INVERTED LOGIC

Not really so long ago, I had a letter about the party list system published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer under the title "redundant, unnecessary party-list system."  Letters to broadsheet editors are normally subject to certain publishing standards, e.g. length, so I was not able to say everything I wished to say about that subject matter.  Let then this article be a continuation or Part 2 thereof.

Indeed, the Party-List System is not only redundant and unnecessary from the very outset.  In addition, the manner by which it qualifies party-list representatives to their respective seats in Congress is, in my well considered view,  based on a formula that is not only inscrutable but carries an inverted logic.

Under Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per cent (20%) of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list. On the other hand, Sections 11 and 12 of RA No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, carries the basic procedures for allocating party-list representation in Congress after each election, and provides as follows:

"The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be marked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the elections.  Parties, organizations or coalitions  receiving at least two per cent (2%) of the total votes counted for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each, provided that those garnering more than 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. The Comelec shall tally all the votes on a national basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the % of votes obtained by each party, organization or coalition as against the total national votes cast for the party list system." 

Now, let us relate the above with the ongoing national concern towards the eventual abolition of the party-list system -- of course, this is only possible through a constitutional amendment -- and assume that, in the pursuit of that concern, the voters in the 2013 elections, perhaps onwards, would simply ignore and not vote for the party-list candidates.  Truth is, not a few electors against the party-list system have long been doing that boycott even in previous elections.

The end-result of the above assumption would then be to considerably reduce the total number of national votes for the party-list system, which would in turn make it  relatively much easier for each  party-list participating in the elections to achieve the numerical equivalent of he two percent (2%) threshold vote requirement for a party-list to send a sectoral representative  in Congress.  That is, using some little algebra, if we let X to be the total number of national votes cast for the party-list, then 2% of the X after voters boycott  the party-list election, will now suddenly be correspondingly lower, in turn eventually benefiting the party lists that voters in fact shy away from.

Alas, if the related logic here is not inverted, what is?   On the other hand, one wonders if this inscrutable formula has been what our lawmakers had really intended.  I don't quite think so.  I would rather think the 20% allocation to party-list representative should be taken as maximum, not strictly mandatory to the extent that there had always to be a strict numerical interdependence between district and sectoral representatives.
There are of course several other "errors" in the 1987 charter that only a constitutional amendment could correct.  The problem is, the President has been shying away from any such amendment.  And I can't totlly blame him for that.  Less be honest:  who, or which President, would really want to throw away his own mother's Constitution during his own inconvenience  I am saying this with malice towards none.