DISTRICT CONGRESSMEN VS. PARTY-LIST CONGRESSMEN

This is a supplement to my previous post concerning what I believe is a mistake by the Supreme Court in ruling in Banat v. COMELEC that there will be a corresponding increase in the number of party-list representatives whenever a legislative district is created by law.

To refresh, Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250, unless a law is passed changing this number. Section 5(2) further states that the party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total House membership including party-list members.

The Supreme Cout in Banat observed that there are currently 220 legislative districts, which means there will be 220 congressmen to be elected from congressional districts (district representatives). To determine the number of seats available to congressmen to be elected under the party-list system (party-list representatives), which under the Constitution shall not exceed 20% of the total House membership, Banat adopted the following formula:

Number of seats available to legislative districts (220) divided by .80, then multiplied by .20 equals the number of seats available to party-list representatives or 55

This formulation was clearly adopted from Veterans Federation Party, et al. v. COMELEC, et al, the pertinent portion of the ruling stating as follows:

"Clearly, the Constitution makes the number of district representatives the determinant in arriving at the number of seats allocated for party-list lawmakers, who shall comprise "twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list. . . This formulation means that any increase in the number of district representatives, as may be provided by law, will necessarily result in a corresponding increase in the number of party-list seats . . ."

With due respect, I beg to disagree with this interpretation. The phrases “[t]he House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members" in Section 5(1) and "[t]he party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list" in Section 5(2) of the Constitution unequivocally make 250, as the total number of House members, the determinant in arriving at the number of party-list representatives. It should be borne in mind that the House membership is classified or divided into district representatives and party-list representatives. Thus, when the Constitution speaks of the "House of Representatives," "250 members," and "total number of representatives," it refers to both types of members and not only to district representatives.

The 20% party-list membership would, therefore, have to be based on 250 or any number later on fixed by Congress. To my mind, the view that the creation of a congressional district - which could either be by the creation of a province, a city with not less than 250,000 population, or a reapportionment of legislative districts - will carry with it the increase not only in the number of district representatives, but also party-list representatives is simply mistaken. It loses sight of the fact that a congressional district may only be represented by a district representative or one who is a resident of the district and elected by its constituency. A party-list representative, on the other hand, is elected through the party-list system - an entirely distinct methodology of electing a lawmaker.

A newly-created district necessarily paves the way for the creation of a new congressional seat so that such district can have representation in Congress. A party-list representative, on the other hand, is not necessary since no new constituency is created for such type of representative. Only when a party representing a marginalized or underrepresented sector is registered and voted will a party-list representative be entitled to a congressional seat. And even then, the votes obtained by its party must meet the percentage of votes set by law, the number of allowable representatives from his or her party, and the seat to be created will not exceed the 20% ceiling set by the Constitution. Given this distinct nature of a party-list representative it would be absurd - contrary to the concept of dual type of representation introduced by the 1987 Constitution - to tie the increase in their membership to the creation of legislative districts.

To maintain the 80-20 proportion whenever new provinces or cities with population of at least 250,000 are created, what Congress needs to do is provide a provision for a corresponding party-list seat.