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, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners challenged the seat allocation formula used by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for the party-list system in the 2019 elections. They argued that the prevailing BANAT formula, which involves multiple rounds of computation to distribute seats, resulted in an unconstitutional double-counting of votes. The petitioners sought a recalculation and a re-proclamation of winning party-list groups.
The case reached the Supreme Court, which rendered a Decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. This digest focuses on the separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.

ISSUE

Whether the BANAT formula for allocating party-list seats violates constitutional and statutory mandates, particularly the principle of proportional representation, and whether any proposed modification to the formula should be applied retroactively to the 2019 elections.

RULING

Justice Lopez concurred in part and dissented in part with the ponencia. He concurred with the main decision to uphold the BANAT formula’s core structure, agreeing that there is no double-counting of votes. He explained that the different computational rounds are based on substantial distinctions: the first round determines the guaranteed seat for parties reaching the 2% threshold; the second round distributes remaining seats first to parties with at least 2% of the vote, and then, in its second part, allocates seats based on the fractional remainders of votes to completely fill the constitutionally mandated 20% allocation for party-list representatives.
However, Justice Lopez dissented on the specific method for allocating these fractional seats in the second part of the second round. He argued that the current BANAT method should be modified to better conform with the statutory command of proportional representation under Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 . He suggested a refinement to ensure that the allocation of seats based on fractional values more accurately reflects the proportional votes obtained by all participating parties, not just those above 2%.
Crucially, Justice Lopez emphasized that any such modification to the formula must be applied prospectively only. He noted that the Court did not issue a restraining order, and the proclaimed nominees from the 2019 elections had already assumed office as Members of the House of Representatives. Jurisdiction over their qualifications and titles now resides with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) under the Constitution. Therefore, while the Court may rule on the constitutionality of the law, applying a new formula to divest sitting members of their seats falls outside the Court’s present authority. For these reasons, he voted to dismiss the petition for lack of merit.