Title
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 Summary (G.R. No. 246816)

Petitioners’ Detailed Allegation and Proposed Remedy

Petitioners proposed: (1) rank parties by votes; (2) award one guaranteed seat to each party with at least 2% of party‑list votes; (3) deduct from each two‑percenter the votes equivalent to 2% (the votes already used to secure the guaranteed seat); (4) re‑rank parties based on the recomputed totals; and (5) allocate the remaining seats proportionally to the recomputed votes (subject to the three‑seat cap). They argued this prevents double‑counting and yields fairer distribution, asserting consistency with the Court’s BANAT Resolution.

Respondent COMELEC / OSG Position

COMELEC (through the OSG) defended the BANAT formula and COMELEC Resolution No. 004‑19 on several grounds: (a) there is no double‑counting because the two rounds serve distinct purposes (first: apply the 2% threshold and guarantee seats; second: ensure the constitutional 20% party‑list composition by proportional distribution); (b) the differential treatment of two‑percenters and non‑two‑percenters is justified — the former have a clearer mandate; (c) BANAT’s approach (as clarified) does not support petitioners’ deduction proposal; and (d) Congress may legitimately design the party‑list mechanics to maximize representation and to prevent domination by any single party (three‑seat cap, two‑tier allocation).

Jurisdictional and Procedural Thresholds Considered by the Court

The Court reviewed the requisites for judicial review — actual case or controversy, standing, earliest‑opportunity (preservation) rule, and whether the constitutional question is the lis mota. The ponencia found: (a) actual controversy and standing existed because COMELEC had already proclaimed winners (Resolution No. 004‑19) and petitioners claimed direct injury; (b) the “earliest opportunity” requirement weighed against petitioners because RA 7941 and its interpretation had been litigated and settled in prior cases (including BANAT) and petitioners had previously benefited from the BANAT/Veterans regime in earlier elections (ANGKLA and SBP had previously been proclaimed winners under the same approach), thus their present challenge came “too late” and raised estoppel/clean‑hands concerns; (c) notwithstanding procedural issues, the Court acknowledged the constitutional question was indeed the core of the controversy.

Core Ruling — Disposition and Holding

The petitions were DENIED. The Supreme Court declared that Section 11(b) of RA 7941, as interpreted and applied under the BANAT framework (i.e., awarding additional seats “in proportion to their total number of votes” using the two‑round method), is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Court UPHELD NBOC Resolution No. 004‑19 (the 2019 party‑list proclamations). The Court also recommended that Congress review RA 7941, specifically Section 11(b), to resolve recurring allocation ambiguities.

Reasoning — Procedural and Equitable Grounds

  • Earliest opportunity / estoppel / clean hands: The ponencia emphasized that the petitioners had in previous elections benefited from the same allocation method and did not timely object to it; equity and estoppel counseled against allowing litigants to accept a rule when favorable and attack it when unfavorable. The Court stressed jurisprudence requiring a party to raise constitutional objections at an early opportunity and invoked equitable doctrines (estoppel by silence, unclean hands) to deny relief where petitioners had acquiesced and benefited.
  • Notwithstanding procedural posture, the Court proceeded to address the merits due to the issue’s broad public importance.

Reasoning — Substantive Law: Equal Protection and “One Person, One Vote”

  • The Court rejected petitioners’ double‑counting theory. It explained each vote is counted once in the underlying tally; the two rounds serve distinct constitutional and statutory objectives: Round 1 operationalizes the statutory 2% threshold (guaranteed seat for those with a constituency), while Round 2 operationalizes the constitutional objective that party‑list membership constitute 20% of the House, by allocating remaining seats proportionally to vote shares.
  • The equal protection analysis: classification between two‑percenters and non‑two‑percenters is sustainable because it rests on a substantial distinction — two‑percenters have a more definitive mandate of the electorate. The 2% rule, the three‑seat cap, and the two‑tier allocation were deemed rationally related to legitimate legislative goals (meaningful representation; prevention of domination by a single party; broadest possible representation).
  • The Court held that absolute proportionality (award seats from the outset strictly by seat = votes/total votes × seats) is not required by the Constitution; Congress has broad discretion in designing the mechanics. Thus petitioners’ proposed deduction of the 2% votes before Round 2 would improperly alter Congress’s chosen balance and, arguably, undermine the representational advantage legitimately conferred on two‑percenters.

Precedent Synthesis: Veterans → BANAT → Post‑BANAT Application

  • Veterans (2000) articulated four parameters (20% cap; 2% threshold; 3‑seat cap; proportionality for additional seats) and originally applied a formula that restricted additional seats to two‑percenters.
  • BANAT (2009) held that retaining the 2% threshold as an exclusive basis for additional seat allocation could make it mathematically impossible to fill the 20% allotment; BANAT therefore opened the second round to all parties while preserving the first‑round 2% guarantee. BANAT set the two‑step second round: (1) multiply each party’s vote percentage by the remaining available seats and allocate whole integer seats; (2) distribute remaining seats one by one by ranking fractional remainders, until seats are exhausted; still observe the three‑seat cap.
  • The Court explained BANAT did not eliminate the distinction between two‑percenters and non‑two‑percenters — the 2% guarantee remains intact — and that BANAT’s reproportioning in the second round necessarily continues to use the parties’ total votes as the proportional index.

Treatment of Petitioners’ “Double‑Counting” Argument and BANAT Clarification

  • Petitioners’ central claim — that the same votes are counted twice — was addressed: the Court observed that votes are tallied only once (the initial raw vote count), but they may be used in distinct computations serving distinct allocation purposes. The Court found no constitutional infirmity in that arithmetic process.
  • The Court clarified that while BANAT refers to subtracting guaranteed seats from the pool of available seats, the proportionality multiplier in the first step of the second round still uses each party’s percentage of the total party‑list votes (i.e., BANAT did not require that the 2% be subtracted from a party’s vote percentage before the first step of the second round computation). The 2% deduction appears only in the second step for ranking fractional remainders to decide which parties obtain the last seats — not as a global subtraction before computing parties’ whole‑integer shares in the remaining seats.

Practical Result — Application to the 2019 Canvass

  • Applying the BANAT approach, COMELEC’s NBOC Resolution No. 004‑19 was held valid; seat allocations declared therein were sustained. Petitioners’ requested re‑allocation (which would have given ANGKLA, SBP, AKMA‑PTM and AKBAYAN seats at the expense of certain two‑percenters) was rejected.

Vote, Separate Opinions and Notable Concurrences/Dissents

  • The Court’s vote reflects deep division: decision sustained with multiple separate opinions and significant disagreement about the optimal methodological and policy approach. The opinion notes a multi‑split vote characterized as 7‑3‑3‑1 in which (broadly) seven members voted to dismiss the petition and uphold the BANAT approach, while others would have modified or invalidated parts of Section 11(b) or adopted alternative seat‑allocation formulas.
  • Separate writings:
    • Justice Perlas‑Bernabe (concurring) agreed in result, emphasized constitutional and statutory deference to Congress and defended BANAT’s reflection of the statutory text and policy aims; she preferred resolving the case on the merits rather than sole reliance on procedural grounds.
    • Justice Leonen (concurring) likewise agreed in result and discussed conceptual policy and operational benchmarks for the party‑list system beyond mere nume
    ...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