Tuesday, April 17, 2007 Cabaero: Saving the party-list system By Nini B. Cabaer Beyond 30
Cabaero: Saving the party-list system
Nini B. Cabaer Beyond 30
THE party-list system in our political set-up is an example of how a good thing can go bad in the hands of people with selfish interests.
This innovation in congressional representation was introduced in 1995 during the term of then president Fidel Ramos to empower sectors that would otherwise remain in the sidelines where they are marginalized from national decision-making.
Take the case of the elderly, for example. They deserve to be heard but cannot voice their concerns directly to the legislative body until they get a seat in the House of Representatives.
Republic Act 7941 promotes proportional representation in the House of Representatives through the party-list system. This means voters can have two representatives—the district congressman and the party under the party-list elections.
The system allows a sector’s representatives to become members of Congress even without a geographically-defined political constituency. Parties that received at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each. The bigger the percentage received, the more the seats.
But that was not how it worked out in reality. Charges of “selling” seats for party-list nominees were raised recently to question implementation of the system. Nominees are those who will sit in the House of Representatives if the party gets the required votes. There were allegations made also about Malacañang controlling some of the parties.
Former elections commission chairman Christian Monsod said the party-list system has been “bastardized.” He said groups that do not represent any marginalized sector are seeking accreditation to participate in the party-list elections. This, he said, is a clear indication that there are problems in the system. “I think the system has gotten a bit out of control. And that’s why it is important to go back to the fundamentals and say why was the party-list set up in the first place and why should every group that said it is marginalized be registered as a party-list,” he said.
As to the calls to disclose the names of nominees of the parties, each party was supposed to submit to the Commission on Elections 45 days before May 14 a list of five names. These lists are available to the public.
There is still hope in the party-list system because the real marginalized sectors need now more than ever the chance to carry the sectors’ voices to Congress.
But the time has come for the system to be cleaned up in a review of the process for screening and accrediting parties.
Violators of the law or those found to have made a mockery of the system should be shamed and penalized.
Monsod’s suggestion is timely. That cleanup of the system should happen soon, even before May 14. And those who “bastardized” the system should at the least be called bastards to their face.
If there is anything worth immediately saving in the coming exercise, it is the party-list system that puts to action the heart and wisdom of representation.
