The Constitutional Convention elected for the purpose of drafting the 1935 Constitution was overtly partial to the American constitutional structure. Hence, I have always taken issue with their decision to adopt a unitary form of government instead of a federal arrangement akin to the United States.
Of course, this deviation was purposely designed to establish an extremely strong executive branch. Sadly, this move has given rise to a constitutional order that actually allows governance of the country to be overly reliant on the person residing in Malacañang.
The bitter irony here is that those terrible years under the Marcos dictatorship should have jolted our heads to change course and avoid the folly of giving too much power to a single human being. And yet the 1987 Constitution still did exactly that.
Consider first Section 1 of Article VII on the Executive Department which states that, “The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.” Then read this in conjunction with Section 17 which provides that, “The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.”
The very text of our Constitution conveys straightaway the immense power wielded by the Chief Executive. Indeed, the authority of the office is practically absolute as ruled in the landmark case of Marcos vs. Manglapus in 1989.
“The powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the Constitution. This is so, notwithstanding the avowed intent of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 to limit the powers of the President as a reaction to the abuses under the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the result was a limitation of specific power of the President, particularly those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the general grant of executive power.”
An interesting contrast is the way the Constitutional Court of Korea described the office of their President:
“However, the President is not an institution that implements the policies of the ruling party, but instead, the President is the constitutional institution that is obligated to serve and realize the public interest as the head of the executive branch. The President is not the President merely for part of the population or a certain particular political faction that supported him or her at the past election, but he or she is the President of the entire community organized as the state and is the President for the entire constituents. The President is obligated to unify the social community by serving the entire population beyond that segment of the population supporting him or her.”
The characterization of our President is palpably tilted in favor of how powerful the station is rather than on the responsibility it carries. The South Korean perception of their president really goes the other way with its emphasis on the primacy of the duty of this position to the people, even downplaying its prestige.
Highlighting this very difference is timely given that Filipinos are now in the thick of electing a new president. This is obviously the period where the recalibration of attitudes about executive power is urgently needed. (READ: Take the #PHVoteChallenge)
The very first adjustment we all have to make is to be particularly critical of what the candidates say. Note though that commentaries about them – whether from respected pundits or serious bloggers – should only be supplementary in our analysis and should not be taken as gospel truth. Our examination and reflection should focus primarily on the very words that come out of the presidentiable’s mind and mouth.
The easiest way to go about this is to get hold of their platforms. Grace Poe already has her 20-point agenda. Mar Roxas is essentially banking on the perceived success of Daang Matuwid and simply promises to continue along this road. Jejomar Binay has his 3 Pillars program of government.
Ostensibly, each of us will have our own method to study the nitty gritty of these proposals. But it is imperative that we do not forget the dictatorial underpinnings of the position these candidates are gunning for.
A televised debate would be a good way to hear the presidential aspirants directly. On this score, media must be tasked to take the mantle for the general public. They must be relentless and unforgiving in probing the candidates. Let the undeserving unravel on live television and the destined shine.
Additionally, I likewise propose that we rethink the way we express support for our chosen candidates. From the hundreds of comments and statements I have seen on the Internet, the faith shown by followers of the candidates actually border on fanaticism and hero-worship.
Let me be clear though. I am certainly not against the outward display of loyalty to an admirable candidate. Nor am I averse to mobilizing mass actions for a noble cause even if the face of this undertaking is a respected politician.
I draw the line when the only aspects of the candidate being promoted are personality traits and past achievements. And I most certainly object to the practice of harping on the negative qualities or inadequacies of political rivals under the guise of advocating for platform and principle-based politics when it is so obvious that the sole purpose of the critique is to eliminate the competition.
The plain fact is, the electorate deserves to know from these presidential aspirants the specific public policies they intend to translate into decisive action. We want to have something concrete to hold the winner to account during his term of office. Hence, the same old spiels on “uplifting the masses out of poverty” or “creating a strong republic” or “paving a straight road” will no longer suffice.
Voters deserve to hear a narrative that actually addresses the paramount concerns of all Filipinos. Therefore, we should immediately rebuff “soapbox pronouncements” that are only inspired by the news of the day and filled with spin and stop-gap measures.
Finally, it is time for Filipinos to heed this grave warning – "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
We must all realize by now that this collection of words does not simply form a fancy political adage. This statement functions now as a stern caveat to us all, born from years of experience under Marcos, Estrada, and Arroyo. – Rappler.com
Michael Henry Yusingco is an independent legislative and policy consultant. He conducts research on current issues in state-building, decentralization, and constitutionalism.