In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act (RA) 7941, also known as the Party-List System Act, affirming the allocation of additional seats to party-list organizations based on their total number of votes, even if they already secured a guaranteed seat. The Court reasoned that all votes are counted equally, and the advantage given to two-percenters (parties garnering at least 2% of votes) reflects their broader mandate, thus not violating the equal protection clause. This decision clarifies the balance between proportional representation and the constitutional limits on the party-list system, setting the stage for future electoral contests.

Double-Counting Controversy: Does Party-List Seat Allocation Violate Equal Protection?

This case, ANGKLA: ANG PARTIDO NG MGA PILIPINONG MARINO, INC. (ANGKLA), AND SERBISYO SA BAYAN PARTY (SBP) VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, revolves around a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of RA 7941. Petitioners ANGKLA and SBP, along with AKMA-PTM, argued that the allocation of additional seats based on a party-list’s total votes leads to double-counting, as the same votes securing a guaranteed seat are considered again for additional seats. The petitioners claimed this violates the equal protection clause, seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from double-counting votes and proposing a framework where the 2% votes are excluded before allocating additional seats. They argued that the system gives undue advantage to two-percenters while disenfranchising other voters.

The petitioners anchored their arguments on the premise that each vote should carry equal weight, and that the retention of the 2% votes in the second round of seat allocation was unconstitutional. They asserted a violation of the “one person, one vote” principle, citing a dissenting opinion in Aquino III v. COMELEC, which emphasized equality in voting power. In response, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the COMELEC, contended that there is no double-counting of votes, as the system involves two different rounds for distinct purposes: ensuring representation for parties with sufficient constituencies and complying with the constitutional mandate of 20% party-list representation.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the COMELEC, finding no constitutional violation. While acknowledging the constitutional mandate of equal protection, the Court emphasized that it does not prevent reasonable legislative classifications. The Court stressed that the two-percenters and non-two-percenters have substantial distinctions in terms of the mandate of the electorate, and that Congress has the discretion to formulate the manner of allocating seats to qualified parties. Importantly, the votes were counted once, and the two-percenters are given an advantage justified by the established distinction.

The Court reiterated that the equal protection clause allows reasonable classification based on substantial distinctions. Citing Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, the Court emphasized that the 2% threshold is consistent with the intent of the framers and the essence of representation, mandating a sufficient number of people to enable meaningful representation. This differential treatment, therefore, does not offend the equal protection clause, as it is grounded in the rule of law.

The Court also addressed petitioners’ reliance on its Resolution in BANAT, clarifying that BANAT only declared the 2% threshold as unconstitutional insofar as it makes it the exclusive basis for computing the grant of additional seats, but it did not remove the distinction between two-percenters and non-two-percenters. Crucially, the Court’s exercise of judicial review requires compliance with requisites, including that the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Here, the Court found that petitioners, having previously benefited from the BANAT doctrine, failed to raise their constitutional challenge promptly, further weakening their case.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the issue’s transcendental importance, potentially altering the political landscape and steering State policy towards broader party-list representation. While some justices dissented and advocated for alternative formulas for party-list seat allocation, the Court ultimately affirmed its previous rulings, emphasizing that policy determinations are within the domain of the political branches, not the judiciary. Thus, the Supreme Court may only declare what the law is, not what it should be.

However, as the Members of the Court voted 7-3-3-1, this ponencia could hardly be considered a clear victory in favor of respondents. Seven (7) Members of the Court voted to dismiss the petition while seven (7) opined that Section 1 l(b) of RA 7941 vis-a-vis BANAT ought to be partly nullified. Three (3) of these dissenters adopted petitioners’ proposed formula, three others adopted a different formula, and one (1) adopted still another formula. In fine, the dissenters are also dissenting among themselves on the “correct” formula to be adopted should the Court grant the petition.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the allocation of additional seats in the party-list system, based on the total number of votes, violates the equal protection clause by allegedly double-counting votes in favor of parties with at least 2% of the total vote.
What is the equal protection clause?	It is a constitutional guarantee under Section 1, Article III, which mandates that all persons be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
What is the two-percent threshold in the party-list system?	It is a requirement under RA 7941, Section 11(b), where parties, organizations, and coalitions must receive at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system to be entitled to one seat each.
What did the petitioners want the Court to do?	The petitioners wanted the Court to declare unconstitutional the phrase providing additional seats “in proportion to their total number of votes” and to order the COMELEC to exclude the 2% votes before proceeding to the second round of seat allocation.
What was the Court’s ruling on the issue of double counting?	The Court ruled that there was no double counting of votes, as the two rounds of seat allocation serve different purposes and involve different formulas, and all votes are counted and considered only once.
Why did the Court rule that there was no violation of the equal protection clause?	The Court stated that the two-percenters have a clearer mandate of the people, justifying additional rights and benefits to them, as there is a substantial distinction between them and the non-two-percenters.
What is the BANAT formula?	The BANAT formula is the prevailing procedure used for allocating party-list seats, involving two rounds: allocating one guaranteed seat to two-percenters and allocating additional seats to all participants proportional to their total votes.
Did the Court change the BANAT formula?	No, the Court maintained the BANAT formula, finding no reason to deviate from it. However, some Justices offered dissenting opinions proposing alternative formulas to address concerns about proportionality.
What is the practical effect of this ruling?	The ruling maintains the status quo in the party-list system, where parties with at least 2% of the votes gain a distinct advantage in seat allocation, underscoring their broader electoral support compared to those without said threshold.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the established method of party-list seat allocation in the Philippines, affirming the legislature’s authority to set the rules within constitutional limits. While challenges persist regarding fairness and proportionality, the Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to established legal doctrines. The ruling emphasizes the balance between ensuring broad representation and recognizing the mandate of parties with significant electoral support. To better serve its purpose, the Court suggests a review of the law.

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: ANGKLA: ANG PARTIDO NG MGA PILIPINONG MARINO, INC. (ANGKLA), AND SERBISYO SA BAYAN PARTY (SBP) VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 246816, September 15, 2020