FERNANDEZ VS HRET

Petitioner filed for candidacy as Representative of theFirstLegislative District of theProvinceofLagunain the May 14, 2007 elections.In his Certificate of Candidacy (COC), he indicated his complete/exact address as No. 13 Maharlika St., Villa Toledo Subdivision, Barangay Balibago, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna (alleged Sta. Rosa residence).[5]Private respondent Jesus L. Vicente (private respondent) filed a Petition to Deny Due Course to and/or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and Petition for Disqualification before the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Laguna.This was forwarded to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and docketed therein asSPA No. 07-046 (PES).Private respondent sought the cancellation of petitioners COC and the latters disqualification as a candidate on the ground of an alleged material misrepresentation in his COC regarding his place of residence, because during past elections, he had declared Pagsanjan, Laguna as his address, and Pagsanjan was located in theFourthLegislative District of theProvinceofLaguna.Private respondent likewise claimed that petitioner maintained another house in Cabuyao, Laguna, which was also outside the First District.[6]The COMELEC (First Division) dismissed said petition for lack of merit.[7]Petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Laguna on June 27, 2007, having garnered a total of95,927 votes, winning by a margin of 35,000 votesover the nearest candidate.[8]On July 5, 2007, private respondent filed a petition forquo warrantobefore the HRET, docketed asHRET CASE No. 07-034, praying that petitioner be declared ineligible to hold office as a Member of the House of Representatives representing the First Legislative District of the Province of Laguna, and that petitioners election and proclamation be annulled and declared null and void.[9]Private respondents main ground for thequo warrantopetition was that petitioner lacked the required one-year residency requirement provided under Article VI, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution.In support of his petition, private respondent argued that petitioner falsely declared under oath: (1) his alleged Sta. Rosa residence; (2) the period of his residence in the legislative district before May 14, 2007, which he indicated as one year and two months; and (3) his eligibility for the office where he was seeking to be elected.Private respondent presented the testimony of a certain Atty. Noel T. Tiampong, who stated that petitioner is not from the alleged Sta. Rosa residence but a resident ofBarangayPulo, Cabuyao, Laguna; as well as the respective testimonies ofBarangayBalibago Health Workers who attested that they rarely, if ever, saw respondent in the leased premises at the alleged Sta. Rosa residence; and other witnesses who testified that contrary to the misrepresentations of petitioner, he is not a resident of the alleged Sta. Rosa residence.A witness testified that petitioner attempted to coerce some of the other witnesses to recant their declarations and change their affidavits.Finally, private respondent presented as witness the lawyer who notarized the Contract of Lease dated March 8, 2007 between petitioner as lessee and Bienvenido G. Asuncion as lessor.[10]Petitioner, as respondent inHRET Case No. 07-034, presented as his witnesses residents of Villa de Toledo who testified that they had seen respondent and his family residing in their locality, as well as Bienvenido G. Asuncion who testified that petitioner is the lessee in Unit No. 13 Block 1 Lot I, Maharlika St., Villa de Toledo Subdivision, Brgy. Balibago,Sta.RosaCity, Laguna.Petitioner likewise presented Mr. Joseph Wade, President of South Point Homeowners Association of Cabuyao, Laguna, as well as Engr. Larry E. Castro (Castro), who testified that since February 2006 up to the present, petitioner had no longer been residing in his property located at Block 28, Lot 18, South Point Subdivision, Cabuyao, Laguna, and that said property was being offered for sale and temporarily being used by Castro, together with some security men of petitioner and employees of Rafters Music Lounge owned by petitioner.[11]Petitioner testified that he had been a resident of Sta. Rosa even before February 2006; that he owned property in another Sta. Rosa subdivision (Bel-Air); that he and his wife had put up a business therein, the RAFTERS restaurant/ bar; and that he had prior residence in another place also at Sta. Rosa as early as 2001.[12]Since the HRET ruled in favor of private respondent, this petition was filed before us.In petitioners assignment of errors, he alleges that the HRET grievously erred and committed grave abuse of discretion:1.In not placing on thequo warrantopetitioner Jesus L. Vicente the burden of proving that then respondent (now petitioner) Fernandez is not a qualified candidate for Representative of the First District of theProvinceofLaguna;2.When it disregarded the ruling of a co-equal tribunal in SPA No. 07-046;3.When it added a property qualification to a Member of Congress;4.When it determined that the petitioner failed to comply with the one (1) year residency requirement based on the contract of lease;5.When it completely disregarded the testimonies of material witnesses;6.When it failed to consider the intent of the petitioner to transfer domicile based on the totality of the evidence adduced; and7.When it failed to find the petitioner in HRET Case No. 07-034 guilty of forum-shopping.[13]On the first assignment of error, petitioner questions the following pronouncement of the HRET in its decision:In the case before us, petitioner has clearly asserted, and respondent does not deny, that his domicile of origin is Pagsanjan in the Fourth District of Laguna.Hence, the burden is now on respondent to prove that he has abandoned his domicile of origin, or since his birth, where he formerly ran for provincial Board Member of Laguna in 1998, for Vice-Governor of Laguna in 2001 and for Governor of Laguna in 2004.In all his Certificates of Candidacy when he ran for these positions, he indicated under oath that his domicile or permanent residence was in Pagsanjan in the Fourth District of Laguna, not in the First District where he later ran in the last elections.[14]Petitioner contends that it is a basic evidentiary rule that the burden of proof is on he who alleges, and he who relies on such an allegation as his cause of action should prove the same.[15]Since private respondent is the party alleging that petitioner is not eligible for his position, it is therefore incumbent on the former, who filed thequo warrantocase before the HRET, to prove such allegation.He cites in support of his contention Sec. 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, to wit:SECTION 1.Burden of proof. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.Petitioner avers that private respondent failed to establish his claim and to adduce evidence sufficient to overcome petitioners eligibility to be a candidate for Representative of the First District of Laguna.On the second assignment of error, petitioner submits that the HRET should have been guided and/or cautioned by the COMELECs dispositions inSPA No. 07-046, wherein he was adjudged as qualified to run for the position of Congressman of the First District of Laguna by an agency tasked by law and the Constitution to ascertain the qualifications of candidates before election.Petitioner claims that the HRET should haverespectedthe findings of the COMELEC and should have discreetly denied the petition.On the third assignment of error, petitioner argues that under Article V, Section 1, of the 1987 Constitution, any citizen of thePhilippineswho is a qualified voter may likewise, if so qualified under the appertaining law and the constitution, be able to run and be voted for as a candidate for public office.Said provision reads:SECTION 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of thePhilippinesnot otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in thePhilippinesfor at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election.No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.Petitioner alleges that in the questioned Decision, the HRET added a new qualification requirement for candidates seeking election to the position of Member of the House of Representatives, and that is, they must be real property owners in the legislative district where they seek election.On the fourth assignment of error, petitioner addresses private respondents arguments against the contract of lease that he presented as part of the proof of his compliance with the residency requirement.Petitioner asserts that the nomenclature used by contracting parties to describe a contract does not determine its nature, but the decisive factor is the intention of the parties to a contract as shown by their conduct, words, actions, and deeds prior to, during and after executing the agreement.[16]Petitioner claims that he has presented ample proof of his residency in terms of evidence more numerous and bearing more weight and credibility than those of private respondent.He proceeds to highlight some of the evidence he offered in thequo warrantocase that allegedly prove that his transfer of residence and intention to reside in Sta. Rosa were proven by his stay in Villa de Toledo, to wit: (1) even earlier than 2006, he had purchased a house and lot in Bel-Air Subdivision in Sta. Rosa which he rented out because he was not yet staying there at that time; (2) he sent his children to schools in Sta. Rosa as early as 2002; and (3) he and his wife established a restaurant business there in 2003.Petitioner contends that when he and his family moved to Sta. Rosa by initially renting a townhouse in Villa de Toledo, it cannot be said that he did this only in order to run for election in the First Legislative District.[17]As regards the alleged infirmities characterizing the execution of the contract of lease and the renewal of said contract of lease, petitioner contends that these are not material since the lessor, Bienvenido Asuncion, affirmed his stay in his townhouse; the neighbors and other barangay personalities confirmed his and his familys stay in their area; and petitioner has continued actual residence in Sta. Rosa from early 2006 to the present.Petitioner claims that all these prove that he had effectively changed his residence and could therefore likewise transfer his voters registration from Pagsanjan to Sta. Rosa under Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 8189.[18]Petitioner also alleges that he had become qualified to seek elective office in his new place of residence and registration as a voter.To further prove that he has made Sta. Rosa his domicile of choice from early 2006 to the present, petitioner points out that he and his wife had purchased a lot in the same area, Villa de Toledo, on April 21, 2007, built a house thereon, and moved in said house with their family.Regarding the non-notarization of the contract of lease raised by private respondent, petitioner avers that this does not necessarily nullify nor render the parties transaction voidab initio.[19]On the fifth assignment of error, petitioner alleges that the HRET relied on private respondents witnesses in negating petitioners claim that he had validly resided at the alleged Sta. Rosa residence for more than one year and two months prior to the May 14, 2007 elections, and did not touch on the testimonies of his witnesses.The questioned Decision pointed out petitioners alleged non-appearance in the day-to-day activities of the Homeowners Association and considered this as failure to prove that he is a resident of Villa de Toledo, without considering the fact that private respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof in support of his indictment against petitioner.On the sixth assignment of error, petitioner claims that the questioned Decision was arrived at based on the perceived weakness of his evidence and arguments as respondent, instead of the strength of private respondents own evidence and arguments in hisquo warrantopetition.On the seventh and last assignment of error, petitioner alleges that the matters raised inHRET Case No. 07-034were no different from the ones raised by private respondent before the COMELEC inSPA No. 07-046 (PES); thus, private respondents petition should have been dismissed by the HRET for forum-shopping.In hisCommentdated June 22, 2009, private respondent summarized the issues raised in petitioners assignment of errors into two: (1) those that involve the issue of conflict of jurisdiction between the HRET and the COMELEC respecting the eligibility, qualification/s or disqualification of elective public officials; and (2) those that involve factual and evidentiary matters designed as supposed errors.[20]Regarding the first issue, private respondent contends that the 1987 Constitution is most equivocal in declaring that the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives, under the following provision:Art. VI,SECTION 17.The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.Private respondent alleges that the above constitutional provision was adopted by the HRET in its Rules, which read:THE 1998 RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNALThe House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal hereby adopts and promulgates the following Rules governing its proceedings as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives, pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution.xxxxxxxxxRULE 17Quo WarrantoA verified petition forquo warrantocontesting the election of a Member of the House of Representatives on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of thePhilippinesshall be filed by any voter within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the winner. The party filing the petition shall be designated as the petitioner while the adverse party shall be known as the respondent.The rule on verification provided in Section 16 hereof shall apply to petitions forquo warranto.xxxxxxxxxPrivate respondent concludes from the above that petitioner had no legal basis to claim that the HRET, when reference to the qualification/s of Members of the House of Representatives is concerned, is co-equal to the COMELEC, such that the HRET cannot disregard any ruling of COMELEC respecting the matter of eligibility and qualification of a member of the House of Representatives.The truth is the other way around, because the COMELEC is subservient to the HRET when the dispute or contest at issue refers to the eligibility and/or qualification of a Member of the House of Representatives.A petition forquo warrantois within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET as sole judge, and cannot be considered forum shopping even if another body may have passed upon in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings the issue of the Members qualification while the Member was still a candidate.There is forum-shopping only where two cases involve the same parties and the same cause of action.The two cases here are distinct and dissimilar in their nature and character.Anent the second issue, private respondent contends that petitioner raised errors of judgment, mistakes in the factual findings, and/or flaws in the evidence appreciation, which are appropriate on appeal, butnotin a petition forcertiorariwhich is a special civil action, where the only allowable ground in order to prosper is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.For its part, public respondent HRET, through the Solicitor General, filed a Comment dated July 14, 2009, arguing that it did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it held that petitioner failed to comply with the one year residency requirement under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.[21]The HRET avers that the questioned Decision is supported by factual and legal basis, for it found that the original and extended contracts of lease presented by petitioner were defective and fabricated, as it contained several apparent, if not visible, deficiencies as to form, i.e.[,] it being not notarized; the absence of witnesses, the intercalations thereat especially on the term/period of the alleged lease; the absence of respondents participation therein and some others pointed out in the petition.[22]The Decision states that even if the contract of lease was valid and legitimate, a fixed period of one year negates the concept of permanency that would suffice to prove abandonment of respondents previous residence or domicile at Pagsanjan.The Decision further reads as follows:Respondents connection to the First District of Laguna is an alleged lease agreement of a townhouse unit in the area.The intention not to establish a permanent homein the First District of Lagunais evident in his leasing a townhouse unit instead of buying one.Theshort length of time he claims to be a resident of the First Districtof Laguna (and the fact that his domicile of origin is Pagsanjan, Laguna is not within the First District of Laguna)indicate that his sole purposein transferring his physical residenceis not to acquire a new residence or domicile but only to qualify as a candidatefor Representative of the First District of Laguna.[23]xxxxxxxxxExhibit 3 is the very document that was produced and presented by respondent to attest that while the original contract, replete with infirmities, as only for one year expiring even before the May 14, 2007 elections, here now comes the renewed Contract of Lease, signed by respondent himself, no longer his wife, immaculately perfect on its face, now notarized and properly witnessed, and even the terms and conditions thereof undeniably clear and explicit, with the added feature of a prolonged 2-year period of lease that will go well beyond the May 14, 2007 elections.We cannot however, simply accept the renewed Contract of Lease (Exhibit 3) on its face.In fact, as succinctly pointed out by petitioner, the renewed Contract of Lease suffers from a more grievous infirmity.x x x As respondents brother-in-law, Atty. Macalalag is prohibited from notarizing a document that involves the respondent.[24]xxxxxxxxxBut the lack of notarial authentication does not even constitute the main defect of [Exhibit 3].The surfacing of Exhibit 3 very late in the day cannot but lead to the conclusion that the same was a mere afterthought. x x x[25]xxxxxxxxxWe have to emphasize that the initial one-year lease contract expired on February 27, 2007, and as such, standing alone, the same cannot prove and will not establish the declared one-year and two months prior residence eligibility requirement of respondent, unless it is shown that the expired lease agreement was extended or renewed beyond the May 14, 2007 elections, and, more importantly, accompanied by a copy of the claimed existing renewed lease agreement. x x x[26]xxxxxxxxxBy the unexplained delay in the production and presentation of Exhibit 3, respondents residence qualifications suffered a fatal blow.For it can no longer be denied that respondents claimed residence at the alleged townhouse unit in Sta. Rosa for one year and two months prior to the May 14, 2007 election is not only most doubtful, but also negates the concept of permanency that would suffice to prove abandonment of respondents previous residence or domicile at Pagsanjan.[27]Furthermore, the HRET alleges that, as it found in the questioned Decision, the witnesses presented who were residents of Sta. Rosa, Laguna were consistent and credible in disputing petitioners alleged physical presence at any given time in said place.Among these witnesses were three Barangay Health Workers, one of whom, Rowena Dineros, submitted an affidavit that her job required her to frequently go around Villa de Toledo, knocking on every household door to inquire about its occupants, and not once did she see petitioner at the alleged Sta. Rosa residence.The HRET claims that this testimony was corroborated by another Barangay Health Worker (BHW), Jeanet Cabingas, who stated in her affidavit that every time she accompanied her niece, who was petitioners goddaughter, to request a favor from petitioner, the latter would ask them to return to his house in Cabuyao, Laguna, even if she was a resident of Sta. Rosa.[28]The Solicitor General quotes the following portion from the questioned Decision:What appears very evident from this is that respondent has absolutely not the slightest intention to reside in Sta. Rosa permanently.This ineluctably confirms that respondent has not developedanimus manendiover the latter place, Sta. Rosa[,] and that he has not actually abandoned his old domicile of origin in Pagsanjan.[29]As for the third BHW witness, Flocerfina Torres, the HRET gives credence to her testimony that she conducted a household census in Villa de Toledo every three months, but not once had she seen petitioner in the alleged Sta. Rosa residence, and that she was advised by petitioner to proceed to his house in Cabuyao, Laguna when she had attempted to solicit from petitioner at his Rafters establishment because it was near her residence in Sta. Rosa.From the foregoing testimonies, the HRET found in the questioned Decision that:The uniform testimony of our 3 BHW witnesses disputing the physical presence of the respondent at his claimedToledoaddress during all the time that they were performing their routine duties at that community, and which encompassed the period of 1 year and 2 months before the May 14, 2007 election, revealed that he was not staying in Sta. Rosa.[30]The HRET likewise contends that the fact that petitioner registered as a voter in Sta. Rosa does not prove that he is a resident thereat, given that a voter is required to reside in the place wherein he proposes to vote only forsix monthspreceding the election.The HRET avers that this Court had explained the importance of property ownership inAquino v. COMELEC, et al.[31]and finds no merit in petitioners insistence that the will of the electorate attests to his residence in Sta. Rosa because, the HRET further avers, [a] disqualified candidate cannot assume office.[32]The HRET likewise contends that the purpose of the residency requirement is to ensure that the person elected is familiar with the needs and problems of his constituency.The issues for determination are: (1) whether the HRET had jurisdiction over the case; and (2) whether petitioner sufficiently complied with the one-year residency requirement to be a Member of the House of Representatives, as provided in the 1987 Constitution.The first issue is procedural and involves the jurisdiction of the HRET vis--vis that of the COMELEC in cases involving the qualification of Members of the House of Representatives.Petitioner suggests that the matters raised inHRET Case No. 07-034were already passed upon by the COMELEC inSPA No. 07-046 (PES),thus the HRET should have dismissed the case for forum-shopping.We do not agree.The 1987 Constitution explicitly provides under Article VI, Section 17 thereof that the HRET and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall be thesole judgesof all contests relating to the election, returns, andqualificationsof their respective members.The authority conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete. The use of the wordsoleemphasizes the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of these Tribunals,[33]which is conferred upon the HRET and the SET after elections and the proclamation of the winning candidates. A candidate who has not been proclaimed and who has not taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the House of Representatives.[34]Thus, private respondent correctly pointed out that a petition forquo warrantois within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET, and cannot be considered forum shopping even if, as in this case, the COMELEC had already passed upon in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings the issue of the qualification of the Member of the House of Representatives while the latter was still a candidate.Anent the second issue pertaining to petitioners compliance with the residency requirement for Members of the House of Representatives, after studying the evidence submitted by the parties, we find for petitioner, taking into account our ruling inFrivaldo v. COMELEC,[35]which reads in part:This Court has time andagain liberally and equitably construed the electoral laws of our country to give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people, for in case of doubt, political laws must beinterpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.Otherwise stated, legal niceties and technicalities cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will. xxx (Emphasis supplied)For the foregoing reason, the Court must exercise utmost caution before disqualifying a winning candidate, shown to be the clear choice of the constituents that he wishes to represent in Congress.The qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives are found inArticle VI, Section 6 of the Constitution, which provides:Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, anda resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.(Emphasis supplied)We find the interpretation of the HRET of the residency requirement under the Constitution to be overly restrictive and unwarranted under the factual circumstances of this case.The evidence presented by private respondent before the HRET hardly suffices to prove that petitioner failed to comply with the one-year residency requirement under the Constitution. Private respondents documentary evidenceto disqualify petitioner mainly consisted of (a) petitioners certificates of candidacy (COCs) for various positions in 1998, 2001 and 2004, which all indicated his residence as Pagsanjan, Laguna within the Fourth District of said province; (b) his application for a drivers license in August 2005 that indicated Pagsanjan, Laguna as his residence; and (c) the statement in his COCs including his 2007 COC for Congressman for the First District of Laguna that his place of birth was Pagsanjan, Laguna.The only thing these pieces of documentary evidence prove is that petitioners domicile of origin was Pagsanjan, Laguna and it remained his domicile up to 2005, at the latest. On the other hand, what petitioner asserted in his 2007 COC is that he had been a resident of Sta. Rosa, Laguna in the First District of Laguna as of February 2006 and respondents evidence failed contradict that claim.If it is true that petitioner and his family had been living in Sta. Rosa, Laguna as of February 2006 with the intent to reside therein permanently, that would more than fulfill the requirement that petitioner be a resident of the district where he was a candidate for at least one year before election day, which in this case was May 14, 2007.In order to buttress his claim that he and his family actually resided in Sta. Rosa, Laguna beginning at least in February 2006, petitioners evidence included, among others: (a) original and extended lease contracts for a townhouse in Villa de Toledo, Barangay Balibago, Sta. Rosa, Laguna; (b) certification issued by the President of the Villa de Toledo Homeowners Association, Inc, that petitioner has been a resident of said Subdivision since February 2006; (c) affidavits of petitioners neighbors in Villa de Toledo attesting that petitioner has been a resident of said subdivision since February 2006; (d) certification of the barangay chairman of Barangay Balibago, Sta. Rosa, Laguna that petitioner is a resident of Villa de Toledo within the said barangay; (e) certificates of attendance of petitioners children in schools located in Sta. Rosa, Laguna since 2005; and (f) DTI certificates of business issued in the name of petitioner and his wife to show that they own and operate businesses in Sta. Rosa, Laguna since 2003.The fact that a few barangay health workers attested that they had failed to see petitioner whenever they allegedly made the rounds in Villa de Toledo is of no moment, especially considering that there were witnesses (including petitioners neighbors in Villa de Toledo) that were in turn presented by petitioner to prove that he was actually a resident of Villa de Toledo, in the address he stated in his COC.The law does not require a person to be in his home twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, in order to fulfill the residency requirement.It may be that whenever these health workers do their rounds petitioner was out of the house to attend to his own employment or business.It is not amiss to note that even these barangay health workers, with the exception of one, confirm seeing petitioners wife at the address stated in petitioners 2007 COC.Indeed, these health workers testimonies do not conclusively prove that petitioner did not in fact reside in Villa de Toledo for at least the year before election day.Neither do we find anything wrong if petitioner sometimes transacted business or received visitors in his Cabuyao house, instead of the alleged Sta. Rosa residence, as there is nothing in the residency requirement for candidates that prohibits them from owning property and exercising their rights of ownership thereto in other places aside from the address they had indicated as their place of residence in their COC.As regards the weight to be given the contract of leasevis--vispetitioners previous COCs, we findPerez v. COMELEC[36]to be instructive in this case, and quote the pertinent portions of the decision below:In the case at bar, the COMELEC found that private respondent changed his residence from Gattaran to Tuguegarao, the capital of Cagayan, in July 1990 on the basis of the following: (1) the affidavit of Engineer Alfredo Ablaza, the owner of the residential apartment at 13-E Magallanes St., Tuguegarao, Cagayan, where private respondent had lived in 1990; (2) the contract of lease between private respondent, as lessee, and Tomas T. Decena, as lessor, of a residential apartment at Kamias St., Tanza, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, for the period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996; (3) the marriage certificate, dated January 18, 1998, between private respondent and Lerma Dumaguit; (4) the certificate of live birth of private respondent's second daughter; and (5) various letters addressed to private respondent and his family, which all show that private respondent was a resident of Tuguegarao, Cagayan for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the elections on May 11, 1998.There is thus substantial evidence supporting the finding that private respondent had been a resident of the Third District of Cagayan and there is nothing in the record to detract from the merit of this factual finding.Petitioner contends that the fact that private respondent was a resident of Gattaran, at least until June 22, 1997, is shown by the following documentary evidence in the record, to wit: (1) his certificates of candidacy for governor of Cagayan in the 1988, 1992 and 1995 elections; (2) his voter's registration records, the latest of which was made on June 22, 1997; and (3) the fact that private respondent voted in Gattaran, Cagayan, in the elections of 1987, 1988, 1992 and 1995.The contention is without merit. The fact that a person is registered as a voter in one district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another district. Thus, inFaypon v.Quirino, this Court held that the registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin is not sufficient to consider him to have abandoned or lost his residence.Nor is it of much importance that in his certificates of candidacy for provincial governor in the elections of 1988, 1992, and 1995, private respondent stated that he was a resident of Gattaran. Under the law, what is required for the election of governor is residency in the province, not in any district or municipality, one year before the election.Moreover, as this Court said inRomualdez-Marcos v.COMELEC:It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy, which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitution's residency qualification requirement. The said statement becomes material only when there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.In this case, although private respondent declared in his certificates of candidacy prior to the May 11, 1998 elections that he was a resident of Gattaran, Cagayan, the fact is that he was actually a resident of the Third District not just for one (1) year prior to the May 11, 1998 elections but for more than seven (7) years since July 1990.His claim that he had been a resident of Tuguegarao since July 1990 is credible considering that he was governor from 1988 to 1998 and, therefore, it would be convenient for him to maintain his residence in Tuguegarao, which is the capital of the province of Cagayan.As always, the polestar of adjudication in cases of this nature isGallego v.Vera, in which this Court held:"[W]hen the evidence on the alleged lack of residence qualification is weak or inconclusive and it clearly appears, as in the instant case, that the purpose of the law would not be thwarted by upholding the right to the office, the will of the electorate should be respected."In this case, considering the purpose of the residency requirement,i.e., to ensure that the person elected is familiar with the needs and problems of his constituency, there can be no doubt that private respondent is qualified, having been governor of the entire province of Cagayan for ten years immediately before his election as Representative of that province's Third District.[37]Thus, in the case above, the Court found that the affidavit of the lessor and the contract of lease were sufficient proof that private respondent therein had changed his residence.In the case now before us, although private respondent raised alleged formal defects in the contract of lease, the lessor himself testified that as far as he was concerned, he and petitioner had a valid contract and he confirmed that petitioner and his family are the occupants of the leased premises.Petitioner correctly pointed out that the lack of proper notarization does not necessarily nullify nor render the parties transaction voidab initio.InMallari v. Alsol,we found a contract of lease to be valid despite the non-appearance of one of the parties before a notary public, and ruled in this wise:Notarization converts a private document into a public document. However, the non-appearance of the parties before the notary public who notarized the document does not necessarily nullify nor render the parties' transaction void ab initio. Thus:. . . Article 1358 of the New Civil Code on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. Failure to follow the proper form does not invalidate a contract. Where a contract is not in the form prescribed by law, the parties can merely compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This is consistent with the basic principle that contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all essential requisites are present.Hence, the Lease Contract is valid despite Mayor Perez's failure to appear before the notary public.[38]The HRET puts undue emphasis on the fact that petitioner is only leasing a townhouse in Sta. Rosa while he owns houses in Pagsanjan and Cabuyao.His ownership of properties in other places has been taken to mean that petitioner did not intend to make Sta. Rosa his permanent residence or that he had not abandoned his domicile of origin.Although it is true that the latest acquired abode is not necessarily the domicile of choice of a candidate, there is nothing in the Constitution or our election laws which require a congressional candidate to sell a previously acquired home in one district and buy a new one in the place where he seeks to run in order to qualify for a congressional seat in that other district.Neither do we see the fact that petitioner was only leasing a residence in Sta. Rosa at the time of his candidacy as a barrier for him to run in that district.Certainly, the Constitution does not require a congressional candidate to be a property owner in the district where he seeks to run but only that heresidesin that district for at least a year prior to election day.To use ownership of property in the district as the determinative indicium of permanence of domicile or residence implies that only the landed can establish compliance with the residency requirement.This Court would be, in effect, imposing a property requirement to the right to hold public office, which property requirement would be unconstitutional.This case must be distinguished fromAquino v. COMELEC[39]andDomino v. COMELEC,[40]where the disqualified candidate was shown to be merely leasing a residence in the place where he sought to run for office.InAquinoandDomino, there appeared to be no other material reason for the candidate to lease residential property in the place where he filed his COC, except to fulfill the residency requirement under election laws.In the case at bar, there are real and substantial reasons for petitioner to establish Sta. Rosa as his domicile of choice and abandon his domicile of origin and/or any other previous domicile.To begin with, petitioner and his wife have owned and operated businesses in Sta. Rosa since 2003.Their children have attended schools in Sta. Rosa at least since 2005.Although ownership of property should never be considered a requirement for any candidacy, petitioner had sufficiently confirmed his intention to permanently reside in Sta. Rosa by purchasing residential properties in that city even prior to the May 2007 election, as evidenced by certificates of title issued in the name of petitioner and his wife.One of these properties is a residence in Bel-Air, Sta. Rosa which petitioner acquired even before 2006 but which petitioner had been leasing out.He claims that he rented out this property because prior to 2006 he had not decided to permanently reside in Sta. Rosa.This could explain why in early 2006 petitioner had to rent a townhouse in Villa de Toledo his Bel-Air residence was occupied by a tenant.The relatively short period of the lease was also adequately explained by petitioner they rented a townhouse while they were in the process of building their own house in Sta. Rosa.True enough, petitioner and his spouse subsequently purchased a lot also in Villa de Toledo in April 2007, about a month before election day, where they have constructed a home for their familys use as a residence. In all, petitioner had adequately shown that his transfer of residence to Sta. Rosa wasbona fideand was not merely for complying with the residency requirement under election laws.It was incumbent upon private respondent to prove his assertion that petitioner is indeed disqualified from holding his congressional seat.Private respondents burden of proof was not only to establish that petitioners domicile of origin is different from Sta. Rosa but also that petitioners domicile for the one year prior to election day continued to be Pagsanjan, Laguna which was petitioners domicile of origin or that petitioner had chosen a domicile other than Sta. Rosa, Laguna for that same period.In other words, to prove petitioners disqualification, the relevant period is the one year period prior to election day.It would be absurd to rule that the petitioner in aquo warrantosuit only needs to prove that the candidate had some other previous domicile, regardless of how remote in time from election day that previous domicile was established, and then the candidate would already have the burden to prove abandonment of that previous domicile.It is the burden of the petitioner in aquo warrantocase to first prove the very fact of disqualification before the candidate should even be called upon to defend himself with countervailing evidence.In our considered view, private respondent failed to discharge his burden of proof. Petitioners COCs for previous elections and his 2005 application for a drivers license only proved that his domicile of origin was Pagsanjan, Laguna and it remained to be so up to 2005.Affidavits/testimonies of respondents witnesses, at most, tended to prove that petitioner was on several instances found in his house in Cabuyao, Laguna, which was not even his domicile of origin. Cabuyao, Laguna is in theSecondDistrict of Lagunawhile petitioners domicile of origin, Pagsanjan, is in theFourthDistrict of Laguna.Based on private respondents own documentary submissions, Cabuyao was never even stated as a domicile or residence in any of the petitioners COCs.Moreover, owning an abode in Cabuyao where petitioner is occasionally found did not prove that Cabuyao is petitioners real domicile.Indeed, disregarding Cabuyao as petitioners domicile would be consistent with the established principle that physical presence in a placesansthe intent to permanently reside therein is insufficient to establish domicile.Neither did private respondents submissions refute petitioners evidence that since February 2006 petitioner has chosen Sta. Rosa as his domicile.To summarize, private respondents own evidence did not categorically establish where petitioners domicile is nor did said evidence conclusively prove that for the year prior to the May 14, 2007 petitioner had a domicile other than where he actually resided,i.e.Sta. Rosa, Laguna.To be sure,Gallego v. Vera[41]decreed that:We might add that the manifest intent of the law in fixing a residence qualification is to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community; andwhen the evidence on the alleged lack of residence qualification is weak or inconclusive and it clearly appears, as in the instant case, that the purpose of the law would not be thwarted by upholding the right to the office, the will of the electorate should be respected.xxxxxxxxx (Emphasis supplied)Frivaldo[42]likewise prescribed that:xxx xxx xxx To successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, thepetitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonisticto constitutional and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people, would ultimately create greater prejudiceto the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)InTorayno,[43]the Court had the occasion to say that:The Constitution and the law requires residence as a qualification for seeking and holding elective public office, in order to give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with the needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare of their constituencies; likewise, it enables the electorate to evaluate the office seekers' qualifications and fitness for the job they aspire for. xxxxxxxxxRecently, inJapzon v. COMELEC,[44]the Court, citingPapandayan, Jr. v. COMELEC,[45]said:InPapandayan, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,the Court provided a summation of the different principles and concepts in jurisprudence relating to the residency qualification for elective local officials. Pertinent portions of theratioinPapandayanare reproduced below:Our decisions have applied certain tests and concepts in resolving the issue of whether or not a candidate has complied with the residency requirement for elective positions. The principle ofanimus revertendihas been used to determine whether a candidate has an "intention to return" to the place where he seeks to be elected. Corollary to this is a determination whether there has been an "abandonment" of his former residence which signifies an intention to depart therefrom. InCaasi v. Court of Appeals,this Court set aside the appealed orders of the COMELEC and the Court of Appeals and annulled the election of the respondent as Municipal Mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan on the ground that respondent's immigration to theUnited Statesin 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in thePhilippines. Being a green card holder, which was proof that he was a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States, and in the absence of any waiver of his status as such before he ran for election on January 18, 1988, respondent was held to be disqualified under 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881).InCo v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives,respondent Jose Ong, Jr. was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the 2nd District of Northern Samar. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) upheld his election against claims that he was not a natural born Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang,Northern Samar. In sustaining the ruling of the HRET, this Court, citingFaypon v. Quirino,applied the concept ofanimus revertendior "intent to return", stating that his absence from his residence in order to pursue studies or practice his profession as a certified public accountant in Manila or his registration as a voter other than in the place where he was elected did not constitute loss of residence. The fact that respondent made periodical journeys to his home province in Laoag revealed that he always hadanimus revertendi.InAbella v. Commission on Elections and Larrazabal v. Commission on Elections,it was explained that the determination of a person's legal residence or domicile largely depends upon the intention that may be inferred from his acts, activities, and utterances. In that case, petitioner Adelina Larrazabal, who had obtained the highest number of votes in the local elections of February 1, 1988 and who had thus been proclaimed as the duly elected governor, was disqualified by the COMELEC for lack of residence and registration qualifications, not being a resident nor a registered voter ofKananga,Leyte. The COMELEC ruled that the attempt of petitioner Larrazabal to change her residence one year before the election by registering atKananga, Leyte to qualify her to run for the position of governor of theprovinceofLeytewas proof that she considered herself a resident ofOrmocCity. This Court affirmed the ruling of the COMELEC and held that petitioner Larrazabal had established her residence inOrmocCity, not inKananga, Leyte, from 1975 up to the time that she ran for the position of Provincial Governor ofLeyteon February 1, 1988. There was no evidence to show that she and her husband maintained separate residences,i.e., she atKananga, Leyte and her husband atOrmocCity. The fact that she occasionally visitedKananga,Leytethrough the years did not signify an intention to continue her residence after leaving that place.InRomualdez v. RTC,Br.7,TaclobanCity,the Court held that "domicile" and "residence" are synonymous. The term "residence", as used in the election law, imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. In that case, petitioner Philip G. Romualdez established his residence during the early 1980's in Barangay Malbog, Tolosa,Leyte. It was held that the sudden departure from the country of petitioner, because of the EDSA People's Power Revolution of 1986, to go into self-exile in theUnited Statesuntil favorable conditions had been established, was not voluntary so as to constitute an abandonment of residence. The Court explained that in order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. There must beanimus manendicoupled withanimus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.Ultimately, the Court recapitulates inPapandayan, Jr.that it is the fact of residence that is the decisive factor in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the residency qualification requirement.We do not doubt that the residency requirement is a means to prevent a stranger or newcomer from holding office on the assumption that such stranger or newcomer would be insufficiently acquainted with the needs of his prospective constituents.However, it is appropriate to point out at this juncture that aside from petitioners actual, physical presence in Sta. Rosa for more than a year prior to election day, he has demonstrated that he has substantial ties to Sta. Rosa and the First District of Laguna for an even longer period than that. Petitioner has business interests in Sta. Rosa comprised of restaurants and a residential property for lease.Petitioner has two children studying in Sta. Rosa schools even before 2006.These circumstances provided petitioner with material reasons to frequently visit the area and eventually take up residence in the said district.Significantly, petitioner previously served as Board Member and Vice-Governor for theProvinceofLaguna, of which the First District and Sta. Rosa are a part.It stands to reason that in his previous elected positions petitioner has acquired knowledge of the needs and aspirations of the residents of the First District who were among his constituents.Simply put, petitioner could not be considered a stranger to the community which he sought to represent and that evil that the residency requirement was designed to prevent is not present in this case.We take this occasion to reiterate our ruling inSinaca v. Mula,[46]to wit:[When] a candidate has received popular mandate, overwhelmingly and clearly expressed, all possible doubts should be resolved in favor of the candidate's eligibility for to rule otherwise is to defeat the will of the people.Above and beyond all, the determination of the true will of the electorate should be paramount.It is their voice, not ours or of anyone else, that must prevail.This, in essence, is the democracy we continue to hold sacred.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is herebyGRANTED.The decision of the HRET inHRET CASE No. 07-034promulgated on December 16, 2008, and itsMinute Resolution No. 09-080promulgated on April 30, 2009 in the same case, are herebyREVERSED AND SET ASIDE.SO ORDERED.EN BANCBARANGAY ASSOCIATION FORG.R. No. 179271NATIONALADVANCEMENTAND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT),Petitioner,- versus -COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS(sitting as the National Board ofCanvassers),Respondent.ARTS BUSINESS AND SCIENCEPROFESSIONALS,Intervenor.AANGAT TAYO,Intervenor.COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONSOF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THEPHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIORCITIZENS),Intervenor.x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xBAYAN MUNA, ADVOCACY FORG.R. No. 179295TEACHER EMPOWERMENTTHROUGH ACTION, COOPERATIONPresent:ANDHARMONY TOWARDSEDUCATIONAL REFORMS, INC.,PUNO,C.J.,and ABONO,QUISUMBING,Petitioners,YNARES-SANTIAGO,CARPIO,AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,CORONA,- versus -CARPIO MORALES,TINGA,CHICO-NAZARIO,VELASCO, JR.,NACHURA,LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,BRION,PERALTA, andBERSAMIN,JJ.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,Promulgated:Respondent._______________________x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xD E C I S I O NCARPIO,J.:The CasePetitioner in G.R. No. 179271Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT)in a petition for certiorari and mandamus,[1]assails the Resolution[2]promulgated on 3 August 2007 by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in NBC No. 07-041 (PL).The COMELECs resolution in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) approved the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Legal Group, to deny the petition of BANAT for being moot.BANAT filed before the COMELEC En Banc, acting as NBC, aPetition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution.The following are intervenors in G.R. No. 179271:Arts Business and Science Professionals (ABS), Aangat Tayo (AT), and Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizens).Petitioners in G.R. No. 179295Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms (A Teacher)in a petition for certiorari with mandamus and prohibition,[3]assails NBC Resolution No. 07-60[4]promulgated on 9 July 2007.NBC No. 07-60 made a partial proclamation of parties, organizations and coalitions that obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party-List System.The COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results, it would determine the total number of seats of each winning party, organization, or coalition in accordance withVeterans Federation Party v. COMELEC[5](Veterans).Estrella DL Santos, in her capacity as President and First Nominee of the Veterans Freedom Party, filed a motion to intervene in both G.R. Nos. 179271 and 179295.The FactsThe 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list representatives.The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties under the Party-List System.[6]On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed aPetition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-041 (PL) before the NBC.BANAT filed its petition because [t]he Chairman and the Members of the [COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papers that the [COMELEC] is duty bound to and shall implement theVeteransruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party-list seats.[7]There were no intervenors in BANATs petition before the NBC.BANAT filed a memorandum on 19 July 2007.On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60.NBC Resolution No. 07-60 proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as winners in the party-list elections, namely: Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), Gabrielas Women Party (Gabriela), Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan! Citizens Action Party (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL), Cooperative-Natco Network Party (COOP-NATCCO), Anak Pawis, Alliance of Rural Concerns (ARC), and Abono.We quote NBC Resolution No. 07-60 in its entirety below:WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections sittingen bancas National Board of Canvassers, thru its Sub-Committee for Party-List, as of 03 July 2007, had officially canvassed, in open and public proceedings, a total offifteen million two hundred eighty three thousand six hundred fifty-nine (15,283,659)votes under the Party-List System of Representation, in connection with the National and Local Elections conducted last 14 May 2007;WHEREAS, the study conducted by the Legal and Tabulation Groups of the National Board of Canvassers reveals that the projected/maximum total party-list votes cannot go any higher thansixteen million seven hundred twenty three thousand one hundred twenty-one (16,723,121)votes given the following statistical data:Projected/Maximum Party-List Votes for May 2007 Electionsi.Total party-list votes already canvassed/tabulated15,283,659

ii. Total party-list votes remaining uncanvassed/ untabulated (i.e. canvass deferred)1,337,032

iii. Maximum party-list votes (based on 100% outcome) from areas not yet submitted for canvass (Bogo, Cebu; Bais City; Pantar, Lanao del Norte; and Pagalungan, Maguindanao)102,430

Maximum Total Party-List Votes16,723,121

WHEREAS, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) provides in part:The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each: provided, that those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: provided, finally, that each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.WHEREAS, for the 2007 Elections, based on the above projected total of party-list votes, the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold can be pegged atthree hundred thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-two (334,462)votes;WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, inCitizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC, reiterated its ruling inVeterans Federation Party versus COMELECadopting a formula for the additional seats of each party, organization or coalition receving more than the required two percent (2%) votes, stating that the same shall be determined only after all party-list ballots have been completely canvassed;WHEREAS, the parties, organizations, and coalitions that have thus far garnered at leastthree hundred thirty four thousand four hundred sixty-two (334,462)votes are as follows:RANKPARTY/ORGANIZATION/COALITIONVOTESRECEIVED

1BUHAY1,163,218

2BAYAN MUNA972,730

3CIBAC760,260

4GABRIELA610,451

5APEC538,971

6A TEACHER476,036

7AKBAYAN470,872

8ALAGAD423,076

9BUTIL405,052

10COOP-NATCO390,029

11BATAS386,361

12ANAK PAWIS376,036

13ARC338,194

14ABONO337,046

WHEREAS, except for Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS), against which anURGENT PETITION FOR CANCELLATION/REMOVAL OF REGISTRATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF PARTY-LIST NOMINEE (With Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order)has been filed before the Commission, docketed as SPC No. 07-250, all the parties, organizations and coalitions included in the aforementioned list are therefore entitled to at least one seat under the party-list system of representation in the meantime.NOW, THEREFORE,by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941, and other election laws, the Commission on Elections, sittingen bancas the National Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVES to PARTIALLY PROCLAIM, subject to certain conditions set forth below, the following parties, organizations and coalitions participating under the Party-List System:1Buhay Hayaan YumabongBUHAY

2Bayan MunaBAYAN MUNA

3Citizens Battle Against CorruptionCIBAC

4Gabriela Womens PartyGABRIELA

5Association of Philippine Electric CooperativesAPEC

6Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms, Inc.A TEACHER

7Akbayan! Citizens Action PartyAKBAYAN

8AlagadALAGAD

9Luzon Farmers PartyBUTIL

10Cooperative-Natco Network PartyCOOP-NATCCO

11Anak PawisANAKPAWIS

12Alliance of Rural ConcernsARC

13AbonoABONO

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations, or coalitions which may later on be established to have obtained at least two percent (2%) of the total actual votes cast under the Party-List System.The total number of seats of each winning party, organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant toVeterans Federation Party versus COMELECformula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results.The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS) is hereby deferred until final resolution of SPC No. 07-250, in order not to render the proceedings therein moot and academic.Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.Let the Clerk of the Commission implement this Resolution, furnishing a copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.SO ORDERED.[8](Emphasis in the original)Pursuant to NBC Resolution No. 07-60, the COMELEC, acting as NBC, promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-72, which declared the additional seats allocated to the appropriate parties.We quote from the COMELECs interpretation of theVeteransformula as found in NBC Resolution No. 07-72:WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, the Commission on Elections sittingen bancas the National Board of Canvassers proclaimed thirteen (13) qualified parties, organization[s] and coalitions based on the presumptive two percent (2%) threshold of 334,462 votes from the projected maximum total number of party-list votes of 16,723,121, and were thus given one (1) guaranteed party-list seat each;WHEREAS, per Report of the Tabulation Group and Supervisory Committee of the National Board of Canvassers, the projected maximum total party-list votes, as of July 11, 2007, based on the votes actually canvassed, votes canvassed but not included in Report No. 29, votes received but uncanvassed, and maximum votes expected for Pantar, Lanao del Norte, is 16,261,369; and that the projected maximum total votes for the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalition[s] are as follows:Party-ListProjected total number of votes

1BUHAY1,178,747

2BAYAN MUNA977,476

3CIBAC755,964

4GABRIELA621,718

5APEC622,489

6A TEACHER492,369

7AKBAYAN462,674

8ALAGAD423,190

9BUTIL409,298

10COOP-NATCO412,920

11ANAKPAWIS370,165

12ARC375,846

13ABONO340,151

WHEREAS, based on the above Report,Buhay Hayaan Yumabong(Buhay) obtained the highest number of votes among the thirteen (13) qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, making it the first party in accordance withVeterans Federation Party versus COMELEC, reiterated inCitizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) versus COMELEC;WHEREAS,qualified parties, organizations and coalitions participating under the party-list system of representation that have obtained one guaranteed (1) seat may be entitled to an additional seat or seats based on the formula prescribed by the Supreme Court inVeterans;WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the first party, the correct formula as expressed inVeterans, is:Number of votes of first partyProportion of votes of first- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -=party relative to total votes forTotal votes for party-list systemparty-list systemwherein the proportion of votes received by the first party (without rounding off) shall entitle it to additional seats:Proportion of votes receivedby the first partyAdditional seats

Equal to or at least 6%Two (2) additional seats

Equal to or greater than 4% but less than 6%One (1) additional seat

Less than 4%No additional seat

WHEREAS, applying the above formula, Buhay obtained the following percentage:1,178,747- - - - - - - -= 0.07248 or 7.2%16,261,369which entitles it to two (2) additional seats.WHEREAS, in determining the additional seats for the other qualified parties, organizations and coalitions, the correct formula as expressed inVeteransand reiterated inCIBACis, as follows:No. of votes ofconcerned partyNo. of additionalAdditional seats for=-------------------xseats allocated toa concerned partyNo. of votes offirst partyfirst partyWHEREAS, applying the above formula, the results are as follows:Party ListPercentageAdditional Seat

BAYAN MUNA1.651

CIBAC1.281

GABRIELA1.051

APEC1.051

A TEACHER0.830

AKBAYAN0.780

ALAGAD0.710

BUTIL0.690

COOP-NATCO0.690

ANAKPAWIS0.620

ARC0.630

ABONO0.570

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, Omnibus Election Code, Executive Order No. 144, Republic Act Nos. 6646, 7166, 7941 and other elections laws, the Commission on Electionsen bancsitting as the National Board of Canvassers, hereby RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to proclaim the following parties, organizations or coalitions as entitled to additional seats, to wit:Party ListAdditional Seats

BUHAY2

BAYAN MUNA1

CIBAC1

GABRIELA1

APEC1

This is without prejudice to the proclamation of other parties, organizations or coalitions which may later on be established to have obtained at least two per cent (2%) of the total votes cast under the party-list system to entitle them to one (1) guaranteed seat, or to the appropriate percentage of votes to entitle them to one (1) additional seat.Finally, all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall likewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases.Let the National Board of Canvassers Secretariat implement this Resolution, furnishing a copy hereof to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.SO ORDERED.[9]Acting on BANATs petition, the NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-88 on 3 August 2007, which reads as follows:This pertains to the Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution filed by the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT).Acting on the foregoing Petition of the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) party-list, Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, National Board of Canvassers Legal Group submitted his comments/observations and recommendation thereon [NBC 07-041 (PL)], which reads:COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS:Petitioner Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), in its Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution prayed for the following reliefs, to wit:1.That the full number -- twenty percent (20%) -- of Party-List representatives as mandated by Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution shall be proclaimed.2.Paragraph (b), Section 11 of RA 7941 which prescribes the 2% threshold votes, should be harmonized with Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution and with Section 12 of the same RA 7941 in that it should be applicable only to the first party-list representative seats to be allotted on the basis of their initial/first ranking.3.The 3-seat limit prescribed by RA 7941 shall be applied; and4.Initially, all party-list groups shall be given the number of seats corresponding to every 2% of the votes they received and the additional seats shall be allocated in accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941, that is, in proportion to the percentage of votes obtained by each party-list group in relation to the total nationwide votes cast in the party-list election, after deducting the corresponding votes of those which were allotted seats under the 2% threshold rule.In fine, the formula/procedure prescribed in the ALLOCATION OF PARTY-LIST SEATS, ANNEX A of COMELEC RESOLUTION 2847 dated 25 June 1996, shall be used for [the] purpose of determining how many seats shall be proclaimed, which party-list groups are entitled to representative seats and how many of their nominees shall seat [sic].5.In the alternative, to declare as unconstitutional Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 and that the procedure in allocating seats for party-list representative prescribed by Section 12 of RA 7941 shall be followed.RECOMMENDATION:Thepetition of BANAT is now moot and academic.The Commission En Banc in NBC ResolutionNo. 07-60 promulgated July 9, 2007 reIn the Matter of the Canvass of Votes and Partial Proclamation of the Parties, Organizations and Coalitions Participating Under the Party-List System During the May 14, 2007 National and Local Electionsresolved among others that the total number of seats of each winning party, organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant to theVeterans Federation PartyversusCOMELECformula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the National Board of Canvassers RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve and adopt the recommendation of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head, NBC Legal Group, to DENY the herein petition of BANAT for being moot and academic.Let the Supervisory Committee implement this resolution.SO ORDERED.[10]BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC Resolution No. 07-88.BANAT did not file a motion for reconsideration of NBC Resolution No. 07-88.On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use theVeteransformula as stated in its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 because theVeteransformula is violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941).On the same day, the COMELEC denied reconsideration during the proceedings of the NBC.[11]Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations proclaimed on 9 July 2007, the COMELEC proclaimed three other party-list organizations as qualified parties entitled to one guaranteed seat under the Party-List System:Agricultural Sector Alliance of the Philippines, Inc. (AGAP),[12]Anak Mindanao (AMIN),[13]and An Waray.[14]Per the certification[15]by COMELEC, the following party-list organizations have been proclaimed as of 19 May 2008:Party-ListNo. of Seat(s)

1.1Buhay3

1.2Bayan Muna2

1.3CIBAC2

1.4Gabriela2

1.5APEC2

1.6A Teacher1

1.7Akbayan1

1.8Alagad1

1.9Butil1

1.10Coop-Natco [sic]1

1.11Anak Pawis1

1.12ARC1

1.13Abono1

1.14AGAP1

1.15AMIN1

The proclamation of Bagong Alyansang Tagapagtaguyod ng Adhikaing Sambayanan (BATAS), against which an Urgent Petition for Cancellation/Removal of Registration and Disqualification of Party-list Nominee (with Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order) has been filed before the COMELEC, was deferred pending final resolution of SPCNo. 07-250.IssuesBANAT brought the following issues before this Court:1.Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representativesprovided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatoryor is it merely a ceiling?2.Is the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA 7941constitutional?3.Is the two percent threshold and qualifier votes prescribed by thesame Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?4.How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?[16]Bayan Muna, A Teacher, and Abono, on the other hand, raised the following issues in their petition:I.Respondent Commission on Elections, acting as National Board ofCanvassers, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack or excess of jurisdiction when it promulgated NBC ResolutionNo. 07-60 to implement the First-Party Rule in the allocation ofseats to qualified party-list organizations as said rule:A.Violates the constitutional principle of proportionalrepresentation.B.Violates the provisions of RA 7941 particularly:1.The 2-4-6 Formula used by the First Party Rule inallocating additional seats for the First Partyviolates the principle of proportional representationunder RA 7941.2.Theuse of two formulas in the allocation ofadditional seats, one for the First Party andanother for the qualifying parties, violates Section11(b) of RA 7941.3.The proportional relationships under the First PartyRule are different from those required under RA7941;C.Violates the Four Inviolable Parameters of the Philippineparty-list system as provided for under the same case ofVeterans Federation Party, et al. v. COMELEC.II.Presuming that the Commission on Elections did not commit graveabuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdictionwhen it implemented the First-Party Rule in the allocation of seatsto qualified party-list organizations, the same being merely inconsonance with the ruling inVeterans Federations Party, et al. v.COMELEC,the instant Petition is a justiciable case as the issuesinvolved herein are constitutional in nature, involving the correctinterpretation and implementation of RA 7941, and are oftranscendental importance to our nation.[17]Considering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the parties in these cases, we defined the following issues in our advisory for the oral arguments set on 22 April 2008:1.Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives inSection 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely aceiling?2.Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?3.Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA7941 to qualify for one seat constitutional?4.How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated?5.Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties fromparticipating in the party-list elections?If not, can the majorpolitical parties be barred from participating in the party-listelections?[18]The Ruling of the CourtThe petitions have partial merit.We maintain that a Philippine-style party-list election has at least four inviolable parameters as clearly stated inVeterans.For easy reference, these are:First, the twenty percent allocationthe combined number ofallparty-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list;Second,the two percent thresholdonly those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House of Representatives;Third,the three-seat limiteach qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one qualifying and two additional seats;Fourth, proportional representationthe additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number of votes.[19]However, because the formula inVeteranshas flaws in its mathematical interpretation of the term proportional representation, this Court is compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to party-list organizations.Number of Party-List Representatives:The Formula Mandated by the ConstitutionSection 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.(2)The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list.For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.The first paragraph of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 reads:Section 11.Number of Party-List Representatives.The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list.x x xSection 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law.The House of Representatives shall be composed of district representatives and party-list representatives.The Constitution allows the legislature to modify the number of the members of the House of Representatives.Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the ratio of party-list representatives to the total number of representatives.We compute the number of seats available to party-list representatives from the number of legislative districts.On this point, we do not deviate from the first formula inVeterans, thus:Number of seats available to legislative districtsx .20=Number of seats available toparty-list representatives

.80

This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats available for party-list representatives whenever a legislative district is created by law. Since the 14thCongress of the Philippines has 220 district representatives, there are 55 seats available to party-list representatives.220x .20=55

.80

After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to the total number of representatives,the Constitution left the manner of allocating the seats available to party-list representatives to the wisdom of the legislature.Allocation of Seats for Party-List Representatives:The Statutory Limits Presented by the Two Percent Thresholdand the Three-Seat CapAll parties agree on the formula to determine the maximum number of seats reserved under the Party-List System, as well as on the formula to determine the guaranteed seats to party-list candidates garnering at least two-percent of the total party-list votes. However, there are numerous interpretations of the provisions of R.A. No. 7941 on the allocation ofadditional seatsunder the Party-List System.Veteransproduced the First Party Rule,[20]and Justice Vicente V. Mendozas dissent inVeteranspresented Germanys Niemeyer formula[21]as an alternative.The Constitution left to Congress the determination of the manner ofallocating the seats for party-list representatives. Congress enacted R.A.No. 7941,paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 11 and Section 12 of which provide:Section 11.Number of Party-List Representatives.x x xIn determining the allocation of seats for the second vote,[22]the following procedure shall be observed:(a)The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.(b)The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each:Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes:Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.Section 12.Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives.The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system. (Emphasis supplied)In G.R. No. 179271, BANAT presents two interpretations through three formulas to allocate party-list representative seats.The first interpretation allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section 11(b) on the 2% requirement with Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941.BANAT described this procedure as follows:(a)The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total Members of the House of Representatives including those from the party-list groups as prescribed by Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, Section 11 (1stpar.) of RA 7941 and Comelec Resolution No. 2847 dated 25 June 1996.Since there are 220 District Representatives in the 14thCongress, there shall be 55 Party-List Representatives.All seats shall have to be proclaimed.(b)All party-list groups shall initially be allotted one (1) seat for every two per centum (2%) of the total party-list votes they obtained; provided, that no party-list groups shall have more than three (3) seats (Section 11, RA 7941).(c)The remaining seats shall, after deducting the seats obtained by the party-list groups under the immediately preceding paragraph and after deducting from their total the votes corresponding to those seats, the remaining seats shall be allotted proportionately to all the party-list groups which have not secured the maximum three (3) seats under the 2% threshold rule, in accordance with Section 12 of RA 7941.[23]Forty-four (44) party-list seats will be awarded under BANATs first interpretation.The second interpretation presented by BANAT assumes that the 2% vote requirement is declared unconstitutional, and apportions the seats for party-list representatives by following Section 12 of R.A. No. 7941.BANAT states that the COMELEC:(a)shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitionson a nationwide basis;(b)rank them according to the number of votes received; and,(c)allocate party-list representatives proportionatelyaccording to thepercentage of votes obtained by each party, organization orcoalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-listsystem.[24]BANAT used two formulas to obtain the same results: one is based on the proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total nationwide party-list votes, and the other is by making the votes of a party-list with a median percentage of votes as the divisor in computing the allocation of seats.[25]Thirty-four (34) party-list seats will be awarded under BANATs second interpretation.In G.R. No. 179295, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both the COMELECs original 2-4-6 formula and theVeteransformula for systematically preventing all the party-list seats from being filled up.They claim that both formulas do not factor in the total number of seats alloted for the entire Party-List System.Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher reject the three-seat cap, but accept the 2% threshold.After determining the qualified parties, a second percentage is generated by dividing the votes of a qualified partyby the total votes of all qualified parties only.The number of seats allocated to a qualified party is computed by multiplying the total party-list seats available with the second percentage.There will be a first round of seat allocation, limited to using the whole integers as the equivalent of the number of seats allocated to the concerned party-list.After all the qualified parties are given their seats, a second round of seat allocation isconducted.The fractions, or remainders, from the whole integers are ranked from highest to lowest and the remaining seats on the basis of this ranking are allocated until all the seats are filled up.[26]We examine what R.A. No. 7941 prescribes to allocate seats for party-list representatives.Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the ranking of the participating parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.Table 1.Ranking of the participating parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the elections.[27]RankPartyVotes GarneredRankPartyVotes Garnered

1BUHAY1,169,23448KALAHI88,868

2BAYAN MUNA979,03949APOI79,386

3CIBAC755,68650BP78,541

4GABRIELA621,17151AHONBAYAN78,424

5APEC619,65752BIGKIS77,327

6A TEACHER490,37953PMAP75,200

7AKBAYAN466,11254AKAPIN74,686

8ALAGAD423,14955PBA71,544

9COOP-NATCCO409,88356GRECON62,220

10BUTIL409,16057BTM60,993

11BATAS385,81058A SMILE58,717

12ARC374,28859NELFFI57,872

13ANAKPAWIS370,26160AKSA57,012

14ABONO339,99061BAGO55,846

15AMIN338,18562BANDILA54,751

16AGAP328,72463AHON54,522

17AN WARAY321,50364ASAHAN MO51,722

18YACAP310,88965AGBIAG!50,837

19FPJPM300,92366SPI50,478

20UNI-MAD245,38267BAHANDI46,612

21ABS235,08668ADD45,624

22KAKUSA228,99969AMANG43,062

23KABATAAN228,63770ABAY PARAK42,282

24ABA-AKO218,81871BABAE KA36,512

25ALIF217,82272SB34,835

26SENIOR CITIZENS213,05873ASAP34,098

27AT197,87274PEP33,938

28VFP196,26675ABA ILONGGO33,903

29ANAD188,52176VENDORS33,691

30BANAT177,02877ADD-TRIBAL32,896

31ANG KASANGGA170,53178ALMANA32,255

32BANTAY169,80179AANGAT KA PILIPINO29,130

33ABAKADA166,74780AAPS26,271

341-UTAK164,98081HAPI25,781

35TUCP162,64782AAWAS22,946

36COCOFED155,92083SM20,744

37AGHAM146,03284AG16,916

38ANAK141,81785AGING PINOY16,729

39ABANSE! PINAY130,35686APO16,421

40PM119,05487BIYAYANG BUKID16,241

41AVE110,76988ATS14,161

42SUARA110,73289UMDJ9,445

43ASSALAM110,44090BUKLOD FILIPINA8,915

44DIWA107,02191LYPAD8,471

45ANC99,63692AA-KASOSYO8,406

46SANLAKAS97,37593KASAPI6,221

47ABC90,058TOTAL15,950,900

The first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 states that parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each.This clause guarantees a seat to the two-percenters.In Table 2 below, we use the first 20 party-list candidates for illustration purposes.The percentage of votes garnered by each party is arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for all party-list candidates.Table 2.The first 20 party-list candidates and their respective percentage of votes garnered over the total votes for the party-list.[28]RankPartyVotes GarneredVotes Garnered over Total Votes for Party-List, in %Guaranteed Seat

1BUHAY1,169,2347.33%1

2BAYAN MUNA979,0396.14%1

3CIBAC755,6864.74%1

4GABRIELA621,1713.89%1

5APEC619,6573.88%1

6A TEACHER490,3793.07%1

7AKBAYAN466,1122.92%1

8ALAGAD423,1492.65%1

9COOP-NATCCO409,8832.57%1

10BUTIL409,1602.57%1

11BATAS[29]385,8102.42%1

12ARC374,2882.35%1

13ANAKPAWIS370,2612.32%1

14ABONO339,9902.13%1

15AMIN338,1852.12%1

16AGAP328,7242.06%1

17AN WARAY321,5032.02%1

Total17

18YACAP310,8891.95%0

19FPJPM300,9231.89%0

20UNI-MAD245,3821.54%0

From Table 2 above, we see that only 17 party-list candidates received at least 2% from the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates.The 17 qualified party-list candidates, or the two-percenters, are the party-list candidates that are entitled to one seat each, or the guaranteed seat.In this first round of seat allocation, we distributed 17 guaranteed seats.The second clause ofSection 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seatsin proportion to their total number of votes.This is where petitioners and intervenors problem with the formula inVeteranslies.Veteransinterprets the clause in proportion to their total number of votes to bein proportion to the votes of the first party.This interpretation is contrary to the express language of R.A. No. 7941.We rule that, in computing the allocation ofadditional seats, the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause ofSection 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 isunconstitutional.This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50.The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.To illustrate:There are 55 available party-list seats.Suppose there are 50 million votes cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections.A party that has two percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat.Let us further assume that the first 50 parties all get one million votes.Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of 55 seats.Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast to 100 million.Thus, even if the maximum number of parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is always impossible for the number of occupied party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present.We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941.The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full imp