Wanted: Legit party-list

The work of sorting out and delisting these groups will be done by Comelec and hopefully be completed by the middle of December. How should the commission delineate the legitimate ones from the “pseudo party-list” groups?

Well, the Comelec can start with the requirements laid down by the PartyList System Act, or RA 7941.

Guanzon lament

Commissioner Rowena Guanzon told reporters that the ballot for the 2019 polls may be very long because of the sheer number of party-list organizations.

Guanzon also said that some politicians are using the party- list system to be able to run for elective posts after their terms have expired or other members of their political clan are also running. Guanzon also wants relatives of incumbent officials or those running for elective positions to be disqualified from participating in the partylist elections (

This is a very good observation and I cannot disagree with her.

However, I totally disagree with Commissioner Guanzon when she claimed that the Comelec cannot do anything about it. What insanity is this? The ommission, just like any regulatory body, can restrict and delist these bogus party- list organizations.

Requirements under RA 7941

Under the Party- List System Act, a group seeking accreditation as a party- list should not be a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes. With this criterion alone, several party- list organizations can be readily delisted.

Another requirement is that the group shall not advocate violence or unlawful means to achieve its goals and objectives. Wow, there are several groups that advocate violence to achieve their ends. So, why can’t these

indirectly through third parties.

If the Comelec had just followed this Act to the letter, then bogus party- list groups could have not made the cut. Then again, the Supreme Court reinterpreted this law. In the case of

( G. R. Nos. 203766 et. al.), which was promulgated on April 2, 2013, the Supreme Court adopted new parameters in the qualifications of national, regional, and sectoral parties under the partylist system. This effectively abandoned the rulings in the decisions applied by the Comelec in disqualifying the petitioners in this jurisprudence.

The case is actually a consolidation of 54 petitions filed by 52 party- list groups that were disqualified by the Comelec to participate in the May 13, 2013 elections. Most of the denials were based on these three grounds: 1) the sector sought to be represented by the group or organization is not considered marginalized and under- represented; 2) failure to prove their track record; and 3) nominees do not belong to the marginalized and under-represented.

In deciding the consolidated petitions, the Supreme Court revisited the deliberations of the framers of the 1987 Constitution and concluded that the “framers of the 1987 Constitution expressly rejected the proposal to make the party- list system exclusively for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly intended the party- list system to include both sectoral and non- sectoral parties. The common denominator between sectoral and non- sectoral parties is that they cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes that winning candidates can garner in legislative district elections. The party- list system will be the entry point to membership in the House of Representatives for both these non- traditional parties that could not compete in legislative district elections.” Does this mean that the present predicament that we are in now was caused by the 1987 Constitution?

The court similarly interpreted the Party-List System Act and set the following parameters for the Comelec to adhere to:

1. Three different groups may participate in the party- list system: national parties or organizations; regional parties or organizations; and 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 under-represented” 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.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and under- represented” or lacking in “welldefined political constituencies.” It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector.

What about the traditional politicians who are nominees of these sectoral groups? A party-list nominee must be a

- nization which he or she seeks to represent. In the case of sectoral parties, to be

either belong to the sector represented, or have a track record of advocacy for such sector. This is where the problem lies. Anyone can simply say that they are “advocates” for such sector to be quali-

them to show and prove their “track record.” Is the Comelec doing this? Or is this selectively implemented?

The raiding of the party- list system by traditional politicians defeated the very purpose of this kind of representation — courtesy of the above ruling of the Supreme Court.

In the end it’s up to the people to vote for the right party-list. It’s also up to the Comelec whether to count these votes or not.