CASE # 90

MAGASO, DENIELL CANDA

TOPIC: R.A. No. 7941, the Party-List System Act

CASE:

ALLIANCE FOR RURAL AND AGRARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS ARARO
PARTY-LIST, PETITIONER, VS. COMM ISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 192803
December 10, 2013

FACTS
Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, INC. (Petitioner) filed a protest against
the COMELEC (RESPONDENT) in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
questioning the resolution of respondent in proclaiming the 28 party-list groups in which
Respondent – sitting in the National Board of Canvassers – proclaimed in May 10,2010 Elections
involving 35 seats guaranteed and additional seats.

Petitioner who was ranked 50th, filed a petition in COMELEC to modify the formula used
invoking BANAT vs. COMELEC, 2009 petitioning that the DIVISOR for the computation originally
(Number of votes cast – votes for disqualified party list candidates) to (number of votes casts
REGARDLESS of disqualified party list groups) and to issue a TRO from proclaiming the winners
until such changes be made. TRO was not issued, and winners were proclaimed.

Petitioner argues that COMELEC interpretation was flawed because it was not in accordance
with the law, stating RA 7941 or the party-list law does not distinguish between valid and invalid
votes. COMELEC counters in stating that this will contradict CIBAC vs. COMELEC, 2007. It asserts
that neither the phrase can be construed to include the number of voters who did not even
vote for any qualified party-list candidate, as these voters cannot be considered to cast any vote
“ for the party-list system”.

ISSUE
1. Whether or not the case is Moot and Academic
2. Whether petitioners have legal standing
3. Whether COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion in its interpretation of the
formula used in BANAT vs. COMELEC to determine the party-list groups that would be
proclaimed in the 2010 Elections.
RULING
1. Yes, the court ruled that case is moot and academic since the time of which the
challenge was initiated has long expired. This was based on the grounds that:
 a. COMELEC had already proclaimed the winning party-lists groups in may 2010.
b. The term of said winners had already ended in June 2013.
2. No, court ruled that party’s of interest are those that stand to suffer or benefit from a
judgement. It must be direct, substantial and material. In this case the Petitioners
proposal whether valid or invalid still fails to secure one seat for their party, court goes
as far to state that IF following their proposal would further lessen their chances the
changes of securing a seat. The argument made neither benefits nor injures the party.
Hence no legal baring.
3. No, in the case of Cayat vs. COMELEC which respondent uses in response to Petitioners’
claim to stray votes, it was ruled that the term “disqualified with finality” are considered
stray and cannot be counted on grounds that candidates whose disqualification had
already been acknowledged carry weight in the divisor towards the overall results. This
is to give respect to the voters rights to suffrage. Thus, they modified the given formula
to Number of votes of party-list / Total number of valid votes for party-list candidates
= the proportion of percentage of votes gathered by party-list members.

Hence, modifying the formula used in Banat vs. COMELEC, the refined formula shall apply
prospectively to succeeding party-list elections from the date of finality of the case.