Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig Ng Masa v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM) was an accredited candidate for party-list representative in the May 13, 2013 national and local elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC), initially proclaimed fourteen party-list groups as winners, each entitled to one guaranteed seat for obtaining at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system. Subsequently, on May 28, 2013, the COMELEC issued NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13, which proclaimed additional winning party-list groups and allocated a total of fifty-three guaranteed and/or additional seats, without prejudice to further proclamations. Procedural History: AKMA-PTM filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court on May 30, 2013, assailing COMELEC's NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13 for alleged grave abuse of discretion in the premature and erroneous allocation of additional party-list seats. The Supreme Court admitted the petition-in-intervention filed by Abante Katutubo (ABANTE KA), Froilan M. Bacungan, and Hermenegildo Dumlao, who claimed a significant interest in the case. The Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment on behalf of the COMELEC. The Petition: The petition, filed under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, argues that COMELEC's allocation of additional seats was hasty and premature, as canvassing was still ongoing with uncanvassed results from Mindanao, overseas, and special elections. Petitioner contends that the proclamation was based on an incomplete canvass, violating election laws and prior rulings, and that the method of allocating additional seats, particularly the calculation of fractional seats and the application of the two-percent threshold, was inconsistent with Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 and the Supreme Court's ruling in BANAT v. COMELEC. Petitioners-in-intervention echoed these arguments, emphasizing the illegality of proclamations based on incomplete canvasses and raising concerns about the integrity of the PCOS machines and the handling of disqualified candidates.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in allocating the additional seats for the 38 party-list candidates proclaimed as winners in the May 13, 2013 elections. Whether an incomplete canvass of votes can be the basis for the proclamation of winning candidates.
Ruling
The petition and petition-in-intervention are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in allocating additional seats: The Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The allocation of seats was made in accordance with the procedure laid down in BANAT v. COMELEC. The Court reiterated that while an incomplete canvass is generally illegal, it can be the basis for proclamation if the missing returns will not affect the election results, as provided in Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC had reserved five "buffer" seats to accommodate possible changes in ranking, and subsequent canvass reports showed minimal changes, thus providing sufficient basis for the initial proclamation. The Court also noted that petitioner failed to present competent evidence of alleged irregularities and glitches in the PCOS machines. The Court clarified the procedure for allocating seats under Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941, as interpreted in BANAT v. COMELEC. The Court explained that parties garnering less than 2% of the votes could still qualify for additional seats based on their ranking in the second round of allocation. The Court emphasized that fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision allowing rounding off, but this does not disqualify parties with products less than one from receiving a seat if they are next in rank. The Court found that the COMELEC correctly applied the BANAT ruling, ensuring that all available party-list seats were filled and that the three-seat cap was observed. The Court also noted that the petitioner mistakenly applied the BANAT ruling regarding fractional seats to parties with less than 2% of the votes, which would lead to unfilled seats and prevent the attainment of the broadest possible representation. On the issue of whether an incomplete canvass of votes can be the basis for proclamation: The Court affirmed that an incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis for proclamation unless the missing returns will not affect the results of the election. This exception is explicitly provided for in Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code. The Court cited Barbers v. COMELEC where a similar argument was dismissed because the uncanvassed returns would not materially affect the election results. In the present case, the COMELEC determined that the remaining uncanvassed votes would not materially affect the outcome, and the five buffer seats were deemed sufficient. The COMELEC's determination is given the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of official duty.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in allocating additional seats for party-list candidates in the 2013 elections and proclaiming initial winners, as the allocation was made in accordance with the established procedure in BANAT v. COMELEC, and the uncanvassed votes did not materially affect the election results.