[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’ EDITORIAL’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”][/av_heading]
[av_image src=’http://www.panaynews.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/editorial-cartoon-for-aug15.jpg’ attachment=’114002′ attachment_size=’full’ align=’center’ styling=” hover=” link=” target=” caption=” font_size=” appearance=” overlay_opacity=’0.4′ overlay_color=’#000000′ overlay_text_color=’#ffffff’ animation=’no-animation’][/av_image]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Mockery
THE Party-list System Act (Republic Act 7941), enacted in 1995, is supposed to “enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties… to become members of the House of Representatives (Sec. 2, Declaration of Principles).” This law is for those 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.
However, the latest data on the net worth of the members of the House of Representatives show that the party-list system is rich in contradiction and poor in execution. That the richest legislator is currently from a party-list – with a staggering net worth of P7.01 billion – makes a mockery of the law.
On April 5, 2013 the Supreme Court, voting 10-2-1, said, “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.”
Fast forward to 2017. Given that three party-list representatives are among the 10 richest legislators, it is clear traditional politicians and political dynasties have benefited most from the High Court’s decision four years ago.
Even if nine out of the 10 poorest legislators are also party-list representatives, it is imperative for the Supreme Court to review its 2013 decision and reaffirm what then Justice Artemio Panganiban wrote as regards Bagong Bayani v. Comelec in 2001. Sixteen years ago, Panganiban stressed that the Party-list System Act, which was “crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers, cannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park.”
The ruling elite, especially the political dynasties, should not appropriate the party-list system to add more seats among themselves, paying lip service to representing the marginalized and underrepresented. The party-list system belongs not to them but to those they claim to represent but continue to exploit.
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
