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. AKSYON MAGSASAKA – TINIG PARTIDO NG MASA (AKMA-PTM), PETITIONER-IN-INTERVENTION.

FACTS

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 , the Party-List System Act. The challenged proviso states that party-lists garnering at least 2% of the total party-list votes are entitled to one guaranteed seat, and those garnering more than 2% are entitled to additional seats “in proportion to their total number of votes.” Petitioners argue this formula results in unconstitutional double-counting. The votes used to secure the guaranteed seat for a 2% qualifier are again used in the allocation of additional seats, allegedly violating the equal protection clause. They propose a two-round system: first, allocate one seat to each 2% qualifier; second, deduct the 2% votes from their total before re-ranking and proportionally allocating the remaining “additional seats.”

ISSUE

Whether Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional for allegedly violating the equal protection clause by double-counting the votes of party-lists that surpass the 2% threshold in the allocation of additional seats.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions and upheld the constitutionality of Section 11(b). The Court found no constitutional infirmity in the statutory formula. The allocation system is based on a reasonable classification germane to the purpose of the party-list system, which is to achieve proportional representation. The law creates a distinction between parties that reach the 2% threshold and those that do not, a distinction anchored on a substantial difference in voter support. The formula using the “total number of votes” for allocating additional seats is a rational means to achieve proportionality, as it ensures that a party’s total electoral strength is the basis for its total share of seats. The Court clarified that there is no double-counting in a legal sense. The 2% threshold merely qualifies a party for entry into the House; the subsequent allocation of additional seats based on the full vote tally determines the extent of its representation. This method is consistent with the Court’s ruling in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC, which interpreted the law to mandate a two-tier system but did not require the deduction of votes after the first seat. The constitutional requirement is simply that the system results in a distribution of seats that reflects the parties’ respective shares of the national vote, which the current formula achieves.