http://www.rappler.

com/nation/25502-sc-partylist-system-is-not-solely-for-marginalized

SC shakes up party list in new verdict

BY PURPLE ROMERO POSTED ON 04/04/2013 3:14 PM | UPDATED 04/06/2013 11:00 AM

NEW GUIDELINES. SC introduced new parameters in determining what groups could qualify for the partylist system.

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court ruled on Friday, April 5, that the party list is not only for the marginalized sectors, debunking an argument that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) used in disqualifying 54 party-list groups for the May 13 elections. Voting 10-2-1, the SC said political parties do not have to represent the marginalized sector to participate in the party-list elections. "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 High Court said in a decision penned by Justice Antonio Carpio. The ruling effectively upholds what the Constitution and the party list law intended the system to be: a system of proportional representation open to various kinds of groups and parties, and not an exercise exclusive to the so-called marginalized sectors. It reverses the interpretation that the SC, under then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, promulgated in 2001 that caused the retroactive disqualification of some of the groups that got the highest number of votes.

In the new decision, those who concurred with Carpio are Justices Teresita Leonaro de Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Marvic Leonen. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Justice Bienvenido Reyes dissented, while Justice Estela Perlas-Bermabe was on leave when they voted on it. The SC also remanded all 54 petitions of disqualified party-list groups to the Comelec. Applicable in 2016 Out of these 54, a total of 13 petitions are from party-list groups which were granted a status quo ante order but failed to get a mandatory injunction from the SC. Their names therefore were excluded in the ballot for May. The Comelec previously explained that getting a status quo ante order allowed these groups to retain their status as new applicants for the party-list system, but that they still needed a mandatory injunction to stop their disqualification. The SC said the Comelec in the future must decide whether the 13 groups are qualified to register under the party-list system based on the new parameters. But it stressed they would not be able to participate in the coming elections. The 13 include:

Ako An Bisaya (AAB) Alagad ng Sining (Asin) Alab ng Mamahayag (Alam) Association of Guard, Utility Helper, Aider, Rider, Driver/Domestic Helper, Janitor, Agent and Nanny of the Philippines Inc. (Guardian) Abyan Ilonggo Alliance of Organizations, Networks and Associations of the Philippines (Alona) Partido ng Bayan and Bida (PBB) Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP) 1-Alliance Advocating Autonomy Part (1AAP) Kalikasan Akbay Kalusugan (Akin) Manila Teachers Savings and Loans Association (Manila Teachers) Association of Local Athletics, Entrepreneurs and Hobbyists (Ala-Eh)

Regarding the 41 other party-list groups which secured mandatory injunctions to have their names included in the ballot, the SC said the Comelec must decide whether these groups are qualified to register under the party list and to participate in the 2013 elections.

The SC earlier defined the party-list system as one that caters to the poor sectors. In the 2001 caseBagong Bayani v. Comelec, then Justice Artemio Panganiban (he would later become Chief Justice) wrote that "the law crafted to address the peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by the mansion owners of Forbes Park." Carpio in effect reversed Panganiban in the new ruling. New guidelines The SC set new guidelines on the types of parties that may qualify for the party-list system. The SC Public Information listed the new parameters: 1. National parties or organizations, regional parties or organizations, and sectoral parties or organizations could participate in the party-list elections. 2. 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. 3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether or not it fields candidates in legislative district election, can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition. 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of the sector. The sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans and overseas workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political constituencies include professionals, the elderly, women and the youth. 5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organization that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector that they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organization that lack "well defined political constituencies" must belong to the sector that they represent. The nominees of either sector must either belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy. 6. National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified (The Supreme Court Public Information office earlier said 5 other nominees, but corrected itself on Saturday, April 6). What the Charter says

When the Constitutional Commission crafted the party-list provision in the 1987 Constitution, it did so with the goal of slowly building proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Simply put, this would allow political parties unable to wage national campaigns to take part in lawmaking, allotting them 20% of the seats in the lower chamber. But the implementing law, Republic Act 7941, which took effect in 1998, took that a step further and limited the system to the marginalized and the political underclass. Yet, it put a cap3 seatson the maximum maximum seats that one party could have and came up with percentages of votes that made it difficult, to this day, to fill up the 55 slots. Then in June 2001, Panganiban made his own computations and declared that only one party deserved to have 3 seats. The rest could have one or two depending on a new round of percentages that the justice wrote down. Called a form of judicial legislation, the Panganiban verdict reinforced the laws bias for the marginalized sector, because it described the party-list system as "a social justice toolto make theunderrepresentedactive participants in the mainstream representative democracy. Lawyers disagreed with him then. The point of the Constitution is to give leeway to the marginalized sectors only for the first term but allow the other parties to join the fray subsequently, they said. with reports from Glenda M. Gloria/Rappler.com

http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/changing-rules-on-the-party-list-system/

Changing Rules on the Party List System

Posted on May 1, 2013 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Posted in Constitutional Law, Philippines - Cases, Philippines - Law

Much like a swinging pendulum, the decision of the Supreme Court on which parties compose the party list system swings from one side to the other. Previously, the Supreme Court limited the party list system to representatives of marginalized and underprivileged sectors. In Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC (G.R. Nos. 203766, et al., April 2, 2013), the latest in the series of party list cases, the pendulum now points to the opposite side. The New Ruling Atong Paglaum involved 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by 52 party-list groups against COMELEC for disqualifying them from participating in the May 13, 2013 party-list elections. One of the main reasons for the disqualification was their failure to represent the marginalized and underrepresented. Two issues were presented: (1) Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the petitioners from participating in the May 2013 elections; and (2) Whether the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC (ABB) and BANAT v. COMELEC (BANAT) should be applied by the COMELEC in the coming May 2013 elections.

The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion because it merely followed the rulings laid down in ABB and BANAT. However, the Court decided to abandon these rulings and adopted new parameters for the upcoming elections; thus, it remanded the case to COMELEC so the latter can determine the status of the petitioners based on the following new guidelines: 1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations. 2. 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. 3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in partylist elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition. 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in welldefined political constituencies. It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are marginalized and underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political constituencies include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth. 5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack well-defined political constituencies must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented, or that represent those who lack well-defined political constituencies, either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations. 6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified. It is clear from the foregoing that a new rule has been set: not all parties in the party-list system have to represent a sector that is marginalized and underrepresented. According to the Supreme Court, the framers of the Constitution never intended the party-list system to be reserved for sectoral parties. The latter were only part of the party-list system not the entirety of it. There were two more groups composing the system national and regional parties. This is evident from the phrasing of Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, which states that: The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districtsand those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (emphasis supplied) National and regional parties are different from sectoral parties such that the former need not organize along sectoral lines and represent a particular sector. Hence, it is not necessary for these parties to be representative of the marginalized and underrepresented. In fact, Republic Act No. 7941, the enabling law of the party-list elections under the Constitution, does not require these parties to fall under this criterion. The Supreme Court

emphasized that the phrase marginalized and underrepresented appeared only once in R.A. No. 7941, particularly in the Declaration of Policy. The section provides: The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented 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, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provided the simplest scheme possible. The oft-quoted phrase neither appeared in the specific implementing provisions of R.A. No. 7941 nor did it require sectors, organizations, or parties to fall under the criterion as well. In this regard, how then should the broad policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No. 7941 be harmonized with its specific implementing provisions, bearing in mind the applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution on the matter? The Supreme Court answered in this wise: The phrase marginalized and underrepresented should refer only to the sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically marginalized and underrepresented. These sectors are: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other similar sectors. For these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. The nominees of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or must have a track record of advocacy for the sector represented The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral parties of professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, need not be marginalized and underrepresented will allow small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who lack well-defined political constituencies a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, limiting to the marginalized and underrepresented the sectoral parties for labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other sectors that by their nature are economically at the margins of society, will give the marginalized and underrepresented an opportunity to likewise win seats in the House of Representatives. This interpretation will harmonize the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 and will give rise to a multi-party system where those marginalized and underrepresented, both in economic and ideological status, will have the opportunity to send their own members to the House of Representatives. This interpretation will also make the party-list system honest and transparent, eliminating the need for relatively well-off party-list representatives to masquerade as wallowing in poverty, destitution and infirmity, even as they attend sessions in Congress riding in SUVs. Based on the Courts ratiocination, only sectoral parties for labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other sectors that by their nature are economically at the margins of society must comply with the criterion of representing the marginalized and underrepresented. For national, regional, and sectoral parties of professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, it is sufficient that they consist of citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same governance principles and policies, regardless of their economic status as citizens. Consequently, since political parties are essentially national and regional parties, the Supreme Court categorically stated that they may participate in the party-list elections. The rules for their participation are found under guideline number three. Evolution of Party-List Cases

ABB and BANAT were the prevailing jurisprudence prior to Atong Paglaum. In ABB, the Supreme Court recognized that even major political parties may join the party list elections. However, the Supreme Court went on saying that although they may participate, it does not mean that any political party or group for that matter may do so. It is essential for these parties to be consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution and R.A. No. 7941. According to the Supreme Court, the purpose of the party-list system is clear: to give genuine power to the people, not only by giving more law to those who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves. Essentially, the goal is to give voice to the voiceless to enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented to become members of Congress. Hence, only parties representing the marginalized and underrepresented may join the party-list elections. The Supreme Court stressed that the party-list system cannot be exclusive to marginalized and underrepresented because if the rich and overrepresented can participate, it would desecrate the spirit of the party-list system. In BANAT where the Supreme Court again had the opportunity to deal with the matter, it categorically declared, by a vote of 8-7, that major political parties are barred from participating either directly or indirectly from the party-list elections. Clearly, the doctrine in Atong Paglaum is in stark contrast with the former interpretation of the party-list system. The Supreme Courts reasoning in both decisions also sits at opposite sides of the scale. In ABB and BANAT, the Supreme Court concentrated on the spirit and purpose of the party-list system while in Atong Paglaum, it focused on the letter of the law and the intent of the Constitutions framers and Congress. No wonder this decision has sparked intense debate and passionate reaction from the stakeholders. These party-list cases constitute three decisions with two exceptionally different doctrines. Which then is correct? Should the spirit of the law prevail over the letter? Should the party-list system be really open to all? Should the court engage in socio-political engineering as it did in the first two cases or should it remain as neutral magistrates of the law, blindfolded like lady justice, interpreting the letter of the law strictly according to its words? The decision in Atong Paglaum is not yet final and executory. The case is still, if not already, subject to a motion for reconsideration. It is still possible for the pendulum to swing back to its former side or it may remain suspended where it is now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_of_the_Philippines#Partylist_representation

Party-list representation[edit source | editbeta]

Main article: Party-list representation in the House of Representatives of the Philippines The party-list system is the name designated for party-list representation. Under the 1987 Constitution, the electorate can vote for certain party-list organizations in order to give voice to significant minorities of society that would otherwise not be adequately represented through geographical district. From 19871998, party-list representatives were appointed by the President. Since 1998, each voter votes for a single party-list organization. Organizations that garner at least 2% of the total number of votes are awarded one representative for every 2% up to a maximum of three representatives. Thus, there can be at most 50 party-list representatives in Congress, though usually no more than 20 are elected because many organizations do not reach the required 2% minimum number of votes.

After the 2007 election, in a controversial decision, the Supreme Court ordered the COMELEC to change how it allocates the party-list seats. Under the new formula only one party will have the maximum 3 seats. It based its decision on a formula contained in the VFP vs. COMELEC decision. In 2009, in the BANAT vs. COMELEC decision, it was changed anew in which parties with less than 2% of the vote were given seats to fulfill the 20% quota as set forth in the constitution. Aside from determining which party won and allocating the number of seats won per party, another point of contention was whether the nominees should be a member of the marginalized group they are supposed to represent; in the Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC decision, the Supreme Court not only ruled that the nominees should be a member of the marginalized sector, but it also disallowed major political parties from participating in the party-list election. However, on the BANAT decision, the court ruled hat since the law didn't specify who belongs to a marginalized sector, the court allowed anyone to be a nominee as long as the nominee as a member of the party (not necessarily the marginalized group the party is supposed to represent).

http://www.bworldonline.com/Election2013/story.php?id=79&title=Name-recall,-not-output,determines-winning-party-lists:-analysts

Name recall, not output, determines winning party lists: analysts

NAME RECALL and organized base rather than output may be the determining factors for the "winnability" of party-list groups, analysts said.

Twelve groups have been constantly elected since the party-list system was introduced in 1998, but they have only principally authored 11 measures that were later enacted into law, based on online congressional records.

These party-list groups are: Akbayan Alagad An Waray Anakpawis Ang Laban ng Indiginong Pilipino (ALIF) Association of Philippine Electric Cooperative (APEC) Bayan Muna Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY) Butil Farmers (BUTIL) Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) Cooperatives-National Confederation of Cooperatives (COOP-NATCO) Gabriela Of these, nine were passed in the 14th Congress (2007-2010), mostly from the BUHAY Party-list with the Anti-Camcording Act of 2008, the Filipino World War II Veterans Equity Act of 2007, the Philippine National Red Cross Charter Of 2009, and the law increasing tax exemption of taxpayers with dependents who have mental defect or physical disabilities. The party-list had three representatives in the said congress: Irwin C. Tieng, Ma. Carissa O. Coscolluela, and Rene M. Velarde. Akbayan Party-list Representative Walden F. Bello and then-congresswoman Risa N. Hontiveros (now a Team PNoy senatorial bet) had two measures , including the Individual Income Tax Reduction Act of 2007, made into law in the said congress. Also made into law in the 14th Congress are Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Teodoro A. Casios measure providing tax relief to ordinary taxpayers and CIBAC Party-list Rep. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanuevas legislation creating a national high school i n the municipality of Bocaue in Bulacan. Mr. Casio is now running as sole senatorial candidate of his party-list while Mr. Villanueva is the current director-general of TESDA. Meanwhile, the two remaining measures signed by the President date back to the 12th Congress (2001-2004), one being The National Human Rights Consciousness Week Act of 2002 authored by then-Akbayan Party-list congresswoman and now-Human Rights Commissioner Loretta Ann P. Rosales. The other measure enacted into law, which renamed a road network in the Quezon province, was penned by APEC Rep. Ernesto C. Pablo. Name recall and organized base Results of the survey by the Social Weather Station (SWS) and BusinessWorld conducted

last March also showed that name recall may be the key factor to being elected into office. Of the 13 groups who won the votes of at least 2% of the respondents, 11 have actually won a seat in the House of Representatives already. The list was topped by Bayan Muna, Gabriela, and Akbayan, who all have representatives in the current congress. The survey was held via face-to-face interview with 1,200 respondents nationwide. Political analysts, meanwhile, also agree that legislative output do not matter in the winning votes for party-list groups even if a House members duty is to legislate laws. Party-list groups depend largely on the sector they represent, explained political analyst Ramon C. Casiple. True, party-list groups rely mostly on their organized base plus negotiated votes -- partylist groups negotiating votes with local politicians, he told BusinessWorld via text. This was echoed by Francisco A. Magno, Director of La Salle Institute of Governance at De La Salle University. They can win (elections) even without legislative success. They need only ne ed a solid sector to muster 2% of votes cast, he said in a text message. The lackluster performance in authoring measures enacted into laws, in turn, has been linked to their limited seats. Party-list groups cant be expected to carry a bill on their own. They need to coalesce since they can have three representatives at most, said Mr. Magno. The math is against it. With at most 3 seats to a party-list group, lobbying among the district reps and other party-list groups is a very hard task. What usually happens is that the party-list group concerned has other co-authors for the bill or have it adopted by the House majority, said Mr. Casiple. Constitutionalist Christian S. Monsod, on the other hand, said that the contributions of party-list groups cannot be measured by legislations they wrote that were passed into law. "The value of party-list representatives should not be judged solely by legislation. Remember that they could not get into congress before maybe because their ideals were too radical or a threat to the status quo. But we need those ideas subjected to national debate," said Mr. Monsod in an email. Nonetheless, the party-list groups have been instrumental in raising the quality of the debates and in giving more emphasis on social reform in the legislative agenda. Moreover, their presence on the floor of Congress provided a venue for the marginalized sectors to have their voices heard, as in the passage of CARPER (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms). These contributions will not be reflected in the data on legislation and resolutions, but they are no less real, he added. Supreme Court ruling The ball game of the party-list elections, however, is about to change with the high courts clarification on the definition of what a party-list group is. In a ruling issued early last month, the Supreme Court explained that true definition of being marginalized and underrepresented -- which are requirements for a party-list group -stems from the constitutional framers intent to open up the electoral system to those who cannot win in the district polls.

[T]he party-list system came into being, principally driven by the constitutional framers intent to reform the then prevailing electoral system by giving marginal and underrepresented parties (i.e. those who cannot win in the legislative district elections and in this sense are marginalized and may lack the constituency to elect themselves there, but who -- nationally -- may generate votes equivalent to what a winner in the legislative district election would garner) the chance to participate in the electoral exercise and to elect themselves to the House of Representatives through a system other than the legislative district elections, the Supreme Court stated, in a rul ing penned by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion. The Supreme Court ruled that the party-list system is simply a means to open up the system to more parties, not for social justice, although the Constitution also allowed representation from sectors of farmers, workers, women, youth and others. The lax definition of a party-list by the Supreme Court, however, may have just opened the gates of Congress to a deluge of parties advancing different agendas, as it allows easier registration with the Commission on Elections (Comelec). Next elections? [The Supreme Court ruling] makes it easier to be accredited, said former Elections Commissioner Gregorio Larrazabal. But the effects of the ruling are yet to be actually experienced until the next party-list elections. For all intents and purposes, it wont [affect the elections on May]. Well, not because the ballots are already printed, but more because the cases have been remanded to the Comelec for rehearing, said Comelec spokesman James Arthur B. Jimenez via text. The 13 petitioner-groups , meanwhile, who were favored in the ruling on party-lists, still cannot participate in the May polls after the high court said the evaluation of their eligibility to join the elections is academic. "Considering that the 13 petitioners, who are new applicants, only secured a Status Quo Ante Order (instead of mandatory injunction that would secure their inclusion in the ballots now being printed by the Comelec), the remand of their petitions is only for the academic purpose of determining their entitlement to registration under the party-list system but not anymore for the purpose of participating in the 2013 elections." Random positions Last year, the Comelec En Banc decided to shuffle positions of party-lists in the ballot, after finding that 12 out of the 187 groups accredited for the 2010 polls had names starting with the letter A. "There are groups who really put A's or numbers on their names so voters who did not chose their party-list groups beforehand will vote for those on the top of the list," Mr. Jimenez said in an earlier report. The move to randomize sought to remove the advantage of party-list groups in the alphabetized arrangement in ballots. The same elections also gave three seats-- the maximum number a party-list can win in the House -- to Ako Bicol, who won over 1.52 million votes. -- Monica Joy O. Cantilero

http://www1.up.edu.ph/index.php/the-philippine-party-list-system-a-case-study-in-judicial-legislation/

The Philippine Party-List System: A Case Study In Judicial Legislation

Our party-list system today is not the system that the framers of our Constitution intended to be but the result of exceptionally blatant judicial legislation. Beginning with a narrow majority in Ang Bagong Bayani -OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 147589, 26 June 2001), the Supreme Court has continuously upheld the principle that the system should be exclusively reserved for the marginalized and underprivileged when it is clear from a simple review of the records of the Constitutional Commission that such reservation only relates to the process of selecting sectoral representatives for the first three consecutive terms following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, as a prelude to the full implementation of the system.

I arrived at this conclusion during my graduate studies at the National College of Public Administration, leading to my masteral degree in public administration. My original 2009 paper can be accessed at the UP Forum online. The paper highlights that the real intent of the constitutional framers to provide a party-list system not only for sectoral but also national and regional parties can be readily gleaned from the actual provisions of our Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 5 [1] & [2]) as well as the very floor deliberations of the then Constitutional Commission. Quoting directly from such records, Fr. Joaquin Bernas (himself a commissioner who participated in the drafting of the charter) emphasizes the following exact words of Commissioner Christian Monsod, who successfully led the opposition to Commissioner Wilfrido Villacortas defeated proposal to reserve permanent House seats for sectoral parties:

I would like to make a distinction from the beginning that the proposal for the party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representatives. Precisely, the party-list system seeks to avoid the dilemma of choice of sectors and who constitute the members of the sectors

xxx

We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of sectoral representation while at the same time making sure that those who really have a national constituency or sectoral constituency will get a chance to have a seat in the [House of Representatives]. These sectors or these groups may not have the constituency to win a seat on a legislative district basis. They may not be able to win a seat on a district basis but surely, they will have votes on a nationwide basis.

The purpose is to open the system. In past elections, we found out that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always third place or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in [Congress]. But this way, they would have five or six representatives in the [House of Representatives] even if they would not win individually in legislative distri cts. (See J. Bernas, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers, 344-347, Rex Book Store 1995.)

Plainly put, the party-list system as envisioned by our present fundamental charter requires the participation not only of sectoral but also national and regional parties. In fact, and contrary to the Supreme Courts successive rulings on this issue, while one state policy recognized by the enabling statute is to facilitate that the marginalized and underrepresented sectors may win seats in Congress, such is not the only policy recognized by the same law, which also requires the development and guaranteeing of a full, free, and open party system to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral, or group interests, as highlighted by Commissioner Monsods explanation quoted above. To illustrate, this can particularly be seen in the express inclusion in the constitutional provision of professionalswho arguably are neither marginalized nor underrepresented in view of their being the primary driver of the services component of the national economyas a distinct sector.

But such was not to be. Instead, what we have now is a bastardized version of a potentially promising democratic innovation that only invites further litigation, as the cases reviewed in my paper show. Subsequent to my research, the Supreme Court in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (Banat) vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 179271; 21 April 2009) again had to revisit the issue. While that case is more publicly known for recognizing that the two percent threshold requirement to obtain a seat was unworkable, it also (again by a narrow margin) upheld the continuing reservation of the system to marginalized sectors. This led the court to again revisit its already amended formula for allocating seats in the system to ensure the filling-up of remaining seats left vacant after the sectoral parties that had obtained at least two percent of the votes had been accounted for, essentially by automatically allocating such seats to those not obtaining two percent of the total votes cast in the system, in order of number of votes obtained.

Such continuing mental gymnastics would be unnecessary had the Court in the first place not tampered with the plain intent of the framers. Instead, and for the foreseeable future, we should expect continuing litigation in this area of constitutional law precisely because the system as interpreted by the court contains these obvious flaws:

Continued Debate and Abuse of the Term Marginalized Given Its Subjective Nature

The system as presently enforced gives the Commission on Elections undue discretion when it comes to determining what sectors are truly marginalized as well as when these are no longer marginalized. Furthermore, such is also the case with regard to the nominees of such parties, or who actually can be nominated and elected to represent the marginalized.

Balkanization of Legislative Agendas The continuing implementation of a statutory cap on the maximum number of seats that any one party may obtain is actually a disincentive against coalition-building and common agenda setting, because it necessitates the presence of, and negotiation among, numerous parties with very specific legislative agendas. Hence, instead of serving as a platform for consensus-building and the common good during a Congress, the current system actually promotes single issue advocacies and narrow partisan interests.

Wasted Votes The same statutory cap on maximum seats allowed facilitates spoiled votes by encouraging the dispersal of party-list organizations and resources, given the mandatory statutory ceilings effect on excess votes. Hence, parties which feel they have the electoral strength to breach such a cap will be tempted to resort to organizing new parties just to avoid such wasting of the support they project they already have.

Realizing that the system is broken will best help the truly marginalized by paving the way to giving the party-list system a genuine chance to thrive in our democracy, rather than letting it continue to hobble along beset by challenges in implementation because of its very defects. Efforts to reform the system will in turn not actually entail a constitutional amendment, but only the recognition by the Supreme Court of the genuine will of the framers of our fundamental charter.

http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2012-11-14/866428/failed-experiment

A failed experiment
SKETCHES By Ana Marie Pamintuan

Party-list organizations disqualified from the 2013 polls by the Commission on Elections won one round yesterday when the Supreme Court (SC) temporarily stopped the implementation of the Comelec order. Its good that this issue has reached the high court, which can clear up certain gray areas that have cropped up since the enabling law for the party list, Republic Act 7941, was passed in 1995.

There is the question, for example, of what happens when a group graduates from marginalized status and goes mainstream. Should it then be disqualified? For taxpayers burdened by the upkeep of party-list congressmen, abolishing the system altogether is a better idea. The party-list system, envisioned by the Constitution to promote the welfare of marginalized sectors, has become a farce. The system has become a way for regular congressmen at the end of their term limit, or who are making way for relatives, to continue sitting in the House of Representatives. Consider Mikey Arroyo, who gave way for his mom the former president to replace him as Pampanga representative. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is too sick for detention in a regular jail but healthy enough to seek reelection to Congress. Mikey was allowed to represent security guards under the party-list system, enjoying all the perks and privileges of regular congressmen including equal share in the pork barrel.

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Mikeys group has been disqualified from the 2013 polls, but like the other disqualified organizations, the representatives will be allowed to finish their term. Why is this fair? According to reports, Mikeys group will not appeal its disqualification by the Comelec. The party-list has paved the way for an expansion of the public trough from which entrenched politicians and their families want to feed forever. Many Filipinos consider the government a perfect employer. It is unlikely to shut down because of bad management or bankruptcy, and while salaries are nothing to die for, the funding is always there plus opportunities to make a fortune. Political clans arent the only ones that have abused the party-list system. Major political parties and religious groups (despite a specific prohibition under RA 7941) also have party-list representation. In every electoral exercise since the enactment of RA 7941, groups have found more creative ways of defining marginalized. The fault may be in the wording and provisions of RA 7941 itself, and in jurisprudence that paved the way for ever-growing party-list representation in Congress. Several legal experts have emphasized that if the nation still wants the party-list system to continue, RA 7941 will have to be amended so that it does not subvert the intent of the Constitution. But at this point, with all the major political parties having party-list extensions, waiting for such an amendment is like waiting for Congress to pass an enabling law on the constitutional provision against political dynasties. * * * With so many lawmakers (and more in the works if gerrymandering efforts succeed), surely the genuinely marginalized can find a non-party-list congressman or two willing to sponsor their cause, including provision of funding for pet projects. Are women, for example, still marginalized? Even in the 24-member Senate, there are enough members, among them self-styled honorary women, who have sponsored and continue to support legislation advancing womens rights. Do we need specific congressional representation for every small and medium enterprise? Legislation for SMEs must be coordinated. Measures sponsored by non-party-list lawmakers have been passed over the years, and more will likely be passed.

Every party-list representative added to Congress gets a regular share of the pork barrel, which is at least P30 million a year per lawmaker. While no money actually passes through the hands of congressmen, the pork barrel system tends to wreak havoc on coordinated and long-term planning for projects such as road networks and other infrastructure. The system also opens a wide range of opportunities for corruption, especially in the earmarking and award of infrastructure projects. Some quarters sick of the party-list system have suggested that RA 7941 be repealed. Without an enabling law, the system cannot continue. It will save a lot in public funds, which can go to many worthy projects. President Aquino, with his unusually high performance ratings as he nears the midpoint of his term, has the popularity and credibility to pull this off with the help of his political allies. With the elections approaching, however, P-Noy is starting to look increasingly risk-averse, with his focus mainly on getting majority support in Congress in 2013. Hes even pulling the rug from under the Reproductive Health bill, one of a handful of measures he had championed in his last State of the Nation Address. P-Noy can say that the fate of the party-list system is in the hands of Congress. But that fate can be influenced by a presidential nudge to political allies. Like the frenzied effort to build political dynasties, the abuse of the party-list system has become unrestrained. Unless the Supreme Court or Congress stops the abuse, the party list will increasingly be seen as a failed experiment that is better abolished.

http://www.cmfr-phil.org/mediaandelections/?p=947

Revisiting the Party-List System (and What the Media Missed)

Written on July 1, 2010 10:29 PM | by CMFR |
Published on May-June Issue By John Reiner M. Antiquerra and Rupert Francis D. Mangilit of the PJR Reports

An April 2010 report from Pulse Asia said that nearly half of the Filipino electorate would be going to the polling precincts unaware of the party-list system. But the media still covered the party-list elections least. The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)s monitor for the periods of April 12 to 16 and April 19 to 23 showed that only 25 of 723 television reports were on the party-list elections. What was worse was that only four of the 187 party-list groups were the subjects of these reports. Radio coverage was not good news, either, as the CMFR monitor for radio showed only 6 of the 77 reports are on the party-list groups. While the media could have explained the many issues bedeviling the party-list system, they chose to focus only on its controversial aspects instead. One of the most covered party list groups during the period, Ang Ladlad (Out of the Closet), received coverage only after the Supreme Court reversed a Nov. 11 Commission on Elections(COMELEC) decision and granted it accreditation. The COMELECs later decision on the fate of Ang Galing Pinoy (Great Filipino/AG), was likewise duly reported by the media only after the former upheld the latters accreditation even when its first nominee, presidential son and Pampanga Rep. Mikey Arroyo, hardly qualified it as a representative of a marginalized sector. These cases, said various civil groups and political watchdogs, reflect COMELECs alleged faulty mechanism in recognizing which organizations are qualified to run in the party-list elections. Regarding Ang Ladlads case, COMELEC seemed to be lost in the game, even when it claimed to have merely followed available guidelines. Christian Monsod, delegate to the 1986 Constitutional Commission and co-

sponsor of the party-list provision, said in a May 20 interview that (Ang) Ladlad, earlier barred to run on moral bases, was disqualified for the wrong reasons. Starting point To enlighten the electorate, the media could have provided some explanation of why the party list system is now part of Philippine elections for the House of Representatives. Traditionally, all posts in the legislative chamber of government are elective. In 1976, however, an amendment was introduced in the 1973 Constitution providing seats for representatives from the labor sector. Commissioner Eulogio Lerum, during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commision, said this idea came about when President Marcos, during the early years of Martial rule, called for conferences acting as a body to resolve labor disputes. During the conferences, said Lerum, the labor sector had shown it can act with maturity, thus leading to the amendment. In the Election Code of 1978, representatives for farmers and the youth were added. The appointment of sectoral representatives was adopted by the Eighth to Tenth Congresses, when the Con Com delegates gave President Corazon Aquino this prerogative through Sec. 7 of the Article on Transitory Provisions. It was only when theParty-list System Act of 1995 or Republic Act 7941 was passed that the party-list elections actually started. The enabling law implements Article VI, Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution. Of the 285 seats in the Lower House, twenty percent, or 57, shall be given to party-list representatives. The party-list system, according to Monsod, was proposed upon the assumption that after nine years of sectoral representation, sectoral parties are strong enough to engage in mainstream politics without the need of a reserved seat, and eventually, effect concrete changes in an otherwise traditional and homogenous legislative. While the Con Com delegates initially listed five marginalized sectors, they left the task of determining other marginalized groups to the legislators who would draft the enabling law. Entry through the backdoor RA 7941 broadened the scope to include the term professionals but Dr. Wilfrido Villacorta, Con Com delegate, believed its inclusion caused more harm. The term, he said, only served as an escape [term] that allowed non-marginalized groups such as small entrepreneurs and physicians to form party-list groups. Former Marikina Representative Romeo Candazo, co-author of enabling law, himself acknowledged the disadvantage of the all-embracing term. But the bigger problem lies not on the term, or terms used, but on how political players, like outgoing President Gloria Arroyo herself, outsmarted COMELEC resolutions and the enabling law itself and use the system but to their advantage. Records from the 13th Congress showed party-list groups which, while not directly fielded by Arroyo, had given her more than enough numbers to survive attempts to impeach her. Such groups as ALIF, APEC, AVE, Butil, and Veteran Freedom were among the party lists that voted for the junking of all three impeachment complaints against Arroyo in September 2005. Although media (Journal Online, ABS-CBN, GMANews.tv) have given some coverage to 1-UTAK, again, on controversial grounds after transport sector groups questioned the idea of Angelo Reyes representing them, no attention was given to actually question the ties that bind this, along with AG and the 13 other party-list groups, to Arroyo. And yet, media could have gotten that information. The non-governmental Kontra Daya, for example, has a list of groups reportedly linked to the Arroyos by family, business and political ties in its website. In some cases, however, the media have been ignored by decision makers. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), as early as 2007, had revealed that amemo from the Office of External Affairs ordered Malacaang to bankroll party-list groups (PCIJ also posted the counter plan here.) to pit against groups known to be critical of the Arroyo government. COMELEC, and the mainstream media, however, seemed to have shrugged off this information. Vulnerable

Another loophole can be seen in the laws guidelines for nominees, which are so basic as to allow just anyone to participate: nominees can run provided they are natural-born Filipinos, at least 25 years old, registered voters with at least one-year residency prior to election, and bona fide members of the party for at least 90 days before elections. This has further opened the party-list system to use and abuse, not only by Arroyo, but also by groups and individuals whose interests are as narrow as their own political ends. For one, children of senators and some outgoing local officials themselves have run for seats in the party-list. (Kontra Daya has provided a matrix. Click here). Also, the rich may have realizedthrough the P200-million annual pork barrelhow a lucrative venture party-list representation can be. Records from the 13th Congress show that some marginalized parties were actually represented by multi-millionaires such as Ernesto Pablo and Edgar Valdez of APEC, and Guillermo Cua of Coop-Natcco to name a few. Likewise, a vigilante group founder and an army official with a record of human rights violations have managed to win party-list seats. The foray of television personalities like Leo Martinez (Alyansa ng Media at Showbiz or AMS) into party-list politics surprisingly received lackluster coverage from the media (CMFR reported AMS was covered once in TV Patrol according to the March 15-19 and 22-26 monitors). That they actually ran could h ave established how party-list politics has suffered from the infiltration of traditional personality politicking. It could have also pointed out another abuse of the system: the tendency to focus on who the nominees are rather than on what the party can actually offer platform wise. Slipping through Despite the scant coverage, Buhay (Life) has called the attention of the media and the public, thanks to the pro-life groups that called for a boycott of the said party-list. What the media overlooked, with the exception of Newsbreak (which can be accessed here) was that putting moral grounds aside, given what Sec. 6 of the enabling law says, Buhay could have faced disqualification. Section 6 of RA 7941 specifies that religious groups do not qualify as party list groups. But Buhays main nominee is El Shaddai leader Mike Velardes son Rene. The over liberal interpretation by the COMELEC of the Act is evident in its accreditation of 187 party-list groups representing a hodgepodge of pseudo- marginalized sectors (like Filipino-Chinese, sorority members and miners). Concretizing social justice Fr. Joaquin Bernas argued during the Con Com debates that the concept of social justice, enshrined as early as in the 1935 Constitution, should be made practical. The Commission was faced with two options of doing it: give sectoral groups reserved seats, or allot seats of the Lower House for which sectoral and small political parties can vie. Commissioners, like the late Lino Brocka and Fr. Bernas, pushed for permanent seats because of the concern that these sectoral groups might not have the resources to match the more powerful and moneyed political parties who might also take advantage of party-list representation. But the key to win over the economically able, Monsod pointed out, is for sectors to become strong forces by forming coalitions. In the end, the commissioners reached a compromise of reserving the seats for three terms before opening the seats to election through the party-list system. This compromise, said Fr. Bernas in the deliberations, does not only recognize the minimal political machinery and economic resources sectoral groups have, but also poses a challenge to strengthen their base in preparation for the time when the seats are subject to election. What coalition?

But the apparent lack of understanding and appreciation of the Constitutional intent of coalescing among sectors has brought forth disunity among members of different sectors. Monsod said in the interview that party-list groups should realize that coalescing from within could actually make them a political force strong enough to effectively put their concerns forward in the national drawing table. If consolidated, a sectoral party can even equal political parties that [usually] break down and come again, he said. However, the implementing law actually hindered coalescing because of the threshold of seats in the Congress. Section 11 of RA 7941 states that while a party-list group can get a seat for every two percent of the total votes for party list, it can only get as much as three seats. Felix Muga II of the Ateneo Math Department said in a 2007 forum that this three-seat limit further tolerated, and maybe even forced sectoral groups to break up into groups that, according to Monsod, actually push for the same ends. While it may translate to more seats, the atomization of sectors like women (1-ABAA, Gabriela, BABAE KA, Buklod Filipina, Womenpower), farmers (AANI, ABA, Anakpawis, Butil, Abono, SABOD) and indigenous peoples groups (Katribu, ALIF, ATM, Katutubo), may also lead to spoiled votes for groups that will fail to reach the two-percent limit set by the enabling law. More so, the atomization could makeand actually has madethe system prone to use and abuse by major political parties. PCIJ reported on April 29 how major political parties piggybacked on the party list groups like Butil and AGHAM to be able to air ads even after reaching the Comelec-prescribed limit. These groups aired ads that focused more on the standard bearers of the major political parties (Liberal and Nacionalista) rather than their platforms. Numbers are a factor Laws passed under the first batch of elected representatives under the party-list system reached 1,572, in comparison to the barely 300 laws passed by appointed sectoral representatives. However, the number of bills filed significantly dipped in the 13th Congress, to 774. While part of the reason could be frustration over the long legislative process, Bayan Muna representative Teddy Casio was quoted in a PCIJ article as saying that the frustration comes more from the fact that most bills party-list groups have filed are still pending. Most of the bills they proposed, he said, would collide with the interests of the traditional politicians. In the end, it is still the interests of the latter, to which 80 percent of congressional seats are allocated, that prevail in legislation. The media could have looked at problems such as this, but mostly didnt.

http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7941primer.htm

PRIMER ON THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

[As mandated by Republic Act No. 7941]

by
The Commission on Elections

What is the party-list system of election? It is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from marginalized or underrepresented national, regional and sectoral parties, or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

It is part of the electoral process that enables small political parties and marginalized and underrepresented sectors to obtain possible representation in the House of Representatives, which traditionally is dominated by parties with big political machinery. For purposes of the May 14, 2001 elections, what are the important dates in relation to the party-list system of election? November 15, 2000 last day to file petition for registration for party-list system. February 12, 2001 last day to file manifestation to participate in the party-list election. March 31, 2001 last day to submit to the Law Department, Commission on Elections, Intramuros, Manila a list of at least five (5) nominees to represent said party/organization/coalition. What are the legal bases for the party-list system of election?

[a] The Constitution Departmentprovides:

in

its

article

on

the

Legislative

chanrobles virtuallawlibr ary

"[1] x x x The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila Area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations; "[2] The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector; "[3] Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative; and "[4] Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section x x x." (Sec. 5, Article VI,

Constitution

of

the

Philippines)

[b] Republic Act No. 7941 dated March 3, 1995, "An Act Providing for the Election of Party-List Representatives Through the Party-List System, Appropriating Funds Therefor" ; [c] Resolution No. 2847 dated June 25, 1996 entitled, "Rules and Regulations Governing the Election of the Party-List Representatives through the Party-List System" ; and [d] Resolution No. 3307-A dated November 9, 2000 entitled, "Rules and Regulations Governing the Filing of Petition for Registration, Manifestation to Participate, and Submission of Names of Nominees Under the Party-List System of Representation in Connection with the May 14, 2001 National and Local Elections."

Who may participate? Instead of individual candidates, only registered organized groups may participate and these are: Sectoral Party an organized group of citizens whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of the following sectors:
chanroblesvirtu allawlibrary chanroblesvirtuallawlibrar y

labor women indigenous -

fisherfolk urban poor workers

peasant youth

overseas

veterans cultural communities

- professionals - handicapped - elderly Sectoral Organization a group of qualified voters bound together by similar physical attributes or characteristics, or by employment, interests or concerns. Political Party an organized group of qualified voters pursuing the same ideology, political ideas and principles for the general conduct of the government; it may be:
chanroblesvirtuall awlibrar y

[1] A national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions; and [2] A regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and

provinces

comprising

region.

Coalition an aggrupation of duly-registered national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes. What is the basic requirement for party-list participation? Only organized groups duly registered with the Commission on Elections, and which have manifested their desire to participate in the party-list elections, may participate. How may a party, organization or coalition [herein-after referred to as party] participate in the party-list election? [a] Organized groups not yet registered with the Commission on Elections can participate by filing a petition for registration under oath. For purposes of the 2001 election, the petition must be filed not later than November 15, 2000. [b] An organized group already registered need not register anew but shall file with the Commission a manifestation to participate in the party-list election.

When is the deadline to file manifestation? Last day to file manifestation to participate in the party-list system for the May 14, 2001 elections February 12, 2001. What are the documents needed to support the petition for registration? [a] [b] [c] [d] [e] Constitution Platform Lists Coalition Other or of program officers agreement, required if by the and of and any; by-laws; government; members; and

information

Commission.

For purposes of the May 14, 2001 elections, where shall a petition for registration or manifestation to participate be filed? The petition for registration and manifestation to participate shall be filed with the Clerk of the Commission, Commission on Elections, Intramuros, Manila, as follows:
chanroblesvirtu allawlibrar y

[a] For petitions involving a party with a national constituency, file in twenty-three (23) copies; [b] For petitions involving a party with a regional constituency, file

in [c]

For

ten (10) manifestations, file

in

copies; twelve (12)

and copies.

Who shall file applications for registration or manifestations to participate? Any authorized representative of the political or sectoral party with the Clerk of the Commission, Commission on Elections, Intramuros, Manila. What happens after the petition is filed? The Clerk of the Commission shall determine if the petition is in due form and substance and verifies the accuracy of the allegations therein. Within seven (7) days, it shall submit the petition together with its findings and recommendations to the Commission. The gist of the petition shall be published in two (2) national newspapers at the expense of the petitioner. The Commission, after due notice and hearing, shall resolve the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for decision but not later than one hundred twenty (120) days before election day. May a component party or organization participate independently of the coalition of which they form part? Yes, provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate. For purposes of determining regional constituency, what is meant by the phrase "spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region"? "Majority" means a number higher than 50%. Thus, if a region consists of, say, five (5) cities and six (6) provinces, in order to obtain the required majority, the party should have chapters in three (3) cities and provincial offices in four (4) provinces. For purposes of determining national constituency, what is meant by the phrase "spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions"? "Majority" means a number higher than 50%. Since the country is composed of sixteen regions, including CAR, ARMM and CARAGA, the party should have regional offices in at least nine (9) regions in order to constitute a majority of the regions in the country. What information is necessary to establish existence of a party in a city and province? A party must have identifiable leadership, membership and structure. These may be shown by the following:
chanroblesvirtu allawlibrar y

[1] [2]

Addresses of its city chapter and provincial chapter; and The names of the chapter officials and members, and their

respective

addresses.

A party may submit additional documents to prove its existence in the city and province. May the Comelec remove and/or cancel registration of any entity? The Comelec may, motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
chanroblesvirtuall awlibrar y

[a] It is a association

religious sect organized

or denomination, organization or for religious purposes;

[b] It advocates violence or unlawful means to achieve its goal; [c] It is a foreign party or organization;

[d] It is political indirectly third

receiving support from any foreign government, foreign party, foundation, organization, whether directly or or through its officers or members or indirectly through parties for partisan election purposes;

[e] It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections; [f] It has made untruthful statements in its petition; and

[g] It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year from the time the petition is filed.

Is the enumeration of the sectors eligible to participate as sectoral party exclusive? Yes. Only parties of those sectors enumerated in Section 5 of R.A. 7941may register and participate as sectoral party. May an organization which is not listed among the sectors eligible to participate as a sectoral party still participate in the party-list system? Yes, as a sectoral organization. How will the voters know which entities are participating? Comelec shall prepare and publish a certified list of entities qualified to participate which shall be posted in all voting booths on election day. What are the qualifications of a party-list nominee?

[a] [b]

natural-born A

citizen

of

the

Philippines; voter;

registered

[c] A resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the election day; [d] Able to read and write;

[e] A bona fide member of the party he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding election day; and [f] At least twenty-five (25) years of age on election day.

In case of the youth sector, he must be at least twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who reaches the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term. How many seats are available under the party-list system? Twenty percent (20%) of the total membership in the House of Representatives is reserved for party-list representatives, or a ratio of one (1) party list representative for every four (4) legislative district representatives. How does the party-list system enhance the chances or marginalized or underrepresented parties of winning seats in the House of Representatives? In the party-list system, no single party may hold more than three (3) party-list seats. Bigger parties which traditionally will dominate elections cannot corner all the seats and crowd out the smaller parties because of this maximum ceiling. This system shall pave the way for smaller parties to also win seats in the House of Representatives. If individual candidates are not qualified to participate, how will the organized groups be represented in the House of Representatives? A party shall, not later than March 31, 2001 submit to the Clerk of the Commission, Commission on Elections a list of at least five (5) nominees to represent said party. Once the party obtains the required number of votes, the Comelec shall proclaim the party-list representatives according to their ranking in the list of nominees submitted to Comelec. In voting for representatives, how will a voter cast his vote? Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes for the House of Representatives, as follows:
chanroblesvirtu allawlibrar y

[a]

First,

vote

for

district

representative;

and

[b] Second, a vote for the party he wants represented in the House of Representatives.

How shall the votes cast for the party-list be counted? Because the voting will be at large, and not by sector, all votes obtained by a party regardless of constituency will be tallied on a nationwide basis. The percentage of votes garnered by a party shall be computed in relation to the total votes cast for the party-list nationwide. How shall party-list seats be allocated? [See Veterans Federation Party, et
al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. (G. R. No. 136781, 06 October 2000)].

Party-list

seats

shall

be

allocated

as

follows:

chanroblesvirtuall awlibrar y

[1] The parties shall be ranked from highest to lowest based on the number and percentage of votes garnered during the elections; [2] Only a maximum of three seats may be allowed per party. Seats are allocated at the rate of one seat per 2% of votes obtained; and [3] Unallocated seats shall be distributed among the parties which have not yet obtained the maximum 3 seats, provided they have mustered at least 2% of votes. The variance of percentage in excess of 2% or 4% (equivalent to 1 or 2 seats that have already been obtained, respectively) shall be ranked and be the basis for allocating the remaining seats. Will the names of nominees be included in the certified list of registered parties? No. The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list of participating parties. What is the importance of the list of nominees and of their ranking therein? In case the party obtains the required number of votes, the nominees listed shall be proclaimed by Comelec according of their ranking in said list. What are the limitations on party-list nominations?

[1] A person may be nominated by one party in one (1) list only; [2] Only persons who have given their consent in writing and under oath may be named in the list; [3] The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office in

the same election or has lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding election; and [4] No change of name or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the list has been submitted to the Comelec except in valid cases of substitution.

Shall incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives nominated as party-list representative be considered resigned? No, by express provisions of Sec. 8, R. A. 7941 which reads: "Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives who are nominated in the Party-list System shall not be considered resigned." The provision creates a special class for incumbent sectoral representatives as to remove them from the general application of Secs. 66 and 67 [Repealed by Section 14, R. A. No. 9006] of the Omnibus Election Codewhich are quoted in the succeeding question. If nominees of political parties and sectoral parties and organizations are employees of the government, whether by appointment or by election, are they deemed ipso facto resigned from office upon the filing of the list of nominees? Yes. Sections 66 and 67 [Repealed by Section 14, R. A. No. 9006] of the Omnibus Election Code state: "Sec. 66. Candidates holding appointive office or position. Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy." "Sec. 67. Candidates holding elective office. Any elective official whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy." [Repealed by Section
chanroblesvirtuall awlibrar y chanroblesvirtu allawlibrary

14, R. A. No. 9006]

The specific mention of the incumbent sectoral representatives for non-coverage of the above provision implies that other party-list nominees shall be covered by Secs. 66 and 67. [Repealed by Section
14, R. A. No. 9006]

Is it necessary for a nominee to be a member of the party nominating him? Yes. A nominee should be a bona fide member of the party or organization he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election. What are the effects of accepting a nomination?

[a] Any person holding a public appointive office including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and other officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon acceptance of a nomination. [b] Any elective official, except incumbent party-list representatives, who has given his consent to a nomination shall be deemed resigned only upon the start of the campaign period.

What is required of a nominee in accepting nomination or in cases of withdrawal/s of nominations? In either case, acceptance or withdrawal of nomination shall be in writing and filed with the Law Department of the Commission in Manila before the close of polls. A nominee who withdraws his acceptance to the nomination shall not be eligible for nomination by other parties. When can a party-list nominee be substituted? A party-list nominee may be substituted only when he dies, or his nomination is withdrawn by the party, or he becomes incapacitated to continue as such, the name of the substitute nominee be placed last in the list of nominees. No substitution shall be allowed by reason of withdrawal after the close of polls. Are registered political and sectoral parties and organizations prohibited from revealing during their campaign the identities of those they included in the list of nominees submitted to the Comelec? The law is silent as to the revelation of the names of nominees of the registered political or sectoral parties, except that in the last paragraph of Sec. 7 of the party-list law, it states that "the names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list." What will be the effect if a party-list representative changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office? He shall forfeit his seat. Moreover, if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization. What is the status of the party-list representatives vis-visrepresentatives of legislative districts in the House of Representatives? Party-list representatives are considered elected Members of the House and as such, entitled to the same deliberative rights, salaries, and emoluments as the regular Members of the House of

representatives. They shall serve for a term of three (3) years with a maximum of three (3) consecutive terms.
http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7941.htm

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7941

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Party-List System Act". Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack welldefined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the party-list system. A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties. A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office.

It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region. A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector. A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics, employment, interest or concerns. A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes. Sec. 4. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List System. - Any party, organization, or coalition already registered with the Commission need not register anew. However, such party, organization or coalition shall file with the Commission, not later than ninety (90) days before the election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system. Sec. 5. Registration. - Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: provided, that the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals. The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for decision but in no case not later than sixty (60) days before election. Sec. 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. - The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds: It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; It is a foreign party or organization;

It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes; It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections; It declares untruthful statements in its petition; It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two percentum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. Sec. 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. - The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a certified list of national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions which have applied or who have manifested their desire to participate under the party-list system and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for posting in the polling places on election day. The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list. Sec. 8. Nominations of Party-List Representatives. - Each registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-four (45) [sic] days before the election a list of names, not less than five (5) from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes. A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office or person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding election. No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing, his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitutes nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned. Sec. 9. Qualification of Party-List Nominees. - No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twentyfive (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty

during his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of his term. Sec. 10. Manner of Voting. - Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes. The first is a vote for candidate for member of the House of Representatives in his legislative district, and the second, a vote for the party, organization, or coalition he wants represented in the House of Representatives: provided, that a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted: provided, finally that the first election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998. The COMELEC shall undertake the necessary information campaign for purposes of educating the electorate on the matter of the party-list system. Sec. 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. - The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percentum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list. For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system. In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure shall be observed: The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the elections. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each: provided, that those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: provided, finally, that each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats. Sec. 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives. The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system. Sec. 13. How Party-List Representatives are Chosen. - Party-list representatives shall be proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list of names submitted by the respective parties, organizations, or coalitions to the COMELEC according to their ranking in the said list. Sec. 14. Term of Office. - Party-list representatives shall be elected for a term of three (3) years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No

party-list representatives shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. Sec. 15. Change of Affiliation Effect. - Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat: provided, that if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization. Sec. 16. Vacancy. - In case of vacancy in seats reserved for party-list representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next representative from the list of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party, organization, or coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party, organization, or coalition concerned shall submit additional nominees. Sec. 17. Rights of Party-List Representatives. Party-list representatives shall be entitled to the same salaries and emoluments as regular members of the House of Representatives. Sec. 18. Rules and Regulations. - The COMELEC shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this Act. Sec. 19. Appropriations. The amount necessary for the implementation of this Act shall be provided in the regular appropriations for the Commission on Elections starting fiscal year 1996 under the General Appropriations Act. Starting 1995, the COMELEC is hereby authorized to utilize savings and other available funds for purposes of its information campaign on the party-list system. Sec. 20. Separability Clause. - If any part of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts or provisions thereof shall remain valid and effective. Sec. 21. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. Sec. 22. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
http://www.philstar.com/congress/articles/2013/04/12/929907/11-party-list-solons-failed-representtheir-sectors-up-study

11 party-list solons failed to represent their sectors UP study

MANILA, Philippines - Eleven party-list representatives in the 15th Congress failed to author a single bill in their first two years related to their represented sectors, a study by graduating students of the University of the Philippines' journalism program shows. Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives Rep. Ponciano Payuyo, Akong Ako Kasosyo Rep. Nasser Pangandaman, Abono Reps. Robert Raymond Estrella and Francisco Emmanuel Ortega III, and Abiag's Antonio Patricio spent the first year of their term without having filed any bill. (Read the full study: 'From alternative to traditional: An investigative study on party-list representation') Lawmakers Rodel Batocabe and Alfredo Garbin of Ako Bicol, Florencio Noel and Neil Benedict Montejo of An Waray, Teodorico Haresco of Ang Kasangga, and Catalina Leonen-Pizarro of Arts, Business, and Science (ABS) Professionals, meanwhile, each proposed legislation generally irrelevant to the groups they belong in, according to Marc Jayson Cayabyab and Mikhail Franz Flores' research concluded in March 2012. An Waray party-list's Congress seats are supposed to represent those in the Visayas region. Noel and Montejo's performance, however, indicates that the group is "the most unrepresentative party-list," the study adds. Noel's four bills focused his legislative efforts on the coconut industry, chemistry modernization and repair of public school rooms, while Montejo filed only one bill--on scholarship grants--throughout his term. In a similar way, Ako Bicol congressmen Batocabe and Garbin--each with one bill filed--focused on amending existing laws on the National Electrification Administration and the Higher Education Act of 1994, respectively, instead of dealing with issues directly related to the Bicol region. Based on his 16 bills filed, Haresco was more interested in taxes and allowances of barangay officials than in the interests of micro entrepreneurs and small businesses he is supposed to represent, Cayabyab and Flores writes. Leonen-Pizarro authored two bills on financial and housing assistance for the poor, without having proposed a law for the professional sectors she represents. The average number of bills filed by all 55 party-list lawmakers is 12, the study says. The number, however, does not count bills that the lawmakers co-authored. The Party-list Sytem Act or RA 7941 defines and allows sectoral groups in Congress as having a "principal advocacy" pertaining to "the special interests and concerns of their sector." "The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great masses of our people who have less in life but also to enable them to become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them," former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban explained in Supreme Court en banc Resolution No. 14789 in 2001. An Waray, Ako Bicol, Ang Kasangga and ABS all seek to renew their seats in the May elections.

The study also finds that representatives from party-list groups with more terms in the House generally have the most number of bills filed during the 15th Congress which are related to their sectors. Bayan Muna's Teddy Casino and Neri Colmenares, Akbayan's Walden Bello and Arlene Bag-ao, and Anakpawis' Rafael Mariano had been the most productive legislators who incidentally also have more bills addressing matters of interest to the masses, which they claim to represent. Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino, although with only two terms in Congress so far, also exhibited productivity and representation with only 8 of his 35 bills not related to the youth sector, according to the research. Erratum (April15, 2013): Corrected date of thesis/study publication: It was concluded in March of 2012, not March 2013.

http://davidwurfel.ca/philippines/the-party-list-system-sectoral-or-national-success-or-failure

The Party-list System: Sectoral or National? Success or Failure?

Some view the party-list system as the best hope for a system that will finally address the needs and concerns of the countrys neglected and marginalized sectors. It is even brandished by the government as the cure to the cancer of traditional politics and politicians. Others, however, are reluctant to pin their hopes on the party-list system for a good reason. Although a more than sufficient number of groups, organizations and parties have expressed interest in the system, the fact remains that very few would-be voters, including some in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), actually know about it. Even fewer actually understand what it is or how it works. Blamed, as usual, are the lawmakers and the Commission. The Party-List Act begins by carefully distinguishing the concepts of parties and sectors and regional and national but recklessly obliterates the distinctions in the latter portions of the law. The law also disqualifies the five largest parties from individual participation, in order to level the field, only to allow the same to participate anyway through a coalition loophole. The solons accidentally or deliberately left the door open for manipulation and confusion while protecting their interests. The COMELEC has likewise failed to inform the voters about the party-list mechanics and to provide a reasonably tamper-proof counting system that can withstand the return of the dreaded dagdag-bawas. In theory, the partylist system offers a better alternative but it must first get past the trapo1system that is bent on self-preservation and survive a COMELEC that is consistently getting better at creating more problems than solutions. The party-list system (PLS) is the major innovation in the 1998 elections. In the long run, it is the best hope for the transformation of the trapo system into one with more programmatic parties, more responsive than at present to the needs and concerns of the

majority of the peoplethe workers, farmers, and fishermen. It holds out the prospect that marginalized groups will have a chance for substantial representation in the legislature that they seldom have today. In implementing this provision in the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines is part of a trend among Asia-Pacific democracies. In 1993, both Japan and New Zealand introduced proportional representation, or the party-list system, to elect a substantial percentage of their legislative seats. Both have had one election so far under the new system. Sadly, however, the implementation of this progressive step in the Philippines isfaced with many difficulties, a result of both misunderstandings and devious intentions. ln l995, some key members of Congress appeared to be determined to prevent the partylist system from being used to substantially boost the representation of mass-based, cause-oriented groups. At the same time, few people in either Congress, or the present COMELEC, understand the party-list concept, or how it has functioned in other countries. (Although some of the COMELEC staff are very well informed, they have not been allowed to have much input into decision-making by uninformed Commissioners.) In fact confusion began in the 1987 Constitutional Commission (ConCom), where a few Commissioners even thought that sectoral representation was some kind of communist ideadespite the fact that it is not used in the election of legislatures in either China or Vietnam. Two different systemsparty-list and sectoral representationwere actually proposed and eventually merged into a single constitutional provision. Proportional representation, implemented through a party-list ballot, is designed to make the number of seats in the legislature proportional to the votes cast whereas in a single member district system, the largest party is grossly over represented, and minor parties are shut out. It is used in some form in 57 of 150 reporting countries. In the process of introducing proportionality, the new legislature would also be more representative of the social make-up of the country. For instance, among 53 democracies around the world where there are single member districts, only 7.3 percent of legislators are women, but in legislatures elected entirely by a party-list, women make up 17.2 percent of members.2 For the Philippines, there is particularly another advantage which is also relevant in Japan. The party-list system focuses attention on the party, not on personalities. Name value is meaningless, since most voters would not even know the names of the candidates chosen by the parties when they are asked to vote for a party. This should also reduce money politics and put emphasis on party platforms and programs.

Sectoral representation was first introduced to the Philippines by the Marcos dictatorship. Marcos, in turn, borrowed it from fascist Italy as part of his plan to institute a corporatist system in which every sector would have a single organization approved and controlled by Marcos. (Several Latin American dictatorships had also had corporatist experiments.) Elections for sectoral representatives are feasible only through corporatism, with sectoral organizations that have separate, and officially sanctioned, voters lists. But Philippine society was too fluid and democratic traditions too strong to permit Marcos to impose corporatism fully. Instead, he appointed legislators to represent sectors-a procedure found also in fascist countries. The most important qualification for these appointees was their expected cooperation with the Marcos leadership. (At the local level, they were expected to cooperate with the mayor; to be sure, expected cooperation did not always materialize.) In any case, there was no mechanism by which these appointees could be held accountable to their respective sectors. Sometimes, appointed legislators could hardly be considered typical of their sectors (e.g., large landlords) to represent peasants. In view of this history, it is amazing that in 1986, Constitutional Commissioners identified with the far left and others who had been anti-Marcos activists were among the most enthusiastic supporters of sectoral representation.3 The enthusiasm of the small group of Marcos sectoral appointees also chosen by then President Aquino for the ConCom was, on the other hand, much more understandable. Commissioner Lerum, who himself had been a beneficiary of sectoral appointment, admitted that it had been impossible to agree on a mechanism for electing sectoral representatives under Marcos,4 so the ConCom, after considerable debate, again agreed on the presidential appointment of 25 sectoral representatives for three terms, i.e., until 1998. (Debate on the number and names of the sectors was long and inconclusive.) Thus, the Marcos system survived under Aquino. President Aquino sometimes tried conscientiously to get the advice of representative persons in a sector before making an appointment; other times she did not.5 In any case, little notice was given to her decisions in this regard; a very serious and comprehensive review of Mrs. Aquinos presidency made no mention of them.6 President Ramos seldom made the same effort to consult the sectors. Joel Rocamora judges the arrangement: With few exceptions, sectoral representatives were either labor bureaucrats from the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), fake peasantsor even people who bore no recognizable relation to the sectors they were supposed to represent.7 Thus, even after martial law, sectoral representatives in Congress usually failed to truly voice the concerns of those in their sectors. In any case, they were marginalized by the elected Congressmen in the House of Representatives.

In the ConCom debates, some Commissioners were under the misimpression that the party-list system was equivalent to functional representation.8 However, Commissioner Monsod tried from the beginning to make a distinction. Said he, The proposal for the party-list system is not synonymous with that of sectoral representation. Precisely, the party-list system seeks to avoid the dilemma of choice of sectors.9He pointed out further that if this body accepts the party-list system, we do not even have to mention sectors, becausethere can be sectoral parties within the party-list system. But he was not successful in persuading the Commission to accept his point. Only with the enactment of Republic Act No. 7941 in 1995 were sectors relegated to a type of party under the party-list system, making irrelevant the listing of sectors. The language proposed by the COMELEC in 199310for revising the Election Code had been different. Part F on Party-list System of Article III had not mentioned sectors at all, but only parties, organizations and coalitions. Each was to be allowed to elect up to five members of Congress. No restrictions were put on the participation of the top five parties in the previous election, and no minimum percentage of the vote was required to gain a seat. The draft code was brief and straightforward. Nevertheless, by the time Congress finished deliberating on a new Election Code in 1995, the text clearly revealed multiple authorship and the confusion that such often produces. The Party-List Act continues to read in some passages as if sectoral representation were a separate concept or process. Sectoral party, sectoral organization and political party are carefully defined in Section 3, even though the distinctions are meaningless in the subsequent sections of the law. In fact, 12 sectors are enumerated, but there are no provisions for refusing to register parties or groups formed around other, unnamed sectors. The only restriction on any sector is that a nominee of the youth sector may not be more than 30 years of age on election day (Section 9). But, of course, there is no age restriction on those who may vote for a youth nominee. In fact, when it comes to procedures for registration, deregistration, or nomination, qualifications of nominees (with the one exception mentioned), term of office, method of counting votes, or rights and privileges of members elected, there is no distinction made between national parties, regional parties, sectoral parties or coalitions, or just plain organizations. Thus, one wonders why the definitions were provided in the first place. An understanding of this inconsistency can be found in the history of the legislation. An amendment to the original House Bill, which was introduced by Rep. Michael Mastura, was filed by Rep. Leonardo Montemayor which specified that 50 percent of the party-list

seats should come from six sectors. The amendment was adopted. An amendment to the senate bill by Sen. John Osmena made the distinctions even more rigid: in addition to 50 percent of the seats for sectoral representatives, he proposed that 30 percent of the seats should go to national parties and the remaining 20 percent to regional parties. Not until the Conference Committee were these restrictions removed, but the elaborate differences between these categories remained. Some critical observers assume that a certain amount of this confusion in the law is deliberateto confuse COMELEC and the voters, so that the new law will be difficult to implement. There is evidence of this in the much debated provisionunique in the world -that the first five major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system (Section 11). This was designed by sympathetic legislators to give a breathing space to new parties trying to represent marginalized sectors, so that in their first electoral attempt, they did not have to face unrestrained competition from the richest and best organized of the existing parties. In fact, in the bill passed by the House, the prohibition would have lasted for three terms, until 2004. The Senate, on the other hand, regarded the prohibition unconstitutional. So in the Conference Committee, a compromise had to be struck: a one-time prohibition in 1998.11 Hence, in the party-list system debut, the Lakas-NUCD, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL), the Nationalist Peoples Coalition (NPC), and the Liberal Party (LP) will be non participants. One would have assumed that this would prohibit the creation by the top five of dummies among sectoral groups or political parties participating in the party-list. A senior staff member of COMELEC even suggested in 1997 that it might prevent a party in the party-list system from receiving direct or indirect assistance from one of the first five, on penalty of deregistration. But another, curiously worded passage in Section 3 seems to provide a way out for the trapos. It reads, Component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the party-list system. (The failure to attach this provision to Section 11 makes it easy to miss, perhaps deliberately.) Thus, a major party that classified itself as a coalitionand most are, could support a satellite or dummy in the party-list under this provision. The prohibition against the participation of the first five is thus unenforceable.

Confusions that existed in Congress have even persisted in some segments of the press. In a February column that was replete with quotations from the law, former Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz opined that it resurrects the odious practice of block voting.12 Justice Cruz apparently had forgotten that block voting as practiced in the 1940s was based on the plurality system, with the party having the largest number of votes getting all the seats, the very antithesis of proportional representation. The only thing that the two systems have in common is that voters write the name of a party, not a candidate, on the ballot; the results are radically different. The confusions imbedded in the law have been effectively transmitted to the COMELECthough cynical observers would suggest that the presentCOMELEC needs no outside intervention to foster legal-illiteracy and confusion! For instance, the ban on participation by the first five parties in Section 12 was again effectively nullified by a passage incongruously tucked into Section 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). Furthermore, the careful distinctions between parties and sectors, regional and national, and the long list of approved sectors found in the Act are repeated in the IRR regardless of their lack of relevance. Nevertheless, it should be noted that a senior COMELEC official in 1997 was alert to the fact that the list of sectors was not exhaustive and therefore proposed the inclusion in a primer for voters of the phrase and such other organizations as maybe registered with the Commission, despite its omission from the IRR. What was also revealing was the explanation provided at the time of the refusal to register one of the most prominent of the national parties under the party-list system, AKBAYAN! (Citizens Action Party). In the first place, this denial violated the most fundamental principles of due process; the IRRitself (in Section 6) allowed for such denial of registration only after due notice and hearing, and on one of eight specified grounds. Not only was no hearing held prior to the announcement that the registration had been denied, but no grounds for denial were listed. AKBAYAN! chose to emphasize political protest against this rulingat both the central and several regional offices of COMELECat the same time it filed a formal request for reconsideration.13 Before that request was heard, one commissioner, perhaps the brightest and mostactive among his colleagues, suggested to AKBAYAN! that its real problem was that it did not represent a sector! If one of the brightest had this misconception, one can only imagine what the other commissioners were thinking. AKBAYAN! was, finally granted registration, but without COMELEC admitting its earlier error.

Confusion about the law within COMELEC was even admitted by Augusto Toledo, the head of the education and information department of the Commission. He said that he and other COMELEC officials do not completely understand the party-list system,14 which prompted some other COMELEC staff who had carefully studied the law to retort, speak for yourself, Mr. Toledo. But such remarkable self -criticism was associated in the same statement with a complaint about insufficient funds-which many doubt -to print more than 200,000 primers on the new law. Mr. Toledo may have been preparing the public for a breakdown in COMELECimplementation, comparable to other breakdowns that have already occurred. COMELEC is showing more evidence every week that it is part of the problem of, not the solution to, electoral fraud. Perhaps out of the experience of this election it will become clear to policy makers that the attempt to distinguish between sectors and parties in Republic Act No. 7941 was useless. Even a peasant sector coalition like Alyansang Bayanihan ng mga Magsasaka, Manggagawang-Bukid at Mangingisda (ABA) has quite appropriately prepared campaign material appealing to other sectors, though, perhaps because of the earlier emphasis on sectoral distinctions, feel under some obligation to establish linkage between it seems to a them. For example, in its pathetic appeal to All Justices, Judges, Lawyers and Administrators of Justice, the emphasis is on The Socio-Economic Obstacle to the Administration of Justice. Or in the appeal to All Military and Police Officers and Men, the focus is on Peace and Order and the Peasants. But there are other serious difficulties in the law and regulations which could have very unfortunate consequences for the NGOs and POs which were its strongest advocates. We have already mentioned the problem of a surreptitious role for the first five parties. Deprived of the option of trying to enforce the exclusion of the first five through the courts, the progressive parties in the parly-list system have decided on a strategy of political attack on twapo dummies. Another difficulty is, of course, the perennial dagdag-bawas. Unveiled in the 1995 elections, the process involves the systematic addition (dagdag) to the tally of a preferred candidate votes systematically subtracted (bawas) from the tally of other candidates. But there is a special twist for the party-list, where votes necessary for election are calculated as a percentage of the total votes cast for the party -list system. This will constitute a new burden on the Board of Election Inspectors (BOI), many working through the night anyway. That total must be tabulated and recorded separate from the total number of voters. If at the precinct level this separate count is neglected there will probably be a tendency in the first and second canvass to neglect it as well.

Many people expect that voting for party-lists will be far below perhaps only 50 percent than that for candidates. Thus, there will be a huge undefined gap to be filled by those engaged in illegally augmenting the count. The only hope this time for those who are looking for reform in the electoral and party systems is that the masterminds of dagdag-bawas may be too busy manipulating the vote for well-known candidates to even bother with the party-list system. (But in the long run, the system of counting must be fundamentally restructured.) There is also the danger, though small, of a challenge to the law on constitutional grounds, since some legal experts have already claimed that the law has unconstitutional provisions. The most prominent of these is the ban on the first five, though the ease with which they are getting around it, reduces the chances of legal action. Another weak spot in the law is the cap of three seats per party, regardless of the number of votes a party receives. This is contrary to another sentence in Section 11 which readsreiterating the basic principle of proportional representation stated in the Constitutionthose garnering more than two percent of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes. Since the victims of the three seat cap will not be known until after the elections, we could only speculate as to who might make a protest beforehand, but trapo dummies could well take the lead. Under the existing law, it may happen that the party-list election does not fill all the 51 seats it has been allotted. This could result if the bulk of the votes were concentrated on ten or less partiessome of which may turn out to be trapo satellites, with a lot of excess votes, unable to produce more seats because of the cap, and if at the same time almost all of the remaining parties failed to get the minimum two percent of the votes. But such an outcome could be a learning experience, and should lead to the laws amendment. This would be one more powerful argument for the elimination of the capsnot to be found in party-list systems anywhere else in the world. And, in fact, the long run goal of proportional representation to equate the percentage of seats with the percentage of votes, to force all parties large and smallto define themselves more clearly in terms of program, and to de-emphasize the lavish use of money for vote buying, cannot be achieved with a cap on the number of seats a party may win. Small progressive parties must be allowed to expand, and large parties must be exposed to the impact of the party-list system on their methods of operation. In the short run, the effectand for some Congressmen perhaps the purpose of the cap is to divide mass-based organizations and progressive groups. It has encouraged numerous separate filings, rather than the creation of coalitions: altogether 125 parties and groups as of March 11. In the labor sector alone, there are 13 registered, and in the

peasant sector, nine; some of these are based on well-established labor and peasant organizations, e.g., ABA, led by the long-time officers of the Federation of Free Farmers, while some of the others are of more doubtful connections. And under the category organizations are another 37, ranging from the Estrada-backed Citizens Movement for Justice, Economy, Environment and Peace (JEEP), or the elite Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), to several unknowns, e.g., Alliance for Natural Law, Ampo Party, or Philippine Jury Movement. That so many groups with no previous political activity have been registered by COMELEC, while AKBAYAN!, which included well-known intellectuals with a trenchant progressive critique and had been organizing nationally for over a year, was initially denied registration, is also an indication of the bias of theCOMELEC and its easy disregard for the law. A measure of the divisiveness of the three-member cap is found as well in the fact that 16 of the parties and groups registered are blatantly regional, seven of which propose to represent the Visayas. Regionally defined parties are more likely than most to be trapo creations. The first election under the party-list system will be a cold shower for most of the groups registered; but excessive splintering will continue in subsequent elections if the cap is not removed. (This is not to suggest that Filipino parties are not capable of splintering even without a special electoral incentive.) In conclusion, it must be said that for all the problems that have been enumerated, and more that could be, the party-list system is still an essential asset for reforming the fundamental character at the Philippine political system. It cannot achieve its goals without being surrounded by educational programs and political mobilization to raise citizens consciousness and motivate them to act in their own best interests. But the party-list is itself worth a vigorous struggle by proponents of reform, for if it fails in implementation as many trapos must wish the whole progressive reform movement will have suffered a severe setback. A quick surge of volunteers for poll watching is urgent. We have commented on the confusion and misunderstanding among decision-makers that has complicated the implementation of the party-list concept. And yet on reflection, that confusion and misunderstanding may have been a blessing. Seldom do elites and least of all Filipino trapos give away wealth and power without reaping compensatory benefit. If establishment politicians had really understood the purpose of the party-list system, and believed that it was actually capable of achieving that purpose, they may have done an even more thorough job of frustrating its implementation. To be sure, with the end of the appointive sectoral representation in 1998, they were under some pressure to do something to fill the void. And Congress did need to act within the

framework of the Constitution. But the passage of the PartyList Act may have been premised on the assumption by a majority of the members of Congress that its stated goals were just airy ideals that did not require careful study and could, in any case, be successfully subverted by the old politics, as was sectoral representation in the past. It will require tremendous effort by mass-based reformers to prove them wrong. The law needs revision, as we have noted, and the only way to ensure that it does not change for the worse in the next Congress is to elect a large number of reform-minded members from progressive parties and groups. The present law is certainly an innovation, whether viewed in the context of Philippine political history, or on the world scene. But it will best be strengthened by building more effectively on the experience of other countries that have themselves used proportional representation to stimulate political reform.
http://www.negroschronicle.com/web-archives/critical-reporting/Party%20list%20%20poor%20track%20record%20but%20a%20tool%20for%20social%20justice.htm

Party list: poor track record but a tool for social justice
by: ELY P. DEJARESCO June 02, 2013

We cannot understand why the party list representatives are so important in the Lower House when , over the years, they have shown very poor track record in terms of legislation. Of course they are tools of social justice, but are they as, tools not in the wrong place at the wrong time? Not a single party list has authored nor passed any law in Congress, so what are they doing there? In fairness, this is what the Supreme Court said about Party List: The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them to become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to make the marginalized and the underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the States benevolence, but active participants in the mainstream of representative democracy. Do you know that 53 party list reps in the House means over P3.7-billion wasted in taxpayers money mostly because of the P70Million pork barrel for each plus allowances like any congressman? And what REALLY are they doing there in Congress? Make noise, one thing sure. And only a few. The rest are silent and enjoying their P70-million annual pork barrel x 3 years. That is unfair to us who are paying their doughs. In fairness once more, this is how the Supreme Court defines the core principle and objective of the party-list system introduced in the 1987 Constitution, based on the charters provision, the minutes of the framers deliberations, and the declaration of state policy by RA 7941, the enabling law. Thus, the SC warns: allowing all individuals and groups, including those which now dominate district elections, to have the same opportunity to participate in party-list elections would desecrate this lofty objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanism into an atrocious veneer for traditional politics. The marginalized and under-represented are the majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity. It was for them that the party-list system was enacted to give them not only genuine hope, but genuine power. What? Give me a break! Look at the millionaires who are in the party list in Congress today!

Right now, 38 party list reps have been proclaimed, out of the 53 and they are making so much fuss as if they are major players in major legislations. All we see are bills and House resolutions which mean nothing but mere opinions. So what are they doing there? OUR HUMBLE 2 CENTS WORTH SUGGESTION: They, the 53 party list representatives, should unite and covenant to VOTE AS ONE. This will make them a potent force in Congress. And they can make or unmake good or bad laws if only they vote as ONE. Better do it boys and girls, and give justice to the poor taxpayers who are paying your salaries. My very resourceful roommate fondly named Marlen, gave me a list which stated that 10 party list reps are millionaires, they are not marginalized nor poor at all at any angle. They are lying and misrepresenting their sectors. Catalina Bagarina for instance who represents labor employees is the richest, with P113.8Million in net worth! Ted Haresco of Kasangga has P104Milliion in net worth.Plus eight others. The poorest, Raffy Mariano (Des?) of Anakpawisis P92,507networth. BUHAY, of Mike Vilardes group El Shaddai, has 3 representatives in the party list being the biggest identifiable group. WATCH THIS: The party list of 8 million genuinely mostly poor senior citizens because they have no more income was disqualified simply because the representatives do term sharing among themselves. Crazy isnt it? Because of this, the Supreme Court stopped further proclamation of party list reps lest others get proclaimed without deserving it. So what really are the party list people doing in Congress? except display themselves as a tool of social justice as defined by the high tribunal.

GABRIELA is a leftist Filipino organization that advocates for women's issues. It is a nationwide network of grassroots organizations, institutions, and programs that address issues [1] such as human rights, poverty,globalization, militarism, violence, health, sex trafficking, censorship and other issues affecting women. Its name is an acronym ofGeneral Assembly Binding Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality, Leadership, and Action. There are regional chapters inMetro Manila, Cordillera Administrative Region, and Mindanao; sub-regional chapters in Negros, Panay and Samar, and provincial chapters in Bicol and Cebu.

History[edit source | editbeta]

GABRIELA was founded in April 1984 after 10,000 women marched in Manila, defying a Marcos decree [2] against demonstrations. The NGO was named in honor of Gabriela Silang, who led a revolt against Spain in the second half of the eighteenth century.

Electoral performance[edit source | editbeta]

In 2003, the party-list 'Gabriela Women's Party' was launched by GABRIELA. In the 2004 elections for the House of Representativesthe party-list got 464,586 votes (3.6518% of the nationwide vote and one [3][4] seat; Liza Maza) In the 14 May 2007 election, the party won 2 seats in the nationwide party-list vote.
[2]

Electoral performance[edit source | editbeta]

Election Votes % Seats

2004

464,586 3.65%

2007

621,171 3.89%

2010

1,001,421 3.31%

Representatives to Congress[edit source | editbeta]

13th Congress (20042007) - Liza Maza 14th Congress (20072010) - Luzviminda Ilagan, Liza Maza 15th Congress (20102013) - Luzviminda Ilagan, Emerenciana de Jesus

Human Trafficking[edit source | editbeta]

In the Philippines, GABRIELA is actively involved in awareness campaigns to prevent the trafficking of women and girls from the Philippines. Its strategies consist of seminars and information dissemination to [5] NGOs and government agencies and awareness campaigns at the community level. GABRIELA Philippines reports that a Filipina woman sells for between $3000 and $5000 in the international sex [6] trade.

Gabriela usa[edit source | editbeta]

GABRIELA-USA is the first overseas chapter of the Philippine-based organization, extending the Filipino women's mass movement to the United States.

GABnet in United States[edit source | editbeta]

GABRIELA has a sister network in the United States, GABRIELA Network (GABNet). GABnet is a USPhilippine womens solidarity mass organization. GABnet conducted a nationwide vigil on Friday, May 20, 2005 in six US citiesChicago, Los Angeles, New York, Portland, San Francisco and Seattle. The vigil was the first nationally coordinated action in the US to protest the escalating political killings in the [7] Philippines.

http://www.gabrielawomensparty.net/legislation/bills ------

FOR LAWS/BILLS