Political chameleons

By Uriel Quilinguing

THE framers of the 1987 Constitution must have realized the inclusion of a party-list provision was necessary so that the sentiments of the basic sectors could not be ventilated, heard and factored in, in the crafting of laws and policy directions in pursuing a holistic development agenda.  

Foremost in their minds then was for the voiceless community sector to be represented in House of Representatives, hence the consensus was for the adoption of an electoral system where 20 percent of the elective seats for district representatives be allotted for party-list groups.

So the 20-percent quota for party-list representatives was provided for, out of the 229 congressional districts, and that would be 57 seats to be filled in by nominees of party-list groups the Commission on Elections recognized. This ensures a proportional representation where electorates vote for a party rather than a candidate.

It was the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution and the authors of Republic Act No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, that was signed into law on March 3, 1995, to promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives. Hence, the law provided that each party that has two percent of the national vote be entitled one seat each, and an additional seat for every two percent of the vote thereafter until a party has three seats. This means that a party can win a maximum of three seats if it surpasses six percent of the national vote. 

Before the enactment of party-list system law, the President appointed sectoral representatives to the House of Representatives during the 1987, 1992 and 1995 elections, subject to the confirmation from the Commission on Appointments. 

But the Supreme Court in its decision in 2013 altered that noble intention when it clarified that the party-list is a system of proportional representation open to various kinds of groups and parties, and not an exercise exclusive to marginalized sectors. 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. The justices were not involved in the framing of the Constitution and the crafting of the party-list system law.

Now, this should be the case in the House of Representatives when party-list representatives aligned and identified themselves with political parties of influence, mainly the ruling administration party Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban), Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas-CMD), and the National Unity Party (NUP).

With party defections in progress, the ruling PDP-Laban is losing some of its members, including those who were sworn into the party barely a year ago. They are headed either to the NUP where a presidential son is an honorary member or to Lakas-CMD where the leadership is tied with the Marcoses, both enjoying the graces of the Palace.   

Of the 226 members of the House of Representatives, 63 are with the PDP-Laban including 15 party-list groups; NUP has 61 including 12 party-list groups; and Lakas-CMD with 30, 15 of them are party-list representatives. 

“A party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office would forfeit his seat. Moreover, if the change is done within six (6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as a party-list representative under his new party or organization.”

This was in the implementing rules and regulations of  the party-list system act which further states that any vacancy is filled by the person next in line on the list; in cases where a seated sectoral representative switches parties, that representative loses their seat and the person next in line on the list assumes the seat. 

These should indeed be the precondition and party-list representatives must be aware of these. Being nominees they cannot, by themselves, decide on their own since they were election at large, not just within the congressional district they are in and are bringing the voice of the party-list group, not the leader of a political party who, most of the time, do not genuinely empathize with those who have less in life. If they do so, they need to consult the members of the basic sector they represent. This is unlike most politicians who have personal agenda, often tied with business interests, not the real needs of those in the basic sectors. 

All of these political parties and party-list groups can be plotted on a political spectrum based on their positions on political, economic and socio-cultural concepts and structures, hence these have corresponding colors. Now and then, these politicians do what chameleons are capable of, changing colors either for self-preservation or to lure prey for a catch.  

(Uriel C. Quilinguing is a former president of the Cagayan de Oro Press Club who had been editor in chief of Cagayan de Oro-based newspapers, including this paper. For reactions, email them to uriel.quilinguing@yahoo.com.)