Party List Proportionality: Supreme Court Upholds BANAT Formula in Seat Allocation

The Supreme Court, in ANGKLA v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 246816, December 7, 2021), denied with finality a motion for reconsideration challenging the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941, the Party-List System Act. The ruling reaffirms the two-round formula for allocating party-list seats first established in the landmark BANAT v. COMELEC case. For voters and party-list groups, this decision clarifies how seats are distributed and why the Court refuses to adopt a different method of computation.

The Dispute: How Should Additional Seats Be Allocated?

Section 11(b) of RA 7941 provides that party-list groups receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast are entitled to one guaranteed seat each. The law adds that those garnering more than 2% "shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes," subject to a three-seat cap per party.

In BANAT v. COMELEC (609 Phil. 751 [2009]), the Court established the formula now used in every party-list election:

• Round 1: Each party-list that receives at least 2% of the total votes gets one guaranteed seat.
• Round 2, Part 1: The percentage of votes of each party-list—including those that did not reach the 2% threshold—is multiplied by the remaining available seats. The whole integer of the product becomes the party's additional seats; fractional seats are not awarded.
• Round 2, Part 2: Remaining seats are distributed one each to the party-lists next in rank until all available seats are filled.

The Petitioners' Argument: Double Counting of Votes

Petitioners ANGKLA and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party argued that this formula violates the "one person, one vote" principle and the equal protection clause. Their theory: votes used to award a guaranteed seat in the first round are counted again in the second round, effectively giving two-percenters an unfair advantage and diluting the weight of votes cast for smaller parties.

They proposed an alternative formula: deduct 2% from the votes of two-percenters before the second round, re-rank the parties, and distribute additional seats based on the recomputed votes. Under this method, petitioners would have gained seats at the expense of other party-list groups.

The Court's Ruling: No Constitutional Violation

The Court denied the motion, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments.

First, the Court explained that the "one person, one vote" principle, as discussed in Aquino III v. COMELEC (631 Phil. 595 [2010]), is rooted in the idea of equal voting weight per legislative district. However, the Constitution does not require absolute proportional representation in the party-list system. Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution gives Congress wide discretion in formulating the allocation of party-list seats. As BANAT itself held, there is no constitutional requirement for absolute proportional representation in allocating party-list seats.

Second, the Court noted that the mechanisms in RA 7941—the three-seat cap and the two-tiered allocation—actually work to the disadvantage of two-percenters and benefit smaller parties. For instance, ACT-CIS, which garnered 2,651,987 votes (9.51% of the total), was entitled to only three seats, while KABATAAN won a seat with just 195,837 votes. This uneven valuation of votes is inherent in the law and was accepted by the petitioners when they availed of the BANAT formula's benefits in previous elections.

Third, the Court rejected the double-counting claim. All votes are counted only once. The first round applies the 2% threshold; the second round uses the same vote totals to compute additional seats. The divisor in both rounds is the total number of votes cast under the party-list system, meaning every vote—whether for a two-percenter or not—is considered in both rounds.

Finally, the Court stressed that adopting the petitioners' proposed formula would amount to judicial legislation. The proposed 2% deduction and re-ranking have no textual basis in RA 7941. If the petitioners believe the formula should be changed, the remedy lies with Congress, not the courts.

Practical Takeaways

• The BANAT formula remains the operative rule for allocating party-list seats in Philippine elections.
• The two percent threshold applies only to the guaranteed seat in the first round; all party-lists participate in the second round for additional seats.
• The three-seat cap limits any single party-list to three seats, regardless of vote share.
• The Court will not read into the law a deduction or re-ranking mechanism that Congress did not enact.
• Any change to the seat allocation formula must come from legislative amendment, not judicial interpretation.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.