On March 3, 1995, RA. 7941 was put into motion to represent the marginalized in Congress. Better known as the Party-list System Act, it had the primary intent to be the fundamental innovation in the 1998 elections. The party-list system requires a petition to be filed with the COMELEC. The petition must not be filed any later than ninety (90) days before election day. Participants may be from any sector as long as they are underrepresented. Furthermore, a citizen may vote for two forms of representatives: a district representative and a party-list group.
1. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines established the party-list system.
It is the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines that institutes the party-list system. Atty. Michael Mastura from Maguindanao’s 1st district authored the Partylist System Act. His aim was for the underprivileged to have an opportunity for positions in Congress. The legislation owes to his disfavor of money politics. Political clans entered the realm of the party-list system. Soon, this caused the emergence of political dynasties in the government. The number of party lists participating in the country’s elections has doubled due to its publicity. A testament to this is the assumption that the system promotes fragmentation, as opposed to major political parties.
2. The Philippines combines two methods of electing legislators.
The number of seats a party occupies in the legislature depends on the votes it garners in elections. However, the Philippine model forbids a party from obtaining more than three seats. It also requires at least 3-5% of the total votes for representation through the PR (Proportional Representation). In the Philippines, there used to be at least a 2% vote threshold, albeit its abolishment. Meanwhile, the PR system permits all types of parties to take part. “Marginalized groups” is the restriction of party lists in the Philippines. As a result, there is a hindrance for traditional parties to engage. This notion reckons the Philippine party-list as less representative. The seats designated for party-list representatives struggle to be fulfilled.
3. In the Philippines, the party-list system originated as political innovativeness in the Constitution.
The party-list was first known as the country’s fortress of aristocracy in PH politics. Yet, the Constitution became an outcome of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos’s ousting in 1986. This ousting resulted in significant changes in party lists. Besides district representation, the Constitution also allows for party lists to be part of Congress.
4. A party-list nominee takes one in every five seats in the House.
The Constitution requires that members comprise 20% of the House of Representatives. The lower house has more than 300 members, with 20 percent or 60 seats allotted for party-list winners. Some parties even took up two or three seats. The legislation says that each party earning 2% of the national vote would be eligible for one seat each. This legislative rule entails that a party can have three seats if it acquires more than 6% of the national vote.
5. In the 2019 party-list elections, 49 candidates belonged to political families.
There were 134 party lists on the ballot for the 2019 midterm elections. CNN Philippines assessed the backgrounds of its nominees. They concluded that around 80 were part of corporate groups or political clans. Amongst the 80, approximately 49 belonged to political families. Manila’s Atienzas, Quezon City’s Belmonte, Sotto, and Defensor, and Sarangani’s Pacquiao are some of the dynasties in the list.
6. In 2013, the Philippines Supreme Court let party lists extend beyond the marginalized.
As per the high court, the party-list system is also for other regional and small groups. Political analysts said that the Supreme Court’s decision was an unfortunate enabler. They supported their statement by claiming that the rich and powerful had the liberty to mock the party-list election system. The court reasoned that this can render a greater focus on PR and less emphasis on sectoral representation itself. The 2013 verdict authorized many conventional and elitist legislators to organize party lists.
7. The Philippine party-list system: “Flawed from the beginning.”
“The party-list system has been flawed from the very start,” Kontra Daya Convenor Danilo Arao claimed in an interview. ” This is because the definition of the marginalized and underrepresented was not so clear if you look at the 1995 Party-list Act.”
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that it was “okay” for party-list representatives not to represent the causes that they claim to champion. “What ills the system (is that) the rich and powerful are using the party-list system to make a mockery of this supposedly-noble intention,” Arao added.
Kontra Daya Convenor Danilo Arao defined the marginalized as those deprived of essential help, or in other words, those who are poor. At one point, real estate developers were able to put up their party-list, claiming that they were “marginalized”. The sense they were stating was due to the fact that they comprise the minority of the population. Arao also asserted it to be anomalous for these developers to be considered “marginalized.” This is on the fact that they comprised the one percent that is very powerful in this society.
8. Kontra Daya: 70% of party-list groups are exploited as a backdoor to their economic and political interests.
Watchdog group Kontra Daya released an analysis on this matter. The study concludes that at least 120 of the 177 party-list groups accredited by COMELEC were beyond privileged. Being affiliated with political clans, corporations, incumbent politicians, the government, or the military. Others also had pending court cases or criminal offenses, or have controversial backgrounds. Of all the categories, political clans garnered the most number recorded.
9. ACT-CIS, Wow Pilipinas, 4P’s, BHW, IPEACEEPANAW, Duterte Youth, Mocha, and Abante Sambayanan – among the listed party-list groups by Kontra Daya.
Edvic G. Yap was the first nominee of the Anti-Crime and Terrorism Community Involvement and Support Partylist (ACT-CIS). He, with representative Eric Yap, was assumed to be in the ‘web of corruption’ at the Bureau of Customs under Nicanor Faeldon’s party list. Senator Panfilo Lacson unveiled this in 2017. Jocelyn P. Tulfo, the party’s second nominee and the wife of Raffy Tulfo, is a current ACT-CIS party-list congressman.
Additionally, IPEACE EPANAW, a party list claiming to support indigenous people’s human rights, is indeed “a government’s red-tagging mechanism” listed by Kontra Daya.
Wow Pilipinas Movement, 4P’s (Progresibong Pagtutulungan sa Pag-unlad ng Pilipinas), BHW (Barangay Health Wellness), and Duterte Youth have also been listed thrice in various categories. Meanwhile, the latter being a disputed party list since 2019 due to resource exploitation and red-tagging.
Furthermore, Kontra Daya names two other party-list groups as nominees associated with the NTF-ELCAC. MOCHA’s first and second nominees, Esther Margeaux “Mocha” J. Uson and Michele Theresa I. Gumabao are the involved individuals.
10. Many party-list representatives have been allegedly involved in corruption.
Many party-list politicians have been accused of corruption. These accusations include the pork barrel scam. Here, government funding of PHP 10 billion disappeared. The funds were supposed to be used for benefiting the poor in whose names they operated. Furthermore, party-list officials lobbied for the shutdown of ABS-CBN. The prominent broadcast network was critical of President Rodrigo Duterte.
The bastardization of the party-list system has driven the public to advocate for systematic reforms. Several organizations and people have asked for the abolition of the party-list system. Duterte made a similar request, yet for a different purpose. According to him, the NTF-ELCAC accuses certain party-list groups of holding communist connections. Due to this concern, more politicians aim to amend the party-list legislation. This call for change was due to their goal to exemplify its ultimate and initial aim.
Does the present idea of the party-list system defeat its original intent? Today’s dynasty-motivated party lists certainly do not correspond to the once noble intention of letting the marginalized be represented. Political analysts assert that it is finally time to reconsider the real significance of the party-list system. It is on the voters to assess whether their chosen party list represents their interests and holds true to their integrity. It is necessary to instill within one’s mind that there is a greater challenge in voting that will impact the nation in the long run. It is undeniable that catastrophes and pressing matters have been bombarding the country lately. Indeed, a lack of understanding of how the party-list system operates is a precursor to tricker shots to follow in the party-list system.
