Business Mirror - A FORMER Commission on
Elections (Comelec) chairman on Monday said the decision of the Supreme
Court to abandon its ruling in the Ang Bagong Bayani case reflects the
true intent of the Constitution and adheres to the principle of the
party-list system that the elections were not exclusively for
marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
“The Supreme Court
ruling has clearly defined the parameters that reflected the intent of
the Constitution and the principles behind the party-list system,”
former Comelec Chairman Christian Monsod said, adding that “The
party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral
representation. It is not exclusive to a particular sector.”
Monsod, a member of
the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, and
principal proponent of the party-list system provision, played down
critics’ assertions that the Supreme Court’s setting the parameters of
the party-list system, allowing even the national political parties and
non-sectoral groups to participate in the party-list elections, has
“bastardized” the party-list system law and could render the
marginalized sector even more marginalized.
Monsod also allayed
fears that the new parameters would breed and revive political dynasties
and moneyed individuals to gobble up the small groups and dominate the
seats in Congress.
Supreme Court
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who penned the ruling, quoted Monsod
in explaining that the party-list election was not limited to a
particular sector.
‘Marginalized’ should not be equated with being ‘poor’
ELECTION
experts support the ruling of the Supreme Court that party-list groups
do not need to represent marginalized sectors, and that the term
marginalized should not be equated with being poor.
Louie Guia, executive
director of the Legal Network for Truthful Elections, said the new
ruling is more faithful to the intent of the Constitution that the
party-list system is for proportional and not sectoral representation.
“This new ruling is
more in line with the 1987 Constitution. If the intent of the
Constitution was for the party-list system to be sectoral
representation, it should have said so. Instead, the Constitution says
the party-list system is for proportional representation,” Guia said.
“The Supreme Court
decision, in fact, strengthens the party-list system and it is more
faithful to the intent of the 1987 Constitution,” he added.
Election lawyer George Garcia, for his part, said the new ruling is “a welcome development.”
However, Garcia said the party-list law, or Republic Act 9741, “remains problematic” and must be amended or revised.
“Because the law is so
vague, it became subject to several interpretations. The Commission on
Elections, for one, made a wrong interpretation, and the Supreme Court
had no choice but to follow the law and the Constitution,” he said.
“One can say the
ruling was a ‘band-aid’ solution, and a surgical and permanent solution
by amending or revising the law is in order,” Garcia added.
Earlier, retired
Supreme Court Justice and well-known constitutionalist Vicente Mendoza
said militant party-list groups have nothing to complain about the
ruling since they already enjoyed a nine-year period where party-list
seats were reserved exclusively for them.
“They were given three
terms or nine years where half of the party-list seats had been
reserved exclusively for them. That three terms already ended, and the
intention of the Constitution is that it will be opened up after that
nine years,” Mendoza said.
Senator to seek fine-tuning of party-list law
THE chairman of the
Senate Committee on Electoral Reforms and People’s Participation said on
Monday that he will work to reconcile opposing views on the party-list
system if given a chance to serve in the 16th Congress.
Sen. Aquilino Pimentel
III made the statement in response to the Supreme Court ruling that
allows the participation of groups not representing marginalized and
unrepresented sectors in party-list elections.
“With all due respect
to the Supreme Court justices, I believe they have unnecessarily
deprived the marginalized and underrepresented sectors from having a
voice in the legislature,” he said.
Pimentel said the
“spirit and letter of the party-list law is to give the poor sections of
Philippine society the chance to take part in law-making, but the
Supreme Court ruling practically closes the door for them to do so.”
“I believe that the
party-list system was intended by the framers of the 1987 Constitution
as a social justice tool, to narrow the gap between the rich and the
poor and give the latter the opportunity to craft laws that would
benefit them,” he said.
Pimentel feared that the Court ruling would allow rich and influential groups to dominate proceedings in Congress.
He plans to consult with party-list groups and use their inputs to fine-tune and amend the party-list law.
No comments:
Post a Comment