Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v.

Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 179271 & 179295, [April 21, 2009], 604 PHIL
131-184
Principles/Articles

Facts
 In July and August 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, made a
partial proclamation of the winners in the party-list elections which was held in May 2007.
 In proclaiming the winners and apportioning their seats, the COMELEC considered the
following rules:
1. In the lower house, 80% shall comprise the seats for legislative districts, while the
remaining 20% shall come from party-list representatives (Sec. 5, Article VI, 1987
Constitution);
2. Pursuant to Sec. 11b of R.A. 7941 or the Party-List System Act, a party-list which garners
at least 2% of the total votes cast in the party-list elections shall be entitled to one seat;
3. If a party-list garners at least 4%, then it is entitled to 2 seats; if it garners at least 6%,
then it is entitled to 3 seats – this is pursuant to the 2-4-6 rule or the Panganiban Formula
from the case of Veterans Federation Party vs COMELEC.
4. In no way shall a party be given more than three seats even if garners more than 6% of
the votes cast for the party-list election (3 seat cap rule, same case).
 The Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), a party-list
candidate, questioned the proclamation as well as the formula being used. BANAT
averred that the 2% threshold is invalid; Sec. 11 of RA 7941 is void because its provision
that a party-list, to qualify for a congressional seat, must garner at least 2% of the votes cast
in the party-list election, is not supported by the Constitution. Further, the 2% rule creates a
mathematical impossibility to meet the 20% party-list seat prescribed by the Constitution.
 BANAT also questions if the 20% rule is a mere ceiling or is it mandatory . If it is
mandatory, then with the 2% qualifying vote, there would be instances when it would be
impossible to fill the prescribed 20% share of party-lists in the lower house. BANAT also
proposes a new computation (which shall be discussed in the “HELD” portion of this
digest).
 On the other hand, BAYAN MUNA, another party-list candidate, questions the validity
of the 3 seat rule (Section 11a of RA 7941). It also raised the issue of whether or not
major political parties are allowed to participate in the party-list elections or is the said
elections limited to sectoral parties.
Issues (W/N)
 Whether or not the twenty percent (20%) allocation for party-list representatives in Section
5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory.
 Whether or not the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 is constitutional.
 Whether or not the 2% threshold and “qualifier” votes prescribed by the same Sec 11(b)of
RA 7941 constitutional.
Ruling
1. NO. Neither the Constitution nor RA. 7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire 20%
allocation of party-list representatives found in the Constitution. 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. 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. Section 11b of RA 7941 is unconstitutional. There is no constitutional basis to allow
that only party-lists which garnered 2% of the votes cast are qualified for a seat and
those which garnered less than 2% are disqualified. We therefore strike down the two
percent threshold 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 of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.
Instead, the 2% rule should mean that if a party-list garners 2% of the votes cast, then it
is guaranteed a seat, and not “qualified”. This allows those party-lists garnering less than
2% to also get a seat.

No. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court continued to disallow major

political parties (the likes of UNIDO, LABAN, etc) from participating in the
party-list elections.

Although the ponencia (Justice Carpio) did point out that there is no
prohibition either from the Constitution or from RA 7941 against major
political parties from participating in the party-list elections as the word
“party” was not qualified and that even the framers of the Constitution in
their deliberations deliberately allowed major political parties to
participate in the party-list elections provided that they establish a
sectoral wing which represents the marginalized (indirect participation),
Justice Puno, in his separate opinion, concurred by 7 other justices,
explained that the will of the people defeats the will of the framers of
the Constitution precisely because it is the people who ultimately ratified
the Constitution – and the will of the people is that only the
marginalized sections of the country shall participate in the party-list
elections. Hence, major political parties cannot participate in the party-list
elections, directly or indirectly.

Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) vs COMELEC - Uber Digests