“The Effects of Multi-Party System Towards the Major

Political Parties in the Philippines”

A Research Study Presented to the Faculty of Political

Science Social Sciences Department
De La Salle University –
Dasmariñas

in partial fulfillment of the requirements in

Fundamentals of Political science

Researchers:

Agapito, Francis
Ajon, Peter Angelo
Baladad, Patricia
Abad, George Lawrence D.

Research Adviser
Jesse Atienza
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page 1

Table of Contents 2

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study 3

Historical Development 4

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Related Literature 6

Analytical 7

Comparative 12

United States Two Party System 14

CHAPTER 3: Conclusion

Conclusion 15

REFERENCES 16

Page 2 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

Chapter 1: Introduction

Globally, Elections are integral to democratic governance. It holds the utmost

importance in bridging the people's preferences to the chosen system driven by the
government. According to Heywood, Elections are a fundamental source of political
mobilization, a method of establishing government, conferring legitimacy and transferring
government power, an assurance of representation, and evaluating the encompassing
parameters. It is where the hope of the citizens for a better future resides. Hence,
elections are aptly orchestrated and well-designed. Countries projected theirs contingent
on the nature of society, history, social and regional divisions, and its elections system.
Across the world, 55% plurality and majority were the implemented systems in Elections.
The other was 35% proportional, and the least 10% were mixed (Gardbaum, 2017).
Correspondingly, the Philippines employs Multi-Member System under Plurality.

The Philippines enriched the Plurality system. It was established under the
Philippine constitution of 1935, 1973, and 1987. According to Agra (1997), the elected
officials (president, vice president, senators, members of the house of representatives,
local chief executives, and local legislators are selected via majority rule under the 1987
constitution using a 'first-past-the-post system. Likewise, winners of elections are
determined based on who got the highest number of voters among a potentially infinite
number of candidates. The Country's electoral process and system were vastly projected
from the colonialism that transpires.

The number of political parties rises as the multi-party system ensues in the
Philippines. These political parties form a steady and well-organized structure and strive
to lay control in the state’s mechanism through national support. According to the
Commission of Elections (Comelec), there are ten (10) Major Political Parties in the
Philippines. The Partido Demokratiko Pilipino–Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) was
declared the dominant party, while the Nacionalista Party (NP) is the dominant minority
party. Apart from that were the other registered political parties that also participated in
the elections.

The emerging political parties in the Philippines brought pluses and minuses, pros
and cons. Similarly, the Philippines has come to a stable two-party system which
transcended into a fluid multi-party system in the post-authoritarian period. It was due to
the elevating parties that compete, predominantly in the legislative seats. The system
foresees the call for the emergence of changes (Kasuya, 2009). As the Multi-party set up
was implemented, pros and cons were exhibited in the shadows of political parties.

Page 3 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

1.2 Historical

Ostensible Two-party System in the Philippines

The Grand Old Party of the nation, the Nacionalista Party (NP), was established in
1907 and divided into two factions twice during the colonial era—in 1922 and 1933. In
1946, a division within the NP led to the creation of the Liberal Party (LP). A single political
party can achieve a majority in the legislature under this political system, in which many
electorates vote for one or more parties. As a country with a two-party system, the United
States became the standard case. The distinctions between two-party and multi-party
systems are analogously seen. Numerous factions vied for control within the two major
American political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, in consideration of the
two sides' past. The Liberal party was formed in 1945 when the late President, Sergio
Osmania, refused to step aside in favor of Manuel Roxas, causing a split in the
Nacionalista Party. The Liberal Party was therefore established. It was called the Liberal
wing of the Nacionalista Party-Liberal. Furthermore, at that moment, they were split over
various issues, including the collaboration issue. The collaborators, or those accused of
treasonable collaboration with the Japanese enemy, rallied to the banner of Manuel
Roxas, who ran on the Liberal ticket. The anti-collaborationists and the guerrillas joined
forces with the Nacionalista party (Montelibano, et. al., 1970). The collaboration was
Pessimistic.

The Rift Between the Political Parties

The Liberal Party maintained that there was no cooperation was a myth, as were
the collaborators. However, years later, the principal collaborators or those charged with
coalitions. The said persons were Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel who became the
leaders of the Nativist Party, or Party against Coalition. The Liberals were accused of
being compulsive ally of the United States, while the Nacionalistas describes themselves
as explicitly for Philippine independence. The said system dominated the political
landscape following the war and up until the 1986 snap election, when President
Ferdinand Marcos and Cory Aquino faced off in a one-on-one presidential race and Sen.
Salvador Laurel and Sen. Arturo Tolentino squared off in the vice-presidential race. Thus,
the system was eradicated. In the first post-war general elections held in 1946, the Liberal
Party was founded when the Nacionalista Party (NP liberal)'s wing broke away from the
Grand Old Party (LP). Over time, either party has had little association with any region.
Each has maintained strong local and provincial organizations and sizable electoral
support. Regions of the country, and each has taken measures to champion every
region's interests as vigorously as its opponent. It remains factual; each presidential and
vice-presidential candidate has won a disproportionately more significant proportion of
the votes cast in his home province. Compared to other areas, and each successful
presidential. While running for governor, the candidate showed particular concern for the
welfare of his region and province-mates. However, a review of the voting percentages
cast at congressional and Election results for governor shows that neither of the party is

Page 4 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

powerful. Consistently, in any region of the country. Indeed, provincial. Sen. Panfilo
Lacson raised the prospect of reverting to the two-party system late last year.

The Beforemath of Multi-party System

Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, the opposition leader and a former senator, was
assassinated at the Manila International Airport on August 21, 1983, which sparked a
wave of street demonstrations organized by civil society groups and ultimately resulted in
the people-power uprising in 1986. The post-authoritarian party system experienced an
increase in intra-party factionalism after democracy was restored following the overthrow
of the Marcos dictatorship. A multi-party system with a presidential form of government
could evolve thanks to institutional incentives established by the Constitution of 1987.
This clause further exacerbated the factional nature of Philippine party politics during the
democratic transition. In explaining the factors that led to the Philippine party system's
transition from a stable two-party system to a dynamic multi-party system in the post-
authoritarian era, (Kasuya, 2009) noted that the increase in the number of plausible
presidential candidates during the post-authoritarian period contributed to the increasing
number of parties running primarily in legislative elections.

The Current Multi-Party System

The Philippines has a long history of a multi-party system, acquiesced and

understudied well, an aspect of Philippine party politics. The clash of numerous parties
with the division and union of elite-based political factions shaped the multi-party system
after an autocratic regime. The chronology of the multi-party system started when the
formal two-party system was abolished during the Marcos regime (1978 – 1986); and the
current multi-party system (1987). Throughout the evolution of the party system, more
factions have existed, but the institutionalization of the party has generally been minimal.
Since the history of electoral processes in the Philippines, many attempts have been
made to solve this enigma. It maintains that institutional and structural factors with
historical roots collaborate to generate factional resilience in Philippine party politics.
Taking a historical institutional approach will outline the path-dependent trajectory of the
multi-party system at crucial political turning points. It will also examine how it contributes
to the under institutionalization of the Philippine party system. A way for building national
relationships among local political clans in the nation was made possible by the advent
of political parties and elections as institutional processes for choosing representatives
for the legislature. A significant barrier to the institutionalization of political parties was the
reliance of national-level politicians (such as presidents and senators) on local political
clan groupings as conduits for clientelist trades. An approach to the study of party politics
in the Philippines that focused on power interactions within the framework of the patron-
client factional system. Filipino social relations were not structured by organized interest
groups or individuals who perceived themselves as part of a specific social class, as in
Western democracies. Landė (1965) referred to "dyadic ties" as a network of partnerships
where two people could help one another. The vertical and unequal dyadic ties that are
evident in Philippine politics link affluent clients who provide tangible goods and services
too dependent clients who are compensated with their financial support and loyalty.

Page 5 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

This chapter comprises an overview of the literature that involves the research and
the findings. It is divided into sections where the literature implies the analysis, ideology,
power, social relations, electoral process, and systems that are vital to the effects of the
Multi-party system in the political parties.

Over the years, countries peruse a prodigious and exemplary state; wherein
copious triumphs and changes are seen in the contemporary world. In the lens of
progression, the electoral system plays a fundamental role. According to Acemoglu and
Robinson (2012), it safeguards the sovereign people's will. The people who comprise the
institution that arises imply the quality of governance and development that a country will
experience. In fine, political parties drive the course of a country in either way; progressing
and regressing.

Furthermore, political parties are the firm's core vehicles of contemporary freedom
in a democratic country such as the Philippines. According to Heywood (2012), the
essential role for the viability of a democracy is the "creation of programs and institutions
that give political and legislative shape to social interests." These parties may have done
so due to their "connections to the interest-articulating structures of the intermediate
system of organizations and institutions." Patently, representation, goal formulation,
socialization and mobilization, interest articulation and aggregation, and organizational
government must come to light to cater to the prerequisite demand of the people. Since
well-functioning parties are developed at the grassroots level in a diverse and vibrant civil
society in which political ideologies are clear and concise (Meyer, 2012).

Multi-Party System

A multi-party system is a political system in which various political parties from

across the political spectrum contest national elections. All have the potency to dominate
government posts, either individually or in alliance (Macaulay, 2017). The Philippines'
adoption of a multi-party system results from the fostering of political parties. The country
was once a stable two-party system that transcended into a fluid multi-party system in the
post-authoritarian period. It was due to the elevating parties that competed.
Predominantly in the legislative seats, the system foresees the call for the emergence of
changes (Kasuya, 2009).

Political Parties

According to the Commission of Elections, Under Section 61 of the Omnibus

Election Code, "Any organized group of persons seeking registration as a national or
regional political party may file with the Commission a verified petition attaching thereto
its constitution and by-laws, platforms or program of the government and such other
relevant information as may be required in the Commission." Therefore, Filipinos have
the choice to create and register a political party, where freedom and choice matter.
Furthermore, political parties are political organizations with a steady organizational

Page 6 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

structure. Thus, with popular backing, they would assume control of the governmental
machinery. Thus, A party system is a framework through which political parties function.
Traditionally, parties were linked to the society and state; however, organizational-
building and adaptability have inverted the process. The equity vanishes as It is now in
temporal linkage with the society and a more permanent connection in the state (Biezen
& Kopecký, 2012). In the Philippines, as per the Commission of Elections (Comelec),
there are ten (10) Major Political Parties in the Philippines. Namely, Liberal Party (LP),
Aksyon Demokratiko (Aksyon), Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC), Lakas-Christian
Muslim Demokrats (Lakas-CMD), Partido para sa Demokratikong Reporma (PDR), the
National Unity Party (NUP), Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), Partido Federal ng
Pilipinas (PFP), Akbayan Citizens Action Party (Akbayan), and United Nationalist Alliance
(UNA). Wherein the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino–Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) was
declared to be the dominant party while the Nacionalista Party (NP) is the dominant
minority party (Patinio, 2022). A dominant party arises when the opposition parties
confront the strongest party in competitive elections but fail to remove the incumbent from
office. Moreover, it gives a considerable categorization for the dominating party system
since it is established when a party wins three successive elections while holding the
majority of seats (Sartori, 2014).

2. 2 Analytical

Positive Effects of the Multi-Party System in the Political Parties in the

Philippines

As the Authoritarian Period ends, various political parties emerge. Therefore, a

multi-party system arises to establish a conducive environment for national growth.
Predominantly, the political parties dominantly work in a coalition. This bolstered their
capacity to demonstrate unity despite their varying political perspectives. The existing
parties keep the notion of a 'balance of power' in check each time. They manage to share
resources, structure, and election strategy; As a result, efficiency, collaboration, and the
conservation of scarce coalition and party resources are maximized. Thus, this improves
their ability to exhibit harmony despite the different political orientations that they may
have (Doherty, 2015). Therewithal, the dominance of Political Party Coalitions in the
Philippines persists. When Corazon Aquino was seated in power, UNIDO was formed
with the unification of anti-Marcos parties. The party instituted moves
contraryMarcos'scos' (Teehankee, 1995). In 1992, The Partido Lakas Tao, headed by
Representative Edelmiro Amante, was created, while the EDSA-LDP, led by
Representatives Sumulong and de Venecia, was formed. These two political parties
merged to establish the Lakas ng EDSA, which then consolidated with the party of Foreign
Secretary Raul Manglapus, the National Union of Christian Democrats-United Muslim
Democrats of the Philippines (NUCD-UMDP), to form the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP (Kimura,
1992). On August 26, 1994, Ramos launched a new political alliance that would result in
the Philippines' most powerful political organization, as he said. Ramos' Lakas-National
Union of Christian Democrats (Lakas/NUCD) alliance joined forces with the Democratic
Filipino Struggle (DFS) (Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, Laban). In 1989, NP was

Page 7 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

formed through the LP Kalaw (1984), Unido-NO Laurel Wing (1987), Kilusang Bagong
Lipunan's NP Roy Wing (1981), PNP Ople (1986) and NP Enrile Wing (1987). In the last
2016 elections, PDP-Laban signed a coalition agreement with the Nacionalista Party,
Lakas-CMD, National Unity Party, and the Nationalist People's Coalition. In the recent
election, political parties also form a coalition to endorse their chosen candidates.
Namely, MP3 Alliance (PDP-Laban, PROMDI, People's Champ Movement), Tuloy ang
Pagbabago Coalition (PDP-Laban and PDDS), UniTeam Alliance (PFP, Lakas-CMD,
Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino, HNP), Team Robredo-Pangilinan (LP, Akbayan, KANP, Ang
Kapatiran) and Laban ng Masa (Partido Lakas ng Masa, Sanlakas).

Otherwise, "Party Democracy" is also felt in the multi-party system of the

Philippines. According to the 1987 Charter encourages the formation of new political
parties as can be gleaned from its Article IX (Constitutional Commissions), Section 6,
Paragraph C on the Commission on Elections (Comelec), which reads: "A free and open
party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people." In that
way, the Philippines, as a democratic country, is associated with imparting the interest of
broad groups and accountability to its citizens. Where representation, goal formulation,
interest articulation and aggregation, socialization and mobilization, and government
structure are maximized. With varied people and ideologies, the Philippines has amassed
more than fifty Political Parties since 1907 (Tan & Bong, 2022).

Furthermore, in a Multi-party system, political parties could represent disparate

political ideologies. According to Teehankee (2020), the critics of the current party system
could not retaliate against the present political ideologies since in the two-party system
that resides in the Philippines, only the Liberal Party (LP) and the Nationalist Party (NP)
progress. However, in recent times, Federalism, Conservatism, Social Conservatism,
Conservative Liberalism, Economic Liberalism, Paternalistic Conservatism,
Progressivism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Christian Democracy, and
Islamic Democracy have come to light through various major political parties

In addition, the growing political parties in the Philippines create an encompassing

competition with one another. With a variety and profuse parties, platforms and ideologies
were strengthened. Since every political party cradles that they are not just greater than
another party but to hold the title that they are the best of all. In the same manner that the
opinions of people are heard, and comments are cultivated, political parties harvest and
nurture it so as to develop precise platforms (Aceron, 2015).

Adverse Effects of the Multi-Party System in the Political Parties in the

Philippines

Everything has its pros and cons. Hence, in a multi-party system, as the number
of parties increases, so does its pessimism. Patently, competition, unpopular ideologies,
names, clans, conferring legitimacy, power, and majoritarian vote are the problem that
engenders. As the Philippines transitioned from a two-party system to a multi-party
system, a majority vote had no appearance in any candidate of political parties. According

Page 8 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

to Aceron (2015), in the Philippine presidential elections since the end of Martial Law, no
contender from any political party has received a majority vote, it resulted in a citizenry
that is generally opposed to the existing president. As a result, this runs antithetical to the
democratic system's "majority rule." Apparently, in the 1992 elections after Corazon
Aquino's term, Fidel Ramos only garnered 23.58% of votes. The 27.42% vote percentage
that would complete an absolute majority was disseminated to his opponents in the seat
of the presidency. As the Philippine elections for president continued, Joseph Estrada got
39.89%, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo received a 39.99%, Benigno Aquino III got 42.08%,
and Rodrigo Duterte got 16.6 million votes, an equivalent of 39.02%. In the six turns of
national elections that have passed, no presidential candidate from any political party has
received an absolute majority. This resulted in democratic instability and partisan
authority (Mainwaring, 2016). Nevertheless, after thirty-six years of vanishing, Ferdinand
"Bong Bong" Marcos swept the elections with a majority vote. In the light of his historical
"majoritarian vote," are the alliances and coalition that enters.

In the record, Partido Federal ng Pilipinas (Administration) are in coalition with

Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats, Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan,
National Unity Party, Nacionalista Party, Nationalist People's Coalition, Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino, United Nationalist Alliance, Aksyon Demokratiko, People's
Reform Party, Pederalismo ng Dugong Dakilang Samahan, Centrist Democratic Party in
the Philippines and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino. However, in the history of the Philippines,
Political party coalitions and merges tend to separate. Wherein an absence of distinct
ideological options as a result of a dominant political center will be a concern. In history,
the alliance of pro-Aquino parties after the regime of Marcos had dissents on the
distribution of political spoils, which led to Aquino's relatives, headed by her brother Jose
"Peping" Cojuangco Jr., seeking to solidify political influence by recruiting turncoats from
other organizations, including infamous individuals from the KBL and a substantial pro-
Aquino group of UNIDO that broke with Laurel to create Lakas ng Bansa (Lakas).
Subsequently, Lakas then merged with a faction of the PDP-Laban ushered by House
Speaker Ramon Mitra Jr. and presidential brother-in-law Paul Aquino to create the LDP
in 1988. However, its lack of cohesion tears it apart (Kimura, 1992).

Furthermore, In the run-up to the 1998 national elections, the LDP experienced
internal divisions. Senator Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's supporters established the
Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (Kampi), whereas Senator Raul Roco founded the Aksyon
Demokratiko. Angara, in turn, arranged the foundation of the Laban ng Makabayang
Masang Pilipino from a coalition of three opposition parties: Laban, NPC, and the Partido
ng Masang Pilipino (associated with Joseph Estrada (LAMMP). Many politicians joined
Lakas to raise campaign funds while covertly supporting the presidential candidacy of the
opposing LAMMP's immensely renowned vice president, Joseph Estrada. This covert
backing for Estrada played a significant role in the loss of Lakas presidential candidate
Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. After the presidential triumph of its candidate Joseph
Estrada, LAMMP was reorganized as Lapian ng Masang Pilipino (LAMP) and emerged
as the new dominant party (Teehankee, 2022). This situation is not distinct in the
Philippines. Correspondingly, according to Rocamora (2017), political parties in the
Philippines “are not separated on the basis of long-term upper-class interests, far less on

Page 9 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

the interests of the lower classes." Rather, they are "temporary and unstable coalitions of
upper-class divisions cobbled together for elections and post-election patronage seat
occupancy." Parties only gather to refute statements of lower-class interests. The
remainder of the day, they engage in particularistic horse dealing and the perpetual
pursuit of deals.

Accordingly, in the study of Teehankee (2013), dominant political parties in the

Philippines primarily focused on groups of well-entrenched political clans and dynasties
that frequently shift their membership from one presidential party to another in a bid to
gain access to state resources and patronage. Since patronage is the political glue that
sustains the fragile factional coalition of party switchers and political dynasties inside the
leading presidential parties in the Philippines (Kasuya, 2019). For instance, Party
switching has spurred the growth of KBL-like dominant parties such as the Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) under Corazon Aquino's administration, the Lakas NUCD-
UMDP under Fidel Ramos; the Lapian ng Masang Pilipino (LAMP) under Joseph Estrada;
the Lakas-Kampi-CMD under Gloria Macapagal Arroyo; the LP under Benigno Aquino III;
and the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) under Rodrigo
Duterte. Similarly, the formation of political parties and elections as institutional processes
for electing legislature members paved the way for the country's local political clans to
form national affiliations. The dependence of national-level politicians (presidents and
senators) on factions of local political clans as clientelistic trade channels proffers a
significant barrier to political party institutionalization (Teehankee, 2018).

Furthermore, political parties in the Philippines' multi-party system predominantly

reside in the hands of political clans. Wherein the similar names of political parties could
be distinguishable through knowing the clans that clasp with it. As a case in point, the
Partido Demokratiko ng Pilipino, Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, and Katipunan ng
Demokratikong Pilipino are similarly crafted in the name. Likewise, Nacionalista Party,
Nationalist People's Coalition, and United Nationalist Alliance were identical in the name.
Otherwise, the PDP Laban is Pimentel's and president Duterte's party. Villar, Cayetano,
and Marcoses led the Nacionalista, and the liberal was headed by Pangilinan together
with the Aquinos and Roxas'. These political parties splinter into different factions, merge
during elections and form a coalition. Which frequently eventuated in the table of multi-
party systems.

In light of the multi-party system and coalition, rival factionalism also persists.
During the 2010 elections, two significant parties arose throughout Aquino's coalition: the
"Balay" and "Samar" parties. While both of these groups endorsed Aquino's presidential
bid, they preferred different vice presidents (Sisante, 2010). The Balay group, named after
the Roxas-owned home in Cubao, Quezon City, which functioned as the official
headquarters of the Aquino-Roxas ticket, backed Roxas' run for vice president (Hofilea
and Go, 2011). In the 2010 elections, the Samar faction, called after their headquarters
on Samar Avenue in Quezon City, sponsored a "Noynoy-Binay" or "Noy-Bi" ticket
(Esposo, 2012). Following Aquino's triumph, the intra-factional battle heated up, with his
government split between the two factions (Cabacungan, 2012). The battle between
factions resumed in the 2016 presidential elections. While members of Aquino's Cabinet

Page 10 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

said that they were "firmly behind" Aquino's decision to support Roxas' presidential quest,
other LP members allegedly abandoned Roxas' campaign in favor of Senator Grace Poe,
the adoptive daughter of lost presidential candidate Fernando Poe Jr. (Aquino & Calonzo,
2015).

Also in the record, according to Dalton (2018), counting the number of parties is
among the most widely observed characteristics of party systems. Since competitiveness
of candidates in parties could extend farther. Thus, the significant role of money in the
election process has led to the creation of corruption and financial impediments.
According to Atty. Escalante, the Priority Development Assistance Funding (PDAF),
sometimes known as politicians' "pork barrel" funds. Wherein Billions of pesos were
squandered by Philippine officials and staff owing to greed and an excessive desire for
power, and fortune is one of the corruptions that transpire in the Philippines. Some
implicated parties are Lakas, Liberal, and NPC. In fine, "Political parties remain to be
candidate-centered coalitions of provincial bosses, political machines, and local clans,
grounded on clientelistic, parochial, and personal inducements rather than causes,
ideologies, and party agendas," according to a recent study (Teehankee, 2012). The
extremely factionalized character of Philippine party politics is both a cause and a result
of political party under-institutionalization. Since the establishment of the first Filipino
political party in 1900, a plethora of political parties has come and gone. Nonetheless,
party institutionalization in the nation is still weak and undeveloped.

The Fostering of Multi-party System in the Philippines

In the study of “Reforming the Philippine Political Party System,” the multi-party
system in the Philippines could be viewed adversely, yet they are still in existence owing
to the vital duties it performs. According to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
data, 27,737,268 voted in the last 2001 elections. Further, in 2004 elections accumulated
33,510,092; in 2010, amassed 38,179,475; and in 2016, 44,549,848 voters participated
in the elections. Likewise, last 2016, the miting de avance of Former President Rodrigo
Duterte draws a number of approximately 350,000-500,000. In the recent election, The
Uniteam Alliance and Team Robredo had approximately 1,000,000 crowds during
their miting de avances. With the escalating numbers of Filipino participants, political
parties thrive.

Furthermore, the Philippines is multi-faceted in terms of beliefs, tribes, and region;

Filipinos are clinched to voting for politicians who are within their tribe or people who
belong to the same region as theirs to seek for representation. It was an advantage for
many Filipinos to see numerous candidates vying for the position since the Philippines is
a diversified country. Throughout the years, voter turnouts have elevated as the
population arises. Wherein participation of political parties and voters promulgates
(Aceron, 2012). The negative discernment with the system also indicates why
development acts and reforms ensue. The institutional-legal system is thus the most
strategic point of interference in the Philippines for strengthening and developing parties.
The legal gaps can be addressed by reforming the party law, subsidy, and campaign
financing. Further, for a long-term basis, an evaluation of the institutional structures of

Page 11 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

elections and government, which would necessitate constitutional amendments,

engenders.

Reforms and Development in the Political Parties

Initiatives to reform the Philippine electoral system have been ongoing for over a
decade. Since the system of parties are far from fixed and static, as they react to shifts in
their contexts. Institutional and procedural flaws prevent electoral politics in the
Philippines from contributing meaningfully to effective and efficient governance. Despite
the fact that Philippine elections are relatively open, there need to be more genuine
political alternatives and competitive candidates. Candidates must either be wealthy or
popular to win elections. The high election cost serves as a deterrent to popular
participation and an inducement to corruption. Political violence is frequently used to
prevent competition. Efforts to address the access issue have yet to bear fruit
(Teehankee, 2020). Hence, critics assert the change to a two-party system, and some
push for constitutional amendments (Tan, 2015).

Furthermore, The Party Development Act caters to the issue encompassing

political parties. According to the office of the ombudsman, The Political Party
Development Bill strives to improve the political party system by: (1) punishing turncoats
and enshrining party loyalty and adherence to ideological principles, platforms, and
programs; (2) minimizing cases of graft and corruption by regulating campaign financing
through transparent mechanisms to level the playing field; and (3) professionalizing
political parties into state subsidies by assisting them to become efficacious of
democracy. The pending bill urges party development activities other than campaign
activities during an election year through the State Subsidy Fund. In a non-election year,
funds may be used for (a) party administration, recruitment, and civic education; (b)
research and policy development; (c) signatory education and training; (d) institution
building and component outreach program; and (e) other plausible operations and
logistical expenses necessary for the party's strengthening.

2.3 Comparative

Political Parties in the Two-Party System and the Multi-Party System of the
Philippines.

In the historical record of Lande (1967), the Liberal and Nacionalista Parties
dominate the two-party system of the Philippines. The political leaders around the country
came from both parties, and candidates who run without official office rarely win. The two
major political parties are identical. When each party is assessed as a whole, the two are
similar in an absolute sense. Each has maintained strong local and provincial
organizations as well as a substantial election following in every part of the nation, and
each worked as hard as its opponent to advocate the interests of every region. In the
same manner, the two political parties are interchangeable. Since they are made up of
similar and interchangeable components, the two parties must also be identical in order
to retain their competitive position concerning the other. Likewise, the two shall rule so

Page 12 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

that members of all social classes are satisfied. Further, the dominant parties' control of
the Presidency changed thrice, in 1953, 1961, and 1965. As a result, no party has
controlled the Presidency for much more than two sequential four-year terms since the
war. The Nacionalista and Liberal parties occupied the Presidency for 9 and 11 years,
correspondingly, from the first post-war elections until the end of 1966. The successive
party control cycles in the House of Representatives and the Senate have followed a
similar pattern. In fine, a majority vote reigns in a political party, and stable government
comes to light.

Contrariwise, political parties in the latter time once held the seat with a majority
vote, and the rest of the elections in the post-authoritarian period did not. It resulted in an
unstable government and coalitions. Furthermore, multi-factionalism resides within the
multi-party of the Philippines; wherein parties merge and form a coalition for political
spoils, congruent ideologies, and affiliations (Aceron, 2015). The existence of multi-party
lightens the evolution of numerous ideologies and political parties. Wherein
representation from different regions was catered, conversely with the two-party system
where Muslim provinces in the south claim to be neglected amidst the property conflicts
between the Islamic and Christian groups. Latterly, one of the major political parties in the
Philippines is the Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats, which sits in the center of Islamic
and Christian political spectrums. Despite the differences, parties in the different systems
share similitudes. The electoral success of political parties in both systems is contingent
on the participation of the people. Hence, parties devote vital attention and absolute
resources to meet the desires of the common people. Moreover, people affiliated with
each party are bonded by interpersonal connections between persons of equal and
unequal standing.

Indonesia and Philippines

Indonesia and the Philippines underwent colonialism and an authoritarian period.

Wherein political systems were vastly curated. The political parties are an integral
component of the systems in the two countries. Parties' factionalism mirrors their more
prominent organizational traits. In most parties, factions exist, but they are often flexible
and based on clientelistic loyalties or perceived chances for patronage rather than
socioeconomic cleavages, rival ideologies, or geographical affinities. However,
Indonesian parties are more institutionalized than their neighboring country, the
Philippines and Thailand (Ufen, 2012). In addition, as stated by Mietzner (2013),
Indonesian political party carries political recruitment, interest articulation, and political
engagement and participation effectively compared to the Philippines. Since 2009, The
Indonesian party has been more stable (Tomsa, 2010). In light of the progressive
tightening of institutional barriers governing the establishment of new parties over the last
several years, parties are currently under unprecedented pressure to resolve factional
issues within. Some parties have handled this difficulty more effectively than others,
revealing minor variations in the form of factionalism across parties and the parties'
capacity to accommodate diverse interests inside a single organization. Nonetheless,
Indonesia and the Philippines' political parties experience splinters and defections.
However, the Indonesian government imposed stricter restrictions on the formation of

Page 13 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

new parties, resulting in fewer breakaway parties and more severe internal party
factionalism. Moreover, the advent of direct presidential elections in 2004 changed the
incentives for the development of new political parties. Also, the unpredictability of parties
required the law to implement fifty (50) people as the minimum number in forming parties.
In fine, the political parties in the two countries continue to suffer from several flaws,
including programmatic superficiality, endemic corruption, elitism, and a lack of real
connection with regular individuals. Copious of them are very leader-centered at the top,
yet mostly clientelistic at the bottom (Tomsa, 2013). Internal dynamics of their parties are
typically driven more by rent-seeking and the pursuit of patronage than by ideological or
programmatic conflicts.

Brazil and the Philippines

The Brazilian political system, the confluence of presidential, a dispersed

multiparty system, and undisciplined parties has created serious challenges. This pairing
has led to both democratic instability and the persistent weakness of political parties in
Brazil (Mainwaring, 2012). Into which the Philippines are on the same wavelength as the
said country. In the record, Brazil longs for a union and the support of Congress. Wherein
the minority status of the president's party has often caused problems and impasses in
the executive-legislature relationship. This resulted in executive immobility, whereas a
stalemate between the executive and legislative branches renders the president
powerless. To a greater degree, former President Getúlio Dornelles Vargas faces
perplexity with his programs in Congress. The PSD failed to defend him since the UDN
stopped the initiatives of Vargas dominantly (Hippólito, 1985). Similarly, in the Philippines,
President Rodrigo Duterte is threatened by the majority of Congress's impeachment. As
a result, copious coalitions and alliances come to light. In Brazil, Initiatives from presidents
to garner broad coalition backing were often fruitful. As shown by Santos (1986) and
Carvalho (1977), Kubitschek's administration was stable due to solid multiparty support.
16 Carvalho analyzed 319 notional votes in Congress and discovered that the coalitions
responsible for passing items were frequently reasonably wide, as is common in most
legislatures, given the regular nature of the majority of legislation. The lack of majority
support leads the political parties in Brazil to form a coalition so as to garner stable
governance. Likewise, the prominence of alliances and coalitions in the Philippines
eventuate to maximize the votes of the people and Congress (Tan & Bong, 2022).

Foreseeable Outcomes of Adapting the Two-Party System of the United

States of America

The Philippines employed a multiparty system. Through the years, flaws became
apparent, and advantages were diminished. Critiques of the party system suggested the
incongruent compatibility of the presidential system and the Multiparty system.
Correspondingly, in the study of Dilemmas of the Multi-Party Presidential System (1992),
the confluence of the presidential splintered the multiparty system. This combination has
led to both democratic instability and the persistent weakness of political parties. Whereas
the political party of the Philippines had similar concerns. Henceforth, Senator. Panfilo
Lacson, Gordon, and Moreno seek to adopt a two-party system similar to the United

Page 14 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

States of America. For the reason that America’s Party System proffers stability in
governance and parties. According to Anthony and Carl (2019), In the 163 years of the
two-party system in the United States, the president was either a Democrat or a
Republican. This bolsters the stability and balance separation of spoils within the
government. Theoretically, if the Philippines turned back to its Two-Party System, the two
major political parties would lead the state in equal intervals (Aceron, 2015). The balance
is attainable since a party comprises organized groups and voters with a wider interest.
Thus, stable governance, party, and politics it is the easiest way to switch on a
majoritarian voting scheme. However, the proposed system tends to silence alternative
voices and representation (Carl, 2019).

Furthermore, the political parties are accountable for conducting primaries in which
people nominate candidates for local, state, and federal posts, as well as hosting elected
party members at every four-year presidential convention. The Republican National
Committee and Democratic National Committee are the semi-public organizations that
run the two main political parties in the United States. Similarly, the Philippines could
employ its first two major political parties, the Nacionalista and Liberal Party, or
implementations on new ones. The political parties would recruit, analyze, and propose
candidates for election at the local, state, and federal levels; act as opposition to the
opposing political party; create and adopt a party program that candidates must generally
adhere to; and to generate substantial funds to support their candidates.

Chapter 3: Conclusion

This chapter presents the conclusions drawn from the literatures, and datas
gathered in this research study.

In this study, the researchers come in to the conclusion that the multi-party system
has strengthened free party in the same way that it significantly affects the political parties
in the Philippines. To a greater degree, a variety of parties enabled representation of
many groups as well as regions. Coalitions and alliances prosper to serve the people with
a united power. In the same manner, its adverse effects lighten in the shadows. This has
been exacerbated by unstable political parties, unreachable absolute majority votes,
identical party names, rival factionalism, immobilism, and the continual splitting and
merging of parties. Indeed in the escalating numbers of political parties, pessimism
elevates. Correspondingly, in the historical records of Brazil and Indonesia, the countries
also expressed serious misgivings about their multi-party presidential system. In which
unstable parties and politics, immobilism, and an unattainable majority vote result also
prevails. In the unfavorable combination of multi-party system and presidential, concerns
for changing the party system arises. Theoretically, if the Philippines adopted the two-
party system of the United States of America, stable political parties, politics and systems
will transpire.

Page 15 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

References

Multiparty system. Multiparty System - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. (n.d.). Retrieved

December 15, 2022, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-
science/multiparty-system

Factional Dynamics in Philippine Party politics, 1900–2019. (2020). Retrieved December 15,
2022, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1868103420913404

Huhtanen, T. (2015, June 3). Can political parties evolve if the political system does not? -
european view. SpringerLink. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12290-015-0344-8

Oligarchic patrimonialism, bossism, electoral clientelism, and contested democracy in the

Philippines: 10.2307/20072884. Sci. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://sci-
hub.mksa.top/10.2307/20072884

Marcos, Duterte proclaimed winners in ph’s fastest vote count. (2022). Retrieved
December 15, 2022, from https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1175224

Comelec names dominant majority, minority parties for May polls. (n.d). Retrieved
December 16, 2022, from https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1173760

COMELEC sets deadlines for registration of political parties. (n.d.). Retrieved December
15, 2022, from https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1130133

We protect. Office of the Ombudsman. (n.d.). Retrieved December 16, 2022, from
https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/

Hub: Factional dynamics in Philippine party politics, 1900–2019:

10.1177/1868103420913404. Sci. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from
https://sci-hub.mksa.top/10.1177/1868103420913404

Köllner, P., & Basedau, M. (1970, January 1). Factionalism in political parties: An
Analytical Framework for Comparative Studies. EconStor. Retrieved December 15,
2022, from https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/182555

Examples, E. (2022, June 6). The urgent need of reformation of the Philippine Political
Party System from multi- part to two- party essay. Essay Topics and Samples Online
for Free. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://studyscroll.com/the-urgent-
need-of-reformation-of-the-philippine-political-party-system-from-multi-part-to-two-
party-essay

Hub: The party system and democracy in the Philippines:

10.1177/003231876101300202. Sci. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from
https://sci-hub.mksa.top/10.1177/003231876101300202

Page 16 of 17
 THE [DOCUMENT TITLE]

Hub: Factional dynamics in Philippine party politics, 1900–2019:

10.1177/1868103420913404. Sci. 9 (2020). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from
https://sci-hub.mksa.top/10.1177/1868103420913404

Dilemmas of multiparty presidential democracy - university of notre dame. (1992).

Retrieved December 15, 2022, from
https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/174_0.pdf

The so-called Two-PARTYSYSTEM in the Philippines'. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15,

2022, from https://asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-02-01-1964/Locsin.pdf

Ku ScholarWorks. KU ScholarWorks. (2015). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/

Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (2009, December 1). The Cartel Party Thesis: A restatement:
Perspectives on politics. Cambridge Core. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/cartel-
party-thesis-a-restatement/458996C30EF168AF3A13A3134AA1ACCE

The political parties manual - orpp.or.ke. (206). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from
https://orpp.or.ke/images/RESOURCECENTER/political%20parties%20manual/Th
e%20Political%20Parties%20Manual.pdf

Two-Party system: A case study of united states of america george ... (n.d.). Retrieved
December 15, 2022, from https://idosr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/IDOSR-
JCE-41-18-26-2019..pdf

Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (n.d.). Two-Party system. Encyclopædia Britannica.

Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-party-
system

Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (n.d.). Plurality and majority systems. Encyclopædia

Britannica. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/election-political-science/Plurality-and-majority-
systems

Nadeem, R. (2022, November 17). 3. the two-party system and views of differences
between the Republican and Democratic parties. Pew Research Center - U.S.
Politics & Policy. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/the-two-party-system-and-views-
of-differences-between-the-republican-and-democratic-parties/

Gallery Shivaji College. (2018). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from

https://www.shivajicollege.ac.in/

Page 17 of 17