Republicanism, democracy and political dynasties: Balancing interests

The Will of the Sovereign IN OUR democracy, the sovereign decide and define what a political dynasty is. Much has been said about the constitutional provision that seeks to prohibit po litical dynasties, "as may be defined by law." It is found in Section 26, Article II, the Declaration of Principles: "The stat e shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibi t political dynasties as may be defined by law." While the sovereign has adopted the principle to prohibit political dynasties. It is the same sovereign who have decided, and will continue to decide what sho uld be, and should not be deemed political dynasties. The constitutional principle which seeks to prohibit political dynasties is not the only interest that must be protected. While the Constitution adopts a poli cy that would prohibit political dynasties in order to guarantee equal opportun ities for public service, there are paramount interests that must never curtail ed in pursuit of these interests. The other compelling interest: Republicanism and democracy There is a paramount principle that Filipinos have adopted in the 1987 Constitu tion. This is our adoption of the principle of republicanism. Section 1, Articl e II of the Constitution, the same article where the prohibition against politi cal dynasties, provides: "The Philippines is a republican a democratic state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." The Philippines as a republican state, is anchored on the principle that suprem e power rests in the body of the people. Republicanism more simply means a state that establishes a governme nt of the people, by the people and for the people. The Constitution likewise characterizes our country not only as a republican st ate, but also a democratic state. Many believe there is not much difference. If there is, the difference lies in emphasis. This was what the 1986 constitutional commission highlighted during its deliberations on this imp ortant principle. In inserting the word "democratic" apart from the word "repub lican," Commissioner Nolledo came up with a description of the insertion as a " pardonable redundancy." But Commissioner Adolf Azcuna (now justice of the Supreme Court) hit the nail o n the head by stressing that the word "democratic" is significant because it em phasizes that our country is one that is participatory in nature. We do not onl y elect representatives upon whom sovereign power is delegated. The people them selves reserve their right to directly participate in the affairs of state and governance such as voting in an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, a nd setting up people's organizations. All these have been enshrined in our Cons titution. The word "democratic" in our Constitution is to institutionalize and to capture the spirit of "people power." Elections and direct democratic participation Chief Justice Renato Puno said in his dissent in Arturo M Tolentino versus Come lec (January 21, 2004): "An outstanding feature of the 1987 Constitution is the expansion of the democr atic space giving the people greater power to exercise their sovereignty. "Thus, under the 1987 Constitution, the people can directly exercise their sove reign authority through the following modes, namely: (1) elections; (2) plebisc ite; (3) initiative; (4) recall; and (5) referendum. Through elections, the peo ple choose the representatives to whom they will entrust the exercise of powers of government. âThe electoral process is one of the linchpins of a democratic and republican f ramework because it is through the act of voting that government by consent is secured. Through the ballot, people express their will on the defining issues o f the day and they are able to choose their leaders in accordance with the fund amental principle of representative democracy that the people should elect whom they please to governthem. "Voting has an important instrumental value in preserving the viability of cons titutional democracy.It has traditionally been taken as a prime indicator of de mocratic participation. "The existence of the right of suffrage is a threshold for the preservation and enjoyment of all other rights that it ought to be considered as one of the mos tsacred parts of the constitution. "In Geronimo v. Ramos, et al., we held that the rightis among the most importan t and sacred of the freedoms inherent in a democratic society and one which mus t bemost vigilantly guarded if a people desires to maintain through self-govern ment for themselves and their posterity a genuinely functioning democracy in wh ich the individual may, in accordance with law, have a voice in the form of his government and in the choice of the people who will run that government for hi m. Republican, representative Our republican state is representative in nature. The people elect their repres entatives in government who exercise delegated power. We may define a republic to be a government which derives all its power directl y or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by perso ns holding offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavi or. That is why the power to make laws, or to legislate, originally is a power vest ed in the people themselves. Yet under our constitution these powers are delega ted and granted to representatives in the House and in the Senate. Senators, congressmen, therefore as lawmakers, exercise derivative legislative powers. As representatives of the sovereign -- the Filipino people -- they cann ot legislate against what the sovereign themselves have adopted as a policy. Political dynasties: A policy in the Constitution When the Filipino people ratified the Constitution in 1987, they adopted a prin ciple to prohibit political dynasties. But at the same time, the Filipino people themselves, in the exercise of their sovereign capacities, and as part of the democratic scheme, through the exercis e of their right of suffrage, have decided what should be, and what should not be a political dynasty. No agent, or delegate, should have the unwarranted arrogance to pronounce a dyn asty when the sovereign has declared otherwise. To borrow a basic principle in law, "the spring cannot rise above its source." If it does, it is the height of misplaced arrogance, the arrogance of claiming that he or she has better judgm ent than the rest of the Filipino people. Filipinos' definition: political dynasty Let us now revisit how the Filipino people have defined what should be or shoul d not be a political dynasty, through their exercise of the right of suffrage, which is a component of direct participatory democracy, a principle adopted in Section 1, Article II of the Constitution. As far as the Senate is concerned, the sovereign Filipino people have elected t he following, aware of, and in the midst of the principle seeking to prohibit p olitical dynasties: A. Mother and son, as both incumbents: Senator Loi Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada B. Father-in-law and son-in-law as incumbents: Senators Ramon Revilla and Sonny Jaworski C. First cousins as incumbents: Senators John Osmena and Sergio Osmena D. Father and son, one after another (successively): Senators Ramon Revilla and Bong Revilla E. Father and daughter successively: Senator Renato Cayetano and Pia Cayetano Amidst, or inspite of the principle seeking to prohibit political dynasties, th e Filipino people, the ultimate repository of sovereign power in a republican a nd democratic state, have decided on who or what should not be deemed a politic al dynasty. We are talking only of the Senate. There is a need to further look into how the sovereign have decided on what should not be a political dynasties in other el ective public offices like the House of Representatives and local elective posi tions. Thus, for those well-meaning intellects who intend to file bills giving flesh t o the constitutional provision seeking to prohibit political dynasties, they mu st be guided fully and at all times on the parameters that have been laid down by the sovereign, through their exercise of direct participatory democracy. No individual mortal must define, for his or her own preference or convenience, what a political dynasty is. He is merely particle of the democratic space who must respect the voice of the sovereign. No one can go against the will and ma ndate of the sovereign. Everyone must all work hand in hand to create a law prohibiting political dynas ties, based on the policies laid down by the people themselves in the past elec tions. In the case of Koko Pimentel, his partic ipation in the senatorial race does not contravene the constitutional principle against political dynasty. The sovereign people have already decided that for a parent and child to be bot h incumbents in the Senate, does not constitute a political dynasty. Experience tells it. History validates it. When the people elected Senator Loi Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada, it was the peo ple themselves who declared that this is allowed, and this does not constitute a political dynasty. There is no substantial difference between the Loi-Jinggoy experience and the N ene-Koko experiment. To say that there is, will create an invalid classificatio n, which violates of the equal protection clause. No one should say it is immoral. The sovereign Filipino people donât consider i t immoral. They declared it when they exercised their power of direct participa tory democracy -- in the elections -- in pursuit of Section 1, Article II of th e Constitution which states that "the Philippines is a republican and democratic state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. 'A little more faith [in the people]' Commissioner Christian Monsod, also former Comelec commissioner, put it correct ly during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission: "Mr. Presiding Officer, as we said before, the assumption here seems to be that we are underestimating our people in their right to choose; we are trying to p ut a prescreening mechanism so that public office is not after all accessible t o all because we are going to prohibit or exclude certain people from running f or public office. And my point is, we should have a little more faith. Now that we have a new Comelec, the process will be cleaned up, but we should give our people full choice. Let them run and let the people decide. That is the essence of suffrage. "...I do no think we should curtail the right of the people to a free choice on who their political leader should be." Adding disqualification is unconstitutional, illegal Commissioner Monsod, who vigorously fought against this provision on political dynasties, and battled hard to delete it, further argued that to prevent people from running will add to the list of disqualifications which would be contrary to the Constitution: "We have in this Constitution qualifications of those who seek elective office. We are adding in this section (meaning political dynasty section) a disqualifi cation to those who may aspire after public office, in effect amending various provisions of the Constitution which enumerate the qualifications and disqualif ications of the law." Do we have the right to curtail? The late Senator Blas Ople, also commissioner of the Constitutional Commission, said: "What I feel is an inner demand for logic and rationality so that this p rovision can be actually attached to some principles of equity without doing vi olence to the freedom of choice of the voters because they are entitled to as b road a freedom of choice as the environment can provide and if they want somebo dy to run for office even if he is closely related to someone in office, do we have the right to curtail the freedom of the voters?" Commissioner Abubakar made his view more pointed: "This Constitutional Commission, composed of intelligent people, people who bel ieve in the dictum that the voice of the people is the voice of God, is very re ligious. How can we, on the assumption that we are only appointed, or even if w e were elected, suppress the voice of the people if they want an elected repres entative to continue with one, two, three terms? So be it. We are not here to s uppress that voice. We are here to give reality and to give substance to what t he people want; not to suppress their desire to elect their own representatives for the terms they wanted them to have. So I would presume that this Commissio n will be able to come up with a Constitution that the people can embrace, appr ove and conceive as a document that looks after their interest, first and foremost. We should not contradict this voice. If a dynasty or a family is wanted by the peo ple to represent them for two terms and another would succeed, who are we to qu estion their choice or their voice? We are here on a constitutional mandate, an d let not our power be abused at the expense of the right of the people for I believe in the dictum that the ultimate power lies in the people and the voice of the people is the voice of God." Nolledo: limited anti-political dynasty; Tolentino: sparingly Commissioner Nolledo, self-proclaimed author of the provision seeking to prohib it political dynasties in the Constitution, categorically stated: "I am limitin g it only to a situation where the rule against further re-election might be ci rcumvented. That is my suggestions to Congress although the Congress can also w iden the meaning of political dynasty." It is instructive therefore to heed the call of the revered constitutionalist S enator Arturo Tolentino who wrote in the explanatory note of his bill seeking t o enact a law prohibiting political dynasty (S.B. 1919 October 1994). It is a r eflection of the intent of the framers of the Constitution that pushed for the provision against political dynasty. Tolentino explained: "Since the idea of excluding political dynasties may be contrary to the democra tic principle that the people should be free to select their officials, it shou ld be limited and sparingly applied. Ultimately, the people themselves may brea k up the dynasties." Tolentino went on the correct track to begin this prohibition against president ial relatives. He is all too familiar with this scenario, having had political attachments to the former dictator, and once having been a vice presidential ca ndidate (vice Imelda?). Tolentino further said: "A good beginning for the prohibition of political dyna sty is in the area of presidential relatives. Unquestionably, the President is the most powerful official of the land and can use vast powers to help in the election of a relative. This, after all, is the basic reason for prohibiting political dynasties." Other Senate bills There are at least two other Senator bills that have been reflective and respon sive of the intention of the framers of the Constitution. That is to prohibit t he political dynasties among the local elective positions. We refer to the bills of Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago and Alfredo Lim. Bot h bills focus on suppressing the perpetual fiefdoms of mini executive officers in the local governments. This was the thrust of the author of the provision ag ainst political dynasty, Commissioner Nolledo. The people, the sovereign, decide on what constitutes a political dynasty. Lawm akers, as agents of the sovereign, must enact a law prohibiting political dynas ties that is consistent with, and within the parameters that have been laid dow n by the sovereign in their exercise of direct democracy.