Politics at a critical juncture in Philippine history

For so many years, we have complained and howled against political dynasties.

Ever since we established ourselves as a republic and began electing leaders in government, it has become a given, even deep-rooted and thus an innate limitation. Ever since, only a few, and therefore the same people from the same families are always elected into office.

Framers of the 1987 Constitution put a provision precisely to address that  limitation, yet here we are facing more of the same, even increasingly brazen politicians presenting their family as candidates for election. 

READ: Festiveness, families, citizens' frustrations mark start of election season

This time, it is no longer to take the place of a family member leaving elective office, but to serve simultaneously with a relative.

Many are blaming the framers of the Constitution for leaving the anti-dynasty provision hanging. 

In fact, there are many important provisions in the Constitution that were left hanging, dependent on the action of the legislature. Perhaps because they were pressed for time? 

If I remember it right, they were given only eight months to finish the draft. So, what came out is more of a re-issued 1935 Constitution. There were many good provisions introduced, including those on social justice provisions, but, sadly, many of these good provisions cannot and will not be implemented.

Enacting enabling laws will be contrary to the interests of those who are always elected into office. No wonder we are still facing the same problems, even worse, after a century of existence as a republic.

No doubt, if the framers made the provision banning political dynasty a self-executing provision at the least, it could have addressed the problem.

I remember the stupefied reaction of foreign experts and scholars in many conferences where the Philippine constitution was discussed. They couldn’t believe that there were such provisions.

The implication, of course, is profound. The Constitution is supposedly the fundamental law of the land, all laws that are enacted and to be enacted have to be consistent with it to be valid.

Stipulations that require legislation before a constitutional provision can be implemented however contradict this basic idea of constitutionalism. 

It's as if declaring that legislation made by “representatives” of the people are paramount to the law enacted by the people themselves, the Constitution. The latter being useless without an “enabling” legislation.

READ: Ex-SC justice says follow Bangsamoro lead vs political dynasties

'BORROWED CONCEPTS'

A deeper understanding however will only show that the problem is beyond the framers of the 1987 Constitution.  

What we know and practice as “constitutionalism” are all borrowed concepts. We never had the opportunity to evolve our own version of constitutionalism, especially as far as our political institutions are concerned. 

We don’t have the same sophisticated understanding of important components of a republican system.

We don’t have real political parties and we have a rather rudimentary appreciation of elections and the electoral system.

This is where an age-old adage I have frequently heard before — not only from our old folks but surprisingly also from foreign friends and associate — that the reason we are what we are, seen by many as generally backsliding, is the simple reason that we didn’t have a bloody past. We didn’t have a stage in our history where there was a major national disagreement that we had to kill each other. 

My answer to that is rather simple, we could not have had that stage as there was never any opportunity for us to be just on our own, debate and disagree vigorously in forming our own political institutions. 

Rather, we always had to adapt, even behave obsequiously to the foreign powers who came and insisted to decide for us.

If we factor in the efforts and dedication of revolutionary leaders then, going out of their way to learn extensively in prestigious European universities, there is every reason to think that they were preparing for an independent Philippines. 

As clearly shown in our struggle against Spain, there was no need for any foreign master to convince or even force us to adopt a republican system. 

Espousing a specific model is, of course, another story entirely. There is no doubt however that our forefathers were capable of formulating a political system that is appropriate for us, consistent with our context and history.  They didn’t just call for a revolution; they studied and prepared, weighed every option before choosing the path that eventually led to a sovereign Philippine republic.

We weren’t just ready and willing to absorb new things, we were prepared to introduce our own unique character to the many Western practices bequeathed to us. 

The words we use, the popular sayings, even the food we eat reflect the good mix of adapted practices and tastes.  Being Filipino is a good blend of what has been always here with us as a people and those brought to us by colonial powers who have become our friends and even other foreigners who have been attracted by our country’s and people’s beauty and character

If only our colonizers saw a good partner in the Filipino, we could have been part of Spain or the US after taking over and overseeing our transition to be a new member of sovereign countries around the world. 

Going to war was not the first option for our forefathers, they simply wanted to be treated fairly. We deserve to be treated in the same way they treat their own people, not as an inferior people as we were subjugated by them. 

We were reasonable. Our leaders were no doubt pursuing reforms but conveyed the unequivocal message that they were willing to remain under them. That was a conscious effort on the part of our forefathers; if that is not an indication of unity, of something that is shared by the different ethnic groups even at that earlier period, I couldn’t help but wonder what could be.

Sadly, any and all of these adjurations fell on deaf ears. Our colonial masters chose to keep treating us as different, as lesser, and that led us to pursue independence.

Our leaders organized themselves and strategies were put in place to engage the people.  In short, all factors were weighed and options considered; we were ready to be independent. We weren’t just forced to choose a republic. We knew it would be best to be a republic.

OUR OWN CONSTITUTIONS

The revered late constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, writing during the country’s centennial celebration of independence in 1998 noted that “If we count the arrival of the Americans in 1898 as the starting point of formal constitutionalism in the Philippines, we do have a centennial of constitutionalism to celebrate”.

To be exact, following Lincoln’s counting, constitutionalism has been our hallmark for six scores and six years now and counting.  A Constitution being a hallmark of republicanism then suggests that we have consciously adopted and consistently been following the standard of a republican state, one that is governed by rules.

And it’s not like we didn’t know what we adopted.  Fr. Bernas also noted that our forefathers considered the idea of assimilation during the Spanish period but was just ignored by our colonizer, which led to the adoption of the “Biak-na-Bato” constitution. 

This gave notice to Spain that we knew what we were doing that a “reconciliation was reached with the Spanish authorities that through the Pact of Biak-na-Bato promised reforms”.

The Spanish authorities then would not have considered reconciliation if they could easily dismiss what was in front of them.  It may not have been enough to secure what our leaders really had in mind for the country but at least it was a start that soon after we’ll have the “Malolos Constitution” with the outbreak of the Spanish-American War. 

Our leaders had been consistent in their decision to pursue an independent republican state. Unfortunately, this constitution was short-lived. The promise made to us, that we will just be freed from one colonial master, turned out to be but a plan to take over by another colonial master.

We could have evolved our own political system just like every well-established state today.  They all started with rudimentary mechanisms in establishing and maintaining order. Communities started small until it reached some level of sophistication engendering more advanced mechanisms for governance.

We could have started with those early constitutions formulated by our early leaders. We could have built from these as we evolved into a more sophisticated state, as we strengthened our nation. 

Alas, we were denied that same opportunity. On both occasions we were under foreign occupation, we asked to be considered equals; we asked to form part of their country as one of their states. They must have seen no reason to consider us worthy to become one of them; none of our supplications were heeded.

Our colonizers didn’t see us as equals but stayed nonetheless, ultimately preventing us from doing anything on our own. 

Even if we already had something to build on to form our own government, we were still made to adopt our colonial master’s model. Whether or not it was appropriate or right for us, it had to be something similar to theirs.  

And that’s what we got, a presidential form of government, minus important features that could have made a lot of difference.

Perhaps it is also because the study of politics and government then was not yet that sophisticated to include minute components of a functioning republic.

Important components like a political party system and administrative system that is best for countries with distinct local or regional communities like a federal system were not considered. 

We got the basic political form, but it wasn’t enough to evolve a government responsive enough to the people, one that is consistent with a republican government.

That’s what we have in place now.  Other than the different faces and new names, there has not been anything new introduced in our politics. 

There’s no mechanism to choose and prepare leaders. All that one needs is to be popular and to have the resources needed to run for office.

After more than a hundred years of independence, we had a number of opportunities to change the political setup. 

CHANGE IN POLITICAL SETUP

No less than the “father” of the 1935 Philippine constitution, the late Claro M. Recto called for a change in our political setup in the 1960s. The very architect himself realized how decrepit our political setup was that he began advocating for fundamental change. 

We did proceed with a constitutional convention in 1971, but Martial Law was declared that the work of the convention could not be concluded.

Those who have been opposing changing the current problematic setup have argued that we already had a parliamentary system and that it didn’t work.

But the 1973 Marcos Constitution could not have been a parliamentary system though, as all powers were exercised by the president then. 

A real parliamentary or even presidential system can only be classified as such if it is a democracy.Besides, whether or not it did or didn’t work is still a subject of debate. We never had a closure of the issues and questions during that part of our history and it continues to haunt us today.

We could have had closure. We had two Aquino presidents who could have prompted answers to lingering questions. Most notably, many were really hoping for real substantive change to actually happen when the so-called revolution in EDSA happened.  

It was only a “so-called” revolution because there was not much change that actually happened.

Originally, the members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission thought it right to go back to the original 1935 Constitution where there was only one legislature, and this was agreed at the start of the commission. 

When much of the provisions of the draft constitution was already completed, there was a move to revisit this concern which overturned the previous agreement and revived the bicameral legislature. 

In the process, it must have slipped their minds to go back to the important provisions where both chambers have to vote and decide on important issues such as amending the constitution.  This is now a conundrum, adding to the many substantive obstacles at putting in place an appropriate political system for us.

REAL POLITICAL PARTIES NEEDED

No doubt, Framers of the 1987 Constitution sought real change. What they didn’t realize however is, none of these good provisions matter if they cannot be implemented. 

Ultimately, what is needed is a system to be in place.  A system where good leaders can be produced and keep them as good leaders while in power.

If we are able to produce good leaders, not even the discretionary impeding provision of “unless otherwise provided by law” would matter as we’ll have leaders that will be inclined to pass needed legislation.

We have to have real political parties. For us to have real political parties, we have to have an entire mechanism for them to emerge and to continue existing.

This entire mechanism requires an electoral system that is designed to allow real representation, and not just one that is skewed to select people or people who have the means and the advantage.

Until we are finally able to get back on track as our forefathers were before, formulating a constitution that is truly our own, putting in place a political system that is appropriate for us, we will always be limited with our choices and, worse, end up just sighing and wishing we were in a different country. 

And this coming election is a critical juncture. If we will just allow things to remain as they were, we will just see a continuing deterioration of politics and ultimately governance in this country.

'My sworn duty to slay the beasts': Youth leader files candidacy for Las Piñas councilor

VOTERS KNOW THEY HAVE LACK GOOD OPTIONS

In a qualitative survey we conducted in June, we asked people around the country what they think of what’s happening. 

Of course, poverty remains foremost of their concerns, increasingly prohibitive prices of goods and services and even education, despite it supposedly becoming more accessible to many.

What was a revelation however is, the people mentioned governance and the issue in the West Philippine Sea as very much related to the issues that they immediately raised. 

There is every indication that the people actually think, contrary to what many assume that it is because of the poor choices of the people that we have the kind of leaders we do.

On the contrary, it is because of lack of choices that the people are led to choose the people they choose to govern.  

We have so many educated and dedicated Filipinos, but none of them would have any chance to run and win in the elections. 

In the said June study we conducted, we asked the voters if they will still vote for those who were already convicted of crimes.  The answer was a resounding regret and a promise to no longer vote for them.

It was remarkable because when asked further why they have been voting the way they have been, the answer was that there was not much choice. 

Popularity becomes an obvious advantage because it comes with familiarity. But, when voters eventually come to know the person differently, they have always been inclined to consider voting for someone else.  And that study has shown a number of local cases where an incumbent was unseated.

These coming elections, we have seen how political leaders have become more and more insensitive, flaunting their intent to dominate as a family. 

No longer do family members take turns in having themselves elected, this time members of the family are proudly running simultaneously, as if they are the only ones qualified to run for office. 

Perhaps rightly so, precisely because they are the only ones who have the capacity.

What is worse is that many who suddenly caught some fame are also running for office.  

This is a critical juncture.  I am optimistic as I expect that the people will react to this and finally do what is right; vote for real change. 

Ultimately, I hope it makes the people realize the compelling and fundamental need to change the kind of politics we have and put in place a system. 

I hope and pray this happens in our lifetime, not when everything’s already lost and that we have been overtaken by everyone, even worst becoming a pariah in our own country.