Today is election day — another day celebrated to usher in a new batch of elected officials. What can set this election apart is the increased visibility of partylist groups. Driving on any highway in the Philippines, you will see several partylist groups, some with celebrity endorsers, asking for your one single vote. The entire backside of the ballot will be filled with 156 partylist groups, and it can be a struggle for the voter to choose — or even locate — any desired partylist. What brought us to this partylist conundrum?

The Philippine partylist system was born out of a noble ideal. Enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, it was designed as a mechanism to ensure that the poor, marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society would have a voice in the halls of Congress. It was a democratic innovation intended to level the political playing field in a country historically dominated by dynasties and the elite.

Originally envisioned to give sectors such as laborers, peasants, the urban poor, indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable groups a genuine stake in governance, the partylist system has now been co-opted by traditional politicians, business interests, and even political dynasties. What was supposed to be a platform for grassroots empowerment can now be a backdoor entry for the rich and powerful into the House of Representatives.

This distortion of the system was worsened by the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Atong Paglaum v. Comelec. Prior to this ruling, the Court had interpreted the Constitution and Republic Act 7941, or the PartyList System Act, in a manner that limited participation to sectoral groups, especially those truly marginalized and underrepresented.

However, in Atong Paglaum, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the eligibility criteria. The ruling allowed national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations to participate in the partylist system, even if they’re not marginalized. It argued that the Constitution did not limit the partylist system exclusively to the marginalized and underrepresented. As a result, traditional political parties could now nominate individuals with no genuine connection to the sectors they purported to represent.

The impact has been profound. Today, it is not uncommon to find partylist representatives who are millionaires, scions of political dynasties, or connected to the military and business elite. Groups claiming to represent farmers or laborers often have no real ties to those sectors. Meanwhile, legitimate grassroots organizations struggle to compete in a system that has been hijacked.

Despite this grim picture, there is still hope. The upcoming 2025 elections offer an opportunity for the Filipino people to demand accountability and push for reforms. Change can begin with a revision of the PartyList Law to restore its original intent. The law must be amended to explicitly define and restrict participation to genuine representatives of marginalized sectors. Strict qualifications for nominees must be enforced, including requiring track records of advocacy and sectoral involvement.

Beyond legal reforms, civil society must remain vigilant. Voter education campaigns, media scrutiny, and citizen engagement can expose bogus partylists and amplify the voices of those truly committed to public service. A cultural shift in how we perceive elections and representation is essential. The promise of the partylist system can still be fulfilled — but only if the people reclaim it.

True change in Philippine politics is not a fantasy. It is a possibility — one that begins with restoring the integrity of institutions like the partylist system. If we are to build a more just and equitable society, we must return to the original vision of the Constitution: A government that serves all, especially those who have been left behind. Only then can we say that democracy has truly taken root.

For comments, email darren.dejesus@gmail.com.