Fourth of a series

TOMES have been written about the superiority of a federal-parliamentary system to the unitary-presidential form that we have now. We advocate federal-parliamentary as an alternative. All Filipino presidents understood the imperatives for systemic changes from the very start of their rule, only to falter somewhere in the course of their administrations when personal political interests or the vested interest of their patrons were threatened.

Without delving into lengthy arguments reinforcing the relative superiority of federal-parliamentary, I am reprinting my updated column, "Federal-parliamentary vs unitary-presidential system" (The Manila Times, June 15, 2022). The lists of countries lifted from the 2024 Corruption Perception Index (CPI) by Transparency International show compelling statistics of corrupt countries with their corresponding system of governments.

10 most corrupt, least transparent countries

1. Somalia – federal parliamentary; 2. Venezuela – federal presidential; 3. Syria - authoritarian presidential; 4. South Sudan – federal presidential; 5. Yemen – presidential; 6. North Korea - totalitarian presidential; 7. Nicaragua - authoritarian presidential; 8. Haiti – presidential; 9. Equatorial Guinea – presidential; 10. Turkmenistan – presidential.

Nine of the above are under a presidential system. Only Somalia has a federal-parliamentary government.

10 least peaceful nations

1. Yemen – presidential; 2. Sudan - federal presidential; 3. South Sudan - federal presidential; 4. Afghanistan – presidential; 5. Ukraine – presidential; 6. Democratic Republic of the Congo – presidential; 7. Russia – federal presidential; 8. Syria – presidential; 9. Israel – parliamentary; 10. Mali – presidential.

Of this list, nine have presidential forms, and only Israel is parliamentary. Similarly, of the nations with the highest terrorism index, six have presidential governments — Mali, Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Myanmar and Niger; and four — Burkina Faso, Israel, Pakistan and Somalia — have a combination of parliamentary-semi-presidential governments.

10 least corrupt nations

By contrast, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada and Germany are the world's top 10 "least corrupt" nations. All have parliamentary systems although Singapore had a strong prime minister in Lee Kwan Yew, the founding leader. Include in this list the United States, Australia and Ireland. Only the US, among them, adopts a federal presidential form.

15 most prosperous nations

Finally, in the list of the top 15 most prosperous nations (Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Finland, Ireland, United States, Iceland, Luxembourg, Germany and the United Kingdom), all are parliamentary governments, except the US' federal-presidential.

Empirical evidence clearly indicates that a parliamentary government is superior to a presidential system and suggests further that a federal trumps a unitary system.

President Macoy understood this too well, instituting parliamentary government in the 1973 Marcos Constitution, which was abrogated by President Cory, substituting her 1987 Constitution, which enshrined a presidential-unitary system.

Path toward change — fed-parl govt

Only through the revision of the 1987 Constitution can a federal-parliamentary system be installed. But going through the three modes of constitutional revision and amendments — people's initiative (PI), constituent assembly (ConAss) or a constitutional convention (ConCon) – any of these modes must involve the acts of a disgraceful legislature. This has been attempted several times in the last three decades. The legislature even refuses to pass laws against political dynasties — acting against their interest — although proscribed in the 1987 Cory Constitution. Systemic change is thus impossible through this legal process.

My recent columns suggested sane people in the military act to break the impasse and take control of the desperate situation we find ourselves in. I suggested that "perhaps we need a shogun – a temporary one along the lines of an FVR." Some of my readers, like Agnes Marcella L. "...doubts that military intervention would do much to significantly alter the status quo (as) the system (itself) would devour them just the same. (It's) such a big gamble because who in the military has the gravitas to direct the country in that direction without being co-opted in the process? I highly doubt constitutional changes rank high in the minds of these men in uniform."

She is partly right, as the events that unfolded leading toward the 1986 EDSA People Power uprising abetted by a military component would suggest. The civilian government, led by President Cory, mandated to enact a new constitution instead, emerged with one negating the seeds of systemic changes and reverted to the old and familiar and utterly anomalous. The adoption of a parliamentary government, which was the original intent of her constituencies, was aborted, and a unitary presidential system of government, with all its inherent iniquities, was retained.

Thus, signaling the start of the recapture of the EDSA People Power by the remnants of the old regime, the old oligarchy and her new oligarchy, the "kamag-anak," later co-opted with the emergence of the Estradas, the Macapagals, the Aquinos and the Dutertes, retaining the old values resulting in the continuation of the practices of traditional politics and the proliferation of political dynasties. The fulfillment of the promises of people power cum military component eventually failed, paving the way for the return of the very family that was booted out in 1986 — the Marcos-Romualdez clan. And the narratives of a dysfunctional system continue to plague the land.

EDSA version 2.0

We need to learn from its failures in 1983-1986 when the civilian and uniformed components did not work in sync after the assassination of Ninoy when the political atmosphere was ripe for change. We have similar conditions today exacerbated by the impunity of our political leadership. Former generals and retired military personnel are voicing out their frustrations directed toward the political leadership, calling for their removal. These are allies possessing the right kind of expertise. Civic society needs to reach out to them for a dialogue arriving at commonalities for a systemic change.

This is a desperate solution and one fraught with risks. But with the trajectory, we find ourselves in an executive branch complicit with a shameless legislature, with the judiciary inutile –our complacency condemns us toward perdition.

Another of my readers posits the idea that you only need to choose the right leaders. John Raña argues that "Philippine politics has long been framed as a battle between rival families or a choice between the lesser evil—a false narrative that traps the nation in a cycle of failed leadership. The challenge now is to reject recycled names and demand real leadership. The right leader will not come from dynasties but from the ashes of their failures." John's thesis is that corruption in government is the root cause of the country's pressing problems, and a good president who truly can defeat corruption will not only clean up government but also restore trust in leadership. This is a palliative. Corruption is a symptom of systemic dysfunctions.

No doubt, a decent president is a must. But the fallacy of these arguments has been exposed several generations back. Tongue in cheek, it has been advanced too that even if Jesus Christ sits on top of our Philippine government structure, he will fail. The system will eat him alive.

Kingdom Keepers, a coalition of concerned citizens, is calling for a mass indignation rally on Jan. 31 at the EDSA Shrine. I will be there. This could be the beginning of...

Second of a series

WITH the passage of the 2025 budget, dubbed as the most corrupt budget ever, it is now apparent that this country is led by criminals in the highest echelons of government — the executive and legislative branches. They have, in one fell swoop, done away with the concept of "checks and balances," the main feature of good governance. The separation of powers, the hallmark of our democracy enshrined in our 1935 and 1987 constitutions, has been reduced to a parody by our political leadership.

Consider the following: the legislative branch, made up of the two houses — the Senate and the House of Representatives — to make and amend laws. They also have the "power of the purse" to allocate funds for specific purposes through the passage of appropriate laws. In short, it oversees and controls the spending of the executive branch — the presidency, which includes the Office of the Vice President, the OVP, the president's nemesis.

The executive recommends spending proposals to Congress to align with its power to enforce laws and command the military. Metaphorically, this is equivalent to the "power of the sword;" its role is to take action to protect the nation from harm.

Independent branches — a fallacy

What, in fact, transpired was that the legislative branch has allowed the bicameral conference committee (bicam) to purportedly reconcile conflicting provisions to formulate a totally different allocation protocol, employing opaque budgetary practices characterized by a lack of transparency and accountability.

One glaring example is the equivalent of the unconstitutional "pork barrel," something they can divvy up among themselves. This is the generous P26 billion "Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program" (AKAP) funds, the House speaker's brainchild, the use of which is intended to catapult him to the presidency in 2028.

Over the Senate's initial objections, P5 billion bought the silence of the senators, and the balance of P21 billion satisfying the greed of the lower house, courtesy of the bicam, an entity that does not even appear in the Constitution. But it acts with impunity where decisions are concocted in the proverbial "smoke-filled rooms." And in a subsequent "moro-moro" of a purported line-item veto, President Marcos, complicit to this travesty, left this pork intact in the budget.

Midterm elections 2025

With this connivance, we can expect the Marcos-Romualdez cabal to have the logistics stolen from the people to get their political allies elected in the local government units, which consequently will impact the choice of district representatives. This is crucial to the ambition of Martin Romualdez as he needs to retain his speakership as a springboard to the presidency in 2028.

The incoming Senate could present a different scenario. Their being elected nationwide places them in a near equivalent status to the presidency. Traditionally the launch pad to the presidency, the Marcos-Romualdez cabal needs to buy their fealty.

Of the 12 chosen Marcos-Romualdez 2025 SEnate candidates, five incumbent re-electionists have a fair chance of making it — the fourth termers Pia Cayetano, Lito Lapid and Bong Revilla. So, too, Imee Marcos and Francis Tolentino on their first full term.

Add to this list the possible return of three "same old, same old," Tito Sotto already on his fifth senatorial run, Panfilo Lacson on his fourth and Manny Pacquiao on his second. These eight senators out of 12 get Marcos-Romualdez a third of the 2025 Senate.

But the betting is that the Senate institution will further be debased with the entrance of two Tulfo siblings, completing a family of three: Raffy, Erwin and Ben. We currently have two sets of siblings, the Cayetanos and Ejercito/Estrada, and a mother/son, Cynthia and Mark Villar. On the wings are children and siblings-substitutes indecently waiting. Before long, this chamber will soon be dominated by political dynasties and family clans.

Cries of protests

On Jan. 13, citizens from all walks of life gathered to protest this impunity and massive plunder of the people's coffers. The Iglesia Ni Kristo (INK) called for its membership nationwide to show indignation under the guise of peace rallies. But trolls have also been inundating social media depicting this show of force as anti-Marcos and pro-Sara Duterte — which INK has belied.

On the other hand, similar rallies, particularly in the bailiwick of the Dutertes, are being held, but with a twist — to champion the cause of their family, particularly the VP and pointedly anti-Marcos, diverting the people from the family's own misdeeds.

Nevertheless, all these could be in response to what former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio declared in his social media postings: "...The halls of Congress and the Senate reek of betrayal. This is no longer just a circus — it is a grand heist, a vicious mockery of the Filipino people's sacrifices... our so-called leaders are busy looting not just our wealth but our very dignity. They are no leaders — they are traitors — a ruthless betrayal. Let us not mince words — this is treason. Yet these cowards violated the law with impunity. Our silence makes us complicit. Our silence feeds their arrogance. Why are we not in the streets? Why do we allow these thieves to gut our nation while we watch from the sidelines? Enough is enough. This is no longer about politics — it's about survival."

"But there is hope. We, the people, are the true power of this nation. We can end this betrayal. The time to fight is now. Let our anger be our fuel. Let our indignation spark a revolution of accountability. The question is not if we can fight back. The question is, will we fight back before it's too late?"

Carpio was a veteran of the EDSA People Power (EDSA 1986) that catapulted Cory Aquino to the presidency. Carpio understood the formula that precipitated the downfall of another Marcos in 1986. It worked then. But can this be replicated? Unfortunately, the subsequent EDSA 1986 events reflected Cory's naivete and ignorance and substituted another corrupt government. The goodwill of the hordes of Filipinos clamoring for change was enormously wasted by the "kamag-anak."

Immediate but intermediate solution

All these cries and rallies could amount to nothing, knowing the enormous political power and impunity of the reigning Marcos-Romualdez cabal and their cohorts in government. We need more than mere protest.

At this point, I quote a confidant of President FVR, John Raña's postings on "...the role of the military as the ultimate arbiter of political stability. This is rooted in historical precedent, as the military has played decisive roles in events such as the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. in 1986 and Joseph Estrada in 2001... the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is traditionally seen as a guardian of national stability, often stepping in during crises where civilian authority falters."

At this time when the political leadership is led by the corrupt — with very few exceptions — perhaps we need a shogun, a temporary one along the lines of an FVR.

We need the sane people in the military to take control of the situation.

First of a series

IT is traditional to start a new year on a high note, with a new hope for 2025, discarding the year past, its bad memories and upsetting events. I will not adhere to these rituals. I will digress with a bold declaration that 2024 was a bad year, and 2025 could be worse! Today's column is part 1 of a series that will continue to examine the politics of this country and its prospects in the coming year — and beyond.

It is a Filipino cultural attribute to always look for a silver lining behind dark clouds. We are resilient people, kind people, slow to anger and forgiving people. To endure, we must believe that things will look good next year — always, the next year; perhaps to alleviate the pains of the past and relieve the traumas. Thus, we are often taken advantage of by our political leadership. But the tragedy is we keep voting them back to power. Perhaps we really deserve the politicians we elect. We love to be "pa martir, martir."

Meantime, I will have to contradict the Jan. 1 editorial of this paper proclaiming a promising year ahead. "The Manila Times is looking forward with hopeful anticipation. In our view, the Philippines is beginning 2025 with remarkable strength. While we watch other, supposedly more robust democracies... struggle with political stability, we can take some pride that our political system is strong and sound... we must continue to strive to improve the efficiency, transparency, and moral character of our governance."

These words are a mockery of our system of governance, an insult to our people. I am sure my editors are honorable men and women and only have the best interest of the citizenry. But I maintain that our political system is bankrupt, and the moral character of the people who lead us is impoverished.

A bleak 2025

Similarly, Tatad's column, "Annus horribilis 2024" (TMT, Jan. 1, 2025), paraphrases the late Queen Elizabeth II's speech of her 1992 horrible year, when the three marriages of her children broke down, besieged by the relentless attacks of the British press on her family and a fire razing her Windsor Castle. Tatad refers to the natural calamities that devastated our country, killing thousands. But more intriguing was his description of the collapse of the Marcos-Duterte political alliance, condemning the Filipinos to a sad spectacle of the lowest kind of politics polarizing the country and tearing the people apart. He put it succinctly: "We are today a deeply divided nation. And it is the obscene fight for political power that has caused it."

My year-end three columns and my first for 2025 were an attempt at a way out of our centuries-old governance, a systemic anomaly that cried out for a complete political restructuring: "Our dysfunctional system" (Dec. 11, 2024); "The unitary-presidential system" (Dec. 18, 2024); "The parliamentary government" (Dec. 25, 2024); and "Political parties — the need for real ones" (Jan. 1, 2025). These are long-term solutions to what plagues Philippine governance. Not mere palliatives.

Senate/House hearings

In a travesty of justice masquerading as legislative hearings we were confronted with a performance reminding me of an appropriate Latin phrase of my high school years, "corrupti corrupti corrupti corrupti" (the corrupt investigating the corruption of the corrupt!).

These shameless inquisitors flaunting their million-peso Hermes-Birkins, Louis Vuitton, Patek Philippe, Rolexes and bespoke suits — a blasé display of their plunder. These thieves are the sycophants and subalterns of the House speaker, the house Torquemada ever salivating for the presidency succeeding his weak cousin's watch.

And the intended victim was VP Sara, who caused her people to dispense with hundreds of millions of pesos in two weeks and millions more unaccounted-for intelligence funds. And in her defense was her dramatic meltdown and gruesome threat to cut her ally's head off and his father's cadaver dug up and fed to the fish. This was a clever display of bizarre theater diverting the people from her own venality.

We are entertained by the intermittent meddling of the former president, accused of killing innocent lives during his presidency, covering his tracks as the "capo di tutti capi" — the drug lord eliminating the competition through his "EJK." And in the process seemingly protecting his congressman son's alleged involvement in the shipment of illegal drugs — in cahoots with the so-called Davao Mafia — a slur to Davaoeños. All these allegations, facts, plots and counterplots surfaced during these "hearings in aid of legislation."

And these, as we and other columnists have written ad nauseam, are the consequences of the fight between two powerful political dynasties. The Marcoses and the Dutertes are in a death struggle with the advantage to the former which is in possession of the legitimate tools handed to it by this dysfunctional system of governance — the budget process. And we are all caught in the middle, bamboozled to take sides.

The budget

The criminals in both congressional houses have employed as their weapon a legitimate tool, illegitimately framed — the P6.326 trillion "election budget," distorted by the complicit "third house" of Congress, the bicameral conference committee (bicam), reshaping the president's budget by changing its priorities, belying his proclamation that his budget was devoid of opportunities for corruption. Consider the following:

A failed attempt to slash the education budget, which constitutionally was to have the biggest slice; nevertheless, undermining its priorities with an accounting trickery to include the budgets of the Public Safety College, the PMA and the PNP Academy — bureaucracies irrelevant to the education department, to reach a figure of P1.055 trillion.

Increasing the DPWH's budget by an additional P263.9 billion to P1.007 trillion, the traditional milking cow of congressmen for various infrastructure projects in their districts — a lucrative source for corruption, leakages and rent-seeking commissions.

The defunding of PhilHealth's subsidy jeopardizes the sustainability of health care services and universal health coverage — endangering access by the poor and the indigent.

And the mother of scams, the P26 billion lump sum for the Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP) — the surreptitious congressional insertions similar to the unconstitutional "pork barrel" — with their graft and kickbacks built in. Nominally under the DSWD, Romualdez has become its face and the main beneficiary, together with his minions, for these election dole-outs.

And to neutralize the Senate objections, bribe the senators with P5 billion from AKAP — on top of the additional allotment of P1 billion to the Senate and P18 billion to the House budgets — with no justifications for the increases whatsoever, except that this is an election year.

To rub salt in the wound, Sara's OVP budget was cut by nearly two-thirds to P733 million. With her imminent impeachment, this could be the beginning of her political castration.

This budget could be the most corrupt in our country's history; except that we may still have the same dramatis personae after the 2025 elections as a result.

If this is the type of political system described by this paper's editorial as strong and sound, where our leadership holds the high ground, observing transparency bolstered by their moral character, then we are an accursed people!

May God/Allah help us!

IN the previous two columns, we made a case for a transition to a parliamentary government from the unitary presidential one that we've had since the birth of our republic.

Today's article is a response to last week's treatise on the need for real political parties under a parliamentary government in contrast to what we have under a unitary presidential system. I quote from the Centrist Democrats (CD) manuals (www.cdpi.asia, CDP/CDM/CDPI):

"Political parties are the primary vehicles to gain political power by engaging themselves in political contests, primarily elections. The members and their leadership are expected to adhere to a set of principles and strategies written in a platform unique to that party. This espousal of a vision of governance defines the ideological identity of that party — and therefore, the electorate must be permitted a patent choice as to who must govern them based on what the candidates and their respective parties stand for."

It is unfortunate that our dysfunctional political system breeds the type of traditional politics that permeates political parties where the fundamental consideration is political survival of its elective members and preservation of its pelf and privileges based on the oppressive tyranny of numbers — the more elective people in power the better, notwithstanding the quality of its leadership or purity of purpose. Thus, the dictum "politics is addition" becomes an aberration. Elections based simply on candidates' popularity and their winnability trump ideological perspectives. Political parties therefore are forced to recruit actors, athletes and entertainment personalities already popular with the masses, relegating political creed, principles and their beliefs to the back burner. The electorate is thus blamed for their choices perpetuating another anomalous dictum, "one deserves the government one votes into power" as the dysfunctional system precludes real choices and debates on issues, condemning the voters to perpetual ignorance. (TMT, Aug. 25. 2021)

A great percentage of successful politically stable governments with thriving economies adopted parliamentary governments (Germany, Great Britain, the Nordic countries, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia, etc.). We are extracting features that the Philippines could adapt.

Parties must be member-based

"Political parties as in any organization need warm bodies, advocating shared interest, expanding growth of adherents and voters, as means for eventual political control. These activities require logistics from a diversity of sources. Membership dues are the obvious main source. In the Philippines, political party members seldom pay dues. Therefore, they have no real stake in them. The real stakeholders are the financiers.

"Building solid finances principally from members and like-minded allies, and instituting transparent financial management can free the membership from dependence and control of a few rich personalities within.

Off-election season activities

"The reality on the ground is that political parties are only active during election season. Off-season, they tend to 'hibernate.' Ideally in between campaign periods, elected representatives must conduct continuous dialogue with the people and the institutions that govern them. Representatives need constant feedback from citizens so they may understand changing realities on the ground. Throughout each year, their political parties should organize projects and activities, advocacies and internal training sessions with its members participating actively.

"They need to strictly exercise internal democratic procedures, from inception and execution of programs and activities to the selection of their leaders or the nomination of candidates for public offices.

"They need to impose party discipline, not allowing their leaders or elected representatives in public offices to contradict party policy decisions, except in rare cases of personal conscience-driven issues.

"The party must have its own rules for its members to abide by and should be the training ground for the leaders of the country.

"Consequently, only parties which are member-based, possessing internal democratic structures and procedures, and clear program orientation should be permitted to field candidates for elections. These should all be covered by law.

Reforms needed

"To enforce the desired profile of real political parties, we need immediate reforms in our political party system short of the 1987 constitutional revisions. Meantime, these reforms can be achieved through the passing of the proposed Political Party Development and Financing Act (a bill that has been pending in Congress for several years) which will:

"1. Penalize 'turncoatism' (or the switching of political parties, 'balimbing,' 'political butterfly') and expulsion from elective public offices and party membership if their acts are deemed inimical to party principles.

"2. Enforce transparent mechanisms providing and regulating campaign financing to eliminate graft, corruption and patronage (corporate and individual contributions).

"3. Institute strict state subsidy that will professionalize political parties by supporting their political education and campaign initiatives (currently being done in European countries)." (TMT, July 21, 2021)

Party-list concept

"At that time, the appointed Constitutional Commission (1987 ConCom) was for a shift to a parliamentary form of government from a presidential system. The framers looked up to some European models, particularly the German parliament composed of elected members from the parliamentary districts (like our congressmen), plus those chosen (the party-list) by the political parties themselves on the basis of 'proportional representation' according to the votes each party obtained in the preceding elections.

"For example, each political party during elections will draw a 'party-list' composed of and meant to give voice to the sector that is marginalized or underrepresented inside the legislature. This includes groups such as labor, peasant, urban poor, veterans, Indigenous people communities, women, youth, differently abled, except the religious sector. They are not meant to be elected independent of or outside of the political parties vying for power but as part of the political party itself.

Party-list perversion, Philippine-style

"The heavily elitist framers of the 1987 Constitution that President Cory Auino appointed did not enact the shift to a parliamentary government and instead preserved the presidential system but retained the party-list provisions. Our current party-list system therefore is an anomaly, a mongrelized German/European version where anyone can form a political party of single issues and register as a party-list. Thus, the proliferation of party-lists of athletes, security guards, market vendors, teachers, etc. — those strictly not the envisioned marginalized sector of Philippine society.

"This opened the floodgates to relatives of sitting elective officials, including wives and concubines, etc., or as temporary dumping ground for election losers. To qualify for a seat, a party-list group must receive at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast nationally for party-list candidates. Voters cast their votes for both district representatives (naming specific candidates) and only one party-list (with unnamed candidates) on the same ballot.

"The total number of party-list seats is set at 20 percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives. The allocation of these seats is done using a formula based on the number of votes received by each party-list group, ensuring that representation is proportional to the votes garnered.

"The party-list system originally aimed to enhance the representation of marginalized and underrepresented sectors in the legislative process, allowing them to have a voice in governance, is now the bastion of political dynasties.

"These twin evils of the unitary presidential system of government, party-lists and political dynasties, are the political legacy of President Cory Aquino, embedded in the 1987 Constitution." (TMT, May 18, 2022)

LAST week's column laid down several predicates, which my guest columnist Patmei Ruivivar eloquently articulated. On one level, she made a case for Sara's blatant contrived meltdown as a diversion from legislative investigations pinning her and her staff down on corruption and anomalies, particularly in the lower house. These inquiries were upon the behest of the Marcoses orchestrated by Speaker Martin Romualdez and merely a symptom of the brewing conflict between the Marcoses and Dutertes with surrogates Sara and Martin. Patmei succinctly injected a barbed rhetorical: "... what [is] this conflict all about. Is this about us and our country? Or is it just about them? This... is not even about us... It is not because of any fundamental differences in policy or principle..."

The UniTeam, the Marcos-Duterte political alliance, was simply designed to overwhelm and entice the naïve Filipino voters for the return of the Marcoses to power in 2022, riding on the coattails of the still popular President Deegong with the tacit understanding, now belied, that Sara's turn comes in 2028. This was not to be. Once the Marcoses are back, they will cling to power like leeches. Thus, the open conflict employing language through their respective social media trolls descending to the gutter with accusations of a first family stoned from drug-sniffing versus human rights violators and extrajudicial killers. This is more than the pot calling the kettle black. And their impudence asking us to take sides!

This bizarre public display by both camps is more than just a derivative of the UniTeam's breakdown, which at the time of its creation titillated Filipinos as a political vehicle that will propel the Philippines to greater heights. This was the political theater of the absurd. But the reality eventually overtook all of us, realizing that this UniTeam was, after all, just a marriage of convenience destined for a precipitate divorce. This alliance was not anchored on ennobling principles, revealing a bankruptcy of morals and political ideology. This turned out to be a clash of political dynasties, to quote Ms. Ruivivar, "an attempt by two political dynasties to lay the groundwork for a political fight for the 2025 midterm election as a prelude to the control of power for the next presidential elections in 2028."

Dysfunctional presidential system

On another level, today's column will attempt to put into perspective this conflict within the context of our political system and governance. Last week's column triggered corollary questions: "What's wrong with Philippine politics? How might it be fixed" (TMT, May 4, 2016). I wrote then: Everything's wrong with Philippine politics, period! This tongue-in-cheek reply encapsulates the frustrations of many a writer on where to begin to dissect the multitude of problems and reduce them into palatable morsels. The easier way to go about this is perhaps to focus on the current state of affairs, which has obstinately captured the interest and occupied the minds of our people since VP Sara's meltdown and the collapse of the UniTeam. This column will start with a synopsis of a subsequent piece, "Presidential system, patronage politics and political dynasties" (TMT, March 18, 2018).

Historical precedents

As handed down by our American colonial overlords, the concept of democracy and the presidential system of government was imposed on us, piggybacked on the 300 years of Spanish colonial patronage. It was meant to instill in our political life a novel concept of governance and thus widen the participation of a greater majority of our people toward the path to political maturity. But what took root instead were traditional practices of our earlier culture perverted by the colonialists for their own purposes and emerged as traditional political patronage (tradpol). Inevitably, these resulted in the development of weak democratic institutions.

But the most glaring defect of the presidential system of government under a democracy is that this is the embryo upon which patronage politics is nurtured. For 100 years, the system flourished, feeding upon the least desired facet of the Filipino culture — the desire for and dependence on a benefactor from the datu and sultan, heading a clan, to the Spanish patron looking over the indios, to the American "big brother," morphing into the Philippine president, "ang ama ng sambayanan," the father of our nation.

Ferdinand Macoy elevated patronage politics and practiced this to perfection during the martial law years, when "crony capitalism" came into our political lexicon. To hold on to power, "patrons and padrinos" were allowed to dip their dirty fingers into the public coffers and dispensed them to the chosen electors — thus, a new sub-species of the oligarchy was born, and another word appeared in the glossary, "kleptocracy."

Today, political patronage has become pervasive and has fomented corruption. Our electoral processes, for instance, are the overarching environment upon which political patronage incubates. Paradoxically, democracy can't exist without elections, except that in our culture, we managed to debauch the same.

Politicians, whether "wannabes" or incumbents, spend millions of pesos to gain the support of their constituents. As a result, a major consideration once elected is to recoup their expenses through all sorts of "rent-seeking activities," leakages in public funds and outright corruption — to the detriment of society's development and public good.

And in our presidential system, where the president is elected at large, he is expected to provide the wherewithal for an expensive election campaign. This opens an aperture for a corollary evil influence in our political dynamics — the oligarchy and the moneyed elite influencing the outcome. And we can only speculate on the quid pro quo.

Political dynasty vs political parties

With the constitutionally mandated term limits of elective officials, this deviant model of "public service as a private business" becomes a strong impetus toward the perpetuation of this power base — thus the birth of powerful "political dynasties."

A multitude of ills has piled up, and as a resultstunted their growth, one of the important instruments of democracy — political parties — has had their growth stunted. In truly democratic societies, political parties are meant to aggregate the various and sometimes differing aspirations of the people and mediate between the electorate and the government, translating the same into good policies of governance. Instead, the political dynasties become substitutes where power and privilege accrue to a few families.

The politics of personality sets in, and political patronage is then ingrained in the dynasty's practices of local governance, ensuring its survival.

Three branches of government

Another feature of the presidential system is the institution of the three branches of government, a republican concept reflecting the culture of American individualism and personal freedoms: the legislative (Congress — the House and Senate — makes laws), the executive (the president enforces the laws), and the judiciary (interprets the laws).

In the Philippines, this institution has broken down. A legislature that makes laws and investigates not so much in aid of legislation but as a grandstanding platform for electioneering. A lower house that exerts its preeminence under the dictates of the speaker — a "wannabe president." A judiciary that misinterprets laws depending on the interests of clients.

And worse, senators, being elected at large like the president, behave like "little presidents" entitled to contest the next presidency.

And the gridlock is palpable, preventing good governance.

A FEW weeks back, I wrote: "... Sara threatened 'to dig up the Marcos cadaver from Libingan Ng Mga Bayani and throw the same to the West Philippine Sea.' Gross, yet effective in grabbing control of the narrative. Indeed, there is a method to her madness! Thus, her meltdown in some ways was intentional... ("Dismantling the Duterte political structures," The Manila Times, Oct. 30, 2024).

I was wrong. Her meltdown was real — and an alarming one, too, diverting attention from the OVP anomalies in the use of confidential funds. But this is just one episode of what is now a teleserye, courtesy of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability. Other dramatis personae who are no less complicit have been assigned less than stellar roles — BBM, the first lady and the director and puppeteer, Martin Romualdez.

I lend my column space today, to Patmei Ruivivar's Nov. 25, 2024, Mindanao Times' "Mondays with Patmei." Her piece, "It's not us, it's just them," is a compelling assessment of the complications attendant to recent events. She has been the longtime chief of staff of Mayor Rodrigo Duterte and conversant with the Davao LGU from whence Sara cut her political teeth.

Her take:

"As the conflict among our country's political leaders escalates and reaches a melodramatic turn, who is left doing the actual work of making our lives better? Who is solving our real and urgent problems? Who is thinking of innovative ways to get us out of the mess we are in?

"Before we get carried away and plot another 'people power,' let us carefully think and analyze what this conflict is all about. Is this about us and our country? Or is it just about them?

"We have to remember that those personalities feuding now used to call themselves the 'uniteam' and were all chummy-chummy when their interests were aligned.

"When we were scratching our heads at the unlikely tandem of a Marcos and a Duterte, these politicians assured us that they were setting the example for unity. That division among Filipinos is not good for development and for our country to have an 'umagang kay ganda,' we need to unite.

"And because they seemed 'cute' together — the union of the north and the south — we ignored the warning signs of two 'nepo' babies, both offspring of 'strongmen' who grew up privileged but with childhood trauma, running our country post-pandemic.

"We were caught up in the fairy tale of two kingdoms uniting and saving the world that we did not bother looking for a detailed plan of action on how they will jointly lead us to the Bagong Pilipinas.

"And now our 'Uniteam' parents are going through a bitter separation a la 'War of the Roses' (the 1989 Michael Douglas-Kathleen Turner movie), and we are collateral damage. Who gets what in the divorce? Who will have full custody of the children? Or are they dividing us and making us choose?

"This separation is not even about us; it is just about them. It is not because of any fundamental differences in policy or principle (because the basis for unity in the first place was just to win an election).

"They just stopped being friends and are now accusing each other of corruption and incompetence. It is a contest of who spent the most money without following the rules. It is a showdown of who is more 'astig' and who is more clever in using the existing system to their advantage and how much they can get away with pushing the boundaries.

"When two factions of elites are in conflict, they often use their influence to rally support for their side, framing the struggle as a matter of ideological or existential importance.

"The nation is divided because the elites have the power to shape public opinion, whether through media influence, political leverage, or financial resources. These divisions are exacerbated by social media, news outlets and public discourse, where narratives become more extreme and polarized.

"If we pay attention to the messages from the fighting camps, they revolve around 'Protect the president' or 'Protect the vice president.' The people are being asked to take sides to protect the two leaders. Prayer vigils. Wear black. Light candles. Follow the chain of command and the rule of law. Etcetera. If the people are protecting our leaders, who is protecting the people?

"This madness needs to stop now.

"The people did not ask them to form a uniteam. They decided that because they all wanted to win and be in power. They did not set the framework of their partnership and how the people will benefit from their joint leadership because that was not the point of their 'unity.' They did not even think of us when they were allocating the resources, the opportunities and the power among themselves and their allies.

"And now that they realize they had nothing in common and they hate each other's guts, they expect us to take sides now and, worse, protect them? From what? From themselves?

"If we are indeed in a democracy, then it is supposed to be the government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Then why did it just become all about the president, the first lady, the vice president and the speaker of the House? The gang of four. Ang apat na sikat.

"They are making a spectacle of themselves and have no shame whatsoever to fight in front of all of us and the rest of the world. They act like this is their show and we are mere spectators, not the people they are supposed to serve.

"When are we getting the attention we deserve? When will our stories be told? When will our voices be heard? When will these privileged politicians shut up about their own problems and start focusing on solving ours?

"This is not our conflict. This is not our issue. We should start reclaiming our space and asserting our power and show these warring elites who is the real boss in this country. That is the real people power. Organizing ourselves and relying on our own strength to transform our country together. Not to install another perceived messiah. Because nobody will be good enough for a very bad system.

"If our structures and institutions remain the same, we will have the same problems regardless of who gets elected as leaders. Even if we pray every day and offer masses and become good citizens, our rotten system will still take us all to hell if we do not change it.

"If we continue to think that change depends on whoever is president (or vice president or speaker or governor or mayor), then we will always be vulnerable to 'budol.' The better marketer (or bullshitter) will always win.

"They are putting on this ridiculous show to keep us entertained and distracted from learning how to analyze and think critically. So, we will not think that we have the real power. Once we get our act together as empowered citizens, they can all go to hell without dragging us [down] with them."

Well said, Patmei.

MY column last week was a personal account as a PCFR member-delegate to China. It hewed very close to the non-confrontational and excellent insights of Philippine Council of Foreign Relations (PCFR) president Babes Flores. My focus was on the Beijing roundtable (RTD), not on the Shanghai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou commercial leg of the trip. This column needs no imprimatur from the PCFR and its president; neither is it an addendum to the said report and, therefore, not in any way claiming to be an official account.

During the RTD, I adhered to the Chatham House rule (CHR) that guides the dissemination of information extracted during these high-level meetings and dialogues. This set of rules was originated to allow participants of a discourse like our Beijing RTD to be free to use discreetly whatever information is exchanged with the proviso that the identity or the affiliation of the speaker may not be indiscriminately revealed. The CHR does not apply to unofficial, informal or private conversations outside of the RTD unless such are deemed "off the record" and on background and must be invoked in advance. In any case, none of the occurrences, therefore, are attributable.

But I wear two hats. One as a member-delegate and the other as a newspaper columnist exercising my journalistic license to put things in proper perspective to help clarify events, particularly during deliberations, where unfortunately, there were none. Such prerogatives are used not as an exception to the Chatham House rule but, in fact, to enhance the same. The raison d'etre is simply that the conduct of the RTD restrained many of the 11 from fulfilling the very purpose of an RTD — a free exchange of ideas projected through the prism of individual logic while being filtered and modulated through a lively or even heated debate within an acceptable and conventional set of decorum.

Clash of systemic perceptions

Coming from our type of society, where cavalier and sometimes reckless media practitioners give a bad name to "free press and free speech," muzzling the PCFR participants as a courtesy to the feelings of the hosts was rather disappointing — though perfunctorily self-imposed by some members. The delegation understands only too well that the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs (CPIFA) must adhere to the Chinese Communist Party line. But this should not be a hindrance to allowing the guests a certain leeway to argue a contrasting side, perhaps to arrive at a workable agenda that would justify the annual RTDs.

But to be fair to CPIFA, it was perhaps the misplaced self-restraint of the PCFR that prevented the rest from introducing arguments that could advance intellectual conversation and interchange; though at this level of engagement, the language of diplomatese has not been carefully observed and oftentimes transgressed, reflecting perhaps an amateurish appreciation of the arcana of diplomacy — by both sides.

Clearly, our Chinese counterparts honored us by gathering their best and brightest for this RTD. But their system impels them to sing Xi Jinping's song, as it were, even prepared to articulate belligerently the same as they did; a dissonance in contrast to the PCFR's freewheeling presentations that may simply reflect an individualistic but democratic interpretation of our mission objectives. But then again, their panel had a clarity of purpose. Ours did not.

On the other hand, there was not an iota of information during the RTD that contained sensitive information not already in the public domain. There was sharp verbal repartee and veiled affronts, but these were strictly par for the course for two clashing ideological perspectives, resulting in a non-exchange of ideas but a barter of monologues not subject to debates and thus outside the purview of the CHR. But such are the dynamics of the rarified air of international parleys.

The aftermath

In the foreign relations firmament, there is none as sensitive and important an issue as the current Philippine-China relationship, equivalent in importance to that between the Philippines and the US. When President Obama initiated his Pivot to Asia, shifting focus away from the US debacles in the Middle East, China emerged front and center. And with it was the prominence of its nine-dash line. To recall, the dispute over ownership of the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea to us) remained relatively dormant until the 1970s when China began asserting its territorial claim — after the discovery of potentially large energy reserves in the area. These events have sensitive relevance, as we shall soon see.

Fresh from the China trip, the PCFR barely rested when a looming concern with China reared its ugly head. Our government passed on Nov. 8, 2024, two laws: the Philippine Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act. President Marcos in Malacañang announced, "With these pieces of legislation, we align our domestic laws with international law, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or Unclos, improve our capacity for governance and reinforce our maritime policies for economic development and for national security."

Promptly, Beijing summoned the Philippine ambassador to express its objection to the two new Philippine laws, asserting China's maritime rights and sovereignty over disputed areas of the South China Sea, "illegally including Huangyan island and Nansha islands" — our Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly islands, respectively. China's agitation and formal complaint are within their prerogative, whereas our strong objection to this rebuke is within ours.

But it is a truism in diplomacy during times of crisis, like what we are undergoing now in the SCS/WPS, to refrain from escalating conflicts through extraneous pronouncements and, yes, laws that could have unintended consequences, reinforcing what already is a given reality and, in fact, already within the purview of international agreements like the Unclos. Added to this is the historic 2016 arbitral award that has granted the Philippine position international legitimacy — although unrecognized by Beijing. Thus, the new laws, RA 120641 and RA 12065, in my opinion, are basically a redundancy and an "in your face" externality that does not advance diplomacy.

On the other hand, the PCFR, even prior to the promulgation of these laws, was also confronted with similar statements, pregnant with nuances and even veiled threats by a high-ranking Chinese diplomat: "Please don't push China to a corner... you know that we can easily take over Thomas Shoal (Ayungin, BRP Sierra Madre) anytime. But we are constraining ourselves since we are a responsible great power... let us leave the (maritime debate) to the legal experts and instead focus on mutual cooperation." Or words to that effect.

A paradigm shift — an imperative

Thus, I arrive at the whole point for the second half of this column. And I draw heavily from the Alejandro Flores speech of April 24, 2021, where he threw a rhetorical question to the membership and the board as to the relevance of PCFR as an "eminent foreign relations NGO by 2025." "Are we on track"? he asked.

Being a tyro on the culture of the PCFR, I assume the correct response is "yes!" — having seen firsthand the skill, competence and precious tutelage by each member of the delegation. But the PCFR could further enhance its role if it is allowed to give direct inputs to the country's lawmaking body — Congress, consisting of the House and the Senate.

This, I humbly submit.