Party list: A bastardized system

When Filipinos go to the polls on Monday, May 10, we will be selecting one out of nine candidates for president, one out of 10 candidates for vice president, 12 out of 61 candidates for senator, plus, depending on where we live, a congressman, a governor and/or mayor, vice governor, and/or vice mayor, not to mention provincial board members and municipal or city councilors. The total number of candidates for these various local positions will probably not exceed 80 — in fact more like 40.

But on top of that, we voters must select one name from another 187 names — the name of the party we would like to represent us in Congress. Those 187 names are the tip of the iceberg, so to speak — a manifestation of a system gone wrong. Only consider:

Our 1987 Constitution introduced the party-list system, according to political scientist Edna Co, as a corrective or social justice mechanism.

Why corrective? Because currently, we use the majoritarian rule for electing officials. What the party-list system does is to introduce an element of proportional representation, where political parties receive seats in Congress in the same proportion as the number of votes it wins. Thus a voter actually has two representatives in Congress: a person he has voted for, and the representative of the party he has voted for. Note that the voter, in a closed party-list system such as ours, does not vote for a specific candidate, but for a specific party. The party, in turn, has a published list of candidates that will represent the party in Congress if it wins a seat. All the votes are counted, and each party then receives the number of seats in proportion to the number of votes it receives. The Constitution provides that the party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives.

Why social justice? Because it allows not only the underrepresented, but the marginalized sectors of society to be represented in Congress. Thus, for three consecutive terms after the party-list system is put in place, the Constitution requires that one half of the party-list seats should go to those from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except for the religious sector. The three-consecutive-term grace period is presumably to give these sectors time to prepare and strengthen themselves to be able to compete in the regular electoral contests. The time limit ensures that they must lose no time in preparing themselves to enter the political mainstream.

A beautiful concept. Full of good intentions.

But as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Don’t get me wrong. There have been some good things that have come out of the party-list system. Political scientist Edna Co, for example, found that the party-list presence in Congress brought to it many issues that were previously ignored, and although none of the bills they introduced were passed into law, the party-list representatives have at least sometimes, provided some conscience to our Congress.

But problems have arisen in the party-list implementation. And I list them down;

1. The proportional representation objective has been distorted because parties in the party-list system are only allowed a maximum of three seats, so the extra votes for the party count for nothing. And because at the same time a party must receive at least 2% of the votes cast for the party list in order to gain one seat, what results is that the number of seats allocated for party-list representatives are not filled. In 1998, only 14 of the 52 party-list seats were filled.

2. It was never the intention of the Constitution to give permanent reserved seats to the marginalized sectors — which is why they were given three consecutive terms before the party-list system was thrown completely open to registered national, regional, and sectoral parties. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court seems to have misread the Constitution again and has actually disallowed registered national and regional parties from participating.

3. While it is difficult to decide what constitutes marginalized sectors, Comelec seems to have taken the line of least resistance, and allowed all manner and kinds of parties to register so long as there is insufficiency of evidence in the motions for reconsiderations filed by oppositors. As a result of this todo-pasa attitude of the Comelec, we are faced with the following situations:

a. The number of parties in the party-list system has ballooned, destroying the very advantage of a party-list system: which is that it is very simple for voters who have only to make one choice for a party out of a small selection. I don’t know how many parties were registered in 1998, but instead of this number getting smaller as parties with similar beliefs and objectives coalesce, the number has become larger.

b. The party-list system has also been bastardized in ways that would be unheard of in countries using the party-list system like those in continental Europe. There you have the Green Party, or the Labor Party, or the Social Democratic Party, or the Conservative Party. Here we have a homosexual party, and a security guard party, and a tricycle driver or bus driver party. To make matters worse, these are represented by the most unlikely people: Mike Arroyo’s sister represents tricycle drivers, Mikey Arroyo wants to speak for security guards. The fell hand of either Malacañang, or traditional politicians, or powerful business persons.

c. And to top it all, we have religious parties such as Buhay and Cibac, as well as parties, such as Bayan Muna and Gabriela, that are linked to organizations advocating for the violent overthrow of government. This is against the law, and the Constitution, but does the Comelec care?

Can you see the irony of it all? The party-list system was supposed to help reform politics in the Philippines. Now the party-list system itself is in great need of reform. And meanwhile, because of this bastardized party-list system, come May 10 we voters will have to deal with a ballot that is 28 inches long and almost a foot wide. –Calling A Spade… — By Solita Collas-Monsod