Electoral rules and party-list system

 EDITORIAL

Last week, the Senate Committee on Suffrage conducted a hearing on pending bills and resolutions relative to the electoral process.  Among the topics discussed was the proposed amendment of Republic Act No. 7971, the Party-List System Act.

The first is S. No. 372 filed on July 11, 2019, by Sen. Leila De Lima.  It is “An Act strengthening the Party-List and emphasizing its role as a constitutional social justice tool to give the marginalized and underrepresented genuine power and representation, amending for the purpose Republic Act No. 7941.“

On August 21, 2019, Sen. Imee Marcos introduced PSR No. 58, a resolution “Directing the Senate Committee on Electoral Reforms and People’s Participation to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, on the current Party-List System with the end view of amending Republic Act No. 7941, otherwise known as the “Party-List System Act,” to prevent abuse and harmonize the definition and mechanism of the Party-List system of representation with the genuine intent of the Constitution.”

Former Comelec officials Gregorio Larrazabal said many are not aware of some rules that may need to be addressed.

The rule for individuals, who run in an electoral exercise in the Philippines and lose, is that they are prohibited to be appointed to government positions within one year from the date of the elections. 

He said the rule is clearly stated in the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

“Art. IX -B, Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government or any Government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.”

To strengthen the rule, Republic Act No. 7160 provided the following restrictions on losing candidates:

“SECTION 94. Appointment of Elective and Appointive Local Officials; Candidates Who Lost in Election. 

“(a) No elective or appointive local official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no elective or appointive local official shall hold any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or-controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

“(b) Except for losing candidates in Barangay elections, no candidate who lost in any election shall, within one (1) year after such election, be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or-controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.”

However, in the case of party-list organizations that participate in the elections, the rule is different.  There is no one-year ban to be appointed to the government for nominees of the party-list if the organization fails to garner a seat in the House of Representatives. 

Larrazabal says when one votes for a party-list organization, they should be voting for the Party-List, not the nominees.  The nominees are just representatives of the party and may be replaced (under certain conditions and following procedures).

However, as many of those in the hearing agreed to, including the members of the committee, it creates an undue and unfair advantage for the party-list nominees.

Larrzabal said while other individuals who run take not only the risk of having to resign from their position and the risk of losing the elections, they also risk not being able to be appointed to the government for a year. 

For party-list nominees, if they fail to garner enough votes to secure a seat in the House of Representatives, the nominees can be appointed to the government immediately after the elections.

In real-world politics, in many instances, and due to the personality-based politics in the Philippines, numerous voters cast their vote for a party-list organization, because of the nominees (in some cases, because of the people who endorse a party-list organization).  And nominees of the winning party-list organizations enjoy the benefits of a regular/district representative.

Absent any systemic reform, that establishes real parties and or authentic proportional representation, this rule should be reconsidered.