Speech of Chief Justice Reynato Puno during the Intercity Meeting last July 30, 2009
THE VALUE OF OUR RIGHT TO VOTE by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno
In the Philippines, suffrage had a glacial growth until the onset of American rule at the dawn of the 20th century. During the 300 years of Spanish regime, the Filipinos did not enjoy the right to vote. It was only in the Malolos Constitution of 1899 that our right to vote was recognized. The right was reiterated in the Philippine Bill of 1902. History shows that our first general elections were we voted was held in 1907 under the first Philippine Election Law, Act No. 1582, which took effect on January 15, 1907.
After 100 years, it is interesting to study whether our people have valued and properly exercised their right to vote, the right which expresses their sovereignty. Sadly, scholars of Philippine politics take the view that our people have failed to exercise their right to vote in choosing the brightest and the best to lead our country. The reasons for this failure are many but the most credible is that given by scholars observing the evolution of politics in the Philippines. One view, the patron-client, factional interpretation of Philippine politics, states that our politics is all about personal relations and networks linked by kinship, friendship, exchange of favors, influence and money. A second view, the patrimonial interpretation, stresses the elites’ use of force, intimidation and violence to win elections. A third view, the neocolonial interpretation, concludes that foreign interests swing our elections their way when they want to. Let me bare the core findings of these three schools of thought which do not speak kindly of how we have devalued our right to vote.
The first view: patron-client, factional interpretation. Our American colonizers introduced the first general elections in the Philippines during the Philippine Assembly elections of 1907. To be sure, that political exercise was a gigantic step towards the political empowerment of the masses. But easily recognizable were the undemocratic strains of the election introduced by the Americans. Linguistic, property and literacy qualifications were set so high that the small percentage of the voting population was limited to those who commanded English or Spanish and held substantial property. With these high hurdles frustrating the exercise of the right to vote of the many, the caciques had little difficulty acquiring political power. Power was dispersed horizontally across the archipelago, but concentrated vertically: the caciques, not the poor who were more, gained political representation in Manila. From then on, the elites have ruled our elections, even if on paper the masses are sovereign. The elites successfully organized their political campaigns around extended family and patron-client networks. They had also at their beck and call power brokers who can deliver “solid votes” from their bailiwicks, mostly from hundreds of thousands of people who depend on them. They provide them with cradle-to-grave benefits. They shoulder the hospital bills of the newly born. They give their wards jobs through public works projects. They put up rural health centers, basketball courts, barangay halls and feeder roads. They provide caskets so poor families can bury their dead. Ward leaders of power brokers ensure that votes of entire barangays or municipalities are delivered for a particular candidate. The political machine of the elite is also well oiled by the money of the gods of business. According to this school of thought, the elite nesgated the right to vote of the many.
Let us go to the second view: the patrimonial interpretation of our elections. This view emphasizes that our elections are won and lost by how effectively dominant families, their minions and private armies intimidate voters, tamper with voting procedures, and violate the sovereign will of our electorate. One observer described “[a] Philippine election [as] a rich man’s civil war fought in the public marketplace.” The worst victim of this war in the last 50 years is again the sanctity of our people’s right to vote.
Fraud has taken many faces in our elections: bribery; intimidation; the use of indelible ink to prevent a voter from voting; the delisting or transfer of voters from voters’ lists; the snatching of ballot boxes; the destruction or alteration of ballots, election returns and other election paraphernalia; the misreading of the contents of ballots or election returns, and so on. They are still with us in new forms after 100 years. Again, they have a mockery of the people’s right to vote.
Let us go to the third view: the neocolonial interpretation of our elections.This view laments that foreign intervention has influenced the exercise of the right to vote of our people. Our nationalists, led by Claro M. Recto, have raised foreign intervention as an evil in our politics. Foreign business and military interests in the Philippines have made foreign intervention in Philippine elections endemic. They point out that the economic interests of foreigners pushed the Parity Amendment into the Philippine Constitution. For the passage of the Parity Amendment to be assured, our nationalists charged that some progressive legislators had to be unseated, on allegations of electoral fraud. Needless to state, the right of the people who voted for them as their representatives was negated by the greed for profits by foreigners.
On the other hand, the second half of the last century saw the Cold War between democracy and communism. The technology of war at that time demanded the establishment of foreign bases to surround the enemy as strategies of offense and defense. Countries with strategic location like the Philippines, had to be the sites of these foreign bases. Necessarily, these countries became the battlegrounds of these contending ideological powers. Unsympathetic governments were hardly tolerated in this global battle between the giants of the East and the West. Some of them lost elections because of the undue interference of foreign states. Again, it was the right to vote of the people that was made a plaything by these foreigners.
There are other factors and influences that have diluted the importance of the right to vote of our people. Lamentably, some of our voters are to blame for this tragedy. Some of them treat elections as an opportunity to get something for themselves and their families. They are unconcerned about the issues of the times and do not expect long-term returns for their vote, but seek mainly to extract what they can by participating in a nominal way -- to please friends or win personal favors from candidates -- or by selling their votes. Some voters also consider elections as a means to fulfill clientele obligations, not only by voting but also by campaigning for candidates supported by one’s patron and calling on family members and close friends to do the same. Likewise, plain regionalism, common dialect and shared cultural values sometimes determine the way they vote. Worse, the mere popularity of personalities -- devoid of the ideology, program and qualities necessary for an effective elected leader -- can blind some voters in casting uninformed or undiscerning votes.
An astute student of politics, Resil Mojares, concludes that all these facts explain in large part why voters seek “short-term goals and benefits for oneself, one’s family, or small group, rather than one’s class or nation;” and why Philippine politics consists largely of “quick returns, personalistic leadership, and visible impact-projects.” The cumulative results of these political practices are “orchestrated ‘mandates’ rather than genuine participation, manipulation of needs and rewards rather than a process of democratic ‘bargaining,’ and a continuing powerlessness of the people instead of empowerment through politics.”
Finally, a weak administrative machinery to enforce laws that guaranty fair elections also erodes the right to vote. A pliant administrative structure that cannot safeguard the election process from abuses deters our transition from a paper democracy to real democracy. It is not enough to have laws that assure honest voting and counting. They have to be enforced if we are to recognize the importance of the right to vote of our people; and if we are to accord sanctity, and not sanctimoniousness, to their sovereignty.
Still and all, despite the faults of our elections, our politicians and ourselves, many Filipinos view elections as still the best way to decide who will hold public office. Studies show that most Filipinos favor democracy; and large percentages have regularly turned up at the polls, averaging about 70% in presidential and legislative polls since 1986. One development after the 1986 People Power revolution and into the 1990s, a development that has helped contribute to the democratic character of our elections, is the sudden mushrooming of nongovernmental organizations that passionately advocate positions on major issues and exert efforts to make political institutions -- including elections -- more open to non-elite voices and interests. Let us support them.
Let me conclude by stressing what Mencken calls the obvious of obviousities: the stake in every election is high. It is the future of democracy that is on the line in every election. In truth, it is not the unsuccessful candidate who is the greatest loser in a manipulated and fraudulent election, but we, the people whose right to vote who will be our rulers is desecrated.Let us fight for the sanctity of our right to vote lest our treasured democracy becomes simply a “tyranny of the powerful who manipulate the majority.”
A pleasant evening to all.
