Stricter party-list screening needed vs dynasties
THE proposed measure against political dynasties should include stricter screening of party-list nominees amid concerns of dynastic dominance in the system, the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department (CPBRD) said.
In its policy brief “From Sectors to Seats: Examining Party-list Representation in the Philippines,” the think tank also proposed amendments to Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, or the Party-List System Act, to align it with the Constitution.
While the party-list system was constitutionally created to give voice to underrepresented sectors, CPBRD said the RA 7941’s lack of explicit limitations to marginalized sectors allowed broader interpretations of the law.
It also cited the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Atong Paglaum against the Commission on Elections, which allowed nominees who are not from marginalized sectors to participate as long as they can be considered “advocates” of these sectors.
“The ruling thus placed emphasis on ‘intent…’ over ‘identity,’” the think tank said.
According to the report, this has paved the way for political dynasties to gain more access to the party-list system.
The think tank cited data from the Philippines Center for Investigative Journalism which states that 50% of the current party-list representatives are connected to political dynasties.
The report also pointed out that some of the party-list representatives are from wealthy families or have large business interests, which, critics say, goes against the original intent of sectoral representation.
A separate Supreme Court ruling also allowed the allocation for party-list seats even to groups that did not reach the 2% vote threshold.
This opened up opportunities for small regional and “niche” party-list groups that rely on local political machinery instead of broad national support, CPBRD said.
Because of this, the think tank recommended the passage of an anti-political dynasty law that would also cover party-list nominees, a stricter screening process for nominees, and an amendment to RA 7941 to supposedly restore the original purpose of the system.
CPBRD also proposed that nominees be required to be genuine members of the sector they represent and not just simple “advocates” of their sector.
“Party-list seats remain not merely additional political positions. They were conceived as sectoral seats intended to broaden representation for marginalized and underrepresented groups,” the think tank said. — Pexcel John Bacon
