THE ORIGINAL PURPOSES OF THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM

THE ORIGINAL PURPOSES OF THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM


Several Party-List Organizations (PLOs) have recently been dragged into scandals such as the flood control projects mess. What’s ironic is that many of the so-called “representatives” implicated in these scams are not from marginalized sectors at all. Instead, reports show that some of these groups were funded, organized, and even controlled by wealthy individuals who had no business claiming to represent farmers, laborers, or indigenous peoples.


Because of this, the Party-List System (PLS)—once heralded as a beacon of social justice—has earned a bad reputation. Now, many Filipinos are calling for its outright abolition. Frankly, I am tempted to join that call. But on second thought, scrapping the system altogether would mean depriving the genuinely marginalized of the very representation that the Constitution promised them. Isn’t that another form of marginalization?

So where do we stand? Reform, not abolition. But then the hard question: how do we reform a system that has already been hijacked?


Let us first go back to the original purpose of the PLS. Under Article VI, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act 7941 (1995), 20% of the House of Representatives’ seats were reserved for party-lists. The goals were clear:

  1. Broaden political representation – give voice to the poor, the women, the youth, the fisherfolk, the indigenous peoples, and other excluded groups.

  2. Democratize power – break the monopoly of political dynasties and traditional elites.

  3. Promote sectoral advocacy – allow civil society to push forward issues like education, workers’ rights, and the environment.

  4. Strengthen pluralism – ensure multiple viewpoints in Congress, not just those of entrenched clans.


Sounds noble, doesn’t it? Yet somewhere along the way, we lost sight of these principles. Judicial reinterpretations like the Atong Paglaum v. Comelec ruling in 2013 widened the scope of who could run, making it easier for non-marginalized parties to jump in. That’s how we ended up with party-lists linked to big business, political dynasties, and even security forces. What’s worse, some of them focus less on legislation and more on pork projects, like—you guessed it—flood control. Pardon me, but why should a party-list supposedly representing, say, the youth or women, be neck-deep in infrastructure deals?


This is where the rot lies. What was meant to be an avenue for social inclusion has mutated into another vehicle for social exclusion, where real marginalized groups are pushed out by impostors.


So what now? Here are some suggestions:


  • Tighten accreditation: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) should review if these PLOs are genuinely composed of, and led by, the marginalized. Proof of track records—years of advocacy, grassroots organizing, or sectoral leadership—should be mandatory.

  • Replace tainted representatives: If the PLO is valid but its nominees are compromised, then why not allow the organization to replace them? After all, it is the party, not the nominee, that the people elected.

  • Define “marginalized” clearly: Congress should pass reforms requiring measurable socio-economic indicators to qualify as a marginalized group. No more vague claims.

  • Educate the voters: Many Filipinos still do not fully understand the purpose of the party-list vote. Civic education, especially at the barangay and school levels, could help people identify which groups are genuine and which are mere proxies of dynasties.

  • Strengthen watchdog mechanisms: Independent bodies, NGOs, and media must continue monitoring the performance of party-lists. Transparency reports on bills filed, budgets received, and community engagements should be mandatory.


Now, are there countries where such a system works? Yes. Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and even New Zealand have proportional representation systems that ensure small parties and minority voices enter parliament. What’s their secret? Strict rules, transparency, and political maturity. If they can do it, why can’t we?


But let’s be honest: reforms will not be easy. Those who benefit from the loopholes will resist change. Still, if we care about democracy, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Party-List System was never meant to enrich a few; it was designed to empower the many.


The question is: will we allow it to remain a hollow shell, or will we fight to restore its original spirit? For me, the answer is clear—let’s not abolish, but let’s reform, revitalize, and reclaim what rightfully belongs to the marginalized. Otherwise, the system that was meant to give them a voice will continue to silence them.


Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

01-24-2026

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES? When we talk about the crime rate in the Philippines, we often assume that the figures we see are accurate reflections of reality. But have we ever paused to ask—how exactly is the crime rate computed? Where does this data come from, and how reliable is it? The computation of the crime rate in the Philippines is officially handled by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The formula itself is straightforward: Crime Rate = (Total Reported Crimes / Total Population) x 100,000 This simple equation gives us the number of crimes per 100,000 people, allowing for fair comparison across regions and time periods. However, the reality behind these numbers is more complex than it appears. Data from the Ground The foundation of our national crime rate is empirical data collected at the grassroots level—from individual police stations scattered across the country. Every reported crime is logged in local police blotters, forming the buil...
Read more

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS Dear Mr. President: May I ask who is going to be the arbiter or referee whenever there are overlaps in functions between two or more government agencies? I imagine that there would be no problem if these agencies would just cooperate and collaborate with each other, but what if they are unable to settle their differences and they would just end up throwing blame at each other or finger pointing at each other? Allow me to cite some examples. Who is supposed to take the lead in waste to energy projects? Is it supposed to be the DENR that is supposed to handle waste? Or is it supposed to be the DOE that is supposed to handle energy generation? Or is it supposed to be the DILG since it is the one that could direct or influence the waste to energy projects of LGUs? Who is supposed to take the lead in producing and promoting the use of biofuels? Is it supposed to be the DA, since the production of biofuels is supposed to be all about planting biofuel ...
Read more

LOCALIZED FREE AMBULANCE SERVICES

LOCALIZED FREE AMBULANCE SERVICES As it is supposed to be, anyone in the Philippines should be able to dial 911, and a telephone operator should be able to dispatch fire, rescue, ambulance and police (FRAP) units as soon as possible, based on acceptable response times. I invented the FRAP acronym for easy recall, and I hope it sticks, if there is no other alternative. Unfortunately, due to a mixture of technical and political reasons, the Philippines has not adopted 911 as a national number, because some LGUs would rather use their own three-digit numbers such as 117 and 168. I actually proposed a technical solution to that problem, but it was not adopted either. For whatever it is worth, my solution is to install a call forwarding system that could route all calls to a central operator, regardless of what number is dialed. It is very sad for me to know that up to now, even if our country is already over one hundred years old, there are still many LGUs that do not have fire trucks. it ...
Read more