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

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

Party List 5: Why it is Wrong in Theory and Practice

The party list (PL) system in both theory and practice is wrong. In theory, it is supposed to be a proportional representation system where smaller political parties are given chance via mandatory percentage share in the total seats in the parliament or Congress. 

In the Philippines, that theory has been revised to represent the so-called "marginalized sectors" of society. And in practice in the country, almost all groups of opportunists mix up with well-meaning individuals to help centrally plan and change the country, towards their own world view of forced collectivism. Thus, we have a son of the former President representing the party of security guards, a former Cabinet Secretary (DND, DENR, DOE) who wanted to represent the party of bus drivers (he committed suicide a few years ago), of rich people representing parties of rice farmers, and so on.

In addition, even supposedly "non-marginalized" sectors like athletes, media people, cock fighting aficionados, showbiz guys, LPG retailers, physicians, engineers, other professionals also participated or attempted to join the PL free for all political opportunism.

A friend, election lawyer and legal NGO leader Luie Guia posted a news article in his facebook status and he commented,

The Party List system is definitely NOT a joke if it is designed as it should be designed. Membership in the legislature under a true PL system is proportional to the votes obtained by parties contesting the seats. It's more "representative" than the single member district system that we are used to. Unfortunately, the design of the PL system we now have here in the Philippines is utterly flawed.

I like the term used by Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes, a "joke". I told Luie that like him, I somehow disagree with the term "joke" because it is worse than a joke. The PL system is a s sham, a scam, and even a tool for more public robbery. 

A political party should represent a political ideology. Since there are not too many political ideologies around the planet, then the number of political parties should be few only, not dozens, not hundreds. The PL system -- both in theory and practice in the PH -- has further bastardized the theory and use of a political party. That is why I earlier argued that the PL system should be abolished. And all aspiring politicians from the existing PL should form a real political party that can contest posts from the local to national levels, or join existing ones.

Luie added that the Philippine version of PL has given PL a bad name at least to Filipinos. A true PL, where voters get to vote for parties and thus their ideologies rather than individuals, has been the system chosen by many emerging democracies as it allows even those in the fringes to be represented if they get enough votes. Regional and even ethnic tensions tend to be mitigated because more sectors of society are accommodated in the formal structure of government. I don't favor abolition of PL. I wish it to be re crafted and redesigned to make it work as it really should.

Below is a list of political parties in the Philippines:

A. Big national political parties:

1. Liberal Party (LP)

2. Lakas-Kampi-CMD

3. Nacionalista Party (NP)

4. Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC)

5. Partido Demokratiko PIlipino - Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban)

6. Laban ng Demokratikong PIlipino (LDP)

7. Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL)

B. Marginal national political parties:

8. Bagumbayan-Volunteers for a New Philippines (Bagumbayan-VNP)

9. People's Reform Party (PRP)

10. Ang Kapatiran Party (AKP)

11. Gabay Bayan

C. Local political parties, 91

D. Party list, currently sitting in the HOR: 42, 26 of which start with 1 or A:

I-CARE, 1-UTAK, A Teacher, AA Kasosyo, AAMBIS OWA, Aangat Tayo, Abante Mindanao, ABONO, ABS, ACT Teacher, AGAP, AGBIAG, AGHAM, AGP, Akbayan, Ako Bicol, Alagad, ALE, ALIF, An Waray, ANAD, Anakpawis, Ang Kasangga, APEC, Ating Koop, AVE

Bagong Henerasyon, Bayan Muna, Buhay, Butil, CIBAC, Coop Natcco, Diwa, Gabriela, Kabataan, Kakusa, Kalinga, LPGMA, PBA, Senior Citizens, Una ang Pamilya, Yacap

Those that lost, about 100+ other party lists.

See a longer list of political parties in the Philippines and the name of their leaders in Wiki here.

There are too many political parties in the country already, both at the national and local levels. Adding the PL system makes it a dizzying situation. So with the free for all nature of PL opportunism, and these PLs are arranged alphabetically in the ballot box and voters can choose only one out of 100 plus PLs, most groups start the name of their party with 1 or A. There could be up to 400+ groups that want accreditation and participation in the PL system but the Comelec conducts preliminary hearing and remove many of them.

There are no marginalized sectors, only marginalized individuals. There are rich and poor individuals in each of those sectors -- farmers, fisherfolks, workers, women, youth, senior citizens, indivigenous people, security agencies,  teachers, and so on.

 I believe we need to go back to a few political parties, even a two- or three-party system. A political party should be able to defend its political ideology or philosophy, embodied in various advocacies or platform of government from the local up to the national government levels. For instance, a political party for more and bigger government should be able to argue why such philosophy should be applied nationwide, from the barangay or village level all the way up to the city, province and the nation. On the other hand, a political party for less government, or a midway advocating for more public-private partnership (PPP) in many sectors, should be able to articulate their philosophies and their application nationwide.

Thus, having too many political parties, PL or otherwise, often contribute to political miseducation and opportunism. It corrupts further the minds of the people, that they too can centrally plan the country and the world and it is relatively easy to do that via backdoor entrance like the PL system.

---------

See also:
Party List 1: Opportunism, 2001 Elections, November 28, 2005
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