OFWs congressional district outside PHL? Why not?
Privileged Spits
OFWs congressional district outside PHL? Why
not?
By BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA CAUSING
This article
was sparked by an OFW who asked: “Can we create a legislative district for OFWs
who are outside the country?”
My
answer is, “Yes, why not?”
How can
it be done when the Constitution impresses immediately that it limits
congressional districts to be located within the territories of the
Philippines?
Simple.
And there are two ways.
The pertinent Constitutional
provisions
But
before revealing how, let me quote the pertinent provisions of the
Constitution, under Section 5 of Article VI, which are as follows:
“Section
5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected
from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those
who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
“(2) The party-list representatives
shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the
religious sector.
“(3) Each legislative district
shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent
territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand,
or each province, shall have at least one representative.”
Provisions
of sub-paragraphs 1 and 3 says clearly that the Constitution states that the
House of Representatives should be composed of “not more than” 250, that each
legislative district should comprise “as far as practicable” contiguous,
compact and adjacent territory.
Legal means of
creating congressional district outside PHL
Do
these provisions now close the door for OFWs legislative districts outside the
Philippine territory?
They do
not.
Examining
sub-paragraph 1 says that it allows the Congress to make a law to have representatives
from partylists and sectoral parties or organizations.
This
now opens the door for a group of OFWs in a region of another country, or in a
foreign country, or in a group of countries or states outside the Philippines to
be organized by a law into congressional districts without land territories.
Examining
again the whole of Section 5 shows that the only limitations stated are that
the total number of the members of the House of Representatives shall not be
more than 250 and that the total number of partylist representatives shall not
be more than 20% of the total number that included the number of the partylist
representatives.
If we
look at the provisions again, the Constitution does not specify the procedure
on how partylist representatives shall be elected.
What is more telling is that the Fundamental
Law speaks of sectors and organizations so that it refers to sectors and
organizations as different from partylist groups.
In
other words, the Congress can change the present procedure employed for
electing partylist representatives and remove the 2% ceiling or whatever or
design another system of how these representatives are to be chosen.
It also
means that the Congress can create organizations or sectors as distinct and
separate from partylist groups.
It follows therefore that there is
no offense to the Constitution if the Congress passes a law that creates a
sectoral group or an organization out of a region of OFWs outside the country as
one organization or one sector or one partylist group.
Then, the law may design a procedure
of electing a representative or a congressman from their group by means of
electing at large from them their own representatives.
Thus, we see clearly the Congress can
create a legislative district outside the Philippine territory.
Of course, the law may provide for
the abolition or dissolution of that sector or group or partylist group when the
number of voters no longer reaches the minimum for one congressional district
classified as a sector or a group or a partylist.
Another
Constitutional way of creating a congressional district outside the Philippine
territory is by invoking the “unless otherwise fixed by law” clause in
sub-paragraph 1 of Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution.
The
exception phrase applies not only to the number of total representatives, 250,
that may be changed. This exception
clause can also apply to all other provisions that the Congress may want to
change by means of a law.
And if
it can apply to any provision of Section 5, then the Congress can fix a
congressional district even without the land territory that should be compact, contiguous
and adjacent.
Supporting
this legal argument is another clause that says, “as far as practicable.” This means that if it is not practicable to
have a land territory, then the Congress is authorized by the Constitution to
create a congressional district outside the Philippines.
Reasons for necessity
of congressional districts outside PHL
The
first justification is that all—not only the Filipino voters inside the country—have
the right of suffrage, or the right to vote and be voted upon.
If that
is so, it a discrimination of a class of Filipinos to deprive them of the right
to vote for their congressmen other than partylist congressmen when they are
also Filipinos.
There is no valid justification to look
down on the Filipinos outside the country just because of their geographical
locations outside the country. There is
no law says that a voter becomes an inch-less of a voter if he or she is
outside the country or outside of his or her congressional district when he or
she were at home.
This is so because the laws that
the Congress makes affect the overseas Filipinos as much as or as the same as
Filipinos in the home front.
Further, In the old times, these overseas
Filipinos (OFs) were handicapped by the reality of physical impossibility to go
home and vote. But with the internet
voting that is now being pushed by the Commission on Elections to be done in
the 2013 election, there is no more impossibility standing in the way in so far
as the physical capability of all voters to vote.
Also, it is a persona non grata of
the Filipinos at home to outcast their OFs or OFWs who have been toiling out
there just so the relatives back home can eat and live a good life.
It is also a big ingrate for the
country to deny rights of suffrage from the people it calls “living heroes” who
are keeping the dollar strength of the State.
Since it is unreasonable or
revolting to conscience to deprive the OFs of the right to vote for their
congressional district and sectoral or partylist or organization
representatives, they must now be allowed to have their own district outside
the country and would still be allowed to vote for the partylist of their
choice.
Further, by creating a sectoral
congressional district outside PHL, it ensures against “pseudo” congressmen
like Mikey Arroyo circumventing around the law to become a representative of
tricycle drivers and security guards, one of whom he even failed to protect
against a fellow congressman, who is from Lanao del Sur.
It assures that persons who truly
are from their sectors are elected.
As long as other qualifications that
one must be at least 25 years old and a natural-born citizen, there is no
reason to deny a representative each from the Sector Congressional Districts of
California Filipinos, Jeddah Filipinos, Hong Kong Filipinos, UK Filipinos and
others.
Comments