Showing posts with label Philippine Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philippine Constitution. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Political Dynasty, a Social Ill in the Philippines

Updated October 5, 2025


Webster Dictionary defines a dynasty as “a succession of rulers from the same line or descent”.  The reign of ancient rulers’ family and their descendants in China and the absolute monarchies of Europe are example of dynasty. Emperors and kings ruled and when they were gone, their power was passed to an appointed successor who was a member of the same family. In the Philippine setting whether at the national or local level a political dynasty means a reign of a family and its relatives whose members occupy different elective positions in a particular area all at the same time. This kind of practice can be termed as oligarchy which the Webster Dictionary defines as “a government for the few or a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes”.   In the Philippines it is the practice of some politicians to have members of the family hold different elective positions thereby controlling the political and economic landscape of a particular area. Once it establishes its stronghold, the political family uses its influence and financial resources at their disposal to hold on to power for as long as possible. A political family is also a dynasty since most often power is passed from one member of a family to another and its reign can last for many years or over a generation or beyond.                                                                                                                                                
Aware of the maladies caused by political dynasties, the framers of 1987 constitution made a provision which is Article 2, Section 26 on State Policies that says: “The state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibits dynasties as maybe defined by law”.  Legal minds have it that said constitutional provision needs an enabling law in order to be effectively implemented. The present constitution has been in effect since February 11, 1987, and since then many congresses have come and gone. However, the past and present set of legislators has not passed a bill to deal on the issue of political dynasty. Many people doubt that any of the legislators would initiate an action with regard to the matter considering that many of them come from political families. A law of that kind will certainly diminish the legislators’ political influence or power in their respective areas or districts.

The constitution has also provided for a term-of-office limit to elected public officials. This provision should have been one of the ways to help prevent the emergence of political dynasties. But politicians have gotten away with it by simply running to a lower position when his term expires, and takes it back when his subservient ally has served out his term of office. With this practice politicians are able to stay long in office as they wish despite the constitutional ban.

The 1987 constitution also provides for a party list system where marginalized and underrepresented sectors or groups who have little chance against traditional politicians in elections are given an opportunity to serve in the legislative body through that system. At first the process worked smoothly, members of marginalized groups and leftists were able to win seats in congress. Then came the 2013 Supreme Court rulings that said that party list groups do not need to organize along sectoral lines, and do not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector. This declaration opened the door to traditional political families and the rich to exploit the party list. Because of their influence and material resources, political families or dynasties have consequently won substantial number of seats in the house of congress in the party list. It is ironic that the party list system which was originally intended for the poor and marginalized groups  has become a tool for the political families or dynasties and the elites to gain more seats in congress and further strengthen their political powers and influence.

Some politicians contend that there is nothing wrong with political dynasty since it is ultimately the people who decide if a person will hold an elective position or not. They say that a well qualified and dedicated person should not be denied of his right to serve a public office for the mere reason that he belongs to a political family. That statement is theoretically correct. However, the reality in Philippine politics is that more often than not it is only the well entrenched, well connected and moneyed politicians who usually win an election.  In the Philippines most of the voters belong to the lower income group. And because of their number their votes is a crucial factor in the outcome of an election. Because of their poverty, the poor people are the most vulnerable to fall prey on traditional politicians’ trick to provide for the poor’s immediate day’s needs like food and money during election time in exchange of their votes. Winning over those types of voters needs huge financial resources. Simply put, it is difficult for a deserving person of ordinary means to run against an incumbent politician let alone one who is a member of a powerful political family or clan.

Political dynasties in the Philippines are sprouting like mushrooms. Not all of them are bad and some are honest and dedicated to serve their constituents. In some cases the existence of political dynasty has even benefited the people of a particular area. But generally political dynasty is not good for the Philippine democracy and well being of the Filipinos. Political dynasty is a system that brings about corruption, unequal political and economic opportunities, nepotism and patronage system in job opportunities and the monopoly of political and economic powers over a long period of time by few people who belong to the same family or clan.

 After all these years politicians still ignore the anti-dynasty provision. It will only be the sovereign people who can do that for them through people’s initiative, or through a petition to the Supreme Court to order the legislators to do their mandate. The matter can also be made as an issue in the next election so that voters reject candidates who belong to family dynasty. The clamor of the youth, civil society and other well-meaning groups is needed to compel our legislators to do their task. And maybe, the passing of anti-dynasty law is the missing link that will move this country forward.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

TRO on RA 10175: Upholding People's Freedom of Opinion and Expression in the Internet



The Philippine Supreme Court issues a Temporary Restraining Order on Republic Act 10175 suspending the implementation of the law for 120 days until some of the controversial issues are resolved. Relative to the TRO, a total of 15 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court. The petitioners stated that the law violated people’s constitutional rights on freedom of speech, equal protection of the law, right to privacy, illegal searches and seizures and double jeopardy.                                                                                                             

RA 10175 received protests and criticism from different sectors because of provisions giving power to the Secretary of Justice to block access to computer data even without a court order when there is prima facie evidence that the law is violated. Another controversial provision is the inclusion of libel which gives the offender one degree higher punishment than those who commit it through the traditional media. Libel is already covered by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

Senator Edgardo Angara, the principal sponsor of the bill that becomes the law defended his position on the libel provision saying that online libel is given harsher penalty because of the speed of publication in the internet, and that online information covers a much larger area with just a click of a mouse than one that is published in the traditional media.  However, the probability is that outside the Philippines, except perhaps for the President of the Philippines and Manny Pacquiao and few others, the names of politicians who could be the subject of libelous posts might not ring a bell to other nationalities. People from other countries will most likely not click on posts they come across which contain names of people they do not know. Posts on Justin Bieber or on phenomena like flood, tsunami will by far get more views than those about wrongdoings by local Philippine politicians. Articles on local Philippine public officials that are in the internet will be most likely confined to viewers who are Filipinos or Filipinos living abroad.

In this contemporary time, people are living in a high tech world. They could transmit communications such as letters, news and videos in the internet that could reach the far corners of the world in real time.  For this reason, newspapers and other publications are disseminated both online and the traditional media. Even local newspapers which only a decade ago were available only in hard copies have now their online version.     

The internet is a molder of public opinion in this present day and age. The spread of the Arab Spring revolution was in a way facilitated by the users’ posts on Facebook and Twitter. In the Philippines, online newspaper commenters, bloggers and Facebook and Twitter users helped fan the negative sentiments against former chief Justice Renato Corona so that he became a very unpopular public figure during the height of his impeachment proceedings. It cannot be said though that the senators were influenced by public opinion when they rendered their guilty verdict on him.

President Aquino has for his slogan “matuwid na daan” or the straight path. And one of the advocacies of his government is to eliminate or minimize graft and corruption. The internet can be one of his effective platforms to convey his message or carry out his endeavors. Excesses and corruption committed by public officials can be dealt with by exposing them through the internet.

It is a good thing that the Supreme Court has issued a Temporary Restraining Order on the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act which is enacted at a time when the international trend is to decriminalize libel. Although people should be held accountable for doing irresponsible acts online, their freedom of expression should be upheld. The showing of the controversial YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims” caused destruction of properties and lives of Americans including that of Ambassador  J. Christopher Stevens. However, the US government did not force YouTube to take the offensive video off the internet because of the people’s right to freedom of expression and opinion.

Legislators should heed the lawful and reasonable demand of the people especially if it involves the latter’s rights and freedoms that are provided for in the constitution. The lawmakers are after all the servants and representative of the people who should perform their duties according to the people’s will. The people, after all, have the final say on the elective officials’ retention in office or their dismissal from it.    

Related post:
Uproar over Philippine RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act)                                                                                                         

Monday, October 1, 2012

Uproar over Philippine RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act)



Online journalists, bloggers, other internet users, written and broadcast media people and ordinary Filipinos are up in arms against RA 10175 known as Cybercrime Prevention Act which was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012 and is to take effect on October 3, 2012.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act empowers the government in the implementation of laws against people using cyberspace to commit offenses such as child pornography, cyber sex, human trafficking, identify theft, hacking, spamming, and other crimes.

But RA 10175 was received with concerns and apprehensions by some people because of some controversial provisions. A crime punishable under the Philippine Revised Penal Code if committed with the use of information and communication technologies shall have a penalty one degree higher than that provided by that code. For example, libel committed in the internet is fined one million pesos or US $24,000 and a maximum of twelve years imprisonment. On the other hand a libel committed through the traditional media is punishable by six years imprisonment and a fine of only six thousand pesos. A person is also liable for other crimes under the Revised Penal Code in addition to the one he commits in violations of RA 10175. Under section 19 of the act the Secretary of Justice if he or she finds prima facie evidence on violation of RA 10175 can issue order to block access to computer data or take down websites of suspected offenders.

Several persons filed petition to the Supreme Court to declare some provisions of RA 10175 as unconstitutional and need to be scrapped or amended. Some of the petitioners included Senator Teofisto Guingona lll who did not sign for the passage of the law and Professor Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines College of Law.  The New York based “Human Rights Watch” also urged the Philippine government to repeal or replace the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Senator Teofisto Guingona III and other petitioners said that some provisions of RA 10175 are discriminatory and may result in the infringement of the fundamental rights of individuals under the constitution such as freedom expressions, privacy of communications, due process and the laws on double jeopardy. The petitioners also argued that some of the provisions such as the crime of libel are vague and may result to misinterpretations.  The petitioners stated that mere posting on tweeter or making comments on blogs and posts in social media such as Face book may send an internet user to 12 years in jail. Guingona asked the Supreme Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the implementation of the controversial provisions until the issues have been decided.

Related to the signing of RA 10175 some of the government and private-owned websites such as  Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Metro Manila Sewerage System, American Chamber of Commerce Philippines Incorporated and others were hacked. A group called “Anonymous Philippines” claimed responsibility for the act.

Senator Edgardo Angara author of RA 10175 defended the law saying that the internet has become a wild frontier where no due process is afforded to victim of legitimate internet-related crimes.  MalacaƱang on its part defended its signing saying that the bill passed several long deliberations in both houses of congress before it was submitted to the office of the president.

Except for the controversial provisions especially on libel, RA 10175 is designed to conform to the standard of international cyberspace laws. Majority floor leader Senator Vicente Sotto III admitted inserting some of the controversial provisions.  It is ironic that the passage of RA 10175 comes at a time when the international trend is to decriminalize libel.  Some people regarded some of its provisions as a step backward in upholding freedom of expression.                                                                                                                                                        

Surprised by the negative public reaction to the law, some senators especially Sen. Francis Escudero, who authors a pending bill decriminalizing libel, made statement that he committed an oversight when he indorsed the approval of the controversial law in the senate. Escudero along with Senator Alan Peter Cayetano adopt a joint resolution that will postpone the implementation of the controversial law otherwise it becomes effective and enforceable.                                                                                                                                                        

Internet users who post blogs, articles, videos, comments or other form of communication should exercise responsibility in doing it especially if their posts are defamatory or critical to other people or if they are against public decency or morals. Offensive posts might cause trouble to their authors later. Freedom of expression is not absolute, but it is one of our most precious freedoms. “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it,” Voltaire, the French enlightenment writer said.

Related topics:
Facebook, a Platform to Exercise the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression
Commenting on Online News and Articles
The Internet Is Mightier Than the Sword