Abused party-list system

Sectoral representation in Congress first started with the regime of Ferdinand Marcos, and at that period in congressional history, the sectoral representatives were appointed by Marcos.

His idea then, so it was said, was to ensure that a required number of congressmen, both elected and appointed, could stop any move made against Marcos.

The party-list system with which the Filipinos today are familiar, was institutionalized through a law enacted in 1995, where a party, represented by its nominees, rather than an individual seeking a seat, is voted upon. The rationale behind the party-list voting was supposedly to provide proportional representation to sectoral groups, which system was also claimed to help create a “healthy democracy,” as it is supposed to provide a voice for the citizens in Congress and in local government.

This system was envisioned to provide a voice for the marginalized and under-represented sectors and “enhance transparency and accountability, leading to a more efficient government.”

The party-list system was claimed to have been aimed at altering the political landscape, introducing platform-based politics instead of “moneyed” and “patronage politics.”

After the law was passed, a number of party-list representatives made it to seats in the House of Representatives, enjoying the perks and privileges of a district congressman.

But it was during the time of Gloria Arroyo after the Edsa ll coup d’etat in which the leftists participated, that they were able to get into Congress as sectoral representatives, as well as many more so-called political allies of Gloria who were suddenly seated in Congress as representatives of the “marginalized” sectors, which was really ridiculous.

Arroyo is said to be able to count some five Arroyos in the incoming Congress, with an additional “party-lister” in her son, Rep. Mikey Arroyo, said to be representing yet another “marginalized sector.”

But clearly, even as early at that time of elected partylist representatives, it was evident that instead of enhancing transparency and accountability, many of these sectoral representatives had become that which they claimed to abhor: congressmen who were into money and patronage politics, along with their being as opaque as the regular district congressmen and as unaccountable as them with their pork barrel funds.

Yet the claim then was that it was important to have a party list system, as this system would introduce “new politics,” which has never come about.

Stated bluntly, these party listers and so called ideolgues were no different from the so-called “trapo politicians.”

To be in the majority and therefore enjoying more money and perks, some of these so-called sectoral congressmen voted with the party in power and did not criticize the administration, despite the many irregularities and anomalies. They who were vocal in their criticisms of the pork barrel funds, claiming this led to corruption, were suddenly also silent on the pork barrel funds, as they were getting these funds, and worse, never accounting for these funds’ disbursement.

Just which sector were they truly representing and were these sectors being served? And as legislators, just what have they achieved, through their sponsored bills?

It can always be claimed by them that they have been coming up with bills, but that these never see the light as law, since they, as party-list representatives, are a minority in Congress. But this shouldn’t wash, as a reason, since they will always be a minority in Congress and they knew it even then.

Party-listers are nationwide representatives, elected by some 2 percent of the national electorate. Yet it cannot be denied that nothing much has changed, by way of improvements in such sectors now supposedly represented by their party-list representatives.

Even worse, the party-list system has become so abused in the sense that almost every party-lister that applies for accreditation claims to be representing a marginalized sector. This is absurd, especially as even the business sector, which is hardly marginalized, has a party-list, as a lot of politicians have.

Truth is, it really is time to abolish the party-list system. The time is ripe for it. It is a failed system. –Daily Tribune