By TONY LOPEZ
Two provisions of the 1987 Constitution explain why our government became very incompetent and very corrupt, resulting in the most breathtaking economic decline in Asia, from the region’s second richest or even richest (after Japan was nuked by the US, twice) in the 1960s to the 21st century.
One, the removal of the two-party system, the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party, with the installation of the multi-party system under the 1987 Constitution.
Two, the facile ban on political dynasties.
The dynasty ban is in two forms—1) term limits; and 2) a direct ban, Article II Section 26: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” Congress has not passed the law defining a dynasty. A dynasty is a family—from grandparents to grandchildren.
The president is limited to a single six-year term. Senators are limited to two six-year terms. Then, they can take a break of three years, and run again, for a new two six-year terms; then take a break, of three years, and then run again for another two six-year terms, then take a break and run again, til they die.
Congressmen, provincial governors, and city and town mayors are limited to three three-year terms or nine years. Each can all take a break, of three years, and run again for three three-year consecutive terms.
Instead of limiting the years in power of political families, the Constitution’s term limit provisions exponentially increased the number of family members running for public office — especially for senators, congressmen, governors, and mayors. The father would ask his wife, his children, and his siblings, if any, to take his place, while taking the required break in compliance with term limits.
The facile ban on dynasties through term limits has had three deleterious, even fatal, consequences to a functioning democracy and an egalitarian society:
1) Massive incompetence, because the successor relatives are usually not as qualified or not as committed to public service as the ruling patriarch;
2) Massive corruption, because the successor relatives employ the same corrupt or incompetent governing teams of the patriarch, or become even greedier than the graduating patriarch; and
3) An outrageous political, social and economic inequality because the ruling families or clans behave as if they are the only humans favored by God, and damn the people.
Abolition of the two-party system
Three provisions in Article IX-C of the charter abolished the two-party system:
— Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people.
— Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
— Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented in the voters’ registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.
With two-party system gone, government-funded campaign finance was also gone. This made elections very expensive and candidates beholden to vested interests because they must raise huge campaign money on their own. How do you recover your campaign expenses? By being corrupt.
Under the 1935 Constitution, the NP and LP alternated for political power, from the presidency down to the lower levels of the political totem pole.
The NP and LP were represented in the precinct-level three-person board of election and board of canvassers. A teacher chaired the board; the members were one NP and one LP representative, both of whom received copies of the tally of votes counted, per precinct. The presence of the two party representatives ensured a quick and honest count and therefore, an honest election. All three—the teacher, the NP and LP representatives were funded by the government because the NP and LP representatives were also teachers. This was the original campaign finance.
For the candidates, the old setup saved them a lot of money. They did not need to pay for their inspectors, which today would be P1,000-P2,000 per day, in more than 100,000 precincts. That’s P100 million to P200 million. You need two relievers so you need three watchers per precinct, that’s P300 million-600 million. A candidate for president or for senator, for watchers alone must spend P600 million, money that can only be recovered through corruption once elected.
In old times, with campaign finance settled, the NP and LP concentrated on capturing political power, by fielding the best and brightest in each region, for the Senate, the springboard to the presidency.
The NP and LP sought out the best and brightest from each region, even if they were unknown: Ferdinand Marcos or Camilo Osias in Region I, Juan Ponce Enrile in Region II, Quintin Paredes in CAR, Jose Roy or Benigno Aquino Jr in Region III (Central Luzon); Arturo Tolentino or Ernie Maceda in Manila; Jovito Salonga or Lorenzo Sumulong, Rizal; Jose W. Diokno, Lorenzo Tañada Manuel L. Quezon, Southern Luzon; Tecla San Andres Ziga, Bicol; Carlos Garcia, Bohol; Mariano Cuenco, Sergio Osmeña or Vicente Sotto, Cebu; Jose Yulo of Negros Occidental, and so on.
The high quality of senators ensured good governance and less corruption, in the legislature and in the presidency.
Eight of the first ten Philippine presidents were bar topnotchers—Manuel Quezon, Sergio Osmeña, Jose Laurel, Manuel Roxas, Elpidio Quirino, Carlos Garcia, Diosdado Macapagal, and Ferdinand Marcos. Six were senators first.
From 1946 to 1966, a third to half of 24 senators were lawyers; nearly all of them bar topnotchers. The economy grew 6% yearly.
And the next president? An actor. A broadcaster. A dynast.