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-list groups 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 allocate a guaranteed seat in the first round) are considered for allocating additional seats, violates the “one person, one vote” principle and the equal protection clause. They claim this constitutes double counting of votes, effectively diluting the weight of votes for non-two-percenters. Petitioners propose an alternative formula where votes equivalent to 2% are deducted from the total votes of two-percenters before the allocation of 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 ensure equal representation for equal numbers of people within legislative districts, a context distinct from the party-list system which is designed to promote proportional representation for marginalized sectors. The Court found no violation of the equal protection clause, as the law provides a reasonable classification between party-list groups that obtain at least 2% of the votes (entitled to a guaranteed seat) and those that do not. The allocation of additional seats based on a party’s total votes is consistent with the proportional representation objective of the party-list system. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the proviso and the BANAT formula, and consequently sustained the validity of the seat allocation for the May 13, 2019 elections.