POLITICS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Politics in the Philippines has traditionally been dominated by clans and political bosses and patronage and is
characterized by law makers that make decisions based on fiscal incentives rather that beliefs and voters that make
choices based on personality rather than reasoned policies. Under the traditional itang na loob system of patronage,
or obligation earned through favors, voters expect money or jobs in return for their political support. In many cases
politicians performance was based on dole-outs not on programs or policies. Philippine concepts about debt
repayment and kinship responsibilities plays a major role in how political networks are set up and run (See
FILIPINO CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY: HIYA, AMOR PROPIO Under People).
Personalities are more important than parties in Philippine politics. Movie stars and other celebrities have enjoyed
considerable success. In addition1, several prominent families play a disproportionate role in politics. The support of
the military and the Catholic church are key to political survival and success in the Philippines. Promises are
generally not kept. Arroyo, for example, pledged to bring cheap power to the poor as a campaign pledge and then
doubled power rates after she was elected. She also promised not to run for a second time but changed her mind
because she said God made her decide to run.
The Philippines is known for its rough-and-tumble political scene. Politicians are rountinely killed and sometimes
they even do the do the killing themselves. Every now and then it seems the entire country is on the verge of
collapse because of a coup attempt, People Power protest or impeachment effort. On the day-to-day level, politicians
are unable to achieve many of their goals and carry out programs they proposed due to political opposition, mainly
from the ruling elite. Arroyo and her cabinet said that political fighting and sniping exhausted and frustrated them
deeply.
Carlos H. Conde wrote in the New York Times, In the Philippines, politics is a blood sport. Here, politicians often
behave like gladiators: To survive they have to entertain the spectators. The turmoil from the [Arroyo] scandal has
once again brought Filipinos and their unique brand of rambunctious democracy to international attention, providing
a sideshow to the more pressing problems. Filipinos are no longer surprised by election fraud. Thanks to the damage
Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator, did to the democratic institutions that American-style democracy helped establish
after World War II, and the prevalence of an almost feudal political structure, particularly in the provinces, Filipinos
have come to accept election cheating as normal. [Source: Carlos H. Conde, New York Times, July 2, 2005]
Pollster Social Weather Station and Pulse Asia.

Development of Philippines Politics After the Marcos

In 1991 Philippine politics resembled nothing so much as the "good old days" of the pre-martial law period--wide-
open, sometimes irresponsible, but undeniably free. Pre-martial law politics, however, essentially were a distraction
from the nation's serious problems. The parties were completely nonideological. Therefore, politicians and office-
holders switched parties whenever it seemed advantageous to do so. Almost all politicians were wealthy, and many
were landlords with large holdings. They blocked moves for social reform; indeed, they seemed not to have even
imagined that society required serious reform. Congress acquired a reputation for corruption that made the few
honest members stand out. When Marcos closed down Congress in 1972, hardly anyone was disappointed except the
members themselves. *
The February 1986 People's Power Revolution, also called the EDSA Revolution had restored all the prerequisites
of democratic politics: freedom of speech and press, civil liberties, regularly scheduled elections for genuine
legislatures, plebiscites, and ways to ensure honest ballot counting. But by 1991 the return to irrelevant politics had
caused a sense of hopelessness to creep back into the nation that five years before had been riding the euphoric crest
of a nonviolent democratic revolution. In 1986 it seemed that democracy would have one last chance to solve the
Philippines' deep-rooted social and economic problems. Within five years, it began to seem to many observers that
the net result of democracy was to put the country back where it had been before Marcos: a democratic political
system disguising an oligarchic society. *
Powerful Families in Philippine Politics
Hrvoje Hranjski of Associated Press wrote: Philippine elections have long been dominated by politicians
belonging to the same bloodlines. At least 250 political families have monopolized power across the country,
although such dynasties are prohibited under the 1987 constitution. Congress long controlled by members of
powerful clans targeted by the constitutional ban has failed to pass the law needed to define and enforce the
provision. "Wherever you go, you see the names of these people since we were kids. It is still them," businessman
Martin Tunac, 54, said after voting in Manila. "One of the bad things about political dynasties is they control
everything, including business." [Source: Hrvoje Hranjski, Associated Press, May 13, 2013 |=|]
School counselor Evelyn Dioquino said that the proliferation of political dynasties was a cultural issue and other
candidates stood little chance because clans "have money, so they are the only ones who can afford (to run). Of
course, if you have no logistics, you can't run for office." Critics worry that a single family's stranglehold on
different levels of government could stymie checks against abuses and corruption. A widely cited example is the
2009 massacre of 58 people, including 32 media workers, in an ambush blamed on rivalry between powerful clans
in southern Maguindanao province. |=|
Ana Maria Tabunda from the independent pollster Pulse Asia said that dynasties restrict democracy, but added that
past surveys by her organization have shown that most Filipinos are less concerned about the issue than with the
benefits and patronage they can receive from particular candidates. Voters also often pick candidates with the most
familiar surnames instead of those with the best records, she said. "It's name recall, like a brand. They go by that,"
she said. |=|
The American anthropologist Brian Fegan, writing in "An Anarchy of Families," a book published in the 1990s,
told the New York Times that "the Filipino family is the most enduring political unit and the one into which, failing
some wider principle of organization, all other units dissolve." Filipinos look at political continuity as merely the
transfer of power among family members, Fegan said. Thus, they also look at political competition in terms of
rivalry between families. "A family that has once contested an office, particularly if it has once won it, sets its eye
on that office as its permanent right," Fegan said. [Source: Carlos H. Conde, International Herald Tribune, July 16,
2005 \~/]

Political Family Dynasties in the Philippines

Politics in the Philippines has been dominated by powerful families for as long as anyone can remember. Aquino
was the wife of a opposition leader. Arroyo was the daughter of a president. In 2004, Arroyos son and brother-in-
law held Congressional seats and five relatives of Aquino were in Congress and one was a Senator. Even the Marcos
family remains powerful and influential in Philippines politics, especially in northen Luzon. Many local positions
and governments are dominated by clans and powerful and wealthy families.
One Philippine political analyst told the Washington Post, Some dynasties have made positive contributions, but
by and large the dynastic system in the Philippines has stunted the growth of real democracy. It is not representative
of the broad majority in any place. Efforts to reduce the hold on power of local families by establishing term limits
has meant that families hand over power from one family member to another.
The system of family dynasties has its roots in U.S. colonial rule when initially voting rights were only granted to
Filipinos with property and education, allowing the landed aristocracy to attain a monopoly of power in the
provinces. The United States also put in place a Congressional system that allowed families to establish local
fiefdoms rather than fostering competition through an electoral list system.
This trend is beginning to change in some places. Grace Padaca, a former radio commentator, was elected governor
of Isabela Province in 2004. She moved into the mansion of the former governor, from the powerful Dy family,
thought he had built for himself. Padaca won by nonstop campaigning and dedicated grassroots volunteer
movement.

Filipino Clans, Celebrities Dominate Midterm Polls in 2013

Hrvoje Hranjski of Associated Press wrote: From Imelda Marcos to Manny Pacquiao, familiar names of Philippine
political clans and celebrities dominated the ballots for congressional and local elections, which will gauge popular
support for the president's anti-corruption drive and other reforms. [Source: Hrvoje Hranjski, Associated Press, May
13, 2013 |=|]
Among 33 senatorial candidates are two of Aquino's relatives, Binay's neophyte daughter, Estrada's son, a son of
the sitting chamber president, a son of a late president, a spouse and children of former senators and there's a
possibility that two pairs of siblings will be sitting in the me house. Currently, 15 senators have relatives serving in
elective positions. The race for the House is even more of a family affair. Toppled dictator Ferdinand Marcos'
widow, the flamboyant 83-year-old Imelda, is expected to keep her seat as a representative for Ilocos Norte
province, the husband's birthplace where the locals kept electing the Marcoses despite allegations of corruption and
abuse during their long rule. Marcos' daughter, Imee is seeking re-election as governor and the son, Ferdinand
"Bongbong" Marcos Jr., is already a senator. Boxing star and incumbent Rep. Manny Pacquiao is running
unopposed and building a dynasty of his own: his brother Rogelio is running to represent his southern district and
his wife Jinkee is vying to become vice-governor for Sarangani province. |=|

Palakasan System" in the Philippine Government

Iamthur.blogspot.jp reported: How to get a job in the Philippine Government provided that there is a vacancy?
First, you must be a Filipino citizen. Then, you should have a bachelor's degree related to the job, certification of
eligibility from Civil Service Commission, experience related to the job, and other documents as the office/agency
concerned may require. But in these days, there is a big problem. In a partisan system if they suspect you for not
voting for a certain winning candidate, your chances to get hired even though you're qualified is lame. That's sad but
true. [Source: iamthur.blogspot.jp ==]
This scenario has been the headache for long a time. The recent official that being seated on certain position will
going to terminate all people that being hired under the term of previous official. I can say this because, I already
witnessed this when I visit our municipality. I've noticed that there are new faces working there, and old employees
are replaced already. ==
Nowadays in Philippines, it is very difficult to acquire a job in the government. Even though you have the
qualities, abilities, and capabilities that match the criteria for a certain job you're applying for, sometimes it just not
enough to get the job. That's because you don't have what they call a "backer", it's a certain people in the
government with a high position or ranking that supposedly one of your relatives, friends or acquaintances. There
are lots of people getting hired easily in the government even though they don't have what it takes for that certain
position, but they made it possible because of their contacts(red tape) in the government. It is what you called the
"Palakasan System" that run for so long. It's very unfair and disappointing to those honest and deserving Filipino
job-seekers who aim to work for the government. ==
The government now is full of corrupt people. I'm still hoping that someday this system will be changed. All
corrupt must be washed out, and let the honest and dignified people work for their beloved county, who looks
equally to all people under their good governance. ==

Old-Style Politics in the Philippines Countryside

Philippine politics, along with other aspects of society, rely heavily on kinship and other personal relationships. To
win a local election, one must assemble a coalition of families. To win a provincial election, the important families
in each town must be drawn into a wider structure. To win a national election, the most prominent aristocratic clans
from each region must temporarily come together. A family's power is not necessarily precisely correlated with
wealth--numbers of followers matters more--but the middle class and the poor are sought mainly for the votes that
they can deliver. Rarely will they be candidates themselves. [Source: Library of Congress *]
The suspension of elections during martial law seemed at first to herald a radical centralization of power in Manila,
specifically in the Marcos and Romualdez clans, but traditional provincial oligarchs resurfaced when Aquino
restored elections. To the dismay of her more idealistic followers, Aquino followed her brother's advice and
concluded agreements with many former Marcos supporters who were probably going to win elections anyway.
About 70 percent of the candidates elected to the House of Representatives in 1987 were scions of political
dynasties. They included five relatives of Aquino: a brother, an uncle, a sister-in-law, a brother-in-law, and a cousin.
Another brotherin -law was elected to the Senate. The newly elected Congress passed a bill prohibiting close
relatives of government officials from becoming candidates, but it did not take effect until after the 1988 local
elections. Many of the same prominent families who had dominated Philippine society from the Spanish colonial
period returned to power. Commonly, the same two families vie for control of provinces. The specific reason for
social and political bipolarity is not known, but it nourishes feuds between rival clans that are renewed generation
after generation. *
Coercion is an alternative to buying votes. Because the population of the Philippines has multiplied by a factor of
nine in the twentieth century, there is not enough land to go around. As a result, tenant-landlord relationships have
become more businesslike and less personal, and some old elite families now rely on force to protect their interests.
Article 18 of the constitution directs the dismantling of all "private armies," but it seemed unlikely that it could be
enforced. *

Failure of People in the Philippines

Jim Gomez and Oliver Teves of Associated Press wrote: The world watched in awe in 1986 as Filipinos, clutching
rosaries and flowers, mounted a human barricade against tanks and troops and brought dictator Ferdinand Marcos
down without a shot. What they did gave birth to the term "people power." Fifteen years later similar forces toppled
President Joseph Estrada over alleged corruption, and even now, the nation's democracy remains fragile. In the late
2000s, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo faced impeachment proceedings over allegations of vote-rigging and
corruption and declared a state of emergency to quashed a coup plot. She said the political opposition and extremists
on both left and right were determined to bring down her elected government. [Source: Jim Gomez and Oliver Teves
Associated Press, February 25, 2006 +^+]
Has "people power" gotten out of hand in the island nation where it was born? Even its most prominent
beneficiary, Corazon Aquino, who succeeded the ousted Marcos in 1986, thinks so. "I would still prefer that we do it
through a constitutional process," she said recently when asked if she would join an uprising against Arroyo.
"Things are different now, we have other options." Besides democracy, little has changed in this nation of 86
million. It remains mired in appalling poverty, rural backwardness, chronic inequality, long-running Marxist and
Muslim insurgencies and chaotic politics. Imelda Marcos, the dictator's widow once reviled for the extravagance
epitomized by her vast shoe collection, retains political clout and still shows up occasionally to work the Manila
social circuit. +^+
The images of "people power" are fading into history, but remain iconic: nuns kneeling in prayer in front of tanks,
and unarmed civilians trying to push back military vehicles with their bare hands. Historian Maria Serena Diokno
said the administrations of Aquino and Arroyo, both from wealthy landowning clans, faced the same accusations as
their predecessors - human rights violations, massive corruption and failure to enforce effective land reform. +^+
Carlos H. Conde wrote in the International Herald Tribune, If there is any consensus it is that the system has to go,
says Manuel Quezon 3rd, a political analyst and historian. "The problem is, no one agrees what system to replace it
with," Quezon said.Experts on politics and governance do agree, however, that the families and politicians who have
a lock on government here have been the bane of Filipinos, thriving on so-called patronage politics that keeps
democratic processes in a state of dysfunction. The result is a faulty electoral system, a low level of political
awareness among the populace and a degree of corruption that has seriously damaged Philippine society and
hobbled economic development. [Source: Carlos H. Conde, International Herald Tribune, July 16, 2005 \~/]
All of these factors conspire to push the country near the edge of chaos in a kind of cyclical pattern that has
decayed what was once among the region's most promising democracies. Worse, the few new and young leaders
who emerge are frequently co-opted by traditional politicians. These new leaders then establish political dynasties
themselves or fortify existing ones, perpetuating a vicious circle. \~/

Why the Powerful Family and Patronage System Endure in the Philippines
Carlos H. Conde wrote in the International Herald Tribune, The reality here is that the same old faces, the same
old families and the same old interests continue to hold sway over the political life of this country. The Philippines,
which once boasted an intelligentsia that was deemed the most sophisticated in Southeast Asia, is still going through
what one Filipino columnist recently called "the most drawn out political adolescence in modern history." [Source:
Carlos H. Conde, International Herald Tribune, July 16, 2005 \~/]
Why do a few oligarchic families continue to dominate the political life of this former Spanish colony, in a pattern
once familiar in many Latin-influenced countries? To put the question another way, why has the Philippines failed
to produce a leader like Luiz Incio Lula da Silva of Brazil, a figure who springs from the bottom up and who, for
better or worse, ushers in new politics that, on the surface at least, promise a better life for the people? \~/
Clarita Carlos, an expert on governance and politics at the University of the Philippines, said she believed that
Philippine politics merely facilitated the "circulation of elites, people who have mastered how to be economically
and socially mobile by taking advantage of the limitations of the system." As a result, the Filipino political class
"has become so inbred that they've become detached from the concerns of the majority," said Quezon, who is
himself the grandson of a former president. \~/
In a healthy political environment, Quezon said, the oligarchy would relinquish power to a new political class.
"Sadly, this is something most Filipino oligarchs never did," he said.Steven Rood, the country representative here of
The Asia Foundation and an expert on local governance, thinks it is not so much a question of why Philippine
politics has the same faces but why the situation has not changed over many decades. "I would say that the basic
fundamental reason is that the people who run the system are the ones benefiting enough from it that they're worried
about change," Rood said. That has been the case for decades and, as Steven Rood of The Asia Foundation
explained, "there's an enormous amount of historical continuity at play" in the present crisis. Rood traces this back
to the period of Spanish colonization and the American colonization that followed it. \~/
"The two decades of Marcos blocked off a generation of young, emerging leaders," said Nereus Acosta, a 39-year-
old congressman who teaches public policy at the Ateneo School of Government. After Marcos was toppled in 1986,
the political families that he cultivated were replaced by new ones allied to the next regime, that of Corazn Aquino.
As if that were not enough, the lines that at first separated Marcos and anti-Marcos politics became so blurred that it
is not surprising today to find a former Marcos foe hobnobbing with the scions and friends of the former dictator.
Switching sides thus became widespread. Filipino political parties had intermarried to such an extent that, today, it is
difficult to know which party is allied with whom. "We're paying for this damage now," Acosta said. \~/
Given this, Acosta said, it would be difficult for idealism to evolve. "You may have new guys coming out, yes, but
unfortunately, wealth and power being so confined to a few, this new generation will have limitations," he said.
There has never been a shortage of idealistic Filipinos who can provide the kind of strong leadership the country
needs. "Believe me, there are many Filipinos who are competent," said Carlos, the political science professor. The
problem is, officials said, once they are inside the system, they are easily compromised. \~/

Is the U.S. to Blame for the Philippiness Political Failures

Steven Rood of The Asia Foundation told the International Herald Tribune that the Americans did not change the
Filipino social structure. "They imposed a political system that allowed this social structure to gain political power,"
he said. "It's been the marriage of social position and political power ever since that produced essentially the same
state that we have now." [Source: Carlos H. Conde, International Herald Tribune, July 16, 2005 \~/]
Luis Teodoro, the executive director of the Center for People Empowerment in Governance, a political research
institute in Manila, told the International Herald Tribune that the Americans had a hand in this predicament. They
supported regimes led by powerful political families who, in turn, furthered American interests and helped suppress
the nationalist politicians who tended to undermine them. "To a great extent, the United States is responsible for
keeping these political dynasties in power," Teodoro said. Without U.S. support, he said by way of example, the
regime of Ferdinand Marcos would not have lasted as long as it did and Marcos would not have been able to inflict
the heavy damage on political institutions here that he is generally held responsible for. \~/
Carlos H. Conde wrote in the International Herald Tribune, Marcos persecuted the oligarchs who went against him
and befriended those who were willing to cooperate with his regime. While he used these families to prop up his
regime and amass the wealth for which he would later be infamous, these families went on to exploit their ties with
him, widening and strengthening their political bases and enriching themselves even more. Marcos, in turn, used
these power bases, particularly in the provinces, to keep himself in the presidential palace. This resulted in a kind of
political interregnum. Because the dictator, his wife, Imelda, and his closest cronies were the only kingmakers, they
either corrupted young and idealistic politicians or made sure that those who could challenge them did not stand a
chance. \~/
Philippine Mayor Killed at Manila Airport
Political violence is not confined to candidates running in elections that threaten the oligarchy status quo. It can
strike sitting politiciansand innocent bystanders. In December 2013, Al Jazeera reported: Gunmen have shot
dead a town mayor and three other people at the airport in Manila, sending travellers fleeing for safety, authorities
said. Ukol Talumpa, the mayor of the town of Labangan in Zamboanga del Sur province, was killed together with
his wife, an 18-month-old baby and one other person, Al Jazeera's Jamela Alindogan reported from Manila on
Friday. Four other people were wounded in the incident, airport manager Jose Honrado said. [Source: Al Jazeera,
December 20, 2013]
Honrado said that Talumpa was waiting for a ride with his family outside an airport terminal when the gunmen on
a motorcycle shot him and others at close range. Airport security force chased the gunmen but they escaped on their
vehicle in the heavy late-morning traffic outside the terminal, Honrado said. He added that the authorities did not
know the identity of the attackers nor the motive for the attack "Government agencies are trying their best to
determine the perpetrators and bring them to justice," the airport manager said. Talumpa, a member of the political
opposition, won a hotly contested electoral contest for mayor of Labangan in last May's local elections. [Ibid]

Politicians in the Philippines

Personality and image count for a lot on Philippines politics. Presidential candidates have included high school drop
out movie stars. In some cases they have had no public service experience before running for office. It is common in
Philippine politics for movie stars, basketball players and comedians to be elected to public office. The two top vote
getters in a 1992 Senate election were a former action-movie star and slapstick comedian. In the 1998 election, more
than 100 candidates in national elections were former entertainers. Former police chief and Manila mayor Alfredo
Lim was nicknamed "Dirty Harry" for having little respect for civil liberties.
According to everyculture.com: Men of rank in the military also move into the political arena. Joseph Estrada,
whose term as president is 19982004, entered the public eye as a popular film star. He then became the mayor of a
large city and went on to become vice president in the Ramos administration. Previous presidents have had political
or military backgrounds, with the exception of Corazon Aquino, the president from 1986 to 1992, who became
politically active after her husband was assassinated. [Source: everyculture.com]
It is also not unusual for Philippines politicians to have a criminal record. The top politician on the island of
Palawan, Edward Hagedorn. who has been greatly praised for his can do achievements, himself grew up as a petty
criminal and became a gambling lord who was jailed for allegedly killing two policeman in a shootout and
abandoned his wife and child to live with a showgirl he met at a bar. Using managment skills that he may have
picked as a gangster he got roads paves, cracked down on illegal logging and fishing, and delivered on promises of
bringing low-cost housing, clinics and garbage collection to remote villages. Hagedorn became so famous his life
was made into a film staring future presidential candidate Edward Poe.
Ferdinand Marcos was accused of killing a man. President Joseph Estrada and popular politician and president
candidate Edward Poe were popular actors. See History

Speaker Jose de Venecia: the Consumate Filipino Politician

Bong Austero wrote in his blog: Speaker Jose de Venecia says he now wants to spend the last years of his life
building his legacy to the Filipino people. The speaker is 70 years old. He is the longest-serving speaker of the
House of Representatives. He could have been president of this country had it not been for the fact that someone
more popular and more in touch with the common man was also running for the post in that particular election. He
lost to Joseph Estrada, the actor. His running mate, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, however, won the vice presidency.
Estrada would eventually get booted out of office, tried, and convicted for plunder. And as fate would have it, De
Venecias running mate became President. [Source: bongaustero.blogspot.jp, October 22, 2007 /=\]
For quite sometime, De Venecias political fortunes were in limbo. But he eventually bounced back from the pits
and reclaimed his seat as speaker of the House of Representatives, proof of the mans resilience and tenacity as a
political animal. This is a man who has fought many battles; a man who speaks with the wisdom of not only the
aged, but of someone who has been a constant fixture in the political scene in the last four or five decades. In
another time and place, when someone of De Venecias stature and experience speaks of moral regeneration and of
the urgency of reclaiming the countrys pride and honor, we should be compelled to sit up and listen. /=\
Sadly, this does not seem to be the case today. It has become difficult to empathize with the man. Not only because
in all his TV appearances last week the speaker came across as a forlorn figure, of someone betrayed and on the
brink of defeat. There was no fire in his eyes and his rhetoric lacked conviction. This is sad because what De
Venecia is saying is true. This country needs moral regeneration. But corruption has not only become systemic and
widespread, brazen and so unspeakably scandalous. We also know theoretical solutions and intellectual discussions
wont be enough. What we need are drastic and more effective courses of action. /=\
It is difficult to empathize with De Venecia and his cause because despite the grand pronouncements, it is clear
that the man is simply fighting for political survival. This is evident in the way De Venecia continues to hem and
haw about where his political loyalties now reside. Despite thinly veiled threats about possible courses of actions
that he might take if the current dispensation continues to marginalize him, we know that his main motivation is
self-preservation. He wants to retire as speaker and this is only possible if he plays his cards right. Its a political
zarzuela. De Venecia is saying all the right things but unfortunately fails to buttress his rhetoric with the necessary
actions indicative of moral courage. Thus, we can be forgiven for not trusting him at this point. /=\

Political Parties in the Philippines

Political parties and leaders: 1) Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (Struggle of Filipino Democrats) or LDP
[Edgardo Angara]; 2) Lakas ng EDSA-Christian Muslim Democrats or Lakas-CMD [Manuel "Mar" Roxas]; 3)
Liberal Party or LP [Manuel Roxas]; 4) Nacionalista Party or NP [Manuel "Manny" Villar]; 4) Nationalist People's
Coalition or NPC [Frisco San Juan]; 5) PDP-Laban [Aquilino Pimentel]; 6) People's Reform Party [Miriam
Defensor Santiago]; 7) Puwersa ng Masang Pilipino (Force of the Philippine Masses) or PMP [Joseph Estrada]. The
United Nationalist Alliance or [UNA] - PDP-Laban and PMP coalition for the 2013 election. Political pressure
groups and leaders: Black and White Movement [Vicente Romano]; Kilosbayan [Jovito Salonga] [Source: CIA
World Factbook]
Philippine political parties are essentially nonideological vehicles for personal and factional political ambition.
Ruling party: The Liberal Party is the party of Benigno Aquino III, the current president of the Philippines. The
Liberal Party, a democratic-elitist party founded in 1946, survived fourteen years of dormancy (1972 to 1986),
largely through the staunch integrity of its central figure, Senate president Jovito Salonga, a survivor of the Plaza
Miranda grenade attack of September 1971. In 1991 Salonga also was interested in the presidency, despite poor
health and the fact that he is a Protestant in a largely Catholic country. Former President Macapagal-Arroyo is a
member of the conservative Lakas-Christian Muslim Democratic Party (Lakas-CMD).
Political parties are not that strong in the Philippines. Rewriting the constitution to eliminate term limits and
establishing a strong two-party system are the reforms that are discussed most often. Politicians move from party to
party as the needs of their constituencies dictate because the political parties have no ideologies. [Source:
everyculture.com]
Senate - percent of vote by party for 2013 election - UNA 26.94 percent, NP 15.3 percent, LP 11.32 percent, NPC
10.15 percent, LDP 5.38 percent, PDP-Laban 4.95 percent, others 9.72 percent, independents 16.24 percent; seats by
party after 2013 election - UNA 5, NP 5, LP 4, Lakas 2, NPC 2, LDP 1, PDP-Laban 1, PRP 1, independents 3;
House of Representatives - percent of vote by party - LP 38.3 percent, NPC 17.4 percent, UNA 11.4 percent, NUP
8.7 percent, NP 8.5 percent, Lakas 5.3 percent, independents 6.0 percent, others 4.4 percent; seats by party - LP 110,
NPC 43, NUP 24, NP 17, Lakas 14, UNA 8, independents 6, others 12; party-list 57 [Source: CIA World Factbook]
After the May 2004 election, Lakas controlled the largest faction in the House of Representatives (100 seats).
Lakas-CMD has formed a governing coalition with the Liberal Party (32 seats). Others major parties in the House at
that time were the Nationalist Peoples Coalition (47 seats), led by the business tycoon Eduardo Cojuangco; Struggle
for Democratic Filipinos (nine seats); Nationalista Party (six seats); Akbayan (three seats); Association of Philippine
Electric Co-operatives (three seats); Bayan Muna (three seats); Power of the Filipino Masses (three seats); Aksyon
Demokratiko, Promdi, and Reporma, which have formed an alliance (two seats); Philippine Democratic Party (two
seats); and Philippines Democratic Socialist Party (two seats).
The Communists (NPA) split among the ranks.
Political Parties After the Ouster of Marcos
Political parties grew in profusion after the Marcos martiallaw regime (1972-81) was ended. There were 105
political parties registered in 1988. As in the pre-Marcos era, most legal political parties were coalitions, built
around prominent individuals, which focused entirely on winning elections, not on what to do with the power
achieved. There was little to distinguish one party from another ideologically, which was why many Filipinos
regarded the political system as irrelevant. [Source: Library of Congress *]
The party system in the early 1990s closely resembled that of the premartial law years when the Nacionalista and
Liberal parties alternated in power. Although they lacked coherent political programs, they generally championed
conservative social positions and avoided taking any position that might divide the electorate. Each party tried to
appeal to all regions, all ethnic groups, and all social classes and fostered national unity by never championing one
group or region. Neither party had any way to enforce party discipline, so politicians switched capriciously back and
forth. The parties were essentially pyramids of patronclient relationships stretching from the remotest villages to
Manila. They existed to satisfy particular demands, not to promote general programs. Because nearly all senators
and representatives were provincial aristocrats, the parties never tackled the fundamental national problem--the
vastly inequitable distribution of land, power, and wealth. *
Ferdinand Marcos mastered that party system, then altered it by establishing an all-embracing ruling party to be the
sole vehicle for those who wished to engage in political activity. He called it the New Society Movement (Kilusang
Bagong Lipunan). The New Society Movement sought to extend Marcos's reach to far corners of the country.
Bureaucrats at all levels were welladvised to join. The New Society Movement offered unlimited patronage. The
party won 163 of 178 seats in the National Assembly in 1978 and easily won the 1980 local elections. In 1981
Marcos actually had to create his own opposition, because no one was willing to run against him. *

Pro-Government Parties After Marcos

In 1978 the imprisoned former senators Benigno Aquino and Lorenzo Taada organized a political party named
Lakas ng Bayan (Strength of the Nation; also known by its abbreviated form, LABAN, meaning fight). LABAN
won 40 percent of the Manila vote in parliamentary elections that year but was not given a single seat in Marcos's
New Society Movement-dominated parliament. After Aquino went into exile in the United States, his wife's brother,
former Congressman Jose Cojuangco, managed LABAN. Cojuangco forged an alliance with the Pilipino
Democratic Party (PDP), a regional party with strength in the Visayas and Mindanao, that had been organized by
Aquilino Pimentel, the mayor of Cagayan de Oro City. The unified party was thereafter known as PDP-LABAN,
and it--along with UNIDO conducted Corazon Aquino's presidential campaign against Marcos. [Source: Library of
Congress *]
In its early years, PDP-LABAN espoused a strongly nationalist position on economic matters and United States
base rights, aspiring to "democratize power and socialize wealth." Later, after Aquino became president, its
rhetorical socialism evaporated. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, PDP-LABAN had the distinct advantage of
patronage. Aquino named Pimentel her first minister of local government, then summarily dismissed every governor
and mayor in the Philippines. Pimentel replaced them with officers in charge known personally to him, thereby
creating an instant pyramid of allies throughout the country. Some, but not all, of these officers in charge won
election on their own in the January 1988 local elections. *
PDP-LABAN was not immune from the problems that generally plagued Philippine political parties. What mainly
kept the party together was the need to keep Aquino in power for her full sixyear term. In June 1988 the party was
reorganized as the Struggle of Filipino Democrats (Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino). Speaker of the House
Ramon Mitra was its first president, but he resigned the presidency of the party in 1989 in favor of Neptali
Gonzales. *
In 1990 Aquino announced the formation of a movement called Kabisig (Arm-in-Arm), conceived as a
nongovernmental organization to revive the spirit of People's Power and get around an obstinate bureaucracy and a
conservative Congress. By 1991 its resemblance to a nascent political party worried the more traditional leadership,
particularly Mitra. Part of Aquino's governing style was to maintain a stance of being "above politics." Although she
endorsed political candidates, she refused to form a political party of her own, relying instead on her personal
probity, spirituality, and simple living to maintain popular support. *
Opposition Parties After Marcos
The New Society Movement fell apart when Marcos fled the country. A former National Assembly speaker,
Nicanor Yniguez, tried to "reorganize" it, but others scrambled to start new parties with new names. Blas Ople,
Marcos's minister of labor, formed the Nationalist Party of the Philippines (Partido Nationalista ng Pilipinas) in
March 1986. Enrile sought political refuge in a revival of the country's oldest party, the Nacionalista Party, first
formed in 1907. Enrile used the rusty Nacionalista machinery and an ethnic network of Ilocanos to campaign for a
no vote on the Constitution, and when that failed, for his election to the Senate. Lengthy negotiations with
mistrustful political "allies" such as Ople and Laurel delayed the formal reestablishment of the Nacionalista Party
until May 1989. Enrile also experimented with a short-lived Grand Alliance for Democracy with Francisco "Kit"
Tatad, the erstwhile minister of information for Marcos, and the popular movie-star senator, Joseph Estrada. In 1991
Enrile remained a very powerful political figure, with landholdings all over the Philippines and a clandestine
network of dissident military officers. [Source: Library of Congress *]
Vice President Laurel had few supporters in the military but long-term experience in political organizing. From his
family base in Batangas Province, Laurel had cautiously distanced himself from Marcos in the early 1980s, then
moved into open opposition under the banner of a loose alliance named the United Nationalist Democratic
Organization (UNIDO). Eventually, the UNIDO became Laurel's personal party. Aquino used the party's
organization in February 1986, although her alliance with Laurel was never more than tactical. UNIDO might have
endured had Aquino's allies granted Laurel more patronage when local governments were reorganized. As it was,
Laurel could reward his supporters only with positions in the foreign service, and even there the opportunities were
severely limited. The party soon fell by the wayside. Laurel and Enrile formed the United Nationalist Alliance, also
called the Union for National Action, in 1988. The United Nationalist Alliance proposed a contradictory assortment
of ideas including switching from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government, legalizing the Communist
Party of the Philippines, and extending the United States bases treaty. By 1991 Laurel had abandoned these ad hoc
creations and gone back to the revived Nacionalista Party, in a tentative alliance with Enrile. *
In 1991 a new opposition party, the Filipino Party (Partido Pilipino), was organized as a vehicle for the presidential
campaign of Aquino's estranged cousin Eduardo "Danding" Cojuangco. Despite the political baggage of a long
association with Marcos, Cojuangco had the resources to assemble a powerful coalition of clans. *
In September 1986 the revolutionary left, stung by its shortsighted boycott of the February election, formed a legal
political party to contest the congressional elections. The Partido ng Bayan (Party of the Nation) allied with other
leftleaning groups in an Alliance for New Politics that fielded 7 candidates for the Senate and 103 for the House of
Representatives, but it gained absolutely nothing from this exercise. The communists quickly dropped out of the
electoral arena and reverted to guerrilla warfare. As of 1991, no Philippine party actively engaged in politics
espoused a radical agenda.

Catholic Church and Politics in the Philippines

During the Spanish colonial period, the Catholic Church was extensively involved in colonial administration,
especially in rural areas. With the advent of United States control, the Catholic Church relinquished its great estates.
Church and state officially were separated, although the church, counting more than 80 percent of the population as
members, continued to have influence when it wanted to exert it. For much of the Marcos administration, the official
church, led by archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Jaime Sin, adopted a stance of "critical collaboration." This meant
that although Sin did not flatly condemn Marcos, he reserved the right to criticize. Below the cardinal, the church
was split between conservative and progressive elements, and some priests joined the communistdominated National
Democratic Front through a group named Christians for National Liberation. Cardinal Sin was instrumental in the
downfall of Marcos. He brokered the critical, if temporary, reconciliation between Aquino and Laurel and warned
the Marcoses that vote fraud was "unforgivable." In radio broadcasts, he urged Manileos to come into the streets to
help the forces led by Enrile and Ramos when they mutinied in February 1986. The church, therefore, could
legitimately claim to be part of the revolutionary coalition. [Source: Library of Congress *]
Aquino is a deeply religious woman who has opened cabinet meetings with prayers and sought spiritual guidance in
troubled times. Although there were reports that the Vatican in late 1986 had instructed Cardinal Sin to reduce his
involvement in politics, Aquino continued to depend on him. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines
issued a pastoral letter urging people to vote yes in the 1987 constitutional plebiscite. In March 1987, Sin announced
that he was bowing out of politics, but two months later he broadcast his support for ten Aquino-backed candidates
for the Senate and recommended that voters shun candidates of the left. In 1990 Sin defined his attitude toward the
government as one of "critical solidarity." *
The church was very pleased with provisions of the 1987 Constitution that ban abortion and restore a limited role
for religion in public education. The Constitution is essentially silent on the matter of family planning. The church
used its very substantial influence to hinder government family-planning programs. Despite the fact that the
population grew by 100,000 people per month in the late 1980s, Cardinal Sin believed that the Marcos government
had gone too far in promoting contraception. He urged Aquino to "repeal, or at least revise" government family-
planning programs. In August 1988, the bishops conference denounced contraception as "dehumanizing and
ethically objectionable." For churchmen, this was an issue not to be taken lightly. One bishop called for the church
to "protect our people from the contraceptive onslaught" and the bishops conference labelled rapid population
growth a "nonproblem." In 1989 the United States Department of Commerce projected the Philippine population at
130 million by the year 2020--in a country the size of California. *

Catholic Leaders and Politics in the Philippines

The Catholic church is one of the strongest institutions in the Philippines and major player in Philippine politics.
Support of the Catholic church, and the military, are key to political survival and success in the Philippines. The
Catholic is very involved in fighting poverty and in some cases some of its members have been involved in
supporting poor tenant farmers in their battles against their rich landlords.
Priests and bishops and other religious leaders are powerful figures in the Philippines. Local priest and ministers are
so highly respected that requests from them take on the power of mandates. A family considers having a son or
daughter with a religious career as a high honor. Personal friendships with priests, ministers, and nuns are prized.
Clerics take an active role in the secular world. An example is Brother Andrew Gonzales, the current secretary of
DECS. [Source: everyculture.com]
The Catholic Church and, to a lesser extent, the Protestant churches engaged in a variety of community welfare
efforts. These efforts went beyond giving relief and involved attempts to alter the economic position of the poor.
Increasingly in the 1970s, these attempts led the armed forces of President Marcos to suspect that church agencies
were aiding the communist guerrillas. In spite of reconciliation efforts, the estrangement between the churches and
Marcos grew; it culminated in the call by Cardinal Jaime Sin for the people to go to the streets to block efforts of
Marcos to remain in office after the questionable election of 1986. The resulting nonviolent uprising was known
variously as People's Power and as the EDSA Revolution. [Source: Library of Congress, 1991 *]
The good feeling that initially existed between the church and the government of President Aquino lasted only a
short time after her inauguration. Deep-seated divisions over the need for revolutionary changes again led to tension
between the government and some elements in the churches. *
Catholics fall into three general groups: conservatives who are suspicious of social action and hold that Christian
love could best be expressed through existing structures; moderates, probably the largest group, in favor of social
action but inclined to cooperate with government programs; and progressives, who do not trust the government
programs, are critical both of Philippine business and of American influence, and feel that drastic change is needed.
In the past, progressives were especially disturbed at atrocities accompanying the use of vigilantes. They denied that
they were communists, but some of their leaders supported communist fronts, and a few priests actually joined
armed guerrilla bands. There appeared to be more progressives among religious-order priests than among diocesan
priests. *

Cardinal Sin
Cardinal Jaime L. Sin was the top Catholic figure in the Philippines for decades until his death in 2005. Arguably
one of the most powerful men in the Philippines and one of the most powerful Catholic clerics in the world, he was
mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II. The son of Chinese immigrants, Cardinal Sin is well-known
for his sense of humor, his name and his jokes about his name. When asked what his chances are of becoming the
Pope, he says, "First of all, my name is bad." He often greets guest to his residence with "Welcome to the House of
Sin" and is notorious for his bawdy comments.
 Hrvoje Hranjski of Associated Press wrote: Cardinal Sin shaped the role of the church during the country's darkest
hours after dictator Ferdinand Marcos imposed martial law starting in 1972 by championing the cause of civil
advocacy, human rights and freedoms. Sin's action mirrored that of his strong backer, Pope John Paul II, who
himself challenged communist rulers in Eastern Europe. Three years after Benigno Aquino Sr., a senator opposing
Marcos, was gunned down on the Manila airport tarmac in 1983, Sin persuaded Aquino's widow, Corazon, to run for
president. When massive election cheating by Marcos was exposed, Sin went on Catholic-run Radio Veritas in
February 1986 to summon millions of people to support military defectors and the Aquino-led opposition. Marcos
fled and Aquino, a deeply religious woman, was sworn in as president. Democracy was restored, but the country
remained chaotic. [Source: Hrvoje Hranjski, Associated Press, January 3, 2013 <<<]
Cardinal Sin influence goes back to the Marcos era. Once when he sitting between Marcos and his wife Imelda in
the back seat of the presidential limousine, Marcos asked him why he was so quiet. "Because," he said, "I feel like I
am being crucified between two thieves." Marcos reportedly thought comment was funny but Imelda wouldn't speak
to the cardinal for three months after that.
Michelle O'Donnell wrote in the New York Times, Cardinal Jaime L. Sin, the powerful Roman Catholic
archbishop of Manila, used his influence to champion the rights of the poor and rally the widespread popular
resistance that brought down the presidencies of Ferdinand E. Marcos and Joseph Estrada Cardinal Sin led the
nearly 40 million Catholics in the Philippines for almost three decades, through political upheaval that brought
martial law, repressive dictatorship and democratic rule. A round-faced, bespectacled man, he was known for his
sense of humor that included poking fun of his own name. But it was through his withering and unwavering public
criticism of the Marcos regime in the 1980's that Cardinal Sin became an international figure. [Source: Michelle
O'Donnell, New York Times, June 21, 2005 +++]
At a time when reform-minded clergy in other developing countries were targets of assassination, Cardinal Sin
tirelessly used his pulpit first as bishop, then archbishop, to attack Mr. Marcos' martial law, corruption and policies
that oppressed the poor. Yet unlike Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, a contemporary who also worked to
empower the poor and was fatally shot as he delivered a homily in 1980, Cardinal Sin seemed insulated from
personal harm. "If you compare him to Romero, he spoke out as much as Romero did," said the Rev. Paul L.
Locatelli, the president of Santa Clara University. "He saw justice as making sure that the poor had a voice." But he
was not witho Under the cardinal's tenure, the church was shaken by accusations of sexual misconduct by some of
its priests, according to The Associated Press. Two years ago, Catholic bishops apologized for grave cases of sexual
misconduct by priests and pledged to act on complaints. +++
During his long career, the cardinal was not without his critics. He staunchly opposed artificial means of birth
control, which some critics said left the country overpopulated and mired in poverty. Under the cardinal's tenure, the
church was shaken by accusations of sexual misconduct by some of its priests, according to The Associated Press.
Two years ago, Catholic bishops apologized for grave cases of sexual misconduct by priests and pledged to act on
complaints. +++
See Religion

Protests and Demonstrations in the Philippines

Describing a Manila protest against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in 2006, Nicola Menzie of CBS wrote:
Riot police used water cannons and truncheons to break up a rally by more than 1,500 protesters as they demanded
President Arroyo be removed from office. The protesters appeared emboldened by the success of similar protests in
Thailand that led to Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's resignation from office. The demonstrators reported
several injuries as a result of police using wooden sticks, fiberglass shields and water cannon spray in order to force
them away from a bridge leading to the presidential palace. Rallies have been banned in the area, which has been the
scene of recent clashes between police and demonstrators. Leftist groups have vowed to continue protests and are
calling for Arroyo's ouster over corruption and vote-rigging allegations. [Source: Nicola Menzie, CBS, April 6,
2006]
The next day, Fight Back! News reported: Riot police in the Philippines attacked and broke up a demonstration by
human rights activists marching near an international parliamentarians' conference. The protesters were gathering at
the Malate Church in Manila en route to the Philippine International Convention Center. The police injured various
people, including Catholic priests from the organization Promotion for Church Peoples Response (PCPR). Baton-
wielding police charged into the protesters near the conference site for the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
assembly where about 1,400 lawmakers from 145 countries were meeting. Human rights activists led by several
priests and nuns marched on the conference to protest widespread human rights violations in the Philippines under
the Arroyo government, including a number of recent killings of political activists. [Source: Fight Back! News,
April 12, 2005]

Filipinos Grow Disillusioned with People Power Protests

The Philippine middle-class, instrumental in the overthrow of presidents Marcos and Estrada, is fed up with
political turbulence and wants stability, political analysts say. In 2005, Alan Sipress wrote in the Washington Post,
Jennifer Santos's eyes gleamed as she recalled her days as a young housewife staring down government tanks
ordered to the streets by longtime dictator Ferdinand Marcos. For the better part of a week in 1986, she and tens of
thousands of other Filipinos, carrying flowers and rosary beads, camped along the capital's gritty Edsa Boulevard
until Marcos fell. She remembered with less enthusiasm returning to the boulevard four years ago when another
graft-tainted leader, Joseph Estrada, left office after a single night of protests. "By the next morning," Santos
recounted, "I was in Starbucks drinking coffee, and we had a new president." [Source: Alan Sipress, Washington
Post, July 10, 2005 ^/^]
Now, that president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, is facing a crescendo of calls to step down due to allegations she
cheated in national elections last year. But like the vast majority of other Edsa veterans, Santos, 44, is not very
interested in joining the few protesters on the streets. "I got tired. It happens over and over again," Santos said. "Our
political system never changes." Across Manila, disappointment in Arroyo is surpassed only by a weary recognition
that the Philippines' celebrated protest movement known as "people power" has run its course, and that no new
political savior is at hand to rally the masses. ^/^
Only several thousand flag-waving demonstrators joined the main anti-Arroyo rally in Manila's business district.
Local office workers appeared almost oblivious to the event. The six-lane Edsa Boulevard was clogged with traffic.
Not a protester was in sight and the adjacent plaza at the heroic People Power monument was empty. ^/^
Luzviminda A. Santos, 52, a compact woman with intense brown eyes and shoulder-length black hair streaked
with gray, was invited by several friends to join a small anti-Arroyo demonstration Saturday morning outside the
local Santo Domingo church. She told them she would try to make it, but instead stayed home drinking coffee and
watching the dizzying political developments on television. "I said to myself, 'What for?' " Four years ago, Santos
said, she was among the first to reach Edsa Boulevard and demand Estrada's ouster. But this time there was little
idealism, and the ascension of Arroyo, a product of the wealthy landed classes, was an immediate letdown.
"Everyone is fatigued now with people power. It can't snowball to people power again," she said. But now, she said
her family is less interested in the current political showdown than the basketball game Sunday between the
country's two premier universities. She predicted the Manila sports coliseum would attract more people this
weekend than any demonstration. "Are there people in Edsa now?" she asked. "Is anything happening now? I don't
even care." ^/^
Image Sources:
Text Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, Lonely Planet Guides,
Library of Congress, Philippines Department of Tourism, Comptons Encyclopedia, The Guardian, National
Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AP, AFP, Wall Street Journal,
The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, Foreign Policy, Wikipedia, BBC, CNN, and various books, websites and
other publications.

LIBERALISM AND CONSERVATISM In the Philippines

Joyce R. Victorino
Liberalism and Conservatism mean different things to different people, places and periods of time. In the Philippine
setting, liberalism exists in the form of liberal democracywhich is our form of government, the Republican
Democracy, the actuality of the multiparty pluralism and not solely because of liberal parties. Conservatism, on the
other hand, also exists in the Philippines on account that our state historically has a Christian nation. But what really
is meant by liberalism and conservatism?

Liberalism, according to Wikipedia, is an ideology, a philosophical view, and a political tradition which holds that
liberty is the primary political value. Broadly speaking, it emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society
characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion),
the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent
system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal
democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and equal opportunity to
succeed.

Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-
discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy
frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits
for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and
interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private
enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as
arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as
the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals
support include the right to life, liberty, and property.

Liberal ideology heavily relies on the notion that human beings are rational individuals who are capable of living
freely by reason. Although self-interested and competitive among one another, it is within proper bounds that
humans are able to control passions and desires. Liberalism aims for equality in the sense opportunity in the means
of competition, success and liberty.

Conservatism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy that usually favors traditional values and strong foreign
defense. The term derives from to conserve; from Latin conservre, to keep, guard, observe. Since different
cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have different goals. Some
conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status
quo ante.

There are schools of conservatism namely Cultural Conservatism, a philosophy that supports preservation of the
heritage of a nation or culture; Religious Conservatism, which purpose is to seek to preserve the teachings of some
particular religion, sometimes by proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times seeking to have those
teachings given the force of law; and Fiscal conservatism, the economic philosophy of prudence in government
spending and debt. In other words, a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the
burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back
debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.

Conservative ideology generally regards liberty as a valuable aspect in life. However, freedom is only considered
substantial under certain circumstances. These circumstances are aimed to uphold social order by controlling ones
actions and thinking to be wise instead of a result of an immediate passion. Because of fear of suddden chaos, the
idea of liberty does not appeal to conservatives.
With the definitions of these two political ideologies, generally, the Philippines exhibit the marks of a liberal
democracy because of the presence of our form of government and the constitution. But in some ways, our country
still remains conservative when it comes to our culture and religious beliefs. Furthermore, although the separation of
the church and state is declared in our charter, there remain times when the church meddles with the affairs of our
government. And our liberal democratic government still honors the opinion of the conservative sector.