Who’s to blame for misfits in Philippine politics?

“Ang Panday’s speech”

That’s how my architect-brother described the latest lousy charade in the lackluster Philippine Senate.

It was entirely expected. How can a bumbling action star convey his inane thoughts without making himself a ludicrous fool? 

And in the first place, why was he elected? The usual scapegoats are the “stupid” voters but can they solely take the blame?

I have been meaning to write on why their types are elected since the election of Nancy Binay last year. The easy target is the so-called “unenlightened” majority of the electorate. One came up to their defense saying that it was “problematic” to describe them as such because it was “their choice” neglecting that these choices are imposed on them. 

Another disparaged the Left for its unabashed loyalty for the masses, pointing out the dangers of romanticizing the masa vote because the poor like the elite or anyone in society could make “disastrous choices.” Rejecting the adjective “stupid,”, he called classes D and E votes “wrong.” 

Blame game

Who’s to blame then for the unholy explosion of misfits in Philippine politics? They are neither the voters nor their lack of political education. I would lay the blame squarely on the political parties in the Philippines, the candidates themselves, and the constitution.

Presidentiables who are usually chairs of political parties think that a popular candidate for the Senate, whether he or she is competent or not, is better than a capable one who is bound to lose as a matter of securing his or her grip over the institution should he or she be elected.

Rather they must now think that knowledgeable contenders are better than incapable ones, not only because they can better serve the public by crafting good laws and are articulate in their views but also because they will raise the prestige of the Senate and the nation as a whole.

Political parties in the country must now screen candidates who are really suitable for public office.

An analysis of national elections shows that political parties were instrumental in the election of a number of senators who are lacking in legislative experience. In 1987 Joseph Estrada, long-time mayor of San Juan, was taken in by the Nacionalista Party (NP) to run as senator.

After EDSA 1, Estrada’s election marked the beginning of popular TV, movie, and sports personalities running for higher positions. 

Political arena

Estrada inaugurated the bastardization of post-EDSA Philippine politics. He was the turning point in Philippine political arena in which popularity and image are made the benchmarks of political success rather than competence.

The major political parties in the country abetted this scandalous practice. The Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was instrumental in the election of Ramon Revilla Sr and Tito Sotto; so was the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC) in the election of Gringo Honasan; the NP in the case of Juan Ponce Enrile, Manny and Cynthia Villar; Lakas-NUCD-UMDP in the case of Loren Legarda, Renato Cayetano; Partido ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) in the case of Robert Jaworski, Loi Estrada, Noli de Castro, Panfilo Lacson, Jinggoy Estrada, and Alfredo Lim; Lakas-CMD, later Lakas-Kampi, in the case of Revilla Jr and Lito Lapid, and United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) in the case of Nancy Binay and JV Ejercito.

Post-EDSA politics also manifested early on the complete disregard to the constitutional ban on political dynasties beginning in 1987 when Agapito Aquino, the incumbent president’s brother-in-law, ran for senator. Aquino (1987-1995) as senator was then followed by his sister Tessie Aquino Oreta (1998-2004), by his nephew, the president (2007-2010), and by his grandson, Bam Aquino (2013-2019).

Estrada skirted this inept provision with members of his family capitalizing on his iconicity and charisma: his wife Loi (2001-2007), his son Jinggoy (2004-2010; 2010-2016) and his other son to his mistress, JV Ejercito (2013-2019) were elected to the Senate. 

It is a question of law and propriety why they must have shunned from running or those political parties could have fielded other fit candidates. Decency seems to be absent in the political praxis of Filipino politicians.

What is more important to them is self-interest to the detriment of public good. What if they are more than capable? Still, honor dictates that they follow the constitutional injunction. One might say that I am too idealistic and that I am blind to the autonomy of each individual. But don’t they have any shame that could restrain them from doing so? 

Good families?

If candidates from the presidency down to the barangay councilor would first ask their consciences on whether they are capable to do the job or not, then upon introspection a Sotto, a Revilla, a Lapid, a Nancy would have told their political backers that they are rejecting their offers and that they prefer to remain in their jobs or seek other political office where their ignorance is better hidden than exposed.

About half of them could have desisted from running while the other half, having known the ban, could have stopped in their tracks.

While we can easily condemn – and rightly so – the procrastinating framers of the 1987 constitution for failing to provide teeth by absconding it, the success of Philippine democracy hinges not on the ability of Filipino politicians to follow strictly the provisions of the constitution – although this is imperative – but on the practice of an ethics as it is lived that considers the greater interest of the nation above self-interest.

But there are good families with good track records, says Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, and that each person has the right to run for public office; again these arguments absolutely smack of self-interest. – Rappler.com 

Erwin S. Fernandez is an independent political analyst based in Pangasinan with his own research center, the Abung na Panagbasay Pangasinan  (House of Pangasinan Studies)

iSpeak is Rappler’s platform for sharing ideas, sparking discussions, and taking action! Share your iSpeak articles with us: move.ph@rappler.com.

Tell us what you think about this iSpeak article in the comments section below.