The Puzzle of Party-Lists

For most people, their introduction to the concept of Party-List System of Representation was premised on the idea that the PL system was for the “marginalized and under-represented” to have a voice in Congress. It’s a lovely notion that neatly coincides with an intuitive sense of justice. Sort of like Magsaysay saying that those who have less in life should have more in law. Unfortunately, that isn’t how the Party-List system was actually conceptualized in the Constitution, much less designed by the Party-List Law. The long and short of it is that the PL system is supposed to be the realization of the Constitution’s promise to evolve a free and open political system – an understandable reaction to two decades of dictatorial rule. Still, after the initial implementation of the PL system, a string of SC decisions emerged that ultimately re-made the face of the PL system, solidifying the notion that the entire system ought to be reserved for the ‘marginalized and under-represented.’ In 2013, the Court course corrected with Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC. In that case, the Court clarified several things. First, it declared that participation in the PL systems wasn’t exclusive to the marginalized and under-represented, and that in fact, national parties or organizations, regional parties or organizations, and sectoral parties or organizations could play. More importantly, it held that national and regional parties and organizations did not need to organize along sectoral lines, and did not need to represent any marginalized or under-represented sector. Going even further, the Court ruled that sectoral parties and organizations fell into two broad categories. First, those that represented marginalized and under-represented sectors (M&U); and second, those that “lacked a well-defined political constituency (LAWDPC).” M&Us include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, the handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. LAWDPCs, on the other hand, include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth. In both cases, a majority of the members of these sectoral parties must belong to the sector they claim to represent. Political parties, on the other hand, are under no such restrictions. They don’t need to represent any sector (either M&U or LAWDPC), and need only to 1) register under the party-list system, and 2) not field any candidates in legislative district elections. Got that? This distinction between political parties participating in the PL system – note that these can be national or regional political parties – and sectoral parties is critical and explains why the accreditation of some PL Groups seem to defy all logic. In the face of such puzzling rulings, it always helps to look at what exactly the PL group applied accreditation for. If the PL group in question applied to be sectoral party, then its members must come from the sector they seek to represent. If they are a youth sectoral party, for example, the majority of their members must come from the youth. Fail to prove this, and their petition for accreditation fails as well. If, on the other hand, it applied to be a political party – regardless if their chosen name makes it sound like they are a sectoral party – there is no such restriction. In a sense, this makes it easier to accredit a political party, rather than a sectoral one. Confusing? Admittedly it isn’t easy to understand — especially if you’re not diving deep into the details. But you should, because in law, the details matter.