The party-list system and corruption

Editor’s note: The Manila Times today publishes the fifth part of the serialization of Mr. Monsod’s assessment of the May 2010 automated polls. The assessment was delivered on November 9, 2010, at the Ateneo de Manila Rockwell campus in Rockwell, Makati City, as a lecture, under the Jaime V. Ongpin Foundation Lecture Series.

Fifth of six parts

The party-list system at present is a bastardization of the constitutional provision. Yet, it has been relatively successful as an experiment on proportional representation, as a mechanism for a truly representative House (of Representatives) and in improving the quality of debates on legislation, and should not be abolished as some suggest.

But the system is getting out of hand because a flawed law, flawed Supreme Court decisions and its flawed implementation by the Comelec (Commission on Elections). The law must be amended and/or the Supreme Court must revisit its decisions, especially on the issues of “sectoral” and “marginalized” groups and the cap for each party.

But even without the changes, the Comelec can make the party-list elections more manageable by being strict against single-issue parties and parties with no distinctive platforms, and against nominees of convenience that defeat the purpose of giving a voice to marginalized minorities.

Corruption. The use of money, most of it government money diverted for partisan purposes, is a big problem in elections. It also fuels warlordism, vote-buying and the corruption of election officials. We thought that former President Ferdinand Marcos was the pits in that regard. But it has become worse. It has been democratized through a patronage and “pork-barrel” system, and even from leakages in the IRA (Internal Revenue Allotment) down to the barangay (village). Only a massive and uncompromising campaign, with the Comelec as a key enforcer, can stop this practice. If the Aquino administration’s fight against corruption is for real, it should put this reform on top of its agenda. (Note: The coming publication of the study by the Philippine Center for Investigative Reporting on campaign finance by Malou Mangahas et al is a must reading for everyone.)

With respect to corruption in the Comelec itself, it was particularly problematic in 2010 because there was a lot of money to spend, and to spend quickly. The total budget was a mouth-watering P16.5 billion. I am told that one corruption technique was to delay decisions until they are too urgent to allow for proper scrutiny. When I asked a high-ranking Comelec official why certain transactions were rushed, he said: “Kung gusto mong mag-magic, kailangang mabilis ang kamay mo [Translation: If you want to make “magic,” you have to be fast of hand].”

A questionable contract, for example, is the packing and forwarding of ballot boxes and official ballots, which cost P1.1 billion and which was not bidded out. It was a negotiated contract with Smartmatic, which would not have been qualified to bid because it is not in that business and which sub-contracted the work anyway. Comelec itself has years of experience in transporting these items. What is Smartmatic’s value-added to this activity?

If it is true (I could not get a verification from Commisioner Gregorio Larrazabal on the figures) that the cost of deploying ballot boxes and official ballots in the barangay elections was only P67 million, then the questions must be asked: Is there a 1,800 percent difference in volume and scope between the two? Why should one cost 18 times more than the other?

The most effective solution to corruption is to bring the crooks, without exception, to justice. –Christian S. Monsod, Former Chairman Commission On Elections, Manila Times

To be continued