Political reforms in the Philippines: challenges ahead.

• Author: Yu, Samuel C.K.

Introduction

Since mid-1986 the Philippines has embarked on a series of political reforms, which started with a revised Constitution. Corazon Aquino, then president of the Philippines, organized a committee to draft a new Constitution, which was ratified by over three-quarters (78 per cent) of the voters in a referendum in February 1987. The Philippines then conducted three presidential elections in 1992, 1998, and 2004 based on the new Constitution. Thus, while the Philippines had been ruled by the authoritarian Ferdinand Marcos for more than twenty years from 1965 to 1986, the polity seems to have transformed into a democratic one.

Is the Philippines already a liberal democracy, or just an electoral democracy? What political reforms are being implemented? How will leaders in the archipelago restructure the political dominance of powerful factions in the country? Is a Western liberal democracy really the political goal? Given the potential threat of the military to the legitimate government, can the Philippines achieve democratic consolidation in the future? In addition, the Philippines achieved modest economic growth in the early 1990s, but the Asian financial crisis hit the country badly: without strong economic development, can the Philippines continue to move towards liberal democracy? As the first civil democracy in Southeast Asia after the end of WWII and the first country to implement political reforms since the mid-1980s, can the Philippines also become the first consolidated liberal democracy in the region? These are the questions explored in this article.

While Filipinos reclaimed their liberties in the People Power revolution in February 1986, (1) some scholars and observers have begun questioning the success of political reforms in the archipelago, particularly because of the sustained rebellion on Mindanao Island and potential military threats to the ruling government, such as the one-day abortive coup on 27 July 2003. This paper argues that, while the nature of the regime has changed, democracy has not yet matured in the archipelago.

The first four sections of this paper will focus on the political reform programmes in the Philippines. demonstrating their progress. This will be followed by an analysis on the broad challenges to further political reforms in the Philippines in another three sections: the fifth section examines the major challenge for political reform in the Philippines, i.e. the issue of the nature of the regime, and analyse whether the country is an electoral democracy or a liberal democracy; the sixth section will explore the second challenge, i.e. the relationship between political reforms and economic growth in the archipelago; and the final challenge will be examined in the seventh section of the paper, exploring the variable of timing. The conclusion of the paper is that the road to a liberal democracy in the Philippines is not an easy one; Filipinos need more time to establish a consolidated liberal democracy.

Bolstering Political Participation

Rule by an elite few was a common political phenomenon in the Philippines. Big landlords and rich families have ruled for decades, while the military remains powerful and influential even after the downfall of former president Marcos. These dominant groups are not only politically powerful because of their positions in both the government and the legislature from the central to the local level; they are also economically dominant because they own and run most of the businesses and corporations in the country. These groups of people have intertwined political bases and economic interests, which explains why they have been able to rule the Philippines for years.

An even more fundamental reason for this political phenomenon is that political participation was a privilege for the weathy, leaving the masses outside the circle of the policy-making process. It was only the rich families who were able to establish their own patron-client relationships, a network to develop their political connections in the government and gain advantages and privileges in running their businesses and corporations (Lande 1965; Staufer 1975; Hawes 1987; Kerkvliet 1974) As a result, those who were in power would continue to garner both political and economic clout, whereas those who were powerless would continue to be ruled. This situation originated under Spanish colonialism, had been sustained since the independence of the Philippines from America, and worsened during the Marcos regime.

Things have changed in the Philippines, however, since the new constitution was enacted in February 1987. The first significant change was the bolstering of political participation. Two approaches were introduced. First, the elimination of appointed officials in the central and local governments. A certain portion of officials at both the central and local levels were appointed by the president during the Marcos era, a procedure that became a channel for Marcos to establish his own political network. (2) Using these patron-client relationships, Marcos was able to extend his political control and economic dominance throughout most parts of the Philippines. (3) Since the 1986 reforms, however, the Philippines, with increasing numbers of elected government officials, passed the Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991, which authorizes--due to a greater allocation of internal revenue collections to local governments--civil organizations to participate in the policy-making process at different levels of local governance. As a result, some progressive and reform-minded local politicians have entered politics through direct elections, challenging the old political factions (Kawanaka 2002).

The other provision of the constitutional amendments was the elimination of appointed legislators in the legislative body. During the Marcos regime, Congress and the legislative bodies of local governments were dissolved in the mid-1970s, and later were reassembled and controlled by Marcos and his associates. (4) In other words, legislative bodies lost their autonomy during the Marcos period. With the implementation of the new Constitution, things have changed, however, mainly because Filipinos now enjoy political rights and the freedom to elect the legislators they desire. More importantly, the new Constitution even limits the terms of legislators to no more than three consecutive terms, an ideal design for reducing the prolonged control of the rich families and big landlords. In the current 13th Congress (July 2004 to June 2007), for example, 83 out of 236 House Representatives, or 35 per cent, are serving in their positions in Congress for the first time, while only 39 Representatives (16.6 per cent) are in their third and last term, in Congress. (5)

It is not yet certain what the long-term effects of the constitutional amendments on Philippine politics will be, but, obviously, this mechanism will gradually strengthen Filipinos' political participation in future, reducing the dominance of the elite. Although some politicians still ask their relatives (e.g. wives, sons, or daughters) to replace them when they retire, there are now more opportunities to get new blood. (6)

Regulating the Terms of Elected Executives and Legislators

A major negative phenomenon in most Third World countries is that political leaders often keep their posts for an indefinite period in contrast to those in the industrialized countries. The Philippines is just one of these cases. Ferdinand Marcos was president from 1965 to 1986, far beyond the maximum of eight years (two terms) stipulated by the previous Constitution. Although Marcos gained political legitimacy by declaring martial law in September 1972, he was accused of misusing his political power for personal gain (Timberman 1991, pp. 73-164.)

The new Constitution in the Philippines has regulated the terms of elected executives and legislators. First of all, the 1987 Constitution allows the president to serve for only one term of six years. Corazon Aquino followed the Constitution by serving in the presidency from 1986 to 1992, as did Fidel Ramos from 1992 to 1998. Although Joseph Estrada did not finish his term of six years, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo succeeded to the presidency in January 2001. To restrict the president to only one term is rare anywhere--even in Western democratic countries like the United States, the president is allowed to serve a maximum of two consecutive terms.

The other important amendment in the 1987 Constitution regulates the term of office for elected officials in local governments. Local officials, except heads of barangays (villages), are not allowed to occupy the same posts for more than three consecutive terms of three years. This regulation is not unusual for other democracies, but it is imperative for the Philippines where local administrative leaders had been appointed by the central government for years. Since then, the turnover of local government heads has followed the rules in the Constitution. In effect, political participation has expanded because of the new rules of the game, as analysed in the last section of the paper.

In addition, the 1987 Constitution also imposed regulations on the legislators, which stipulate that senators can serve a maximum of only two consecutive terms and House members can serve no more than three consecutive terms. (7) While most democratic countries allow members of parliament to serve for unlimited terms, the Philippines is possibly the only country that limits the terms of congressmen. Also, since 1992 the terms of senate president (leader of the majority group) and president pro tempore seem to have been unofficially shortened to less than two years (a result of a compromise within a politically divided and deadlocked...