G.R. No. 246816 , September 15, 2020
Angkla: Ang Partido ng mga Pilipinong Marino, Inc. (Angkla), and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party (SBP), Petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections (Sitting as the National Board of Canvassers), et al., Respondents. Aksyon Magsasaka – Tinig Partido ng Masa (AKMA-PTM), Petitioner-in-Intervention.

FACTS

Petitioners Angkla, SBP, and AKMA-PTM assailed the COMELEC’s NBOC Resolution No. 004-19, which proclaimed the winning party-list groups in the 2019 elections. The allocation of seats followed the formula established in the BANAT v. COMELEC case. Under this formula, a party-list group garnering at least 2% of the total votes is guaranteed one seat. Groups exceeding 2% are then allocated additional seats based on a proportional distribution of their total votes, subject to the three-seat cap.
Petitioners, who did not secure seats, argued that the BANAT formula violates the equal protection clause. They contended that the system permits “double counting” of votes for parties that surpass the 2% threshold. Specifically, the same votes used to grant the first guaranteed seat are again used in the proportional computation for additional seats. They claimed this unfairly advantages larger parties over those receiving less than 2% of the vote, like themselves. They proposed that for purposes of allocating additional seats, the 2% of votes corresponding to the first guaranteed seat should first be deducted from a qualifying party’s total votes.

ISSUE

Whether the seat allocation formula under Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act), as interpreted in BANAT v. COMELEC, violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by allowing the “double counting” of votes for parties that exceed the 2% threshold.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Gesmundo voted to grant the petition. The core of his legal reasoning was that the BANAT formula creates a constitutionally infirm classification. The law distinguishes between two classes of votes: those cast for parties that reach the 2% threshold and those cast for parties that do not. For the first class, votes are counted twice—first for the guaranteed seat and again for additional seats. For the second class, votes are only counted once and may ultimately be disregarded if the party fails to secure a seat. This differential treatment, according to the dissent, lacks a substantial distinction that is germane to the purpose of the party-list system, which is to promote proportional representation.
The dissent found that this mechanism artificially inflates the voting power for certain sectors, thereby distorting the principle of proportionality. It concluded that the phrase “in proportion to their total number of votes” in Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional as applied under the BANAT formula. Justice Gesmundo proposed an alternative formula where the 2% votes for the first seat are excluded from the computation for additional seats to ensure strict proportionality and equal weight for every vote. He voted to set aside the COMELEC resolution and urged Congress to refine the law.