” This system is supposed to be a tool to realize the aspirations of marginalized individuals whose interests are often neglected because of their under representation. “
One innovation introduced by the 1987 Constitution is the party-list system (although other countries also adapt variants of the system). The party list system is designed to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and under-represented sectors, organizations and parties, lacking 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. The first representatives under this system were elected during the May 1998 elections.
As stated in the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act 7941 (The party list law), party list representatives constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election 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.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has come up with decisions interpreting the constitutional provision on the party list system. Thus, the Banat Case decided by the Supreme Court in 2009, the formula for computing party list winners was laid down. It provided a methodology to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-list System Act, which provides that 20% of the total seats in the House should be allotted to the party list. Every 2% of total party-list votes cast gets a seat in the House, with each party allowed only a maximum of three seats.
Another significant court decision is the Atong Paglaum case decided in 2013. In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that “based on the express provision of the Constitution and as can be culled from the records of the Constitutional convention, the party-list system is not meant to be exclusively for sectoral parties or organizations representing marginalized and underrepresented sectors but also for non-sectoral or political parties or organizations.” This ruling effectively abandoned the previous court rulings which limit party list system to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, like labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, or sectors which are lacking of “well-defined political constituencies” like the elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals. The same ruling decrees that major political parties are not eligible to field their candidates under said system. The Supreme Court further underscored that “even major political parties (i.e. those that have been fielding candidates and winning in regular legislative district elections) are qualified to field their candidates under the party-list system as long as they do it through their “sectoral wings”.
The party-list system is supposed to be a tool to realize the aspirations of marginalized individuals whose interests are often neglected because of their under representation. But sadly, the recent more liberal interpretation of the party-list provision of the Constitution gives major political parties and moneyed individuals a decisive edge in the elections for party list seats in congress. In effect, the marginalized sectors, lacking money and political organization, are left by the wayside. This is evident by the fact that many moneyed individuals are now styling themselves as party list representatives representing the “marginalized sectors.” Although there are still parties and organizations which genuinely represent marginalized sectors and the underrepresented, many rich and well-connected individuals use the system as a back channel to gain entry into the lower chamber of Congress.
The imperfections of the party list system notwithstanding, I would like to endorse to my readers the following party list organizations:
First, my personal vote will go for the Kabataan Party List. I disclose that KPL is my client but that is not the reason I am voting for them. It is because they are the best representatives of the youth, the hope and future of this country.
Second, I would easily vote for the other parties in the Makabayan bloc. Time again, the Makabayan legislators from Bayan Muna, Gabriela Women’s Party, ACT Teachers Party, and Anakpawis (as well as Kabataan) have proven to be skillful, hardworking, and committed representatives guided always by the most progressive principles and consistent in fiscalizing as well as in taking progressive positions.
I would also consider voting for Partido Laban ng Masa whose nominees are also quite progressive. I voted for Akbayan when it fielded stellar candidates like Etta Rosales, Risa Hontiveros, and Walden Bello but now I am not so sure what this party stands for.
Our party list system is not very good but let’s make the bear out of it by choosing the best organizations.