Mixed Martial Arts

Q and A: What party list means for Brillantes

Paterno R. Esmaquel II

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Comelec chair Sixto Brillantes Jr is frustrated about the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the party list. He believes it is for the marginalized and underrepresented

'PHILIPPINE FLAVOR.' Comelec chair Sixto Brillantes Jr explains why the Philippine party list was different – until the SC's recent ruling. Photo by Paterno Esmaquel II

MANILA, Philippines – How does Commission on Elections (Comelec) chair Sixto Brillantes Jr, an election lawyer for over two decades, interpret the constitutional provision on the party list?

Venting his frustration over a recent Supreme Court (SC) ruling, Brillantes on Wednesday, April 10, maintained that the essence of the party list – Philippine-style – is to serve the marginalized and underrepresented.

He said “it could not be,” as reflected in the SC ruling, that the Constitution intended to open the party list to all kinds of organizations, even the non-marginalized. (Read: Fixing the party list.)

Watch the interview or read the transcript below. (An English translation follows.)

BRILLANTES: Hindi nga lang ako nasasayangan. Nanghihinayang, napu-frustrate. Pero sabi ko nga eh, alam mo, ganito ang sistema natin eh. Pinakamataas na hukuman ito eh, we have to follow. No choice but to follow. But sabi ko nga, meron naman akong colatilla palagi. Sunod na tayo ngayon, wala na tayong magagawa eh. Korte Suprema na ang nagsalita. Pero sabi ko nga, siguro, after elections, we have to work out something. 

Ang akin diyan, Supreme Court decisions, maski naman – ginamit ko ‘yung wording eh, ewan ko, baka ma-contempt lang ako – pero sabi ko, kung nagfi-flip-flop ang Supreme Court mismo, pabagu-bago ang kanila, kami pabagu-bago rin – hindi rin naman kami consistent eh – pero kami, hindi bale. Three hundred ‘yung ni-review namin eh. Talagang tingin ko hindi naman kami consistent. Pero even the 300, it went down to 83, 84. Talaga namang sinagad na namin.

With that, and all the pending cases, or pending bills on party list, amendments, ako, ang kailangan natin, total overhaul of the entire system. I think they should come out – not Constitutional amendments ha.

Ang depekto naman, hindi naman sa Constitution eh. Ang depekto sa akin is the law itself, the existing law on party list. Ang daming interpretasyon. Now if we consider the Supreme Court decisions, tapos ‘yung mga various bills proposed, mag-revision tayo nang total, come out with something before 2016, we’ll have a very good party-list system in 2016.

I still strongly believe na marginalized and underrepresented should be the key. Otherwise, walang kuwenta naman ‘yon. Isasali mo na naman ang mga politicians eh. Eto, parang sinabi ng Supreme Court, at least my reading, is that ‘pag political party ka, okay ka na. It does not matter whether you are marginalized, whether you’re underrepresented. Eh ‘di nawala na ‘yung very essence of the party-list system, where the socially vulnerable people will be the ones represented there.

RAPPLER: Chairman, ano ang sagot n’yo du’n sa mga nagsasabi na ‘yung intent talaga ng framers of the Constitution ay to open it to a plurality of political parties, sectors, not really marginalized?

It could not be. Ako, hindi ako maniwalang gano’n ang intention no’n. Kasi binasa na eh.

‘Di ba nandito sa amin si Commissioner (Rene) Sarmiento? He was a member of the Constitutional Commission. Maliwanag ‘yon, na while we adopted the European system, which means kasama ang political parties, pero the political parties, nilagyan natin ng, sinabi nga niya, ‘di ba, may Philippine flavor ‘yan. Lagyan mo ng marginalized para hindi pareho ng sa ano, sa Europe, na totally political, wala na ‘yung mga marginalized and underrepresented. Hindi ganu’n eh.

Kaya from the very beginning, ang concept ko ng party list is sectoral – sectoral of those who are underrepresented. Kaya hindi natin pinayagan ‘yung mga major political parties. Desisyon ng Supreme Court ‘yon eh. Kasi overrepresented na sila sa Kongreso. ‘Yun lang mga minor, mga maliliit na political parties, ang pinayagan natin.

But even then, we still allow, we still allow them, only if they are representing a certain sector – marginalized. Ngayon lumaki na eh. Nagkaroon kami ng away dito no’n, ‘yung advocacy as against sectoral or marginalized. Ngayon, kasama rin ang advocacy eh – anti-terrorism, anti-drugs, (pro)-environment. Ibig sabihin, hindi marginalized ito, pero meron silang sariling advocacy, puwede na rin.

So we have expanded the party-list system, na naging, in effect, in-open na nga natin nang todo-todo eh. Puwede na lahat – political parties, advocacies, marginalized.

Kawawa naman ‘yung marginalized. Hindi ba ‘yan ang hirap na hirap kumampanya dahil wala nga silang mga pera? Wala silang panggastos, ilalaban mo sila doon sa mga political parties.

 

TRANSLATION

BRILLANTES: Not only do I feel it was a waste. I feel it was a deep loss, I feel frustrated. But as I said, you know, this is our system. That’s the highest court of the land; we have to follow. No choice but to follow. But as I said, I always have a reservation. Let’s follow it now, we can’t do anything. It was the Supreme Court that spoke. But as I said, perhaps, after elections, we have to work out something.

In my opinion, Supreme Court decisions – the wording that I used, well, I might be accused of conempt of court – but as I said, if the Supreme Court itself flip-flops and changes it rulings, we also change ours – we ourselves aren’t consistent – but never mind. We reviewed 300. I think it was impossible to be consistent. But even the 300, it went down to 83, 84. We really maximized it.

With that, and all the pending cases, or pending bills on party list, amendments, I think what we need is a total overhaul of the entire system. I think they should come out – not Constitutional amendments.

The defect, in the first place, is not in the Constitution. The defect, for me, is the law itself, the existing law on party list. It has so many interpretations. Now if we consider the Supreme Court decisions, then the different bills proposed, if we do a total revision and come out with something before 2016, we’ll have a very good party-list system in 2016.

I still strongly believe that marginalized and underrepresented should be the key. Otherwise, it’s worthless – because you’ll open it to politicians. Here, what the Supreme Court said, at least my reading of it, is that if you’re a political party, you’re qualified. It does not matter whether you are marginalized, whether you’re underrepresented. Otherwise we’ll lose the very essence of the party-list system, where the socially vulnerable people will be the ones represented.

RAPPLER: Chairman, how would you respond to claims that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to open it to a plurality of political parties and sectors, not only the marginalized?

BRILLANTES: It could not be. I wouldn’t believe that was the intention. We read it.

Wasn’t Commissioner Rene Sarmiento with us? He was a member of the Constitutional Commission. It was clear that while we adopted the European system, which means it should include political parties, we added the factor, as he said, of a Philippine flavor. That was to add the marginalized so we wouldn’t exactly copy that of Europe, which was totally political, excluding the marginalized and underrepresented. That wasn’t supposed to be the case.

That was why from the very beginning, my concept of the party list was sectoral – sectoral, for those who are underrepresented. That was why we prohibited major political parties from running. That was the Supreme Court’s previous decision. Politicians were underrepresented in Congress. So we only allowed the minor, the smaller political parties to run.

But even then, we will still allow, we still allow them, only if they are representing a certain sector – marginalized. Now we’ve widened the scope. We even had a disagreement over advocacy as against sectoral or marginalized. Now we’ve included advocacy groups – anti-terrorism, anti-drugs, (pro)-environment. This means if a group is not marginalized, but has its own advocacy, it may also be qualified.

So we have expanded the party-list system, which, in effect, we’ve expanded a lot. It’s open to virtually anyone – political parties, advocacies, marginalized. 

I pity the marginalized. Don’t they have a hard time campaigning due to lack of money? They lack money and yet we will pit them against the political parties. – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!
Avatar photo

author

Paterno R. Esmaquel II

Paterno R. Esmaquel II, news editor of Rappler, specializes in covering religion and foreign affairs. He finished MA Journalism in Ateneo and MSc Asian Studies (Religions in Plural Societies) at RSIS, Singapore. For story ideas or feedback, email pat.esmaquel@rappler.com