G.R. No. 207134 , June 16, 2015
AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA (AKMA-PTM), Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent, ABANTE KATUTUBO (ABANTE KA), FROILAN M. BACUNGAN and HERMENEGILDO DUMLAO, Petitioners-in-intervention.

FACTS

Petitioner AKMA-PTM was an accredited party-list candidate in the May 13, 2013 elections. On May 24, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc, as the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC), proclaimed fourteen party-list groups as initial winners entitled to one guaranteed seat each under NBOC Resolution No. 0006-13. On May 28, 2013, COMELEC promulgated the assailed NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13, proclaiming additional winning party-list groups and allocating guaranteed and additional seats, involving a total of fifty-three seats. The resolution was based on a canvass that considered the votes of certain disqualified party-list groups as “stray,” and noted that not all fifty-eight available seats could be allocated due to remaining uncanvassed results and pending special elections. Petitioner and the petitioners-in-intervention assailed the resolution, arguing that the allocation of additional seats was premature and erroneous because the canvass was incomplete, with uncanvassed votes from Mindanao, overseas and local absentee votes, and special elections still pending. They also contended that the allocation did not conform to Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 and the ruling in BANAT v. COMELEC, and raised concerns about PCOS machine irregularities and the lack of transparency in the factual basis of the results.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in prematurely and erroneously allocating additional seats to certain party-list groups proclaimed as initial winners in the 2013 automated elections through NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and petition-in-intervention for lack of merit. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. It ruled that the allocation of seats was in accordance with the procedure established in BANAT v. COMELEC. The COMELEC correctly determined the total votes cast for party-list (after excluding votes for disqualified groups) and the number of available seats. It then properly allocated seats in two rounds: first, by awarding one guaranteed seat to each party-list group that obtained at least 2% of the total votes; and second, by distributing the remaining seats to parties, including those that did not reach the 2% threshold, in proportion to their votes, ensuring that each party gets no more than three seats. The Court found that the COMELEC’s proclamation was not based on an incomplete canvass, as it was made without prejudice to further proclamations and was a practical administrative measure to promptly fill House seats. The Court also noted that the issues regarding PCOS machines and the qualifications of other party-list groups were separate matters not directly affecting the validity of the seat allocation formula used by COMELEC.