Party-List Seat Allocation: Supreme Court Upholds COMELEC’s Proportional Distribution

The Supreme Court has upheld the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) allocation of party-list seats in the 2013 national elections, affirming the proportional representation formula first established in the landmark BANAT case. The ruling clarifies how additional seats are distributed to party-list groups—including those that failed to reach the 2% threshold—and confirms that COMELEC may proclaim winners even before the complete canvass of votes, provided the remaining uncounted votes will not alter the election results.

The case arose from a petition filed by Aksyon Magbubukid-Partido Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM), a party-list group that participated in the May 13, 2013 elections. AKMA-PTM challenged COMELEC’s May 28, 2013 resolution proclaiming 38 party-list groups as initial winners with guaranteed and additional seats, arguing that the proclamation was premature because canvassing was still ongoing and several election returns had not yet been transmitted.

The Facts of the Case

On May 24, 2013, COMELEC, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC), issued Resolution No. 0006-13 proclaiming 14 party-list groups that obtained at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system. Each was entitled to one guaranteed seat under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941, the Party-List System Act.

Four days later, COMELEC issued the assailed NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13, which allocated additional seats to these two-percenters and to 38 other party-list groups that garnered less than 2% of the votes. AKMA-PTM argued that this allocation was hasty and erroneous, claiming that the incomplete canvass—only 110 out of 301 certificates of canvass had been processed—invalidated the proclamation. The petitioner also contended that COMELEC misapplied the BANAT formula by awarding seats to groups whose computed product of percentage and remaining seats was less than one, which it claimed should have disqualified them from additional seats.

The Issue Presented

The sole issue before the Court was whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in allocating additional seats to the 38 party-list groups proclaimed as winners in the 2013 elections.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court dismissed the petition and the petition-in-intervention, ruling that COMELEC acted within its authority.

On the incomplete canvass. The Court acknowledged the general rule that an incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot serve as the basis for a proclamation. However, it cited Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code, which allows a board of canvassers to terminate the canvass and proclaim winners based on available returns if the missing returns will not affect the election results. The Court found that COMELEC had sufficient basis for its proclamation: AKMA-PTM’s votes increased only marginally from 164,980 to 165,784 between May and July 2013, and ABANTE KA’s votes rose from 111,429 to 111,625. These minimal changes did not affect the rankings or the allocation of seats.

On the alleged PCOS irregularities. The Court noted that AKMA-PTM presented no competent evidence to prove its allegations of malfunctioning Precinct Count Optical Scan machines or untransmitted results. Mere allegations are not evidence, and the Court is not a trier of facts. COMELEC’s determination that the remaining uncanvassed votes would not materially affect the results was entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

On the allocation of additional seats. The Court applied the BANAT formula, which established a two-round system of seat allocation. In the first round, groups receiving at least 2% of the total party-list votes are entitled to one guaranteed seat each. In the second round, the remaining available seats are distributed proportionally: the percentage of votes garnered by each party is multiplied by the remaining seats, and the whole integer of the product corresponds to the party’s share. Then, one seat is assigned to each party next in rank until all available seats are distributed, subject to the three-seat cap.

The Court rejected AKMA-PTM’s argument that groups with products of less than one should be disqualified from additional seats. Following that interpretation would leave party-list seats unfilled and defeat the constitutional goal of achieving the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral, or group interests in the House of Representatives. As demonstrated in BANAT, the 20% share of seats reserved for party-list representatives could never be filled if the 2% threshold were strictly maintained.

Practical Takeaways

• COMELEC may proclaim winners before a complete canvass when the remaining uncounted votes will not change the outcome of the election, as authorized by Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code.
• The BANAT formula governs party-list seat allocation. The two-round system—guaranteed seats for two-percenters, then proportional distribution of additional seats—remains the controlling doctrine.
• Party-list groups with less than 2% of the votes can still win seats in the second round of allocation, depending on their ranking and the availability of remaining seats.
• Challengers must present competent evidence of election irregularities; bare allegations of PCOS malfunctions or untransmitted results will not suffice to overturn a proclamation.
• The three-seat cap applies to every party-list group, regardless of the number of votes garnered.

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