(Below is the first privilege speech of Akbayan Partylist Rep. Tom Villarin)MR. SPEAKER, I rise on a personal and collective privilege.
Last week, President Rodrigo Duterte was quoted by media to have said that he will abolish the party-list system of representation in Congress under a new Constitution to be proposed.
However, doing so will directly affect this representation as well as other representations in the 17th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the party-list system in the Philippines constitutes one of the major political and electoral reforms introduced after the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship and enshrined in our 1987 Constitution. It was the best hope to transform our traditional politics into one with more programmatic parties, more responsive and pro-active to the needs and issues of the majority of the people.
The framers of our Constitution wanted our electoral democracy to be an improvement of the past. It provided for a multi-party system over a two-party system so as to encourage “a hundred flowers to bloom and a thousand thoughts to contend.” While eventually opting to have a majoritarian electoral system, or a plurality of votes in a “first pass the post” elections for local and national posts, it also adopted the party-list system using proportional representation. This in itself is a unique combination of a majoritarian and a proportional system of elections.
As such, the PL System is provided under Section 5 Article VI of the 1987 Constitution: and I quote: “a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations” whose representatives shall constitute “twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list.” Sectors include labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors, as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
The Constitution allows Congress to define the process of seat allocation of the party-list system through law, thus, Congress enacted RA 7941 or the Party List System Act.
Later, the Supreme Court in the Banat case provided an interpretation of the law with four major features:
a) it provides for a twenty percent allocation for PLs from the total number of seats in the House of Representatives
b) it provides for a two percent threshold to qualify for the first seat or guaranteed seat
c) it provides for a three-seat limit for each qualified party regardless of the number of votes it obtained thus remaining a valid statutory device that prevents any party from dominating the PL elections; and
d) the system of proportional representation in allocating additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to, and thus effectively doing away the two percent requirement for the additional seat as being unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, where majoritarian systems emphasized governability, proportional systems focus on the inclusion of minority voices. Advocates of proportional systems argue that other considerations are more important, such as the fairness of the outcome for minor parties who are sidelined by the traditionally dominant parties, the need for checks and balances, and the representation of minority social groups.
Demands for change in electoral systems have also been generated in recent decades by increasing concern about the social composition of parliament. Political systems systematically under-represent certain social groups in terms of class, race and gender. Women, for example, constitute a little over 10 percent of national legislators worldwide, and this proportion is said to have declined in recent years. But within democracies there are substantial variations in this pattern, and women have usually lagged furthest behind in countries using majoritarian systems.
Parties concerned about this issue consider various strategies including legally binding gender-quotas, dual-member constituencies designated by gender, and most commonly affirmative action in internal rules of the party organizations. Affirmative action can be applied to balancing the social composition of the party lists (for example, designating every other position on the list for male or female candidates).
Therefore debates about electoral reform have often produced conflict about means (i.e. what would be the effects on the party’s electoral chances in such a system?) but even more fundamentally about ends (i.e. what is the primary objective of the electoral system?).
Mr. Speaker, ideally proportional systems like the party-list can promote a process of conciliation and coalition building within government. PL groups reflect the main divisions in the social composition of the electorate, so that all citizens have a voice and vote in the legislature. In this view majoritarian systems are like a “winner-takes-all” contest that over-reward the winner, producing “an elected dictatorship” where the government can implement its programs without the need for consultation and compromise with other parties in parliament. Without programmatic political parties and strong political institutions, the rewards system is overly centralized to whoever occupies the top executive position in government.
Around the world, there are 57 countries that use PR and are widespread around Europe. The principle of proportional representation is that the seats in a constituency are divided according to the number of votes cast for party lists, but there are considerable variations in how this is implemented in different systems.
The proportionality principle is also an essential requirement in the Party-list System. It is considered by the Supreme Court as one of the inviolable parameters for having this system of representation. It is defined as the “democratic principle of proportional representation such that the percent share of the total number of seats of a winning party must be equal, if not almost equal, to its percent share of the total number of votes of all parties qualified to receive a seat.”
I dare say that there is much to be desired upon which this principle is being applied in the recent elections. Clearly, there is a need to revisit the formula in allocating seats on the principle of proportionality.
Our Constitution also identifies the sectors that need representation namely the workers, farmers, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, among others, as part of the avowed State policy in encouraging sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation (Sec. 23, Article 2, State Policies)
But who can represent these marginalized and underrepresented sectors?
On this matter, the Supreme Court interpreted in the Atong Paglaum case in 2013 that any Pedro, Maria, Juan or Jose can be their representative on the basis of one’s advocacy for the sector/s. In the Atong Paglaum case raised to the Supreme Court, it stated that there are two groups entitled to PL representation: (1) the marginalized and underrepresented sectors” and (2) those lacking a “well-defined political constituency.”
As such, any organized group of citizens belonging to any of the marginalized and underrepresented sector/s, can register and seek accreditation from the Commission on Elections. But the process of seeking accreditation with the Comelec has been convoluted and messy to say the least.
Mr. Speaker, ultimately, it is the voter who has the power to choose. With more than a hundred party-list groups vying for one single vote, the voter then has the right to be informed enough, be knowledgeable enough, and discerning enough what PL group to chose.
You might ask Mr. Speaker: why am I saying all these?
The president sees a problem within a system but that does not necessarily mean that the system as a whole is the problem.
Neither does it follow that abolishing an entire system of representation will solve the problem.
Doing so means doing away with the gains of the EDSA People Power Revolution. It will set back the hands of time, negate the people’s struggle against the Marcos dictatorship, and send a warning signal to those who believe in defending democracy and fighting inequality.
Who can represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors—this is the bone of contention by which President Rodrigo Duterte has spoken. This is the problem before us. Then by all means Mr. Speaker, let us fix it.
Notwithstanding, the facts remain:
Party-lists are where the basic sectors can actively participate.
Party-lists give life to the social justice provisions embedded in our Constitution by fleshing them into law.
Party-lists provide the hope to transform our traditional politics into one that is programmatic, responsive and transparent.
The issue on the party-list being raised now is not about its essence but how it is being practiced. Unfortunately, there is a big difference between its intrinsic nature and the political realities of elections.
But Mr. Speaker, imperfect as the party-list system is, has the nation and have our people benefitted from it? My answer is a resounding yes!
Of the bills and resolutions filed that are of national in scope, these all came from the party list groups who have nationwide and sectoral constituencies. We have laws that provided for sectoral representation in national government bodies (SRA, NIA. NEDA, Landbank). The PL groups likewise actively supported the passage of the Clean Air Act that strengthened environmental laws and regulations. We struggled to have the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law Extension with Reforms passed for our landless farmers. The Reproductive Health Law was a collaborative effort that involved PL groups that defended the law up to the Supreme Court. It was also through the efforts of PL groups that made voting by overseas Filipinos possible. Recently, we passed the Philippine Competition Commission law that provides oversight over monopolistic tendencies of corporations and affect ordinary consumers. PL groups are likewise very active in sectoral advocacies for workers, farmers, fisherfolk, women, overseas Filipino workers, indigenous peoples, and pushing for an anti-discrimination bill.
On the part of this representation, Akbayan has vigorously lobbied for the passage of the Marcos Human Rights Victims Compensation Law that was far reaching as the State made mea culpa to the victims of HR violations during the martial law period. Of course, the PL group has encountered difficulties in passing legislation but that is part of the territory.
Mr. Speaker, PL groups have even dared venture to seek representation in the Senate. After several tries, we now have two Senators who come from the ranks of the PL groups.
Over the years, we have seen the rise of new party list groups and the rise of the threshold needed to get in the winning circle. It has also become increasingly costly to campaign in the party list as one has to reach a bigger audience and constituency.
Thus, what is needed is for this Congress to look into the merits of enacting a comprehensive campaign finance law. Experience worldwide suggests that regulation of party funding can be effective if well designed and implemented by effective sanctions, and accompanied by the institution of appropriate ethics and norms.
How our PL System could evolve over the next years would spur interesting insights and developments in our democratic system of governance. Even after seven party-list elections, with COMELEC making its own rules and interpretation as well as various Supreme Court pronouncements on the PL, it is clear and very crucial to amend RA 7941 or the Party List System Act.
MR SPEAKER, with all due respect to the president, sa atong dakong pagtahud kay Presidente, to abolish the party-list system is simply out of the question.
But it is imperative for any individual who inspires and aspires for true change—a change that comes from within—to institute reforms that will improve the representation of the most vulnerable sectors of our nation. And I think the party list groups represented here in this august chamber is one with me in saying, let’s fix and improve on the Party List law.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment