February 18, 2025
Manila – No, the convention list system that is contrary to common belief has never been designed to be a “vocal sound”.
Some of the 1987 constitution makers, including the late Jesuit pastor Joaquin Bernas, did envision permanent and proportional representation of Filipinos who were poor and disadvantaged, and strongly promoted the inclusion of social justice in The basic laws of the country.
Alas, their dreams were not fulfilled because most people chose a system that did not support a specific constituency or special interests. The result was the 1995 party list system law, which ultimately failed to safeguard underrepresented rights despite public romantic notions of this novel electoral mechanism.
In April 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that qualified groups were not limited to marginalized departments, thus breaking the enduring myth of the party list system as a tool to enhance powerlessness.
Connection with political dynasties
So it's no surprise that reading the latest report from poll dog Daya says more than half of those seeking seats in the May election are not part of the disadvantaged sector. In fact, the study released last week found that 55% of it was related to political dynasties, large corporations, and police or military, or had cases of corruption, suspicious advocacy or lack of transparency.
Kontra Daya convener Danilo Arao said at least two political party list groups entered spouses, in-laws or siblings from political clans as nominees, and their local bailiwicks could easily provide the 200,000 or more votes needed to get a seat in Congress. At least seven leading social weather station surveys were also found to be linked to those in power.
These findings are still exciting, just the result of flaws inherent in the party list system. In other words, it is working as expected.
The Constitution states that partisan members should account for 20% of all members of the House. Half of the seats will be “labor, farmers, urban poverty, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth and other departments that the law may provide, other than the religious sectors”, but only for three consecutive elections after ratifying the Charter, 1987 1992 and 1995.
Another unfulfilled dream
After that, it's a free all. Constitutional delegates believe that three voting periods are enough to allow those marginalized departments to form their constituencies and compete with traditional political families in future elections.
They misunderstood. Sadly, the lack of safeguards and barriers to infiltration has left the system hijacked by those who intend to challenge: the dominant elite.
The reality is that the creators of the party list system are more interested in enhancing the diversity of Congressional representatives, by empowering smaller political groups that cannot compete with the entrenched dynasty. Their initial vision was not just for disadvantaged communities, but for everyone who was flooded with traditional politics.
“The party list system is not synonymous with departmental expression. Christian Monsod, a member of the Constitutional Convention, defended the controversial Supreme Court ruling in April 2013, which is not unique to a particular department.
The bad attitude of the government
Five years later, Meng Sude changed his mind. Constitutionists admitted in November 2018: “Today's party system is also an experiment with proportional representation. I'm not sure if it works well, because I think Comelec (the Election Commission) and even the Supreme Court are very mean.”
At the same time, the call for reform is growing. Senate President Francis Escudero said on Thursday it is necessary to revisit the party list system “Given that the intentions of the makers seem to have been subverted, not only in the party list law, but also based on numerous decisions by the court. .”
But it has never been subverted. The makers of the Constitution seek an equal position to harm those behind the starting line. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine this wisdom or lack, especially in governments as George Orwell famously said.
After all, the reason the party list group is now dominated by strong reasons is that the system has never been designed to advocate for powerless people in the first place. Therefore, the responsibility lies in Congress to correct the failure of the experiment is the party list system.
But will lawmakers repeal a law that is very suitable for them? Can they transcend their own interests to draw a line between a group that reverberates only the voice of privilege and a group that truly speaks for unheard people?
