I will be guesting on The Explainer With Manolo Quezon on Tuesday, 24 March to discuss proposed legislation to increase the maximum membership of the House of Representatives to 350 from the present 250. This increase has become necessary because of population growth and the fact that there are already 220 district representatives in Congress, and 31 party list representatives according to Senate Bill 3123.
But I think there is a problem. (There is always a problem!)
It has to do with the 1987 Constitutional provision that allocates 20 percent of the maximum House Membership (or 50 seats out of the present 250) to the Party List System with its enabling law RA 7941. The latter states that party list organizations getting at least 2% of the vote win a seat in Congress, two seats at 4%, up to a maximum of three seats at 6% or more. Under the present maximum of 250 House seats, it is mathematically possible to have 50 party list representatives in Congress, if for example 50 separate party list organizations garner <b>exactly</b> 2% of the party list votes each — an outcome whose improbability of actually occurring is astronomical. But it gets worse. If the House membership is increased to 350, then there will be up to 70 House seats available to the party list system. But RA 7941 will have to be amended to accomodate them in a manner to which I must strenuously object: Congress will have to LOWER the threshold of admission to 1.42857 percent (100 divided by 70) percent thus allowing even less popular and/or deserving party list organizations to get into Congress. If the House Membership is set at 500 max, one only needs 1% of the votes to get in!
I would not want to make a fool of myself tomorrow night (especially since I will claim to be a contributor and member of this Filipino Voices blog collective!) So please, especially our lawyer colleagues, tell me if I am wrong in my appreciation of the pertinent Constitutional and statutory provisions which I supply after the jump…
The 1987 Constitution provides in Legislature Art. VI
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
RA 7941 The Party List Law reads …
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list.
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system.
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure shall be observed:
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes : Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
My interpretation of these provisions is that every party list seat in Congress requires at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for a party list candidate. This means that there is an ARITHMETIC MAXIMUM of 50 seats that can be won, with up to three seats going to any one party list organization. That this is also equal to the CONSTITUTIONAL MAXIMUM of 50 seats (20% of 250) is well and good. But if the maximum number of House seats become 350, the Constitution would allocate up to 70 seats to the party lists. However, I cannot imagine any scenario under which that number of 70 seats could be filled without changing the 2% minimum percentage threshold for each such seat. The 2% threshold does not allow more than 50 party list representatives to be seated in Congress. It will have to be revised downward to 100/70 or about 1.42857%.
The party-list system is another example of the folly of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, which truly is a knee-thigh-leg-toe-jerk reaction to martial law with hideous ambiguities and such Rule of the Minority provisions as one-third to impeach the President and other Constitutional officers, and now this built in degradation imposed by a fixed percentage allocated to the party lists (20% of the House set in the Constitution) with the allocation procedure left to enabling laws.
I would appreciate being shown any flaws in my logic or conclusions by our colleagues here at Filipino Voices.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Offhand, I would have expected DJB to be not in agreement with the proposed increase of House Membership from 250 to 350 which increases proportionately the number of party list from the regular representatives.
That he will then have to be more concerned on how and by what arithmetic the 70 slots alloted would be filled in full with such suggestion as having to lower the 2% threshold down to 1.4% – is really disconcerting.
That definitely is not in keeping with the collective voice of FV unless it has already been presumed that everybody here wants to increase the House Membership.
To adjust the 2% threshold to a mere 1.4% to my mind is making things even more immoral. The 2%, 4%, 6% is already fair and therefore I don’t see any higher reason that it be lowered.
We have a Problem of Quality membership in the
house. We try to solve this by increasing the
Quantity Membership of the house. We have a lot
of: do nothing politicians, robot politicians,
amoral politicians,political opportunists, etc…
We solve the problem first by removing Parasite
people masquerading as Politicians. Then, we can
talk about the Quantity.
Why not make the minimum to get in at 1.42857% times 2 or 2.85714? In other words, a party list has a minimum of 2 representatives and additional representative for the next 1.42857%. Party list not getting the minimum 2.85714% of the votes will not get anything.
I wrote extensively about the party list a year back, and talked with Felix Muga who is a main supporter of the stakeholder-based method in seat allocation for the party lists..
http://www.tingog.com/politics/change-the-panganiban-formula-and-the-2-4-6-method.html
Essentially, the problem will be even more messed up considering that we can’t even allocate the proper amount to what is owed to the party lists now. Because of the contradictory manner by which the current laws have been amended, the 1987 Constitution has not been met fully with respect to the party lists..
This will be compounded even more if 350 will be the new amount.
As I’ve said, this isn’t the only pertinent question we have now with regards to the new considerations.. Cost is one..
Imagine, the salaries that will be needed per congressman per annum, salaries that will not only go to them but also to their “staff” which most likely will consist of family members..
Along with salary, the cost of their much needed “pork”..
Nick,
On my blog, I’ve also had the pleasure and privilege of a long exchange of ideas and opinion with Felix Muga, who I hope we can get into this discussion again.
But here is the problem: We MUST increase the House Membership NOW to more than 250 because if we don’t the other constitutional provision on entitling cities with more than 250,000 population to one district representative cannot be fulfilled.
On the other hand, the 1987 Constitution, as you point out, envisioned a House with 20% coming from the Party Lists. Thus a larger NUMBER of party list representatives have to be elected based on the same 100% of the party list votes.
This forces however a reduction in the threshold required to get any one party list seat. I am strongly opposed to this in principle.
By the way, there is another aspect of the Party List System that I don’t like. It is this. The FEWER ballots that are actually cast by the electorate with a vote for a party list organization (say because they are getting less popular than more popular) the EASIER it is for any party list to get elected!
Today if only 1000 people are interested enough to vote for any party list organization in an election, just 20 measly votes buys you a House seat! And if we then go to 350 seats, slightly more than 14 votes (not percent!) gets you the same seat.
I think what this really means is that there should be no wholesale increases of the House membership as is being proposed, but that every time a law is passed entitling a city, that law should also contain the required amendment to the constitution (by the usual process of passing a law with house and senate voting separately) increasing the maximum membership by one as well as the required amendment to the enabling law.
Unfortunately there is a giant hippopotamus in the ointment: we have to have popular plebiscite to approve such laws increasing the House membership!
Supremo,
I think your proposal does not make it mathematically possible to fill the 70 party lists seats implied by an increase in house membership to 350.
DJB,
I know it will not fill up the 70 seats but it might force them to consolidate and get more votes in the process reducing the chance of not filling up the 70 seats.
Supremo,
I don’t think we can pass a law that makes it mathematically impossible to fulfill the Constitutional mandate. That would be unconstitutional and would immediately be struck down by SCoRP upon a plea for certiorari by any citizen.
Let the mathematical assumptions stay since any new proposal would always end up in error, come-to-think-of-it.
KP,
We are caught between a rock and a hard place. If it were me, I would pass a law to ABOLISH the party list system and synchronize a Plebiscite to ratify the same in 2010.
Great!
You can still pull another root from the same tree – anything in excess of 250, please cut.
Thanks.
If laws simply move with the motion of mathematics, morality is blurred. Of course, we all know that population increases (by natural or artificial means), income increases, et cetera – since these are mathematical givens.
But the question really is, do we have to increase their tribe knowing these men and women to be – well, it deserves a full-blown blog – if anyone has the courage to do so?
KP,
Hehe. Exactly. Anything we care to say about district Congressmen applies just as much if not more to Party list reps. Being elected to Congress by a diffuse constituency, imo, makes the latter less, and not more accountable to the people.
The best way to reduce the numbers in congress is to abolish the party list system. It’s another hare-brained idea of the 1986 mullahs.
Go ahead, DJB – abolish the party list.
Ironically, we will find them among the ‘regulars’ via change ‘channel’. Good day!
KP,
That will be my main point on the show tonight.
If that be cable tv, I can’t watch you. Make good, my friend.
I’ll try to get a hold of Felix if he’s available, but as much as I can tell with discussions I’ve had, he’s still supportive of the party list system.. and in the end, because he’s a mathematics guy, his proposal is based on mathematical logic, which focuses on making the 20%, as prescribed in the constitution, work.. but does not tackle really, in my point of view, if the party lists is really even needed, and what contributions, if any, they have had..
On a personal point of view, I still think that the party list system is worthy of keeping.. but also worthy of revisiting their role in society and how they can contribute more efficiently in their role in congress..
In the end, without the party list, I believe there are still those who they speak for, that do not have the capability of going to congress to address their grievances, without heavy backing and/or lobbying, which of course creates the need to pad the pockets of even more congressmen..
The process by which we can address the problems of all sectors should be what the end goal is, at this point, I am still all ears as to how to implement that, if indeed the party list is needed and or needs a revamp in its implementation..
Nick,
I find it very strange that, in effect, we are having the various party list organizations compete with each other for seats in the Congress.
This “beauty contest” type of arrangement I find abhorrent and redolent of divisiveness. It is not what happens in real elections, in which a majority selects its democratic representative. here we have bunch of tiny minorities (whether or not the absolute number of votes cast for party lists is 100 or 100,000,000) gaining power.
Also, the govt is being blamed for why the 20% mandated fraction of the House reserved for partylists never gets filled.
Yet imagine what happens if a truly popular party list garnered say 50% of the party list vote. Under the present maximum of 50 party list seats, this alone would limit the total possible number of actually seated party lists to 28 (3 max goes to the 50% party, and 50% left would be divided into highly highly highly improbable portions of EXACTLY 2% each for 25 more party lists)
Under this “beauty contest” type of setup the PROBABILITY of ever filling the maximum number of seats available is NIL!
Only a general innumeracy allows people to think that some kind of oppressive intention is responsible.
DJB
Since party-list representatives are elected from the same “nationwide” constituency as the Senators, why not amend the law and simply elect them in the same manner Senators are chosen–“at large, by the qualified voters of the Philippines” and allocating ONE seat each to parties ranked according to the highest number of votes obtained to fill the 20% seats the Constitution reserves for sectoral representation.
This will certainly enable, and to quote the Declaration of Policy: “Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives.”
Thus, even if only 20 seats are available to sectoral representation; then, there will be 20 “marginalized and underrepresented” voices (labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth) loudly advocating their different causes in the halls of Congress.
Domingo,
How would you define “marginalized and under-represented”?
Under your proposal, a party could win say 60% of the votes in a nationwide election and you would give it 60% of party-list seats, or 30 under the current 250 max House membership.
Would such a party, with that much representation still be considered marginalized?
Is not the threshold of 2% and the accompanying cap on the max no. of seats that can be won by one party designed to insure, precisely, that truly marginalized sectors still have chance to get representation.
Does not your proposal also encourage the same “elites” that dominate district and SEnate elections to begin organizing “marginalized” parties that can take such lion shares.
It seems this proposal would only defeat the intention of the constitution, even if it solves the problem of filling up the 20%.
I guess I’m for total abolition of the party list system because it is actually suited to Parliaments, and that is how it got into the Constitution to begin with.
DJB
The term “marginalized and underrepresented” is taken from the current law itself.
Under this proposal, each registered national, regional or sectoral party would be allowed, no matter the number of votes garnered, only ONE seat, which would, of course, mean that ALL sectoral seats would now be occupied by different parties (ranked according to the highest number of votes obtained) towards filling ALL the 20% seats allocated for sectoral representatives.
As in the method of electing Senators, both the candidate who tops the slate and the one at the bottom (of the 20% allocated) become elected sectoral representatives.
Unlike the existing system now adopted, the ideal Party-list proportional representation should apply to ALL district seats available. Here the district seats adopt the winner-take-all method and additional seats (20%) are allocated under the proportional system for the so-called “marginalized and underrepresented.”
In my proposal, if a registered national, regional or sectoral party (the “marginalized and underrepresented”) becomes strong enough to garner so many votes (say, the 60% in your example); then, it should register as a political party to enable it to field candidates in several districts to increase their party’s representation in Congress.
Even then, I’m also for its abolition.
Domingo,
OMG! you floored me with your last statement, man, and just when I was ready to capitulate and say at least your system does not “waste” any votes, as when a party list gets 7%, garnering three seats, but making it impossible for there to actually be 50 total seated since there are only 93% of the votes left and 94% is needed to qualify 47 more.
It’s gonna take a long time to abolish the system though, especially now that with a pending increase in the House Membership, it will become easier and easier to get in as a party list.
At 350 members, 70 party list seats will be available for the measly price of 1.42% of the votes cast for a party list!
At 500 members only 1% gets you a Congress seat as powerful as say a Congressman from Manila, Quezon City, Cebu or Davao.
Well, now on second thought, I’m with you again, not agin ya. Abolish the mess!
Domingo,
Your system will not waste seats but it will encourage parties to split just to get more seats. Expect Bayan to split into Bayan Ko, Bayan Niya, Bayan Natin, Bayan Nila, Bayan ni Lolo, Bayan ni Lola, Bayan ni Ate, Bayan ni Kuya etc.
We don’t need more representatives, we need more representatives with iQ!
It’s like having press freedom. The media practitioners articles are rubbish. We debate on false information coming from media practitioners.
We don’t need more representatives. We need quality representatives.
End of discussion on numbers!
Supremo
But it’s “one person, one-vote,” which means that whenever a party splits in the hope of gaining more seats, their support is halved too; thus, if a party originally counts on, say, a million supporters to start with and decides to split; then, there would be two parties (and two overhead expenses to fund) with just half a million supporters each, which may not be enough for the newly-split parties to win even one seat. There’s no harm in trying, though.
Domingo,
I just realized something. The Party-List system is intended to be self-defeating because if it works then what ought to happen is that the previously marginalized sectors ought to become “mainstream” or better represented–a which point they ought not be qualified to be IN the system.
This reveals the deep Flaw in the very concept because while any enabling set of rules must continue to assist those that are still marginalized, such rules cannot be written in such a way that those that are successful would not also unfairly benefit.
It is an example of an ill-conceived provision of the Constitution that inherently violates equal protection of the Law.
What paradigm, if any, supports that prescription that there should be 250 (all in all) House Members as there should be only 25 Senators?
Is it largely population-based?
24, sorry.
Further, what scientific basis, if any, supports a legislator-population ratio as that which may be laid down in a subsequent proposal?
KP,
I don’t think there is a scientific basis as such although the Constitution says that every city or province of 250,000 or more is entitled to a legislative district representative. Re-districting is mandated with every census, the last being 2007, if I am not mistaken.
So mainly it is population growth. However the growth in the number of actual party list reps seated is quite mysterious.
I have characterized it as a “beauty contest” in which marginalized sectors that really ought to have little to do with each other are forced to run against each other for the available votes.
I really think it should be abolished entirely as a kind of appendix left over from the ConCom’s failed attempt to create a Parliamentary style govt. Philippine Democracy can live without it.
2% threshold in RA 7941 is called as fhe formal vote threshold. It is the minimum share of the votes that a party should get to QUALIFY for a seat. Hence, it is not correct to say that 2% gets 1 seat, 4% gets 2 seats, 6% gets 3 seats.
You are talking of another threshold called the informal vote threshold. It is the share of the votes that is equivalent to 1 seat. If there are 55 available seats, then the informal vote threshold is 1/55 or 1.81818%.
Thanks,
Section 5 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states that "The House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, .. "
It has been argued during the hearing in the Supreme Court last year to remove the Panganiban Formula that the passage of RA 7941 is the law that authorizes the increase to more than 250.
There are only 219 congressional districts. Sharif Kabunsuan and Cotabato City are merged as one district represented by Dilangalen.
I don't where do you get the figure of 31 partylist representatives, since 20% means 1 party-list rep per 4 district reps. This means a ratio of 1:4. This means that there will be 219/4 = 54.75. The law is silent whether to round up this figure or not.
Hence, if we take 54, then it is 19.78%. If we take 55, then we have 20.073%.
If we use 55, does it contradict the 20%? Note that the difference between 20% and 20.073% is 0.073% which is less than the equivalent of 1 seat (1/55 or 1.81818%). I think the Supreme Court should consider this as an acceptable error, if we are to broaden the participation of the marginalized and under-represented sectors.
The party-list proportional representation system is not taken out of the folly of the framers of the 1987 Constitution. It is one of the tools they designed to promote social justice and neutralize oligarchy. The other is the Land Reform. Bless its soul, if it has one. But I hope we can still revive it.