Gearing away from its original purpose, the party-list system is now being “bastardized” by questionable groups.
Presidential candidates were asked about their view on the party-list system during the second round of debates organized by the Commission on Elections. All candidates were present except Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.
The party-list system was introduced in the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act 7941 (the Party-List Law) to provide a balance for locality-based lawmakers who are almost always elected on the basis of their popularity and the money that they release.
It is a proportional representation system to favor single-issue parties, and to allow underrepresented sectors to represent themselves in the law-making process.
It was originally envisioned to focus on underrepresented community sectors or groups, including labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural, women, youth, and other such sectors as may be defined by law (except the religious sector).
The Constitution allots 20 percent Lower House membership for party-list nominees, maximum at three nominees each, dependent on the votes they gather nationwide.
However, its application changed when the Supreme Court issued a decision in 2013 that granted 54 petitions filed by party-list groups that were disqualified by the Comelec.
The court clarified that the party-list is a system of proportional representation open to various kinds of groups and parties, and not an exercise exclusive to
marginalized sectors.
It added that national parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector.
It also allowed party-list nominees to run even if they do not belong to the sector they supposedly champion.
The Supreme Court said that “to require all national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system.”
The Court added that it is sufficient that the political party consists of citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same governance principles and policies regardless of their economic status as citizens.
Nine years later, the party-list system has been widely criticized for being dominated by political overlords and big business.
Several groups have called for the repeal or amendment of the party-list law as political dynasties and businessmen have “hijacked” the system, supposed to be a platform for representation of marginalized sectors.
The rosters of party-list representatives in previous Congresses had been hit for being recycled lists of people already in power and those with business interest.
According to election watchdog Kontra Daya, the party-list system has instead been “weaponized to further marginalize the already marginalized.”
For the 2022 election, KontraDaya flagged at least 70 percent (7 out of 10 / 120 out of 177) of the party-list groups that are identified with political clans (44) and big businesses (21), as well as for having incumbent local officials (26), connections with the government and military (32), unknown or unclear advocacies and representations (34), and pending court cases and criminal charges, including being implicated in pork barrel scams (19).
Local officials affected by term limits use the party-list system to wield power and influence as they prepare to regain their position in the next election cycle.
This year’s list is higher than that in 2019 as “only” 62 out of 134 party-list groups were flagged by KontraDaya then. This makes the issue of questionable party-list groups in 2022 even more pressing.
KontraDaya stressed that the party-list has been abused to help the relatives of congressional district representatives get additional seats in the House of Representatives.
It has become a backdoor for the rich and powerful to further entrench themselves in Congress.
Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 0917-5025808 or 0908-8665786.