BANAT v COMELEC

Doctrine:
1. The combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not
exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the
House of Representatives, including those elected under the
party list;
2. The two percent threshold only those parties garnering a
minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the
party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House of
Representatives;
3. The three-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of the
number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
maximum of three seats; that is, one qualifying and two
additional seats

FACTS:
In 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers (NBC), made a partial proclamation of the
winners in the party-list elections
The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties
under the Party-List System.
It promulgated a resolution proclaiming thirteen (13) parties
as winners and announced that, upon completion of the
canvass of the party-list results, it would determine the total
number of seats of each winning party, organization, or
coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v.
COMELEC formula.
In proclaiming the winners and apportioning their seats, the
COMELEC considered the following rules:
1. In the lower house, 80% shall comprise the seats for
legislative districts, while the remaining 20% shall come from
party-list representatives (Sec. 5, Article VI, 1987
Constitution);

2. Pursuant to Sec. 11b of R.A. 7941 or the Party-List System

Act, a party-list which garners at least 2% of the total votes
cast in the party-list elections shall be entitled to one seat;
3. If a party-list garners at least 4%, then it is entitled to 2
seats; if it garners at least 6%, then it is entitled to 3 seats
this is pursuant to the 2-4-6 rule or the Panganiban Formula
from the case of Veterans Federation Party vs COMELEC.
4. In no way shall a party be given more than three seats
even if if garners more than 6% of the votes cast for the
party-list election (3 seat cap rule, same case).
The Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT), a party-list candidate, questioned the
proclamation as well as the formula being used. BANAT
averred that the 2% threshold is invalid; Sec. 11 of RA 7941
is void because its provision that a party-list, to qualify for a
congressional seat, must garner at least 2% of the votes cast
in the party-list election is not supported by the Constitution.
Further, the 2% rule creates a mathematical impossibility to
meet the 20% party-list seat prescribed by the Constitution.
BANAT also questions if the 20% rule is a mere ceiling or is it
mandatory. If it is mandatory, then with the 2% qualifying
vote, there would be instances when it would be impossible
to fill the prescribed 20% share of party-lists in the lower
house.
In the same year, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked
the COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use
the Veterans formula as stated in its NBC Resolution because
the Veterans formula is violative of the Constitution and of
R.A. No. 7941. It also questions the validity of the 3 seat rule
and whether or not major political parties are allowed to
participate in the party-list elections or is the said elections
limited to sectoral parties.On the same day, the COMELEC
denied reconsideration during the proceedings of the NBC.
ISSUES:

1. Whether the 20% allocation for partylist representative

s provided in Sec 5(2), Art VI of the Constitution is
mandatory or merely a ceiling
2. WON the 2% threshold and qualifier votes prescribed
by the same are constitutional
3. WON major political parties are prohibited from
participating in the party-list elections
4. Whether or not the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of
RA 7941 is constitutional
HELD:
1. The 20% allocation for party-list representatives is
merely a ceiling. The number of party-list
representatives shall not exceed 20% of the total
number of the members of the lower house. However,
it is not mandatory that the 20% shall be filled.
Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 mandates the filli
ng up of the entire 20% allocation of party-list
representatives found in the Constitution. The
Constitution, in paragraph 1, Sec 5 of Art VI, left the
determination of the number of the members of the
House of Representatives to Congress.
2. No. The Court ruled that in computing the allocation of
additional seats, the continued operation of the two
percent threshold for the distribution of the additional
seats as found in RA 7941 is unconstitutional. The two
percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible
to attain the ideal 80-20 apportionment. It frustrates
the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of
the members of the House of Representatives shall
consist of party-list representatives. There is no
constitutional basis to allow that only party-lists which
garnered 2% of the votes cast are qualified for a seat
and those which garnered less than 2% are
disqualified.

3. No. By vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court continued to

disallow major political parties (the likes of UNIDO,
LABAN, etc) from participating in the party-list
elections.
Although the ponencia (Justice Carpio) did point out
that there is no prohibition either from the Constitution
or from RA 7941 against major political parties from
participating in the party-list elections as the word
party was not qualified and that even the framers of
the Constitution in their deliberations deliberately
allowed major political parties to participate in the
party-list elections provided that they establish a
sectoral wing which represents the marginalized
(indirect participation), Justice Puno, in his separate
opinion, concurred by 7 other justices, explained that
the will of the people defeats the will of the framers of
the Constitution precisely because it is the people who
ultimately ratified the Constitution and the will of the
people is that only the marginalized sections of the
country shall participate in the party-list elections.
Hence, major political parties cannot participate in the
party-list elections, directly or indirectly.
4. Yes, the 3 seat limit rule is valid. The three-seat cap, as
a limitation to the number of seats that a qualified
party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid
statutory device that prevents any party from
dominating the party-list elections.
*HONE YOUR COMPUTATION SKILLZ:
The 80-20 rule is observed in the following manner: for
every 5 seats allotted for legislative districts, there shall be
one seat allotted for a party-list representative. Originally,
the 1987 Constitution provides that there shall be not more
than 250 members of the lower house. Using the 80-20 rule,
200 of that will be from legislative districts, and 50 would be
from party-list representatives. However, the Constitution
also allowed Congress to fix the number of the membership

of the lower house as in fact, it can create additional

legislative districts as it may deem appropriate. As can be
seen in the May 2007 elections, there were 220 district
representatives, hence applying the 80-20 rule or the 5:1
ratio, there should be 55 seats allotted for party-list
representatives.
How did the Supreme Court arrive at 55? This is the formula:
(Current Number of Legislative District Representatives
0.80) x (0.20) = Number of Seats Available to Party-List
Representatives
Hence, (220 0.80) x (0.20) = 55

The Supreme Court laid down the following rules:

1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked
from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes
they garnered during the elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list
system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to
the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional
seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the
additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to
not more than three (3) seats.
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall
no longer be included because they have already been
allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter.

In the first round, all party-lists which garnered at least 2% of

the votes cast are given their one seat each. The total
number of seats given to these two-percenters is then
deducted from the total available seats for party-lists. In this
case, 17 party-lists were able to garner 2% each. There are a
total 55 seats available for party-lists hence, 55 minus 17 =
38 remaining seats.

First, the percentage (total votes of party-list divided by total

votes of all party list) is multiplied by the remaining available
seats. The whole integer of the product corresponds to a
partys share in the remaining available seats.

Second, we assign one party-list seat to each of the parties

next in rank until all available seats are completely
distributed. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine
the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is
entitled.
After all the two-percenters are given their guaranteed and
additional seats, and there are still unoccupied seats, those
seats shall be distributed to the remaining party-lists and
those higher in rank in the voting shall be prioritized until all
the seats are occupied.
In sum, first, there are two rounds of allocation of seats. The
first round deals with those who get at least 2% of the total
number of votes cast for the PL system. And second, the
second round of allocations deals with additional seats. In
this round, the 2% threshold of the first round no longer
applies.