Last of a series

THE first and second parts of this column series portrayed an aberrant Senate, their expedient political party memberships, and a cursory depiction of an anomalous political architecture of governance forming part of my suggested agenda hinting on: an enactment of an anti-political dynasty law; reforming the perverted party-list; and abrogating the presidential system towards a parliamentary government, requiring constitutional revisions.

A case for a parliamentary system

The stark contrast between our current predicament and the success stories of other nations begs for a critical reevaluation of our political architectural blueprint. A significant percentage of successful, politically stable governments with thriving economies have, notably, adopted parliamentary systems. Nations such as Germany, Great Britain, the Nordic countries, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Malaysia stand as testaments to the efficacy of this governmental model. These archetypes offer compelling evidence that a fundamental shift in our political framework could unlock a path towards greater stability, economic prosperity and more accountable governance. The time is ripe to meticulously extract and adapt features from these successful parliamentary systems that could genuinely benefit the Philippines.

But what is a parliamentary government in contrast to a presidential one. In the former, the legislative and the executive powers are fused and vested in a bicameral or preferably a unicameral parliament; and the head of government is the prime minister, with his Cabinet recruited from among the members of parliament (MPs). The republican concept imposed on us by America on the fictional independence of the three branches of the executive, legislative and judiciary is drastically modified in the parliamentary system.

President to prime minister

The president is the head of state, elected from among the MPs; and upon taking his oath he ceases to be a member of parliament or any political party. The president is meant to be the unifying symbol of the Filipino nation, and his powers are largely ceremonial; unlike our Philippine presidents elected universally for a potential two four-year terms prior to 1986; and a single six-year term with no reelection from 1987 onwards. Our presidencies have been the wellsprings of patronage politics, “the petri dish upon which corruption and all the evils of politics incubate.” Parliamentary government gets rid of this type of a presidency in lieu of a prime minister, the head of government that must work with his majority political party. He may serve a five-year term with reelection, depending on his performance and the government of the day.

A unicameral parliament is composed of elected members from the parliamentary districts — MPs, plus those chosen on the basis of “proportional representation” by the political party according to the votes each party obtained in the preceding elections. This is the original concept of a “party-list,” members chosen by the political parties constituting 30 percent of the total number of MPs and the seats reserved solely for the “less privileged” — farmers, fisherfolk, workers, etc. Party-lists, as we have today under our anomalous 1987 Constitution, are not meant to run separately and outside of a nationally accredited party.

As proposed by the Centrist Democrats, any elective official who leaves his political party before the end of the term shall forfeit his seat and will be replaced by his political party.

A mechanism to replace a prime minister is for parliament to withdraw its confidence and choose a successor by a majority vote of all its members. This “vote of no confidence” is a much easier process of replacing a head of government in a parliamentary system than the current impeachment process.

A parliamentary government is also called a “party government” because of the pivotal role of political parties in parliamentary elections, governance and public administrations.

The role of real political parties

A critical precondition to a parliamentary government is the enactment of laws that will result in the creation of real political parties, discussed in the first part of this series. This can be a priority of this 90th Congress as this is imminently doable without the need for constitutional revisions. To reiterate and put things in proper perspective:

“Political parties are the primary vehicles to gain political power by engaging themselves in political contests, primarily elections. The members and their leadership are expected to adhere to a set of principles and strategies written in a platform unique to that party. This espousal of a vision of governance defines the ideological identity of that party — and therefore, the electorate must be permitted a patent choice — as to who must govern them based on what the candidates and their respective parties stand for.”

The 2016 Rufus Rodriguez bill

Central to addressing the deeply rooted issues within our political landscape are immediate and comprehensive reforms to our political party system. These reforms are not contingent upon the arduous and often protracted process of 1987 constitutional revisions. Instead, a more immediate and pragmatic pathway lies in the long-overdue passage of the proposed Political Party Development and Financing Act — the Rufus Rodriguez congressional bill. This crucial piece of legislation, regrettably pending in Congress for several years, holds the potential to fundamentally reshape the very nature of political engagement in our country.

Firstly, the proposed Act aims to penalize “turncoatism,” a pervasive and corrosive practice also known by its local epithets, “balimbing” or “political butterfly.” This phenomenon, where elective officials brazenly switch political parties, often for self-serving opportunistic gains, undermines party principles and betrays the trust of the electorate. The Act proposes severe consequences, including expulsion from elective public office and party membership, should such acts be deemed inimical to party principles. This provision is vital for fostering greater loyalty, ideological coherence and accountability within political parties, moving away from the transactional nature of Philippine politics.

Secondly, the Act seeks to enforce transparent mechanisms for providing and regulating campaign financing. This is a critical step towards dismantling the insidious trifecta of graft, corruption and patronage that has long plagued our political system. By establishing clear and stringent rules for corporate and individual contributions, the legislation aims to shed light on the often opaque world of political funding, thereby reducing the opportunities for illicit financial dealings and undue influence. Transparency in campaign finance is not merely a technical adjustment; it is a fundamental pillar for ensuring fair elections and preventing moneyed interests from dominating the political discourse.

Thirdly, the proposed legislation aims to institute strict state subsidy that will professionalize political parties by supporting their political education and campaign initiatives. This innovative approach, already successfully implemented in many European countries, recognizes that robust and ideologically driven political parties are essential for a healthy democracy. By providing financial support for political education, the Act would empower parties to invest in policy research, member training, and public engagement, fostering a more informed and principle-driven political discourse. Furthermore, supporting campaign initiatives through state subsidies could level the playing field, allowing parties to compete on the strength of their ideas rather than solely on the size of their war chests, thereby mitigating the influence of wealthy donors and special interests.

Now that VP Sara’s impeachment is hanging in the air, this Senate agenda may be worth considering.

The Senate President crowed yesterday that the party he nominally coheads, PDP-Laban, has a “pleasant problem” — too many potential senatorial candidates. Koko Pimentel’s estimate is they have up to 20 possible choices for the 12-person slate for the 2019 senatorial race. But his list includes the five administration-affiliated senatorial incumbents up for reelection next year. This is a group that has made noises that, much as it prefers to remain in the administration camp, it is unhappy with the way PDP-Laban has been designating its local leaders and candidates, and therefore prefers to strike out on its own, perhaps in alliance with the other administration (regional) party, Hugpong ng Pagbabago, headed by the President’s daughter and current Davao City mayor, Sara Duterte.

Setting aside, then, the five-person “Force,” the administration-oriented but not PDP-friendly reelectionists (Nancy Binay, Sonny Angara, Cynthia Villar, Grace Poe, and JV Ejercito), what Koko’s crowing over is a mixed bag. Some of them have been floated by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez (with whom Mayor Duterte clashed in recent months): six representatives (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who is in her last term in the House of Representatives; Albee Benitez, Karlo Nograles, Rey Umali, Geraldine Roman, and Zajid Mangudadatu), three Cabinet members (Bong Go, Harry Roque, and Francis Tolentino), and two other officials (Mocha Uson and Ronald dela Rosa), which still only adds up to 11 possible candidates (who are the missing three?).

Of all of these, the “Force” reelectionists are only fair-weather allies of the present dispensation; their setting themselves apart is about much more than the mess PDP-Laban made in, say, San Juan where support for the Zamoras makes it extremely unattractive for JV Ejercito to consider being in the same slate. Their cohesion is about thinking ahead: Creating the nucleus for the main coalition to beat in the 2022 presidential election. The contingent of congressmen and congresswomen who could become candidates for the Senate, however, seems more a means to kick the Speaker’s rivals upstairs (at least in the case of Benitez and Arroyo) and pad the candidates’ list with token but sacrificial candidates, a similar situation to the executive officials being mentioned as possible candidates (of the executive officials, only Go seems viable, but making him run would deprive the President of the man who actually runs the executive department, and would be a clear signal that the administration is shifting to a post-term protection attitude instead of the more ambitious system-change mode it’s been on, so far).

Vice President Leni Robredo has been more circumspect, saying she’s not sure the Liberal Party can even muster a full slate. The party chair, Kiko Pangilinan, denied that a list circulating online (incumbent Bam Aquino, former senators Mar Roxas, Jun Magsaysay, TG Guingona, current and former representatives Jose Christopher Belmonte, Kaka Bag-ao, Edcel Lagman, Raul Daza, Gary Alejano and Erin Tañada, former governor Eddie Panlilio and Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña) had any basis in fact.

What both lists have in common is they could be surveys-on-the-cheap, trial balloons to get the public pulse. Until the 17th Congress reconvenes briefly from May 14 to June 1 for the tail end of its second regular session (only to adjourn sine die until the third regular session begins on July 23), it has nothing much to do. Except, that is, for the barangay elections in May, after a last-ditch effort by the House to postpone them yet again to October failed.

Names can be floated but the real signal will come in July, when the President mounts the rostrum and calls for the big push for a new constitution—or not. Connected to this would be whether the Supreme Court disposes of its own chief, which would spare the Senate—and thus, free up the legislative calendar—to consider Charter change instead of an impeachment trial. In the meantime, what congressmen do seem abuzz over is an unrefusable invitation to the Palace tomorrow — to mark Arroyo’s birthday. An event possibly pregnant with meaning.

The Centrist View: Back to Basics

In an era marked by deepening social divides, persistent inequality, and political uncertainty, the Philippines stands at a critical juncture in its national life. Competing ideologies vie for dominance, often pulling the nation toward extremes. Amid this turbulence, a centrist perspective — rooted in the principles of human dignity and human rights — offers a balanced and principled framework for rebuilding trust, safeguarding citizens, and renewing democratic life.

Human Dignity as the Foundation of Rights and Responsibilities

At the core of the centrist vision is the belief that every Filipino possesses inherent human dignity — not conferred by the state, but intrinsic to being human. This dignity forms the moral and legal foundation of all human rights: civil liberties, political participation, and access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and livelihood.

But dignity is more than an entitlement; it is also a responsibility. It calls on individuals not only to claim their own rights but also to respect and uphold the rights of others — in speech, in conduct, and in civic life. The Centrist View affirms that rights and responsibilities are inseparable, and that a just society depends on mutual recognition of each person’s worth.

Human Rights in a Divided Political Landscape

In recent years, human rights in the Philippines have become a flashpoint — celebrated by some as the bedrock of democracy, dismissed by others as a hindrance to order and discipline. The centrist approach resists this false binary.

Instead, it upholds human rights as non-negotiable, especially for the most vulnerable: victims of extrajudicial killings, displaced indigenous communities, and ordinary citizens left behind by corruption and impunity. At the same time, it recognizes the need to contextualize rights within the broader social fabric — considering public safety, poverty, and institutional capacity.

The absolute moral positions of the Church — opposition to abortion, divorce, and same-sex marriage — moral truths which many Filipinos adopt unquestioningly, conflict with human rights discourses or secular principles such as reproductive health, women’s rights, and LGBTQ inclusion. The war on drugs under the Duterte administration was often justified using absolute moral language — portraying drug use as an evil that must be eradicated at all cost. This moral framing enabled EJK and human rights abuses, with limited public resistance due to the perceived moral righteousness of the campaign.

The anti-corruption rhetoric (all corruption is evil) uses moral absolutism (that certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of context, consequences, or cultural norms) but the application of justice in the Philippines is frequently selective, exposing the hypocrisy and dangers of absolutism when wielded by those in power. Human rights violations during Martial Law (torture, illegal detentions, censorship) can be judged as morally wrong in absolute terms, regardless of the justifications of national security or economic progress. However, moral relativism is often used to justify or downplay these events, especially by those who benefit from historical revisionism or political dynasties.

The late dictator son’s administration has emphasized technocratic leadership — appointing economic managers, military officials, and political elites into key positions — often sidelining consultative, grassroots-driven policy-making. His seeming focus on stability and economic continuity is reflected in his cabinet choices; still this pragmatic approach is viewed as centralizing authority and downplays participative governance, especially from civil society organizations, marginalized sectors, and opposition voices.

The DepEd and CHED directives to revise or soften the language around martial law abuses reflect a systemic push toward historical revisionism, legitimizing the current administration while erasing past atrocities. In lieu of outright censorship, the present administration uses strategic communication and digital manipulation through troll farms, algorithmic manipulation, and disinformation campaigns, to promote a favorable image. Contrary opinions and criticisms are viewed as “fake news” and attempts to discredit the administration are seen as libelous that merit congressional inquiry, purportedly, in aid of legislation.

The administration exhibits a form of authoritarian pragmatism more subtle than the previous dictatorship but no less concerning in its long-term implications. The challenge for Filipinos today is to critically assess this pragmatism: who benefits, who is silenced, and at what cost is “progress” achieved.

The Centrist View rejects both moral absolutism and authoritarian pragmatism. It seeks to foster a culture in which human rights are not only enshrined in law but also respected in practice, and where governance is accountable, transparent, and humane.

Rebuilding Trust in Institutions and the Rule of Law

The erosion of public trust in the justice system and the prevalence of political patronage have undermined faith in democratic institutions. When laws are applied unequally — when the wealthy and powerful escape accountability while the poor face violence and neglect — human dignity suffers.

A centrist response calls for the revitalization of institutions as a moral imperative:

• A justice system that is impartial, efficient, and accessible to all;
• Security forces that serve the Constitution and the people, not personal or political interests;
• Governance that is participatory, transparent, and responsive — especially to marginalized communities.

Restoring confidence in institutions, in the Centrist View, is not only about efficiency; it is about affirming the dignity of every citizen and the credibility of democracy itself.

Social Justice Without Extremism

Despite economic growth, the Philippines continues to grapple with stark inequality, underdevelopment in rural areas, and persistent conflict in regions such as Mindanao. Politics is downplaying the gains of the Bangsamoro Autonomous region, as changes in policies are manifest in each subsequent administration. These are not just policy failures — they are affronts to human dignity.

The centrist approach to social justice promotes meaningful, targeted reforms:

• Long-term investments in quality education and healthcare as fundamental human rights;
• Genuine land reform and rural development to empower farmers and indigenous peoples;
• Inclusive and decentralized governance, particularly in historically marginalized regions.

Unlike radical ideologies that call for revolution or sweeping overhauls, the Centrist View advocates for gradual, evidence-based reforms that preserve national stability while addressing deep-rooted injustices.

Pluralism and Mutual Respect in a Diverse Nation

The Philippines is a nation of many cultures, faiths, and identities. Respecting human dignity means embracing this diversity, not suppressing it.

The centrist vision affirms that unity can only emerge from mutual respect — not forced conformity.

All Filipinos — regardless of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or social status — have the right to live free from discrimination and violence. Dialogue, rather than dogma, is the foundation of lasting peace and nation-building.

In this spirit, the Centrist View aligns with the universal values of human rights: that every person has the right to live, believe, speak, and participate fully in society — while also contributing to the common good.

Conclusion: A Call for Principled Moderation

The Centrist View in contemporary Philippine society is not a position of passivity or indifference. It is a call for principled moderation — an approach that seeks:

• To place human dignity at the center of policy and public life;
• To uphold human rights not as partisan slogans but as shared moral imperatives;
• To advance nation-building through inclusion, institutional reform, and civic responsibility.

In an age defined by polarization and populism, the Philippines needs a renewed commitment to moral clarity, balanced leadership, and shared humanity. In this vision, human dignity is not merely an abstract ideal — it is a living promise that belongs to every Filipino.