There must be a significant number of Filipinos who feel nauseous when they see the groups that have been formed and the characters who are seeking to enter Congress through the party-list system. The level of brazenness in claiming to represent marginalized sectors keeps rising in every election.

Maybe it’s an inability to understand what “marginalized” means. This may be a manifestation of the finding – as shown in international student assessments – that Filipinos rank at the bottom in terms of reading comprehension. The objective of marginalized representation can be gleaned from the constitutional provision on the party-list system, which requires one-half of the party-list seats to be allocated to “the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.”

This party-list seat allocation was good for three consecutive terms after the ratification of the Constitution in 1987. By 1995, Congress had passed Republic Act No. 7491, the Party-List System Act, which did not focus on marginalized representation. In 2013, the Supreme Court cited RA 7491 as the basis for its ruling that opened the floodgates to practically any group and any nominee to seek a party-list seat, allowing even political parties and groups that do not represent marginalized sectors. The nominee, the SC ruled, also need not belong to the sector the person is seeking to represent. The ruling has allowed former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s son to represent security guards, and party-list groups to represent the general public, and billionaires to represent blue-collar workers.

With continuing gerrymandering, the number of congressional districts has grown exponentially, and with it the number of seats allotted to the party-list. Did the billions consequently added to public expenditures translate into better public services? The country has instead become a regional laggard in economic and human development indicators.

Enabled by RA 7491, the party-list system has rapidly deteriorated into a failed experiment in marginalized representation. Like any law, it can be amended or repealedbetpph, so that the party-list can adhere to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Hoping for such an amendment, however, is like waiting for lawmakers to perform their constitutional mandate of passing an enabling law prohibiting or regulating political dynasties. The party-list system, like many aspects of Philippine elections, has become a farce.

• Editorial
• The
• Party-list
• betpph
• farce