G.R. No. 136781, VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY et al v. COMELEC et al., November 14, 2000, J. Panganiban En Banc.

, FACTS: On May 11, 1998, the first election for Party-list representation was held. A total of 123 parties, organizations and coalitions participated. On June 26, 1998, COMELEC en banc proclaimed 13 party-list representatives from 12 parties which were able to obtain two percent of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system. On July 6, 1998, PAG-ASA party-list filed a petition to proclaim full number of Party-list representatives provided by the Constitution. Thereafter, nine Party-list organizations filed their respective motions for intervention seeking the same relief. On October 15, 1998, COMELEC second division granted PAG-ASAs petition. It disregarded the two percent vote requirement prescribed under Sec. 11 (b) of RA 7941. On October 6, 2000, The Court partially granted the Petitions. Assailed Resolutions of the COMELEC were SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED. The Proclamations of the 14 sitting Party-list representatives were affirmed. Another Motion for Partial Reconsideration was filed by petitioner VETERENS Federation Party et. al. and two separate motions for reconsideration were filed by private respondents. They sought the proclamation of two additional representatives for each of them. The court DENIED the petitioners motion for partial reconsideration as well as private respondents motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the formula adopted by the Court in determining the additional seats had basis. 2. Whether or not the formula espoused in the dissent of Justice Mendoza was the proper method in computing the number of seats to be allocated for party-list representatives. RULING: The court believes that it has sufficiently discussed in its decision the inapplicability of the Niemeyer formula in the Philippine setting. Movants did not present any substantial arguments why the courts should change its position. The court stressed that contrary to movants claims, our homegrown formula on proportional representation took into account Section 11 of the Party-List Law. Movants cited only its simplified format which is:

Additional seats of concerned party = No. of votes of concerned party x No. of seats allocated to first party st No. of votes for 1 party The prayer of the Motion to grant movants two additional seats violates the Party-List Law, particularly the Proportional representation parameter. The other two motions filed by private respondents were totally without merit. They merely reiterate the same arguments earlier raised and do not present substantial reasons not previously invoked or any matter not already considered and passed upon by the court. The dissent was confined to the issue of additional seats proposed for petitioners. The court resolved to DENY the petitioners Motion for Partial Reconsideration and the private respondents Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. The denial was FINAL and No further pleadings from the movants were entertained.