Case Digest (G.R. No. 246816) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. 246816 decided on December 7, 2021, ANGKLA: Ang Partido ng mga Marinong Pilipino, Inc. (ANGKLA) and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party (SBP) filed a petition for reconsideration of the Court’s September 15, 2020 en banc decision upholding the constitutionality of the proviso in Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941. They challenged the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (respondents include Chairman Sheriff M. Abas and Commissioners Al A. Parreao, Luie Tito F. Guia, Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, and Antonio T. Kho, Jr.) for applying the BANAT formula in allocating additional party-list seats after the May 13, 2019 elections. Aksyon Magsasaka – Partido Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM) intervened as co-petitioner. The petitioners argued that COMELEC’s method resulted in double counting of votes and violated the equal protection clause and the one person, one vote principle. In the assailed decision, the Co Case Digest (G.R. No. 246816) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Proceedings
- Petitioners ANGKLA: Ang Partido ng mga Marinong Pilipino, Inc. (ANGKLA) and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party (SBP) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with injunctive relief against the COMELEC (sitting as the National Board of Canvassers) Resolution No. 004-19 declaring the winning party-list groups in the May 13, 2019 elections.
- They challenged the constitutionality of the proviso in Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941) which allocates additional party-list seats “in proportion to their total number of votes,” capped at three seats per party.
- Prior Decision and Motion for Reconsideration
- On September 15, 2020, this Court denied the petition and upheld the constitutionality of Section 11(b) RA 7941, applying the BANAT formula for party-list seat allocation.
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing that the BANAT formula allows “double counting” of votes in the second round and thus violates the “one person, one vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause.
Issues:
- Does the proviso in Section 11(b) of RA 7941, as implemented via the BANAT formula, violate the “one person, one vote” policy and the Equal Protection Clause by effectively counting votes twice when allocating additional party-list seats?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)