The 2025 elections once again exposed the glaring flaws of the Philippine party-list system: an electoral mechanism originally intended to empower the marginalized, now increasingly captured by the very political elites it was meant to challenge.

The May 2025 results saw the continued success of many familiar names: party-list groups backed by political dynasties, business interests, religious sects, and former government officials. Meanwhile, genuine grassroots organizations and advocates for the poor and underrepresented struggled to break through a system distorted by loopholes, patronage, and media invisibility.

A System Hijacked

Enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and operationalized through the Party-List System Act (RA 7941), the party-list system was envisioned as a means to level the legislative playing field. It was supposed to give voice to the voiceless: the fisherfolk, farmers, laborers, women, indigenous groups, and the urban poor and the like. Instead, it has become a parallel track for trapos, dynastic placeholders, and political proxies.

Of the 63 party-list seats filled in 2025, only a handful could be credibly linked to genuine marginalized sectors. Many were fronts for established families or political appointees seeking a backdoor entry to Congress. Some groups had vague or non-existent sectoral advocacies, while others used their positions to pad budgets, expand influence, or prepare for local electoral runs.

This is not mere cynicism; it’s structural failure.

The Loopholes that Enable Abuse

The weaknesses of the system are well-documented, yet persistently ignored:

1. No clear vetting mechanism to ensure party-list nominees truly represent marginalized groups. The Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC removed the requirement that nominees be part of the marginalized sector, effectively opening the floodgates for political opportunists.

2. Absence of sectoral transparency. Party-lists often provide generic platforms (“for the poor,” “for public service,” “for good governance”) without measurable goals or consistent engagement with their claimed constituencies.

3. Dynastic extensions. Some party-lists function as holding pens for relatives of sitting officials, preserving family dominance across electoral cycles and across chambers.

4. Campaign finance abuse. The low campaign spending cap for party-lists (P3 per voter) is widely flouted, with little to no enforcement. The 2025 elections again showed many party-lists engaging in full-scale campaigns rivaling those of senatorial candidates.

5. Weak public engagement. Despite the crucial role of party-lists in legislation, most voters still don’t know what they are, how they work, or whom they should vote for. This lack of civic education feeds into manipulation, vote-buying, and name-recall voting.

How to Reform the System

If the party-list system is to be salvaged, it must undergo bold and necessary reforms, both legislative and political.

1. Amend RA 7941.

• Reinstate sectoral qualification requirements for nominees. Nominees should come from and be validated by the sectors they claim to represent.
• Disallow nominees who are immediate relatives of current or former elective officials up to the second degree.
• Require audited reports of actual sectoral programs, not just attendance and authorship of bills.

2. Establish a stricter COMELEC accreditation process.

• Review and monitor party-list compliance annually. Groups that fail to demonstrate real sectoral engagement or participation should be disqualified.

3. Limit consecutive terms.

• Party-list groups and nominees should not serve more than two consecutive terms, to encourage rotation and diversity of representation.

4. Enhance voter education.

• The DepEd and COMELEC must institutionalize non-partisan, values-based civic education on the purpose of the party-list vote, especially in public schools, barangays, and online.

5. Modernize campaign finance laws.

• There should be digital audits of campaign spending, donor disclosures, and real-time tracking of candidate advertising.

The Bigger Question: Is Reform Still Possible?

Some critics argue that the party-list system is so broken it should be scrapped entirely. But abolishing it would also erase one of the few institutional attempts to democratize representation in an elite-dominated Congress. The answer may not be abolition but rather radical renovation.

The success of reformist lawmakers, independent movements, and sector-based advocates in the 2025 Senate and local races proves that voters are ready for alternatives. The challenge is translating that appetite for change into structural, not just electoral, reforms.

Final Thought

The party-list system was meant to be a moral and democratic innovation. But left unreformed, it will continue to be a mirror of our worst political habits: dynastic, transactional, and performative.

If we are serious about rebuilding trust in institutions and giving power back to the people, we must stop treating the party-list vote as an afterthought. It’s time to ask hard questions and demand honest answers.

Because when “representation” becomes a racket, democracy loses more than just a seat. It loses its soul.