SC has ruled on party-list reps: They need not be poor — coalition to Padilla
INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — Party-list representatives who are not poor are acceptable as long as they’re advocates of the sector they represent, the Partylist Coalition Foundation Inc. (PCFI) said in a statement on Monday, citing a Supreme Court decision dated April 2, 2013, in the case of Paglaum versus the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
The coalition issued the statement in reaction to Sen. Robinhood Padilla, who said that the party-list system should be abolished as some of its members get elected based on their popularity or wealth.
“Paglaum v. COMELEC is inclusive because it upholds the right of party-list organizations who champion the causes of the poor and marginalized and of other sectors whose voices must be heard when Congress formulates laws and sets national policies, programs, and projects,” the PCFI said.
“Being a champion means being in solidarity with the sectors represented and supported,” it added.
According to PCFI, the Supreme Court understood the intent of the Party-List System Act, which is to have representations of the marginalized sector in Congress.
“The magistrates of the Supreme Court agree: A part-list representative need not be poor. What is only needed is that a party-list nominee really champions the welfare of the abused and marginalized in society,” the coalition said in Filipino.
“The Supreme Court understood the clear intent and language of the Constitution and the enabling Party-list Act: to make sure other voices are heard, other sectors are seen,” it added.
It should be a top priority
Padilla had earlier suggested that abolishing the party-list system should be a top priority for Congress once it should get around to amending the Constitution.
“If we get around to con-con [constitutional convention to amend the Constitution], that’s what we should first dismantle because the party-list system, my goodness gracious, I no longer see ever since our Supreme Court decided to allow even the rich [to run under a party list]. It has lost its spice and substance,” Padilla said in Filipino.
“The representatives have become laughable,” he added.
But the PCFI insisted that the issue had already been resolved by the Supreme Court.
“Paglaum v. COMELEC is a landmark, earth-shaking defense of democracy, sovereignty, and inclusion. With Paglaum v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court made sure, with crystal clear clarity, why and how party lists must be represented in Congress,” the PCFI said.
“We are a society of laws and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of questions of law within the jurisdiction given by the Constitution to the Court to resolve,” it added.
Currently, the House is deliberating proposals asking to amend the Constitution, including Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 6, which was approved by the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments last week.
Earlier, the committee also approved its report containing a substitute bill calling for a constitutional convention. If enacted, this will be the enabling law that will implement RBH. No. 6
