Republic of the Philippines

NUEVA ECIJA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Main Campus, Sumacab Este, Cabanatuan City
College Of Criminology

Submitted by:

SANZCHEZ, CLIFFORD B.
TIGULO, CARLO C.
MIGUEL, RICARDO C,
PAGUIBITAN, JEROME D.
GARCIA, RAYMOND P.
SEBASTIAN, MARLON T.
BSCRIM III-ALPHA

Submitted to:

MR. IAN CUMADRE

Subject Teacher
INTRODUCTION

Historians believe the Philippines dates back to the Paleolithic age. Based on the

archeological artifacts recovered, Filipino society and culture were fairly developed prior to

contacts with other countries. Filipinos had commercial relations early on with China, Indo-China,

Malaysia, India, and the Arab countries. Chinese silk, porcelain, jars, gold, ivory, and beads were

traded for wax, bird's nest, teakwood, rattan, pearls, precious stones, and other marine and forest

products.

Ferdinand Magellan came to the Philippines on March 16, 1521 and claimed the country

for the Spanish Crown. A colonial government was established in Manila in 1571. Spain

introduced changes in the political, social, and cultural life of the people. One of these is

Christianity. In 1896, the Filipinos staged the first nationalistic revolution in Asia against the

Spaniards. The 1896 Revolution was the culmination of a succession of revolts against Spanish

oppression. The death by musketry of Dr. Jose Rizal, who led the reform movement, fueled the

fires of revolution.

On June 12, 1898, leaders of the revolution declared the country's sovereign state and

proclaimed the first Republic of the Philippines, the first constitutional democracy in Asia.

Meanwhile, Spain declared war against the United States over Cuba and was defeated. As an

offshoot, the Philippines was ceded to America by Spain through the Treaty of Paris.

Under American rule, agriculture, commerce, and trade developed. Among the changes

they introduced were: the modernization of transportation and communication, the improvement

of banking and currency, and a system of public education.

 At the outbreak of the Second World War, Japan occupied the country. In 1945, the

Americans under MacArthur liberated the country and granted it independence in 1946.

The Republic of the Philippines was proclaimed on July 4, 1946, with Manuel Roxas as

President. Massive rehabilitation and rebuilding out of the devastation brought about by the war

was started. In 1972, Martial Law was declared by then President Ferdinand Marcos. Political

repression and economic deterioration during the Martial Law Years resulted in the historic

"People Power" Revolution of February 25, 1986. This led to the proclamation of Corazon C.

Aquino as President of the Philippines.

President Aquino restored the democratic institutions in the country. A Constitution,

ratified on February 2, 1987, provided for a tripartite system: the Executive, the Legislative, and

the Judiciary. This was the type of government before Marcos declared Martial Law and adopted

a modified parliamentary government. Aquino also restored the freedoms of speech, press, and of

assembly.

On June 30, 1992, Fidel V. Ramos became the 12th President of the Philippine Republic.

President Ramos, a hero of the 1986 EDSA uprising, anchored his government on twin themes of

"people empowerment" and "global excellence" as the engines of economic growth and social

equity.

On the 100th anniversary year of the Proclamation of Philippine Independence, Joseph

Ejercito Estrada became the 13th President of the Philippines.

On 20 January 2001, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, through another popular uprising called

"People Power 2", unseated then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. The daughter of former

President Diosdado Macapagal, President Arroyo's vision of a "Strong Republic" is governed on

four pillars: poverty alleviation, good governance, new politics of party programs and leadership

by example.

BODY

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 utang na loob system of patronage, or obligation earned through favors,

voters expect money or jobs in return for their political support. In many cases politician’s

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.

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 routinely

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.

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 non-ideological. 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 too

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."

 “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.

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, Arroyo’s 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 northern 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.

“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.

“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.

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 brother-in-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.

“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.

“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."

“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 Inácio 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 Corazón 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 Philippines’s 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."

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 politicians—and 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 travelers 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.

“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.

Politicians in the Philippines

Personality and image count for a lot on Philippines politics. Presidential candidates have

included high school dropout 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 1998–2004, 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.

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 management 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 starring 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.

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

Venecia’s running mate became President.

“For quite sometime, De Venecia’s 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 man’s 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 Venecia’s stature and experience speaks of moral regeneration and of the

urgency of reclaiming the country’s 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

won’t 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. It’s 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].

Philippine political parties are essentially non-ideological 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.

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.

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).
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.

The party system in the early 1990s closely resembled that of the pre-martial 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 patron client 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 Tañada 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.

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.

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 left leaning 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 communist dominated 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 Manileños 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.

 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 "non-problem." 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.

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.

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.

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.

“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 with 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.

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.
 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 People’s 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.

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."
 “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." ^
CONCLUSIONS

Based on the cited literatures and articles pertaining to the history of Politics, it is therefore

concluded that Politics is really a wholesome and decent term. To be sure, it is essentially the art

or science of good government, the application of the skills and knowledge in running the affairs

of the Philippines.

In the early years of this Republic, many Filipinos were attracted and interested in politics

because it was associated with sincere and dedicated public service. However, something

happened to our politics between then and now. The more decent, qualified, dedicated and well-

meaning Filipinos seem to avoid it now like a dirty and contagious disease.

As evident today, Rodrigo R. Duterte became the most internationally known Filipino

leader since Ferdinand Marcos, the country’s infamous dictator, and Corazon Aquino, the iconic

housewife-turned-president who championed the restoration of democracy. A great deal of media

attention has been paid to Duterte’s murderous war on drugs as well as to his often crass and

controversial statements. His embrace of China and his visceral disdain for the United States has

garnered additional attention in foreign policy circles, and he frequently is included in media

reports and scholarly articles on the rise of populism globally.

Although the attention to Duterte and his brutal drug war is warranted, much less attention

has been paid to his administration’s broader policy agenda, its approach to politics and

governance, and its broader impact on democratic institutions and norms. As a candidate, Duterte

promised that he would produce real and rapid improvements in the lives of Filipinos, particularly

by aggressively addressing crime and corruption. Two and a half years into his presidency, it is

both warranted and possible to assess what has and has not changed under Duterte. The picture is

a mixed one, with elements of change, continuity, and regression.

 The Duterte government’s track record regarding human rights and democracy is

undoubtedly disturbing. It has run roughshod over human rights, its political opponents, and the

country’s democratic institutions. The combination of the Philippines’ powerful presidency and

the malleability of most of its political institutions is resulting in significant democratic

backsliding. But to focus only on Duterte fails to appreciate two other important elements: the

extent to which this degradation has happened through nominally legal means, and the limited

pushback to date by groups and institutions opposed to strongman rule. This working paper takes

an in-depth look at the complex dynamics contributing to democratic backsliding in the

Philippines.

The Duterte administration’s assault on human rights and democracy also raises the

question of what the U.S. government and America’s nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can

and should do to defend democracy in America’s former colony. The analysis concludes with a

discussion of America’s extremely limited support for human rights and democracy in the

Philippines since Duterte became president and offers suggestions for a more robust response.
RECOMMENDATONS

Based on the conclusions drawn the following recommendations were made to improve

Philippine politics and democracy:

1. Have voters elect a straight ticket and allow reelection for a president

2. Give the vice president a more defined role

3. Limit or change the powers of the Senate

4. Create a constitutional court separate from the Supreme Court that will preside solely over

constitutional issues

5. Spell out in the Constitution restrictions on campaign finance

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Francisco, Katerina (2016). How can we improve PH democracy?. Retrieved on December 4, 2019
from https://www.rappler.com/nation/122996-philippine-democracy-quality-participation

Hays, Jeffrey (2008). Politics in the Philippines. Retrieved on December 4, 2019 from
http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Philippines/sub5_6f/entry-3904.html

Philippine Consulate General (2014). THE PHILIPPINES: HISTORY. Retrieved on December 4,

2019 from https://chicagopcg.dfa.gov.ph/the-philippines-history

Timberman, David G. (2019). Philippine Politics Under Duterte: A Midterm Assessment.

Retrieved on December 4, 2019 from
https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/01/10/philippine-politics-under-duterte-midterm-
assessment-pub-78091.