Thoughts on the Party-List

(Part II)

Two “devilish” sayings come to mind when I think of the current state of our party list system. First, “the road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions” and second, “the devil is in the details.”

Without the doubt, the Commissioners who drafted the relevant 1987 Constitutional provisions and the Congress persons who passed the implementing legislation (Republic Act No. 7941) meant well. But there remain several contentious and confusing issues which tend to validate Commissioner Francisco “Soc” Rodrigo’s remark during the Constitutional deliberations that while he was sympathetic to the idea of a party list system or sectoral representation, he still had to see a scheme showing that it could be actualized in a practical way.

In implementing the Constitutional provision, RA 7941 provided that parties, organizations and coalitions need to obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party list system to be entitled to a party list seat.

Moreover, those garnering more than this percentage could have additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes provided they do not exceed more than three House seats. This two percent threshold and three seat cap were questioned as the Constitution did not expressly provide for these limitations but the Supreme Court in the Veterans Party case ruled that Congress was vested with broad power to define and prescribe the mechanisms of the party list system of representation.

A basic question is which groups are entitled to participate as a party list. If we go by the original proponent’s (i.e., Commissioner Christian Monsod) intention, it is apparent that all, including established political parties, were allowed to join. However, when asked to interpret the provision, the Supreme Court ruled that the system was crafted to serve the marginalized and underprivileged sectors. Fair point but it behooves upon Comelec to come up with clear cut guidelines as to which the parties truly belong to among these sectors. If you look at the current crop of party list representatives, it is obvious that many of them are not marginalized nor do they come from the ranks of the underrepresented.

Indeed, the confusion has led to an arbitrary application of the law. The Citizens Drug Watch was accredited to participate but Mad About Drugs (MAD) of Richard Gomez was not. Women’s groups were given the green light but a party of transgenders and transsexuals was not.

Another issue that has arisen is whether the 20 percent allocation for party list representatives is mandatory so much so that the seats need to be filled up completely and all the time. The Supreme Court answered this question in the negative saying that it can be gleaned from the deliberations that Congress wanted to ensure that only those having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented. In other words, the 20 percent allocation does not need to be filled as it merely provides a ceiling for party lists in Congress.

There is also the issue regarding the qualifications of a party list nominee. RA 7941 provides, among others, that the nominee must be a bonafide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent at least 90 days preceding the day of the election. Query as to why the duration for membership is only 90 days? My four centavos is that the relatively short duration contradicts the requirement of bona fides as this set up would encourage “investors” in search of House seats to “take over” an organized party list.

Another important corollary issue is whether the nominee must be an actual member of the sector. Remember that it was the intent of the framers to limit party list representation to organizations representing the “marginalized and underprivileged.” And yet, there seems to be nothing in the law that prevents a haciendero owner from representing the peasant sector, inasmuch as he is technically a peasant albeit of a higher economy class. In fact, of the current 50+ party list representatives, query as to how many really come from the ranks of the marginalized and underprivileged?

Now do not get me wrong, I am not against party list or sectoral representation. I am just against the way an otherwise noble provision has been mis-implemented. My four centavos is that the three branches of government should immediately work together to devise a system that would be in accord with the original intention of the framers.

*      *      *      *

One centavo this week goes to Camarines Sur Representative Diosdado “Dato” Arroyo for being the principal author of a bill that penalizes motorists who “unreasonably” accelerate the engine or blow the horn within a residential district from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. House Bill 7072 seeks to curb the effects of noise pollution which in this instance, could lead to sleeplessness and stress that in turn, could lead to “high blood pressure, cardio-vascular problems and nervous disorders.” While the objective of the bill is salutary, a potential point of contention is the term “unreasonably.” For example, how much engine warming would be considered reasonable in the morning or how many “businas” will we allow a motorist say within a 10-second interval? The bill clarifies that the “activity should not be audible to the human ear at a distance of over 150 feet from the property line of the noise source “and should not exceed the ambient noise level by more than five decibels.” Query as to whether it would be reasonable for an average, prudent motorist to be able to measure 150 feet or determine a noise level above five decibels? The bill will certainly be attacked as being vague and violative of substantive due process as it confers unbridled discretion to our law enforcement officers.

While he is at it, perhaps Rep. Dato may also wish to take a look at the pernicious practice of drivers keeping the motor (and air-conditioning) running while waiting (or sleeping). This is environmentally incorrect as it not only wastes gasoline but is also a major source of pollution.  –Dean Andy Bautista (The Philippine Star)
*      *      *      *

E-mail: deanbautista@yahoo.com