CARTOON BY: AARON PAUL C. CARIL
EDITORIAL
Reclaiming the voice of the marginalized
During the October 6, 1986 deliberation of the Constitutional Commission of 1986, Commissioner Jaime Tadeo reminded the other members of the Commission that they took their oath of office promising to create a Constitution that would embody the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people by establishing a just and humane society imbued with love.
Adverting to “love” as an act of giving, he stated that the ruling elite, which constitutes only 5%, should share political power with the marginalized sector, which constitutes 75% of the total population. In framing the Constitution, he took into consideration three basic foundations, namely: 1) the grant of political power to the poor and impoverished; 2) to grant them economic power; and 3) to ensure that the Philippines would be a sovereign nation. He stressed that these are his guides in arriving at his decision on the Constitution.
The foregoing record of the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission shows that the party-list system was originally a beacon of hope for many Filipinos—an innovative means to amplify the voices of those often sidelined in the halls of power. Laborers, farmers, the urban poor, and indigenous communities were given a platform through which they could directly influence legislation affecting their lives.
The party-list system in the Philippines, established under the 1987 Constitution, was conceived as a noble mechanism to ensure the representation of marginalized and underrepresented sectors in Congress. However, this system has faced criticism over the years and calls for reform.
Originally intended to give a voice to laborers, peasants, urban poor, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized groups, the party-list mechanism has seen its scope widened by a 2013 Supreme Court ruling. This decision allowed national and regional parties to participate, diluting the focus on the marginalized. Consequently, political dynasties and well-funded organizations have taken advantage of the system, raising questions about its efficacy and fairness.
The intention of the Constitutional Commission was unequivocal – to amplify the voices of those often sidelined in the halls of power. But what happened in the course of history? Why are the seats in the House of Representatives supposedly for the poor and impoverished now being occupied by elites purporting to represent them?
The problem lies with the Commission having been too trusting our politicians. They made the provision not self-executing by leaving Congress the task of providing the details of its implementation.
Article VI, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines states: “The party-list representatives shall 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.”
By inserting the phrase “as provided by law,” the Constitution has provided cunning legislators in Congress an opportunity to hijack the noble intention of the framers of the Constitution. And indeed, the rest is history. They indeed seized the opportunity to develop a corrupt party-list system.
The core issue lies in the ambiguity and flexibility of the rules governing the party-list system. The absence of stringent criteria for participation has resulted in a system ripe for exploitation. Moreover, the cap on the number of seats a party can hold does not effectively translate the votes into meaningful representation, often leaving popular groups underrepresented.
Given these challenges, it’s time for a comprehensive reassessment and reform of the party-list system. Policymakers must revisit the criteria for accreditation, introduce stricter regulations, and ensure transparency in the selection process. Safeguards must be put in place to prevent the misuse of the system by influential entities.
A robust and fair party-list system is crucial to a vibrant democracy. It is imperative that reforms are made to realign the system with its original intent: to amplify the voices of those who have long been unheard. Only then can the party-list system fulfill its promise of inclusivity and representation.
Will Congress be willing to institute the necessary reforms to bring back the framers’ noble intention?
Just like in the constitutional provision prohibiting political dynasties, any amendment to the current party-list law and its prevailing judicial interpretation will be a nail in the coffin for those politicians who want to perpetuate themselves and their families in power.