Case Summary (G.R. No. 246816)
Key Dates
• May 13, 2019: Party-list elections held.
• May 22, 2019: NBOC Resolution No. 004-19 proclaimed 61 winning party-list groups.
• September 15, 2020: Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 5(1)–(2) (20% party-list allocation).
• Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act), Section 11(b) (2% threshold; additional seats “in proportion to their total number of votes”; 3-seat cap).
• COMELEC Resolution No. 2847 (implementing rules).
• Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC (2000) – four inviolable parameters.
• BANAT v. COMELEC (2009) – voided 2% threshold for additional seats; adopted two-round allocation.
Procedural History
- Petitioners challenged NBOC Resolution No. 004-19 and Section 11(b) of RA 7941 via petitions for certiorari and prohibition, plus motion-in-intervention.
- They sought to enjoin double-counting of the same 2% votes in both rounds of seat allocation and to have the first-round votes deducted before the second round.
- COMELEC and OSG defended the two-round formula adopted in BANAT and NBOC’s application of it.
Petitioners’ Arguments
• Section 11(b)’s phrase “in proportion to their total number of votes” double-counts votes that already secured the guaranteed 2% seat, violating equal protection and “one person, one vote.”
• The Court’s 2009 BANAT Resolution forbids double-counting; NBOC failed to follow it.
• Remedy: Deduct each party’s 2% guaranteed votes before computing additional seats.
Respondents’ Arguments
• No double-counting: two separate rounds serve distinct purposes—2% threshold vs. filling the 20% cap.
• The Legislature may validly distinguish two-percenters (clearer mandate) from non-two-percenters.
• BANAT formula remains binding; petitioners misread BANAT.
• Party-list seats are not reserved exclusively for the marginalized; broad participation is lawful.
Issue
Is the proviso in Section 11(b) of RA 7941—entitling parties garnering over 2% of party-list votes to additional seats in proportion to their total votes—unconstitutional under the equal protection clause?
Court’s Ruling
The petitions are DENIED. Section 11(b)’s two-round formula (as clarified in BANAT) is NOT unconstitutional.
• Procedural: Petitioners had standing and a live controversy, but failed the “earliest opportunity” test and are estopped, having benefited from prior applications of BANAT.
• Substantive: No grave abuse of discretion. Two rounds use different formulas and rational classifications. First round implements the 2% threshold; second fills the 20% cap via proportional calculation to total votes. Each vote is counted once in each round’s context. The distinction between two-percenters and non-two-percenters is substantial and fits congressional policy.
Seat Allocation under BANAT Formula
- First round: Each party with ≥ 2% of total party-list votes receives one (1) guaranteed seat.
- Sec
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 246816)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners ANGKLA and SBP filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, assailing Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 and COMELEC’s 22 May 2019 NBOC Resolution No. 004-19.
- Petitioner-in-intervention AKMA-PTM joined the main petition on similar grounds.
- The COMELEC, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, had proclaimed the winners of the 13 May 2019 party-list elections and allocated 61 seats among party-list groups.
- Petitioners lost in 2019; they challenge the formula that guaranteed seats and allocated “additional seats” proportionally to total votes garnered.
Statutory and Constitutional Framework
- 1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 5(1)–(2):
• House of Representatives composition includes 20% party-list representatives.
• For three terms, half of party-list seats to be reserved for specified sectors. - Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act):
• Section 10: two votes per voter—one for a district candidate and one for a party-list.
• Section 11(b): requires (1) 2% threshold for one guaranteed seat, (2) additional seats “in proportion to their total number of votes,” (3) three-seat cap.
• Section 12: COMELEC to rank and allocate seats proportionately against total party-list votes.
Legislative Intent and Deliberations
- Framers envisioned a “party-list system” to open representation to marginalized/underrepresented interests without segregated reserved seats.
- Proposed to cap seats per party and set a minimum vote threshold so that only parties with sufficient national support gain seats.
- Debates in the Constitutional Commission emphasized:
• Avoiding “double voting” or “overrepresentation” of any group.
• Ensuring proportional representation close to actual vote shares.
• Preventing fragmentation by capping seats per party.
Evolution of Jurisprudence on Formula
- Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC (2000):
• Confirmed four parameters: 20% cap, 2% threshold, three-seat limit, and proportionality to total votes.
• Introduced the so-called “First Party Rule” and use of party-with-highest-votes as divisor. - Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW v. COMELEC (2001) and subsequent cases refined proportionality but retained 2% threshold for additional seats.
- BANAT v. COMELEC (2009):
• Declared unconstitutional the 2% threshold as exclusive basis for additional seats because it prevented filling the 20% ceiling when seats > 50.
• Adopted a two-round, two-step formula:- Round 1 (First Clause): guarantee one seat each to parties with ≥ 2% of party-list votes.
- Round 2, Part 1 (First Proviso): multiply each party’s full vote share by remaining seats; allocate whole-integer seats.
- Round 2, Part 2 (Second Proviso): disregard fractional parts in Part 1, then assign one seat each to next-ranked parties—two-percenters and non-two-percenters—until seats exhausted.
• Maintained three-seat limit.
Petitioners’ Core Contentions
- Section 11(b) as applied double-counts votes of “two-percenters”:
• First round uses 2% votes to guarantee one se