ALLOCATION OF SEATS FOR PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES IN THE PHILIPPINES

The following are the steps to determine the winners under the party-list system in the Philippines. These steps have been updated based on the 1987 Constitution and the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. 

Step 1: 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. 

Step 2: 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. This is called the Guaranteed Seat. 

• Example: AKBAYAN garnered 2,750,864 votes, representing 6.71% of the total votes cast for the party-list system as of 12:00 AM of May 14, 2025. Having surpassed the 2% threshold, it is entitled to one guaranteed seat in Congress, to be occupied by its first nominee.

Step 3: Those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to Additional Seats in proportion to their total number of votes.

• To determine the additional seats, compute first for the maximum seats reserved under the party-lists, that is, Total No. of Legislative Districts / 0.80 x 0.20 = Maximum Seats
• Example: 254 legislative districts for the May 12, 2025 elections / 0.80 x 0.20 = 63 maximum seats reserved under the party-list system
• After determining the maximum seats, compute for the additional seats, that is, Votes Garnered over Total Votes for Party List, in % x Remaining Seats (maximum seats – guaranteed seats) = Additional Seats
• Example: AKBAYAN garnered 2,750,864 votes or 6.71% of the Total Votes for Party List. Therefore, the computation should be 6.71% x (63 maximum seats - 6 guaranteed seats for party-lists who surpassed the 2% threshold as of 12:00 AM of May 14, 2025) = 3.8 additional seats

Step 4: Add the Guaranteed Seats and the whole integer of the Additional Seats. 

• Only the whole integer of the above product of the votes garnered over total votes for party list, in % and of the remaining seats corresponds to a party’s share in the remaining available seats 
• Example: AKBAYAN's computed 3.8 additional seats entitle it to 3 more congressional representatives, in addition to its 1 guaranteed seat. This brings its total to 4 seats in the House of Representatives for the 20th Congress.
• Assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed

Step 5: We apply the Three-Seat Cap to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is entitled.

• Example: Although AKBAYAN is projected to earn a total of 4 seats based on the number of votes it received, it can only occupy a maximum of 3 seats in the House of Representatives due to the three-seat cap rule applied to all party-list groups.

For more details, refer to the formula and computations found here: Allocation of Seats for Party-List Representatives or you may refer to the spreadsheet format for application of the above rules. 

Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. vs. Spouses Samuel Palaganas and Villa Palaganas

TOPICS: Distinction between culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana; Contractual obligation between the school and the student; Negligence 

FACTS

In 2007, Noel, a grade school student of Mother Goose Special School System, Inc., lost his mechanical pencil. He found out that it was Rhys who found his pencil and brought it home. After a few days, Noel asked Rhys to return his pencil, but Rhys failed to bring it, and instead told Noel that he would return it next time. After a while, Mark, who was seated next to Rhys, punched Rhys six times, while Noel also punched Rhys five times.

At the time of the incident, their teacher, Mr. Gerald Gomez, was inside the comfort room. Thus, Rhys reported it to their HEKASI teacher, Mr. Gallardo, who did nothing about the matter. Rhys’s classmates then reported it to their class adviser, who called Noel and Mark. Both pupils admitted to punching Rhys. 

Rhys’s parents, Spouses Palaganas, went to the school to complain. His father, Samuel, requested for an investigation. Unfortunately, the investigation report absolved Mark from bullying, despite his prior admission to their class adviser. After a reinvestigation, the bullying incident was only downplayed by the school as teasing or rough play. Subsequently, the Spouses Palaganas filed a Complaint for Damages against Noel’s father, Mark’s father, the school, and a few teachers. 

The RTC found the School and the teacher-in-charge, Mr. Gomez, solidarily liable to the Spouses Palaganas because the incident happened during class hours. The School and Mr. Gomez were exercising parental authority and had the obligation to protect Rhys from harm. The RTC also mentioned that the school was negligent as it failed to take necessary steps to prevent the punching. 

The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, but ruled that Mr. Gomez was not negligent as he was at the comfort room at the time of the incident. The CA also classified the incident as a form of bullying under the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013. 

ISSUE

Whether or not the School may be held liable

RULING

Yes, Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. is liable for breach of its contractual obligation with its student, Rhys. 

Under the rule on contracts, an educational institution has a contractual obligation to provide and maintain a safe learning environment for its students. 

In this case, Rhys, who was enrolled in Mother Goose Special School System, Inc., became a victim of a bullying incident within the school’s premises. Despite the school’s obligation to provide and maintain a safe learning environment for Rhys, its teacher ignored the student’s complaints. The School failed to inform Rhys’s parents about the incident, as they only became aware from the offender’s mother. The School also did not have a protocol for handling the situation, and the investigation only came upon the request of Rhys’s father. Finally, the investigation report was replete with inaccurate information, such as when no disciplinary action was taken against Mark despite his admission that he punched Rhys. 

Therefore, the School is liable for breach of its contractual obligations to Rhys when it failed to provide and maintain a safe learning environment for him. 

DISCUSSION

Distinction between culpa contractual from culpa aquiliana

Culpa Contractual

• Definition: It is the fault or negligence in the performance of a pre-existing obligation. 
• Article: Articles 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code
• Negligence: Negligence is merely incidental to the performance of a pre-existing contractual obligation 
• Defense: The school should have exercised the required diligence to avoid the happening of incident and to address the incident after it happened. The defense of being a good of a family is not a defense. 
• Presumption: There is a presumption of negligence so long as it can be proved that there was a breach of the contract. 
• Burden: The burden is on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence in carrying out the terms of the contract.

Culpa Aquiliana 

• Definition: It is the wrongful or negligent act or omission which creates a vinculum juris and gives rise to an obligation between two persons not formally bound by any other obligation (there is no pre-existing obligation)
• Article: Article 2176 of the Civil Code
• Negligence: Negligence is direct, substantive, and independent
• Defense: The defense of a “good father of a family” in the selection and supervision of employees is a complete defense available to employers
• Presumption: There is no presumption of negligence. 
• Burden: It is the burden of the injured party to prove the negligence of the defendant

Application of culpa contractual:

1. There is a pre-existing obligation – When the academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is an established contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations. The school undertakes to provide the student with an education, while the student covenants to abide by the school’s academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations. In particular, the “built-in” obligations of the school are:
1. To provide the students with a conducive atmosphere for learning
2. To ensure that there are no constant threats to the life and limbs of the students
3. To maintain peace and order within the campus. However, this extends to out-of-school premises where the school conducts official activities. Ex.: Cabiao Community Clinic of St. Luke’s College of Medicine in Nueva Ecija - a fire broke out, which resulted in the death of a female medical student, making the school liable.  
2. Negligence – It is the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of the place. In the absence of a stipulated standard of diligence, the diligence of a good father of a family must be observed. It becomes gross negligence when there is a want of even slight care and diligence. Ex: In this case, the School failed to exercise the required diligence to avoid the happening of bullying and to address the incident after it happened. The School has not conducted training or awareness seminars or training to enable its teachers-personnel to cope with the situation. The School lacked the capacity to detect, prevent, and address the bullying incident.  
3. Presumption and Burden - A mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justifies, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. Ex.: Far Eastern University failed to discharge the burden of proving that they exercised due diligence in providing a safe learning environment when they failed to prove that the guards assigned to the campus met the requirements (qualifications set) in the Security Services Agreement.

Award for Damages

1. Moral damages may be awarded for breach of contract where the Defendant acted in bad faith. 
2. Exemplary damages may be awarded in contracts where the Defendant acted in a wanton, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner, by way of example or correction for the public good. 
3. Attorney’s fees may be awarded when exemplary damages are awarded.
   

Full text here as originally published by the Philippine Supreme Court Public Information Office.

Caltex v. Palomar

FACTS

Caltex (Philippines) Inc. organized a promotional scheme called, “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” wherein participants estimate the actual number of liters a hooded gas pump at each Caltex station will dispense during a specified period.

A prospective contestant has but to go to a Caltex station, request for the entry form which is available on demand, accomplish it, and submit the same for the drawing of the winner. Nowhere in the said rules requires any fee to be paid, any merchandise be bought, any service be rendered, or any value whatsoever be given for the privilege to participate.

Caltex would have to use mails not only as amongst the media for publicizing the contest but also for the transmission of communication. 

However, there is an anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law. So, the Acting Postmaster General declined to grant the requested advance clearance for mailing, and if the contest will be conducted a fraud order will be issued. 

Caltex filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief to declare its 'Caltex Hooded Pump Contest' not to be violative of the Postal Law and ordering respondent to allow petitioner the use of the mails.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Caltex Hooded Pump Contest is covered under the anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law?

RULING

No, the Caltex Hooded Pump Contest is not a lottery that may be administratively and adversely dealt with under the provisions of the Postal Law.

The three essential elements of a lottery are: First, consideration; second, prize; and third, chance. Nowhere in the said rules provides for a requirement that any fee should be paid, any merchandise be bought, any service be rendered, or any value whatsoever be given for the privilege to participate. A prospective contestant has but to go to a Caltex station, request for the entry form which is available on demand, and accomplish and submit the same for the drawing of the winner.

Moreover, the Caltex Hooded Pump Contest is not a gift enterprise. 

A gift enterprise is a scheme for the distribution of money or of any real or personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind. It is commonly applied to a sporting artifice of under which goods are sold for their market value but by way of inducement each purchaser is given a chance to win a prize. 

There is no sale of anything to which the chance offered is attached as an inducement to the purchaser. The contest is open to all qualified contestants irrespective of whether or not they buy the appellee's products.

The term under a construction should be accorded no other meaning than that which is consistent with the nature of the word associated therewith. Hence, if lottery is prohibited only if it involves a consideration, so also must the term "gift enterprise" be so construed.

The appellee, may not be denied the use of the mails for purposes thereof.

Full text here

De Castro v. JBC

FACTS

To fill the vacancy created by the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno on May 17, 2010, the JBC was ordered to conduct with the proceedings for the nomination of candidates; prepare the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice; and submit to the incumbent President the short list of nominees.

As argued by the OSG, the incumbent President has the power to appoint the next CJ.

Sec. 15, Article VII or the prohibition of the President to appoint 2 months immediately before the election does not cover appointments in the judiciary. 

ISSUE

Whether or not the judiciary is exempted from the ban on midnight appointments?

RULING

Yes, the Judiciary is exempted from the ban on midnight appointments.

The prohibition against the President or Acting President in making appointments within 2 months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s term does not refer to the members of the SC. Had the framers of the Constitution intended to extend the prohibition contained in Sec. 15, Art. VII to the appointment of the members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. 

In this case, the President may appoint any members of the Supreme Court within 2 months before the next presidential elections. It is the imperative duty of the President under the Constitution to fill up the vacancies created by such inexorable retirements within 90 days from the occurrence. 

Therefore, the Judiciary is exempted from the ban on midnight appointments. 

Full text here

 

Aytona v. Castillo

FACTS

A day before President-elect Diosdado Macapagal assumed office on December 30, 1961, former President Carlos P. Garcia appointed 350 ad interim appointees. One of whom was Dominador Aytona, who was appointed as the Governor of the Central Bank. 

However, on December 31, 1961, Macapagal issued Administrative Order No. 2 recalling, withdrawing, and cancelling all ad interim appointments made by Garcia after December 13, 1961 (the date when he was proclaimed elected by the Congress). On January 1, 1962, Andres Castillo was appointed by Macapagal as the Governor of the Central Bank.

Aytona was prevented from holding office at the Central Bank. Hence, a petition to disregard the Administrative Order No. 2 was filed in court. 

ISSUE

Whether or not Administrative Order No. 2 which cancels the midnight or last-minute appointment was valid?

RULING

Yes, Administrative Order No. 2 was valid. 

The administration of Garcia was no more than a caretaker administration after the proclamation of the election of the Macapagal on December 13, 1961. However, filling up of vacancies by Garcia in important positions, if few, with assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment may be permitted.

In this case, the issuance of 350 appointments in one night was regarded as an abuse of Presidential prerogative where the exercise of double care, which was required and expected of Garcia, was hard to believe. 

Therefore, there is no reason to disregard Administrative Order No. 2 which cancels midnight or last-minute appointments.