Fr. Bernas, in his column today (Inquirer August 24 issue) raised very interesting points on the subject of reapportionment of congressional districts by citing how the Court in 1961 ruled against Republic Act No. 3040 has having ‘infringed the Constitution and is therefore void’.
According to Bernas, the Supreme Court has to approach apportionment based on comparison which means precisely that it was ‘to preserve proportionality not just in one province but in the entire country’ consistent with the basic principle of Republicanism.
Discussing in length how representative districts are so created along with the creation of a province or city, Bernas fears more a similar creation outside of this apparently causal relationship as in the case of Camarines Sur where, he says, a ‘president’s son is involved’.
As we ordinarily know, the requirements for the creation of a legislative district are one, population; two, income; and three, area. This means, according to Bernas, that ‘a province with a large population should have proportionally more districts than smaller provinces’. Further, he argues – ‘Corollarily, the various districts should be of approximately the same population size so that the vote of every person will be of equal weight.’
If the Court has resolved as early as in 1961 the problem of reapportionment or redistricting in this case, why then that up to now constitutional questions are still being raised against the creation of new districts? And Bernas did not fail to mention the case of Malolos in Bulacan.
In a much earlier blog (‘Is the Malolos bill unconstitutional?) here at FV, I have attempted a discussion on the subject from an ordinary layman’s point of view but it can be called to mind for purposes of research and certain historical units of empiricism.
If we check current available data, I would think that there is hardly any uniformity in terms of the number of inhabitants on a per province basis since indeed, as Bernas argues, the case of the 1st District of Camarines Sur or where Rep. Dato Arroyo is congressman must compare well ‘with other districts around the country’ – not just in terms of district size but more so with population.
Bernas undertook to present the facts and figures why RA 3040 has violated the Constitution, to wit:
a. “it gave Cebu 7 members while Rizal with larger number of inhabitants got 4 only;
b. gave Manila 4 members while Cotabato with bigger population got 3 only;
c. Pangasinan with less inhabitants than both Manila and Cotabato got more than both, 5 members having been assigned to it;
d. Samar with 871,857 allotted 4 members while Davao with 903,224 got 3 only;
e. Bulacan with 557,691 got 2 only while Albay with less inhabitants (515,601) got 3;
f. Misamis Oriental with 387,839 was given 1 member only while Cavite with less inhabitants (379,904) got 2;”
Our respected columnist further points of other ‘instances of unequal apportionment’ such as Mountain Province having 3 while Isabela, Laguna and Cagayan with more inhabitants having 2 each; Capiz, La Union, and Ilocos Norte at 2 each whereas Sulu with more inhabitants got 1 only; and Leyte with 967,323 inhabitants got 4 only whereas Iloilo with less (966,145) given 5.
Perhaps, the growth of representative districts would not really reach that desired academic idea of proportionality or uniformity.
Popularity: 1% [?]
More Le Cirques in the future…Pobre Pilipinas.
If one dining cycle at Le Cirque costing P1 million would ‘fish out’ $3 to $6 billion in grant, loan, or investment intent, then, by all means, let us send the Malacanang entourage on a weekly dining spree and improve upon that measly P1 million spending.
Make it P10 million per visit. Otherwise, invite foreign investors to a business meeting at Mc Donalds Marikina. And BF can play host. Why? Well, to showcase Marikina City to the world, what else?
Why not just limit the requirements for the creation of a legislative district to a contiguous territory of 30K people? Keep the physical boundary lines, though.
Heck, call it a municipality and give them a mayor and a congressman. Existing cities with more than 30K people simply get more mayors and Representatives.
For example, Makati has 510,383 people. Divided by 30K, that’s 18 (rounded up) municipalities, each with a mayor and Representative. Let them work in cubicles like the rest of us.
Then give financial control to the constituents to get rid of the pork barrel.
This 14th Congress introduced a new intellectual culture as well as a bold political phenomenon.
It is as if the singular role of every legislator is to vote – by saying aye or raising hand – on virtually every motion where dividing the House has become the first and last option.
It is as if the Membership is a ‘lynching mob’ when it has become predictable their – individual as well as collective – behavioral characteristics and tendencies. It is entirely Skinnerian.
Therefore, if Francis wants congressmen to be mass produced mathematically, he must be ready to accept how corruption follows likewise. In an oblique sense, that serves the democratic requirement of having to “democratize the loot”.
That was my first reaction when I heard about it. I’ve come to understand that the with more Represenatives you would see LESS corruption.
Seriously, listen to this interview with Dr. Mark Thornton, owner of http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
It’s a good interview and it does a lot to asuage your fears.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-11-16_069_the_case_for_bigger_government.mp3
I challenge you to listen to it, then tell me what you think.
His reasons are as follows:
First, with only 30K constituents, you wouldn’t need millions of pesos to campaign. This would remove the wealth exclusivity of public office. As I pointed out in another article, you could photocopy campaign material for 30K people at 50¢ a page. That’s 15K for cost. Much less since not everyone of the 30K is elligible to vote or owns his own house. That kills the incentive to loot the national treasury.
Second, the House of Represenatives currently has 250 oligarchs, people who think the same way, are in the same tax bracket, live the same way, etc. So, its no wonder why it’s easy to swing a vote here or there or build power blocks. This would be much more difficult with a Congress of 3,000 Represenatives. Nobody could swing a majority vote without a lot of horsetrading and compromise. That would defeat any radical element as well as ensuring a dissident voice among the Congress.
Now the loot thing… currently, you have the BIR who gathers as much money as they possibly can and deposit this one lump sum at the feet of the government. Then everyone fights how to cut the pie. Allowances, budgets, projects, etc. This is the pork barrel.
Better to transfer tax collection down to a level of government much smaller than than the existing barangay. Something like 200 people? Then let them be responsible for what their Representatives spend. If they vote no, then the politician has to sell his house and car to cover that expense. No more junkets.
Offhand, there is no logical causal relationship between what one spends and what on receives when elected as a congressman. Even in the more contemporary setting, not few congressmen win without having to spend a fortune.
Corruption happens not so much because congressmen have to recoup on what they have spent in the election but more so because it is a ‘wonderful’ given especially so if the President himself or herself in fact is into it and shares the loot to his or her subalterns very symbiotically.
Corruption is somewhere else, francis.
I never said that it would remove all corruption, just get rid of a few temptations. I lay most of the corruption on the tax system anyway.
Campaign spending is what? 20mil minimum per Congressman at the last election? Definitely much more for national posts like Senator and President.
TV commercials alone don’t go lower than 5m.
Balance that against offical salaries. Who in their right mind spends so much to gain so little? And the answer is… nobody.
Campaign funding is the investment seed capital. The pork barrel and perks is the payoff. Which is why I’m advocating that financial control go to the constituents.
If you deny having in fact postulated that corruption is best curbed if we can have 3,000 congressmen and women than we presently have now, then let it stand that way.
But on analysis, you were in fact saying when a candidate does not have to spend millions in the campaign precisely because he will only reach to a 30k population at the cost of P15,000, then he does not have to loot the national treasury.
This remark from you – “Who in their right spends so much to gain so little? And the answer is … nobody” – raises very interesting myth. On the other hand, anyone in his right would know that politics is the best business there is. Ask any corporate businessman if this is not so. It is in this business that one gets to be rich quick, that one recoups in his investment in no time at all.
It is something more than just the P35k basic salary and monthly allowance of P200k. There is this P70 million or P200 million annual congressional prerogative where one can siphon off as much as 40 to 70% in kickbacks, commissions, bribes, concessions, whatever.
Beyond this regular institutional appropriation, many other things come into play. There are local and foreign infrastructure projects, many other things that come into the political scene where the favor of the congressman or congresswoman is controlling.
Believe me, no congressman has really gone around the world on private expenses but by state subsidy. Wonder why they can dine at the tune of P1 million along with a tiny entourage?
Masteral theses should really look into this culture of corruption so all channels will be identified.