Let's Be Real: Term Limits Cause Political Dynasties to Spiral Out of Control
 |
| Inquirer |
There's always the obsession with political dynasties. There's also the obsession with term limits. Back in the 1990s, I remembered fearing charter change. I was afraid that the late Fidel V. Ramos might become a dictator. The talks that if a president would rule for more than six years--would be considered "frightening" or "nakakatakot" in Tagalog. I wrote an article where I wrote one staggering truth-- a long reign isn't necessarily tyrannical and that a short reign isn't necessarily benevolent. In my discussion, I highlighted both Pol Pot and Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.--both deceased dictators. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge dictatorship murdered millions in contrast to Marcos' regime. Of course, some people will say Pol Pot would've caused Cambodia to go extinct if he rhad eigned longer.
I remember the logic that I was told back in elementary school. I was told that the reason why term limits are imposed is to prevent another Marcos-style dictatorship. Marcos ruled the Philippines for two decades, and it was a terrible reign. No one would want another Marcos. Most people failed to realize the difference between no term limits and what Marcos did. But first, let's define what a term limit is:
Term limits refer to the constitutional or statutory restrictions imposed on public officers, preventing them from serving in a particular office beyond a specified number of terms or years. This principle aims to prevent the monopolization of public power, ensure democratic rotation of leadership, and promote accountability.
In the context of Philippine political law, term limits are primarily governed by the 1987 Constitution, various statutes, and case law that interpret these provisions.
Analyzing Marcos's prolonged rule
Was it because there were no term limits? If you think about it, there were no meaningful elections. Salvador "Doy" Laurel Jr. challenged Marcos's lack of legitimacy. Marcos only stayed in power because there were no meaningful elections. It would've been one thing if Marcos stayed in power through meaningful elections. However, if there was a true parliamentary form of government, Marcos could't hold two positions at once, or even still have powers. Under a real parliamentary form of government, the president should be purely ceremonial.
If one must look into the details, we need to look at Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr.'s speech (read here). Ninoy's speech in Los Angeles in 1981, revealed that the Philippines never had a parliamentary form of government, to begin with:
And so my friends, we started with an American-type constitution, we move to a British-type constitution. We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament. Until 1978, we did not have a parliament. And yet, we were supposed to be a parliamentary from of government. And Mr. Marcos said, “I declared martial law to save democracy.” But by saving democracy, he killed it.And so my friends, it was not until 1978 that the Batasan was convened. Now, what do we hear? Mr. Marcos once again, is up again to his new tricks. He said, “I lifted martial law but I think we should now elect a president by direct vote.” But there is not such thing. Under the new constitution now, the president is purely ceremonial. Tagabukas lang ng pinto, tagatanggap lamang ng credential ng ambassador. (Translation: The one who opens the door, the one who receives the credentials). Purely ceremonial elected by parliament, he is not elected by the people. The power of the government under a parliamentary system lies within the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister must be elected by parliament, and this prime minister may be removed from office, if there is a vote of no confidence. That is the British type. So what did Mr. Marcos do in 1976? He amended the constitution and said, “I, Ferdinand Marcos, as Prime Minister/President, may dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve me.” And then he said, “Parliament may legislate, but if I think they’re not doing their job, I will also legislate.” So now we have two parliaments, Mr. Marcos and parliament. And it’s costing us 300 million to have that tuta (puppy) parliament, what’s the use? If Mr. Marcos is doing all the legislation, why keep these 200 guys? So what do they do? They change the name of the street of Divisoria. They change the name of a school. But when it comes to public decrees, like Public Order Code 1737, only Mr. Marcos signs it. And so we have a situation, where we have a man who can dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve him. And under the Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 constitution, Mr. Marcos is a president-for-life. And now, all of a sudden, two weeks ago, sabi niya, “I have lifted martial law but I now want to go to the Filipino people, and I want their mandate of 8 years. I will defend martial law. Anybody who oppose it can oppose me. I want to go to the people and get their mandate.” But how can you get the mandate? There’s no such thing in the constitution. Sagot ni Marcos, “Let us amend it.” So now, we are going to amend again the constitution. And so we ask Mr. Marcos, but what form of government will we have? “Ahh,” sabi niya, “I want a president with powers.” What happened to the parliamentary British? Forget it. Let us now go to France. Let us have a French model. And so my friends, it is like the odyssey of Jules Verne “80 Days Around the World”. We started with America. We went to England. Now we are going to France. Under the new proposal of Mr. Marcos, we will now have a president and a prime minister. But the prime minister will be appointed by the president. And this president now will be all powerful. It will not be the American type; it will be the French type. And I suppose two years from now, when he gets tired of that, he will go to the Russian type, whatever that is. And so he announced, “I will take anybody, including Aquino.” And so, I was not inclined to oblige him, but then he added, “Pero,” sabi niya, ‘”hindi pwede si Aquino, underage.” And so naturally I went to the book, I said how come I was underage? I thought I was already 48, because the rule before, to become President of the Philippines in 1935, all you had to do is to be 40 years old. And so I looked at the book, tama nga naman si Marcos, they’ve increased the age to fifty. Kapos na naman ako ng dalawa. Of course, Mr. Marcos said, “Pero kung talagang gusto ni Aquino (But if Aquino really wants); if he really wants to come home and to fight me, I will oblige him. I will also have the constitution amended for him.” So I told Mr. Marcos and his people, “Forget me, Mr. President. I am through with your politics. Hindi na po ako kako sasama sa inyong kalokohan. (I'm not involved in your foolishness). Nagtayo kayo ng isang lapian, ang pangalan KBL, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan, mali po kako ‘yan, Kilusan ng mga Bingi at Loko-loko. (I decided to create my organization with the name KBL. Movement of the New Nation. Wrong. It means Movement of the deaf and the crazy). Hindi na ako kako sasama diyan. (I'm not joining it). Ako’y tapos na, I told them. I am through with politics, I said. I would just want to live in peace now. But I wrote Mr. Marcos and I told him, “While it’s true Mr. Marcos,” I said, “that after my 8 years in prison I have lost appetite for office, I am no longer seeking the presidency of this land, I’m not seeking any office in this country, but believe me,” I said, “When I tell you, that while I have vowed never to enter the political arena again, I shall dedicate the last drop of my blood to the restoration of freedom and the dismantlement of your martial law.”
In short, people must accept that the Marcos Years weren't a real parliamentary form of government, to begin with. In fact, one must look at the role Cesar Virata played as "prime minister" (read here). For Marcos to become a prime minister, he couldn't be both president and prime minister. However, some people (such as Mrs. Raissa Espinosa-Robles) continue to believe that we really had a parliamentary form of government, during the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines. Does Mrs. Robles think she knows better than the late Lee Kuan Yew? LKY wasn't all too impressed with Virata. I even quote LKY. However, some obnoxious boomer polsci major only said, "Well, parliamentary only worked in Singapore, because they're not corrupt." I tried to explain the differences between the Batasang Pambansa (National Assembly) vs. a real parliamentary system. The boomer showed no interest. I just hope he's become irrelevant and that I can just leave him alone, to enjoy his delusions!
Marcos's stay in power was also illegitimate. The 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was even a fraud. Have there been any prime ministers in parliament that are either (1) both head of state and govenrment at the same time, or (2) nothing more than an executive assistant to the president?
The end result of term limits is more political dynasties because of term limits
As stated earlier, the reason why people are afraid of lifting term limits, is because of power monopolization. However, with term limits, it's easier to create more dynasties because of a name recall. Let's review the Aquinos, the Dutertes, the Arroyos, and the Marcoses. I met a foolish woman on Facebook, who said she would only support charter change if there are no more Marcoses and Dutertes in office. As always, I wouldn't leak her out of respect for her status as a private citizen. She's been awfully quiet as of late. We can think of how the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III was propelled to run when his mother, Maria Corazon "Cory" S. Cojuangco-Aquino, died of cancer in 2009. In fact, Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro "Teddy Boy" Locsin Jr. even mentioned this:
Noynoy refused to renew the franchise. Was he wrong? Yes & ungrateful. I wanted Lopezes to get it renewed under him because he owed his election to their stupendous coverage of Cory's funeral. And he escapes blame? Maybe he had a negative—even if I believe wrong—view of ABSCBN.
We need to think about how name recall, helped in many situations. I could mention how Leni may have still enjoyed life as a private citizen and lawyer if Jesse Robredo hadn't passed away in 2012. The unfortunate circumstances caused a similar recall. Who can remember when Ninoy died and Cory was propelled to lead the nation? Cory's status during the EDSA Revolution 1986 was more fit to make her akin to the Queen of England! Cory was a national symbol of unity and should've remained as such! Cory was fit to be president, but only as a national symbol of unity! The name recall is also why Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio won. Mrs. Carpio might be even the reason why President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. even got the top spot! Would've the Philippines been a parliamentary system, Bongbog would've (1) never become prime minister, (2) never lasted in parliament, and (3) voted out as prime minister because he may lose the confidence of the Parliament.
Noynoy could've fallen under the same situation. Sure, Noynoy died during Duterte's presidency! Let's say Noynoy managed to live and still be able to run one more term. However, Noynoy couldn't run for president again, due to the term limits. It would be something if Noynoy would now either pass the baton to either Paolo Benigno "Bam" A. Aquino (his first cousin) or any of his sisters. Critics of political dynasties, tend to praise the Aquinos. However, think about how, because of a term limit, the Aquinos would potentially become a political dynasty. Noynoy would say, "I couldn't run for president anymore. Bam, will you take over?" However, what makes one think that Bam would continue that Noynoy started, just because Bam is an Aquino? Noynoy had some projects left unfinished because of term limits. Just think what if Duterte disregarded them and didn't implement them!
The situation would be different under a parliamentary system
Let me remind people I don't endorse the parliamentary system as a panacea. There are still existing problems in parliamentary countries. For example, one may consider migration crisis in some parliamentary countries. However, parliamentary countries have better stability because the government's power is more limited. The opposition gets to question the government directly during the weekly question hour.
One could criticize that the previous administration was better than the present (and vice versa). However, let me ask what could be done in six years. One can talk about Noynoy and economic recovery. I would still like to ask if Noynoy has managed to improve the overall standing of the Philippines. Please, LKY ruled Singapore for 31 cumulative years, Lee Hsien Loong ruled Singapore for 20 straight years, and Mahathir Mohamad ruled Malaysia for 24 straight years. Some would say, "Well, they're not corrupt, unlike our officials." Please, the difference is the amount of power held by the president. A president may rule for six years in the Philippines, but he's got more power than a prime minister, in a parliamentary system, ever would! The real issue isn't the number of terms but the scope of power. A prime minister (in parliamentary government) doesn't have as much power as a president serving, even under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines!
 |
| The Straits Times |
This would mean political dynasties are far more under control. It's because of credibility-based systems. In short, being the child of a politician isn't an automatic guarantee to become a politician. Lee Hsien Loong had to take orders and prove himself before he could even occupy a seat as a Member of Parliament. As I read through From Third World to First in Chapter 42, it details LSH's rise to power wasn't because he was one of LKY's sons. Instead, LSH had to prove himself.
When Loong was still unsettled after his bereavement, Goh Chok Tong, then the minister of defense and assistant secretary-general of the PAP, invited him to stand for Parliament in the December 1984 general election. At that time Loong was a colonel on the general staff and the joint staff in the SAF. Chok Tong as his minister, had a high assessment of Loong's potential in politics. Loong was concerned, that as a widower with two young children, he would find it difficult to manage the family as he would have to be absent much of the time on political work. He discussed it with Choo and me. I told him that if he missed the coming election, he would have to wait for four to five years before he would have another chance. With every passing year, he would find it more difficult to change and adjust to political life, especially learning to work with people in the constituencies and the unions. Most of all, he had to feel deeply for people, be able to communicate his feelings for them. At the age of 32, Loong left the SAF and contested the elections in December. He won one of the highest majorities of any candidate in the election.
I appointed Loong, a junior minister in the ministry of trade and industry. His minister immediately put him in charge of a private sector committee to review the economy just as we entered a severe recession in 1985. The committee's proposals that the government take strong steps to reduce business costs and strengthen competitiveness were a major political test for Loong and the other ministers. In November 1990, when I resigned as prime minister, Loong was appointed deputy prime minister, Loong was appointed deputy prime minister by Prime Minister Goh Cok tong.
Many of my critics thought this smacked of nepotism, that he was unduly favored because he was my son. On the contrary, as I told the party conference in 1989, the year before I resigned, it would not be good for Singapore or for Loong to have him succeed me. He would be seen as having inherited the office from me when he should deserve the position on his own merit. He was still young and it was better that someone else succeed me as prime minister. Then were Loong to make the grade later, it would be clear that he made it on his own merit.
For several years, Chok Tong had to endure the jeers of foreign critics that he was a seat warmer for Loong. But after Chok Tong won his second general election in 1997 and consolidated his position as his own man, the jeering stopped. As Chok Tong's deputy, Loong has established his standing as a political leader in his own right--determined, fast, and versatile in ranging over the whole field of government. Almost every difficult or taxing problem in any ministry had his attention. Ministers, MPs, and senior civil servants knew this. I could have stayed on a few years longer and allowed him to gather support to be the leader. I did not do so.
Becoming prime minister in Singapore isn't easy either. Reading through the steps made me think how difficult it is, and rightfully so. In fact, even this first step should intimidate anyone:
Step 1
In order to become the prime minister, one needs to be an elected Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the majority party. Considering that the PAP has formed the government, and has won every election since 1959, this article is going to assume that it is easier to rise to power with the PAP.
But before even entering politics, certain factors increase the probability of success for someone with ministerial aspirations. A recent study of Singapore’s current ministers and their educational background found out that a typical minister is one who has:
- Studied at an Independent or SAP secondary school
- Went to Raffles, National JC or Hwa Chong for their tertiary studies
- Read business or economics as an undergraduate
- Gained a postgraduate degree, most commonly at the Harvard Kennedy School
Hence, candidates that follow this route seem to have a statistical advantage.
In addition to this, the government’s dominant status and its access to the Public Service Commission – which gives out Singapore’s most prestigious scholarships – allows it to recruit scholars into politics. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew conceded as much, saying that “a person who has done well in Singapore’s scholarship system will eventually be spotted and headhunters from the party will look for him”. This focus on educational attainment seems to be grounded in the belief of Singaporean vulnerability. In other words, for a country where prosperity is “a result of a continuing act of will” the PAP believes that educated and capable leaders are able to come up with plans and measures to cope with a unique set of problems. An article in the Economist also contends that the PAP avoids the types of corruption seen in other one-party dominant states precisely because it constantly recruits, and in the process turfs out established figures “ruthlessly”.
In short, political dynasties become more limited. A family of competent politicians isn't an issue. A family of incompetent politicians is the issue. The parliamentary system could care less if all the children of a political family all get t be qualified members of the parliament. The weeding process is all about whether or not this relative, is capable or not. It's not dictated by the number of terms served or if the person is part of a political dynasty. It's all about capability. It would matter less if a dynasty was built on capability. The problem is a dynasty based on name recall--which presidentialism causes beause of term limits. LKY and LSH were able to rule for more than six years, only because of their competence. Otherwise, they would be declared unfit to rule.
What about incompetent people? Let me tell you, the absence of term limits doesn't mean the absence of disqualification. Some disqualifications could happen, either temporarily or even permanently, depending on the severity of the offense. A vote of no confidence can happen. As the name suggests, it goes against an MP, if ever such person fails to uphold the confidence of other MPS. The prime minister can also be at risk of a vote of no confidence, when he or she fails to uphold the confidence of all MPs. These measures to limit scope of powers, would help explain why not having term limits is not much of a problem.
Right now, let's not be delusional. For whatever good the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines has (such as the Bill of Rights), it's not perfect and complete. Even Cory said that present solutions may not defeat future maladies. This is why I support a parliamentary system for the Philippines. It's all about the system that's more important. It's because the Constitution defines how politicians should behave.
