The Supreme Court’s decision in Arangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) vs. Commission on Elections redefines the allocation of seats in the party-list system. By striking down the two percent threshold for additional seats, the Court ensures broader representation in Congress. This ruling mandates a fairer distribution of seats, allowing more marginalized groups to have a voice in the legislature, enhancing the democratic process in the Philippines.

Unlocking Congress: Can Major Parties and Marginalized Voices Coexist in the Party-List System?

The 2007 Philippine elections saw challenges to the party-list system, particularly concerning the allocation of seats and the participation of major political parties. Several petitions were filed questioning the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. No. 7941), the Party-List System Act. These petitions aimed to clarify whether the 20% allocation for party-list representatives is mandatory, the constitutionality of the three-seat limit, and the two percent threshold. At the heart of the controversy was the allocation method, specifically whether it adhered to the principle of proportional representation as mandated by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in resolving these consolidated cases, affirmed the core principles of the party-list system but introduced significant modifications to ensure fairer representation. The Court maintained that the allocation of seats must adhere to four inviolable parameters outlined in the Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC case. These parameters include the 20% allocation for party-list representatives, the two percent threshold to qualify for a seat, the three-seat limit per qualified party, and proportional representation in the allocation of additional seats. However, the Court found fault with the formula used in Veterans, particularly its interpretation of “proportional representation.” The Court held that the Veterans formula disproportionately favored the leading party, deviating from the statutory intent of R.A. No. 7941.

A key point of contention was the two percent threshold for additional seats. The Court declared the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of additional seats as unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that this threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party-list seats when that number exceeds 50. This limitation, the Court asserted, frustrates the attainment of the constitutional goal that 20% of the House of Representatives should consist of party-list representatives. To remedy this, the Court struck down the two percent threshold, but only concerning the distribution of additional seats, aiming to facilitate a more equitable distribution.

The Court then prescribed a revised procedure for allocating seats under the party-list system. This procedure involves ranking parties from highest to lowest based on garnered votes, granting a guaranteed seat to parties receiving at least two percent of total votes, and allocating additional seats proportionally. This proportional allocation continues until all additional seats are distributed, subject to the three-seat cap per party. The Court emphasized that, in calculating additional seats, guaranteed seats should not be included to ensure a fair allocation based on actual votes received beyond the threshold.

The decision also addressed the controversial issue of major political parties’ participation in the party-list system. Despite the constitutional commission’s allowance for all political parties to participate in the party-list elections, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list elections, directly or indirectly. The Court’s reasoning was grounded in the intent to prioritize marginalized and underrepresented sectors, preventing the party-list system from being dominated by established political forces.

In summary, the Court’s decision in BANAT v. COMELEC refines the party-list system to better reflect proportional representation. The Court’s methodology to seat allocation addresses the earlier mathematical improbabilities inherent to the system. The Court’s disallowance of major political parties is rooted in its intention of serving and protecting the interest of the marginalized and underrepresented sector.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was the constitutionality and proper implementation of the party-list system, particularly regarding the allocation of seats and the participation of major political parties. The petitioners questioned the two percent threshold and the formula used to allocate additional seats.
What is the two percent threshold in the party-list system?	The two percent threshold refers to the requirement that a party must receive at least two percent of the total votes cast in the party-list election to be entitled to a seat in the House of Representatives. This threshold ensures that only parties with a significant level of support gain representation.
Why did the Supreme Court strike down the two percent threshold for additional seats?	The Court found that the two percent threshold for additional seats made it mathematically impossible to fill all available party-list seats. The Court reasoned that this threshold limited the constitutional mandate to have 20% of the House of Representatives composed of party-list representatives.
How does the new formula for allocating seats work?	The new formula involves first allocating one guaranteed seat to each party that meets the two percent threshold. Then, remaining seats are allocated proportionally based on the votes received by each party, without reapplying the two percent threshold, until all seats are filled, subject to the three-seat cap.
Are major political parties allowed to participate in the party-list system?	No, the Court disallowed major political parties from participating in the party-list elections, directly or indirectly. This decision aims to prioritize the representation of marginalized and underrepresented sectors, preventing the party-list system from being dominated by established political forces.
What is the three-seat cap in the party-list system?	The three-seat cap is a limitation on the number of seats that any single qualified party-list organization can occupy in the House of Representatives. Regardless of the number of votes a party receives, it cannot hold more than three seats.
What is the significance of proportional representation in the party-list system?	Proportional representation ensures that the number of seats a party receives is proportional to the number of votes it receives. The system aims to provide fairer representation to various groups, even those without broad, nationwide appeal.
How does this ruling impact marginalized and underrepresented sectors?	By striking down the two percent threshold for additional seats and maintaining the exclusion of major political parties, the ruling enhances the opportunity for marginalized and underrepresented sectors to gain representation in Congress. This ruling facilitates greater diversity and inclusivity in the legislature.

The BANAT v. COMELEC decision marks a significant step towards a more equitable and representative party-list system in the Philippines. By refining the seat allocation process and upholding the intent to empower marginalized sectors, the Supreme Court reaffirms its commitment to social justice and democratic principles. The long-term impact will depend on the faithful implementation of the new guidelines and continued vigilance against attempts to undermine the system’s core objectives.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: BANAT vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009