[X] "Agrobiodiversity and Monoculture Homogenization in Agri/Culture" (UP Forum, 2011). [X] "The Fight for Education as Dress Rehearsal" (UP Forum, 2011). [X] "Community Sterilization and the Cataclysm" (UP Forum, 2012). [X] "Pamana at Pagkalinga ng mga Inang Makabayan" (UP Forum, 2012). [X] "Beyond the Bark: Reexamining our Roots" (UP Forum, 2012). [X] "Enabling Law Disabling 'Small Dictatorships'" (UP Forum, 2013). [--] "Power Switch: Reconsidering Renewable Energy" (UP Forum, 2013). "Fortun, Forensics and the Yolanda Aftermath: Recovery, Storage, System Restore, Repeat" (UP Forum, 2014). "General Education at Globalisasyon: Isip, Salita at Gawa Para Kanino?" (UP Forum, 2014)
magbabago ang listahan sa bawat post. simulan na natin.
Enabling
Law Disabling ‘Small Dictatorships’
Notwithstanding Constitutional
constraints, a select few clans have been keeping strongholds and strangleholds,
governing local territories, and training family members to race for domination
come national election time. The elite class customarily compete among
themselves, like thugs protecting their respective turfs. However, the latter
is cloak-and-dagger, underground and outlawed; while the former is suits-and-ties
with guns-goons-and-gold and seemingly legal. But all is not what it seems.
‘As
maybe defined by law’
Though political dynasties continue to
enjoy the blessings of democracy as they can run for public office over and
over again, they violate the Constitution. Article 2 Section 26 states: “The
State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” During the forum “Political
Dynasties: A Challenge to Political Reform” last January 24 at the UP National
College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG),[1] Atty.
Alex Lacson said that the provision does not state “as may be defined by Congress,” but “as may be defined by law”—thus, “the Commission on Election’s (Comelec) rules
can be part of the law of the land” and it is not necessarily the Congress that
shall promulgate the rule.
Lacson
is the legal counsel of the Anti-Dynasty Movement (AndayaMo), which has “urged
the Comelec to disqualify (Rodrigo) Duterte (of Davao); Miguel Luis Villafuerte
and his grandfather Luis Villafuerte of Camarines Sur; Dennis Pineda, the son
of Pampanga Gov. Lilia Pineda; and brothers Rexon and Sherwin Gatchalian of
Valenzuela.[2]”
Lacson
said that there are sufficient legal grounds to ban political dynasties. As of
press time, the Comelec has acted on AndayaMo’s petition. “It was raffled off
to the Second Division of the Comelec chaired by Commissioner Elias Yusoph. The
other member is Commissioner Grace Padaca. The other member is still unknown
because two commissioners retired last February 2,” said Lacson in an interview
with the UP Forum. “Hopefully,
President Aquino will appoint two new commissioners by end of February.” He
added that the respondents are expected to present their answers to the petition in a hearing on February 26. The said Comelec Division is
yet to decide on the isyu.[3]
Besides
filing a petition, “proposing a law in Congress (to
define political dynasties) through people’s initiative (PI)” is another possible legal action against
political dynasties, said Lacson. “There is an existing
and valid law on this,—RA 6735 (An Act Providing for a System on Initiative and
Referendum). This law was upheld and affirmed by the Supreme Court (SC) in the
case of Santiago vs. Comelec (1997). In fact,
efforts are being undertaken at present.”
Issuing a pastoral statement denouncing political dynasties,[4]
the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) for instance,
supports “initiatives by the lay faithful to pass an enabling law against
political dynasties through PI.[5]”
At the NCPAG forum, Lacson said that
the Constitution is the layman’s—not the lawyer’s document, which means that,
as instituted by the SC, the “plain
and ordinary meaning of the words used must prevail.” Lacson Quoting from
Black’s Law Legal Dictionary, Lacson
defined political dynasties as “succession of rulers from the same
family.” Another definition he mentioned was Justice Antonio Carpio’s: “the
phenomenon that concentrates political power and public resources within the
control of a few families alternately holding elective offices.”
Lacson
said that during the deliberation of the 1986 Constitution, the original
provision did not have the phrase “as may be defined by law.” This initial
version of the provision would have been more explicit in prohibiting political
dynasties. According to Lacson, the
version won by one vote, but was later amended after Serafino Guingona’s
motion, wherein “as may be defined by law” was appended. Lacson added that Blas
Ople and Christian Monsod then opposed the anti-political dynasties provision.
The two believed that “because of the EDSA (revolution), people have become
mature” and that “we should not restrict the right of people to vote.” Lacson
said that the provision against political dynasties is not a restriction but a
regulation.
‘Clear
and obvious’?
AndayaMo’s petition
particularly seeks disqualification of local politicians—“six candidates from
four dynastic families;” Lacson said that the petition aims for the “immediate
implementation of the Constitutional prohibition against those ‘clear and
obvious’ cases of political dynasties, those cases that fall within the
definition of the term political dynasty as understood by the framers of the Constitution.
These cases do not need any enabling law for them to be implemented
immediately.” Lacson added that if AndayaMo gets “a favorable decision in this
petition either from the Comelec or SC, the said decision will impact all those
candidates who are similarly situated.”
“The
dismissal by the SC of the two petitions
has indeed created a negative perception among the public,” said Lacson.
“We are prepared to elevate this matter to the SC should the Comelec
decide negatively on our petition. At any rate, it is the SC which has the
final say on this matter, considering especially that this involves a Constitutional
issue.” In an article from gmanews.tv,[6]
Lacson said they (AndayaMo) “have nothing against the respondents but chose
them ‘to test our legal theory using the legal grounds that we have
discovered.’”
However,
seemingly left unscathed by AndayaMo’s selective petition are the more obvious
dynasties monopolizing political power at the national level—for instance, the
flesh and blood of former presidents. In an Inquirer
news article,[7]
Duterte decried the petition that “smacked
of a double standard” and found it strange that AndayaMo
spared the Estradas and the Angaras.
He also questioned why President Benigno Aquino III was not included in the
petition. In the same news article, Duterte pointed out the current senate run
of the cousin and the aunt of Aquino, Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino and Tingting
Cojuangco respectively; Duterte also cited that Aquino’s mother was president,
and his father and grandfather became senators. With this political pedigree,
the Aquino clan is ostensibly a dynast in the national level.
In
another Inquirer news article,[8] Presidential
Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda, said that “a distinction should be made between
‘good’ and ‘bad’ political dynasties.Not all dynasties are bad; not all
dynasties are good” and that “banning outright candidates with the ‘same family
names’ should be studied.” Lacierda claimed that “Team Pinoy candidates have
‘proven themselves’ in public service and private sector, and it was up to the
electorate to vet their qualifications.”
Lacson
said that AndayaMo filed the petition against the aforementioned six
individuals because “the Constitution does not make a
distinction between good and bad political dynasties” and that “all political
dynasties are prohibited under the Constitution.” He added that for as long as
the rules and regulations are restricted on those ‘clear and obvious’ cases of
political dynasties, those cases that fall within the meaning of political
dynasties as understood by the framers of the Constitution, “It is my
considered view that the Comelec has the power to promulgate them.”
“In
1986, the biggest problem of our country was the dictatorship. Today, the
biggest problem of our country is the small dictatorships in the form of
political dynasties who rule and control the cities, towns, provinces and
congressional districts in the country,” said Lacson. However, it shall be
noted that most politicians and bureaucrats have local bulwarks and provincial
strongholds that serve as the foundation of their elaborate national rule. Remember
former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s alleged electoral fraud partners-in-crime
who have remained unpunished? Never
forget that the Ampatuan clan’s notoriety alone tells a lot about how basic units of society as ‘small dictatorships’
are actually Frankenstein’s monsters of dictatorship on a grand scale.
[1] An article has been published in UP
News 2013
[2]
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/353129/disqualification-cases-filed-vs-duterte-6-members-of-prominent-political-dynasties#disqus_thread
[3]
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/296722/news/nation/comelec-2nd-division-to-decide-on-disqualification-petition-vs-6-members-of-political-clans
[4]
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/350097/malacanang-defends-political-dynasties
[5] http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/40438-bishops-lash-out-at-lawmakers-defying-law
[6]
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/296722/news/nation/comelec-2nd-division-to-decide-on-disqualification-petition-vs-6-members-of-political-clans
[7] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/354315/duterte-to-anti-dynasts-why-not-include-aquino
[8]
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/350097/malacanang-defends-political-dynasties
No comments:
Post a Comment