spot_img
28 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

Too much ‘democracy’?

- Advertisement -

“Have these politicians really improved the quality of legislation and the practice of representative democracy in our country?”

The 1987 Constitution envisioned the party-list system as a vehicle for representatives of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors in Philippine society to directly participate in crafting laws and government policies, not just to elect national and local officials.

This provision was clearly the product of recognition that the existing political parties in the country in the postwar period had been dominated by the elite, especially those who had been educated in the best schools here and abroad, or who had accumulated enough wealth whether through business acumen or the practice of lucrative professions.

The solution? Expand the scope of democracy. Give those who have had limited education and who have remained poor, powerless and voiceless for one reason or another to run for public office. This way, they can help shape the future of the nation.

But has this constitutional provision and implementing law, Republic Act 7941 or the Party-List System Act of 1995, achieved this goal of an enhanced democracy?

This law seeks to promote proportional representation in the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions. It allows citizens belonging to the 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 Lower Chamber of Congress.

- Advertisement -

This law also mandates the State to develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature.

In the initial years of implementation, the party-list system appeared to achieve its goal of broadening citizen participation in legislation, with representatives from farmers, labor, teachers, women, and youth able to win seats in Congress.

But in 2013, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for just about everyone to aspire to become members of Congress when it revised its own rules laid down in 2001. It allowed political parties and groups not representing marginalized and underrepresented sectors to participate in party-list elections.

The Court en banc granted 54 petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed by party-list groups that were earlier disqualified by the Commission on Elections (Comelec). The justices ordered the cases remanded to the poll body so it could ascertain the qualifications of each party-list groups based on the revised standards formulated by the Court.

The high court cited six “parameters” that the Comelec should “adhere to” in determining which group may participate in subsequent elections.

First, three different groups are allowed to participate in the party-list system: national parties or organizations; regional parties or organizations; and sectoral parties or organizations.

Second, national parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent “any marginalized and underrepresented” sector.

Third, political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections.

Fourth, sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constituencies…It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of the sector. The sectors that are marginalized and underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans and overseas workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political constituencies include professionals, the elderly, women and the youth.”

Fifth, the majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector that they represent. The court pointed out: “To require all national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the ‘marginalized and underrepresented’ is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system.”

And sixth, national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

At the 18th Congress, there are now a total of 51 party-list groups representing various sectors. More than 120 others applied for accreditation to take part in the May 2022 elections but only a small number are expected to win seats based on recent survey results.

But the questions that need to be answered should be: Have the party-list groups actually served the interests and improved the lives of the sectors they represent? Have they really helped solve the nation’s problems, mainly poverty and corruption? And have they really improved the quality of legislation and the practice of representative democracy in our country? If not, have they, in fact, diminished, rather than enhanced Philippine democracy over the years?

(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles