The parliamentary government
Yet he initiated a shift to a federal-parliamentary from a unitary presidential regime, declaring that the latter was the root cause of all major problems plaguing Philippine governance. His persona as a filthy-mouthed, uncouth, misogynistic, strong-armed leader fired the citizenry's imagination, naively impressed by such vulgarity, as was his reputation as a "can do" local government chief executive, boasting of his accomplishment as mayor of a city, he "eliminated" crime and arrested Davao City's slide toward a narco-state. He would do the same for the country once elected president. And the Filipinos believed him!
And we gave him carte blanche for his "tokhang, war on drugs," tolerating the deadly consequences of human rights violations — the overhyped extrajudicial killings (EJK). Now that he no longer holds the reins of power, recent Senate and House hearings revealed a different narrative. That the Deegong's regime from 2016-2022, abetted by the "Davao Mafia," an unwarranted pejorative label, some of whom were elevated to senatorial posts, was beset with corruption, bribery and proliferation of illegal drugs, and doused by spilled blood equal to if not surpassing the martial law regime of the father of his erstwhile ally BBM. This comparative saga of the twin evil dynasties — the Marcoses and the Dutertes will not be discussed at this point. It deserves several articles starting next week, ushering in the year 2025.
This column instead will reprint, with a few minor alterations, my analysis of systemic structural defects and the necessity to dismantle this American legacy of a perverted unitary-presidential government.
A unicameral (one body) parliament
First, as a rejoinder to the gridlock springing from the rivalry of the executive and the legislature, particularly the Senate that deemed itself co-equal with the president, the parliamentary system has done away with the American construct of three independent branches of government ("Federalism-Cha-cha! going nowhere?" TMT, July 25, 2018).
In a parliamentary government, the legislative and the executive powers are fused and vested in a unicameral parliament, and the head of the government is the prime minister (PM), with his cabinet recruited from among the members of parliament (MPs). The American republican concept of the fictional independence of the three branches of government — the executive, legislative and judiciary — is drastically modified in parliament.
The president is the head of state (HOS) and is elected from among the MPs. Upon taking his oath, he ceases to be an MP and member of any political party. Serving a term of five years, the HOS is meant to be the unifying symbol of the Filipino nation (similar to the UK's monarch). Powers granted by the Constitution are largely ceremonial. The president (head of state) is not meant to compete with the PM (head of government).
A unicameral parliament is composed of elected members (MPs) from the parliamentary districts plus those chosen by the political party on the basis of "proportional representation" according to the percentage of votes each party obtained in the preceding election.
The members chosen (in a party list) by the political parties shall constitute 30 percent of the total number of MPs, and these seats are reserved solely for the "less privileged" (party-list), farmers, fisherfolk, workers, etc. Party-lists, under our anomalous 1987 Constitution, are not meant to run separately and outside of or independent of a nationally accredited party. The current Senate and House of Representatives are both replaced by the parliament.
A parliamentary government is also called a "party government" because of the pivotal role of political parties in parliamentary elections, governance and public administration. This means that Congress should now pass the "Political Party Development Act," long archived since the Aquino III administration.
The imperatives of real political parties
Currently, our political parties are personal factions and alliances of politicians, united mainly for elections and patronage; their mass memberships are nebulous at best and are not guided by the sustainable and exclusive serious platform of government that differentiates them from one another. Thus, those elected under such parties are not responsible and accountable for their performance in and out of office.
For these reasons, members and those elected leaders have no loyalty to their parties and migrate to the political party of the winning president. This spectacle is known as the "political butterfly."
As proposed by the Centrists (CD), 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 by electing 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.
Political parties — what we have
Parliamentary government can't exist without real political parties that are ideologically differentiated. What we have is this phenomenon, almost exclusively Filipino, known as the "political butterfly syndrome." In this context, switching political parties is akin to chameleons changing their skin color perfunctorily. This is descriptive of a paucity of ideological perspectives and politicians bereft of a moral compass anchored on patent expediency.
Almost all of the political parties in the Philippines are structured in a manner that hews closely to the centuries-old patronage system. The patron (in this case, the sitting president) who provides the funds makes almost all of the party decisions, especially with regard to those slated to run for elective positions; the central/executive committees are usually manned by their allies and subalterns; and there are no real offices and party activities year-round except during election periods.
Invariably, political parties do not have a uniquely consistent set of beliefs that distinguishes one from the other; at most, they proffer slogans and motherhood statements that pass for political doctrines. Their political agenda is predictably directed toward the preservation of elective members' prerogatives, ensuring the continued accumulation of pelf and privileges for themselves, their families, and their allies.
Individual programs and family interests, perforce, have precedence over that of a political party's collective appreciation of society's needs. And once they are gifted the privilege to govern, public policies are instituted on the fly, emanating from the framework of traditional political practices; their comprehension of national issues is seen subjectively through the prism of personal and family interests, thus perpetuating the existing flawed political institutions.
To be continued on Jan. 1, 2025
The unitary presidential system
Historical context
The root of all this can be traced deep into our pre-Spanish history and customs when the bond between social classes, maharlika and maginoo (the nobles) to the freemen and slaves was balanced on the "padrino/patron relationship," primitively feudal but a perfectly working arrangement before its nature was transformed over the 300 years of Spanish tutelage and later, decades of American guidance. What was egregious was the imposition of another system of governance piggybacked on this traditional bond that began to alter the character of the rulers and the ruled.
For instance, America injected "Western concepts" of democracy and republicanism, particularly the idea of representative government, bypassing the cultural and political practices and roles of the datu and maharlika. This was the unitary-presidential system. Thus, along with all of these was the mutation of the pre-Spanish and pre-American "patron relationship" into what we now call the "traditional patronage system" as practiced to perfection by scions of powerful, charismatic but flawed political leaders, Marcos and Duterte peres. The modern patrons were ultimately the Philippine presidents.
Flawed political process
America's two-party system, alien to us, introduced the offices of the president and vice president. Both are elected as a team within a political party. Similarly, 100 American senators are elected, two per state constituting the upper chamber of the legislature, while the representatives (congress members), comprising the lower house, are elected through their districts. The election of the president and vice president is decided not by direct universal popular votes but by another American invention, the Electoral College. America did not hand this feature over to us.
These versions drastically departed from America's 200 years of their own experience in governance and were, therefore an American experiment over their first colony, ever. And these were all embedded into our 1935 Constitution. Allowing the two highest elected officials to be elected separately perfunctorily planted the seeds of discord (BBM-Sara in 2022, Duterte-Robredo in 2016, Aquino-Binay in 2010). And since they were elected universally, the vice president, along with the 24 senators, deemed themselves as entitled and almost co-equal to the presidency — a condition that is adversarial, inducing competition and strife. This is what is happening now with these incessant congressional/senatorial investigations, not so much in aid of legislation to improve laws — but in aid of their re-election. These hearings are typically used as launching pads by candidates to alter political narratives in their favor for the coming 2025 and 2028 elections.
Democratic deficits
These blatant democratic deficits are some of the root causes that, when paired with the US-imposed unitary-presidential system, become the petri dish for other political and societal evils to incubate. In passing, we identified these in last week's column as crony capitalism, kleptocracy, corruption and "rent-seeking activities" by those elected officials, and the bureaucracy and the birthing of political clans we now dubbed "political dynasties." The latter turns public service into a thriving family business, accumulating pelf and power, perpetuating the same through generations as heirlooms. Studies show that fully four-fifths of the senators and congressmen are scions of political clans. Thus, the constitutional ban on political dynasties is dead.
The overall effect of these defective structures inevitably resulted in the development of weak democratic institutions. Quoting the late Professor Jose "Pepe" Abueva, citing Gunnar Myrdal's book, "Asian Drama," depicting the Philippines as a soft state and a weak nation, he argues that "... it is unable to apply the law equally to all its citizens; our institutions are captives of the [political dynasty] oligarchy, and they serve mostly their own interest, the few rich allies, and powerful politicians. Our leaders failed to unite and inspire our diverse peoples as a nation."
It will be recalled that the US-sponsored 1935 Commonwealth Constitution was the overriding political document governing our political life until replaced by the Marcos 1973 Constitution, subsequently abrogated by the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution. These authorizations contain these impaired structures underpinning our governance, buttressed by deleterious provisions evolving into what was to become the Cory Constitution of 1987.
Failure of an experiment
The presidential system may have worked in America after their experience of 200 years of democratic government. And still during those centuries, they learned to tidy up their system of governance with 27 amendments since the 1788 ratification of their constitution. This mature democratic country found it a necessity to amend its constitution to keep up with the times. Not in the Philippines.
The US' convoluted experiment with democracy and the presidential system clearly has faltered. Many of the political problems besetting our country can be traced back to the flawed political structure handed down to us under American tutelage. Yet, this was embedded in the 1935 Constitution of the Commonwealth, approved by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and ratified by the Filipinos. This was the same constitution used after we gained independence from America in 1946.
Since then, we have revised our constitution twice: the Marcos 1973 Constitution as an aftermath of violence — martial law, and the Cory Constitution of 1987, a product of a revolution. The Marcos Constitution attempted a pseudo-parliamentary system, establishing the "Batasang Pambansa" as a unicameral legislature, replacing the Congress of the Philippines.
The Marcos Constitution was effectively abrogated by President Cory Aquino during the EDSA People Power Revolution and upon the proclamation of the shortlived and provisional 1986 Freedom Constitution. Subsequently a constitutional commission (ConCom) was convened to fashion a new constitution and ratified in a plebiscite in 1987. But the old defective political structures in the 1935 Constitution were reinstated. This constitution, with its inherent political infirmities, has not been amended since then.
Revision of 1987 Cory Constitution
We reach a point in this column where we will attempt to answer the questions attendant to the thesis that our political problems stem not from the personalities but from dysfunctional systems. It's not the people, stupid! It's the system! — to paraphrase a US president.
In the next few columns, we will discuss the various alternatives. All these options will require the restructuring of the defective political and economic systems that have stunted our growth in the last 100 years. We could have done better compared to our Asian neighbors since the end of WWII. Offhand, the solution will require the revision of the 1987 Constitution with the proposals to shift from our current unitary-presidential system to a parliamentary-federal one. Advocates for some type of changes to our structures of governance from Presidents FVR to Erap to GMA and Duterte have, in one way or another, initiated revisions of the 1987 Constitution. All failed.
To be continued on Dec. 25, 2024
For comments: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Our dysfunctional systems and institutions
LAST week's column laid down several predicates, which my guest columnist Patmei Ruivivar eloquently articulated. On one level, she made a case for Sara's blatant contrived meltdown as a diversion from legislative investigations pinning her and her staff down on corruption and anomalies, particularly in the lower house. These inquiries were upon the behest of the Marcoses orchestrated by Speaker Martin Romualdez and merely a symptom of the brewing conflict between the Marcoses and Dutertes with surrogates Sara and Martin. Patmei succinctly injected a barbed rhetorical: "... what [is] this conflict all about. Is this about us and our country? Or is it just about them? This... is not even about us... It is not because of any fundamental differences in policy or principle..."
The UniTeam, the Marcos-Duterte political alliance, was simply designed to overwhelm and entice the naïve Filipino voters for the return of the Marcoses to power in 2022, riding on the coattails of the still popular President Deegong with the tacit understanding, now belied, that Sara's turn comes in 2028. This was not to be. Once the Marcoses are back, they will cling to power like leeches. Thus, the open conflict employing language through their respective social media trolls descending to the gutter with accusations of a first family stoned from drug-sniffing versus human rights violators and extrajudicial killers. This is more than the pot calling the kettle black. And their impudence asking us to take sides!
This bizarre public display by both camps is more than just a derivative of the UniTeam's breakdown, which at the time of its creation titillated Filipinos as a political vehicle that will propel the Philippines to greater heights. This was the political theater of the absurd. But the reality eventually overtook all of us, realizing that this UniTeam was, after all, just a marriage of convenience destined for a precipitate divorce. This alliance was not anchored on ennobling principles, revealing a bankruptcy of morals and political ideology. This turned out to be a clash of political dynasties, to quote Ms. Ruivivar, "an attempt by two political dynasties to lay the groundwork for a political fight for the 2025 midterm election as a prelude to the control of power for the next presidential elections in 2028."
Dysfunctional presidential system
On another level, today's column will attempt to put into perspective this conflict within the context of our political system and governance. Last week's column triggered corollary questions: "What's wrong with Philippine politics? How might it be fixed" (TMT, May 4, 2016). I wrote then: Everything's wrong with Philippine politics, period! This tongue-in-cheek reply encapsulates the frustrations of many a writer on where to begin to dissect the multitude of problems and reduce them into palatable morsels. The easier way to go about this is perhaps to focus on the current state of affairs, which has obstinately captured the interest and occupied the minds of our people since VP Sara's meltdown and the collapse of the UniTeam. This column will start with a synopsis of a subsequent piece, "Presidential system, patronage politics and political dynasties" (TMT, March 18, 2018).
Historical precedents
As handed down by our American colonial overlords, the concept of democracy and the presidential system of government was imposed on us, piggybacked on the 300 years of Spanish colonial patronage. It was meant to instill in our political life a novel concept of governance and thus widen the participation of a greater majority of our people toward the path to political maturity. But what took root instead were traditional practices of our earlier culture perverted by the colonialists for their own purposes and emerged as traditional political patronage (tradpol). Inevitably, these resulted in the development of weak democratic institutions.
But the most glaring defect of the presidential system of government under a democracy is that this is the embryo upon which patronage politics is nurtured. For 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, "ang ama ng sambayanan," the father of our nation.
Ferdinand Macoy elevated patronage politics and practiced this to perfection during the martial law years, when "crony capitalism" came into our political lexicon. To hold on to power, "patrons and padrinos" were allowed to dip their dirty fingers into the public coffers and dispensed them to the chosen electors — thus, a new sub-species of the oligarchy was born, and another word appeared in the glossary, "kleptocracy."
Today, political patronage has become pervasive and has fomented corruption. Our electoral processes, for instance, are the overarching environment upon which political patronage incubates. Paradoxically, democracy can't exist without elections, except that in our culture, we managed to debauch the same.
Politicians, whether "wannabes" or incumbents, spend millions of pesos to gain the support of their constituents. As a result, a major consideration once elected is to recoup their expenses through all sorts of "rent-seeking activities," leakages in public funds and outright corruption — to the detriment of society's development and public good.
And in our presidential system, where the president is elected at large, he is expected to provide the wherewithal for an expensive election campaign. This opens an aperture for a corollary evil influence in our political dynamics — the oligarchy and the moneyed elite influencing the outcome. And we can only speculate on the quid pro quo.
Political dynasty vs political parties
With the constitutionally mandated term limits of elective officials, this deviant model of "public service as a private business" becomes a strong impetus toward the perpetuation of this power base — thus the birth of powerful "political dynasties."
A multitude of ills has piled up, and as a resultstunted their growth, one of the important instruments of democracy — political parties — has had their growth stunted. In truly democratic societies, political parties are meant to aggregate the various and sometimes differing aspirations of the people and mediate between the electorate and the government, translating the same into good policies of governance. Instead, the political dynasties become substitutes where power and privilege accrue to a few families.
The politics of personality sets in, and political patronage is then ingrained in the dynasty's practices of local governance, ensuring its survival.
Three branches of government
Another feature of the presidential system is the institution of the three branches of government, a republican concept reflecting the culture of American individualism and personal freedoms: the legislative (Congress — the House and Senate — makes laws), the executive (the president enforces the laws), and the judiciary (interprets the laws).
In the Philippines, this institution has broken down. A legislature that makes laws and investigates not so much in aid of legislation but as a grandstanding platform for electioneering. A lower house that exerts its preeminence under the dictates of the speaker — a "wannabe president." A judiciary that misinterprets laws depending on the interests of clients.
And worse, senators, being elected at large like the president, behave like "little presidents" entitled to contest the next presidency.
And the gridlock is palpable, preventing good governance.
Ramifications of Sara's meltdown: It's not the actors, it's the system!
A FEW weeks back, I wrote: "... Sara threatened 'to dig up the Marcos cadaver from Libingan Ng Mga Bayani and throw the same to the West Philippine Sea.' Gross, yet effective in grabbing control of the narrative. Indeed, there is a method to her madness! Thus, her meltdown in some ways was intentional... ("Dismantling the Duterte political structures," The Manila Times, Oct. 30, 2024).
I was wrong. Her meltdown was real — and an alarming one, too, diverting attention from the OVP anomalies in the use of confidential funds. But this is just one episode of what is now a teleserye, courtesy of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability. Other dramatis personae who are no less complicit have been assigned less than stellar roles — BBM, the first lady and the director and puppeteer, Martin Romualdez.
I lend my column space today, to Patmei Ruivivar's Nov. 25, 2024, Mindanao Times' "Mondays with Patmei." Her piece, "It's not us, it's just them," is a compelling assessment of the complications attendant to recent events. She has been the longtime chief of staff of Mayor Rodrigo Duterte and conversant with the Davao LGU from whence Sara cut her political teeth.
Her take:
"As the conflict among our country's political leaders escalates and reaches a melodramatic turn, who is left doing the actual work of making our lives better? Who is solving our real and urgent problems? Who is thinking of innovative ways to get us out of the mess we are in?
"Before we get carried away and plot another 'people power,' let us carefully think and analyze what this conflict is all about. Is this about us and our country? Or is it just about them?
"We have to remember that those personalities feuding now used to call themselves the 'uniteam' and were all chummy-chummy when their interests were aligned.
"When we were scratching our heads at the unlikely tandem of a Marcos and a Duterte, these politicians assured us that they were setting the example for unity. That division among Filipinos is not good for development and for our country to have an 'umagang kay ganda,' we need to unite.
"And because they seemed 'cute' together — the union of the north and the south — we ignored the warning signs of two 'nepo' babies, both offspring of 'strongmen' who grew up privileged but with childhood trauma, running our country post-pandemic.
"We were caught up in the fairy tale of two kingdoms uniting and saving the world that we did not bother looking for a detailed plan of action on how they will jointly lead us to the Bagong Pilipinas.
"And now our 'Uniteam' parents are going through a bitter separation a la 'War of the Roses' (the 1989 Michael Douglas-Kathleen Turner movie), and we are collateral damage. Who gets what in the divorce? Who will have full custody of the children? Or are they dividing us and making us choose?
"This separation is not even about us; it is just about them. It is not because of any fundamental differences in policy or principle (because the basis for unity in the first place was just to win an election).
"They just stopped being friends and are now accusing each other of corruption and incompetence. It is a contest of who spent the most money without following the rules. It is a showdown of who is more 'astig' and who is more clever in using the existing system to their advantage and how much they can get away with pushing the boundaries.
"When two factions of elites are in conflict, they often use their influence to rally support for their side, framing the struggle as a matter of ideological or existential importance.
"The nation is divided because the elites have the power to shape public opinion, whether through media influence, political leverage, or financial resources. These divisions are exacerbated by social media, news outlets and public discourse, where narratives become more extreme and polarized.
"If we pay attention to the messages from the fighting camps, they revolve around 'Protect the president' or 'Protect the vice president.' The people are being asked to take sides to protect the two leaders. Prayer vigils. Wear black. Light candles. Follow the chain of command and the rule of law. Etcetera. If the people are protecting our leaders, who is protecting the people?
"This madness needs to stop now.
"The people did not ask them to form a uniteam. They decided that because they all wanted to win and be in power. They did not set the framework of their partnership and how the people will benefit from their joint leadership because that was not the point of their 'unity.' They did not even think of us when they were allocating the resources, the opportunities and the power among themselves and their allies.
"And now that they realize they had nothing in common and they hate each other's guts, they expect us to take sides now and, worse, protect them? From what? From themselves?
"If we are indeed in a democracy, then it is supposed to be the government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Then why did it just become all about the president, the first lady, the vice president and the speaker of the House? The gang of four. Ang apat na sikat.
"They are making a spectacle of themselves and have no shame whatsoever to fight in front of all of us and the rest of the world. They act like this is their show and we are mere spectators, not the people they are supposed to serve.
"When are we getting the attention we deserve? When will our stories be told? When will our voices be heard? When will these privileged politicians shut up about their own problems and start focusing on solving ours?
"This is not our conflict. This is not our issue. We should start reclaiming our space and asserting our power and show these warring elites who is the real boss in this country. That is the real people power. Organizing ourselves and relying on our own strength to transform our country together. Not to install another perceived messiah. Because nobody will be good enough for a very bad system.
"If our structures and institutions remain the same, we will have the same problems regardless of who gets elected as leaders. Even if we pray every day and offer masses and become good citizens, our rotten system will still take us all to hell if we do not change it.
"If we continue to think that change depends on whoever is president (or vice president or speaker or governor or mayor), then we will always be vulnerable to 'budol.' The better marketer (or bullshitter) will always win.
"They are putting on this ridiculous show to keep us entertained and distracted from learning how to analyze and think critically. So, we will not think that we have the real power. Once we get our act together as empowered citizens, they can all go to hell without dragging us [down] with them."
Well said, Patmei.
Categories
Archives
Comments
-
This is really interesting, You're a very skilled blogger. I've…
Written by Merrill
on Thursday, 24 March 2016 12:35
Incompetence Kills
(LML Polettiques)
Newsletter Subscription
PARTNERS:
Contact Us
+63 (02) 470-9076 Pasig
F. Torres Street Corner Jacinto Extension,
Davao City, 8000 Philippines
Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City
