What is wrong with our government?

There’s more to the latest survey results showing that P-Noy’s trust rating has plummeted further down to 42 percent than what Malacanang sees. It follows the same pattern as the trust ratings of past presidents who usually had high ratings upon assuming office only to drop later on as years passed. This is a clear sign that people are once more getting disillusioned about the present administration’s chances of realizing the changes and reforms they always hope for at the beginning. It shows that the present government has fallen into the same vicious cycle undergone by every past administration. We seem to be back to square one again where we are encountering as we have encountered in the past, the same kind of governance that usually trigger the clamor for change. It has become a series of high hopes, guarded optimism and bitter disillusionment.

Something is really wrong in every administration that has taken over the reins of power in our country. And from my own simple point of view, that wrong lies in the filling up of government positions either through the exercise of the right of suffrage by our people or through the use of the power of appointment by duly constituted authorities. It is really in the choosing of people to place in government positions whether by election or appointment where the problem lies and where changes are called for.

Elective government positions are won not by those more qualified and with sincere desire to render public service, but by those who can get the votes because of their names made famous by money, machinery or media, particularly radio, TV and movie personalities. It takes hundreds of millions of pesos and a well oiled organization to win an election. The higher the position the more money is spent to win it and gain power. Even party-list representatives spend a lot of money to garner the number of votes necessary to get a seat in the Lower House. No one can win an election here by spending only within the limits fixed by law, especially if he/she is still a “nobody.” With that much money spent to win a seat in government, it is really beyond belief that their only intention is pure public service.

Then many local and national officials also get elected because they belong to well entrenched political dynasties. There are Congressmen, Senators, Mayors, or Councilors with the same family names because they come from the same family. In the coming elections several sons or daughters of incumbent officials are running to succeed their parents. Positions change hands among members of the same family especially in the local government units. In the national elections few families have dominated the scene, with a son or a daughter also subsequently occupying the position held by mother or father including the Presidency. In the 66 years that we have been independent, only three families have ruled the country for 46 years: Macapagal, Marcos and Aquino. We really don’t have a democracy here but an aristocracy where the ruling class belongs to rich families or are supported by the moneyed class.

On the other hand there is also something wrong in filling up government positions through appointments as provided by law. Under the Constitution, the President is the most powerful appointing authority because he has the power to appoint the biggest number of appointive officials in the government and its instrumentalities and agencies including government owned and controlled corporations. And as has been the practice which cannot really be questioned, the President normally appoints: (1) people personally known to him and whom he can fully trust; and/or (2) people known to and trusted by his political and financial backers to pay back their support through the distribution of the “spoils of victory.”

There is really nothing wrong here except that, instead of being loyal to the people they are sworn to serve, the appointees are usually constrained by human nature and weaknesses to be more loyal to the appointing power or to their political patrons and vice versa. In the present regime this nefarious practice is best exemplified by the President’s kabarkada, kaibigan at kabarilan now occupying important government positions. In this kind of appointments, public office is no longer a public trust. It has become a personal trust between the appointee and the appointing power. Public service is the biggest casualty here.

At this time, the President is about to exercise again his appointing power to fill up the position of Supreme Court Chief Justice (CJ) recently rendered vacant by the ouster of the incumbent upon his instigation. This is undoubtedly a crucial appointment as it involves the head of the judiciary, a main branch of government. Of course his power here is more restricted in the sense that he can only appoint from a list of least three recommended by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). On paper it would seem that he cannot put his own choice or someone personally known (or loyal?) to him like his other appointees in other government positions. This is the ideal set up envisioned by our Constitution.

But considering the composition of the JBC where at least four regular voting members and one ex oficio member (the Justice Secretary) are appointed by him, while the Congressional representation also belongs to his party, it is highly probable that his own preference will also be included in the list submitted to him. Hence, despite or because of the JBC, he can still appoint his own preference.

And based on the nominees submitted to JBC now numbering more than 50 persons with 13 having accepted so far, there seems to be no chance that our next CJ will be able to capture the imagination of the people as a knight in shining armor riding on a white horse and emerging from the horizon gallantly charging to slay the dragons haunting our judiciary especially the Supreme Court, and to restore hope and trust in our system of justice. Right now, it really looks like we will really have more of the same.

* * *

Email: [email protected]