‘Bastardized’ party-list concept
In reference to Artemio Panganiban’s column (“Party-list, an experiment gone berserk,” 11/4/18), the former chief justice was just being civil by not revealing to laypeople like us (unschooled in law but steeped in common sense) the real reason why the Supreme Court virtually “bastardized” the party-list concept now embedded in our electoral process.
From its original purpose of giving a chance to the marginalized and disadvantaged sectors of our society to be represented in Congress (as previously enunciated by the Supreme Court in 2001), that process has now been opened to allow the more privileged and moneyed sectors to join Congress through the backdoor—as long as they have “advocacies” favoring the marginalized or disadvantaged (e.g., “Ang Mata’y Alagaan” [seriously?!]) and “regardless of their economic status” (as held by the Supreme Court in 2013).
Why the somersault?
Let’s see if anyone can add two and two together: At the time that matter came up for another vote, a prominent member of the Supreme Court had his wife holding a party-list seat in Congress, while his children held other elective positions.
Since then, that party-list seat has been passed on to the
other members of that magistrate’s dynasty.
But how could a single member influence a majority of that court to go “berserk” by rendering such a convoluted ruling?
Well, this is the Philippines, remember?
ROSE ANNE BARTOLOME, email@example.com