G.R. No. 179271 and G.R. No. 179295, July 8, 2009
BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. BAYAN MUNA, et al., Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

FACTS

This is a Resolution resolving motions for clarification and partial reconsideration following the Court’s landmark Decision of April 21, 2009, which laid down new parameters for the party-list system. The House of Representatives intervened, seeking clarification on several points arising from the application of the new formula. Key issues included the correct number of legislative districts (219, not 220, following the annulment of Shariff Kabunsuan’s creation), the consequent number of available party-list seats, and whether the 250-member constitutional cap for the House would be breached by seating 55 party-list winners. The Commission on Elections also submitted updated data, adjusting the total party-list votes.
Furthermore, the House questioned the Court’s interpretation of “additional seats” and whether the minimum 2% vote threshold was entirely abandoned. An intervenor, a nominee from CIBAC, also filed a motion alleging that the new seat distribution formula deprived parties with larger votes of due process and equal protection, as it allocated seats to groups that did not meet the 2% threshold.

ISSUE

The primary issue for resolution was the proper application of the Court’s newly promulgated formula for allocating party-list seats in the 2007 elections, specifically in light of updated factual data and constitutional constraints on the size of the House of Representatives.

RULING

The Court clarified and affirmed its ruling. First, it confirmed that for the 2007 elections, there were 219 legislative districts, not 220. Applying the constitutional mandate that party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent of the total House membership, the total number of seats available for party-list representatives was 55. This is derived from the formula: 219 (district seats) / 80% = 273.75 (total House seats), with 20% of that total being 54.75, rounded to 55 seats. The 250-member constitutional ceiling is not a mandatory cap but a maximum limit that can be exceeded by subsequent law; the current composition is based on the constitutional formula, not a violation of it.
Second, the Court reiterated that the 2% threshold is unconstitutional only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats (the second seat and potential third seat). A party remains entitled to its first seat only if it obtains at least 2% of the total party-list votes. The term “additional seats” refers to the second and third seats a qualified party may win. The principle from the Veterans case—that filling all allowable party-list seats is not mandatory—was modified; the Court’s new formula aims to maximize the allocation and fill up the available seats to approach the full 20% constitutional allocation as closely as possible. The updated computation from the Comelec was adopted, and the allocation of seats was recalculated accordingly, with the winning parties enumerated in the resolution.