G.R. No. 246816 , December 7, 2021
ANGKLA: ANG PARTIDO NG MGA MARINONG PILIPINO, INC. (ANGKLA), AND SERBISYO SA BAYAN PARTY (SBP), PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (SITTING AS THE NATIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS), CHAIRMAN SHERIFF M. ABAS, COMMISSIONER AL A. PARREÑO, COMMISSIONER LUIE TITO F. GUIA, COMMISSIONER MA. ROWENA AMELIA V. GUANZON, COMMISSIONER SOCORRO B. INTING, COMMISSIONER MARLON S. CASQUEJO, AND COMMISSIONER ANTONIO T. KHO, JR., RESPONDENTS, AKSYON MAGSASAKA – PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA (AKMA-PTM) PETITIONER-IN-INTERVENTION.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration impugning the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 , specifically the portion stating that party-list groups garnering more than two percent of the votes are entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes. They argued this allocation method violates the “one person, one vote” policy under the equal protection clause. The Court, in its main decision, sustained the constitutionality of the provision and applied the BANAT Formula for seat allocation. Justice Dimaampao, in this Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurs with the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration but dissents regarding the application of the BANAT Formula in Round 2, Part 2.

ISSUE

Whether the BANAT Formula, particularly its application in Round 2, Part 2 for allocating additional party-list seats, accurately adheres to the principle of proportionality mandated by Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 .

RULING

Justice Dimaampao concurs with the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, agreeing with the ponencia that there is no unconstitutional double-counting of votes under the BANAT Formula, as votes are counted once for two different rounds with different purposes. However, he dissents on the application of Round 2, Part 2 of the BANAT Formula. He opines that the current method creates an inconsistency: party-list groups with a proportionate share (product) greater than one but with fractional seats (e.g., AKO BICOL with 1.9928) are precluded from Round 2, Part 2 allocation and do not get their fractional seats, while groups with a product of less than one (e.g., SENIOR CITIZENS with 0.9805) are considered “next in rank” and are granted one seat each. This result is antithetical to the principle of proportionality. He joins Justice Lopez’s proposal to apply the Niemeyer Formula uniformly to determine ranking for the allocation of the last remaining seats, which would correct the anomaly by awarding seats based on the highest fractional remainders, thereby ensuring a more proportional distribution without encroaching on legislative power.