BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR

NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND

TRANSPARENCY (BANAT)
vs.
COMELEC

G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009 & July 8, 2009 (Clarification)
FACTS (APRIL 21, 2009)
During the May 2007 Election, BANAT filed before the COMELEC a Petition to
Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representative Provided by the Constitution. The
petition was filed as against the resolution that the winning party list will be resolved
using the Veterans ruling.

Because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical interpretation of the
term "proportional representation," the Supreme Court was compelled to revisit the
formula for the allocation of additional seats to party-list organizations.
FACTS (APRIL 21, 2009)
The Supreme Court examined what R.A. No. 7941 prescribes to allocate seats for
party-list representatives.

- Section 11(a) of R.A. No. 7941 prescribes the ranking of the participating parties
from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the
elections.

- The first clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 states that "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 seat each." This clause guarantees a seat to the
two-percenters.
FACTS (APRIL 21, 2009)
- 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.
FACTS (APRIL 21, 2009)
FACTS (APRIL 21, 2009)
MAY 2007 ELECTION:

No. of Legislative District = 220

20% seat reserved for Party-List Representatives = 55

Veterans Ruling = 19 Party-List Representatives

ISSUES (APRIL 21, 2009)
Whether or not the two percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list
seats prescribed in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
RULING (APRIL 21, 2009)
No. The Supreme Court rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the
continued operation of the two percent 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.

This Court finds that the two percent 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.
RULING (APRIL 21, 2009)
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are 50 million
votes cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections. A party that has two percent of
the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the
first 50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability
of 55 seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will repeat
itself even if we increase the available party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase
the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of parties get two
percent of the votes for every party, it is always impossible for the number of occupied
party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present.
RULING (APRIL 21, 2009)
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."
JULY 8, 2009: CLARIFICATION
RULING (CLARIFICATION)
To summarize, there are four parameters in a Philippine-style party-list election system:

1. Twenty percent of the total number of the membership of the House of

Representatives is the maximum number of seats available to party-list
organizations, such that there is automatically one party-list seat for every four
existing legislative districts.

2. Garnering two percent of the total votes cast in the party-list elections
guarantees a party-list organization one seat. The guaranteed seats shall be
distributed in a first round of seat allocation to parties receiving at least two
percent of the total party-list votes.
RULING (CLARIFICATION)
3. The additional seats, that is, the remaining seats after allocation of the
guaranteed seats, shall be distributed to the party-list organizations including
those that received less than two percent of the total votes. The continued
operation of the two percent threshold as it applies to the allocation of the
additional seats is now unconstitutional because this threshold mathematically and
physically prevents the filling up of the available party-list seats. The additional
seats shall be distributed to the parties in a second round of seat allocation
according to the two-step procedure laid down in the Decision of 21 April 2009 as
clarified in this Resolution.
RULING (CLARIFICATION)
4. The three-seat cap is constitutional. The three-seat cap is intended by the
Legislature to prevent any party from dominating the party-list system. There is
no violation of the Constitution because the 1987 Constitution does not require
absolute proportionality for the party-list system. The well-settled rule is that
courts will not question the wisdom of the Legislature as long as it is not violative
of the Constitution.

These four parameters allow the mathematical and practical fulfillment of the
Constitutional provision that party-list representatives shall comprise twenty percent of the
members of the House of Representatives. At the same time, these four parameters uphold
as much as possible the Party-List Act, striking down only that provision of the Party-List
Act that could not be reconciled anymore with the 1987 Constitution.
THE END
GABRIEL R. BALONZO
JD 1