Case Summary (G.R. No. 246816)
The BANAT Formula for Seat Allocation
In BANAT v. COMELEC (2009), this Court adopted a two-round allocation:
Round 1: Rank parties by total votes; award one seat each to those meeting the 2% threshold.
Round 2, Part 1: Multiply each party’s percentage share by the remaining seats; the integer part of the product is each party’s additional seats (max two).
Round 2, Part 2: Distribute any leftover seats one by one to the next highest-ranking parties until all seats are filled.
Petitioners’ Equal Protection Challenge
• Argue the BANAT formula double-counts votes: votes that secure the guaranteed seat are reused to obtain additional seats.
• Assert this violates “one person, one vote” and the Equal Protection Clause.
• Propose a revised formula: after Round 1, deduct 2% worth of votes from two-percenters, re-rank parties, then allocate additional seats proportionally, respecting the three-seat cap.
COMELEC’s Defense of the BANAT Formula
• Maintains it faithfully applies Congress’s scheme and leaves formula design to the legislature.
• Contends there is no double-counting because vote counting occurs once at the outset; subsequent allocations merely apply arithmetic to preserved vote totals.
• Argues the distinction between two-percenters and non-two-percenters justifies preferential treatment in seat distribution.
Supreme Court Majority Ruling on Reconsideration
• Denies reconsideration for lack of new arguments.
• Holds “one person, one vote” does not demand absolute proportionality in party-list apportionment and that wide legislative discretion applies.
• Affirms BANAT formula mirrors the sequential language of Section 11(b): first guarantee seats at 2%, then proportionally allocate additional seats with full votes intact.
• Rejects petitioners’ deduction proposal as lacking textual basis and amounting to judicial legislation.
• Upkeeps the 2019 seat‐allocation resolution under the unchanged statutory formula.
Concurring and Dissenting Views
Dissent (Chief Justice
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 246816)
Antecedents
- Petitioners ANGKLA and SBP sought reconsideration of the Court’s September 15, 2020 decision upholding the constitutionality of the proviso in Section 11(b) of R.A. 7941 after the May 13, 2019 party-list elections.
- The Court’s September 15, 2020 decision denied the Amended Petition and Petition-in-Intervention for lack of merit, declared Section 11(b) “not unconstitutional,” and affirmed COMELEC Resolution No. 004-19 declaring winning party-lists.
- The decision was furnished to Congress for possible legislative review of R.A. 7941, Section 11(b).
Challenged Provision
- Section 11(b), R.A. 7941 provides:
- Parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least 2% of party-list votes are entitled to one guaranteed seat.
- Proviso: those garnering more than 2% of the votes “shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes.”
- “Provided, finally, that each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three seats.”
Legal Framework and the BANAT Formula
- Constitution Art. VI, Secs. 5(1)–(2):
- House seats apportioned by district plus party-list system; 20% of seats reserved for party-list.
- Congress has wide discretion to prescribe party-list rules.
- BANAT v. COMELEC (2009) held unconstitutional the 2% threshold for additional seats but retained:
- Round 1: guaranteed seats for all “two-percenters.”
- Round 2, Part 1: multiply each party’s vote percentage by remaining seats; award whole-integer seats.
- Round 2, Part 2: allocate one seat each to the next highest vote-percent parties until exhaustion.
- Three-seat cap applies.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Second-round allocation double-counts votes already used to secure a g