CHANGES NEEDED

The ongoing controversy involving Duterte Youth partylist nominee Ronald Cardema has created quite a stir.

After the May 2019 congressional election, Cardema was accused of partisan campaigning during his incumbency as chairman of the National Youth Commission, which is a violation of the election law.

It was also discovered that right after the Duterte Youth won one seat in the House of Representatives, its original list of nominees was amended, this time to include Cardema as the party’s first nominee. Under the law, the first nominee takes the seat. Election lawyers maintain that the amendment is in violation of the partylist law.

Cardema’s proclamation was opposed in the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on the ground that the partylist law sets a maximum age of 30 years for youth sector representatives. He is already 34.

The Cardema controversy is not an isolated case.

During the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, advocacy groups questioned the legality of Arroyo’s son representing security guards in the partylist electoral system. It was argued that since Arroyo’s son is not a security guard, he cannot represent security guards.

There is also the issue of partylist representation for women, which surprises many because there are already numerous women in the House representing congressional districts in the country.

Political parties and political dynasties have also infiltrated the partylist system. Today, many partylist House members are either affiliated with a major political party, or are children or grandchildren of traditional politicians.

The Supreme Court’s decisions pertaining to the partylist system allow such an arrangement.

Indeed, the partylist system has evolved into a political Frankenstein’s monster.

To address these concerns, some senators are now considering amendments to the partylist law. It’s about time they do so.

Now that Congress seems to be in the mood to correct flaws and glitches in the current electoral system, it should also urge its members who sit in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

(HRET) to amend the current HRET rules, particularly the provisions on quo warranto. The rules were last revised in 2015.

Under the current HRET rules, a petition for quo warranto is the only way the sovereign electorate may question the proclamation of a winning candidate for the House on the ground that the winning candidate does not meet either the qualifications demanded for the office, such as citizenship, residency, excessive terms and age.

Also under the HRET rules, a candidate for a congressional district who was proclaimed winner, but who is disqualified on grounds other than citizenship, may be unseated by way of a petition for quo warranto, which may be filed only by a voter of the congressional district concerned. Therefore, if the petition is filed by a voter outside of the congressional district concerned, the petition will be dismissed.

That restriction on who may file the petition subverts the concept of sovereignty and violates basic constitutional precepts. If the winning candidate is disqualified from holding office as a member of the House, any taxpayer or voter should be eligible enough to file the pertinent disqualification case. That’s because salaries of congressmen are paid from public funds, and a disqualified winner, regardless of his congressional district, should not be paid any money from the public coffers.

Restricting the right to question the qualification of a congressional district representative to registered voters of that congressional district is patently anomalous. It also violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Another anomaly is the prescriptive period set forth in the HRET rules. A petition for quo warranto asserting disqualification on grounds other than citizenship must be filed within 15 days from proclamation. Fifteen days is a very unrealistic period. Under the Rules of Court, the prescriptive period for quo warranto is one year.

The existing 15-day prescriptive period has the effect of validating an illegal proclamation of a disqualified candidate by the mere lapse of a very unrealistic period. In addition, the HRET rules dilute the concept of popular

sovereignty.

“Restricting

the right to question the qualification of a congressional district representative to registered voters of that congressional district is patently anomalous.

“Cardema’s proclamation was opposed in the Commission on Elections on the ground that the partylist law sets a maximum age of 30 years for youth sector representatives. He is already 34.