With Due Respect

Party-list: Legislation is the solution (2)


How are party-list winners determined? The Supreme Court answered this question in its very first decision on the party-list system, “Veterans Federation Party vs Comelec” (Oct. 6, 2000). Since then, several other decisions affirming and modifying this landmark case have come out, but the controversy on how to determine the winners persists.

Mathematically inscrutable. This is because the Party-list Law (Republic Act 7941) is vague, contradictory and mathematically inscrutable, yet—despite repeated prodding by the high court—Congress has not done anything about it.

The party-list system is a feature of some parliamentary governments, like Germany. The 1987 Constitution mongrelized it into our presidential system by saying that 20 percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives shall be “those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.”

The Constitution does not define the nature of the Filipino party-list system. By injecting the phrase “as provided by law” in the constitutional text, the constitutional framers passed the job to the legislature. In turn, Congress obliged by enacting RA 7941 that, however, convoluted the problem of determining the winners.

In the Senate race, only the 12 candidates garnering the biggest number of votes are deemed elected. In contrast, the determination of the party-list winners is quite complicated because, for one thing, the victors are parties and organizations, not individuals.

For another, unlike in the Senate where the vacancies to be filled are fixed at 12, the party-list slots are variable; per the Constitution, they constitute 20 percent of the total number of House seats that, in turn, is constantly increasing. Indeed, it is difficult to ascertain 20 percent of a ballooning whole.

Worse, the Party-list Law requires a winner to obtain at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system. Moreover, those that qualify (or pass the 2-percent threshold) are entitled to additional seats but not exceeding two.

Otherwise stated, each winning party is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one “qualifying” plus two additional seats. The additional seats shall be computed in proportion to their (winning parties’) total number of votes.

Complicated formulas. In the Veterans case, the justices had to find a way to convert into a mathematical formula the aforesaid parameters laid down by the Constitution and the Party-list Law—i.e., (1) “20 percent allocation,” (2) “2-percent threshold,” (3) “three-seat limit,” and (4) “proportional representation.”

After much internal debate, the Court came up with what is now known as the “Veterans formula” of determining the winners. It is also referred to as the “Panganiban formula” because I was the ponente of the decision.

I do not have the space to explain this complicated formula. Suffice it to say that it was criticized, mainly because it allegedly violated proportional representation and did not result “in a rough straight line when graphed.” However, the formula merely reflected the foregoing parameters.

Mathematically speaking, proportional representation as mandated by the Party-list Law cannot be perfected if all the parameters, especially the “2-percent threshold” and the “three-seat limit” are observed. To attain precise proportional representation, the Party-list Law must be amended and simplified.

In any event, the Veterans formula was affirmed unanimously in subsequent decisions: “Partido ng Manggagawa vs Comelec” (March 15, 2006) and “Cibac vs. Comelec” (April 13, 2007).

However, on April 21, 2009—two years after promulgating Cibac—the Court in “Banat vs. Comelec” modified Veterans by declaring unconstitutional the 2-percent threshold and authorized the award of congressional seats to party-list groups that obtained less than 2 percent of the total votes cast.

Nonetheless, the Banat decision did not solve the distortions of the Party-list Law because now, regardless of how few its votes are, a party-list candidate could win provided the 20-percent constitutional allocation is not breached. In contrast, the poll topnotchers are still limited to a maximum of three seats. Worse, Banat opened the floodgates to party-list representatives even if they obtained less than 1 percent of the total votes cast. While Veterans allowed only 14 party-list representatives to sit in the House, Banat authorized 55.

Redefine and reengineer. The Supreme Court does not make, amend or invent laws. It merely declares them valid or invalid. At times, it crafts guidelines on how to follow the law. It does not determine policy. Only Congress can correct gaps in the laws or make them more rational and mathematical.

In the present instance, Congress should define more clearly the concept and nature of the Philippine party-list system; it should declare in more unequivocal terms whether it is reserved only for the marginalized and underrepresented, and whether it is open to all parties. It should reengineer the method by which the winners could be determined more easily.

Or, it should repeal RA 7941 altogether if it believes the party-list experiment has failed. By repealing this law, the party-list system would be effectively abolished for want of an enabling law. But leaving it as is will just continue to confound and confuse everyone, including its own honorable members. And the people.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook Follow on Twitter Follow on Twitter

More from this Column:

Recent Stories:

Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones; 14-issue free trial. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.

Short URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/?p=40068

Tags: artemio v. panganiban , Legislation , opinion , Partylist , With Due Respect

Copyright © 2014, .
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


  • Afghan hospital guard kills 3 American doctors
  • [VIDEO] No assurances on Janet Lim-Napoles’ bid to become state witness
  • South Sudan president fires long-time army leader
  • Grenade explodes outside MPD Station 1
  • 25 cops ordered relieved over links to drugs
  • Sports

  • Pacquiao can dodge tax issues
  • F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone rejects bribery charges
  • Big Chill freezes Cafe France to arrest skid
  • Pacquiao has to go through PBA Rookie draft
  • Guiao summoned by PBA for name-calling incident
  • Lifestyle

  • Gongs and southern dances star in a workshop at San Francisco Bayanihan Center
  • This woman ate what?
  • Photos explore dynamics of youths’ sexual identity
  • 12th Philippine Food Expo set at the World Trade Center
  • No tourist draw, Malang the croc will remain wild
  • Entertainment

  • Smithsonian wants photos, videos for ‘Day in the Life of Asian Pacific Americans’
  • What Garcia Marquez left behind
  • Has Ai Ai fallen deeply with ‘sireno?’
  • Sony developing live-action Barbie comedy
  • California court won’t review Jackson doctor case
  • Business

  • Metro Pacific acquires stake in Victorias
  • How ‘one percent’ economic elite was uncovered
  • Facebook profits triple as mobile soars
  • Insular Honors Sales Performers at Testimonial Rites
  • Apple increases stock buyback, will split stock
  • Technology

  • Enrile in Masters of the Universe, Lord of the Rings?
  • Top Traits of Digital Marketers
  • No truth to viral no-visa ‘chronicles’
  • ‘Unlimited’ Internet promos not really limitless; lawmakers call for probe
  • Viber releases new design for iPhone, comes to Blackberry 10 for the first time
  • Opinion

  • Editorial cartoon, April 24, 2014
  • Talking to Janet
  • Respite
  • Bucket list
  • JPII in 1981: walking a tightrope
  • Global Nation

  • Obama to visit Filipino soldiers in Fort Bonifacio
  • Fil-Am youth conferences unite under one theme
  • Embassy advisory: Filipinos still need visas to enter US
  • No travel restriction to Mideast, DFA clarifies
  • PH-HK relations repaired, but families of victims still being courted
  • Marketplace