The best I can say about the draft Constitution of 2019-2020 is that it institutionalizes the party system and bans political dynasties.
No parents, no husbands or wives, and no children can succeed incumbents.
“The Federal Republic shall ensure the development and strengthening of political parties as mechanisms of citizen representation and democratic governance,” says Section 4 Article V of the draft charter. Their campaigns will be funded by a so-called Democracy Fund funded by citizens’ contribution not exceeding P100,000 each.
Section 7 of same Article V adds: The Federal Republic shall ensure strong and cohesive political parties.
(a) Members of any political party elected to public office are prohibited from changing political parties within their term of office.
(b) Candidates and officials of any political party are prohibited from changing political party two (2) years after the election and two (2) years before the next election.
Section 8 same article says: (a) A political dynasty exists when a family whose members are related up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, whether such relations are legitimate, illegitimate, half, or full blood, maintains or is capable of maintaining political control by succession or by simultaneously running for or holding elective positions.
(b) No person related to an incumbent elective official within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, as described above, can run for the same position in the immediately following election.
(c) Persons related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, as described above, are prohibited from running simultaneously for more than one national and one regional or local position. However, in the event that two or more members of the same family are running, the member who shall be allowed to be a candidate shall be determined by the drawing of lots.
My biggest concern about the draft charter is that it seeks to establish a federal system of government with 18 independent states under a single federal republic.
I blame the abolition of the two-party system of 1935 to 1986 for the rampant graft and incompetence in all levels of government today.
Under the rule of the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party, the aim of each party was control of government. To control government, each party sought to control the Senate, and from there, control of the presidency. Our presidents used to come from the Senate.
To control the Senate, each party sought to field the best and brightest of men and women from the major regions. This policy ensured competence and a certain level of adherence to time honored values like integrity and honesty.
Thus, we had Arturo Tolentino, Jovito Salonga, Ambrosio Padilla, Gil Puyat, Raul Manglapus, and Tecla San Andres Ziga from Metro Manila and Rizal, for instance; Jose W. Diokno, Lorenzo Sumulong, and Lorenzo Tañada from Southern Luzon; Ferdinand Marcos and Camilo Osias from northern Luzon; Benigno S. Aquino Jr., Juan Liwag, and Jose Roy from Central Luzon; Sergio Osmeña, Gerardo Roxas and Rodolfo Ganzon from the Visayas; and Emmanuel Pelaez and Alejandro Almendras from Mindanao. Certainly, these senators were better than our present crop of senators today.
Many of these senators were lawyers (law it seems was the best preparation for politics and governance). The lawyers either topped their law class or were bar topnotchers—Tolentino (1934), Diokno (1944), Marcos (1939), and Pelaez (1938).
Before 1987, whenever the president of the Philippines was a lawyer, he was usually a bar topnotcher—Manuel Quezon (1903), Manuel Roxas (1913), Diosdado Macapagal (1936), Ferdinand Marcos (1939), Jose Laurel (1915), Elpidio Quirino (1915), Sergio Osmeña (1903), Carlos Garcia (1923), and Tolentino (duly elected vice president, 1986).
This dominance of bar topnotchers and therefore competent presidents was because of the two-party system and the parties’ policy of choosing only the best and brightest for national positions. No wonder, during the reign of bar topnotcher-presidents, the Philippines was the second richest country in Asia, after Japan.
One other benefit of the two-party system: Presidential elections were funded by the parties and relied less on vested business interests. The two-party system somehow ensured clean elections since each election return had to be signed by a representative of each of the two parties before it could be tallied.
Cory Aquino, whose election as snap election president in 1986, has never established the two-party system.
The result was gross incompetence and massive corruption.
Proof: In the last 30 years, in the entire Asian continent, only the Philippines failed to reduce its poverty substantially. In 1987, at least 25 million Filipinos were mired in poverty. Today, 25 million Filipinos are still mired in poverty.
The Philippines has one of the worst income inequality ratios in the world. The 20 richest Filipinos account for 60 percent for the economy’s output. In countries with such bad ratios and where the masses are suffering and dispossessed, daily rioting should be a natural occurrence.
According to the Corruption Perception Index, the Philippines ranked 111th (No. 1 being the cleanest) among 180 countries surveyed. This is PH’s lowest ranking in five years. Its score is 34 out of a possible 100. The CPI ranks countries and territories based on their “perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and business people.”
Since corruption became such a huge business (easily a third of the national budget is stolen yearly; the budget is P3.767 trillion, so corruption is a P1.1-trillion business). Only 80 political families, the dynasties, help themselves to it, to the detriment of 105 million Filipinos.
Why the corruption? Since the parties could not fund their presidential candidates, would-be presidents had to rely on donors (the tycoons and taipans) and/or creating all kinds of scams (such as no driver’s licenses and no license plates, Dengvaxia, bogus health clinics, and infra projects awarded to favored corporations which in turn donated campaign money).
Why the incompetence? Rich candidates and candidates with no preparation for the presidency but are awesomely popular ran and won.
Why am I against having 18 federal states?
Well, today, you have only one president as a tyrant. Imagine having 18 tyrants, with each tyrant belonging to a dynasty.
Wow!
biznewsasia@gmail.com
