The Philippines had a strategic reset in 1986! Before the People Power Revolution struck, Filipinos have had enough of the corruption and abuse of power dealt to them by an administration that had too long been in power. It had not always been bad for the governance of Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. In fact, many people attested that Marcos did almost everything right in his first term in office and knew exactly what ailed the Filipino nation.
I’ve also read the book, “Marcos of the Philippines”, and was impressed by how well Marcos knew the problems of the country and how to solve them. However, as befalls almost any rule, being in power has a way of corrupting those who hold it. Marcos was no exception and so in his second term, he plotted to stay in power even beyond his constitutional term of office limits.
To realize his ambition, Marcos first declared martial law in 1972 citing the communist insurgency, growing civil unrest, and a staged assassination attempt on the life of his defense secretary to justify his act. Paradoxically, he legitimized his unprecedented illegitimacy by amending the 1935 Constitution into its 1973 version. It was this same version that the succeeding administration of Corazon Aquino also amended, turning it into its 1987 version all in the name of “De-Marcosification.” (Also read: A template for regime change)
While a nation’s constitution is its strategic blueprint towards a progressive future, it could also spell its doom if provisions in it are infirm. Philippine development has seen several ups and downs since then. Today witnesses what could be said to be the worst period in the country’s history when it is the government itself, immediate past and present, that is the nation’s worst trouble. Ironically, much of the dysfunction can be traced to that weak document crafted 38 years ago.
A constitution is meant to address the permanent aspirations of an entire nation as one, more than just to articulate the national values. By all accounts, the nation’s values are important but only insofar as they advance the common good of the nation, and not just a few. It must be emphasized that Filipinos already faced certain realities that challenged governance at the time the constitutional convention delegates gathered in 1987.(Also read: Filipinos want accountability amidst economic issues—SWS survey)
Dr. Amelia Varela, a professor of mine at the University of the Philippines, identified these challenges. She referred to them as our cultures of corruption, patronage, ambiguity, mediocrity, and dualism. These are the challenges that should have been at the forefront of initiatives to enact a new constitution. By way of illustration, do the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and its amendments effectively address corruption, patronage, ambiguity, mediocrity, and dualism? Judging from today’s headlines, the answer is a resounding NO! In hindsight, and towards assessing the nation’s journey, this is a huge disappointment.
While it may be simplistic for some of us to criticize that legislated policy and executed policy action are two different things, let me clarify that they are not. Policy and policy action are, in fact, one and the same. So, you see, the problem is not in the content of policy or policy implementation per se, but in the spirit of the law that was not addressed by the letter of that law.
Adopting De-Marcosification post-EDSA was easy, but it did not solve even the problems that already existed in the Philippines when Marcos Sr. took office in 1966. The effectiveness of a genuine fundamental law would have aimed at addressing corruption, patronage, ambiguity, mediocrity, and dualism – because these are the socio-economic ills that have always eaten away at the core of Filipino society disguised through its still feudal structure and its underpinnings in political dynasties.
Just a listing of what can be construed as strategic blunders since the revolution in1986 can give us a glimpse of what-could-have-beens for the Filipino nation.
First, we wonder what could have been, had Corazon Aquino exploited the window of opportunity offered by the revolutionary period to be the benevolent dictator needed by the times – radically reforming the socio-political landscape for the common good of the republic. Second, we also wonder what would have been had military adventurists successfully staged a coup overthrowing the duly-constituted government and installing a military junta instead in 1987 or 1989. Third, we must be wondering if China would have bullied the Philippines the way it has done had the lease of the U.S. bases in the country been extended beyond 1991 when it expired. Fourth, there are controversial provisions in the 1987 Constitution which continue to affect the nation to this day.
There is the change from a dual party-system to a multiparty system resulting in a minority president. There is also the dissolution of the Philippine Constabulary as a military branch and the establishment of the civilian Philippine National Police in its stead. Party-list representatives have been enabled. There are many other changes and today we wonder if these have done Filipinos more good than harm.
With all the news about massive corruption happening in the Philippines today, we wonder how long the nation and its people can endure. Yet, even with all its domestic woes, the country is also faced with the possibility of hostilities erupting involving China and the United States if the former decides to invade Taiwan soon.
That is why having a dysfunctional government is a nation’s worst trouble. In fairness to the present administration, much of the massive corruption issues trace their roots to the previous Duterte administration. It is a good thing that the structure of executive governance in the Philippines, borrowed from the Americans, comprises both a permanent civil service bureaucracy and temporary political appointees.
The former has civil service tenure and therefore the employees serve in the public administrative system regardless of whoever is the president. On the other hand, the political appointees come and go depending upon the winning administration. If there is any semblance of stability in the government, even a bad one, it is owed to the professional civil service bureaucracy.
Much of the corrupt practices occur with the temporary politicians and political appointees (not everyone of course) who feel they need to recover campaign expenditures or exploit their limited window of opportunity for a hefty windfall, even at the expense of their sworn oaths of ethical responsibility and public accountability. The professional civil service bureaucracy also allows even incompetent political appointees to thrive because they can do all the work.
The role of the presidency and all political appointees it empowers is strategic in nature. The coming of a new administration always signals the potential for massive political shifts in policy formulation and implementation. (Also read: Marcos starts consolidation, purges Duterte loyalists)
Essentially, this administration is likewise the interface between the national body politic it leads and the external global partnerships it will have to deal with towards advancing its national security and interest goals in the community of nations.