Party-list system reform

marginalized and underrepresented sector.

cross examination by the same defense counsel, and thereafter allowed to step down” (G.R. 98376, August 16, 1991).

“The prosecution completed presentation of its evidence-in-chief in due course. But before it could rest its case, and two months or so after Benjamin Lee had completed his testimony, the defendant’s original counsel, Benjamin Formoso, withdrew his appearance and was substituted by another attorney, Eduardo S. Rodriguez” (G.R. 98376, August 16, 1991).

“The latter then filed a motion on June 8, 1988 to recall Benjamin Lee for further examination.

“The ground relied upon by Atty. Rodriguez was simply that after he had reviewed the record of Benjamin Lee’s testimony, he [concluded] that ‘there seems to be many points and questions that should have been asked but were not propounded by the other defense counsel who conducted (the cross examination)’” (G.R. 98376, August 16, 1991).

The trial court granted the motion to recall Lee for further cross examination.

Efforts were exerted to cause witness Benjamin Lee to again appear before the court, but with no success, since he had terminated his employment and moved elsewhere without indicating his new address (G.R. 98376, August 16, 1991).

Thereafter, the private prosecutor filed a Manifestation and Motion drawing the trial court’s attention to the inability to procure the re-appearance of witness Lee, and that he had been previously thoroughly examined by the former defense counsel, and praying that further examination of Benjamin Lee be dispensed with (G.R. 98376, August 16, 1991).

Library

The trial court denied the motion to dispense with the recall of Benjamin Lee and ordered the testimony of Benjamin Lee for the prosecution be stricken off the record for lack of complete crossexamination, the reason being that the witness could no longer be found, and “the failure of counsel for the accused to further cross-examine the witness is not the fault of the defense” (G.R. 98376, August 16, 1991).

The trial court granted the motion to recall a witness on nothing more than said movant’s general claim that certain questions had to be asked.

DOES anyone still remember when the party-list system was still motivated by a noble intention, that is, to give the poor and the marginalized sectors a voice in policy making?

If we recall right, the 1987 Constitution established the party-list system to give various sectors, such as labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and “such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector,” a platform to articulate and defend their interests via the legislative process.

Registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations could run as party-list representatives and constitute 20 percent of the total number of the lower chamber of Congress.

However, a Supreme Court decision in 2013 said the party-list is a system of proportional representation open to various kinds of groups and parties, and not exclusive to marginalized sectors.

National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations did not need to organize along sectoral lines or to represent any

That SC ruling—which basically turned the constitutional provision on the party-list system on its head—appears to have bastardized the system.

At present, the House of Representatives has 69 members from 66 party-list groups. It is fair to ask: How many of the party list representatives really want to see change for the better in Philippine society?

If democracy is to survive at all in this part of the Pacific, our Congress should have members who always think of the future of this nation, not of the next election

And how many of them have hijacked the system mainly to give themselves power, pelf and privilege at taxpayers’ expense?

As chair of the Senate committee on electoral reforms and people’s participation, Sen. Imee