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 ANGKLA and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party (SBP) filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 15, 2020 Decision which upheld the constitutionality of the proviso in Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act). The challenged proviso states that party-lists garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes “shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes.” The Court’s assailed decision applied the seat allocation formula established in *Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC)*. Petitioners argue that this formula, specifically in the second round of allocation where all votes (including those already used to award a guaranteed seat in the first round) are again used to allocate additional seats, violates the “one person, one vote” policy and the equal protection clause. They claim this constitutes double counting, diluting the weight of votes for non-two-percenters. Petitioners propose an alternative formula where votes equivalent to 2% are deducted from two-percenters before allocating additional seats. They seek to nullify the seat allocation for the May 13, 2019 elections. Respondent COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that the Court correctly applied the law’s intent, that there is no double counting as there is only one round of vote counting for ranking, and that the distinction between two-percenters and non-two-percenters justifies the preference.

ISSUE

Does the proviso in Section 11(b) of RA 7941, as implemented through the BANAT formula, violate the “one person, one vote” policy and the equal protection clause?

RULING

The Court denied the motion for reconsideration. The majority held that petitioners’ arguments had already been fully deliberated upon and remained unconvinced. The ruling clarified that the “one person, one vote” principle, as discussed in Aquino III v. COMELEC, primarily applies to legislative apportionment to ensure equal representation based on population, not to the party-list system’s seat allocation formula. The party-list system is designed to promote proportional representation for marginalized sectors, not pure numerical equality of votes. The Court found no double counting, as the BANAT formula involves only one counting and ranking of votes at the outset; the subsequent rounds are merely mathematical computations for seat allocation based on that single ranking. The distinction between two-percenters and non-two-percenters is substantial and reasonable, justifying the preference given to two-percenters in the allocation of additional seats. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the proviso and consequently affirmed the validity of National Board of Canvassers Resolution No. 004-19 declaring the winning party-list groups in the May 13, 2019 elections.