Ending The Recurring Crisis of Governance in the Philippines

Learning from Lost Opportunities and Moving On

by Edmund S. Tayao

A colleague from another university approached me at the conclusion of a Senate

hearing I attended some time back. She says while she agrees with what I said, it
might result to the bill not being passed which they have been advocating and
campaigning for, for some time. Even the chair of the committee told me that my
comments are all well taken but they were already at the stage where they prefer
specific suggestions for the provisions of the would be law. The Senate hearing was
about the Anti-Political Dynasty bill and is expected to be a significant reform
measure to be legislated. It was to my memory the third of such hearing I was to
attend and I would always say, it is not a significant reform measure compared to
other (what is to me more important reform measures) reform initiatives like,

1. The political party reform law (making political parties subject to auditing
laws like any public institution while it can raise its own funds);

2. Electoral reform (Basically a way to look at our system of representation and

contribute to the strengthening of political parties. Multi-member
constituencies and real proportional system of representation along with the
traditional single plurality districts as we do it now, should be considered
instead of the cumbersome, enervated and even abused party-list system);

3. The revision of the Local Government Code (there should be a graduated

formula in the share of local governments from national taxes, and that the
size of local government units should be reconfigured in favor of
amalgamation instead of the present turfing system which is actually the
culprit to political dynasty);

4. The lifting of economic restrictions to foreign investments in the Constitution

and allowing Congress to decide in what industries, sectors and location to
allow foreign capital;

5. The Competition Law (our version of the Anti trust laws in other countries),
an important legislation that can start the process of ridding the country of
monopolies;

6. Reconfiguring and revising the Administrative Code. We should learn from

other countries where everything that is internal is coordinated thru the interior
department, while all that is foreign is thru the foreign affairs department,
again to prevent turfing at the national government level and promoting
collaboration and more effective coordination; and ultimately,

7. The shift of our political system from Presidential to Parliamentary system (an
initiative since the 1960s which the late statesman Claro M. Recto called for,
and popularized in the 90s by the late Dr. Pablo Tangco), with a Federal form
of government (first popularized in the 1990s by a special committee of the
 Philippine Political Science Association, the Committee on Constitutional
Continuity and Change or 4Cs chaired by Dr. Jose Pepe Abueva).

While I agree that political dynasty is a symptom of a weak if not farcical democratic
system, having an anti-political dynasty measure will not address the problem.
Political Dynasty is an effect of the prevailing political and economic system in the
country and only a systemic or institutional approach could undo it. Let's say it will
prevent families from dominating elected positions, the unintended effect is it will
lessen our choices of "qualified and educated" candidates for elected office. Note that
the reality is, only local elites are able to get good education, which is a requisite for
effective political leadership. In fact it might even worsen the situation where we
have been electing unqualified but popular political leaders. All these I listed and
discussed require a more extensive piece. For the current purpose, it is important that
our focus is made to be on the approaches we should seriously consider to end the
"recurring crisis of governance."

Let's Stop Shortcuts, Stopgap Measures and Knee-jerk Reactions

Without doubt, everyone was incensed when the news on the alleged abuse of PDAF
by members of both houses of congress came out. As if overnight we've seen so
many groups calling for its abolition and as if on cue, the President declared the end
of it. Then the Supreme Court promptly declared it unconstitutional. Whether indeed
there's no more pork barrel and similar discretionary fund is of course an entirely
different story.

This abolition is a good example of how we make policies in this country; PDAF is
bad and therefore should be abolished. Never mind that it is consistent with the
principle of taxation. Never mind that if used consistently with its intent, i.e. to factor
in representation in the identification of projects and or programs to be funded by
government, it is an equalizer of sorts. Never mind that there are a good number of
others who used their PDAF in a good way and that its abolition means the end to
some good initiatives. Never mind most importantly that the problem is not the fund,
but the use of it, the absence of a mechanism that will ensure its good use and
accountability. Never mind that abolishing PDAF does not mean that the money will
no longer be there and will surely be free from abuse. Never mind that despite
arguments against the role of legislators on the use of public funds, an Executive or
department that has sole authority to use funds, is one that has indisputable political
power.

How about the K to 12 program? There are several arguments that led the
Department of Education consider additional years, following the same number of
years required of basic education in other countries. One of which, and probably the
most important of many arguments is that the quality of education in the country is
getting worse. And so, the solution is to add 2 more years immediately so that there'll
be more time for basic education.

Never mind that there must be needed improvement in the hiring and sustaining a
career for qualified teachers; if only there's a serious assessment of the state of
employment of teachers, one will surely note that many teachers are handling subjects
they are not prepared for or have the educational background. Never mind that there
has to be more classrooms all over the country to accommodate yearly increasing
number of first graders. Never mind the need to continuously review curriculum and
pedagogy, so that the young are made to be interested to learn more and even start to
imagine a career in the future. Very much related to the previous and more
importantly, never mind that there has to be a program developed for the new k to 12
policy and timeframe for basic education before undoing what is already in place.
Lastly for our purposes here, never mind the need of a system of sustainable funding
for publicly funded education in the country that includes a clear delineation of what
the national and the local can and cannot do as far as education is concerned.

The above gives us a picture of how policymaking takes place in this country. There
seem to be a tendency to look for a quick solution to any and all problems, kneejerk
reactions that not only fail to solve the problem, but also could even make it worst or
result to another problem. Whether its time or resources constraints, our policy
process seem to lack the all important first step, that is, knowing the problem; a
comprehensive assessment that will show not only what the problem is and what
caused it. A comprehensive assessment should reveal how the problem affects other
factors, whether it is a cause or an effect, and therefore whether addressing it require
understanding of other related factors and problems.

All Boils Down To Institutions

In my early days in a professional association, there was a discussion where a political

scientist argued that there is no Filipino Nation. This explains why there’s no unity
and seemingly lack of discipline in our society. This explains the proverbial
whipping boy of the country’s underdevelopment, culture. But what is a nation? And
which country today actually could qualify as a nation if say we define it as one of a
“people who shares common language, background, culture” etc? What is culture?
How is culture different from behavior or how people demonstrate some form of
discipline? Would it not be helpful to understand institutions instead, so that we can
understand our nationhood, our culture and how we behave?

There are so many scholarly works on nationhood and institutions, which could very
well lead us to probable answers to the questions we raised. On the other hand, we
just have to take a good look around us and make sense of public institutions and see
whether any of these inspire some common identity, if not awe. There’s no arguing
the fact that these institutions surely elicit ambition from many regardless of
background, but for what, to serve the people, his family or just himself? The point in
all these is the significance of institutions plays in a society or a country, which right
now is all but negative in our case.

In essence, institutions suggest the existence of a system needed in order to achieve

something consistent with the common good. The existence of a system on the other
hand is felt only when it is working and therefore appreciated by the people. The
appreciation of the people then leads to a sense of pride and ultimately of
identification to it. Institutions serve not only as means to an end that is valued by
everyone, could be succinctly summarized by “one’s well-being”, but also as symbols
for one to identify with or as cue to behave in a particular way or even to accomplish
something. Institutions are fundamental to nationhood, or the pride that comes with
one’s identity and background.

The thesis of this teaser piece is for us to start thinking about long-term, systemic
approaches to solving our governance problems. While the objective is to have a
functioning government, which includes participation and therefore effective
representation that leads to better policy making and program formulation, including
accountability and transparency, the overall impact of a functioning set of public
institutions, of a working political system, is that the individual has every reason to
feel proud to be Filipino and thus develop a concept of nationhood. Not that we do
not have one now but there is a clear need to strengthen it and result to a sense of
pride. How we start is the foremost consideration and will require contribution from
everyone and every sector.

Just to start the discussion of how, why not start in the elections? Can we make the
issues at the center of the coming elections that we make the candidates think about
their political platforms seriously? Right now, all we hear from them are mother hood
statements, which also impact on how the public understands issues. If there is no
meaningful public discussion, how can we expect the electorate to be informed
enough to choose the right candidate?