Why redistrict Cagayan Valley?

Why redistrict Cagayan Valley? | Daily Tribune

Some thoughts logically percolate from the presentation “Standing to the Point” where the plan to constitute the province of Cagayan into five from the current three legislative districts was disclosed. This is based solely on the requirements of population (no less than 250,000 per district) and area (at least 2,000 square kilometers) as prescribed by law.

What strikes us with disbelief is the fallacy that if two more legislative districts are added, it will redound to the financial benefit of Cagayan province, in whole or in part. The philosophical or mathematical basis is simple: if each of the three districts is allotted a P1-billion fund, it becomes a win-win if P5 billion is downloaded to the province. This could in another twisted light be a fallacy for how one chooses to look at whether the glass is half full or half empty.

Cagayan Agenda 2025, by its former proponent, contemplates new districts on the basis of a recalibration consistent with the redistricting justification found in Section 5, Article 6 of the Constitution. But is the move really justified simply because it’s in the constitutional text?

Longtime politicians always have this kind of proposal in their toolkit and it’s only a matter of timing as to when best to propose a redistricting — a naked euphemism for “gerrymandering” and its underlying indisputable political value of cloning more politicians than necessary. Political representation is a myth.

“Something good, just, and in the interest of growth” appears to be the ground upon which the proposal rests. Is it really the end in view or is it just to benefit more dynastic families from which most politicians essentially come? In other words, it’s giving them a unique chance akin to winning the lottery to pursue their political careers and fortunes.

While it’s true that redistricting or reapportioning for newly created districts is enshrined in the Constitution and special laws legislated by Congress, the matter of proportionality in relation to population has no scientific basis in the field of fiscal governance as the same proceeds from a different metric.

Aren’t municipalities and cities classified by income? And the corresponding internal revenue allotments depend on another form of proportionality? It’s interesting to note that reappointment is “initiated within three years following the return of every census. Besides, population is also kind of tricky given that daytime differs from nighttime population in some localities and districts.”

Two pertinent laws govern reapportioning districts, namely: 1) Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) and the Initiative and Referendum Act (RA 6735). But it could likewise be doubted that laws are designed to ensure that “as population grows (i.e., in cities and provinces), they must gain proper representation in the national legislature.” Or isn’t it more for political accommodation of the ruling economic and political elites?

Have we not far exceeded the mandated number in the Constitution of 250 members of the House of Representatives (i.e., including partylist representatives), unless otherwise fixed by law? The partylist representatives should constitute 20 percent of the total number of representatives. At the time of its ratification, there were 200 districts plus 50 seats intended for partylist representatives.

Historically, Cagayan used to be represented by two districts from 1907 to 1972, during which time Batanes was briefly part of Cagayan’s 1st district (1907-1909). It was under the 1987 Constitution that the province was reapportioned into three congressional districts. To add two more would be navigating the turbulent fiscal waters in a country where congressmen and senators steal from the national budget.

Why, therefore, budget more for less? Obliquely iterated, Winston Churchill had said it: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they will ask for directions.”