Manila
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 147589, November 20, 2003 ]
ANG BAGONG BAYANI, OFW, ET AL. PETITIONERS VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
BAYAN MUNA, PETITIONER VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
DAVIDE JR., C.J.:
The remaining issues left for the resolution of the Court are: (1) the effect of the proclamation by the Commission on Elections of the additional nominees of APEC, BUTIL, CIBAC and AKBAYAN pursuant to its Order of 22 November 2002, a proclamation this Court declared in its Resolution of 18 February 2003 to be a violation of, inter alia, the Temporary Restraining Order it issued on 9 May 2001; and (2) whether BUHAY is entitled to one additional seat in the party-list system.
It may be recalled that in its Resolution No. NBC-02-001 dated 6 November 2002, the COMELEC found that APEC is entitled to three seats; AKBAYAN, two seats; BUTIL, two seats; CIBAC, two seats; BUHAY, two seats; AMIN, one seat; ABA, one seat; COCOFED, one seat; NCIA, one seat; PM, one seat; and SANLAKAS, one seat.
The additional nominees of APEC, BUTIL, CIBAC and AKBAYAN proclaimed by the COMELEC immediately took their oath and assumed office as members of the House of Representatives.
In its Resolution of 25 June 2003, the Court has found that, indeed BUHAY obtained 4.46% of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system, thus:
Table No. 3
| Rank |
Party-List |
Votes |
Percentage (%) |
Additional Seats |
| 2 |
APEC |
802,060 |
12.29 |
n/c |
| 3 |
AKBAYAN |
377,852 |
5.79 |
n/c |
| 4 |
BUTIL |
330,282 |
5.06 |
n/c |
| 5 |
CIBAC |
323, 810 |
4.96 |
n/c |
| 6 |
BUHAY |
290,760 |
4.46 |
0.51 |
| 7 |
AMIN |
252,051 |
3.86 |
0.44 |
| 8 |
ABA |
242,199 |
3.71 |
0.42 |
| 9 |
COCOFED |
229,165 |
3.51 |
0.40 |
| 10 |
PM |
216,823 |
3.32 |
0.38 |
| 11 |
SANLAKAS |
151,017 |
2.31 |
0.26 |
| 12 |
ABANSE! PINAY |
135,211 |
2.07 |
0.24 |
In the column additional seats, those for APEC, AKBAYAN, BUTIL, and CIBAC are indicated as n/c, which, as disclosed in the footnote, means as follows:
"not computed," since, to repeat, the Court is yet to resolve the validity of the proclamation of the additional nominees of APEC, AKBAYAN, BUTIL, and CIBAC, due to the Motion of BAYAN MUNA to set aside Comelec Resolution No. NBC-02-001 promulgated on November 6, 2003 and the related November 22, 2002 Comelec Order and the November 26, 2002 Comelec Resolution.
The fact of the matter, however, is that the percentage for the additional seats for APEC, AKBAYAN, BUTIL and CIBAC is recorded in the table, just as what was done to BUHAY, thus:
APEC -- 1.40
AKBAYAN -- 0.66
BUTIL -- 0.58
CIBAC -- 0.56
In the Resolution of 8 July 2003, this Court resolved that "the COMELEC may now proclaim those declared elected with one nominee each in the Resolution of 25 June 2003, to wit: BUHAY, AMIN, ABA, COCOFED, PM, SANLAKAS, and ABANSE! PINAY."
It is thus established in the Resolution of 25 June 2003 that, like APEC, BUTIL, CIBAC and AKBAYAN, BUHAY had obtained more than four percent (4%) of the total number of votes validly cast for the party-list system and obtained more than 0.50 for the additional seats. Accordingly, just like the first four whose additional nominees are now holding office as member of the House of Representatives, BUHAY should be declared entitled to one additional seat.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby RESOLVES, pro hac vice
1. To consider closed and terminated the issue regarding the proclamation by the COMELEC of the additional nominees of APEC, BUTIL, CIBAC and AKBAYAN, such nominees having taken their oath and assumed office;
2. To DECLARE that BUHAY is entitled to one (1) additional seat in the party-list system in the elections of May 2001 and;
3. To ORDER the COMELEC to proclaim BUHAY's second nominee.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., reiterates his separate opinion in the ponencia (main decision).
Panganiban, J., see separate opinion.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
