A Pulse Asia survey conducted in February 2010 revealed that 7 out of 10 voters are unaware of the partylist system with just few months before the national elections. This is the lowest awareness level recorded by Pulse Asia since 2004. "It's a reflection of the lack of awareness of our electoral system. People are not so aware of the function of party-list representatives,” said Pulse Asia president Ronnie Holmes.
Partylist System (PLS) is purported to be one of the prices of restoring democracy after the downfall of Marcosian rule. The 1987 Constitution provides for a proportional representation of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors in the society in Sec. 5 of Art. VI.
But it was not until in 1995 that an enabling law, R.A 7941, was passed that the PLS became operational. The law defines types of group who may join the PLS: 1. Sectoral Party (Advocates special interests of defined sectors) 2.) Sectoral Organization (bound together by similar physical attributes and characteristics, or by employment, interests and concerns) 3. Political Party (pursuing the same ideology, political ideas, and principles for the general conduct of government) 4. Coalition (aggrupation of national, regional, sectoral parties of organization for political or election purposes).
Sec. 2 of R.A 7941 stipulates that “The state shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives (HoR) through Partylist System of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organization of coalition thereof…” However the Commission on Election has the right to remove any party or organization on the following grounds:
1. If it is a religious sect or denomination, or association organized for religious purposes;
2. If it advocates violence or unlawful means to advance its goals.
3. If it is a foreign party or organization.
4. If it is receiving any form of support (directly or indirectly) from any foreign entity for partisan election purposes.
5. If it violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections.
6. If it declares untruthful statement in its petition.
7. If it has ceased to exist for at least 1 year or
8. If it fails to participate in two preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
The PLS Law follows mathematical rules in allocating seats for Partylist Representatives in the HoR: 20% of the total number of seats in the HoR shall be reserved to Partylists. This means that out of 5 representatives 1 comes from Partylist and the 4 comes from Congressional Districts. Sec. 11 of R.A 7941 limits the seat allocation to not more than 3 seats for every partylist together with 2% vote threshold that a party must obtain to gain seat in the Congress.
The 3-seat limit
Myth: The law affirms proportional representation by limiting for only 3 seats. It contends that no single party may hold more than 3 seats thus giving smaller parties to have a chance of winning. This maximum ceiling provides equal opportunity for parties participating in election.
Fact: The 3 seat cap promotes break-up of strong party into smaller ones and discourages the formation of big coalitions. Parties are inhibited to grow since the effort of qualifying as much support as party would try to win 3 seat cap provides for disenfranchisement of millions of votes and jeopardizes vigor of representation of the marginalized and underrepresented segments of the society.
The 2% Vote Threshold
The rule of 2% vote threshold sets limitation on the parties in accumulating seat in HoR to democratize representation. In order for a party to win a seat it must obtain sufficient number of votes which is at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for partylist. However, if the party exceeds 6% of total votes, the 3-seat cap applies.
Together with the 3 seat cap the 2% vote threshold goes contradictory to the principle of proportional representation. The institutionalization of 2% vote threshold prevents an even larger number of Partylist to be included in the winning circle hence, denying the chance of winning seats in the HoR by parties which have not obtained 2% of the total number of partylist votes. There is also a danger that no party will be able to receive 2% of the total number of partylist votes since the COMELEC is allowing more than the number of seats allotted for Partylist in HoR to participate in the election. It is therefore possible that no party will be able to win a seat in partylist election.
The 2%-4%-6% COMELEC formula together with 3 seat cap does not pave the way for proportional representation. Thus, it must be scrapped from the seat allocation formula to uphold the principle of proportional representation. Not only do these mathematical dilemma render futile the effort of marginalized sectors, it also serves as a backdoor for bogus partylists to enter Congress in blatant mockery of the Partylist System.
0 Response to "Dilemma in the Philippine Partylist System"
Post a Comment