PARP doubts wisdom of high court’s decision

I recently came across the Supreme Court’s Feb. 26, 2002 decision on the petition filed by the Philippine Association of Retired Persons (PARP). This is about the 2-percent rule for party-list candidates to gain a seat in Congress. In a Feb. 26, 2002 decision, the Supreme Court decided against PARP’s contention that the rule makes it impossible to fill the 250 seats in Congress reserved by the Constitution for party-list groups. In that decision the Court said:

“In imposing a 2-percent threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties, organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress…. Under a republican or representative state, all government authority emanates from the people, but is exercised by representatives chosen by them. But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list system, the result might be the proliferation of small groups which are incapable of contributing significant legislation and which might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress.”

May I ask the Supreme Court justices who signed this decision: What was your basis for saying “small groups are incapable of contributing significant legislation”? Is this not a generalization that begs the question: “How do you know that they are incapable?”

As for PARP, we have our advocacy for the welfare of the Social Security System and the Government Service Insurance System retirees and of senior citizens in general. Given the chance to sit in Congress, PARP will certainly be able to contribute “significant legislation.”

As to the small groups posing “a threat to the stability of Congress,” what might these groups do that the erudite justices were afraid of? Aren’t there communist-leaning parties already in Congress?

Pray explain yourselves, your honors.

Thus, though I am not a lawyer, I believe that the Supreme Court’s ruling against PARP was untenable and that it erred in dismissing the case filed by PARP.

—AMADO F. CABAERO, founding chair and past national president, Philippine Association of Retired Persons, [email protected]