BWorld 159, Electoral reforms and the President

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Monday.

President Rodrigo Duterte has been on a rampage recently, repeating his warnings about declaring a “revolutionary government,” as if he has the authority to issue laws and orders without consideration or fear of opposition from independent-minded legislators.

Among his previous rants include his order to his loyal leaders in Congress to (a) impeach the Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Andres D. Bautista, (b) impeach Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, (c) impeach Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, and (d) create new rules in electoral exercises such as postponing and resetting the barangay elections.

Speaking of electoral reforms, some things are better retained and while others should be changed. Among these are the following.

1. Retain automation and do not entertain the proposal by certain sectors to go back to manual counting of the votes. The number of voters in the country is rising and machines should take care of the counting and processing of results (see table).

The lobbying of the son of a former dictator, Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr., to discredit the results of the 2016 national elections and canvassing for vice-president has been rejected by the Supreme Court — good riddance. It was a dangerous attempt by Mr. Marcos to unseat the elected VP so that he can be the second highest official in the country, a position that is just heartbeat away from the Presidency, a position held by his father for 20 years (1965-1985) via deception and large-scale military coercion.

2. Elections of barangay officials should be as scheduled and not subject to postponement by the President or Congress.

Elections should held at regular and predictable intervals to give space and opportunity for the people to directly demand accountability from their elected leaders. Existing laws mandate fixed terms of office for elected national and local leaders.

3. No to state subsidy to political parties as proposed by certain sectors. This is a wasteful use of taxpayers money. Politicians and political parties have resources of their own or have access to a network that allows them to solicit big donations from their friends and supporters. Keep the tax money for direct subsidy to the poor, or cut taxes instead so that people can enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Meanwhile, if the proposed charter change (cha-cha) should materialize, the following reforms should be considered.

4. Abolish the party list system. This is wrong in both theory and practice. In theory, there are no marginalized sectors, only marginalized individuals. Women are not a marginalized sector. The country had two women Presidents already, a number of senators and House members are women. Youth is not a marginalized sector as many young leaders are occupying very high political and corporate positions. Farmers are not marginalized as there are many rich farmers and agri-business entrepreneurs, although many farmers are indeed poor. Electric cooperatives do not belong to the marginalized sector.

In practice, many non-poor individuals and groups have entered the legislature through the backdoor afforded by the party-list system.

5. Abolish the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK). Young people should not be encouraged to enter the world of politics early because government, by nature, is force and coercion. Young people should focus instead on voluntary and civil society action and learn the arts of entrepreneurship early.

6. Elect only the political party, not candidates, should the Philippines become parliamentary. Once put in effect, parties will stay focused on their political ideologies and advocacy and not on personalities.

7. Go back to the two-party system. Very often, debate on public issues can be limited to whether there should be increased government interventions and regulations or fewer, whether there should be more and higher taxes or less, whether there should be free trade or protectionism. Candidates and voters can align themselves on either of two opposing positions.

Many candidates can be accommodated by the two parties and they will all go through primaries and knock themselves out until only one will represent the respective party. This could have prevented a Duterte win because many candidates in the 2016 elections talked about respecting the rule of law while Duterte repeatedly argued for breaking the law and short cut the process of winning the drugs war.

8. Or retain the multi-party system but have a round two elections where only the top two candidates will contest and “knock out” the other candidate in an open electoral system.

Again, this could have prevented a Duterte win because supporters of the 3rd, 4th and 5th placers can rethink their position and choose only either the 1st or 2nd placer. This will avoid having a “minority President.”

---------------

See also:

BWorld 156, Integrated PPP vs hybrid PPP, October 04, 2017 

BWorld 157, Build-build-build is possible without new taxes, October 09, 2017 

BWorld 158, Why a carbon tax is wrong, October 16, 2017

Election 24, Generally peaceful and credible 2016 polls

Congratulations, COMELEC, for a generally peaceful, credible, and fast results elections 2016.

Congratulations, unofficial President-Elect Rodrigo Duterte. The people have spoken, you got nearly 40% of the national votes based on the SWS exit poll.

Bongbong Marcos is leading by 0.12 million votes as of this writing, no congrats yet. I still hope that my candidate Leni Robredo will beat you in the coming hours or days of official counting.

As of 1:20 am:

Reflecting on  this general elections, I think there are more good news than bad ones. Consider the following good news:

1. VP Jojo Binay finally loses in an election. He and his family were the alternating Mayors of Makati City (he, his wife, he again, then his son) for almost 30 years, then he won the VP race in 2010.

2. Securing the people's right to life (against murderers, rapists, kidnappers), right  to private property (against thieves, land grabbers) has trumped the politics of welfarism and rabid environmentalism. Duterte's single issue on fighting criminals proved to be more important to many voters than the promises of endless welfarism by the other Presidential candidates.

3. Among Senatorial candidates, populist lefties like Colmenares of Bayaan Mo Na and Walden Bello of Akbayan are losing. These two are rabid advocates of socialism, explicit or implicit. Risa Hontiveros finally made it after losing consecutively in 2010 and 2013 Senatorial elections. She's speaking mostly populist and socialist-leaning but her pronouncements are tempered by her direct association with the LP machinery which is definitely non-leftist.

The bad news, however:

1. Leni might lose?...

2. Manny Pacquiao will become Senator while Serge Osmena and TG Guingona are losing. Manny is a great man as a boxer and ring fighter. But later he has evolved into sort of a megalomaniac person, jumping into many activities outside of his core competence. Very good in boxing, but lousy as a professional basketball player, lousy singer, lousy Congressman. So he will soon be a lousy Senator? Sen. Serge has a good sense on energy policies, sayang kung matalo sya.

Nonetheless, the important thing is that the elections was held generally peacefully and orderly, it looks credible mainly because of fast turn out of electronic results.

We can move on. Work with the next President with a big mandate and support from the voters. Pero please lang, next President Duterte -- learn to respect the rule of law, let there be due process before penalizing criminals. Some may have stolen just a few chickens but short-cut investigations  and  penalties would say they stole cows and tractors and hence, the penalty is outright execution or "salvaging".

Learn to respect human rights. Kawatan man yan, may existing system of penalties na dyan, like X number of months or years of imprisonment, not outright execution and government-sponsored murders.

Lastly, President-Elect, while you said you were a fan of socialism and BIG government, at one time you also said you want a "minimal government." I hope you will lean more towards the latter and not the former. Thank you.

Update, as of 10:45 pm.

With 94.3% of national votes counted.
Graphics from gmanetwork.com, thanks.

Additional good news:

4. Grace Poe, Mar Roxas and Jojo Binay already conceded to Rody Duterte. He retains the 6+ M lead votes over Mar Roxas. VP candidates Chiz Escudero and Alan Cayetano also conceded defeat. Good move guys. No more hassle and complaints of irregularities or cheating. First time in Philippine elections that all major rivals have conceded defeat to a leading Presidential candidate less than 24 hours after the polls have closed.

5. Leni is winning, she has overtaken Bongbong by 0.25 M votes.

6. Soon we will not see the faces of "no car plate, no sticker available" DOTC Sec. Jun Abaya and MIAA Administrator Honrado, known for his so-called ignorance of "tanim bala" or "laglag bala" extortion racket at the NAIA. Among the "downers" of the PNoy government.

More bad news though...

3. Climate alarmism and renewables cronyism in the Senate will have additional voice through Migs Zubiri, strengthening Sen. Loren Legarda.

4. Francis Tolentino, currently #13, might edge out Leila de Lima now in #12... Tolentino is generally lousy as MMDA Chair, he used the position mainly for his Senatorial ambition and not to reduce high traffic congestion. Leila stood up against the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) Edsa occupation dictatorship last year. These INCs closed down a busy part of EDSA for 3N/2D (from Friday night to Sun afternoon).

Meanwhile, the PNoy bashers of "massive cheating to make Mar Roxas win  at all cost", learn to have humility and own up to your irresponsible statements. The same goes for COMELEC bashers. I hope to hear your apologies guys. Not to me of course, but to the Comelec and the admin.
---------------

See also:

Election 21, Duterte and the Australian, US Ambassadors' comment on rape joke, April 22, 2016
Election 22, Is Du30 victory almost certain? May 07, 2016 

Election 23, Leni for VP, the Senatoriables, May 08, 2016

Election 10: Comelec Critics and Commissioner Luie Guia

Today, Commission on Elections (Comelec) new Commissioner Luie Guia, a friend from undergrad days in UP Diliman some three decades ago, posted in his fb wall this message below. I am reposting this with his permission.  I also added two of his photos posted in his wall.

To all my co-workers in Comelec.

I am relatively new in the Commission on Elections and I was told that criticisms are part of the job. I have been trying to understand this situation especially as I have been associated with many of those who have recently been attacking Comelec on this single issue of election automation. I am sure that while many of you have mastered the art of ignoring these attacks and live as if they do not exist, some also do get hurt and troubled. It is important to listen and understand the issues that our critics are raising. I always think that listening to the public is part of our job. It is also important, however, for us to realize that, in the end, it is we in the Commission who are tasked to execute the institution’s mandate and are therefore the ones primarily responsible for the success or failure of managing our elections. Thus, for as long we can honestly and confidently say that we are hardworking public servants who conduct ourselves in the highest standard of integrity, competence, and service and who have the best interest of the public in mind, we can proudly hold our heads up high and face anyone with courage and dignity. While we cannot profess to have the monopoly of election knowledge and expertise notwithstanding our years of election management experience, nobody, and simply nobody, can rightfully claim the monopoly of good intentions. Not us. Not our critics. Not anyone else.

Needless to say, well-managed elections bring about good governance, which, in turn, translate into better service to the people. After work we all return to our respective communities and experience government service, or the lack of it, like all other citizens of the country do. There is no sense therefore for us to be doing our work with less passion and dedication than necessary as we are our own client. We stand to benefit from the good works that we do. We also stand to suffer if we do not do our job well. We cannot fail to serve ourselves.

Let us therefore face these criticisms by showing to everyone how we work hard to improve the process and how we are addressing some of the valid issues. Let’s also show that we are achieving great headways in the other aspects of elections. We are pursuing to give better electoral access to those traditionally deprived of access (PWD, Detainees, IPs, IDPs). There is an unprecedented vigor in enforcing campaign finance laws. We will continue to ensure fairer election by enforcing campaign rules. We are continuing to do organizational development efforts to make our institution more responsive to the demands of the times. Let us highlight our successes as we also continue to correct our failures. Let’s be proud of ourselves and of what we do.

A hopeful New Year to All.

------------

I decided to repost this because I personally know Luie, he is a sincere and honest guy, and I believe that credibility, credibility, and credibility of an electoral exercise is the single most important service that a government election administration body can give to the public. I sincerely hope that we are going towards more credible elections through time. Not that I believe that politicians and legislators can give us heaven on earth, far from it. Rather, since existing rules say that we need to have a President and Vice President, Senators and Congressmen, Governors and Mayors, Provincial and Municipal Councilors, etc., then the rules that put these people in position should be credible.

I am a minarchist, not anarchist. I believe there is a rule for government -- to have rule of law in society, especially the laws protecting the people's right to life, right to private property, and right to liberty and expression. Beyond that, I think most other government functions are secondary or unnecessary. Promulgating the law on honest election is an important function of government like the Comelec.

In earlier postings in his fb wall a few weeks ago, Luie also posted these:

1. No one has the monopoly of good intentions. Argue if we must, however passionate we may be. But let's also seek to understand in the same way we want to be understood.

2. To reiterate, I really hope more people consider serving in government as it is there where they can walk their talk.

I commented on his second posting and said that people should ask government to stop intervening and regulating too much in the private sector, so people there can create more jobs. Job creation and selling various things and services is not a crime that requires lots of government permits.

-------------

See also:

Election Watch 6: On Political Dynasty, May 11, 2013 
Election 7: My Candidates for Senators, May 12, 2013 

Election 8: Growth, Debt and the 2013 Polls, May 30, 2013 

Election 9: India's Political Dynasties vs. Democracy, April 21, 2014 

Comelec voter registration, 2007, October 26, 2010

Party List 5: Why it is Wrong in Theory and Practice, September 30, 2012 

Party List 6: Discourse with Luie Guia, April 19, 2013

Election 7: My Candidates for Senators

My main criteria for supporting or voting candidates is who among them will be the least populist and welfarist, least interventionist and tax hungry, compared to other candidates. Almost all politicians have shades of populism and welfarism and hence, for expanding government. They just vary in the degree of populism. Thus, choosing who among them will go against the populism tide seems a difficult task.

Nonetheless, here is my short list, the Senatorial candidates that I will vote tomorrow.

1. Ramon Magsaysay, Jr. Clear and explicit in calling for reducing the size of the bureaucracy, in simplifying business procedures and regulations, in liking minimal government.

2. Koko Pimentel. Favors the privatization of PAGCOR, rather independent minded.

3. Dick Gordon. Strong presence in civil society via the Philippine National Red Cross. The Red Cross is one clear example that civil society participation in public health promotion is very potent, that it's not all government in healthcare.

4. Greco Belgica. Advocates flat income tax of 10% for both individuals and corporations. His chance of winning of course is zero, but will vote for him nonetheless.

5. Eddie Villanueva. Never sought any appointed political position after he lost in the last two Presidential elections that he joined. He stayed with his church-based and civil society organizations. 

Ouch, only five. Will think of the other seven tonight. 

A friend commented that my criteria above is like “voting for those who won’t do anything.” I replied that it is not the case. Rather, it is voting for those who will attempt to leave us to do what we think is good for ourselves, our family and our community, and not regulate and nanny us how you should conduct our own lives, while getting more money from us so the government can regulate our lives more. 

"The election this Monday will determine our future as a nation and as individuals." -- from a radio commentator. If many people will believe this statement, then we are a bunch of hopeless idiots. We cannot determine our own life and future and that of our households and communities. Everything will depend on the politicians that we will elect and the army of bureaucrats who will implement the politicians' will. If the elected politicians are angels, then our future is good. If they are devils, then our future is hellish. That is a lousy life.

Meanwhile,  I have heard Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes in two or three election-related fora in the past, usually at Traders Hotel. He looked cool and frank to me. But recently, he's got the habit of typical government  "prohibit and ban" thinking. Like the recent moves to ban alcohol for 5 days instead of 2, ban bank withrawals beyond P100k, ban "excessive" pol ads, etc. 

LENTE forum, November 2011. Chairman Brillanes 3rd from left.

It is good that the current Supreme Court majority realize that prohibitionist/banning thinking is so central planning and dictatorial leaning. 

In a free society, ALL actions are allowed except for a few, expressly prohibited acts like killing, stealing, rape, abduction, etc.

In an unfree society, ALL actions are not allowed except with permit from government.

We are not there yet, of a totally unfree society, but as more and more permits are required in our ordinary lives, we are moving towards a less free society. Magtayo ka lang ng barber shop or bread shop, kaliwa-kanang permits, taxes and fees kailangan mo. May penalties pa for "late registration" daw.

As government expands, stupidity expands. So it is really important to limit the power of coercion of government. Including its power to forcibly collectivize endless subsidies and their endless financing.

More nice quotes:

A government that's BIG and populist enough to give everything you want is also BIG and dictatorial enough to take everything you've got. 

Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.

"If it moves, tax it. If it moves further, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -- R.Reagan

--------

See also:
Election Watch 3: Defining Celebrities, Politicians and the State, August 30, 2012
Election Watch 4: Senatoriables on Healthcare, March 08, 2013 
Election Watch 5: Sin Tax Law, Hospital Over-regulation and Senatoriables, May 07, 2013 
Election Watch 6: On Political Dynasty, May 11, 2013

Party List 6: Discourse with Luie Guia

Today, the President announced the appointment of two new Comelec Commissioners, lawyers Luie Tito F. Guia and Al Parreño to replace retiring Commissioners Rene Sarmiento and Armando Velasco.

Luie Guia is a friend way back in UP Diliman undergrad days in the 80s. He is also a friend in facebook, and we have exchanged ideas and debated several times, in a friendly and civil way.

Congrats Luie. I am sure you will retain your objectivity and independence in doing your work. This photo, I got it in his facebook wall, made by his other friends.

Ok, to the topic. About three weeks ago, before the Supreme Court ruled that the party list (PL) system is now open to people even if they do not represent any "marginalized sector", Luie posted his thoughts once again on the PL system, below. Posting this without his permission and I am sure that he wouldn't mind. I will post this blog article in his fb wall. Luie wrote:

I think that the true intent of the Constitution is to establish a partial proportional representation system in the House of Representative (20%) to allow even small parties (including those from "marginalized and underrepresented sectors") a better chance of being represented in the legislature. These small parties however should get enough mandate to earn seats. This is the essence of a party list system. Had the Constitution intended to establish RESERVED seat for specific sectors, it should have simply stated it considering that we have had experience in sectoral representation. The use of the term " party-list" is clearly intended to mean, first and foremost, a system of proportional representation. The Supreme Court decision in the Atong Paglaum case is, IMHO, more consistent with the true intent of the Constitution.

I replied with the following comments:

The purpose of a political party is to advance a particular political ideology, convince voters, then implement policies based on that ideology. Thus, a socialist party can have health socialism, education socialism, housing socialism, pension socialism, extend to other sectors and sub sectors. A liberal or conservative or fascist parties will also explain their respective ideologies. Those that lose means their ideology is non-attractive and/or marginal.

So when government further gives mandatory seat (at least 20% of the total seats in the HOR) to marginal groups proposing marginal or even lousy ideas, the burden is on the taxpayers and the various regulated sectors. By force and coercion, they have to finance those lousy parties with lousy politicians and lousy programs.

What particular, unique ideology is being advanced by about 10 national parties, about a hundred local parties, and about 150 party lists? There are only few political ideologies to advance -- socialist, communist, fascist, liberal, conservative, environmentalist, etc. I can count not more than a dozen. When parties expand and expand, their purpose is to dilute further the ideology-based parties and just to advance personality politics, patronage politics, clown politics, with only one thing in mind: Be in government and enjoy the tax money, perks, privileges, the power to regulate and coerce people to behave based on their grand if not idiotic central plans.

The purpose of the party list system is simply to further expand government in the Legislative branch, nothing else. The number of district based representatives is rising as a result of the rise in population.

There are NO "marginalized sectors" only marginalized individuals. Henry Sy and Fidel Ramos are senior citizens. Gloria Arroyo and Loren Legarda are women. Chiz Escudero and Bam Aquino belong to the youth sector. Danding Cojuangco is also a farmer. There are very rich and very poor individuals in all of these sectors. That is why PL is terribly wrong in theory, in concept, and is thus, terribly wrong in practice. It should be abolished in the next round of cha cha. It is a big historical mistake that only expanded corruption and rent seeking in PH society.

One more disadvantage of the PL system, additional work for Comelec. There are NO marginalized sectors and yet Comelec has to spend huge time and resources choosing which of those bogus marginalized groups are unreal or semi-real. If the PL system does not exist, Comelec can focus its resources on its original mandate of ensuring credible and honest elections from local to national positions. The number of poitical parties in the country in fact should shrink, not expand. From 300+ to perhaps only 10 or less. Marginalized groups should learn to coalesce with other marginal groups. Less ego, less opportunism, more consolidation of resources and ideology. Socialists should be proud of their ideology, not hide it in the form of hundreds of small parties.

Luie asked, “When you say the number of parties should shrink, how should that be done? Will you tell people not to organize parties because they do not espouse ideologies? who should be telling that to them?”

I replied that we can shrink the number of political parties in the PH by abolishing the PL system. This system alone results in the creation of possibly 500 new parties. After many of them were not accredited by Comelec, they simply died. Or the opportunists created new parties.

If the purpose of people in joining government is to "serve", they can actually do that even if they are out of government. Start a bake shop, a barber shop, an internet shop, etc., employ themselves, hire other people, give them jobs and make them feel useful and productive. If people are productive and self reliant, they depend less on politicians and welfare. The fact they can serve without asking for more taxes, more fees to support themselves, people already help other people keep money in their pockets.

Or if people really wish to "serve" via government and politics, let them refine and consolidate their advocacy for welfarism and populism, soft term for social democracy or socialism. If all the candidates say they want to extend "free education to college", "free medicines and hospitalization", "free housing", "free transportation" and so on, why can't they be in one political party putting candidates in all positions in LGUs, municipal councilors to Mayors to provincial board members to Governors, probably 20,000 positions for each political party. Then competing pol. parties can put up their own 20,000 candidates nationwide. Even assuming there are five of such parties, that's 100,000 politicians and candidates already nationwide. From only five parties, no need for 300+ pol parties nationwide, many of which are too weak and too focused on only 3 persons, like the PL system nominees. The PL system is simply the success of political opportunism and ego tripping by marginalized politicians with marginalized ideas and ideology.

Luie added, “Party building is never easy. It is hard work... Blaming a system that will tend to give smaller 'marginalized' parties better chance of representation for the proliferation of "opportunists" may have some basis. But I see it more a problem of implementation than of the system itself. In any case, as you pointed out, 'opportunists' eventually die."

"Party building is never easy. It is hard work." Precisely. Real "service" to voters by helping them articulate specific political philosophy that can apply to all sectors, is never easy. The multiplication of so many political parties, with special special thanks to the PL system, is an example that many politicians do not want hard work, they want short cut. They just promise all sorts of freebies, singing and dancing, and they have access to a slice of the P2 trilllion budget and rising every year.

----------------

See also:
Party List 2: Opportunism, 2004 Elections, December 12, 2005
Party List 3: Marginal Parties Should Aspire to Become Big, January 12, 2006
Party List 4: Why it Should be Abolished, August 04, 2011 
Party List 5: Why it is Wrong in Theory and Practice, September 30, 2012