Commissioner Jose Melo v. Justice Jose Melo

Commission on Elections Chair Jose Melo recently gave comments that contradict a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Go! Go! Philippines, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001). He opined that the President's son Juan Miguel Arroyo could be a valid nominee of Ang Galing Pinoy, a party-list group that allegedly represents security guards. He added that limiting nominees to members of the marginalized groups is not wise. Tricycles drivers cannot be represented by one who did not finish high school; "they should have somebody to speak for them," he said. This is not the tenor of the Supreme Court decision in Ang Bagong Bayani.

In the 2001 Supreme Court decision, a majority of the Supreme Court, including then Justice Melo, provided guidelines for the COMELEC in screening party-list nominees. Among others, the Court said that:
...not only the the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2, RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens "who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties." Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or the working class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State
policy to give genuine representation to the marginalized and the underrepresented.

His steroetypical views on tricycle drivers aside, Commissioner Melo's view clearly condtradicts the Supreme Court's pronouncement. It is also fraught with danger that can undermine the entire party-list system. What then will prevent every other politicians from creating their own party-list organizations and to return to Congress, say to circumvent the term limits for House Representatives? Could the Ayalas and the Villar's represent landless peasants? May the captains of industry represent the interests of labor?

The idea behind the party-list system is to allow marginalized and underrepresented sectors to articulate their own concerns in the course of national legislation. Commissioner Melo's views will negate this goal by allowing politicans to speak for these groups.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Alternative to Oposa

I do not mean to suggest that the Philippine Supreme Court has abandoned the environment. Sometimes the solutions to our problems need not be remedies that straddle generations or excite international attention. There is still one alternative that the Supreme Court has preserved: local governments. Local governments in the Philippines are not all allies of the environment. Too many local officials equate economic development with large-scale resource extraction activities such as mining and logging. But when cases reach the Supreme Court, the Court has been remarkably supportive of local governments and community efforts to protect the environment. Two decisions of the Court come to mind. The first is Tano v Socrates (G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997). In that case the Supreme Court upheld the power of the local governments to enact laws to protect the environment pursuant to the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. The Court pointed out that the Code seeks “to
Read more

Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al., G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015.

The Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority is an instrumentality of the government; thus, its properties actually, solely and exclusively used for public purposes, consisting of the airport terminal building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots on which they are situated, are not subject to real property tax and respondent City is not justified in collecting taxes from petitioner over said properties. [1] MCIAA is vested with corporate powers but it is not a stock or non-stock corporation, which is a necessary condition before an agency or instrumentality is deemed a government-owned or controlled corporation. Like MIAA, petitioner MCIAA has capital under its charter but it is not divided into shares of stock. [2] [1] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015. [2] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015.
Read more

Local government avalanche is Congress' fault

A recent Newsbreak report, GMA Creating Too Many LGUs , by Miriam Grace Go (August 22, 2007), unfairly blames President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the increase in the number of local government units in the Philippines. This increase, particularly in the case of cities has been going on ever since the Local Government Code of 1991 took effect. It is encouraged by two features of the Code: (a) the formula for the distribution of the internal revenue allotment that favors cities, and (b) the relative ease in making cities. Politicians determined to increase the financial resources of their governments have been campaigning to upgrade into cities ever since they discovered these weaknesses in the Code. In 1986, there were 73 provinces, 60 cities, and 1,530 municipalities in the country. Just before the Estrada administration collapsed, there were already 110 cities. On March 5, 2001, less than two months into office, President Arroyo signed 14 bills on the conversion of municipalities i
Read more