The politicians have prostituted the party-list system in the Philippines. It is now used as the backdoor route of political rejects and usurpers to sit in Congress and enjoy its huge pork barrels and dirty influences. Meanwhile, the marginalized sectors, who are the real beneficiaries of the system as intended by the Constitution, continue to be under-represented in the halls of powers of the country.
In his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (3/15/10), constitutionalist Fr. J. Bernas, commenting on the spirit of the current law on the party-list system, stated the following points:
1. The birth of the party-list representative came with the party-list system. Both arose out of the desire to give voice to the underrepresented and marginalized classes of society. The Constitution has reserved 20 percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives for party-list representatives. According to current jurisprudence and on the basis of the total number of representatives today, party-list representatives can be as many as 55—a force to reckon with if strategically deployed.
2. Constitutionally, a party-list representative has the same qualifications as a district representative, except for the fact that party-list representatives, since they do not represent a district, can be registered voters in any place of their choice. Since, however, they are to represent a party-list organization, they must also be bona fide members of a party-list organization.
3. The Constitution says that the party-list members must be chosen, as provided by law, from “the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.” Hence, if Mikey Arroyo is to become a party-list representative, he must fit into one of these classes. This may take a lot of doing!
4. “The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the law: ‘to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives.
5. “Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine power. It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced, and even to those in the underground, that change is possible. It is an invitation for them to come out of their limbo and seize the opportunity.
6. The Court’s decision is a clear enunciation of what an organization must stand for if it is to be allowed to participate in the party-list system. It is a great idea which I myself supported in the Constitutional Commission. But it can also be a backdoor entry point for the undeserving. Hence, who should be elected to represent that organization?
7. Section 9 of the Party-List Law says that he must be “a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election.” This should mean that a party-list representative’s heart and mind should belong to the organization he or she represents. It may not always be easy to substantiate this requirement. Conversely, it may be easy to feign possession of this requirement!
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100315-258738/Who-can-be-a-party-list-rep
