Can Democracy Address the Problem?
This is my essay about the wire-tapping scandal.
Democracy: the Ideal Type
Contemporary definitions of democracy include the following characteristics, which shall be used to form the ideal type of democracy.
In a democracy, minimally competent adults rule by coming together as one body to make decisions about laws and policies that regulate their lives through the process of electing public officials. Every citizen has the right to vote, and the one-person-one-vote policy is exercised in choosing representatives in the legislative assembly. These elections are fairly conducted and coercion is minimal. In addition to this, most all adult citizens have the right to run for elective offices regardless of educational background or political experience.
Each citizen has the right to express his or her opinions on every other citizen, government officials, or the regime, without fear or danger of serious retribution. They also have the right to access the views on matters of public concern. For instance, political campaigns of candidates involve discussion, argument, and debate over the worth of their opposing views. Everyone is permitted to watch or participate in this process. Citizens are also free to seek alternative sources of information, which are protected by laws.
Aside from these civil liberties, citizens are protected by other human rights such as due process of law, the right to privacy, and the right to religious freedom. Finally, in order to make sure that these rights are realized, citizens are entitled to form organizations and associations independent from the government, including political parties.
Democracy as the Solution
Ideally, a democratic state would be able to address this political crisis through an independent investigation of the six recorded phone conversations. Being a citizen of the Philippines, President Macapagal-Arroyo is entitled to the provisions of Article 3, Section 14 of the 1987 Philippine constitution:
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
However, the notion of democracy is not only misunderstood by most of the Filipinos; it is not being put to practice. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s outspoken enemies—Sen. Panfilo Lacson, former Senator Raul Roco, and now Susan Roces, widow of presidential candidate Fernando Poe Jr.—have been rousing the Filipino masses to rally for her resignation even before the President made her statement regarding the tapes on national TV. They insist that she did cheat in the 2004 elections and that by doing so, she violated the trust of the people and is unfit to rule. They believe that only way to restore the credibility of the Philippine government is through the President’s leaving office.
Strictly speaking, there is actually no evidence to incriminate President Arroyo. Arroyo never admitted to cheating in the elections per se; what she apologized for was speaking to a Comelec official while the ballots were being counted. This, she admits, was improper but not necessarily unlawful. But most importantly, the manner in which the tapes were obtained violates Article 3 section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Although people do have the right to organize these protest rallies against the President, it is now becoming a case of mob rule in the guise of freedom of speech. The President’s enemies find their strength in gaining the support of the masses—relatively uneducated or misinformed people who are easily swayed by these charismatic personalities. It has even gotten to the point where her enemies are hoping to build enough pressure to coerce President Arroyo to step down. What makes this different from the People Power of 1986 was that at that time the excesses of dictatorial rule were getting even worse, administration critics and anti-Marcos activists were being summarily executed and the people have had enough of living in fear under President Marcos’ regime. Those who joined the People Power revolt were the educated bourgeoisie—the middle class who understood what was wrong and what they were fighting for.
These continuing attacks on her character and rallies for her resignation increases political unrest and contribute to the overall instability of the country. But more than that, such a shaky political environment is beneficial to vested interests. Perhaps power is the true motive behind the actions of Sen. Panfilo Lacson, Raul Roco, and Susan Roces, and not truth nor justice for the Filipino voters as they claim to be after. But the only thing that is certain is that these people want President Arroyo removed without going through the due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Democracy “Restructured”
Only around 10,000 people joined the biggest anti-GMA rally of July 1, 2005, barely a fraction of the size of “People Power” uprisings that ousted the late Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 and President Joseph Estrada in 2001. In a democratic state, any minority dissatisfied with the government’s decisions could claim to be a “people”—and this is exactly what President Arroyo’s enemies have been doing.
The real problem does not lie in what President Arroyo allegedly did, but in the way the people are reacting to this issue. Ever since the People Power revolt of 1986, Filipinos take to rallying at the first sign of injustice or corruption, as though a collective demonstration were the solution to these problems. The Philippines is not a democracy because if it were, an investigation would already be taking place and life would go on without any more unruly public demonstrations. What we seem to have is an ochlocracy—a government by mob or disorganized mass of people. The Filipino people need to learn is that although a collective demonstration succeeded in driving out two heads of states in the past, the people should not keep using the right to peaceful assembly to attempt to oust a president they no longer like.
The events that occurred during the wire-tapping scandal show that the civil rights provided for in the Constitution is prone to abuse and misinterpretation. Democracy may be too lenient a government for the Philippines. What could be needed is a military junta to suppress illegal uprisings, instill discipline in the people, and restore order to the country. Although events in the Marcos administration have given the military junta a bad reputation, this form of government does not necessarily mean a bloody regime. Retired Army Chief Fortunato Abat suggested a more subdued version of the junta—a neutral military to help establish a transition government while protecting both the interests of the people and the state. A 15- to 20-man ruling council, representing various sectors, would elect among themselves an “interim Chief Executive” who would lead the country for one or two years and draft a new constitution.
It is ultimately up to the citizens of the Philippines to decide whether or not they should stick by their decision to attempt to oust President Arroyo or stick to the Constitution as any real democratic society would. But for as long as this chaotic environment stays, our government’s reforms will be impeded, our economy will suffer, and life for the Filipinos will fail to improve.
