Lawyered!: Do the Math

This series will cover topics involving the law, law school and everything in between told from the perspective of a frightened, enlightened, irritated, and engaged law student. :)

I scanned the weekened papers for a possible engaging topic/news that relates to law, and I can comment/react on squarely. Of course, I could've picked a number of news items since almost anything on the news are law-related, but I wouldn't do that concept/that news justice if I didn't pick it very wisely. So for this week, I pick... party-list representatives.

According to Mr. J Bondoc's article in The Philippine Star: "Pending in the Comelec is a petition of the only 11 sectoral parties that got more than 2 percent of the votes for party-list last May. They rightly contend that since they had met the basic requirement for party-list voting, then their three nominees each should be proclaimed congressmen. But the Comelec has shelved the petition. It will rule only after the special elections in November in three provinces where the balloting failed last time, affecting about 500,000 votes. So the House of Representatives will lack 11 members till then..... Last May only one party got 6 percent. The Comelec proclaimed its three nominees forthwith. Eleven others got more than 2 percent, and were given two seats each. Something odd followed. The Comelec proclaimed 16 other reps from parties that did not even get 1 or 2 percent. Penultimate of the 16 was Mikey Arroyo, of Ang Galing Pinoy. Incidentally, all the seven Comelec commissioners are appointees of Mikey’s mom, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo." (emphasis mine)

I guess the main issue here is: whether or not Ang Galing Pinoy and the 15 other party-list representatives who got less than 2% of votes are entitled to a seat each despite the existence of other party-list groups who got more than 2% of the votes but were only awarded 2 seats.

To clarify, I'm not claiming that I am an "expert" on this matter but if I tried to answer the question using what we had discussed in Constitutional Law 1, my answer would be this:

Let us revisit the Supreme Court's ruling regarding this matter in the case of Banat vs. COMELEC (2009). In Banat, the Court provided for the procedure of the allocation of party-list seats, as follows:

1. Compute the seats to be allocated to the party-list representatives, taking into consideration the requirement in Section 5(2) of Article VI of the Constitution. Thus, the number of seats available to legislative districts is divided by .80 and multiplied by .20 to get the number of seats available to party-list representatives.

2. Rank every party-list according to the number of votes they got in the elections, from highest to lowest. Divide the total number of votes of each party-list by the total number of votes cast for the party-list system. This is the percentage we will be basing from now on.

3. In the "first-round" of allocation of seats, allot one seat each to every party-list that garnered 2% or higher.

4. In the "second-round" of allocation, the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats (total seats minus the allocated seat in the first round). The whole integer of the said product corresponds to a party’s share in the remaining available seats. Assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed.

5. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is entitled.

Using this formula, it is clear that it is legally/mathematically possible for Ang Galing Pinoy and the 15 others who got less than 2% of the party-list votes to be entitled to a seat each because the two-percent cap applies only in the first-round of allocation. If you get 2% or higher, you automatically get one seat in the House. You may be entitled to more but that depends on the computation in the second round. If, in the second round, you get an integer of 1.5 or 1.-something it will still be considered as one seat. Thus, the remaining seats after the second round are distibuted to the parties (according to rank, regardless of the 2% threshold) until everything has been allotted.

 

I hate to be mathematical when explaining the logic of things because: 1) it sounds impersonal and, to some extent, boring, and 2) I hate Math. But just like Marshall, who explains and proves his points using well-prepared graphs (see photo), I guess I have to get used to it. I find people accepting more readily one's explanation/s when it is supported by mathematical computations, statistics and empirical results as compared to an explanation backed by social theories, and socially-proven facts. Hmmm.  

 

Anyway, let us put this entry to an end with:

 

Lawyered!

.

Lawyered!: The Law-down

Since I've been blogging--here and in my Multiply account--for about four years now, I guess it's time for me to bring structure to what I love doing. Yes, some may say structuring will make it boring but I promise to make it less so. Why structure? Because it's better and easier for the readers to look at entries in a perspective, in a sequence or in a category. My first experiment with structure in my blog was introducing the "Saturday Soliloquy" series, which was fun and informative but since I have Saturday classes and have reading a lot lately, I thought of introducing a new one.

Marshall + law school = Eagerness

Since I'm law school, for four months already--and possibly a lot more years to come, if I manage, hehe--I realize it is best to combine the things I love doing and will be doing... just because.

I named this series "Lawyered!" after my-favorite-lawyer-on-TV Marshall Eriksen's famous catchphrase in the show How I Met Your Mother. It's his version of Barney's "Legen-wait for it-dary!" This series will cover topics involving the law, law school and everything in between told from the perspective of a frightened, enlightened, irritated, and engaged law student. :)

So to start... let me answer the frequently asked question: Kamusta naman ang UP Law? (How is UP Law?)

My answer would simply be, UP Law is EPIC.

Extremely frightening. People weren't joking nor exaggerating when they said/warned me (and the two thousand-plus applicants to the 2009 LAE) that UP Law is out of the ordinary. It is home to the country's best lawyers, law students, and of course, the best professors. A "perfect" set-up for learning what is the law etc. Of course there is a catch. These professors, albeit being really good, pushes their students to learn more, and give better effort to become better lawyers, in a different way. Recitation, or recit as we fondly/dreadfully call it, never sounded this dreadful to me. Four months in, and I still hold my breath while the professor shuffles the recitation cards, picks out a card, and calls out the name of the "lucky" one, who will stand for recit for at least 10 or fifteen minutes. Usually, we stand to recite for a lot longer than that. But as early as now, I can say this, I learn better with fear. ;)

Profoundly enlightening. After all the shock and appall, and after one has gotten used to all that fear and dread, comes the better part--the learning. Being in the receiving end of the best law professors' lectures and discussions, I'm fortunate to be learning these things regarding the law and how to be better at it. Truly, my undergrad professor was right when he said, "other law schools teach you to pass the bar; UP Law teaches you how to become a lawyer."

Irritating. No matter how much I loved reading, and how better I am at speed reading, I've never read this much before. And sometimes, it is irritating. It is irritating/frustrating when you get called for recit and failed to answer your prof's questions despite reading the case/s inside out. It is irritating when you called to recite for that one case you failed to read. It is irritating when you've read everything but your prof, after answering his/her question, would accuse you of reading off/getting answers from someone else's digest. Whenever I'm irritated by law school's nuances and hang-ups, I think about the positives, and then I forget temporarily--but just enough time for me to disregard of the thought of leaving.

Completely engaging. Law and law school engages me in all aspects. It brings out my happiest, saddest, crappiest, and angriest emotions. It brings out the best, the worst and the mediocre in me. It brings out who I really am, what I want in/from life, what I value the most/the least, where I want to be at a certain time, what my goals are and how I plan to meet these goals.

Lawyered!



.

Now, it's official: I'm bitter

I'm too depressed with the loss of Hugh Laurie and Neil Patrick Harris to react. Here are the winners of the 62nd Emmy Awards:


Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy — Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

Outstanding Writing in a Comedy — Modern Family

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy — Jane Lynch, Glee

Outstanding Directing in a Comedy — GLEE

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy — Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy — Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Outstanding Reality-Competition Program — Top Chef

Outstanding Writing for a Drama — Mad Men

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama — Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama — Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama — Brian Cranston, Breaking Bad

Outstanding Directing in a Drama — Dexter

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama — Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer

Outstanding Writing in Variety — 63rd Annual Tony Awards

Outstanding Variety Series — The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Miniseries or Movie — Julia Ormond, Temple Grandin

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or Movie — David Strathairn, Temple Grandin

Outstanding Writing in a Miniseries or Movie — You Don’t Know Jack

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie — Claire Danes, Temple Grandin

Outstanding Directing in a Miniseries or Movie — Temple Grandin

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Miniseries or Movie — Al Pacino, You Don’t Know Jack

Outstanding Miniseries — The Pacific

Outstanding Made for Television Movie — Temple Grandin

Outstanding Drama Series — Mad Men

Outstanding Comedy Series — Modern Family