ConCom’s proportional representation scheme deserves closer study
TWO DECADES since the introduction of the party-list system of congressional representation, the consensus is that the scheme needs reform, if not an overhaul.
We use the word “scheme” in its derogatory sense here to describe the party-list system, which has turned out to become a devious plot against the electorate.
The principle behind the party-list system is contained in the declaration of policy of Republic Act (RA) 7941, or the Party-List System Act, the legislation enabling Article VI, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, under which 20 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives must be allocated to a party-list system of “registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.”
RA 7941 is clear that the party-list system is supposed to allow “marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives.”
The law, however, is riddled with loopholes, and as a result, the party-list system has devolved into a scheme exploited by relatives and associates of dynasty-building politicians, show business personalities and other wannabe-congressmen.
It is deplorable that the truly marginalized and under-represented sectors are themselves marginalized under the party-list scheme, which is populated by so-called parties of questionable or even nonexistent, ideology, and candidates of doubtful qualification and lawmaking ability.
Just take a look at the names of these party-list groups, mostly starting with the letter “A.” It’s a scheme within a scheme, obviously a ploy by sham parties to be on top of alphabetical listings to boost their chances of being chosen by voters who know nothing about them, their candidates or their platforms.
Rulings of the Supreme Court have confirmed the infirmities of the party-list system, by allowing just anyone to represent marginalized or under-represented sectors and party-list groups unable to win the threshold 2 percent votes to get a seat.
A proposal worth considering is the “proportional party representation” under the draft constitution prepared by the Palace-appointed Consultative Committee (ConCom) tasked to recommend changes to the 1987 Constitution.
The ConCom’s solution is to discard the artificial distinction between parties — political parties and party-list groups. This means marginalized or under-represented sectors must eventually evolve into political parties.
Initially, 40 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives will be reserved for proportional party representation of marginalized sectors, namely labor, farmers, urban poor, fisherfolk, and indigenous communities. Sixty percent of the members of the House of Representatives will still be elected by district.
After the initial period, all political parties that will get at least 5 percent of the total votes cast for proportional party representation nationwide will be entitled to nominate representatives.
The proposal can still be refined, such as by including concrete measures that will help marginalized or under-represented sectors build strong political parties like those in European countries and in the European parliament.
It’s a good starting point for discussions on the fate of the party-list system and is, at least on paper, better than the farce that we have now.
The post ConCom’s proportional representation scheme deserves closer study appeared first on The Manila Times Online.