“We should resist the temptation to dismantle a system simply because it is imperfect”
I’VE had the privilege of seeing how many partylist representatives work inside Congress.
They stand with conviction, speak with clarity, and fight hard for what they believe in. They are often among the most active voices in the legislature, raising issues of marginalized sectors, defending communities, and shaping laws that matter.
They may not always make the headlines, but they do the work.
I say this with pride: partylist lawmakers are among the most diligent, focused, and issue-driven members of the House of Representatives.
At the same time, I hear the questions and criticisms about the partylist system.
Some are fair. Some are based on misunderstanding.
All deserve an honest conversation. Not one rooted in cynicism, but in care for the democratic space the system was meant to protect.
The partylist system was created to expand legislative representation.
Enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, its purpose was clear: to give voice to sectors and groups historically excluded from lawmaking.
The first partylist elections were held in 1998. Since then, Supreme Court rulings—from Veterans Federation Party to Atong Paglaum—have shaped how the system operates. Today, more than sixty seats in the House are reserved for partylist groups, roughly one-fifth of Congress. That scale comes with responsibility.
Yes, the system needs improvement. But reform does not mean abandonment. It means strengthening what works while fixing what doesn’t.
First, we should acknowledge what the system gets right.
Too often, reform conversations begin with complaints. We might do better by first recognizing what’s worth keeping.
Many partylist representatives have authored landmark laws, chaired important committees, and championed measures addressing labor rights, education access, healthcare, and disaster response.
They show up to hearings. They work with civil society. They advocate for sectors that traditional politicians often overlook.
If we are serious about reform, we must preserve the system’s core strength: its ability to bring sectoral concerns into national policymaking. That purpose remains valid and necessary.
Second, we need to see the bigger political picture.
We cannot fix the partylist system in isolation from the broader weaknesses of our political party system.
Concerns often raised about partylist groups—weak ideology, personality-driven campaigns, family backing—are not unique to them.
These problems exist across Philippine politics. Even traditional parties struggle with internal democracy, coherent platforms, and long-term loyalty.
Singling out partylist groups creates a double standard.
Some partylist organizations have clearer advocacies than mainstream parties.
Some serve their constituencies more directly. Some have built credibility over time through consistent work.
Real reform means investing in party-building across the board.
That includes empowering political parties to develop clear platforms, strengthen internal democracy, and build long-term credibility.
It means encouraging competition based on ideas, performance, and service—not just names, machinery, or personality.
Third, we need to return to the law and the courts.
Over the years, Supreme Court rulings have added layers of interpretation to the partylist system: the two percent threshold, seat allocation formulas, and shifting definitions of “marginalized.”
While well-intentioned, these rulings have also created confusion and inconsistencies.
If we want clarity and fairness, we must revisit the enabling law, Republic Act No. 7941. That means reexamining definitions, qualifications, accreditation, and seat allocation to ensure proportional representation truly reflects voter intent.
We should be thorough and principled—but also careful. Reform should not shut out genuine advocates in pursuit of an overly rigid model.
Criticism alone will not improve the partylist system. Neither will blind defense. Real reform requires honesty, courage, and a willingness to act.
We should raise standards, close loopholes, and demand greater accountability.
We should require clearer platforms, stronger sectoral grounding, and real organizational integrity.
Representation must be earned through genuine advocacy, not convenience or branding.
But we should also resist the temptation to dismantle a system simply because it is imperfect.
The partylist system remains one of the few democratic spaces designed to widen participation, not concentrate it.
It has given voice to sectors long excluded from power, and it continues to do so when it is allowed to function as intended.
I believe in fixing what is broken precisely because I believe the system is worth fixing. Reform should strengthen its promise, not erase it.
We must correct abuses without closing doors, and improve the system while protecting its soul.
Because democracy is not measured by how quickly we discard our institutions, but by how seriously we commit to making them work for those they were created to serve
