Comelec: SC ‘formula’ to fill party list seats
Rex Laudiangco LYN RILLON
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) will choose which of the 177 candidate party lists groups it will allow to occupy the 63 seats for party list representatives mandated by the Constitution, its spokesperson said on Thursday.
The number represents 20 percent of the total seats in the House of Representatives that the Constitution had set aside for members of party list groups which are elected nationwide, in addition to the representatives elected in their congressional districts.
Comelec spokesperson Rex Laudiangco, citing Republic Act No. 7941 (RA 7941), or the Party List Act of 1995, said those that attained at least 2 percent of all the votes cast in the party list election would “automatically” get one “guaranteed seat.”
Based on unofficial but nearly complete results from the Comelec transparency server, only six out of the 177 candidate party list groups garnered 2 percent or more of the total party list votes.
These are ACT-CIS with 5.76 percent of the votes; 1-Rider, 2.74 percent; Tingog, 2.42 percent; 4Ps 2.32 percent; Ako Bicol, 2.25 percent; and Sagip, 2.14 percent.
ACT-CIS also topped the 2019 party list elections and is one of the 51 party list groups in the House with three representatives.
“Of course, we have to fill 63 seats and these cannot be filled only by the party list groups that got 2 percent. More groups did not get (2 percent of the votes). That is where we apply the formula laid down by the Supreme Court,” Laudiangco said.
He was referring to the Supreme Court 2009 decision that laid down a three-stage formula for distributing seats to the party list winners.
The 2009 Banat v. Comelec ruling also overturned the requirement of a minimum 2 percent party list votes to fill up all of the 20 percent party list representatives.
In the first stage, the first seat is given to parties that obtained a minimum of 2 percent of the total votes cast in a party list election.
In the second stage, the parties get one additional seat, or two seats in all, based on the allocation of the remaining seats.
The process goes on to a third stage if there are still seats left from the party list quota of 20 percent of all the seats in the House. One party list seat is assigned to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed.
A party list can only have a maximum of three representatives.
“What’s important with the formula is that the distribution of seats will be proportional. Those that got the highest votes would be able to get three or two seats. They would be occupying practically two-thirds of the 63 seats,” Laudiangco said.
“Ultimately the result is that all the 63 seats allocated to party list groups will be filled up based on the proportionate and progressive application of the formula,” he added.
Meant for marginalized
The 1987 Constitution established the party list system to give marginalized and underrepresented sectors a chance to elect their representatives in Congress, which has been traditionally dominated by wealthy political clans.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled to allow political parties and groups which do not represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors to also participate in the party list race.
This opened the party list system to abuse. It has been criticized for creating a backdoor to Congress for politicians who had exhausted their terms or to members of their families and nonmarginalized groups to advance their economic or financial interests.
Lately, government officials, including President Duterte himself, said it also opened the door for communist or antigovernment groups to infiltrate the House.
The National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac) specifically accuses the Makabayan bloc in the House of representing the communist insurgents. This allegation has been vehemently denied by the Makabayan lawmakers who said this was an excuse to vilify them and their advocacies.
Du30: Scrap it
During his televised public address on Wednesday night, Mr. Duterte urged the incoming president to scrap the party list system from the Constitution through a Constituent Assembly or Constitutional Convention.
“This party list needs to be removed by whoever is going to be the next president. I recommend the abolition of this party list. It is being abused,” Mr. Duterte said.
He said “a few” people used the party list system to destroy the government.
“That was the mantra of the communist 53 years ago, and it’s still the mantra of the communist rebels even the Left,” he said.
He said it would be better to change the Constitution early in the new administration. “Because when you do that when your term is about to end, they will say you want to change some provisions in the Constitution to allow you to run,” he said.
‘Deceptive solution’
Kabataan party, a member of the Makabayan bloc, opposed the scrapping of the party list system, saying that while the President cited flaws in the party list system he was “acting like a swindler by offering a deceptive solution that does not solve the problem of ensuring genuine representation of the marginalized.”
“If the problem is the party list system, why overhaul the entire Constitution?” Kabataan pointed out. “We would only be opening up a Pandora’s box of constitutional revisions that will support the self-serving agenda of a ruling class supermajority: allowing 100 percent foreign ownership of resources, allowing term extensions, and wiping out any genuine opposition in Congress, among others.”
The Senior Citizens party list also opposed the President’s proposal as it would deny marginalized sectors their voices in Congress.
“This is why we call for reform, not abolition of the party list system,” said Senior Citizens Rep. Rodolfo Ordanes.
“Abolition of the party list system will completely deny seniors and other underrepresented sectors the voices they need to push for laws that will address their specific concerns,” he said..
He acknowledged that the party list system had been abused by opportunists “but there are party lists who truly represent and speak for the marginalized, the poor, and the disadvantaged.”
“By their fruits, we shall know them,” he said. —WITH REPORTS FROM JEANNETTE I. ANDRADE, NESTOR CORRALES AND INQUIRER RESEARCH
RELATED STORY
