Angkla v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners ANGKLA: Ang Partido Ng Mga Pilipinong Marino, Inc. (ANGKLA) and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party (SBP) filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated September 15, 2020, which upheld the constitutionality of the proviso in Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941. This proviso pertains to the allocation of additional seats to party-list groups in proportion to their total number of votes, with a cap of three seats per party. Procedural History: The Court's September 15, 2020 Decision denied the Amended Petition and Petition-in-Intervention, declaring Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional and upholding the National Board of Canvassers Resolution No. 004-19 for the May 13, 2019 elections. Petitioners now seek reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners argue that the allocation of additional seats violates the 'one person, one vote' policy and the equal protection clause by effectively double-counting votes. They propose a formula where 2% of votes are deducted from 'two-percenters' before allocating additional seats. They also claim the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) acted with grave abuse of discretion in applying the challenged proviso.
Issue(s)
Whether the proviso in Section 11(b) of RA 7941, as implemented through the BANAT formula, violates the 'one person, one vote' policy and the equal protection clause. Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in applying Section 11(b) of RA 7941.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED for utter lack of merit. The Court reiterates its Decision dated September 15, 2020, upholding the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of RA 7941 and the BANAT formula for seat allocation. Entry of judgment shall issue immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of the 'one person, one vote' policy and equal protection clause: The Court reiterated that the principle of 'one person, one vote' is rooted in equality in voting power and proportional representation, meaning each vote should be worth the same. However, this does not necessitate absolute proportionality in the allocation of party-list seats, as Congress has wide discretion. The mechanisms in RA 7941, such as the three-seat cap and the two-tiered seat allocation, are designed to balance representation and prevent dominance by a single party. These mechanisms, including the BANAT formula, do not violate the 'one person, one vote' principle because they are within the bounds of legislative discretion and do not result in absolute proportionality. The Court noted that petitioners themselves had benefited from the BANAT formula in previous elections, making their current challenge inconsistent. The Court clarified that there is no double-counting of votes. All votes are counted and considered in the first round for the purpose of determining the 2% threshold for guaranteed seats. In the second round, the existing vote tallies are used to allocate additional seats proportionally, ensuring that each vote is counted only once for different purposes. The system involves two rounds of seat allocation, not two rounds of vote counting. The OSG correctly argued that the counting pertains to different rounds and purposes: the first for the 2% threshold and the second for compliance with the constitutional mandate of 20% party-list representation. The Court found that the BANAT formula accurately mirrors the textual progression of Section 11(b). The proviso was intended to allow 'two-percenters' to participate in the second round of seat allocation with their full votes intact, a practice established in previous cases like Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC. The modification in BANAT was to open the second round to non-'two-percenters' to fulfill the constitutional 20% requirement, but this did not alter the principle of using full votes for 'two-percenters' in that round. The Court rejected petitioners' proposed deduction of 2% from 'two-percenters' votes, finding no textual basis for it in RA 7941 and deeming it an attempt at judicial legislation. The Court found that petitioners' proposed formula, which involves deducting 2% of votes from 'two-percenters' and re-ranking them, lacks textual basis in RA 7941. The Court emphasized that it cannot plant words into the law or engage in judicial legislation. If petitioners believe their formula is superior, the proper recourse is to seek an amendment from Congress, not through judicial fiat. On the COMELEC's alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The COMELEC merely performed its duty by adhering to the formula set forth by the Supreme Court in the BANAT decision, which is considered part of the law of the land. To have implemented petitioners' proposed formula would have been a contravention of the Court's existing edict.
Main Doctrine
The proviso in Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 7941, as implemented by the BANAT formula, does not violate the 'one person, one vote' policy or the equal protection clause. The allocation of seats under the party-list system allows for a two-tiered approach, with specific thresholds and limitations, which is within the legislative discretion and does not equate to absolute proportionality or double-counting of votes.