Twenty percent, or 63 partylist representatives, out of 315 elected congressmen are now regular members of the Philippine Congress.
It could be a power bloc that could swing the votes in the election for Speaker or in policy making in the lower house of Congress.
The 1987 Constitution created the partylist system. Originally, partylist representation was limited to five underrepresented community sectors or groups, according to a delegate to the 1987 Freedom Constitution. These were labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural, and women and youth, and later other such sectors as may be defined by law (except the religious sector).
However, in 2013 the Supreme Court ruled that the partylist system is a system of proportional representation open to various kinds of groups and parties, and is not an exercise exclusive to marginalized sectors. National and regional parties or organizations did not need to organize along sectoral lines and did not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
With this ruling, the floodgates were opened for 190 partylist groups to organize, register and receive the CONA or Certificate of Nomination and Accreditation from the Comelec under the principle of inclusiveness. The ruling presented unlimited possibilities to organize and register more groups, risking the dilution of the original noble intent of the 1987 Constitution.
Let me share one amusing anecdote on the accreditation process. Our shipping industry sector applied for accreditation with the Comelec. The officer in charge disapproved our application, saying accreditation was only for marginalized sectors. We appealed the ruling, arguing that due to falling revenues and rising operating costs our gross profit margin had dropped drastically and we considered our industry a marginalized sector.
The Comelec official then grinned, reversed his decision, and approved our accreditation. We, however, lost in the election but that is another story.
Today the 190, and still growing, accredited partylist groups include some profound names as follows:
Ladlad–Homosexuals; Babae Ako–I am Woman; Ako Bicol–I am Bicol; Bicol Saro–A Cup of Bicol; Ako Ilocano Ako–I am Ilocano; Ilocano Defenders Inc.; API–Abante Pangasinan Ilocano; Pinoy Ako–I am Pinoy; Bisaya Gyud–Visayan Indeed; Ako Bisaya–I am Visayan; ABAMIN–Abante Mindanao; Ang Probinsyano–a popular TV show about a country bumpkin; 1Rider–Union of Motorists; TODA–Aksyon for Tricycle Drivers; SGOUAAP–Guardia Kami; AGAP–for Security Guards; Ang Bumbero ng Pilipinas–Firefighters of the Philippines; LPGMA–LPG Marketers Association; Barkadahan–Champion of the Underserved; Ang Komadrona–Midwifery to Prevent Maternal and Infant Deaths;
SWERTE–for Solo Parents; Akay ni SOL–Assistance to PWDs; Apat Dapat–Four Friends Forever; BBM–Bangon Bagong Minero; PBBM–Pilipinas Babangon Muli; Abag Promdi–Advocates of Devolution; Mare Pare — a popular TV show in the 1990s; and other esoteric names
To continue empowering more marginalized sectors, maybe some people could organize partylists groups such as Ang Pangit (for the ugly), Pusong Sawi (jilted lovers), Ang Madungis (the filthy ones), Ang Mangmang (the illiterate), Sakitin (the sickly), and other similarly oppressed and depressed segments of society.
Given the increasing proliferation of partylist groups, we may need to reassess this system originally conceived to give under-represented sectors a voice in national policy making.
However, it has evolved into its broad interpretation that allows the accreditation of groups with questionable claims to marginalization. While inclusivity is important, the uncontrolled expansion of this system risks undermining its legitimacy and ruins its original intent.
We need to refine the party-list system and go back to its original purpose. Clearer eligibility criteria, stricter oversight, and a renewed focus on genuine representation and not the “showbizification” of the marginalized sectors will preserve the integrity and credibility of partylist representation.
Without these reforms, the system could become less about empowering the voiceless and more about political maneuverings, overlapping mandates, and opportunism in the guise of inclusivity.