Ending the abuse of the partylist system, which has become a shortcut to securing a seat in the House of Representatives, would require the political will of legislators.

Meanwhile, the constitutional mandate for a law prohibiting political dynasties remains unfulfilled.

Congress is resistant to the law for obvious reasons, since the lack of it allows generations of a family who thrive in the political arena to keep their domination.

The partylist has ceased to be limited to the marginalized, as most voters believe, according to retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

When the Constitution was adopted, it was provided that for the first three terms of Congress, there should be representation for the marginalized sectors, Carpio explained.

It was during the interim period that preference was given to the marginalized in society to have representation in Congress.

Carpio said that period had lapsed, and the partylist system is open to any group seeking to acquire a congressional seat.

The partlist group only needs to secure at least two percent of the national vote to gain a congressional seat.

Yet, a partylist can win up to three seats, depending on the number of votes received. Additional seats are allocated proportionally, but no party can win more than three seats.

The Supreme Court’s “Panganiban Formula” determines how additional seats are distributed.

The Panganiban scheme was established in the landmark case Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency vs. Commission on Elections, penned by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban.

The formula ensures proportional representation while complying with the three-seat cap per party and the 20 percent seat allocation.

The total number of seats for partylist representatives should be 20 percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives. Thus, if the House has 300 members, then 60 seats are allocated for partylist groups.

Carpio said the Constitution was specific and that limiting the representation to the marginalized should only be for the initial three terms of Congress.

“In other words, after the three terms, it was assumed that the marginalized sectors could stand on their own, so 30 percent of Congress was reserved for them.”

He emphasized that the concept of “marginalized” has a time limit, as specified in the Constitution.

“Even in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, it was clear that there was a time limit,” he explained.

The process remained imperfect because of the absence of a political dynasty prohibition. “That should be addressed,” Carpio said.

He continued, “To my mind, the problem remains the absence of an anti-political dynasty law since it is a requirement under the Constitution.”

Without the measure, the legislative districts will remain dominated by political dynasties, and that should be addressed, according to Carpio.

Even if you amend the law on the partylist system, the problem in the legislative districts will persist.

“The partylist system is now open to any group. If you want to change that, then you have to amend the Constitution,” Carpio added.

Right now, there is no limitation on the social status of groups that want to gain a partylist seat in Congress based on the Constitution.

Such a situation is exploited to the hilt by politicians by preventing Congress from enacting a law against political dynasties.

Even a constitutional directive will not compel legislators to take action to end their stranglehold on their lucrative political stronghold.