By Rita Linda V. Jimeno | Posted on Oct. 22, 2012 at 12:01am | 1,018 views
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/10/22/the-problem-with-political-dynasties/
As the race for the 2013 mid term election begins, the names of candidates in the running show that political positions in this country are held as property by a handful of families, to be passed on as largesse to their next of kin. For sure, these candidates know in their hearts that this is an assault on the Constitutional prohibition. Yet, they justify their act by saying that political dynasties are not wrong per se or that the elections are open to any qualified candidate. Are they correct? Political dynasties are both mala in se (wrong or evil in itself) and mala prohibita (wrong because it is prohibited.)
First, a bit of history. When Corazon C. Aquino ascended into power as president of the Republic in 1986, when the dictatorship was deposed, she abolished the 1973 Constitution and in its place instituted the 1987 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution clearly aimed to reinstate genuine democracy in the country and to remove power in the hands of a monopolistic few. Thus, it states: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”
Then in 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.” To further decentralize power and give many Filipinos the chance to be in public service, the Constitution also put in place term limits to elective public posts. Thus, a president has a six-year term with no reelection. Senators have six years. The representatives in the House, mayors, governors and other local officials, all have three-year terms. The intention of the Constitution was to re-distribute power to the people and allow more to enter public service. It was a clear rejection of every wrong thing that the dictatorship of Marcos established.
Having seen the historical backdrop, we know now that political dynasties are wrong and unlawful because they are prohibited by the Constitution. But why do I say they are mala in se too or wrong and evil in itself? As we now see, candidates whose only claim to political posts is largely hinged on just name recall, edge out the more qualified ones in the game. People no longer vote on the basis of what a party stands for. Parties come and go. Its members fly from one to the other. Sometimes there are candidates who straddle between two parties as guest candidates, blurring the distinction of one party from another.
In principle, parties are supposed to stand for an ideology or platform and people are supposed to vote in accordance with which party they align themselves with. Since political parties in this country do not stand for anything but are merely expedient associations of personalities, they do not live on as institutions. Only the traditional political families do. This means power goes around in the hands of a few families. And as power begets power and more power begets corruption, we have political families who can never be defeated by the most qualified and deserving candidate who has no name and no money with which to buy votes.
The term limits enshrined in the 1987 Constitution appear to have even fanned the fire that forged the strength of political dynasties. When the politicos reach their term limits, they pass on the scepter to a spouse, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, as they then run for another public office. In the ingenuity of political clans they have even shamelessly used the party-list system–reserved for the marginalized sectors–to expand their hold on the Legislature. And, as we were suspended in a state of helplessness, members of the same clan have ensconced themselves in every public seat available.
If the Constitution prohibits political dynasties, why have they increased instead of disappearing? This is because the framers of the 1987 Constitution failed to define what a political dynasty is and up to what degree of relationship in a family the ban is applicable. The Constitution, ironically, gave the task of passing a law to define political dynasty to our legislators—the very same senators and congressmen–who violate this Constitutional ban.
There have been attempts to pass bills to carry out this Constitutional mandate but none of them succeeded. In 2004, then Senator Alfredo S. Lim filed an anti-dynasty bill. He was followed in 2007 by Senator Panfilo Lacson and party-list Representative, Teddy Casiño. Then in January 2011, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago filed her own Anti-Political Dynasty bill.
If the legislature persists in ignoring the mandate for it to pass a law defining political dynasties, what can the people do? A petition has recently been filed in the Supreme Court asking it to order Comelec to implement the constitutional ban. If this fails, another petition could be filed to ask the High Tribunal to order both houses of Congress to pass a law to comply with the Constitutional mandate.
The most promising solution, however, is for the Filipino people to exercise their right to amend the Constitution themselves by virtue of a people’s initiative. Under this mode of constitutional amendment, specific amendments may be done. Congress will have no choice but to abide by the people’s will as this mode does not require the legislature’s participation.
This is the 1987 Constitution’s saving grace and it is up to us to use it.
Email: ritalindaj@gmail.com Visit: www.jimenolaw.com.ph