The path of least resistance

 

 

If we are to construct a hierarchy of excuses for the dismal performance of those candidates whom we would have liked to win in the last May 13th elections, on top would be “the idiots” who voted for those not supposed to win.

 

These are the masses, the ordinary people who are not educated to vote according to Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. Yet, these are the same people that traditional Filipino politicians woo (or buy in most cases) their votes every election time.

 

We always blame the poor masses, because it is easy to point out their inability to choose wisely and their vulnerability to material inducements. Candidates from political dynasties take advantage of their families’ fame and the legacy of those in their families who did well in politics, movies, business and sports. Particularly in the election of senators, popularity and money are all the candidates need in order to win.

Results of the 2013 Philippine elections showing the 12 winning senatorial candidates from the
major political parties and political dynasties.

It is not the masses who are at fault. Rather, it is the politicians and the oligarchic elite they represent who have made elections a meaningless popularity contest.

 

Why do we elect senators nationwide, in the first place? They don’t represent a basic constituency. Besides, only those with money, power and name recognition could win. The results have always been the same ever since senators were elected nationally.

 

No senator, for instance, has ever been elected on the basis of job competency and integrity, except for a very few like Jovito Salonga, Jose Diokno or Lorenzo Tañada.

 

The likes of Teddy Casiño, Risa Hontiveros or Ed Hagedorn have virtually zero chances of winning despite their impressive political credentials compared to Grace Poe, Nancy Binay, Cynthia Villar, JV Ejercito Estrada or Bam Aquino who all relied on the magic appeal of their family names.

 

In 1946, Luis Taruc, former Hukbalahap Supremo and five of his fellow candidates for the Democratic Alliance decided to run for Congress. They abandoned their armed insurgency against the government and chose to take the path of least resistance. But once elected, all six members of the Democratic Alliance were prevented from attending Congress to vote against an important legislation such as the Bell Trade Act and an amendment to the Philippine Constitution that would grant United States citizens equal economic rights with Filipinos, particularly in the exploitation of natural resources.

 

Many Filipino nationalists including those in the left like Taruc and his colleagues in the Democratic Alliance opposed giving parity rights to American citizens. But the US government stipulated in the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of 1946 that payment of war damages amounting to US$620 million was contingent on Philippine acceptance of the parity clause.

 

Taruc and his fellow elected Democratic Alliance representatives were denied their seats in Congress on cooked-up charges of fraud and violence during the election campaign, which left them with no other choice but to dig up their arms and resume the Huk rebellion. In a similar vein, President Noynoy Aquino this time wanted all his candidates for senators to win in the last elections to secure a docile majority in Congress so he could easily shove his pet project, the Bangsamoro Framework Agreement, without stiff opposition.

 

The next time militant candidates would venture in electoral politics was during the post EDSA-elections of 1987 through the hastily-organized Partido ng Bayan, which fielded a senatorial slate that included former New People’s Army chief Bernabe Buscayno (Kumander Dante), National Democratic Front chair Horacio “Boy” Morales, Kilusang Mayo Uno leader Rolando Olalia, labour leader Crispin Beltran, newsman and publisher Jose Burgos, peasant leader Jaime Tadeo, and beauty queen-turned-activist Nelia Sancho. Partido ng Bayan also fielded 36 candidates in the congressional race and supported allies in the local elections.

 

Those in the Left found themselves painfully dancing with their enemies in the latter’s domain and the ensuing result was a miserable failure with all its senatorial candidates losing in the elections. Partido ng Bayan would soon disband after their disastrous foray in the political arena.

 

The legal Left would rejoin parliamentary politics in 1998 using the party-list system in entering the elite-dominated Congress.

 

Under the banner of Bayan Muna, the Left won three seats for party-list organizations in 2000 that surprised even some hardcore members of the underground movement. In 2004, Bayan Muna expanded its electoral base with additional party-list seats for the peasant and worker-based Anakpawis and the women party-list Gabriela. It added another seat for the youth-based Kabataan in 2007.

 

To further expand its influence, Bayan Muna and other leftist party-list organizations formed a broad alliance called Makabayan. It entered into a tactical alliance with mainstream political parties that would help improve the chance of its prospective candidates at winning in national elections.

 

In 2010, Makabayan fielded Bayan’s Satur Ocampo and Gabriela’s Liza Maza, whose terms as party-list representatives were ending, as senatorial candidates in an uneasy coalition with presidential candidate Manny Villar of the Nationalista Party. Villar’s senatorial slate also included Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., son of the late dictator and it meant that Ocampo and his Makabayan alliance would have to grudgingly campaign for the younger Marcos. Both Ocampo and Maza failed to win.

 

In last Monday’s May 13 elections, Makabayan fielded Teddy Casiño as its candidate for senator but Casiño failed miserably in joining the magic 12 by finishing in the 22nd spot. So with Risa Hontiveros, candidate of the social democratic party-list Akbayan, but at least she finished a notch higher than Casiño.

 

Why have the progressive and leftist groups not learned their lesson?

 

The biggest problem with Philippine electoral politics is that the system is rigged in favour of the candidates of the oligarchic elite.

 

Most, if not all, national and local positions are in the hands of powerful political families who also represent the interests of those who control the country’s economy. A combination of political and economic power is lethal. Traditional political parties or their coalitions can easily run roughshod over candidates fielded by the progressive and militant sectors of society. They have the machinery, the money, and their famous moniker.

 

To be successful in parliamentary politics, progressive organizations, including those in the Left, should not rely on elections alone. It’s probably their biggest mistake to aim at winning seats in the Philippine Senate which is anathema to real democratic representation. A better alternative is for civil organizations to return to the parliament of the streets by demanding the abolition of the Senate and the establishment of a unicameral legislature where its members will be elected by districts on the basis of proportional representation. This would be a long and protracted process, but it is still a better shot than fielding candidates for senators who have no realistic chances of winning.

 

Real and meaningful democratic reforms must start with the implementation of the democratic provisions in the 1987 Philippine Constitution such as the party-list system of proportional representation, prohibition against political dynasties, citizen initiative to amend the Constitution, people’s referendum to enact legislation, and the right of citizens to recall their representatives and elected officials who have failed to meet their expectations. This would entail a massive dose of political will by our elected leaders, but still attainable if civil organizations, the Left and other progressive groups, would mount continuing pressure on Congress to enact the necessary enabling law to implement these democratic provisions in the Constitution.

 

Many continue to clamour for the role of education in effecting social change as if education is the answer to everything. That the masses need to be more educated so that they should know who to vote in office, whether it be the president, member of Congress or city mayor. But that is short-sighted and places a heavy burden of responsibility on the masses when they are not to be blamed for our political malaise in the first place. For as long as the country’s mainstream political process continues to be wedded to a false ideology that democracy is all about elections, the oligarchic elite will always find it easy to dominate politics.

Ousted Philippine president Joseph "Erap" Estrada elected as mayor of Manila during the
May 13 elections. Photo by Associated Press. 

After almost twenty years of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos, the Filipino people have regained their democratic foothold by deposing the dictator and dismantling the institutions he had put in place to shore up his illegitimate government. The adoption of the 1987 Constitution augured the great promise of democratic renewal but successive leaders after Marcos forgot this potential to restore and rekindle democracy in the Philippines. Instead, the post-Marcos years until today restored and reinvigorated the old oligarchy and the results of every so-called democratic election confirm the re-entrenchment of the oligarchic elite and their families in the political system.

 

There is always a disruptive alternative to the path of least resistance when all options have been exhausted. But how much more would the ordinary Filipino people bear and persevere with a political system that has continued to deny their voice in the democratic process?

Debasing our democracy

 

 

No matter all the previous misgivings about her appointment, Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno has got it right, at least this time.

 

Chief Justice Sereno dissented with the majority decision of the high court that the party-list system need not represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

 

Recall that under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the party-list system was envisaged by the framers to be a “tool for social justice” that will allow the poor to have a voice in Congress by allotting 20 percent of the seats for the marginalized and underrepresented.

 

The underlying purpose of the party-list system is to promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives. This was clearly the mandate echoed in RA 7941 or the Party-List System Act that was enacted in 1995 as the enabling legislation for the implementation of the constitutional provision for a system of proportional representation.  



Of the total party-list members of Congress, all but five are millionaires, raising the
question whether they represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of the
country. Click http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XN53F4-F1Y&nofeather=True to
view Party-List System, Dapat na nga bang Amyendahan?

So much of the debate about the party-list system has been focused on the requirement that parties or groups registered under the system must represent the marginalized and underrepresented. But in doing away with this requirement, the Supreme Court has in effect undermined the original intent of the Constitution and further entrenched the free-for-all political process (first-past-the-post system) that has hitherto favoured the elite and the wealthy.

 

The Supreme Court has effectively bastardized the party-list system since it is now open to all national, regional and sectoral parties and organizations, making it easier for millionaires and traditional politicians to use the party-list system to get elected. As a result, the underrepresented, because they cannot compete with the resources of the rich and powerful political parties, becomes even more marginalized than ever.

 

The party-list system is now virtually exposed as a mere lip service to the goal of representative democracy. Consider too, that with 20 percent of congressional seats reserved for party-list members, this system of representation is hardly proportional to the total votes cast, rendering it unimaginable for a disunited and disorganized number of party-list representatives to possibly override the dominant interests of the major political parties to pass legislation for the benefit of the marginalized.

 

Section 2 of the Party-List System Act declares: “The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.”

 

From the very beginning, the Act is a defective piece of legislation. While it recognizes the obligation of the state to guarantee free and broad democratic representation, it also identifies marginalized and underrepresented sectors as the principal beneficiary of the party-list system. This is a contradiction in terms: free and democratic representation, yet excluding the marginalized and underrepresented. In effect, it is an affirmative action program, which Chief Justice Sereno called a “tool for social justice” and consistent with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

 

Both the Constitution and the Party-List System Act have chosen to reflect reality, for without the means to elect their own representatives in Congress, the marginalized would be forever voiceless. The law recognizes the inequity in Philippine politics where it is impossible for the marginalized to participate in legislation because the system is monopolized and controlled by the oligarchic elite from which the major political parties draw their members. The drafters of the Constitution envisioned that the party-list system would be “a countervailing means for the weaker segments of our society to overcome the preponderant advantages of the more entrenched and well-established political parties.”

 

Justice Arturo Brion, who voted with the majority, is totally wrong when he disagreed with Chief Justice Sereno that it is not the principal function of the Supreme Court to create policy. Brion argued that the party-list system is grounded on electoral reform but that is a vacuous line of reasoning. Electoral reform for what? In deciding on cases, the Supreme Court is in effect mediating conflicting arguments that could determine and define policy that is expressed in the law.

 

Brion explained that the party-list system aimed to benefit “those who were marginalized in the legislative district elections because they could not be elected in the past for lack of the required votes and specific constituency in the winner-take-all legislative district contest…” With due respect, Justice Brion is totally out of touch with reality. The main reason why the marginalized could not get elected is not because they lack the required votes, but the fact that they could not simply compete with the wealthy and entrenched candidates of the major political parties. Their marginalization is not the result of a failure to garner the plurality of votes but their lack of resources and political capacity to compete against the big and traditional politicians.

In disagreeing with the court’s majority decision, Chief Justice Sereno says that it “may have further marginalized the already marginalized and underrepresented in this country. In the guise of political plurality, it allows national and regional parties or organizations to invade what should be constitutional and statutorily protected space. [It] fails to appreciate that the party-list system is not about mere political plurality, but plurality with a heart for the poor and disadvantaged.”

 

Sereno further argues that Section 1, Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution mandates Congress to give highest priority to enacting measures that “reduce social, economic and political equalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.” This strikes directly at the heart of Justice Brion’s superficial argument that the Supreme Court is not tasked to create policy when in fact the court’s majority decision, particularly with its parameters on which parties, sectors or groups can register under the party-list system, practically amended the party-list law which is a function that belongs to Congress.



Ang Galing ng Pinoy Party-List Representative Mikey Arroyo who claims to
represent security guards, tricycle drivers and the unemployed. According to
the Comelec, Arroyo authored only one bill on the welfare of security guards
and the measure has languished in Congress due to  either "sheer laziness"
or a "glaring lack of empathy" for the plight of the truly marginalized. 

Before the Supreme Court decision, 54 party-list groups were disqualified by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for failing to meet the requirements that they represent marginalized sectors in the House of Representatives. Included in this group was the son of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo of the party-list Ang Galing Pinoy, which claims to represent security guards, tricycle drivers, farmers and small businessmen. In addition to Mikey Arroyo, other groups that can now participate in the upcoming polls include Kakusa, or Kapatiran ng mga Nakakulong na Walang Sala, which was organized by convicted child-rapist and former Zamboanga Representative Romeo Jalosjos, and the Bantay party-list group of fugitive human rights violator Jovito Palparan.

 

According to the Comelec, majority of the 54 previously disqualified party-lists might be allowed to run again in the May 13 midterm elections under the new guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has allowed these groups to participate in the elections as long as their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concern of their sectors. What special interests and concerns of security guards and tricycle drivers does Mikey Arroyo represent that they ought to be heard in Congress? This wasn’t the intent of the law in providing for the party-list system. It’s not the advocacy of special interests that matters but the absence or lack of resources of marginalized groups to compete against the powerful traditional politicians.

 

The current party-list system is already abused as it is by the landed elite and dominant political families. With the new Supreme Court ruling, the dominant political parties will be further entrenched in power because they could easily register their members under the party-list system and grab the 20 percent seats allocated for marginalized groups. As a result, with the election of their dummies under the party-list system, politics will continue to be dominated by the oligarchic elite. In the words of Vencer Crisostomo, chairman of the progressive Anakbayan party-list, the elite will further “trapofy” the House of Representatives. (“Trapo” is short in Filipino for traditional politicians)

 

It will take more than the current party-list system to democratize political representation in Congress. The Party-List System Act was mandated to promote proportional representation as envisaged in the Philippine Constitution, but dominant political families have ambushed the party-list system from progressive-minded groups, and now the Supreme Court has distorted the system by opening party-list registration to national parties and other sectors.

 

We might as well kiss goodbye to the party-list system and embark on a process of genuine political reform that will revolutionize the existing political system.

 

To make the system more representative and democratic, it makes sense to return to the unicameral national assembly under the 1896 Malolos Constitution where representatives in Congress shall be elected directly by their constituents to whom they can closely identify with their problems and interests.

 

The Senate has to be abolished for there is no need for senators to be elected at large based on popularity and wealth.

 

Campaign financing must be reformed and there should be limits imposed on how much candidates can spend to level the playing field.

 

Prominent political families must be reined in from dominating the political process.

 

Then apply the system of proportional representation at the district level, i.e., voters will choose among parties rather than among candidates and votes are awarded to parties in proportion to the votes they receive. In this way, proportional representation will open up the political process beyond one or two dominant political parties.

 

The biggest problem, however, is whether our elected representatives have the political will to go on board this odyssey toward genuine political reform.