Title
Supreme Court
ANGKLA: Ang Partido ng mga Pilipinong Marino, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 246816
Decision Date
Sep 15, 2020
Petitioners challenged COMELEC's party-list seat allocation under RA 7941, alleging double-counting and equal protection violations. SC upheld the system, ruling no double-counting, no constitutional breach, and declined retroactive application of petitioners' proposed framework.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 246816)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Nature of the Case
    • Angkla: Ang Partido ng mga Pilipinong Marino, Inc. (ANGKLA) and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party (SBP) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC), claiming grave abuse of discretion in the allocation of party-list seats.
    • Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM) intervened, adopting the same arguments.
  • Statutory and Constitutional Framework
    • Article VI, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution reserves 20% of the House membership for party-list representatives.
    • Republic Act No. 7941, Section 11(b) provides:
      • Parties garnering at least 2% of party-list votes get one guaranteed seat each.
      • Those garnering more than 2% are entitled to additional seats “in proportion to their total number of votes,” with a 3-seat cap.
  • 2019 Party-List Election and Canvass
    • NBOC Resolution No. 004-19 (22 May 2019) allocated 61 party-list seats among 51 groups, including:
      • Eight “two-percenters” (each guaranteed one seat and awarded additional seats per the BANAT formula).
      • Forty-three non-two-percenters (each awarded one seat in the second round).
    • Petitioners ANGKLA, SBP, and intervenor AKMA-PTM were ranked 52nd to 54th and received no seats.
  • Petitioners’ Theory of Relief
    • They claim Section 11(b)’s proviso results in “double-counting” of the same votes—first to secure the guaranteed seat and again in distributing additional seats—thus violating the equal protection clause and “one vote, one weight.”
    • They propose a modified formula:
      • Deduct the 2% votes already used for a guaranteed seat before distributing additional seats.
      • Re-rank and distribute remaining seats proportionally to the recomputed votes.
  • Respondents’ Defense
    • The COMELEC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) invoke BANAT v. COMELEC, asserting no double-counting because the two rounds serve distinct purposes (threshold vs. filling-up 20% membership).
    • They maintain the proviso and BANAT formula are constitutional, reflecting Congress’s discretion to balance proportionality, threshold, and a 3-seat cap.

Issues:

  • Does Section 11(b) of RA 7941, in providing that parties garnering more than 2% of party-list votes are entitled to additional seats “in proportion to their total number of votes,” violate the equal protection clause by “double-counting” votes?
  • Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in NBOC Resolution No. 004-19 by applying the BANAT formula to allocate party-list seats?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.