Second of a series

BEYOND the immediate reforms to our dysfunctional political parties, a deeper examination of the party-list concept itself reveals a profound disconnect between its original intent and its currently perverted reality. During its conceptualization, the appointed Constitutional Commission (President Cory’s 1987 ConCom) was initially in favor of a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government. The framers, drawing inspiration from European models, particularly the German parliament, envisioned a system where elected members from parliamentary districts (akin to our congressmen) would be complemented by a party-list component. This module was designed to give voice to marginalized or underrepresented sectors within the legislature through “proportional representation,” based on the votes each party obtained in the preceding elections.

For instance, during elections, each political party would draw a “party-list” specifically composed to represent and empower groups such as labor, peasants, urban poor, veterans, indigenous communities, women, youth, and the differently abled — with the notable exception of the religious sector. The crucial nuance was that these party-list representatives were not meant to be elected independently or outside of the political parties vying for power; rather, they were intended to be an integral part of the political party itself, ensuring that their representation was woven into the broader ideological fabric of the party. The overarching goal was to enhance the representation of these marginalized sectors, allowing them a direct and amplified voice in the legislative process.

Cory’s constitutional folly

However, a critical misstep occurred. The “heavily elitist” framers of the 1987 Constitution, appointed by President Cory Aquino, ultimately balked at enacting a shift to a parliamentary government. Instead, they preserved the presidential system but, bewilderingly, retained the party-list provisions in isolation. Our current party-list system, therefore, stands as an anomaly — a “mongrelized German/European version” that has been fundamentally twisted from its original purpose. This perversion manifests in several detrimental ways: anyone can now form a “political party of single issues” and register as a party-list. This has led to an absurd proliferation of party-lists representing groups such as athletes, security guards, market vendors, and teachers — categories that are strictly not the envisioned marginalized sectors of Philippine society.

An adjunct to political dynasties 

This distortion has opened the floodgates to a disheartening array of opportunistic abuses. The party-list system has become a convenient vehicle for relatives of sitting elective officials, including wives and even “concubines,” to secure seats in Congress without facing the direct scrutiny of district elections. It also serves as a temporary dumping ground for election losers, allowing them to circumvent the popular will and maintain a foothold in power. To qualify for a seat, a party-list group must merely receive at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast nationally for party-list candidates. Voters, casting their ballots for both district representatives (naming specific candidates) and only one party-list (with unnamed candidates) on the same ballot, are often left to navigate a bewildering landscape of choices, many of which do not genuinely represent the marginalized. The tragic irony is that the party-list system, originally conceived to enhance the representation of marginalized and underrepresented sectors in the legislative process and allow them a crucial voice in governance, has now devolved into a bastion of political dynasties. Instead of empowering the truly voiceless, it has become another avenue for the entrenched elite to perpetuate their hold on power, further consolidating their influence and stifling genuine grassroots representation.

Dysfunctional presidential system

Over the years, I have written columns on the evils of the presidential system and provided alternatives. I refer the readers to The Manila Times related articles excerpts from which I reprint (“Presidential to parliamentary – the preconditions,” Sept. 8, 2018; “Presidential system – patronage politics and dynasties,” March 28, 2018; “Imperial presidency redux,” May 25, 2018; “Unitary-presidential and alternatives,” March 15, 2023).

The arguments we proffered simply are that the presidential system has evolved cultural behavioral practices inimical to the greater majority. It has not substantially eradicated poverty in the country. Over the decades, stark impoverishment became the petri dish on which democratic deficits plaguing our country today are incubating; from the emergence of traditional political patronage practices, allowing the proliferation of political dynasties that preserve political power among and within families, to the culture of impunity, corruption and criminality, to the rise of an oligarchy that tends to control both political and economic power. Additionally, the core of the evils of the presidential system is centered on the nationwide election of a single individual cloaking him/her with the lethal consequences of tremendous concentrated powers. Empirical data shows billions of pesos are expended to propel a single person to the presidency. The tremendous amount of logistics raised for such a campaign makes the winner vulnerable to the moneyed few that provide the same. The heated competition for the top post among four or five driven alpha personalities over ponderous and costly campaign periods opens an aperture for the oligarchy and the moneyed elite to inject their agenda into the political exercise, resulting in these donors exacting their pounds of flesh upon the winners, the latter conceding to rent-seeking practices and oftentimes granting outright regulatory capture. It is a well-known dictum that one who controls political power controls economic power.

“But the most glaring defect of the presidential system of government is that this is the embryo upon which patronage politics is nurtured. For almost 100 years the system flourished feeding upon the least desired facet of the Filipino culture, the desire for and dependence on a benefactor from the datu and sultan, heading a clan; to the Spanish patron looking over the indios, to the American ‘big-brother’; morphing into the Philippine president, the ‘father’ of a people...” (ibid) With the president on top of the governance totem pole our politicians have perfected a system of patronage where government coffers and benefits for the citizenry are dispensed through a political structure down to the lowest construct of government, controlled by them. This system, relic of a feudal and colonial past, has now been elevated to perfection in modern Philippine politics. To quote professor Edmund Tayao, an eminent political analyst, “The presidential system is a zero-sum system... regardless of how many candidates and competing parties, only one can win and the significance of coalition-building dependent significantly on the winning candidate, that is, after the elections shall have already passed.” And I might add too: the winner is the new “patron”; the loser, again, is us.

Toward a constitutional revision

Ultimately, these interconnected issues — the dysfunctional presidential system, the flawed and convoluted political party system, the perverted party-list, and the rampant political dynasties — stand as a stark and challenging political legacy. These systemic flaws are deeply embedded in the 1987 Constitution, a document that, while intended to usher in a new era of democracy, inadvertently created structural weaknesses that continue to undermine our nation’s progress and perpetuate the very traditional politics it sought to overcome. Addressing these fundamental flaws requires not just piecemeal adjustments but a comprehensive and unwavering commitment to genuine political reform, a commitment that prioritizes the collective good over the self-serving interests of the few.

To be continued on July 30, 2025