SC junks petition challenging allocation of party list seats
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition by three also-ran party list groups questioning how party list seats in the House of Representatives were allocated.
In a statement by its public information office on Friday, the high court said it dismissed the suit filed by Angkla: Ang Partido ng Mga Marinong Pilipino Inc. and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party (SBP), later joined by Aksyon Magsasaka-Tinig Partido ng Masa (Akma-PTM), due to lack of majority vote.
Since 14 justices participated in the deliberations, a majority of eight justices was needed for a vote to be deemed a majority vote affirming a court decision.
A majority opinion was written by Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier who was joined by only six justices. Six other justices dissented while one justice submitted a concurring and dissenting opinion.
“Hence, in view of the provision in the Constitution requiring a majority vote in declaring a law unconstitutional, and pursuant to Rule 12, Section 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, the Court denied the petition,” the high court said. A copy of the Sept. 15 decision will be posted soon on the SC’s website.
Provision questioned
The Commission on Elections, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed 51 winners in the party list race of 2019, wherein Akma-PTM, SBP and Angkla placed 52nd, 53rd and 54th, respectively.
The petitioners challenged before the Comelec the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941, or the Party-List System Act, which states that party list groups receiving at least 2 percent of the total votes cast shall be entitled to one seat each.
The same provision states that party list groups garnering more than 2 percent shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes, provided that each group shall not have more than three seats.
According to the petitioners, the allocation of additional seats “in proportion to the total number of votes” led to a “double counting” of votes in favor of those party list groups. Thus they argued the said provision was unconstitutional.
‘Carpio formula’
The high court noted that the present interpretation of Section 11(b) of RA 7941 had long been settled in the 2009 case of Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Comelec which laid down the parameters and methodology on how party list seats should be allocated.
That so-called Carpio formula, named after recently retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio who penned that decision, has since been applied to the allocation of party list seats in Congress.
The computation, however, was criticized as a “judicial legislation” by opposition politicians such as the late senator Joker Arroyo, who pointed out that the formula had allowed party list groups that won less than 2 percent of the national vote to be given seats in the House.
