Facts:
ANGKLA and SBP, petitioners, assailed the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), which pertains to the allocation of additional seats in the party-list system of the Philippine House of Representatives. They argued that Section 11(b) leads to double-counting of votes for party-lists garnering more than 2% of the total party-list votes, hence violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The petitions were filed after the May 13, 2019 elections where the National Board of Canvassers, following the Comelec Resolution No. 004-19, declared the winning party-list groups based on a framework established by a Supreme Court decision in BANAT (Barangay Association For National Advancement And Transparency v. COMELEC) dated July 8, 2009.
Petitioners sought to enforce a different framework where only votes beyond the 2% threshold are considered in the second round of seat allocation. Conversely, they argued that votes equivalent to the 2% threshold guaranteeing one seat should not again count toward the allocation of additional seats. This would supposedly prevent the double-counting of votes and ensure constitutional compliance.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) defended the Comelec’s actions and opposed the petitions, arguing that the proviso does not violate the equal protection clause. It further asserted that petitioners misunderstood the application of BANAT and that the present seat allocation method under RA 7941 does indeed ensure the broadest representation possible, reflecting the legislative intent.
Issues:
The primary issue was the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of RA 7941 with regard to allocating additional seats to party-lists based on their total number of votes. The specific question was whether this proviso resulted in the double-counting of votes for party-lists that garnered more than 2% of the votes, thereby violating the equal protection clause.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court denied the petitions, holding that the petitions are devoid of merit. The Court found that there is no double-counting of votes as the votes are counted once for two different purposes: the first round to qualify parties with at least 2% vote share for a seat, and the second round for the allocation of additional seats in accordance with Constitutional directives.
The Court stated that the petitioners failed to meet the third requisite for judicial review, which is that the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The petitioners had benefited from the system they now challenge in previous elections and only questioned its validity after suffering a defeat.
Moreover, regarding the fourth requisite, the Court stated that the constitutional question was the lis mota of the case and that any discussion on the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of RA 7941 is significant given its potential to alter the political landscape in the country.
Doctrine:
The doctrine established or reiterated is that the double-counting of votes in the party-list system as alleged by the petitioners does not violate the equal protection clause since the votes are counted for different purposes in allocating party-list seats. The proper application of RA 7941 indicates that there is no double-counting.
Class Notes:
Key elements or concepts central to the case include the constitutional provision on the party-list system (Section 5(1), Article VI), the two percent vote threshold, the allocation of additional seats in proportion to a party-list’s total number of votes, and the three-seat cap for each party-list. Relevant legal statutes include Section 11(b) of RA 7941. These elements are applied to ensure proportional representation in the allocation of party-list seats in the House of Representatives, adhering to the constitutional mandate that the party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the House’s total membership.
Historical Background:
In the context of Philippine legal history, the party-list system was conceived to provide marginalized and underrepresented sectors a voice in the legislative branch. It was designed to complement the district-based legislative seat allocation. The case at hand is a reflection of the ongoing tension and refinement process in delineating the most equitable method for translating party-list votes into actual representation in Congress.
Leave a Reply