“This is a ground-breaking political experiment.”
It’s an interesting proposition by the Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Mamamayan (Anim), a multisectoral coalition of organizations led by retired officers from the military, police and other uniformed services, bishops and other leaders of faith-based and civic groups.
The coalition recently launched a campaign against political dynasties and urged the public to seek their disqualification from next year’s elections.
“We encourage the public to file separate disqualification cases against political dynasties in their areas,” said lawyer Alex Lacson, who is leading the group’s campaign. “Dynastic politicians can only be disqualified or removed from office if such a case is filed. Without these cases, they remain in power,” he explained.
In fact, Anim filed last October 18 disqualification suits against five candidates from political families, arguing that constitutional prohibitions against political dynasties were self-executing.
Article II, Section 26, of the 1987 Constitution states that “the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
However, Congress has failed to pass the enabling law, and there are only two laws defining political dynasties in the books since 1987. These are the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Law of 2016 (Republic Act No. 10742) and Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 35 (Bangsamoro Electoral Code) passed by the Bangsamoro Transition Authority in 2023.
Anim has announced it is ready to assist the public in filing these disqualification petitions and they could be reached through e-mail at [email protected].
This is a ground-breaking political experiment that seeks to encourage people to express their condemnation of the growing monopoly of political power by certain families in many parts of the country from north to south. It’s about time we go back to the real intent or spirit of the specific constitutional provision banning political dynasties, which is to broaden access to public office even by ordinary people, not just the moneyed and the greedy.
Party-list law should be reviewed
While at this, we also ask: What is wrong with the party-list system?
What’s wrong with it is the Supreme Court decision opening up the party-list system to just about everyone, not just the groups representing the marginalized and underrepresented sectors as provided for under the party-list law.
The Supreme Court decision actually turns on its head the constitutional provision that the House of Representatives shall consist of members who shall be elected from legislative districts and “those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations.” In effect, the High Court ruling invalidates the party-list law.
Our Constitution says party-list representatives shall constitute 20 percent of the total membership of Congress, and that the party-list groups should represent labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth and other sectors, except the religious sector. These were the sectors that the party-list law said were “marginalized and underrepresented”.
But since the implementation of the party-list system in the 1990s, various groups not belonging to these sectors have tried unsuccessfully to get accreditation from the Comelec.
It is high time to amend the party-list law. Congress, not the Supreme Court, should determine who should really run under the system, by identifying those sectors that qualify as “marginalized and underrepresented”. There should be clear-cut parameters or standards so that aspiring and/or professional politicians already repudiated by the electorate do not manage to enter Congress through the backdoor.
An amended party-list law should strive to strike a balance between the principles of proportional representation (the Philippine party list system is ostensibly patterned after the German model, which is anchored on proportional representation) and the ideal of giving the marginalized and underrepresented sectors a voice in lawmaking. In other words, it should be an instrument to achieve social justice and reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.
As it now stands, Congress is dominated by members of old political families, new politicians with old mindsets, and millionaires. How can we believe their pro-poor rhetoric when we know that they are there to protect vested interests, both economic and political?
If the intent of the party-list system is to democratize policy-making, then a new party-list law oriented towards empowering the poor and the underprivileged sectors should be crafted. The existing party-list law does exactly the opposite.
(Email: [email protected])
