The bully boy from Makati

If I were a Makati tycoon, I would be worried about Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay and the way he rules the financial capital of the country. He rules as if he were a medieval lord but worse, he gets away with it. He uses the teeming poor in his city as his allies against the rich while making himself fabulously rich. He is not averse to using strong-arm tactics if anyone dares to transgress his power in his fiefdom which houses the country’s banks, luxury hotels, restaurants and the site of the most exclusive villages like the premier Forbes Park.

Makati may be where the Zobel de Ayalas hold court, where Lucio Tan has his bank and Henry Sy has his main SM store but they all pay homage to Jejomar Binay. He is the bully boy of Makati. At the height of one political fray he warned the rich of Makati that he could set the teeming poor in its slums simply by calling them in and run riot with display windows of its department stores and other establishments if his politics were not heeded. It was said that when Erap tried to retake Malacanang with EDSA III, it was Binay, among others, who supplied the unruly crowds that included neighborhood toughies.

At other times he has been called a Robin Hood because he owes his power to the poor. Social scientist Joel Rocamora likens him to "social bandits who become leaders by capturing the imagination of the poor and mobilizing them for their political projects." These social bandits, Rocamora adds, abound in the history of many countries in the past two centuries, especially in colonial and post-colonial societies in Asia and Latin America.

"They thrive on situations of deep division, between the many poor and few rich, between the middle- and upper-class, urban, Westernized, secular political culture and the deeply religious, normative, highly personal culture of the rural and urban poor," he wrote.

In short, what we have in Makati is an archaic political and economic system that was better lived in Europe during the Middle Ages, where all land is in fief (paid for with fees). He may not own all the land but in Makati Binay reigns supreme. It is an ironic situation. Binay thrives, strengthening his dynasty and enriching himself beyond anything the poor he claims to dearly care for will ever imagine. But who is to know that and more importantly, who is to care?

Mrs. Binay appears in society pages dressed to kill with fabulous jewelry, his family does not mind being featured in society pages with their luxurious vacation houses, multimillion condos, and other accoutrements of the life of the rich and famous. As mayor of Makati he received a monthly P32,000 salary and as MMDA chairman, he received P46,000. His wife who also became mayor received the same. So where did all that wealth come from?

No wonder he is bent on blocking any restructuring of the political system that addresses his constituents’ poverty. He does not really care enough for them to become real participants in political decision making when he can enrich himself by making them dependent on him. Elected officials like him owe their power to the very poverty and powerlessness of constituents. By keeping them poor they also keep their role of saviors. He may give some jobs and services but it appears as personal largesse rather than the outcome of good governance and the proper cultivation of a community’s resources. It promotes political and economic dependency and the natural outcome of personality-based politics under the present system.

Charter changes would change that systemic fault by developing strong political parties through programs in a parliamentary system. Programs, rather than persons would be at the center of elections. In time the structure can be developed into a democratic community of citizens instead of Robin Hoods and mendicants.

This is not unknown to the rich of Makati. But like Binay, they too are trapped in a system which caters to personal politics, to a rentier system to push their own interests. That, too, needs to be changed and may be the reason why they are playing blind to Binay’s latest caper.

The Binays are too comfortable with a system in which they have become experts. But what of the rich? There must be some educated and responsible among them who can be called upon to see the perils of continuing a system in which Binays thrive. It would be dangerous brinkmanship if the entire country were to sign for a people’s initiative except for Makati, the symbol and stronghold of power and wealth. Binay may be the principal actor in this dastardly act but the rich and powerful of Makati cannot wash off their hands in his attempts to push back the democratization of our Constitution. Unless this is also what they want.

The Advocacy Commission is better advised to address Binay’s bully tactics to stop the verification of signatures for a people’s initiative to the rich and powerful of Makati. It would be catastrophic if the entire country goes for Charter change except in Makati where election officers are refusing to verify signatures on orders from Binay. Is the country to be held hostage by Makati?

Some of the rich may be misled they will have nothing to do with Charter change. That is a mistake. This is probably the only opening left for a peaceful restructuring of Filipino politics and the corruption it engenders. Sooner or later, the question will cease to be why Binay stopped Charter change in Makati but why the rich and powerful did nothing about it.

Can election registrars other than those captive in Makati verify the signatures? If there is nothing in the law which prevents that, then this must be done. Election lists are public documents. It makes a lot of sense that signatures are verified rather than unverified. Election officers and lawyers, Ma. Lourdes Ugalino and Melanie Lagera have much to answer for but they are not indispensable. Signatures gathered for the people’s initiative has reached 14 percent, exceeding the three percent per legislative district required and close to 10 percent of the voters in the second district. Makati’s 1st district has 207,304 registered voters, while District 2 has 172,765 registered voters. The signatures of Makati District 1 and 2 should be verified posthaste by other election officers so the petition can be laid down before the COMELEC and a plebiscite held as soon as possible. That is the moral and democratic way to settle a conflict between those who are in favor of Charter change and those who are against, not through Binay’s bully tactics and Makati’s indifference.

* * *

My email is [email protected]