Pitfalls of the Party-List Law
(Second of two parts)
The present party-list
system has shortcomings that make it impossible to truly represent
marginalized sectors, an expert on election laws told Bulatlat in an
interview.
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN
REMOLLINO
Bulatlat
As it is, the ironic
situation of a House of Representatives needing party-list groups to take
the cudgels for marginalized groups is already glaring. However, the
present party-list system has yet to succeed in giving adequate
representation to underrepresented sectors.
There are
shortcomings in the party-list system which has led to this, an expert on
election laws told Bulatlat in an interview.
“The (initial)
problem with (the party-list law) is that there are no standards for which
groups may be accredited for the purposes of the party-list system,” said
Judge Cleto Villacorta, a member of the Board of Directors of the research
and policy studies institution Center for People Empowerment in Governance
(CenPEG).
The problem of the
lack of clear guidelines for party-list accreditation was resolved
following the Supreme Court decisions in two landmark cases in 2001: Ang
Bagong Bayani-OFW v. Comelec, et al and Bayan Muna v. Comelec, et al. In
particular, in its decision on Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW v. Comelec, et al,
the Supreme Court issued the following guidelines with regard to the
party-list election:
-
The political party, sector,
organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and
underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941;
-
While even major political parties are
expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the
party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy
of enabling “Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of
Representatives”;
-
The religious sector may not be
represented in the party-list system;
-
A party or an organization must not be
disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds
for disqualification as follows:
(1) It is a religious sect or
denomination, organization or association organized for religious
purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful
means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any
foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization,
whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly
through third parties for partisan election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with
laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in
its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least
one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last
two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2)
preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
-
The party or organization must not be an
adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by,
the government;
-
The party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so;
-
Not only the candidate party or
organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors;
so also must its nominees;
-
While lacking a well-defined political
constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit
the nation as a whole.
“The problem now is
no longer the lack of guidelines, but the very process of accreditation,”
Villacorta said. “We do not know how the Comelec implements the analysis
of applications for party-list participation. We do not know whether they
have people on the ground who really investigate, or whether they simply
receive documents.”
Beyond the issue of
ensuring that the party-list system shall sufficiently give representation
to underrepresented sectors, there is also the question of numbers.
The 1987 Constitution
limits the number of party-list representatives to 20 percent of the total
number of seats in the House of Representatives. There are, at present,
265 seats at stake at the House of Representatives. This means that only
53 party-list representatives can be accommodated.
Even assuming that
all party-list seats are filled by representatives from groups truly
representing the underrepresented sectors, 20 percent is still just 20
percent. And if all of them become a singular progressive bloc, they could
be a considerable force to reckon with but they will still not be strong
enough to drastically change policies.
The party-list
system’s limitation when it comes to cumulative number of seats available
is exacerbated by the cap on the number of representatives that party-list
groups may send to Congress.
Villacorta cites the
case of Bayan Muna, which recent opinion surveys have shown to have won a
number of potential votes equivalent to at least 24 percent – and even up
to 28 percent – of the total number of voters.
“Even with that,
Bayan Muna is limited to only three seats at the House of
Representatives,” Villacorta explained. “What a waste of votes if these
cannot all translate into full proportional representation as the case
is.”
In an article for
CenPEG’s book Fraud: Gloria M. Arroyo and the May 2004 Elections,
Villacorta underscored the need for additional legislative measures to
complement the existing laws on the party-list system. In his interview
with Bulatlat, he said that among these measures would be a law fleshing
out more clearly the criteria for accrediting party-list groups, and
another one that would remove the cap on the number of representatives
that party-list groups may send to Congress. Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2007 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.