Crabs

I’ve never really agreed with the party-list system. It is one of those lame-brained ideas embedded in the 1987 Constitution. It is something that could only happen in a basic document so hastily so recklessly put together.

 The party-list system is badly conceived. It is in no way akin to the system of proportional representation that is present in some parliamentary set-ups. There is logic to proportional representation: it averts under-representation of parties that perform second-best in many constituencies.

Whatever criticism there might be about proportional representation, it cannot be denied that this method helps reinforce the political party system. A major political party may lose most constituency races and still garner seats on the basis of their share of the popular vote.

 On the other hand, our oddly unique party-list system undermines the standard political parties and keeps them weak. It dilutes the principle of first-past-the-post district representation that underpins “House of the People.” It weakens political party alliances and condemns the House to the eternal chaos of loose coalitions, diverting time and energy from the task of legislation. Consequently, it undermines the quality of legislation that emanates from our Congress.

By its nature, the party-list system enshrines particularistic interests and marginal ideological groupings. It gives a loud voice to the unimportant. It provides a soapbox for irrelevant factions to preach from and hinders the determination of national consensus.

Our odd party-list system is anchored on a vague concept: that of representing the “marginalized.” Who defines who the “marginalized” are?

 All democracies honor the rule of majorities; never allowing overrule by minorities. Our odd party-list system therefore runs against the grain of the democratic ethic.

In practical terms, the party-list system over-populates the Congress with people not directly elected by the voters and who define for themselves what they represent. At the Batasan, there is now a severe shortage of office space for the population boom of “representatives.” Each of them vie for committee assignments, fight for their share of the pork, bask in the perks of power and make law-making an even more costly enterprise for the poor taxpayer.

So it was that, over the years, our odd party-list system was dominated by leftist factions and groups fronting for religious sects. The former provided a loud soapbox for protecting the interests of the unlawful underground; the latter flouted the principle of separation between church and state, allowing tax-sponsored pork to flow towards factions of faith.

Both, at any rate, served dogma rather than consensus and at public expense.

 Eventually, others began to figure out how to work the ropes of the party-list system. They entered the party-list arena in force, claiming more defined constituencies such as poor regions, security guards, the elderly, and small entrepreneurs. I cast my vote for Agham, even if its designated representative was not an accredited scientist, on the argument that nothing could be more marginalized in our society than the scientific mind.

The leftists, who used to dominate the party-list system by claiming to speak for “the people” were alarmed at the challenge to their hegemony. Soon they began behaving like crabs, trying to take down or force the disqualification of elected party-list groups on the tenuous ground that their designated representatives did not really come from the ranks they represented.

When the leftists held sway over the party-list system, no one interrogated them about whether they indeed came from the ranks of those they claim they represented. At any rate, who do Bayan Muna and Akbayan really represent?

 First they went after Mikey Arroyo because, they say, he was neither a security guard nor a tricycle driver, the two sectors his party-list group claims to represent. It appears they singled him out because of who his mother is. The Comelec went ahead and proclaimed Mikey. The leftists have elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, opening the possibility that all the sitting party-list representatives could be unseated en masse.

Now they are going after Teodorico Haresco, duly proclaimed representative of Kasangga. The Ang Kasangga sa Kaunlaran Inc. is a party-list group claiming to represent the small entrepreneurs. The complainants against his proclamation claim he is a big entrepreneur rather than a small entrepreneur.

The complaint begs the question: don’t big entrepreneurs start out as small entrepreneurs? Are not the policy concerns of all entrepreneurs basically the same?

 The complaint against Haresco runs into some serious procedural questions as well. The Comelec, acting as the National Board of Canvassers, had already proclaimed Haresco. Yet the move to disqualify him was filed with the poll body. On matters of disqualifying a duly-seated representative, the complaint ought to be filed with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), not with the Comelec.

On matters of procedure alone, the complaint collapses. The Comelec, having proclaimed Kasangga with its nearly 300,000 votes, cannot encroach into what has become the province of the HRET without transgressing constitutional principle.

But that is not the real issue. The issue here is the craven effort of those who want to maintain hegemony over the faulty party-list system of representation to systematically move for the disqualification of those who do not partake of their dogma.

It is bad enough that the party-list system is of faulty design. It is worse if this system is monopolized by certain ideological groups who, by mere dogmatic postulation, claim exclusive right to speak for “the people.”