Political earthquake

Contrary to Malacañang’s disingenuous statements, the Supreme Court decision in Banat vs Comelec came as a surprise to the administration. It flustered its coalition partners in the House of Representatives, and forced an unscheduled filing of a new, pro-Charter change resolution. And contrary to the instinctive reaction of many administration critics, the landmark ruling revising the formula for the allocation of party-list seats in Congress was not designed to make the three-fourths threshold any easier to reach. Indeed, the new formula can only make administration strategist Luis Villafuerte’s “justiciable controversy” target even more difficult to hit.

It is important to note these reactions, because they help tell us that the decision, written by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, is neither a government plot nor a partisan ploy. It is simply a 20-month-old case that was ready to be resolved.

Its implications, however, are fundamental and far-reaching.

We do not mean Speaker Prospero Nograles’ good-natured complaint that “physically” the Batasan did not have the resources to accommodate 33 new party-list congressmen, or Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel’s warning that P2.3 billion in new pork barrel funds may have to be found for the new representatives. These are important consequences, but not landscape-shifting.

We also do not mean the inevitable redefinition of the three-fourths threshold—the constitutional provision which, in the view of the administration and its congressional allies, will enable the House to amend or revise the Constitution without the participation of the Senate. Again, this is an important consequence of the Banat ruling; it complicates the campaign to extend President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s hold on power (several of the congressmen-in-waiting belong to militant or oppositionist parties). But while it has the feel of a political earthquake, it will not cause a tectonic shift.

We must also assert that the Carpio decision does not repudiate the so-called Panganiban formula, named after then-Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban, the ponente in the Veterans case. Indeed, Carpio writes—and all 14 other members of the Court agree—that “a Philippine-style party-list election has at least four inviolable parameters as clearly stated in Veterans.” What the new ruling does is tweak a key mathematical formula Panganiban used. “However, because the formula in Veterans has 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.”

The revisited formula involves the allocation of seats after the 2-percent parameter is met. In Banat, the Court ruled that: “R.A. No. 7941 provides 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.’ This is where petitioners’ and intervenors’ problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets the clause ‘in proportion to their total number of votes’ to be in proportion to the votes of the first party. This interpretation is contrary to the express language of R.A. No. 7941.”

The well-intentioned first-party principle had a most unfortunate corollary: “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.” Striking down the two-percent rule for additional seats as unconstitutional (which is exactly what the Banat ruling does) allows the House to meet the Constitution’s mandate that 20 percent of its membership must come from the party list.

Thus, the landmark ruling changes the political landscape in at least three ways. It seats more sectoral or marginalized representatives in Congress—to the fullest extent envisioned by the Charter; it continues to disqualify major political parties from the party-list privilege (although by a much narrower 8-7 vote); and (as Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile pointed out) it automatically adds to the party list’s 20-percent allocation. “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,” the Court ruled.

The aftershocks will be felt for years to come.–Philippine Daily Inquirer