Title
Angkla: Ang Partido ng mga Marinong Pilipino, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 246816
Decision Date
Dec 7, 2021
Petitioners challenged Section 11(b) of RA 7941, alleging the BANAT formula violates "one person, one vote" and equal protection. SC upheld the formula, ruling no double-counting and ensuring proportional seat allocation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246816)

Applicable constitutional framework and legislative source

Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article VI, Section 5(1) and (2) cited by the Court).
Primary statutory provision at issue: Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List Act), specifically the proviso that additional seats are “in proportion to their total number of votes” with a three-seat cap.

Statutory Provision at Issue

Textual focus of the challenge

Section 11(b), RA 7941, provides that parties receiving at least 2% of total party-list votes are entitled to one guaranteed seat; the proviso challenged allocates additional seats “in proportion to their total number of votes,” subject to a maximum of three seats per party. The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the second-round allocation mechanism implementing that proviso.

Precedent and the BANAT Formula

Court-established allocation method used by COMELEC

The Court’s BANAT (Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency) decision formulated the operative allocation procedure used by COMELEC:

  • Round 1: rank parties by votes; parties obtaining at least 2% (the “two-percenters”) receive one guaranteed seat each.
  • Round 2, Part 1: multiply each party’s percentage of total party-list votes by the number of remaining available seats; award the whole-integer portion as additional seats (no fractional seats); no party may receive more than two additional seats (three-seat cap). All parties participate in this part.
  • Round 2, Part 2: allocate one seat each to parties next in rank until all remaining seats are distributed.

Petitioners’ Arguments

Core contention and proposed remedial formula

Petitioners contend the BANAT implementation results in “double counting” and infringes the constitutional principle of equal protection and the “one person, one vote” concept by allowing votes used to secure a guaranteed seat in Round 1 to be again used (in full) to obtain additional seats in Round 2. They argue this produces unequal vote weighting disadvantaging non-two-percenters. Petitioners propose an alternative formula: after awarding guaranteed seats, deduct the 2% vote-equivalent from each two-percenter’s total votes, re-rank parties by the adjusted vote totals, and distribute additional seats proportionally on the recomputed totals (still observing the three-seat cap).

COMELEC / OSG Response

COMELEC’s defenses against the constitutional challenge

COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, defended the BANAT formula on three principal grounds: (1) the Court applied the plain language and intent of Section 11(b) and was not creating a formula beyond legislative prerogative; (2) there is no double counting because all votes are tallied once at the outset and preserved for distinct purposes in different rounds — there is a single counting process used for ranking and then two allocation rounds with distinct aims; and (3) the statutory distinction between two-percenters and non-two-percenters justifies preferential treatment for two-percenters in both rounds, and petitioners’ deduction proposal would unduly favor lower-vote parties and yield outcomes inconsistent with the vote totals.

Threshold Issue Presented to the Court

Legal question decided on reconsideration

Whether the proviso of Section 11(b) of RA 7941, as implemented by the BANAT formula (specifically the practice of using the parties’ total vote counts intact in the second round), violates the “one person, one vote” principle and the equal protection clause, and whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in applying that provision for the 2019 party-list seat allocation.

Court’s Disposition on Motion for Reconsideration

Summary of the Court’s ruling and disposition

The Court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed its earlier ruling that Section 11(b) of RA 7941, as interpreted and implemented via the BANAT formula, is not unconstitutional. The NBoC’s Resolution declaring the winning party-list groups in the May 13, 2019 elections was upheld.

First Reason: Application and Scope of “One Person, One Vote”

Court’s assessment of the equal protection and “one person, one vote” arguments

The Court rejected petitioners’ application of “one person, one vote” to require absolute proportionality in the party-list context. It relied on prior jurisprudence recognizing that proportional representation in the party-list system is not absolute and that Congress enjoys broad discretion to set rules for party-list allocation under Article VI, Section 5(1) of the 1987 Constitution. The Court observed that some justices’ expansive view of one person, one vote (e.g., Justice Carpio’s dissent in Aquino III) would compel untenable consequences for other apportionment and reapportionment laws; the majority declined to adopt an absolute-proportionality standard for party-list seat allocation.

Second Reason: Legislative Intent and RA 7941’s Structure

The BANAT formula follows statutory text and legislative purpose

The Court held that BANAT mirrors the textual sequence and intent of Section 11(b): the first sentence yields guaranteed seats to two-percenters; the following proviso contemplates additional seats in proportion to total votes so that two-percenters remain entitled to participate in the second-round allocation with their full votes. The Court recounted the evolution of formulas (Veterans line of cases, then BANAT removing the 2% threshold for additional seats to satisfy the constitutional 20% party-list share) and concluded BANAT preserved the core legislative design while ensuring the constitutional quota.

Third Reason: No Double Counting — Different Rounds, Single Counting

Explanation why the Court found no double counting of votes

The Court explained that all votes are counted once initially and used for two distinct allocation stages with different objectives: Round 1 enforces the 2% threshold to guarantee seats to parties with sufficient constituency; Round 2 ensures compliance with the constitutional 20% party-list membership by allocating remaining seats proportionally based on the same preserved vote totals. The Court emphasized that the system does not “re-tally” votes and that deducting 2% from two-percenters before Round 2 would produce absurd and textually unsupported results (illustrated by the hypothetical of a party with exactly 2% being reduced to zero and disadvantaged in Round 2).

Fourth Reason: Remedy and Limits of Judicial Role

Institutional competence and the remedy for petitioners’ preferred scheme

The Court observed that even if the proviso were void, petitioners’ proposed formula lacks textual basis in RA 7941 and would amount to judicial legislation if imposed. The Court reiterated that formulation of allocation methods is fundamentally legislative policy; accordingly, petitioners’ appropriate remedy is to seek amendment of RA 7941 in Congress rather than re-writing the statute in the courts.

Final Outcome and Mandate

Case outcome and immediate procedural effect

Motion for reconsideration denied for lack of merit; the prior decision upholding Section 11(b) and the NBoC Resolution stood. The Court ordered entry of judgment.

Separate and Dissenting Opinions — Chief Justice Gesmundo

Core points of the principal dissent (Gesmundo, C.J.)

Chief Justice Gesmundo (joined by others) dissented, concluding the BANAT formula violates equal protection and the one person, one vote principle because it effectively credits the votes of two-percenters twice: once to secure the guaranteed seat and again when their full votes are used in computing additional seats. He adopted petitioners’ proposed corrective formula (deduct 2% equivalents from two-percenters before allocating additional seats, re-rank, and distribute remaining seats) as consistent with the republican and equal-protection values embodied in the Constitution. He likened the issue to apportionment and malapportionment jurisprudence (citing Reynolds, Wesberry, Gray, Baker) and argued the one person, one vote principle is applicable in the party-list setting when unequal vote crediting occurs.

Separate Opinion — Justice Zalameda and Others

Dissent arguing double counting and proposing adjusted allocation

Justice Zalameda (joined by others) also found constitutional infirmity in BANAT due to double-counting. He proposed a remedial approach that reallocates excess percentages (variance beyond 2% corresponding to additional seats) for ranking in distribution of additional seat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms