BANAT VS COMELEC G.R. NO.

179271 FACTS: Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) in a petition for certiorari and mandamus, assails the Resolution promulgated on 3 August 2 ! "y the #ommission on $lections (#%&$'$#) in NB# No( !) *+ (,')( The #%&$'$#-s resolution in NB# No( !) *+ (,') approved the recommendation of Atty( Alioden .( .alaig, /ead of the National Board of #anvassers (NB#) 'egal 0roup, to deny the petition of BANAT for "eing moot( BANAT filed "efore the #%&$'$# $n Banc, acting as NB#, a ,etition to ,roclaim the 1ull Num"er of ,arty)'ist Representatives ,rovided "y the #onstitution( RA 2332 is a consolidation of 4enate Bill No( 223+ and /ouse Bill No( 5352 passed "y the 4enate on ! .ecem"er 2 3 and the /ouse of Representatives on +2 .ecem"er 2 3(%n 23 6anuary 2 !, less than four months "efore the +* &ay 2 ! local elections( %n ! &ay 2 !, petitioner, a duly accredited multi)sectoral organi7ation, filed this petition for prohi"ition alleging that RA 2332 violated 4ection 23(+), Article 89 of the #onstitution(,etitioner also assails the constitutionality of 4ections 3*, 3!, 3:, and *3 of RA 2332(According to petitioner, these provisions are of ;uestiona"le application and dou"tful validity for failing to comply <ith the provisions of the #onstitution( ,etitioner argues the follo<ing= The title of RA 2332 is misleading "ecause it spea>s of poll automation "ut contains su"stantial provisions dealing <ith the manual canvassing of election returns( ,etitioner also alleges that 4ections 3*, 3!, 3:, and *3 are neither em"raced in the title nor germane to the su"?ect matter of RA 2332( 4ections 3! and 3: violate the #onstitution "y impairing the po<ers of the ,residential $lectoral Tri"unal (,$T) and the 4enate $lectoral Tri"unal (4$T)(According to petitioner, under the amended provisions, #ongress as the National Board of #anvassers for the election of ,resident and 8ice ,resident (#ongress), and the #%&$'$# en "anc as the National Board of #anvassers (#%&$'$# en "anc), for the election of 4enators may no< entertain pre) proclamation cases in the election of the ,resident, 8ice ,resident, and 4enators( ,etitioner concludes that in entertaining pre)proclamation cases, #ongress and the #%&$'$# en "anc undermine the independence and encroach upon the ?urisdiction of the ,$T and the 4$T( 4ection *3 is unconstitutional "ecause it gives the other prosecuting arms of the government concurrent po<er <ith the #%&$'$# to investigate and prosecute election offenses(

4ection 3* <hich fi@es the per diem of poll <atchers of the dominant ma?ority and dominant minority parties at ,oll $lection .ay( ,etitioner argues that this violates the freedom of the parties to contract and their right to fi@ the terms and conditions of the contract they see as fair, e;uita"le and ?ust( ,etitioner adds that this is a purely private contract using private funds <hich cannot "e regulated "y la<(

ISSUES: +( Ahether or not the t<enty percent allocation for party)list representatives in 4ection5(2), Article 89 of the #onstitution mandatory or merely a ceiling 2( Ahether or not the three)seat limit in 4ection ++(") of RA !2*+ is constitutional 3( Ahether or not the t<o percent threshold prescri"ed in 4ection ++(") of RA !2*+ to ;ualify for one seat is constitutional *( /o< shall the party)list representatives "e allocatedB 5( .oes the #onstitution prohi"it the ma?or political parties from participating in the party)list electionsB 9f not, can the ma?or political parties "e "arred from participating in the party)list electionsB HELD: +( The 2 C allocation of party)list representatives is merely a ceilingD party)list representatives cannot "e more than 2 C of the mem"ers of the /ouse of Representatives 2( Ees, it is constitutional( The three)seat cap, as a limitation to the num"er of seats that a
;ualified party)list organi7ation may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that prevents any party from dominating the party)list elections(

3( The second clause of 4ection ++(") of R( A( !2*+ F those garnering more than t<o
percent (2C) of the votes shall "e entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total num"er of votesG is unconstitutional( The t<o percent threshold only in relation to the distri"ution of the additional seats presents an un<arranted o"stacle to the full implementation of 4ection 5(2), Article 89 of the #onstitution and prevents the attainment of Hthe "roadest possi"le representation of party, sector or group interests in the /ouse of Representatives(H

*( 9n determining the allocation of seats for party)list representatives under 4ection ++ of

R(A( No( !2*+, the follo<ing procedure shall "e o"served= The parties, organi7ations, and coalitions shall "e ran>ed from the highest to the lo<est "ased on the num"er of votes they garnered during the elections(

The parties, organi7ations, and coalitions receiving at least t<o percent (2C) of the total votes cast for the party)list system shall "e entitled to one guaranteed seat each( Those garnering sufficient num"er of votes, according to the ran>ing in paragraph +, shall "e entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total num"er of votes until all the additional seats are allocated( $ach party, organi7ation, or coalition shall "e entitled to not more than three (3) seats(

5( Neither the #onstitution nor R(A( No( !2*+ prohi"its ma?or political parties from
participating in the party)list system( %n the contrary, the framers of the #onstitution clearly intended the ma?or political parties to participate in party)list elections through their sectoral <ings( Also, in defining a HpartyH that participates in party)list elections as either Ha political party or a sectoral party,H R(A( No( !2*+ also clearly intended that ma?or political parties <ill participate in the party)list elections( $@cluding the ma?or political parties in party)list elections is manifestly against the #onstitution, the intent of the #onstitutional #ommission, and R(A( No( !2*+( /o<ever, "y the vote of :)!, the #ourt decided to continue the ruling in 8eterans disallo<ing ma?or political parties from participating in the party)list elections, directly or indirectly(