I read this editorial last week on the Party-List System in one of the most-read broadsheets in the country with a sense of unease, not because I disagreed with its premise, but because it seemed to close the door on a conversation that still demands our full attention. The party-list system, for all its distortions and misuses, was never meant to be a perfect instrument, but to be a political innovation born of a specific historical moment, one that sought to correct centuries of exclusion. To declare it a failure is to overlook the deeper failure of our political imagination.
When I think of the original intent behind the system, I do not see a technical mechanism but rather a moral commitment. The framers of the Constitution did not merely draft a provision but instead extended a hand to those who had long been denied a seat at the table. That gesture, however symbolic, carried the weight of a promise that, when broken, does not lose its value but would demand redress.
The editorial points to Republic Act 7941 as the legislative culprit, and rightly so; however, laws do not operate in a vacuum but must be interpreted, implemented, yet sadly, often manipulated by those who benefit from ambiguity. The Supreme Court rulings that expanded the eligibility of party-list nominees did not emerge from thin air but were responses to legal arguments crafted by those who understood how to bend the law without breaking it.
I have in the past met and talked with a few individuals who claim to represent the marginalized, yet whose lifestyles betray no trace of struggle. They speak the language of advocacy, but their interests lie elsewhere. This is not merely a matter of hypocrisy but of a deeper structural problem that allows wealth and influence to masquerade as legitimacy. The system, as it stands, rewards performance over authenticity.
Still, I resist the temptation to dismiss the entire framework. There are groups who continue to fight for the sectors they represent. Yes, these groups may be few but real. They do so with limited resources and often in hostile political terrain. Their victories may be modest but definitely not meaningless. It would be too cruel to erase their efforts by branding the system a failure in the same way that it would also be a disservice to these groups.
The editorial laments the inaction of Congress, and honestly, I share that frustration. Electoral reform has long been treated as a ceremonial talking point, trotted out during crises and shelved in times of calm. But, the problem is not just legislative inertia but also the absence of sustained public pressure. Many of us have allowed the issue to recede into the background and to be overshadowed by more immediate concerns.
I do not believe that cynicism is a substitute for critique, but to say that the party-list system has been hijacked is accurate; however, to say that it is beyond repair is significantly inaccurate. Systems are not self-correcting but should respond to the forces that act upon them, and if those forces are weak, the system will continue to drift; but if they are strong, change becomes possible even if it is incremental.
I hope that we do not forget the fact that there is a tendency to speak of reform in abstract terms, as if it were a distant ideal, but reform begins with language, with the way we frame the problem. If we speak only of failure, we invite resignation; if we speak of distortion, we leave room for correction. The difference is not semantic but more of strategic. And this difference speaks volume of meanings.
I write this not as a defender of the status quo, but as someone who still believes in the value of institutional struggle. The party-list system may be flawed, but it remains one of the few avenues through which marginalized voices can enter the legislative arena. To abandon it now would be to concede that those voices no longer matter, and if that happens, it would be a shame!
We should not confuse exhaustion with conclusion because the work of democracy is never finished. Yes, it is messy, uneven, and often disheartening, but it is also necessary. And in that necessity lies our responsibility not to declare failure but to demand better.