Party-full

I can’t say I am ecstatic over the addition of more party-list congressmen as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s reading of the law.

The consequence of that reading results in large, unexpected costs for the House of Representatives. There are not enough rooms to house the new party-list congressmen, to begin with. Then each of them will hire a battallion of support staff, consultants of every variety and political organizers for their district offices. Maybe they might demand their pork barrel privileges from the start of this present session.

I have not heard one newly installed party-list solon renounce his right to a piece of the pork barrel. Most of them, especially those from the leftist groups, are there precisely to access the pork. This is why the Bayan Muna constellation has been spinning off new party-list enrollees every election so that they can optimize the conversion of their voting base into House seats, the better to get more pork.

When asked about the second-generation issues the House now wants the Court to clarify, the Chief Justice says these are not his problem. It is for the Court to interpret the law; and if hell freezes over because of it, let ordinary mortals clean up after the mess.

It is no ordinary mess, however, that comes as a consequence of the Court’s ruling. The number of seats at the House will rise beyond 250. That grossly overwritten document, the 1987 Constitution, specifies 250 as the maximum number of seats in that chamber.

So, by obeying the Court, the House will now have to defy the explicit constitutional prohibition on the maximum number of seats. If some smart guy decides to make a constitutional case of that, who will decide upon it? The Court whose decision precisely caused the overpopulation of congressmen?

Before this new horde of party-list congressmen were proclaimed, it was challenge enough to muster a quorum for most plenary sessions. With a larger population of congressmen, will the absence of quorums impair this chamber’s ability to do its legislative duties?

Remember those long nights, when nominal voting had to be called and congressman wanted his share of the spotlight by explaining his vote? Those sessions lasted through the night and ended in time for breakfast. With the additional members of the House, such exercises might run well into the afternoon of the next day.

How large will the congressional committees grow to be? Will any of them, during serious, highly technical legislative deliberations that are not covered by television, be able to muster quorum?

Questioning the quorum as a dilatory tactic will now be reduced from a high art to a commonplace concern.

The House might now become so crowded it becomes a swine flu hotspot. That could yet be the most welcome epidemic to hit us.

This whole business about having party-list representatives at the House is one of those glaring conceptual confusions marring that imperfect 1987 Charter.

Party-list representation is a curious concept tolerated only in this country. It is not to be confused, as it often is, with proportional representation. In some European countries, proportional representation is a system where additional seats are given a regular electoral party according to its share of the popular vote. It is designed to avert a situation where one political party runs a strong second in many districts, acquires a large share of the popular vote, but fails to be represented.

Party-list representation, by contrast, is not about political parties at all. It is based on what can only be an irresolvable philosophical assumption: to represent the underrepresented.

First, how we determine, except arbitrarily, who are underrepresented? Having been consequently represented via the party-list system, don’t they now cease to be underrepresented?

Second, there is no system in place to confirm the pretenders to representing the underrepresented that they indeed do as they claim.

The fact is, the ranks of the honorable party-list congressmen are replete with purveyors of dead ideologies, aristocrats of the unions, moguls of the peasant associations, underlings of religious blocks claiming that those who fight corruption are under-represented, self-appointed handmaidens of some special interest group or common carpetbaggers out to cut a slice of the pork barrel.

Take out the pork barrel and we might have less party-list organizations demanding to be represented. Tell me, what important piece of legislation has emerged because of the party-list representatives?

Party-list representation, because of all its blurred edges and confused philosophical assumptions, has become a representational anomaly feeding upon itself. Even more tragic, it has become a convenient cottage industry for those wanting to dip their fingers in public spending.

District representatives at least have districts they are accountable to. If they fail to deliver, they are repudiated by their districts. That is a disciplining factor.

Party-list representatives are accountable to no one in particular. They are elected on the basis of votes that are captive because of other allegiances, such as membership in a religious group or ideological tribe.

Since these representatives are often in full control of the party-list groups on whose behalf they sit, they are not accountable to anyone in practice. They do as they please, dispense the largesse from their pork barrels according to whim. And they will always be entrenched because, to begin with, they control the slice of votes that got them their seats in the first place.–Alex Magno, Philippine Star