Second of a series

BEYOND the immediate reforms to our dysfunctional political parties, a deeper examination of the party-list concept itself reveals a profound disconnect between its original intent and its currently perverted reality. During its conceptualization, the appointed Constitutional Commission (President Cory’s 1987 ConCom) was initially in favor of a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government. The framers, drawing inspiration from European models, particularly the German parliament, envisioned a system where elected members from parliamentary districts (akin to our congressmen) would be complemented by a party-list component. This module was designed to give voice to marginalized or underrepresented sectors within the legislature through “proportional representation,” based on the votes each party obtained in the preceding elections.

For instance, during elections, each political party would draw a “party-list” specifically composed to represent and empower groups such as labor, peasants, urban poor, veterans, indigenous communities, women, youth, and the differently abled — with the notable exception of the religious sector. The crucial nuance was that these party-list representatives were not meant to be elected independently or outside of the political parties vying for power; rather, they were intended to be an integral part of the political party itself, ensuring that their representation was woven into the broader ideological fabric of the party. The overarching goal was to enhance the representation of these marginalized sectors, allowing them a direct and amplified voice in the legislative process.

Cory’s constitutional folly

However, a critical misstep occurred. The “heavily elitist” framers of the 1987 Constitution, appointed by President Cory Aquino, ultimately balked at enacting a shift to a parliamentary government. Instead, they preserved the presidential system but, bewilderingly, retained the party-list provisions in isolation. Our current party-list system, therefore, stands as an anomaly — a “mongrelized German/European version” that has been fundamentally twisted from its original purpose. This perversion manifests in several detrimental ways: anyone can now form a “political party of single issues” and register as a party-list. This has led to an absurd proliferation of party-lists representing groups such as athletes, security guards, market vendors, and teachers — categories that are strictly not the envisioned marginalized sectors of Philippine society.

An adjunct to political dynasties 

This distortion has opened the floodgates to a disheartening array of opportunistic abuses. The party-list system has become a convenient vehicle for relatives of sitting elective officials, including wives and even “concubines,” to secure seats in Congress without facing the direct scrutiny of district elections. It also serves as a temporary dumping ground for election losers, allowing them to circumvent the popular will and maintain a foothold in power. To qualify for a seat, a party-list group must merely receive at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast nationally for party-list candidates. Voters, casting their ballots for both district representatives (naming specific candidates) and only one party-list (with unnamed candidates) on the same ballot, are often left to navigate a bewildering landscape of choices, many of which do not genuinely represent the marginalized. The tragic irony is that the party-list system, originally conceived to enhance the representation of marginalized and underrepresented sectors in the legislative process and allow them a crucial voice in governance, has now devolved into a bastion of political dynasties. Instead of empowering the truly voiceless, it has become another avenue for the entrenched elite to perpetuate their hold on power, further consolidating their influence and stifling genuine grassroots representation.

Dysfunctional presidential system

Over the years, I have written columns on the evils of the presidential system and provided alternatives. I refer the readers to The Manila Times related articles excerpts from which I reprint (“Presidential to parliamentary – the preconditions,” Sept. 8, 2018; “Presidential system – patronage politics and dynasties,” March 28, 2018; “Imperial presidency redux,” May 25, 2018; “Unitary-presidential and alternatives,” March 15, 2023).

The arguments we proffered simply are that the presidential system has evolved cultural behavioral practices inimical to the greater majority. It has not substantially eradicated poverty in the country. Over the decades, stark impoverishment became the petri dish on which democratic deficits plaguing our country today are incubating; from the emergence of traditional political patronage practices, allowing the proliferation of political dynasties that preserve political power among and within families, to the culture of impunity, corruption and criminality, to the rise of an oligarchy that tends to control both political and economic power. Additionally, the core of the evils of the presidential system is centered on the nationwide election of a single individual cloaking him/her with the lethal consequences of tremendous concentrated powers. Empirical data shows billions of pesos are expended to propel a single person to the presidency. The tremendous amount of logistics raised for such a campaign makes the winner vulnerable to the moneyed few that provide the same. The heated competition for the top post among four or five driven alpha personalities over ponderous and costly campaign periods opens an aperture for the oligarchy and the moneyed elite to inject their agenda into the political exercise, resulting in these donors exacting their pounds of flesh upon the winners, the latter conceding to rent-seeking practices and oftentimes granting outright regulatory capture. It is a well-known dictum that one who controls political power controls economic power.

“But the most glaring defect of the presidential system of government is that this is the embryo upon which patronage politics is nurtured. For almost 100 years the system flourished feeding upon the least desired facet of the Filipino culture, the desire for and dependence on a benefactor from the datu and sultan, heading a clan; to the Spanish patron looking over the indios, to the American ‘big-brother’; morphing into the Philippine president, the ‘father’ of a people...” (ibid) With the president on top of the governance totem pole our politicians have perfected a system of patronage where government coffers and benefits for the citizenry are dispensed through a political structure down to the lowest construct of government, controlled by them. This system, relic of a feudal and colonial past, has now been elevated to perfection in modern Philippine politics. To quote professor Edmund Tayao, an eminent political analyst, “The presidential system is a zero-sum system... regardless of how many candidates and competing parties, only one can win and the significance of coalition-building dependent significantly on the winning candidate, that is, after the elections shall have already passed.” And I might add too: the winner is the new “patron”; the loser, again, is us.

Toward a constitutional revision

Ultimately, these interconnected issues — the dysfunctional presidential system, the flawed and convoluted political party system, the perverted party-list, and the rampant political dynasties — stand as a stark and challenging political legacy. These systemic flaws are deeply embedded in the 1987 Constitution, a document that, while intended to usher in a new era of democracy, inadvertently created structural weaknesses that continue to undermine our nation’s progress and perpetuate the very traditional politics it sought to overcome. Addressing these fundamental flaws requires not just piecemeal adjustments but a comprehensive and unwavering commitment to genuine political reform, a commitment that prioritizes the collective good over the self-serving interests of the few.

To be continued on July 30, 2025

First of three parts

MY column last week featured the four sets of siblings in the Senate (Cayetanos, Villars, Tulfos and Estrada/Ejercitos) and how the tentacles of political families could affect governance. This week’s article expands the profile to the rest of the Senate whose membership comes from different political parties, alliances and aggroupments. In principle, these political parties are differentiated through their party platform from whence their program of government emanate — if at all these are indeed anchored on a set of beliefs, ideals or even an ideology of governance.

Spoiler alert! These political parties are largely devoid of such values, instead advocating motherhood mantras passing them off as their political ideals. This isn’t a personal attack on individual senators, but rather a critical examination of a systemic flaw that has long plagued Philippine political parties — pure crass expediency.

Political chameleons

The current Senate offers a vivid microcosm of these systemic flaws, laying bare the superficiality of political affiliations and the rampant spectacle of political opportunism. While some senators might maintain longstanding affiliations — Bong Go and Bato de la Rosa with PDP-Laban; Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan with the Liberal Party; Pia Cayetano, Camille Villar and Mark Villar with the Nacionalista Party; Tito Sotto, Loren Legarda, Win Gatchalian, and JV Ejercito with the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC); and with Imee Marcos often existing in a political space neither here nor there — these ties are often more shallow than substantive.

The political landscape is characterized by a strong tendency for senators to run as independents or readily switch party affiliations. Panfilo Lacson and Francis Escudero have notably demonstrated the ability to garner votes without strict party machinery. More recently, the successful independent candidacies of Robin Padilla and Raffy Tulfo in the 2022 elections further emphasized this growing appeal of non-traditional candidates. Their victories demonstrate a public appetite for figures perceived as outside the conventional political establishment, yet paradoxically, these very candidacies underscore the weakness of a party system unable to consistently produce candidates who resonate with the electorate on the basis of shared principles. Senators such as Lito Lapid and Migz Zubiri exemplify the fluidity of allegiances, having been affiliated with multiple parties or endorsed by various coalitions throughout their careers. This adaptability underscores a political environment where personal popularity and local machinery frequently outweigh rigid party lines.

The ease with which politicians jump ship is often cloaked in the rhetoric prioritizing loyalty to country over party, paraphrasing President Quezon’s dictum. Politicians who remain affiliated with a party out of genuine ideology and values are lamentably rare — an endangered species.

This is not intended to disparage all politicians and their affiliations but the political party system in the Philippines, which ought to be the backbone of a truly democratic governance, is severely defective. This inadequacy often leaves elected leaders with very little choice but to change colors and defect for personal survival.

A flawed political architecture

Our nation finds itself ensnared in the unfortunate trappings of a dysfunctional political system, one that consistently prioritizes the self serving interests of its elected officials over the collective welfare of its citizenry. This entrenched form of traditional politics, deeply embedded within the fabric of our political parties, operates on a fundamental consideration: the political survival of its members and the preservation of their pelf and privileges. This myopic focus has fostered an oppressive tyranny of numbers, where the sheer quantity of elected individuals in power takes precedence, irrespective of the quality of their leadership or the purity of their intentions. Consequently, the democratic ideal of “politics is addition” transforms into a disturbing aberration, as elections become a mere popularity contest, with candidates’ winnability eclipsing any genuine ideological perspectives.

This lamentable state of affairs forces political parties into an ignoble compromise, compelling them to recruit individuals already popular with the masses — actors, athletes, entertainment, and media personalities — thereby relegating political creed, principles and beliefs to the ignominious back burner. The discerning electorate, faced with a dearth of genuine choices and meaningful debate on substantive issues, is then paradoxically blamed for their selections, perpetuating another anomalous dictum: “One deserves the government one votes into power.” This narrative, however, conveniently overlooks the systemic flaws that preclude real choices, condemning the voters to a perpetual state of ignorance, diminished by a system designed to perpetuate itself rather than to serve.

Perpetual cycle of ‘political butterflies’

In contrast, in more modern developed countries, political parties are not merely vessels for personal electoral survival and perpetuation in power of political families. Instead, they exist because the citizenry, the wellspring and final arbiter of political power, possess diverse issues and aspirations that demand articulation and amplification within the broader political domain.

These parties are expected to provide voters with “real choices,” based on distinct platforms, visions of governance, and fairly decent leadership qualities. Members are expected to adhere to these platforms, offering a clear direction for government, allowing voters to make informed decisions about who should govern them based on what candidates and their parties truly stand for.

However, we do not have such parties in our country. Our parties are funded by self-proclaimed candidates, party bigwigs and oligarchs, who then dictate programs and platforms, if any, and select who runs for public office. This patronage politics is the very reason behind the massive exodus of members from one political party to another, creating a fluid, unprincipled political class where politicians are PDP Laban today, LP the past regime, KBL during the dictatorship and Lakas-NUCD tomorrow.

This pattern of expedient behavior by politicians is dubbed the “political butterfly syndrome,” flitting and floating from party to party, descriptive of a paucity of ideological perspectives and lacking moral compass. These defections are rampant on the shifting winds of political fortunes. The deeply ingrained traditional political practice incubated in our unitary-presidential system transforms elections into mere opportunities for power players and their oligarchic allies to consolidate their forces and unscrupulous politicians to sell their loyalty to the highest bidder.

A call for real political parties

The solution lies in the creation and institutionalization of real political parties that can truly aggregate the varied aspirations of the citizenry, giving them genuine options and empowering them to emerge from their ignorance, thereby breaking out of the clutches of the dynasties.

This demands a fundamental shift away from the personality-driven politics that currently dominates the landscape. It requires fostering an environment where political parties are built on shared principles, distinct ideologies and long-term visions for national development, rather than merely serving as vehicles for individual political ambitions. Such parties would be accountable to their members and to the electorate for the platforms they espouse, creating a clear framework for governance and enabling voters to make informed decisions based on policy, not just popularity.

Addressing these fundamental flaws requires not just rhetoric but concrete legislative action, particularly the passage of the Political Party Development and Financing Act, that Centrist Democrats label the Rufus Rodriguez bill, coupled with a fundamental re-evaluation and reform of the party-list system to align it with its original, noble intent.

ON July 28, 2025, the 20th Congress — the Senate and House of Representatives — convenes. This will be timed with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) which is to be delivered in a joint session of Congress at the Batasang Pambansa. This is a traditional festive event where the honorable senators and congressmen/women with their spouses — legitimate or otherwise — preen for the TV cameras attired in their finest Filipiniana costumes. The men in Barong Tagalog and the women in their baro’t saya, kimona or terno, with their distinctive butterfly sleeves designed by their incongruously expensive couturiers. The nouveau riche — or the soon-to-be — will come in droves, some displaying their branded accessories, Rolex, Cartier and Patek Philippe, and Louis Vuitton, YSL, Hermes Birkin, etc. Some scattered progressives, leftist and genuine representatives of indigenous communities will strike a contrast by wearing real native tribal bahag (loincloth), but being in the minority they will not merit TV time.

Senate

This week’s column exposes to the public a different angle on some of these senators and their ilk we voted to power, now decoupled from the leverage we ordinary voters once possessed before elections.

The Philippine Senate, a venerable institution designed as a deliberative body epitomizing the national interest, is one of the three independent branches of government patterned after the American federal system representing its 50 states (two senators per state, six-year term and no term limits). Our model, imposed by Westerners, ignorant of the nuances of our ethos, was meant to be a microcosm of the nation’s political milieu and cultural diversity.

Divorced from the American practice, our senators are elected to serve six years, limited to two terms. Senators often come from established political families that morphed into political dynasties (polidyn). The first siblings to have sat together in Congress were Jose Laurel Jr. and Salvador “Doy” Laurel. The former, a speaker of the House and Doy as senator and later President Cory’s unlamented vice president.

A family heirloom

Today, the 20th Congress is a perversion containing four sets of siblings from polidyns. Philippine studies show (Ronal Mendoza, ASOG, 2019) that these narratives of kinship reveal a persistent shadow of corruption exacerbated by ever-shifting sands of political party affiliations. More dubious are the bloodlines intertwining the Senate and the bureaucracy of regimes in power. Cynthia Villar of the real-estate billionaire family was for a time sitting as a powerful senator while her son, Mark Villar, was the equally powerful secretary of public works in the Duterte regime, then later elected senator. Upon the retirement of mother Cynthia, senator Mark’s sister, Camille, has been elected senator and assumes her mother’s former post. Their patriarch, Manny Villar, Cynthia’s husband, was once the Senate president and before that was speaker of the House of Representatives that initiated President Joseph “Erap” Estrada’s impeachment.

The current configuration highlights a sustained family presence. The Tulfo brothers, Erwin and Raffy, could have assumed a bizarre familial connection had Ben, the third brother, won in the last senatorial election. While senator Erwin was a party-list representative before his Senate bid, Raffy, a media personality, won his Senate seat in 2022. So too are the Cayetano siblings — Pia and Alan Peter — both children of the late senator Rene Cayetano, the dynasty founder. Alan Peter once ran for vice president as Rodrigo Duterte’s running mate. Pia is on her second set of a 12-year stint, solidifying the family’s legislative footprint.

Beyond full relatives, the dynamic extends to half-siblings, exemplified by Jinggoy Estrada and JV Ejercito, the children of former president Erap. Jinggoy, is the son of legal wife former senator Loi and JV, son of common-law wife, former San Juan mayor Guia Gomez. This lineage underscores how political arcana can be passed down and branched out within complex family structures, perpetuating a political legacy across generations.

Criminal syndicates

The discourse surrounding Philippine senators is not solely about familial ties. A significant and often contentious aspect involves allegations of corruption and criminality, which have cast a long shadow over the institution. A case in point is Jinggoy Estrada who faced charges of plunder and bribery stemming from the infamous Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), commonly known as the “pork barrel,” scam. This scandal involved the alleged misuse of discretionary funds allocated to lawmakers, that were allegedly funneled to bogus nongovernment organizations masterminded by Janet Lim-Napoles in exchange for kickbacks.

Jinggoy’s legal rollercoaster ride is reflective of a weak and corrupt justice system. First acquitted of plunder by the Sandiganbayan, he was convicted of one count of direct bribery and two counts of indirect bribery in January 2024, a verdict that included a prison sentence, a fine and disqualification from public office. This conviction however was not final and executory at that time, thus allowing him to again run for senator.

Subsequently in a highly questionable move in August 2024, the Sandiganbayan reversed its decision, effectively clearing Jinggoy of the direct and indirect bribery charges. This acquittal was upheld in December 2024, solidifying his clearance from these specific corruption charges. As of July 5, 2025, Jinggoy Estrada has been acquitted of both plunder and bribery charges related to the PDAF scam. He goes scot-free.

Teflon senators

A slight digression for historical context is the case of former senator Juan Ponce Enrile — a “Makoy” henchman — who was likewise a key figure in the PDAF scam. Enrile was arrested and detained but eventually acquitted of plunder. It was his chief of staff, Gigi Reyes, who was convicted of the crime and did jail time for more than six years.

Jinggoy’s kabarkada and co-accused — former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. (coming 13th place in the recent election) also faced charges of plunder and graft. He was acquitted of plunder and his graft cases were dismissed by the Sandiganbayan — but he was ordered to return P124.5 million in civil liability. But his former chief of staff Richard Cambe was convicted and tragically died in prison. These high-profile acquittals in major corruption cases have often sparked public debate and scrutiny, raising questions about accountability and justice within the Philippine legal system. The big fishes get away — the small fry are eaten.

The cabal of senators provides a fascinating lens through which to view the intricacies of the nation’s dysfunctional political and justice system. It underscores the persistent challenge of corruption, with high-profile cases like the PDAF scam — and the latest anomalous 2025 budget manipulation — shaping public perception and continually testing the pathetic justice system. The fluctuating status of these cases, particularly the acquittal of powerful figures, continue to fuel national conversations about accountability.

It highlights the pervasive nature of polidyns, where relatives and siblings often follow in each other’s footsteps, extending family influence across legislative branches and governance. The Philippine constitution is unequivocally on the prohibition of polidyns yet allows their survival and proliferation shielded by that critical escape proviso, “as may be defined by law.” Who makes the law but the dynasts!

These intertwined relationships, a defining characteristic of political reality in the higher echelon of leadership, leads to an entrenched power base from whence regulatory capture, rent-seeking engagements through its influence-peddling tentacles reach out to the nooks and crannies of governance.

These are the honorable senators we voted for!

ON June 22, 2025, US President Trump announced: “The US military carried out a massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. The strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

Trump’s “Operation Midnight Hammer” was not so much as to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes but to give in to Netanyahu and the powerful Israel Zionist lobby to pull America into this war with Iran on their behalf.

On June 23, Iran retaliated with missile strikes on the US base in Qatar. Reportedly, Iran alerted Trump prior to this ‘tit-for-tat’ assault giving Americans time to vacate the base, thus no American casualties were inflicted. This evidently was to telegraph to Trump that Khamenei’s intention was not to go to war with America but to retaliate for the June 22 US bombings quenching Iran’s thirst for revenge. Khamenei was not showing weakness — it was strategic choice.

Fake ceasefire

Then Trump announced a ceasefire. This was immediately contradicted by Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, who declared: “As Iran repeatedly made clear: Israel launched war on Iran, not the other way around. As of now, (8:46 p.m. June 23, 2025) there is NO ‘agreement’ on any ceasefire or cessation of military operations. However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 a.m. Teheran time, we have no intention to continue our response afterwards. The final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later.”

Then on June 24, the New York Times published a leaked report from America’s intelligence community that the bombing may have only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months. Apparently, Iran, anticipating the attack, moved out to safety its cache of enriched uranium days prior to the B2 bombings. With a few repairs here and there, Iran could be back on track.

Trump, Hegseth and Rubio have gone ballistic over the leak catching them on their lies. Their overreaction suggests the accuracy of the disclosures. All this hullaballoo therefore is for nothing, changed nothing, collapsing Trump’s delusional narrative of the total obliteration of Iran’s nuclear capability.

Trump’s victory: A premature ejaculation

It is now apparent that there were no ceasefire negotiations between Iran and Israel. Trump, the consummate deal-maker negotiated a ceasefire by himself, with himself — and unilaterally declared a ceasefire. There are no written documents that lay out the conditions — just another one of his “art of a deal” gimmicks. It seems clear that Trump badly wants an exit from Iran that will make him look good — even branding the attack grandiosely as the “12-day war” — basking in the accolades of the MAGA, portraying him as a hero worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump wants out of this war mindful of his reputation as the self-proclaimed “No-war Peace President” that could tarnish his legacy — whatever is left of it.

Meanwhile, President Masoud Pezeshkian claimed that (Israel) suffered “a severe and historic punishment,” in effect declaring Iran’s victory. Netanyahu on the other hand whose standing in Israel is now higher not so much for Israel’s flagrant unprovoked attacked but more importantly for sucking Trump and America into this war, wanted this ceasefire desperately.

With Trump opting out of the war, Israel won’t have the wherewithal for what is evolving into a war of attrition. And the missiles are once again hurtling into each other’s territories, eliciting a quirky outburst from the Donald, “I’m not happy with Israel... we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

Word is out that Israel badly wants a ceasefire. For one, Israel is not prepared for a war of attrition while Iran is. Israel is running out of weaponry; their Iron Dome and David Sling missile defenses are depleted. Its economy is stagnant, investments are drying up and these recent events are triggering mass exodus, citizens desperate to flee on the so-called “escape flotilla” and “rescue flights.” The Israeli government recently issued “... a decision effectively barring them from leaving” (Middle East Eye, June 27, 2025). Netanyahu wanted to put an end to the war, and prevent further destruction in Tel Aviv, Haifa and other major cities that are becoming more and more like the devastated Gaza. He went to Trump, and Trump did it.

Replay of Iraq and Afghanistan

Trump suffers from historical illiteracy as he doesn’t read nor appreciate events that are not centered on him; thus, he is incapable of grasping nuances of the past that are worth remembering. He is probably whom George Santayana was referring to in his oft-repeated aphorism about those condemned to repeat the past. What Trump did after the bombing was reminiscent of George “Dubya” Bush’s declaration of “Mission Accomplished” aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 — purportedly marking the end of major combat operations in Iraq; except that the Iraq war went on for another eight years, costing hundred thousands of lives and wasting America’s treasure, before its final defeat and withdrawal in 2011. Trump in his arrogance did Bush one better by abruptly declaring the current Iran-Israel war over after 12 days — while both countries continue to rain missiles on each other’s citizens. To use an idiom in a game of golf Trump so loves — “he lacks follow through.”

As should have been predictable, Trump lives up to the name given to him — TACO for “Trump always chickens out.” His precipitate declaration of the end of the war and a ceasefire could ironically be interpreted as his surrender — not Iran’s. What turns out to be Trump’s bragging rights was a complete fiasco.

So, what now?

This war is not over. Trump vowed that he will bomb Iran again if it restarts enriching uranium to weapons grade. He will not even permit Iran to have a nuclear capability for civilian use. Aside from this proviso, America has no clear objectives in this war. But Israel has.

For Netanyahu, this is not just about Iran and Israel. This is about the Jewish state that does not simply want hegemony but dominance over the entire region — and a non-nuclear Middle East except for Israel, God’s chosen people. With the Arab-Muslin-Palestinian-Jews universe to contend with, this Iran-Israel war will not end until Gaza is resolved. Israel is dangerously working towards ethnic cleansing within its border belying a two-state solution in Palestine.

And since the Zionist-Israeli lobby has co-opted America’s foreign policy in the Middle East, the US is complicit not only in this war but conflict with the whole Muslim world. And if history is to be a guide, particularly America’s less than stellar record in the past 80 years, America will be mired for months, if not years, and eventually loses. And Allah forbid, with Israel as the puppet master, this war could spread to those theaters where other actors are now intently watching — Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jung-un.

Trump and Netanyahu have to go — in a regime change!