Who’s to blame for vote-buying?

 

 

Most Filipinos, especially the educated ones, have always blamed the poor for the kind of leaders they elect. To them, that we have corrupt leaders is the fault of those who willingly sell their votes to elect these people. As if bribery and vote-buying were legitimate while the poor who accept money in exchange for their votes are guilty as hell.

 

Thus, the dumbing of the electorate, majority of whom are poor, is the voters’ fault and not the handiwork of powerful and rich politicians. Why this upside-down view of reality?

Vote-buying in the Philippines. Photo by Photoville International.

We need to review our political history as a nation to fully understand why we have this skewed perspective of who we are.

 

In 1902, then U.S. Governor General of the Philippines William Howard Taft wrote a book, Political Parties in the Philippines, where he examined the historical development of Philippine political parties and analyzed the level of political maturity of Filipinos. Taft wrote that Filipino politicians have yet to learn the idea of individual liberty and the practical elements of a popular government. He recommended the establishment of a popular assembly, to be composed of affluent Filipino politicians, to serve as a training ground for self-government. This assembly became the Congress of the Philippines, and the Jones Act of 1916 created the Senate replacing the Philippine Commission.

 

The membership of the Philippine Congress then was oligarchic at the time, which makes the present-day Congress not that all different. A representative democracy that draws upon all classes in society did not develop and it was partly the fault of the American colonial rulers. The Americans did not change the Filipino social structure. They merely imposed a political system that allowed the existing social structure to gain political power. Taft’s idea of letting society’s affluent members constitute Congress resulted in the formation and circulation of elites that perpetuated their hold on political offices.

 

An oligarchic and elitist social structure was allowed to flourish by the American colonial rulers. In an article, “The Philippine Muddle,” for Harper’s Magazine in 1926, William Howard Gardiner, who also worked as a consultant to the U.S. Navy and State Departments, wrote that mostly Chinese and Spanish mestizos were able to absorb the new emphasis on English, academics and American political history in the school curriculum at the time. The great masses, the common tao, who were children of peasants, virtually were left out uneducated and uninstructed in anything that would help them live their peasant lives more effectively.

 

The mestizo politicos, otherwise known as ilustrados, would eventually lord over the wretched millions of ordinary people who were ruthlessly exploited and forced to be absolutely subservient. Assisted by politically-appointed justices of the peace and fiscals, or magistrates and prosecuting attorneys, these mestizo politicos would hold the common folk in servile bondage, while the chief politico in each barrio would tell them how to vote. While it was the result of natural mestizo cupidity, Gardiner wrote that “it has been possible only because of the political incapacity of the tao millions and because of American neglect and ignorance of Philippine conditions. But as the power to prevent or to correct is ours, we Americans and not the natives, whether politicos or taos, are at fault.” Instead of presiding over the evolution of a sound popular self-government, American colonial rule established the foundation for patronage politics which engendered the formation of oligarchic elites.

 

Now, to blame the poor or the “taos” for the corruption, bribery and vote-buying we have at present does not comport well with our political history. It is the elitist contempt of the uneducated poor that the self-denying educated classes propagate whenever they blame the masses for their political and economic misery, as if this condition is self-inflicted and there is no one to blame but themselves. On the balance of power, the perpetrator of corruption or the one who bribes and buys votes has all the necessary means to exploit the poor. The poor never get elected and the corrupt politicians maintain their stranglehold of power, which in turn they abuse to recoup the money spent for their election and to amass their illegal wealth.

 

Corruption in politics is not endemic to the Philippines. On a much larger scale, corruption is also prevalent in the U.S., the Philippines’ role model for governance since colonial times. It is even more worrisome in the U.S. because its Supreme Court has ruled that corporations in Citizens United are also people and have a right to free speech. This led one American writer to comment that “the Supreme Court has defined democracy as a branch of capitalism, right up to the point of actual vote-buying. And actual vote-buying is a pretty low-rent form of corruption anyway.”

The justices who decided the Citizens United Supreme Court case.

Citizens United struck down certain restrictions on political spending by corporations, which according to the U.S. Supreme Court, more particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. What this means is that corporations are no longer restrained in spending millions in supporting the election of their candidates and their political programs as they are only exercising corporate speech which ought not to be censored.

 

In effect, Citizens United amounts to massive vote-buying, measured in millions of dollars spent by corporations in television advertisements and political contributions with the end in view of influencing the results of the elections. This gives corporations a very big right of speech while giving others a very small right. As a result, it damages equal citizenship, making corporations more equal than others. Worse, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, this is democracy at work.

 

Vote-buying in the Philippines thus pales in comparison to the limitless ability of American corporations to influence the electoral process. What has been made legal by a court decision, the other one is blameable to the poor for accepting the bribe. Both ways, they make a mockery of democracy.

 

Since accepting a bribe in exchange for a vote is illegal under Philippine law, it is interesting to find out how many have been actually charged and prosecuted in court. The height of hypocrisy is when there is a bigger number of people charged for accepting bribes than those politicians and their followers for bribing voters.

 

The common denominator between Citizens United and vote-buying in the Philippines is who has the money, the most amount of wealth that can be used to influence the election.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United affirms that those who have economic power, i.e., large private corporations, will always have the upper hand over the small citizen whose right of free speech is no match to that of the corporation in determining the result of the election. On the other hand, the oligarchy and wealthy families have more access to political power in the Philippines because they have the means to buy votes or even rig the electoral process in their favour. The poor have been made the scapegoat of the rich for the election of corrupt leaders as if they have a choice, their lack of discernment equated to their class status and lack of education.

 

Filipinos need to put a stop to this blaming game. It’s not the poor who are responsible for vote-buying and corruption. We need to build a foundation for a strong idea of democratic citizenship, one that is not just based on who has the money or wealth to buy votes to influence the elections. Otherwise, we will always get the kind of democracy we pay for, which is not much democracy at all.

Bring back power to the people

 

 

The Filipino family is the most enduring political unit in Philippine society, according to American anthropologist Brian Fegan in his book, An Anarchy of Families. It is considered almost customary in preserving political continuity to allow the transfer of political power among family members. Rivalry between families is very common during election time and as soon as they get elected, these families tend to entrench upon themselves a permanent right to political office.

 

Any talk about political theory is one thing, and political reality, another. The 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibits political dynasties to guarantee equal access to opportunities in public service. Obviously, the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to level the playing field. But the Philippine Congress has not enacted the enabling legislation that will define and restrict wealthy politicians and their families in establishing their monopoly of political offices.

 

We have to look back at our history to fully understand why the wealthy have entrenched a dynasty over political offices. When the Philippine Commission established the national assembly in 1902, William Howard Taft, then Governor-General of the islands who also became U.S. President and Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, identified affluent Filipino politicians to become members of this assembly. Taft also wrote a book, Political Parties in the Philippines wherein he concluded that Filipino politicians had yet to learn the idea of individual liberty and the practical elements of a popular government. He wanted the Philippine Assembly as a training ground for self-government. Eventually, this assembly became the Congress of the Philippines and the Jones Act of 1916 created the Senate replacing the Philippine Commission.

 

The American colonial government planted the roots of oligarchy in the membership of the Philippine Congress. While the Americans trained the Filipinos for self-government, they did not change the Filipino social structure. They merely imposed a political system that allowed the existing social structure to gain political power. Taft’s idea of letting society’s affluent members constitute Congress resulted in the formation and circulation of elites that perpetuate their hold on political offices. Since the oligarchic elite also controls the economic levers of the country, passing political power to and between members of their families became almost as natural as bequeathing their fortune to their heirs.

2013 Senatorial candidates. Guess who's related to who? Click link to view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXYK4fKlkIM "Political Dynasties in PH."

In the beginning, political dynasties were mostly limited to scions of the wealthy oligarchy. But with the enactment of term-limits, political dynasties have become a family affair. Thus, when a member of Congress is forced to step down after three terms, the wife, husband or child or cousin can run for office as successor while he or she runs for the governor of the province or the city or town mayor. After the end of the three-term limit, the vicious cycle of political succession among family members resumes again and there has been no end to it. The Filipino family, as Fegan has said, is thus the most enduring political unit.

 

Just look at the composition of today’s Philippine Congress. You see father and son, or mother and daughter, one a senator and the other a member of the lower house. Or siblings sitting together as senators. Or children of their once-famous or infamous father or mother who also sat in Congress before them. Point a finger to an individual member of Congress and you can trace his or her family connections: the Aquino-Cojuangco family, the Macapagal-Arroyos, the Ponce Enriles, the Estradas, the Rectos, the Osmenas, the Marcoses, the Cayetanos, and the Angaras— almost everyone is related to each other, whether as a sibling, a parent or a distant relative. Go down further the government pyramid and you see governors, mayors, and barangay chairmen and their councils who are related to each other, either by blood or affinity.

 

Even the party-list system, which is supposed to promote proportional representation in the House of Representatives, has been held captive by wealthy and influential families. In fact, party lists are being financed by the already-entrenched political elite to ensure access to Congress by their relatives.

 

To level the playing field of the political arena and to prevent public office from becoming the monopoly of influential families and clans, there is now in Congress a bill that will give force and effect to the Constitutional prohibition against political dynasties. The proponents of the bill believe that it will remove the damaging effects of the extended Filipino family system on the Philippine political structure or on how the government is run.

 

But the proposed law will not alter the political landscape. Monopoly of political power and public resources by entrenched political dynasties will continue for as long as they can hold on to their economic power. With their unlimited economic means, they can continue to bankroll their elections or those of their relatives.

The Marcos family - political life after Ferdinand. Click link to view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hV5Xra6f0s "Dynasties in Democracies:
The Political Side of Inequality."

If serious reform of the political structure is being envisaged to cause dramatic changes that would equalize access to political office by all, then what seems logical to do is to overhaul the entire government. Not by an armed revolution or another EDSA People Power, but through a revision of the Constitution by the initiative of the people. It is unlikely that the present members of Congress would pass any legislation that would curtail their influence and their families’ political succession. That would be like asking them to bang their heads on a stone.

 

The current Constitution allows amendments through a people’s initiative. A petition must be initiated by at least twelve 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. How this works will depend on Congress which shall enact the enabling legislation for the implementation of the right of the people to amend their Constitution through initiative.

 

Forget Cha-Cha through a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly. The Filipino people cannot rely on their elected representatives, so they must exercise their initiative to bring out the necessary reforms. So, let’s begin this process by petitioning our representatives and senators in Congress to pass a law that will implement this people’s initiative.

 

A people’s initiative to amend the Constitution may also be a big blessing in disguise for President Noynoy Aquino if he needs to ensure that the Bangsamoro Agreement he signed with the MILF is constitutionally valid.

 

What could a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution likely entail? Let’s look at one possible scenario.

 

First, abolish Congress. Replace it with a unicameral legislative assembly that will be composed of representatives elected directly by their constituents by electoral districts or wards, which shall not be more than 100,000 registered voters. Assuming the total registered voting population is 5o million, the assembly will consist of 500 elected members.

 

Second, abolish the Senate. The present crop of senators, although directly elected nationally, does not actually represent a natural constituency. Besides, there is no need for an upper house which could be the cause of legislative gridlock. Electing senators nationally gives the advantage to those who have the money and popularity.

 

Third, limit campaign financing to one peso per registered voter, which by our example would cost 100 thousand pesos. This would make the election more accessible to all. Personal or private donations to campaigns will be strictly required to be disclosed. All donations over and above the limit of 100 thousand pesos per candidate will escheat to the Commission on Elections, which in turn shall equally apportion the total collections to each candidate for additional campaign expenses such as television, radio or print advertising.

 

Fourth, continue the election of the President and Vice President at large, but no President shall be declared elected without getting the majority of the votes (50 percent plus 1). This may require a second or third run-off election if there are more than two candidates running for office.

 

And fifth, provide for implementing law for the recall of representatives who fail to meet the expectations of their constituents.

 

A people’s initiative may sound wistful to many, but why the heck do we have this provision in our Constitution if we cannot avail of it? There is no better time than now to make use of this initiative. Besides, this mode of amending the Constitution seems far more democratic than anything else inasmuch as the people will be directly making the proposed changes. Not our Congress or our elected representatives when the people have obviously lost their trust in them.

EDSA I is not a revolution

We Filipinos love romance. We always love a story that ends well. That’s what EDSA I is to many of us, a revolution without bloodletting, and the ultimate triumph of spirit over evil in its most romantic sense.

We shudder at the thought of more than a million people gathered on one long street demanding the end to a despotic regime, and when we recall how they achieved their purpose without resistance from the government’s army, we shudder even more.

Twenty-six years have passed, yet we have not recovered from the euphoria of EDSA I. Every year we celebrate its anniversary, even much bigger than our Independence Day parade. To many Filipinos, EDSA I was the real thing.

Filipino People Power. Photo courtesy of manilamommy. Click link to view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL0lM3abUQE&feature=fvst, "26th EDSA
People Power Anniversary Rally."

Never again, we tell ourselves, shall we allow one dictator to rule over us. As if this were the magic bullet that we need every time we face a crisis. Just gather about 2 million people and get them to march on the street. Let their voices be heard, that would be enough. That’s the miracle of EDSA I.

Why did we become so enslaved to this romantic notion that EDSA I and all its derivatives of display of people power would be enough, that it is the end-all to our problems?

Was EDSA I a revolution?

EDSA I was a popular protest of close too to 2 million Filipinos against authoritarianism, against almost 20 years of despotic rule, of wanton corruption, of abuse of power, of crony capitalism. Although the protest was staged only in Manila, it was considered a collective entreaty by the nation to the dictator to step down and let a new government take over. A new president was elected, and the people vowed not to tolerate any more cheating and fraud. It was a united plea for change. But even that idea of change was so vague and nebulous.

EDSA I represented a cleansing of the heavy cheating and fraud during the presidential elections held in 1986. It was the penultimate event to the declaration of the genuine winner, Mrs. Cory Aquino, who was catapulted to the role of a reluctant national leader after her husband Ninoy was assassinated. Cory Aquino was immediately embraced as the symbolic leader of a peaceful transition to genuine democratic reforms. But even the idea of democratic reform was alien to Cory Aquino’s state of mind, so she left everything to her advisers to chart the map towards building a new government that is supposed to be responsive to the people.

EDSA I meant the restoration of the old oligarchy that was removed and transplanted by Ferdinand Marcos with his own political cronies. It meant that Cory Aquino’s family would recover their old economic foothold, in the same way as it did for the oligarchs of the past.

EDSA I changed the leadership structure of government, but not the structure of society. The poor remain stuck in the quagmire of poverty. The new leaders and the new politicians are all members of family dynasties bred by the oligarchs. It was a replication of the old Marcos government, except that the people who ran the government are now allies of the restored oligarchy. Where did the poor and downtrodden masses figure in the new government after EDSA I? They became significant only during elections, when it was time to buy their votes. Their disenchantment toward their government continues to the present.

EDSA I was the culmination of the people’s revolt against 20 years of Marcos dictatorship. It didn’t happen just because Marcos cheated Cory Aquino during the snap presidential elections in 1986. It didn’t happen because the people were angry at Ferdinand Marcos for the assassination of Ninoy Aquino three years earlier. It happened because the timing was right. Marcos was frail and already dying. The disgruntled elements of the military seized that opportunity to rally their members who had long been dissatisfied with the military establishment, the Roman Catholic Church and its multitude of followers, and the disaffected business sector to come out to the streets and join the popular protest. Members of the leftist movement who were the most militant and who bore the brunt of repression of all groups in opposing the Marcos rule during the 20-year period, had no choice but to join the wave of protesters as well. EDSA I happened because the United States government supported the idea of disposing Marcos and replacing him with a new one.

EDSA I elevated the military to a hero’s status. After being sworn to office, instead of prosecuting those in the military for violation of human rights and the basic legal right to express a contrary opinion and for being responsible for the many who were extra-judicially killed and disappeared, Cory Aquino pardoned the perpetrators. No effort was made to establish the truth and seek reconciliation as other countries under similar circumstances had done after their political upheaval was over.

To the media and moderate Filipino intellectuals, EDSA I was a revolution. They were responsible in propagating this myth that people power had effectively spoken and that EDSA I was instrumental in restoring democracy in the Philippines. True, the dictator was deposed and forced to exile in Hawaii. But democratic institutions like popular elections, the free press, Congress and the judiciary were all in existence, albeit subject to the whims and caprices of the strongman Marcos.

Military as shadow government

Nothing very dramatic or revolutionary happened after EDSA I. It simply installed a new leader, someone who did not meet the basic requisites of a national leader but symbolic enough to lead the country from dictatorship. This is the singular achievement of EDSA I, the proclamation of Cory Aquino and the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos, the passing of the baton from a dictator to someone more moderate and compassionate.

Cory Aquino’s lack of political experience was tested early by malcontents in the military. Staging a series of coups against the government, the military kept reminding the new president that they were a crucial and integral force in the new balance of power. So Cory had to assuage a more serious military opposition to her administration. The military had become the shadow government, and the eternal threat to succeeding presidents like Ramos, Estrada, Arroyo and now, Noynoy Aquino, the son who also rises.

Restoring the old oligarchy which Marcos destroyed was also a priority for Mrs. Aquino, who herself hailed from a landed class with a vast array of economic and financial interests that were held back by the old Marcos regime. Together with the old oligarchy, the new power-holders cemented their firm grasp of political power. To those with the economic means and resources goes the concentration of political power. They bred and continue to multiply political dynasties who control different positions in national and local governments. Politicians and their relatives have controlled political power since the time of Marcos, and Cory Aquino made sure this arrangement would remain. An emerging breed of politicians such as movie, TV and sports celebrities was encouraged to relieve the growing discontent of the masses so these favourite celluloid heroes were added into the mix.

Same same

This was the very same oligarchy that the American colonial period ushered in from the landed elites in the 19th century. The development of these families as the new oligarchy was important to the American colonisers, and these families were able to dominate the country’s political and administrative apparatus and shape it to serve their own ends.

So EDSA I ensured the continuation of an oligarchy that would always remain in control of the levers of the economy and the powers of government. What revolution are the media and moderate darlings of the Philippine intelligentsia talking about?

A revolution is always followed by fundamental changes in socio-political institutions after the struggle for state power. A revolution does not have to be violent. It could be extra-constitutional and in the form of a popular but peaceful upheaval like the Dandi Salt March led by the pioneer of nonviolent resistance Mahatma Gandhi in 1930. EDSA I did not alter the socio-political landscape after Marcos was deposed. In fact, EDSA I reinforced the oligarchy and its control of the economy and politics of the country.

If the exercise of people power is to be considered relevant, then we should expect some profound changes after all the public fuss is over. We should wait for something more drastic than a mere change in leaders, like prosperity for all, for example.

With Filipino people power as in the case of EDSA I, you could almost expect everyone to join with or without a cause. To be meaningful, a real mass movement must have an unmistakable expression of resentment and desperation. That’s why the call for a new people power or revival of EDSA I to oust Corona as Chief Justice will easily fall on deaf ears, except for the few who are the clear beneficiaries of such public uproar.

The Filipino masses are in a desperate condition all right, but unfortunately there is no sign that they feel the slightest resentment against the Chief Justice. Probably, they would just sit this one at home and blame the President for his penchant for playing political games.

Eventually, however, change of some sort must be made. Not through another EDSA I or a similar expression of people power. That won’t cut. New forms of structure need to be set up, and old forms must be destroyed. This is the critical moment which is properly called revolution.

Mob rule in disguise

In the February 15th issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, columnist Conrado de Quiros outrightly dismissed as frivolous the growing trepidation that the ongoing Corona impeachment trial in the Senate might bring about a constitutional crisis. “What crisis?” de Quiros wrote.

His argument is very simple. Public opinion cannot be ignored, de Quiros said, because it’s the people who are the foundation of government. The people “are the air the three branches of government breathe.” He concluded his column by saying that “there is no constitutional crisis where there is People Power.”

De Quiros further wrote: “What makes the omission, or exclusion, of the people from all this talk of a constitutional crisis particularly glaring is that we are at the heart of the People Power months. Edsa II took place in January and Edsa I in February. February 25 particularly blazes forth like a huge neon sign in that respect, the date that most embodies or symbolizes People Power. It’s time we flocked once again to the Edsa Shrine, or to Padre Faura, or to the Senate Building, and made our sentiments known. And made our will known. And made our power known.”

Catholic nuns dare soldiers to lay down arms, EDSA Revolution 1986.
Reposted  from Le Montage Photo Courtesy of  princesse_laya.

While de Quiros is right about the people being the true source of political power, he forgot, however, to mention that we also now live in a so-called representative democracy, where the people have transferred their right or power to those they elected through the electoral process. That in making their decisions, our representatives must follow the letter of the law and obey the Constitution, without of course disregarding the weight of public opinion. So if our elected leaders follow the law, then they are presumed to be acting on behalf of the people. And if they don’t, a constitutional crisis is triggered that could lead to a public rebuke of the incumbent government or stir up some militant segments of society to break the impasse by violent means. This is all possible, but de Quiros is invoking people power as the ultimate and only solution, which is messy and chaotic.

What has people power, Philippine-style, really accomplished?

EDSA I brought down a dictatorship and re-installed democratic institutions of government, including the three branches of government we have now, and of course the continuation of oligarchic control of government. EDSA II deposed a corrupt president, but replaced him with a more corrupt one, and of course, perpetuated the rule of oligarchs.

The lives of Filipinos did not change much after both EDSA I and EDSA II. The poor remain stuck in poverty, the economy as whole did not take off and catch up with the economies around us, and corrupt politicians continued to run amuck.

And what will another EDSA People Power accomplish as envisioned by de Quiros? It will destroy the democratic institutions of government that were restored by EDSA I, resulting to the return of authoritarianism where the executive branch or the President and his cabal of advisers will yield uncontested political power. In short, President Noynoy Aquino will tear down everything his mother Cory helped build.

We all know what happened during the martial law regime—civil and political liberties were suppressed, and the oligarchy consolidated its grip on political power and control of the economy. Conrado de Quiros understands this fully well. As a young and brilliant writer, he was a member of the Malacanang think-tank that propped up the New Society under Ferdinand Marcos. He was one of those aspiring writers and artists shepherded by Malacanang to serve the aims of the Marcos repressive government.

Now, de Quiros is at the service of a dictator in the making. In calling for another EDSA uprising, de Quiros is invoking the mob to get out on the streets and push the country into the precipice of another black period in its history.

Tanks roll in during EDSA 1986. Reposted from Le Montage .Photo Courtesy of
princesse_laya. Click link to view "The 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution
is a Big Hoax," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL0lM3abUQE&feature=fvst

Read the following transcript of a conversation recorded on the Internet on February 2010, before the presidential election that catapulted Noynoy Aquino to the presidency (loosely translated from Pilipino):

“You might be eating your own words later. Conrado de Quiros vehemently criticized the Aquinos after the Hacienda incident (referring to the Hacienda Luisita massacre in 2004). But after Cory's death, he was the first to support Noynoy. That’s because it’s easy to criticize even though you lack information. The problem is, you don’t even know the entire story.” [Reply to Prison Break]

“Who knows what Noynoy promised de Quiros when they talked to each other. Maybe he would become press secretary when Noynoy is elected president. You find out the truth in your story which has no value. There’s nothing free anymore today, there is an exchange for de Quiros’ support. It appears you never learned anything.” [Reply to Ellen (Tordesillas) is a moron].

Does it still surprise you why de Quiros is now an avid Noynoy Aquino supporter?

One-hundred-and-seventy-five years ago, in 1837 to be exact, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, in his address before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, strongly expressed his opposition to mob rule, over the issue of the perpetuation of American institutions.

In his speech, Lincoln reminded his audience that if there was any danger to the established institutions, it would not come from abroad. Lincoln said, “If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

But Lincoln was more worried about the prevailing disregard for law in the country during that time. He was referring to the “growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse-than-savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice.” Lincoln, of course, was referring to accounts of outrages committed by mobs from New England to Louisiana which were spreading like wildfire throughout the land.

To dramatize the danger of mobs in many of the states, Lincoln said “the lawless in spirit are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint but dread of punishment, they thus become absolutely unrestrained. Having ever regarded government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations, and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation.”

Because of the growing strength of the mobs, Lincoln admonished that “the strongest bulwark of any government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed—I mean the attachment of the people.”

How do we fortify against the rule of the mob? Lincoln’s answer is simple.

He said: “Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of ’76 did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honour. Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues and colours and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.”

Abraham Lincoln was echoing the genuine voice of the people, not the foolish idea of a mobocracy as Conrado de Quiros seems to evoke by challenging us to revive the spirit of EDSA I and EDSA II as their anniversaries are bearing upon us.

Whatever the outcome of the Corona impeachment trial, the Filipino people should respect the decision of the senator-judges. Should the Senate finally come to grips with reality that the ongoing impeachment trial is useless and will not bring any good to the nation and decide to put a stop to the charade, so be it. Let no one, including President Noynoy Aquino flaunt the threat of another EDSA revolt every time he senses defeat of his needless assault on the constitutional foundations of our government.

Extremely annoying and incredibly juvenile

My apologies to Jonathan Safran Foer for putting the pun on his book title.

William Howard Taft—yes, that same person for whom a long stretch of avenue in Manila was named for—was appointed Governor-General of the Philippines in 1900 by U.S. President William McKinley. Taft was elected U.S. President himself in 1909.

William Howard Taft, first U.S. Governor General of the Philippines and 27th US
President. Photo courtesy of  Life.Liberty. Taft told President McKinley that "our
little brown brothers" would need "fifty or one hundred years" of close supervision
 "to develop anything resembling Anglo-Saxon political principles and skills."

In 1902, Taft wrote a book, Political Parties in the Philippines, where he examined the historical development of Philippine political parties and analyzed the level of political maturity of the Filipinos. In his book, Taft said that Filipino politicians have yet to learn the idea of individual liberty and the practical elements of a popular government.

The Philippine Commission during Taft’s time in the Philippines, which was the precursor of the Philippine Senate, recommended the establishment of a popular assembly, to be composed of affluent Filipino politicians, to serve as a training ground for self-government. This assembly became the Congress of the Philippines and the Jones Act of 1916 created the Senate replacing the Philippine Commission.

As oligarchic as the membership of Congress was in its early years, today’s Congress is not that all different. While learning the rudiments of self-government from American tutelage which the country had to master well during the years of independence until now, one would expect that a representative democracy would have flourished, that the country is now able to draw upon all classes in Philippine society in forming the country’s legislative body. Nothing has changed.

It was partly the fault of the American colonial rulers. The Americans did not change the Filipino social structure. They merely imposed a political system that allowed the existing social structure to gain political power. Taft’s idea of letting society’s affluent members constitute Congress resulted in the formation and circulation of elites that perpetuate their hold on political offices.

Brian Fegan, an American anthropologist described the Filipino family in his book An Anarchy of Families, as the most enduring political unit in Philippine society. The transfer of power among family members is considered normal and natural in order to preserve political continuity. Political competition is seen as a rivalry between families, whose members invest a permanent right to political office once they have claimed it.

Just look at the composition of today’s Philippine Congress. You see father and son, or mother and daughter, one a senator and the other a member of the lower house. Or siblings sitting together as senators. Or children of their once-famous or infamous father or mother who also sat in Congress before them. Point a finger to an individual member of Congress and you can trace his or her family connections: the Aquino-Cojuangco family, the Macapagal-Arroyos, the Ponce Enriles, the Rectos, the Osmenas, the Marcoses, the Cayetanos, the Angaras—almost everyone is related to each other, whether as a sibling, a parent or a distant relative.

Current members of the Philippne Senate sitting as a trial court for the impeachment
of  Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona. Please click link to view "Pulitikos:  The
Philippine Oligarchy System,"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlIsjUnoVLg

Whatever happened to Taft’s prescription one century later—did we mature as a country or have we gone bananas? We should blame him for the oligarchic system of government we have now.

The current impeachment trial of the Supreme Court Chief Justice before the Senate doesn’t speak well about our development and maturity as a government. We have a Constitution which grants the Senate the power to try government officials for high crimes and misdemeanours. Acting as a trial court, the Senate is higher than the Supreme Court but the law is quite clear on what are impeachable offences. Some pundits or columnists of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and other media subservient to Malacanang, or even independent bloggers, they all don’t know what they’re writing about. It’s not about how sharp your pen is or how good you string a couple of sentences into beautiful paragraphs. Impeachment, although a political process, is equally about what the law is. No amount of spin and counter-spin in the realm of public opinion can change the law and the legal nature of the impeachment process.

But there is value and purpose in the impeachment process as a constitutional device for as long as it is not regarded as purely ad hominem in nature. Unlike what is happening in the Philippine Senate today when a person like the Supreme Court Justice is being vilified both by his prosecutors and by those in the public media.

If we follow American impeachment proceedings as our guide, such proceedings often start as a general inquiry and develop into impeachment as soon as the facts are disclosed which would then generate public demand for stronger action. In the case of Corona’s impeachment, the articles of impeachment were hastily drafted and the prosecution soon fast-tracked into a fishing expedition for evidence to prove the allegations against the Chief Justice, such as issuing subpoenas right and left even for persons who should not be there, like the accused’s fellow justices or financial and bank records that are protected from disclosure by law.

The motive for Corona’s impeachment is suspect. We have a president stimulated by vendetta against an earlier Supreme Court decision that was detrimental to his family’s feudal claims to lands that didn’t belong to them. Or, perhaps because the Chief Justice refused to go along with a sharing arrangement of the high court’s leadership with another fellow justice. Arguably, while some of the alleged offences by the Chief Justice could be against the law if only they could be proved, they are most likely not in the nature of impeachable crimes as envisaged under the Constitution.

Prof. Raoul Berger , a conservative Harvard legal historian and Supreme Court scholar, wrote in the 1974 issue of Harper’s Magazine an article entitled “Impeachment: An Instrument of Regeneration,” where he argued that Americans were too restrained about the use of the impeachment process. In Berger’s view, impeachment was an essential Constitutional safeguard – an instrument for regeneration for protection of our liberties and our constitutional system.

During the waning years of the Bush administration, there were talks that went around Washington about the possibility of impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney for serious transgressions of the Constitution. Bush, Cheney and the Justice Department were the focus of complaints about their abuse of authority with respect to the war in Iraq, the treatment of war prisoners, the use of torture, and the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in 2007 known as the “Gonzales Eight.” The political condition would have been ripe for impeachment as an institutional remedy as Prof. Berger had foreseen. But impeachment was taken off the table as many Americans believed it would be viewed as overzealous partisanship, and they could strike havoc at the polls whoever was running as president for either the Republican or Democratic Party. Such was a situation ideal for impeachment as an institutional remedy, as it would make a clear statement about abuse of power.

Does the Corona impeachment fall under Berger’s argument that its proper use is as a constitutional restorative? Obviously not. But the failure to use impeachment, however, could also have deleterious consequences. It could mean acceptance of the alleged felonies of the Chief Justice as permissible by any means, legally or by any form of justification.

On the contrary, however, the current Corona impeachment is destroying the delicate and careful balance between legislature, executive and judiciary as envisaged in our Constitution. We have a sitting president who appears to be interested in undoing this system of checks and balance. By the looks of it, the executive could possibly triumph as the paramount power, if this whole charade is allowed to play out. Impeachment may be a painful process, but we should consider whether our Constitution and the legal order are worth saving.

The Corona impeachment is stalling the more important legislative agenda of the Senate, and of the lower house, too, if all the 188 members who signed the articles of impeachment have nothing to do but watch the progress of the trial. It has reached a point of being a nuisance, a clumsy betrayal of our childishness and immaturity as a nation who’s refusing to grow up. Merely because we have a president who appears to be more interested in playing duck games rather than facing the serious tasks of his office.