BANAT vs.

COMELEC
GR No. 179271 and 179295, April 21, 2009, Carpio, J.

Sara Marpuri Law 121 – Constitutional Law Group B5

FACTS
 On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List
Representatives Provided by the Constitution, before the National Board of Canvassers
(NBC). BANAT filed its petition because “[t]he Chairman and the Members of the
[COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papers that the [COMELEC] is
duty bound to and shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the
Panganiban formula in allocating party-list seats.”
 On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, resolved to partially proclaim 13
parties as winners in the party-list elections. The parties, organizations, and coalitions
were already entitled to 1 seat after having received at least 2% of the total votes cast
for the party-list system, as prescribed by Sec. 11(b) of RA 7941.
 The total number of seats of each winning party, organization or coalition shall be
determined pursuant to Veterans Federation Party versus COMELEC formula
(Panganiban formula) upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results. The
additional seats for the 13 qualified parties were also allocated based on the formula as
expressed in Veterans.
 Acting on BANAT’s petition, the NBC promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-88 which
denies the petition of BANAT for being moot and academic. This is due to the fact that
they have already resolved among others that the total number of seats of each winning
party, organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant to the Veterans Federation
Party versus COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results.
 BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC
Resolution No. 07-88.
 On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC,
to reconsider its decision to use the Veterans formula as stated in its NBC Resolution No.
07-60 because the Veterans formula is violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act
No. 7941.

ISSUES/HELD
1. WON the 20% allocation for party-list representatives in Sec. 5(2), Art. VI of the
Constitution is mandatory or merely a ceiling. CEILING ONLY
2. WON the 3-seat limit in Sec. 11(b) of RA 7941 is constitutional. YES
3. WON the 2% threshold prescribed in Sec. 11(b) of RA 7941 to qualify for additional seats
is constitutional. NO
4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated. SEE RATIO
5. WON the Constitution prohibits major political parties from participating in the party-list
elections. NO but the Court decided to continue disallowing major political parties
RATIONALE
1. Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire 20%
allocation of party-list representatives found in the Constitution.
 The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI, left the determination of
the number of the members of the House of Representatives to Congress: “The
House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and
fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, x x x.”
 The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list
representatives cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives.
2. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a qualified party-list
organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that prevents any party from
dominating the party-list elections.
3. The 2% threshold prescribed in Sec. 11(b) of RA 7941 to qualify for additional seats is
unconstitutional.
 Sec. 11(b) of RA 7941 states that the parties, organizations, and coalitions
receiving at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be
entitled to one seat each. This has not been contested and shall remain in force.
 But the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that “those
garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional
seats in proportion to their total number of votes.” This is where petitioners’ and
intervenors’ problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets the
clause “in proportion to their total number of votes” to be in proportion to the
votes of the first party. This interpretation is contrary to the express language of
R.A. No. 7941.
 The Court held that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the
continued operation of the 2% threshold for the distribution of the additional
seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is
unconstitutional. It also finds that the 2% threshold makes it mathematically
impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when
the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of
the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates
the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House
of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.
 As such, the 2% threshold in relation to the distribution of the additional seats is
struck down because it presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full
implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the
attainment of “the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group
interests in the House of Representatives.”
  The Court stated that it cannot allow the continued existence of a provision in
the law which will systematically prevent the constitutionally allocated 20%
party-list representatives from being filled.
4. In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11 of
R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:
1) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the
lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
2) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of
the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed
seat each.
3) Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4) Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3)
seats.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included
because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter.
Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as “additional seats” are the maximum
seats reserved (55 seats) under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats (17
seats). All of the remaining 38 seats were distributed as additional seats in the second
round of allocation. Since the 2% threshold was declared unconstitutional, the Court did
not limit its allocation of additional seats to the two-percenters. After the 3-seat cap is
applied, all 55 available partylist seats are ultimately filled.
2. Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political parties from
participating in the party-list system.
 The Constitutional Commission adopted a multi-party system that allowed all
political parties to participate in the party-list elections. The deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission clearly bear this out.
 However, 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.