b.

Party-list reps
Banat v Comelec
G.R. No. 179271
April 21, 2009

The two percent threshold in relation to the distribution of the additional seats is
unconstitutional. 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.

Facts:
In May 2007 election, Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT) filed before the National Board of Canvassers (NBC) a petition
to proclaim the full member of party list representatives provided by the Constitution;
that Section 11(b) of RA 7941 which prescribes the 2% threshold votes, should be
harmonized with Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution and with Section 12 of RA 7941
and should be applicable only to the first party-list representative seats to be allotted on
the basis of their initial/first ranking; that the 3-seat limit prescribed by RA 7941 shall be
applied; and that the formula/procedure prescribed in the allocation of party-list seats,
Annex A of Comelec Res. 2847 shall be used for the purpose of determining how many
seats shall be proclaimed, which party-list groups are entitled to representative seats
and how many of their nominees shall seat. However, COMELEC denied the same for
being moot and academic. It announced that it would determine the total number of
seats of each winning party, organization, or coalition in accordance with Veterans
Federation Party v. COMELEC formula.
Subsequently, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC to
reconsider its decision to use the Veterans formula because the Veterans formula is
violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the twenty percent allocation for party list representatives in Section
5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory.
2. Whether or not the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 is constitutional.
3. Whether or not the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 in
allocation of additional seats is constitutional.

Ruling:

1. NO. Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire 20%
allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives
cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House Representatives. However, we
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.
2. YES. 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. NO. We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of
R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold 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 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 Representatives shall consist of party-list
representatives.