congress diminished because votes for a political party that should not have been on the ballot, or which ultimately was not eligible, impacts overall seat availability and proportional allocation. Here, deducting votes from disqualified participants further aligns with the policy declaration in RA 7941. Section 2 explains that this declaration aims to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and under-represented sectors the ability to become members of the House of Representatives by promoting proportional representation in the election of representatives.

As to next steps, the Supreme Court provided implementing processes with the intention of assisting the Commission on Elections speed up its determinations of party-list election winners in the future. Among these guidelines included pre-qualifying potential new candidates; and making factual determinations of candidates that had passed previous eight-point guidelines instituted in the Court’s previous decisions. Of the 154 organizations that were approved by the COMELEC in previous years, only 46 of these would ultimately be determined as qualified by the Supreme Court. Finally, these would be the relevant parties, organizations, and coalitions that would be considered for garnering two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system, those declared winners and additional allocations provided, pursuant to Veteran v. COMELEC formulas for computing party-list winners.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the votes cast for party-list candidates who were later disqualified should be included in the total number of votes used to determine the two-percent threshold for representation.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court decided that votes for disqualified party-list candidates should not be counted when calculating the total votes cast. Only the votes for qualified parties should be considered for determining the threshold and seat allocation.
Why did the Court make this decision?	The Court based its decision on the Party-List System Act (RA 7941), particularly Section 10, which states that votes cast for a party not entitled to be voted for should not be counted. The ruling aimed to align with the policy of proportional representation.
What is the two-percent threshold in the party-list system?	The two-percent threshold refers to the minimum percentage of total votes cast that a party-list organization must receive to be entitled to at least one seat in the House of Representatives.
How does this ruling affect marginalized and under-represented sectors?	By excluding votes for disqualified parties, the total votes cast are reduced, making it easier for qualified marginalized and under-represented groups to meet the two-percent threshold and gain representation in Congress.
What is the significance of the Veterans case in this ruling?	The Veterans case provides the formulas for computing the number of nominees each winning party is entitled to, ensuring the number of seats allocated to the winning party-list candidates conforms to the principle of proportional representation.
What were the implementing processes laid down by the Court in this ruling?	The implementing processes set by the court largely included making a factual determination to candidates that had passed the eight-point guideline; subtracting votes obtained by disqualified candidates from “total votes cast,” using the remainder as basis for minimum percentages for seat victory; following Veterans v. COMELEC formulas to calculate amount of party nominees based on final “win” seat counts.
How will this ruling affect future party-list elections?	The Supreme Court made clear there was a need to be more speedy, more careful and more prudent as to passing and determining future pre-qualified party-list candidates well in advance of their actual elections.

This landmark decision by the Supreme Court clarified the mechanics of the party-list system, affirming the intention of RA 7941 and previous cases while adapting to fit party-list unique circumstances and rules, such as in Veterans v. COMELEC and how this impacted seat proportionality. The focus remains on true, actual under-represented demographics getting their voices into the House of Representatives as guaranteed under proportional representation.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June 25, 2003