Challenges for Filipino Liberals in 2003 and 2004
By Jovito R. Salonga
Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Makati City, 16 January 2003

I am grateful to Dr. Ronald Meinardus, the representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation here, for this opportunity to speak to this group of distinguished Liberals.  He may have stayed long enough in this country to realize that there are three groups of people who know how to run this difficult, sometimes ungovernable, country -- the taxi drivers, those who cut our hair in the barber shops, and the smart, know-it-all: the old, retired politicians.

I am told that when President Bill Clinton was jogging in the park, he was so preoccupied by the impeachment case filed against him on behalf of Monica Lewinsky, he slipped and fell into the lake.

A youth heard his cries for help and at great risk to himself, dived in and saved him. When he recovered, Bill Clinton told the teenager —“You saved my life. Anything you name, you can have.”

“I don’t want anything,” said the teenager. “Just don’t tell my dad.  He is a Republican.”

After the lamentable departure of LP President Gerry Roxas on April 19, 1982 and the barbaric assassination of Ninoy Aquino at the Manila International Airport on August 21, 1983, I was asked by the LP Executive Committee to take over as President of the LP during the most crucial years of the Marcos dictatorship.  At the request of Senator Roxas before his death, it became my responsibility to draft the Vision and Program of Government of the Party.  This Vision and Program of Government was adopted by the LP Executive Committee shortly after my return from exile in January 1985, one year before the EDSA Revolution, otherwise known as People Power I.  It defines, among other things, the stand of the Liberal Party and the meaning of what we call “the liberal faith.”  I felt we should, in anticipation of the looming collapse of the Marcos dictatorship, let the nation know what makes us different -- why we should not be confused with conservatives who defend and fight for their vested interests, with the reactionaries in the military and with the zealous extremists of the left, both of whom, although fighting and killing one another, have something in common: they both rely on force and violence to try to solve the worsening problems of Philippine society, particularly (1) our grinding poverty; (2) the increasing incidence of corruption in Government and in the larger society, both of which lead to (3) enormous social injustices and bad governance.

Let me quote some excerpts of the LP Program of Government, which might serve as our guide in discussing the challenges confronting Filipino liberals in 2003 and 2004.

 Obviously, the Liberal Party is for democracy, despite its flaws and defects.  The Party is freedom-loving and liberal in the fullest sense of the word.  Liberals are open-minded because they believe that every person wants to be free and is capable of exercising rational free choice.  Because liberals do not claim to be infallible, they believe that government and all human institutions must admit of continuing reform, if they are to serve the needs and interests of society. As a great liberal puts it:

 “For it seems to me that an authentic humility, an awareness of the complexity of men‘s choices, a tolerance for diverse opinions, and a recognition for brave experimentation is at the heart of the liberal faith...  But there is also a moment at which democracy must prove its capacity to act Every man has a right to be heard, but no man has the right to strangle democracy with a single set of vocal cords.”

 Our stand for genuine democracy recognizes every person’s imperfections but respects his inborn capacity for justice.  As stated by Reinhold Niebuhr: “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; man’s capacity for injustice makes democracy necessary.”

 The Liberal Party is pro-people and. therefore, pro-poor.  There can be no meaningful democracy where the overwhelming majority of the people are poor and weak.  Hungry men and women cannot be free.  Nor can we have economic recovery and growth without political stability.  And there can be no political stability without social justice.

Owing to our excessive dependence on external forces, the Liberal Party Program is nationalistic.  Centuries of alien domination and our inclination to think in terms of the family, the clan, and the tribe, must now be balanced by a greater emphasis on the interest of the entire nation.  We envision a nation that is free from the domination of any external force or power.  It is not enough that our people apparently enjoy civil and political liberties -- the nation itself must be sovereign and independent since these liberties could be of little value where our country is under the control or domination of another power.

The Liberal Party is uncompromisingly against graft, corruption and betrayal of public trust.  A free community that is just and progressive is maintained, to a large extent, by witness: the witness of its leaders.  The Asian philosopher, Confucius, said it a long time ago: Government, to be effective, must be government by example -- the example of its leaders.

The analysis

Contrary to what was published in the media here and abroad, GMA was not running for reelection since she was not elected president in the first place in 1998.  Vice-President GMA succeeded former President Joseph Estrada on January 20, 2001 -- almost 2 years ago -- after he was ousted by the non-violent People Power II and decided to leave Malacañang Palace, according to the statement Estrada himself signed and caused to be distributed to the media on that date “for the sake of peace and order and to begin the healing process of the nation.”  Unlike Salvador Allende of Chile, Erap Estrada did not defend his right to stay in office, despite the big plurality of votes he had received in the May 1998 elections.  On the belated claim of Estrada that he was merely “on leave” and that GMA was merely an “acting President,” the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was now the legitimate President of the Philippines.

Because Erap Estrada was ousted after only 2 1/2 years of his 6-year term, GMA has 3 years and a half to serve the unexpired term of the former president, almost equivalent to the 4-year term of a president under the 1935 Constitution which prevailed before martial law.  This makes her situation different from two other accidental presidents -- Vice President Quirino who served only 1 year and 7 months of the 4-year term of President Manuel Roxas who died on April 4,1948, and Vice President Carlos Garcia who served for only 8 months of the unexpired 4-year term of President Magsaysay who died in an airplane crash in Cebu.  Both Quirino and Garcia did not give up their own bid for the presidency; they won in their own right as president because our people wanted to give them more time to prove their worth.

That is not the case with GMA.  For reasons that are completely understandable, she made a selfless, patriotic decision to forego her own ambition, a decision which, in my view, can no longer be revoked without destroying herself in the process.  Her decision created a vacuum which is now being filled by the ambitious leaders of her party, Lakas-UNIDO, who are now jockeying for position, each in his own way.  Speaker Jose de Venecia has his own formula; others are probably giving their individual commitments to popular candidates of other parties, which may also be difficult to set aside, even in the remote possibility she may wish to change her mind.  This observation also applies to LDP head, Senator Edgardo Angara, who has just announced he will not run for the presidency in the 2004 elections.  The LDP, supposedly the biggest, well-organized group in the Opposition before Sen. Angara followed the lead of GMA, may also begin to weaken and decrease in number in the run-up to the 2004 elections.

Why the decision of GMA not to run?

GMA’s December 30 speech, which I consider praiseworthy and should be emulated by many traditional politician -- the so-called trapo -- omits to say what might have been an express but painful admission.  The SWS Survey of December 2, 2002 tells it all -- her popularity rating had gone down to a near-record law of plus 6 per cent net satisfaction rating.  If the presidential elections were held after her Rizal Day speech, SWS and Pulse Asia concluded, she would emerge fourth -- she would lose to ex-Sec. Raul Roco, movie actor Fernando Poe, Mr., and Sen. Noli de Castro -- an embarrassing comparison considering: (1) her high-profile performance from day to day in the last two years; and (2) her unquestioning reliance on public opinion surveys.

The President’s speech, however, contains an indirect, implied admission.  “If I were to run,” she declared in her December 30 speech, “it would require a major political effort on my part, but since I am one of the principal figures in the divisive events in the last two or three years, our political efforts would result in never-ending divisiveness.”  Why this divisiveness?  “In society, she said, we have become a nation deeply divided, symbolized by the polarity between Edsa II and the May 1 siege (she did not call it “Edsa 3”), barely 3 months after” (Edsa 2).

Why the decline in GMA‘S popularity

We must now examine why, after the euphoria following EDSA 2, GMA slumped in public acceptability.

After the disappointment of many thinking people who had reposed their faith in Erap Estrada, what they learned about his disgraceful conduct and incredible behavior during and after office hours, led them and many others who had no illusions about Erap in the first place, to support his successor, an intelligent, pedigreed public official, a well-disciplined economist who would alleviate the problem of massive poverty and do something about the worsening problem of graft and corruption.  Her academic credentials stirred high expectations and soaring hopes.  But the siege of May 1, otherwise known as EDSA 3, showed that the very, very poor among our people still believed Erap Estrada, the movie actor -- they considered her an interloper.  GMA has alienated many people and has not gained any new adherents from among the poor, the marginalized and the disinherited.

To those who wanted the nation spared from the crippling effects of unqualified globalization on our economy, GMA and her economic team can only produce numbers and statistics that are beyond the understanding of the many poor who are the first to suffer from its effects.

To those who wanted a consistent, uncompromising stand against graft and corruption -- which was the message of EDSA 2 -- GMA was viewed as wishy-washy, especially in dealing with case against the former president.  “Exile is Estrada’s call,” said GMA shortly after she assumed the presidency in January 2001.  We in Kilosbayan and Bantay Katarungan vigorously disagreed.  We told President GMA who was our Anniversary Speaker in Bantay Katarungan on February 8, 2001, that “exile or no exile for Estrada is your call, Madam President.”  In our February 2001 Anniversary issue which was given to her and which she must have read, we said -- ”We now have the rare chance of showing to the whole world what kind of a justice system we now have, thanks to EDSA II…  We cannot hold him (ex-Pres. Estrada) fully accountable for his acts without the exercise of physical jurisdiction over his person.”

To those who wanted a self-respecting stand in dealing with Washington, GMA’s blind subservience to President George W. Bush in his preemptive war against “international terrorism,” has alienated many intellectuals, nationalists, progressives and the religious from various churches, who prefer peace instead of war.  GMA’s September 2002 unsolicited offer to the US to make use of “Philippine air space and refueling facilities” and her Cabinet’s one-sided interpretation of the MLSA as an executive agreement, which will enable the US to make use of our ports and airports, including Subic and Clark Field, to wage a war of aggression against Iraq, has been condemned by lawyers and jurists as a palpable violation of the Constitution.  The basic law renounces war as an instrument of national policy and vests only in Congress, not in the president, the power to declare the existence of a state of war.  Let us hope that after her December 30 decision not to run in 2004, GMA will develop the wisdom and the resolve to tell US policy-makers, who plan to bomb and invade Iraq in late February 2003 or a little later -- “I am sorry.  Now I will take care of our people and our own national interest.

Her silence on this question brings us to the question of GMA’s priorities, as outlined in her December 30 speech -- “I won’t run in 2004.”

What GMA plans to do -- her priorities in 2003 and 2004

If you will recall, GMA said, “...relieved of the burden of politics, I can devote the last year and a half of my administration to the following:

“First, strengthening the economy; to create more jobs and to encourage business activity that is unhampered by corruption and red tape in government;

“Second, healing the deep divisions within our society; and

“Third. working for clean and honest elections in 2004.”

There may be something wrong with her choice of words e.g., “relieved of the burden of politics.”  From day to day since last December 30, she has been telling the nation -- “I do not like politics,” or “I am tired of politics.”  Can she really be relieved of the “burden of politics” while in Malacañang until June 30, 2004?  The presidency is the highest political office in the land.  The President’s decisions, for better or for worse, are essentially political, whether her decision deals with the economy, education, environment, labor, or foreign policy.  Prof. Harold Lasswell’s definition of politics -- ”who gets what, when and how” -- is the problem of decision-makers everywhere, whether in government or in the private sector.  In a poor nation like the Philippines, who gets what, when and how is the very essence of politics.  What she probably wants to say is that she has been relieved of the burden of partisan politics -- even that may not be entirely accurate, considering that her own party-mates in Lakas-Unido, led by the Speaker and a good number of congressmen, and her People Power Coalition, which includes Senate President Franklin Drilon and the majority of the senators, are all involved in an unwieldy dilemma.  Speaker Joe de Venecia and his Lakas-Unido congressmen want a parliamentary system of government and they want to convert Congress into a constituent assembly, not a Constitutional Convention, to propose amendments to the Constitution, presumably before the 2004 elections.

In fact, in a Lakas-led caucus held in the House only yesterday (January 15), the congressmen favored Charter Change (more popularly known as Cha-Cha) by a vote of 126 with only 2 against.  As if there was no time to lose, this coming Monday (January 20), the entire House will begin deliberating in earnest on Concurrent Resolution 13, so both houses (the Senate and the House) can convene as a Constituent Assembly to directly propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution.  This may put GMA in a bind -- she wants to carry out her three priorities and Cha-Cha, as she puts it, is not one of them.  But she needs the cooperation of Speaker Joe de Venecia and the Lakas congressmen to pass the necessary legislative measures to strengthen the economy and insure clean and honest elections in 2004.  But the majority of senators, led by Senate President Franklin Drilon, are against the constituent assembly plan of the House, which aims to abolish the Senate.  They are not against Cha-Cha in principle; but they prefer a Constitutional Convention that will propose amendments to the Constitution after the 2004 elections.  What can be done in the 2004 elections, apart from holding the presidential elections, is to elect delegates to the said Convention.

In the meantime, the SWS survey shows that 79 % of Filipinos -- or 4 out of 5 Pinoys -- see no need to change the Constitution, clearly indicating lack of grassroots support for Cha-Cha.

The irony is that GMA says she hates politics -- but now there is more politics and division within the People Power coalition itself and among her own leaders.

What can the Liberals do now?  I believe that in a time of economic and social crises confronting our people, it would be a disservice to focus our energies and resources on directly amending the Constitution before the 2004 elections, especially through a constituent assembly which would be nothing more than a gathering of the same, old faces in the House and in the Senate, with their own vested interests to protect and their own personal agendas to promote.  We should not allow the congressmen’s fear of the emergence of a movie actor to dominate our minds and hearts in the next two years.  In the final analysis, we will get only the kind of government we deserve, whether in 2004 or later.

Disagreements and conflicts in society

This brings me to the question of disagreements and division in our society, which GMA calls “divisiveness.”  She says: “There is a feeling of too much negativism and conflict in our society...  My reading of the political winds tells me that the 2004 elections will go down among the bitterly contested elections in our own history.” 

In every human society, there are contrary views, conflicting interests and clashing wills.  In dictatorships, backed up by military force, elections are often rigged, as in the 1981 election of Marcos against the opponent of his choice, Alejo Santos of Bulacan; or through the holding of farcical referenda and ratifications which yield fantastic results -- 90 to 95 % in favor of the ruler to enable him to remain in office indefinitely.  As stated in the LP Program of Government, serious conflicts are often resolved by plots and conspiracies, by palace revolutions and coups, or by brutal assassinations.  That is why we can try to understand, though we cannot possibly condone, the August 21, 1983 assassination of former Senator Ninoy Aquino.  The democratic method is the civilized way of taming and managing such conflicts, namely, by bringing them out in the open, discussing them, conciliating them, if possible, and finally, by casting a vote, according to one’s judgment -- whether in a deliberative assembly, like Congress, or in general or local elections.

But democracy requires something more than just voting at the polls or in a deliberative assembly.  It requires an allegiance to the rules of civility: a spirit that is willing to hear and understand the other side; the readiness to accept setbacks in the belief that the principle one espouses will, if meritorious, prevail in the end; the capacity to enter into realistic, morally defensible compromises, knowing that actual problems are more complex than what they seem to be, and the realization that the survival of a free, democratic society is more important than a party’s electoral victory or one’s indefinite retention of power

I recall that after democracy was restored in 1986 following EDSA I, a new democratic Constitution was ratified on February 2,1987 and congressional elections were held on May 11,1987.  We had frequent, bitter disagreements in the newly-restored Senate.  We reminded the Opposition, led by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, and all the members of the ruling Laban coalition, that in a civilized democracy, we can disagree, without being disagreeable, we can differ without being difficult -- a norm of conduct which we observed until the end of our term in 1992.

It is true that today, disagreements and contrary opinions are often ventilated in the free media.  Since the restoration of democracy, the captive media -- exemplified by the Daily Express and the Times Journal owned by Marcos and his associates -- ceased to be a problem.  But a licentious press that distorts the truth and misrepresents the facts is an abuse of freedom.  Today, our press is free but many times it has shown its irresponsibility, especially in reporting notorious cases of graft and corruption.  Even broadsheets -- not the vulgar tabloids -- do not tell us the real sources of information.  Names of whistleblowers are not revealed by print and broadcast media through the familiar device of saying they had requested anonymity -- obviously for the purpose of selling more newspapers or boosting their ratings.  Theoretically, a free media will help the economic and political development of society.  But here they only seem to lead to endless, unnecessary squabbling and character assassination. Which is why GMA might have some basis in blaming the “black propaganda campaign” of her detractors and that of her husband for her decline in popularity. But now that she has removed herself from the presidential derby in 2004, this may subside or die down altogether.

What she says however with respect to the deep division between those who were in EDSA II and the very, very poor who led the May 1 siege on Malacañang (the so-called EDSA 3) is partly true.  We are now close to the category of a backward country “wherein powerful, selfish interests are able to exploit poverty and ignorance to maintain the status quo or impede open, progressive development” toward “a strong and modern society.”  But her analysis also raises further inquiry as to the prospects of the Philippines in a free trade regime which has embraced capitalist globalization, without critical scrutiny.  The People’s Republic of China and other strong exporting nations have been flooding our domestic and export markets with their cheaper products, and now we are witnessing the collapse of our domestic industries and our agriculture resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs in our country.

While Malaysia under Mahathir, Thailand, South Korea and China have carefully nurtured their own domestic industries and products, we are destroying the little that we have in the name of free trade and unqualified globalization.  Unemployment has worsened, 24% of our people would like to leave the country if given the chance -- despite the Mideast crisis -- and the budget deficit has gone up to around 220 billion pesos even as countless small business enterprises have been closing down every month.

It is in this respect that we may need essential legislation to formulate a development agenda which will serve our own people, particularly the poor and the marginalized, so we can cope with the present economic crisis.

In the meantime, we need to implement existing legislation so we can minimize the corruption and the thievery going on in revenue-raising agencies, particularly the BIR and the Bureau of Customs.  Our laws on the subject of graft and corruption -- the Forfeiture Act, the Anti-Graft Law, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and the Anti-Plunder Act -- have been widely praised abroad but it is in their implementation by competent, incorruptible officials where we are sadly deficient.

There are those who, like ex-President Estrada and the Marcos family, want us to forgive and forget all the injustices and atrocities during the Marcos years, so we can move on and build a better future for our people.  They want us to forget the plunder of the nation’s wealth and the gross violations of human rights.  But after 14 years of martial law, characterized by the rule of the gun, no rule of law can be built on solid foundations unless we endeavor to right the wrongs and redress the injustices of the past.  To paraphrase a recent essay on the subject by McNamara, a system of justice based on the rule of law will not flourish if past atrocities and grave injustices are not addressed.  Where the main perpetrators are known, they must be prosecuted.  The victims and their families demand it and it is a necessary catharsis for future stability. (International Herald Tribune, January 9, 2003).  The other day, I saw a quote on “Forgive and Forget” by a US psychiatrist which I would like to share with you:

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” (Thomas Szaiz, The Second Sin (1973). Quoted by M.V. Rufino, Business World, January 13, 2003.)

Around the end of this month, the Supreme Court may finally decide the question of whether the $670 million of the Marcos Swiss deposits which had been frozen by the Swiss Government in 1986, during my one year of service in the PCGG and which are now here in escrow in the PNB, should go to the Government, for the benefit of our aggrieved people whether these deposits belong to the Marcos family.  In the meantime, hundreds of cases, involving many billions of pesos, are still pending in the Sandiganbayan; some criminal cases against the Marcoses are pending in other courts.  The PCGG has recovered as of this date only 2 billion dollars.  We in the LP should agitate for the speedier disposition of these cases, and the enactment of legislation, such as the one drafted by the PCGG, under Haydee Yorac, already filed with both Congress to indemnify the families of the victims of summary executions, salvaging and disappearances during the long, dark night of martial law.

Clean and honest elections in 2004

This brings me to the third priority of GMA -- working for clean and honest elections in 2004.  I am a little skeptical of what can be done to clean up our electoral process as long as the Gang of Four are not impeached.  Impeachment is not only a long process -- it is difficult to get the members of Congress, some of whom have pending cases before the Comelec, to begin the process of impeaching the Comelec Commissioners in the Lower House.

And for as long as we cannot even clean up the elections here at home, much less begin the automation of domestic elections in 2004, and rigidly enforce the provisions on the limits of election spending -- no one has been prosecuted here for filing false reports, or even the failure to file reports of receipts and disbursements, as in the case of Mrs. Imelda Marcos -- I cannot see how we can even think of the Absentee Voting Bill for the benefit of those who want to vote abroad.  The two houses of Congress cannot even agree up to now on how to resolve the disagreeing provisions of the two versions of the Absentee Voting Bill -- who will be qualified to vote -- they had passed before they adjourned last year.  Frankly, President GMA, on this third item, has stirred great expectations she may not be able to fulfill.  The Liberals, particularly those who are in Congress, and in other agencies of Government having to do with the electoral process, would do well to remember what is found in our Program of Government: “The minority must respect the decision of the majority.  That is why the purity and the integrity of the electoral process in the kind of society we want must be preserved.  We must insure the credibility of the electoral process.  Practicable, workable measures should be devised in Congress and rigidly enforced on the Comelec and other agencies to limit election spending.

I praise GMA for sacrificing her personal ambition for 2004 but as usual, matching rhetoric with concrete deeds is the more difficult part -- even as I wish her all the best in this long season of love and grace.