Reject them in May

ON DISTANT SHORE
By Val G. Abelgas 

After 14 years of martial law, the framers of the 1987 Constitution made an unequivocal declaration of their intent to restore democracy in the Philippines and to remove power in the hands of a few: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

To ensure that power is not monopolized by a few, the Constitution framers included at least three provisions — term limits for all elective officials, the party-list system, and the express provision banning political dynasties.

The term limit provision was designed to decentralize power and allow more Filipinos, including those belonging to what is defined as marginalized sectors, to become public servants. Under the Constitution, the president can only serve for one term and cannot run for reelection to the same office. Senators are allowed two six-year terms while members of the House of Representatives, governors, mayors and other local officials are allowed three successive three-year terms.

But instead of democratizing public office, the term limits only strengthened the oligarchy, or what is known in the Philippines as political dynasties, because after reaching the term limit, elected officials would only hand over the position to their wife, children or other relatives by making them run for their current position and seeking other elective posts.

What results is a political merry-go-round among members of the same political families or loyal followers of entrenched political clans. Thus, it is not uncommon for voters to see members of the same family running for various offices in a single election.

The list of candidates for the 2013 election, which is for both senatorial and local officials, is thus full of familiar political names — Binays, Estradas, Aquinos, Cojuangcos, Arroyos, Angaras, Villars, Belmontes, Cayetanos, Enriles, Revillas, etc.

The other constitutional provision that seeks to democratize public office is the party-list system that was intended to give representation to marginalized sectors such as workers, teachers, drivers, women, youth, peasants, and urban poor. The party lists are allotted at least 20% of the slots in the House of Representatives.

But even this noble concept was shamelessly used by politicians to further strengthen their hold to political power. For example, Mikey Arroyo, the son of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, represents a party list of security guards and tricycle drivers.

The third provision that was designed to democratize power is the prohibition on political dynasties. Article II Section 26, the Constitution states: “The state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties, as may be defined by law.”

And yet because Congress has not enacted an implementing law to enforce this constitutional mandate, political dynasties continue to rule over both national and local elective posts.

It took 17 years before an enabling bill was filed in Congress. Former Senator and now Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim filed Senate Bill 1317 in 2004, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago filed SB 1904 in 2005m and Sen. Panfilo Lacson filed SB 1468 in 2007. Note that all three does not have a single relative in any other elective office. Note, too, that not a single bill was filed in the House of Representatives, where many congressmen are known to be members of political clans.

All three bills did not see the light of day and died of natural causes, natural because it is the nature of these traditional politicians to preserve their hold to power in their respective constituencies. They treat elective posts as personal properties that can be transferred to other members of the family. And because they have the wealth and resources to beat their opponents, they are able to perpetuate their hold to power.

In the House of Representatives, it took all of 25 years to file such a bill. Just recently, Akbayan party list Rep. Teodoro Casino filed House Bill 3413 seeking to stop political dynasties.

In the 14th Congress (from July 23, 2007 to June 4, 2010), according to Wikipedia, it was surveyed that more than 75% of the lawmakers are members of old political families. According to a study by political scientist Dante Simbulan of the Philippine politics from 146 to 1963, there were 169 prominent families at that time, producing 584 public officials, including seven presidents, two vice presidents, 42 senators and 147 congressmen.

I would surmise that while many of these political families have faded following the advent of martial law, new political clans have replaced them, producing even more elective officials and more powerful families. Thus, the Laurels of Batangas, the Leidos of Oriental Mindoro, the Crisologos of Ilocos Sur, the Rodriguezes of Rizal and Quezon City, the Asistios of Caloocan, and other old political families may be gone but the Villars of Las Pinas, the Angaras of Baler, the Belmontes of Quezon City, the Estradas of San Juan, the Binays of Makati, the Revillas of Cavite, the Cayetanos of Pateros, the Pacquiaos of Saranggani, the Garcias of Cebu, and many other new political dynasties have emerged to replace them.

Many of the people, on the other hand, have been accustomed to politicians from these political dynasties winning elections for generations that they have learned to accept, wrongfully I must say, that when the incumbent has run out on term limits, the wife, the son or the daughter has a right to succeed him.

An online petition that has been circulating for some time now estimates that almost 70% of candidates in the 2013 elections come from a political clan. The same petition cites a study by the Asian Institute of Management Policy Center (AIMPC) that says poverty is more prominent in areas long ruled by a political dynasty.

Santiago has revived her anti-dynasty bill in the Senate thru SB 2649 that says no spouse or person related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to an incumbent elective official seeking reelection shall be allowed to hold or run for any elective office in the same province in the same election. It says that any citizen of voting age, candidate, duly-registered political party, organization, or coalition of political parties may file a petition to disqualify a candidate with the Commission on Elections, which shall hear and decide on the issue.

But we all know that the bills filed by Santiago and Casino will only gather dust in the two chambers for obvious reasons.

Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes, admitting that it is helpless against political dynasties for lack of an enacting law, said the people must take it upon themselves to act against political dynasties thru a people’s initiative.

The Constitution provides that the people may propose amendments to the Constitution or propose and enact legislations through a people’s initiative based on a petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters. Republic Act 6735 was passed in 1989 to enforce this constitutional provision.

But launching a successful people’s initiative is easier said than done. The petition must be signed by at least 12 percent of registered voters, meaning at least 6 million of the more than 50 million registered voters as of the May 2010 elections. The signature will have to be manually verified by the Comelec. Just taking 6 million voters to physically sign the petition would take months, if not years, and verifying them would take several more months.

Once verified, the petition will have to be approved in a national election called for this purpose, where the combined wealth, resources and influence, not to mention the coercive power of the political dynasties will most probably defeat it.

The Supreme Court has been asked in a petition filed by a businessman to order the Commission on Elections to enforce the constitutional ban on political dynasties in the coming national and local polls. Can the high tribunal order Comelec to enforce the constitutional ban on political dynasties without an enabling law? Even if it does, how will the Comelec enforce it without an enabling law? Certainly, the Supreme Court cannot issue guidelines to enforce its mandate because it would be subverting the functions and duties of the legislative branch.

So what will the people do to stop the perpetuation of oligarchy in our political system? Does this mean we just have to shrug our shoulders and live with it?

I say reject them in May.

(valabelgas@aol.com)