A commoner’s view of partylist

After July 4, 1946, when we began enjoying independence from foreign domination courtesy of the Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act and the Tydibgs–McDuffie Act, of the U.S.A, we had our electoral process using the American model. In our elections, there were the Liberal Party (LP) and the Naciolista Party (NP) replicating the dominance of the American Democrats and Republicans. It came to pass that most, if not all, of the brilliant men and women whom we elected as senators and congressmen were also our social elites with access to the ruling political parties. The bright minds living in depressed areas in our country were, by the quirk of unfortunate economic circumstances, so marginalized that they were without links to the dynamic electoral processes and perceived political powerhouses.

The 1986 Constitutional Commission saw this scenery. I believe that to the commissioners, it was less democratic than the ideal that should have been. Elected government offices should not just be open to the privileged and socially high connected. The known election imbalance must be made fair and leveled. Equal opportunity need likewise to given to those living in the marginalized sectors of society. So, they boldly wrote in Article VI, Section 5, paragraph (1) of our 1987 Constitution an innovation to the structure of the Legislative Department. Accordingly, the House of Representatives shall include “those who xx shall be elected through a party list system of registered national, regional and sectors parties or organizations.”

In explaining the rationale of this innovative constitutional provision, the Supreme Court said that “the party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives.” Justice Cruz, noted a ruling of our highest tribunal that declared “the party list system will enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underprivileged 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.”

The Party List System Act (Republic Act 7491) was signed into a law by President Fidel V Ramos. Maybe because of its uniqueness, several cases (too many to follow) have been filed with Supreme Court to divine the ratio legis. Understandably, the crux of the cases centered on the term marginalized and underprivileged sector. The basic premise which according to a case, viewed the system being essentially for the representation of the marginalized and under privileged sectors seemingly got repudiated in a later case. Honestly, the flux of cases appeared somewhat confusing to ordinary mortals, not excluding me. To amplify the legal dispute, I dare to pose a question involving the Tingog Partylist considering that its first reported nominee is the lovely spouse of the speaker of the House of Representatives. Can we accept that this partylist is marginalized and underprivileged?

Let us, private citizens, navigate away from this blurring issue. Each ruling of the Supreme Court that I have come across had philosophical explanations too profound for quick comprehension. While I am sure that time has its own way of clarifying what is really meant by marginalized and underprivileged sector, the chance is real that it might take us some time to grasp a full understanding of the fundamental law as interpreted by the court. We need to take this matter with a firm hand away from whatever difficulty we have in divining the judiciary. There are party lists campaigning for our votes. It is easy for us to know their nominees than to understand their respective programs. If, in our best judgment, the nominee is far from being marginalized and underprivileged, let us reject the partylist.