BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (SITTING AS THE NATIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS), RESPONDENT. ARTS B…

Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is the case of the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency versus the Commission on Elections, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers. It is not a fresh action but a resolution clarifying the Court's earlier Decision of 21 April 2009 on the party-list system. After that Decision struck down part of the two percent threshold and laid down a procedure for allocating party-list seats, the House of Representatives and a nominee of the Citizens' Battle Against Corruption asked the Court to clarify how many seats exist, who must be admitted to the Roll of Members, and whether the two percent threshold still bars anyone from a seat. The case matters because it fixes the four parameters of the Philippine-style party-list election and settles that the twenty percent party-list seats are not constitutionally required to be filled.

Procedural History

The case began as a petition challenging the party-list system, and the Court rendered its Decision on 21 April 2009. In that Decision the Court declared unconstitutional the two percent threshold only as it applied to the distribution of additional seats, and it set out a procedure for allocating seats, illustrated in a table. The House of Representatives, through its Speaker, then filed a motion for leave to intervene and a motion for clarification in intervention, asking several questions about the number of seats and the admission of members. A third nominee of the Citizens' Battle Against Corruption filed a motion for leave for partial reconsideration in intervention, claiming that parties with larger constituencies were deprived of seats in favor of parties that did not meet the two percent threshold. The Commission on Elections, as the National Board of Canvassers, submitted an updated canvass resolution reflecting a corrected total of party-list votes and a reduced number of legislative districts. The Court resolved all of these matters in this Resolution clarifying its earlier Decision.

Facts

In the 2007 elections, the party-list votes and the number of legislative districts used in the Court's April 2009 Decision were based on the submissions of the parties. The National Board of Canvassers later issued an updated report, and after the Court's Decision the Board submitted a resolution updating the data. The total party-list votes became 15,723,764 after the registration of one party-list group was cancelled, and the total number of legislative districts became 219 after the creation of the province of Shariff Kabunsuan was annulled.

Because the number of legislative districts changed, the number of party-list seats available for distribution also changed. The Court explained that the 1987 Constitution fixes the ratio of party-list representatives to district representatives, so that for every four district representatives there is one party-list representative, without need of any further law. The Court traced the numbers from 1992 onward and showed that by the 1995 election year the total membership of the House already exceeded the initial maximum of 250 members fixed in the Constitution.

The House of Representatives sought guidance on whether it should enroll the thirty-two named party-list representatives or only enough to complete the 250 member maximum, and whether admitting all of them would violate the Constitution. The nominee of the Citizens' Battle Against Corruption argued that the ruling deprived parties with more significant constituencies of due process and equal protection. The Court also had to correct the Board's computation, which had multiplied the percentage of votes by 37 instead of 36, the proper multiplier being the difference between 54 available seats and 18 guaranteed seats.

Issues

• Whether or not the total number of party-list seats available in the 2007 elections should be reduced from 55 to 54 following the reduction of legislative districts to 219.
• Whether or not the filling up of all available party-list seats is mandatory.
• Whether or not the two percent threshold for the guaranteed seats is constitutional, and whether a minimum vote requirement still applies in the allocation of additional seats.
• Whether or not the three-seat cap and the absence of absolute proportional representation in the party-list system violate the Constitution.
• Whether or not the Court's allocation of seats deprived parties with larger constituencies of due process and equal protection.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, paragraph 1, of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

This fixes the maximum membership and allows its increase by law, and it gives the Legislature wide discretion over the party-list system.

Section 5, paragraph 2, of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides in part:

The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list.

This fixes the ratio of party-list seats to district seats, which automatically adjusts whenever a legislative district is created.

Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7941 provides in part:

The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list.

And further:

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 seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

This is the provision whose two percent threshold for additional seats the Court struck down, while upholding the threshold for guaranteed seats and the three-seat cap.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that with 219 legislative districts, the available party-list seats for the 2007 elections should be reduced from 55 to 54. The twenty percent ratio applies automatically, and the Court corrected the Board's multiplier from 37 to 36, the difference between 54 available seats and 18 guaranteed seats, although the allocation of seats to the winning organizations remained the same.

On the second issue, the Court held that the filling up of all available party-list seats is not mandatory. Actual occupancy depends on the number of participants, and the three-seat cap may prevent the allocation of all available seats.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the two percent threshold for the guaranteed seats as a valid exercise of legislative power. But in the second round of allocation, there is no minimum vote requirement, because the Court had struck down the application of the two percent threshold to additional seats. The Court explained that otherwise the twenty percent party-list seats would mathematically be impossible to fill up. A party still needs a sufficient number of votes, which depends on the circumstances of each election.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the Constitution does not require absolute proportional representation in the party-list system. The principle of proportional representation in Section 5, paragraph 1, applies only to legislative districts, while the party-list system is governed by the last phrase of that provision, giving the Legislature wide discretion. The three-seat cap and the two percent cut-off are valid statutory qualifications.

On the fifth issue, the Court rejected the claim of deprivation. The fractional seats become material only in the second step of the second round, and on the corrected figures the last ranked party had a higher fractional seat value than the party claiming an additional seat. The Court summarized four parameters: twenty percent of the membership is the maximum seats available, with one party-list seat for every four legislative districts; two percent guarantees one seat; additional seats are distributed to all parties, including those below two percent; and the three-seat cap is constitutional.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the twenty percent party-list seats are computed automatically from the number of legislative districts, one party-list seat for every four districts, without need of legislation. Second, the two percent threshold for guaranteed seats is constitutional, but the two percent threshold for additional seats is unconstitutional because it prevents the filling up of available seats. Third, the filling up of all party-list seats is not mandatory. Fourth, the three-seat cap is valid, and the Constitution does not require absolute proportional representation in the party-list system.

Disposition

The Court clarified its Decision of 21 April 2009 accordingly, correcting the computation while leaving the allocation of seats to the winning party-list organizations unchanged.

Remember This

Memorize the four parameters: twenty percent maximum seats with one seat per four districts, two percent for a guaranteed seat, no threshold for additional seats, and a three-seat cap. Examiners use this case to test the party-list formula and the rule that filling up all party-list seats is not mandatory.