Former UP President Abueva joins a political party at age 85 Not to run for office, but to mentor Centrist Democrats (and to practice what he preaches)

By Susan Claire Agbayani

IT WAS CLOSE TO THE END of the occupation of the Philippines by Japanese forces. Having heard that his parents Teodoro and Purificacion were captured by Japanese soldiers and Filipino aides in their mountain hideout in Duero, Bohol, the young Jose Veloso Abueva — then 16 — set out with two young cousins to look for them.

They sailed westward in an outrigger to neighboring seaside towns: Jagna, Garcia Hernandez, then finally Valencia. He found his parents sprawled on the grassy hillside on Balitbiton cliff; recognizing them from their skulls, soiled clothes, and broken rosary.

“We put my parents’ remains in a box. As we sailed 25 kilometers east back to our hometown Duero, I still could not cry,” recalls Abueva. “I imagined a heroic rescue of my parents and their miraculous escape. We hid the box in my grandparents’ home. Upon reaching our hide-away, I told my siblings that we failed in our search for Papa and Mama.”

“The so-called Liberation of the Philippines came too late for all of us: parents, and seven orphans of World War II,” Abueva states.

Japan, and the Abuevas’ peripatetic adulthood etched in wood

It is thus interesting to note that four decades later, after having worked with UP, taught as visiting professor at the City University of New York, Yale University, and then at Tribuvan University in Kathmandu as Ford Foundation adviser, Abueva would serve the United Nations University in Tokyo and New York for a good ten years; only to come home in 1987 to assume his post as the 16^th President of the University of the Philippines. 

In his six-level home in a former mango orchard in Beverly Hills, Antipolo, which has been home to him and his wife since 1969, one wall in the living room has adjacent narra panels carved by younger brother Billy (Napoleon), the national artist –  documenting the Abueva family’s peripatetic years: from his roots in Cebu and Bohol (and his wife’s Surigao and Manila), to his having studied in Diliman and Michigan, their years of stay in Hawaii, Tokyo, New York, among other places in the world.

Legacies in UP

As President of UP from 1987-1993, Abueva introduced outstanding reforms in the State University and the national government. For one, he stopped the practice of granting “U.P. presidential discretion (P.D.),” which gave the UP President the power to allow high school graduates entry into the University even if they did not pass its college admission test (UPCAT).

He introduced the Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP, (which is now very much in the news) which provides free tuition and stipends to qualified and deserving students from poor families. It also raised four times the tuition for students from the most better-off families.

He “initiated the UP language policy to promote the use of Filipino at par with English,” and set up the Sentro ng Wikang Filipino (SWF) “to promote the learning and use of Filipino and our various regional languages.” He also established the UP Women Studies Center and the highest faculty rank of University Professor for the most distinguished faculty. He then initiated the UP Public Lectures of outgoing Philippine presidents beginning with President Aquino in 1992. The  project enables every president to be accountable to the people through the books on the published lectures and assessments. Theretofore, there were no published records of presidents from Quezon to Marcos.

As UP president and Chair of the Legislative-Executive (Military) Bases Council under former President Corazon Aquino, Abueva led in preparing the master plan that guided the successful conversion of our various military bases to peaceful uses.” He would also led UP in opposing the proposed treaty that would have extended the use of Subic Naval Base by U.S. forces.

Having passed the torch to the next UP President — in 2000 Abueva and colleagues at UP founded Kalayaan College “to offer quality education to our youth, including those who are unable to enroll in UP because of its limited college quotas.”

Joining political parties in modern societies

Abueva notes, “In mature democracies and industrialized countries, many citizens readily join political parties as they join their professional and civic organizations. I remember that as a graduate political science student in the University of Michigan, most of our professors were members of the Democratic Party. In fact, one of my professors had been Mayor of Ann Arbor, Michigan.”

Even Filipino political scientists do not join political parties!

Thus, he points out, “It seems a paradox that – like most Filipino political scientists who teach the importance of political parties as a major form of participation in politics in a modern democracy – I did not join any political party from the time I began teaching political science in UP in 1950 until last year, 2012.” As a matter of fact, he says, “my fellow scholars in political science and public administration in UP, Ateneo de Manila University, De LaSalle University and many other Philippine universities do not join political parties!”

“Have we then failed to practice what we preach?” asks Abueva.

“All these years, we have known our political parties to be loose alliances of– very personal and opportunistic – politicians. These parties do not seriously uphold, promote, and implement what their leaders may adopt as their political platform. Members tend to leave their parties and join another one for personal political convenience and advantage – usually after a presidential election.  They join the political party in power for the patronage, political support, and other advantages it is able to dispense.”

He furthers, “So, like many political scientists I know, I had not found it desirable, necessary, or honorable to join any of our political parties, even when I found one or more of their highest leaders to be honorable and extraordinary, like Ramon Magsaysay, Emmanuel Pelaez, Raul Manglapus, and Jovito Salonga.”

One other reason that he sees why Filipinos in general do not join political parties is because the Civil Service law prohibits civil servants – including UP and other State and local government university faculty – from engaging in partisan political activities. “The prohibition practically excludes some three million civil servants from joining political parties,” he noted. 

Centrist Democracy and CDM

It is interesting to note how Abueva became a Centrist Democrat. “I had long been an advocate of political reforms – including structural and institutional reforms involving amendments to our 1987 Constitution to help bring about an effective and inclusive democracy and a just and humane society.” For this, he works with the Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines (CMFP), and served as Chair of the 2005 Consultative Commission on Charter Change.

In fact, Abueva was elected  secretary-general of the 1971 Constitutional Convention that Marcos captured in 1972 when he declared martial law. Thereby the dictator would have a constitution (the 1973 Constitution) to justify his authoritarian rule that extended his term from a maximum of eight years under the 1935 Constitution, to a total of 20 until 1986.

Centrist Democracy, Abueva says, “is inspired by the ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany’s political party, the Union of Christian Democacy, inspired by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. As Filipino political leaders involved Muslim Filipinos in the movement for Christian Democracy, they changed “Christian Democracy” to “Christian-Muslim Democracy,” and eventually, Centrist Democracy.

“I joined former DENR & DILG Undersecretary Lito Lorenzana and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Country Representative Peter Koepingger when they formed the Centrist Democratic Movement (CDM),” says Abueva.

The Centrist Democratic Party: Ang Partido ng Tunay na Demokrasya

CDM eventually morphed into the Centrist Democratic Party of the Philippines, Ang Partido ng Tunay na Demokrasya (CDP), which is now chaired by Lorenzana and has Cagayan De Oro Congressman Rufus Rodriguez as its President.

Asked about how he sees the party in the next two elections (2013, and 2016), Abueva replies: “We are working hard to recruit more members and train them and our officers in various regions. We have chosen a few candidates for local offices, and a handful for Representative. We are also supporting three senatorial candidates: Sen. Koko Pimentel, Senator Chiz Escudero, and Mr. Bam Aquino.” Individually, we support the ablest other senatorial candidates.

“Having helped in founding CDM and CDP, we see ourselves as planting the seed of a serious, modern political party in our troubled democracy,” Abueva says.

“We should not just criticize and complain about our weak democracy and backward country. We should do something concrete and constructive as serious and patriotic Filipinos who believe in democracy. We want CDP to be visible and a practical model of a modern political party; for our citizens to know and join in order to make a difference in our democratic political development,” he said.

He furthered that we should be the example of what we preach and promote about political parties and institutional reform. “We should learn by doing; by gaining valuable practical experience in reforming our political parties, elections, and democratic governance and politics.”

CDP members pay yearly dues, abide by Party rules, elect their Party leaders, select Party candidates for office. Loyal to the Party, all members are committed to its common vision, ideals and proposed reforms for our country.

Embodied in the Party’s core principles are Human Dignity, Subsidiarity and a Social Market Economy (SME). The Party wishes to replace our highly-centralized Unitary System into autonomous regions (Federalism); and discard our Presidential Government and replace it with a Parliamentary Government.

Distinguished forebears

Actually, Abueva comes from a family of leaders and educators. His father, fondly called “Papa Doro,” was once elected Representative of the 3^rd District of Bohol. He also served as  Bohol Provincial Sheriff, and as provincial board member in the underground guerrilla government.  His mother, “Mama Nena,” finished education at UP. She headed the women’s club, and Bohol’s campaign for national women’s suffrage in the late 1930s.

Abueva’s paternal grandfather, Manuel Abueva (“Capitan Awing”), was successively mayor of Duero who built the Duero Elementary School and the Municipal Waterworks System. Grandma Leocadia was a teacher, “Maestra Cadia.” 

Abueva as a mentor to Centrist Democrats

Lest people think that he is running for an elective position, Abueva hastens to add, “As a political scientist and reform advocate, I volunteer my services in the training and organizational activities of the Centrist Democracy Political Institute (CDPI),” the political institute that trains, moulds and mentors Centrist Democrats.

And really, there’s no stopping the still vigorous 85-year old, Boholano former UP President and Professor Emeritus. He continues to champion the dignity of his fellow Filipinos in so many ways.

On to his other passions in life

With friends from the Visayas, he helped found Kadugong Bisaya, an organization that promotes the learning and use of Visayan languages and the advancement of Visayan music, arts and culture. This, he said, “is part of the national movement to preserve our various languages and cultures as part of our national heritage, and to learn and use the mother language in the early years of schooling as a bridge to learning the national language, English, science and mathematics.” He believes we should all build national unity in our rich cultural diversity.

With colleagues from various universities and peace organizations, Prof. Abueva conducted and published peace studies that led to the founding in 2009 of the Movement for a Nonkilling Philippines. Incidentally, he serves on the Governing Council of the International Center for Global Nonkilling based in Hawaii (www.nonkilling.org).

“Don Quixote,” says Archbishop Orlando Quevedo in admiration of Jose Veloso Abueva. 

Halalan 2013: The People’s Mandate

A Boholano’s View by Jose “Pepe” Abueva

The Bohol Chronicle

May 19, 2013

Bohol Provincial Government and District Representatives to the House. Governor Edgar Chatto (LP) and Vice-Governor Inday Conching Lim (LP) and the Sangguniang Panglungsod members have received a resounding mandate until 2016. So have 1^st District Representative Rene Relampagos (LP) and 3^rd District Representative Arthur Yap (NPC) who was unopposed. Erico Aristotle Aumentado (NPC) was chosen Representative of the 2^nd District to succeed his late father whom I greatly respected as a leader and cherished as a personal friend. Councilor Baba Yap won as Mayor of Tagbilaran. Mabuhay ang atong mga lider sa Bohol, uban ang atong mga mayores ug uban pa.

As a result, Bohol will enjoy continuity in leadership and development with the promise of more solid achievements. For one, construction of the new Bohol Airport in Panglao is expected to start soon and be completed and opened by 2016. This will boost domestic and international tourism. Agricultural development will be enhanced. And more Boholanos can benefit by employment and reduction of poverty. Hopefully, the construction of the new Bohol Provincial Capitol could be started. We hope the roads in Tagbilaran will be improved. 

How strong are the political parties in Bohol, based on the affiliations of the elected mayors and provincial officials? The Liberal Party is the strongest by far led by 29 mayors and Governor Chatto. United Nationalist Alliance has 8 mayors. Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC) has 3 mayors. The Nacionalista Party has two mayors. Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino and PDP/Laban have one mayor each.

How did Boholanos vote in the senatorial elections? The following are the top 12 senatorial candidates voted by Boholanos: 1^st. Grace Poe; 2^nd. Alan Peter Cayetano; 3^rd. Loren Legarda;4^th Nancy Binay; 5^th Chiz Escudero; 6^th Bam Aquino; 7^th Edgardo Angara; 8^th Aquilino Koko Pimentel; 9^th Cynthia Villar; 10^th Migz Zubiri; 11^th Antonio Trillanes; 12^th Ramon Magsaysay, Jr.

In other words, Boholanos voted for 10 from Team PNOY and only 2 from Team UNA. Or Boholanos favored President P-Noy: 10 to 2.

How did the nation vote for the 12 Senate seats? Based on only 72 of the 304 certificates of canvass tabulated by the National Board of Canvassers, on May 16 the Comelec declared the top six senatorial candidates elected as follows: No 1. Grace Poe; No. 2. Loren Legarda. No. 3. Alan Peter Cayetano. No. 4. Chiz Escudero.  No. 5. Nancy Binay. No. 6. Juan Edgardo Angara. On May 17, the Comelec proclaimed three more senatorial candidates elected:  No. 7. Paolo Bam Aquino. No. 8. Aquilino Koko Pimentel. No. 9. Antonio Trillanes. Not yet proclaimed as winners are the next leading candidates: No. 10. Joseph Ejercito Estrada. No. 11. Cynthia Villar; and No. 12. Gregorio Honasan.

Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes had declared on election day, May 13, that Comelec would proclaim the winning senatorial candidates by May 15. But the automated voting and tabulation were much slower than in the 2010 elections. There were many more hitches in the machines. So Chairman Brillantes decided to proclaim the leading senatorial candidates based on incomplete returns.

The proclamation of the top six candidates as winners, prompted prominent election lawyer, Romulo Macalintal, to announce that the proclamation was invalid, because the Comelec did not state the number of votes the candidates had obtained and how they ranked in the tally. Nancy Binay was right in not attending the challenged Comelec proclamation of the top six senatorial candidates. Peeved by the criticism, Chairman Brillantes yet again offered to resign his post if his proclamation proved to be erroneous.

Among the 12 leading senatorial candidates, nine are from Team PNOY and 3 from Team UNA. If this becomes the final ratio, the new pro-administration majority in the Senate will be able to replace Senate President Enrile with Senator Franklin Drilon, the ranking LP Senator and a former Senate President.

According to their political party affiliation, how did the nation vote for the 234 District Representatives to the House? The numbers are not in, but the speculation is that the Liberal Party would be able to increase its members. If so the President’s political party, led by Speaker Belmonte, will be stronger in pushing the legislation and reforms it wants.

“Cases of vote-buying reported nationwide.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. May 14, 2013, pages 1 and 19. The news item carried the stories of ten PDI reporters covering various parts of the country. The same day The Philippine Star reported cases of vote-buying and arrests of the perpetrators who were caught in the act and with evidence of their vote-buying. Philippine Star columnist Federico Pascual observed: “The sight and scent of dirty money finally swept the nation over the weekend. Media were rife with reports of vote-buying, from P100 to P3,500 per voter….” (May 14, 2013). Beyond cash, vote-buying took the form of groceries and food packs, mobile phones, and education scholarships.

For the candidates and their families the political and financial stakes are high, and the campaigners and voters expect financial support during and between elections. Continuing poverty, unemployment, and the political culture sustain and aggravate the situation.

Other reports included sporadic violence, killings, and  blackouts; and on election day some 300 glitches in the precinct optical scan machines for automated voting and counting. In its editorial the day after the election (May 14), the Philippine Star opined: “for the most part, however, the conduct of the midterm elections was no worse than in previous ones. xxx As the high turnout…indicates, Filipinos continue to put their faith in elections, This trust in the system, no matter how flawed, should be supported by an unrelenting effort to improve every step of the election process. Comelec officials described yesterday’s vote as a success.” 

But overall, the emerging consensus is that the 2013 elections were generally honest and credible. In its editorial on May 15 the Philippine Daily Inquirer declared: “the Comelec and the thousands of teachers, volunteers, and sundry personnel across the country who worked hard to ensure that the elections came off as fair, honest and credible, deserve appreciation.” Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said: “the administration is happy with the performance of the AFP and PNP in securing the polls” and “the conduct of the elections by the Comelec.” (Reported by Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News. May 14, 2013.)

If the 2013 local and national elections are regarded as a mid-term referendum on the leadership and administration of President P-Noy, how did he fare in the people’s judgment? President Aquino regards the 9/3 win in favor of Team PNOY senatorial candidates a vote of confidence in his governance as he considers the mid-term elections a “referendum” on his administration, his presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said. And added: “it seems clear that our countrymen have spoken overwhelmingly to confirm and expand the mandate for reform and change that they first granted in 2010 to President Aquino.” xxx “The victory of Team PNOY is a renewed mandate for tuwid na daan, and a vote of confidence for good governance, the continuity of reforms, and a brighter future to come.” (Reported by Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News. May 14, 2013.)

On the other hand the eminent journalist, Amando Doronila, says: “The nine-three result of the Senate elections proclaims a no change outcome. It locks the country into the iron grip of a status quo—continuity of political sterility in the second half of President Aquino’s administration, which has been hamstrung from delivering economic benefits to the Filipino masses by slogans of good governance (“Analysis: elections with no change,” PDI, May 15, 2013).

The knowledgeable consensus is that the Aquino administration has greatly improved its credit ratings and reputation among foreign businessmen. However, these have not been followed by more direct foreign investments. And the higher GDP has not been inclusive of the many who are still poor and jobless. High GNP relies heavily on OFW remittances earned at a high social cost.

Will the results of the Halalan 2013 make a significant difference to our people’s lives?    

It remains to be seen what the President and his ruling coalition will do in the final half of his six-year mandate. Will he and his allies learn well the lessons of the first half? What legacy does P-Noy want to leave the nation as one who became president largely on the passing away of his revered mother-president, Tita Cory, and martyred father-senator, Ninoy Aquino? Does he have the humility and wisdom to listen, seek counsel, and learn?

Unlike one movie-idol and ousted president who would tell his critics and advisers: “Ako yata ang presidente.” “Mag-presidente muna kayo?”  Too often our leaders mistake their power and prominence for superior knowledge, insight, and wisdom. 

Some interesting election facts and figures. Compared to the United States and other modern, industrialized democracies, the Philippines has a high voting turnout: about 70 percent  in 2013; 75 percent in 2010 and 73 percent in 2007.

The five regions with the biggest number of voters are (in millions): Calabarzon 7.2; Metro Manila 6.0; Central Luzon 5.8; Central Visayas 4.1; Western Visayas 4.0. the five provinces with the biggest number of voters (in millions) are: Cebu 2.5; Cavite 1.8; Pangasinan 1.7; Negros Occ. 1.6; Laguna 1.5. 

Let’s elect the best candidates in Bohol and for the Senate.

A Boholano’s View by Jose “Pepe” Abueva

The Bohol Chronicle

May 12, 2013 

          Halalan 2013. For the good of our province and country, let’s make sure to vote for the best candidates to serve our own municipalities, Tagbilaran City, Bohol as a province, and each of our three congressional districts. Let’s also make sure we vote for the best 12 candidates for senator.

It’s fairly easy to choose the best local and congressional candidates because you know their performance and their strengths and weaknesses. The Bohol Chronicle has published reports on their qualifications and achievements.  

Beyond your personal knowledge of them, you know their reputation and their various activities via radio, television, and the newspapers. Surveys by Holy Name University report the popular standing of several of the candidates based on a representative sample of the voters  interviewed.     

Our personal relations with the candidates. In choosing whom to vote for among the candidates for a particular office we have various standards to guide us. Our personal relations with the candidates are often unavoidable. But we may combine these with other considerations.

Character and fitness of the candidates. These are reflected by the candidates’ reputation for competence or incompetence, honesty or dishonesty, fairness or unfairness,  helpfulness or indifference, health or physical disability, greater potential or lack of it. 

It is also suggested that we weigh and judge and compare candidates in relation to certain criteria associated with “good governance in a democracy.” 

Vision and ideal of “Good Democratic Governance.” Blending Filipino and international ideals and standards, we understand “good governance” in our aspiring democracy and modernizing society as manifesting the following features. We can consider the various candidates in relation to promoting “Good Democratic Governance.”

(1) A deeper sense of nationhood and national unity, a stronger commitment to and practice of spiritual values and secular morality, promoting the common good, and developing a modern outlook without losing our cultural heritage as a multicultural nation.

(2) Citizens’ participation in free and fair elections and in policy and decision-making made possible by an open, accessible and responsive government in a free society with a competent and responsible media. Citizens are empowered as they are freed from poverty, ignorance, and dependency on the political and business elite, and join political parties that are committed to democracy and a program of governance.

(3) Government leaders who have the political will to do what is necessary and urgent in terms

of policies and decisions, and basic reforms; and are responsive to the needs and demands of

empowered citizens.

(4) Effective and accountable political, economic, and social institutions, including political parties that mediate between the citizens and the government, and can hold the ruling political party accountable for the quality of its governance.   

(5) Transparency and accountability of government in response to the citizens’ will and their right to know (“the truth” in governance) as the sovereign in a democracy.

(6) The rule of law, honesty and fidelity of public servants, and the certain punishment of those who are unresponsive, abusive and corrupt.

(7) Efficiency in the exercise of power and authority to make the best use of scarce resources, including time especially.

(8) Effectiveness in providing the needed public services, solving problems, and achieving goals, all for the common good.

(9) The protection and enhancement of human rights and the fulfillment of social justice.

(10) Achieving ecological integrity and sustainable development (See Ledivina V. Cariño. “The Concept of Governance.” From Government to Governance: Reflections on the 1999 World Conference on Governance. EROPA, 2000.  pp. 1-16).

(11) Realizing “Pamathalaan,” the indigenous Filipino vision of governance:  “dedicated to the enhancement of man’s true spiritual and material worth”…”through leadership by example, reasonable management, unity (pagkakaisa) between the governors and the governed, and social harmony based on love (pagmamahalan) and compassion (pagdadamayan). (Pablo S. Trillana III. The Loves of Rizal, 2000. p. 179.)

Favored candidates in Bohol. In this column (April 14) I strongly supported the re-election of Governor Edgar Chatto as most worthy because of his track record as “a sensitive, progressive, modern, and transforming “servant leader.” He needs the support of his team of Vice-Governor Inday Conching Lim and the other Sangguniang Panglungsod members to be fully effective. Let’s support 1^st District Representative Rene Relampagos and 3^rd District Representative Arthur Yap (who is unopposed) who have already proved themselves well qualified. Either candidate in the 2^nd District is qualified to be elected Representative. 

The irony of political dynasties. In this column (April 28, 2013) and in my Commentary in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (“Oligarchy in charge,” April 28, 2013) I made my stand against those self-serving political dynasties who keep our State weak, our people poor, and our country undeveloped. And I concluded by “asking President P-Noy to spearhead the needed strengthening of the Philippine State through Charter change and reform legislation.”

The irony is that President P-Noy needs transforming leaders who will support him in our proposal to change our presidential government to a parliamentary government and change our highly centralized unitary government to a system of autonomous regions and local governments in transition to a future Federal Republic. But among these transforming leaders are some candidates for the Senate on May 13 (tomorrow) who belong to family dynasties but are also eminently qualified to be elected. So I am personally endorsing their election.

We, the leaders and members of the new Centrist Democratic Party-Partido ng Tunay na Demokrasya, believe that now is the President’s best chance to become a truly transforming leader and leave a memorable legacy of his presidency. His continuing high approval and trust ratings make it possible for him to undertake the fundamental reforms needed. But he must begin to make the potential a reality soon, well before his term ends in June 2016. He has to persuade the Senate and the House of Representatives to support the vitally needed amendments to the Constitution.

First of all, the President must overcome his misguided resistance to institutional reform through Charter change that will strengthen our State, uplift the poor, and develop our country as never before. Mao kini ang “daang  matuwid” o tul-id nga dalan nga gusto natong tanan.  This is the righteous path that we all desire.

Please support the following candidates for the Senate. In my considered judgment, based on their individual qualifications and our country’s urgent need for basic institutional  reforms through Charter change, I respectfully endorse the election of: Ramon “Jun” Magsaysay, Jr.; Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel; Paolo “Bam” Aquino; Alan Peter Cayetano; Cynthia Villar; Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara; Riza Hontiveros; Teodoro Casiño; Antonio Trillanes IV; Loren Legarda; Juan Miguel Zubiri; and Edward Hagedorn.

We need these leaders and others like them in the House of Representatives to support Charter change that will reform our political institutions to strengthen the State, empower and uplift our people from poverty, and modernize and develop our country.

Mabuhi ang Pilipinas

Self-serving political dynasties weaken our State, keep our people poor, and our country undeveloped.

A Boholano’s View by Jose “Pepe” Abueva

The Bohol Chronicle

April 28, 2013

What is a political dynasty? In our country ruled by a political oligarchy of rich and powerful families, a political dynasty refers to relatives who enjoy a monopoly of electoral political power to the disadvantage of rival leaders and the general public. In this sense we can cite many provinces and cities and the national government ruled by political dynasties. “An anarchy of families” says American historian, Alfred McCoy. 

Political dynasty members are seen to use their superior wealth, following and access to public resources to favor themselves and undermine the State. They attract their followers and keep them loyal with government patronage and personal protection. Some of them even resort to unfair if not illegal means to keep their political rivals out of office: corruption, fraud, violence, vote-buying and intimidation. But other political dynasties do not. We have mostly “bad political dynasties” and some exceptional “benevolent political dynasties.”

In general, however, political dynasties rise and fall. A political dynasty can be challenged and defeated, then rise again; or fade away when the people are dissatisfied and turn to other leaders. New dynasties capture government power and resources.

Dynasties in Senate and the 2013 senatorial election. The issue of political dynasties has heated up in relation to the 2013 candidates for the Senate who come from a few political families and thus bear the same surname as another senator, or of President Aquino himself.

The Constitution in Article II. Section 26 provides: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” Unfortunately, the framers left it entirely to Congress, many of whose members belong to political dynasties, to define political dynasties. The framers should have prohibited political dynasties effectively by a forthright constitutional prohibition such as this: “No outgoing elected official shall be succeeded to the same office by his or her spouse, brother or sister, son or daughter, or in laws. Such specific prohibition would be enforceable without implementing legislation.   

Consequences of political dynasties. The rapid expansion of our electorate, consisting of more and more poor people, insecure and dependent voters, and increasing political competition have increased the cost of campaigning and incumbency for the political leaders acting as patrons of their constituents. Our continuing semi-feudal society, pre-modern political culture, weak State, and self-serving leaders shape and perpetuate our dysfunctional elections, political parties, presidential form of government, and unitary system of national-local government relations.

The cost of elections is rising in all democracies, except that in the industrialized democracies where many middle class citizens contribute to the campaign of their party candidates. Moreover, their State supports the political parties through subsidies. In contrast, our middle class is not as broad and deep and effective as a countervailing force to the political establishment, although middle class members are becoming more assertive and our media are vigilant. Again, many of our voters are poor dependents of their political patrons. These conditions put great pressure on our politicians to use their power and influence to raise funds for their political survival, often through rent-seeking or private use of power, wasteful pork barrel politics, and influence peddling.

Unaccountable politics. Exploitative political dynasties are thus the cause and consequence of our ineffective and unaccountable patron-client democracy, and personalized parties plagued by misuse of power, corruption and wastage of state resources, and of our rapid population growth and continuing underdevelopment. We cannot begin to change our political system that breeds these ills without basic structural and institutional reforms, as we critics and Charter change advocates keep saying and writing about.

A weak, captive Philippine State. According to Richard Javid Heydarian in his revealing article, “Why the Philippines failed,”: one discovers that the Philippines’ developmental troubles have a lot to do with ‘state-formation’ — or lack of a strong, independent state—in the country. This is precisely what differentiates the Philippines from many of its successful neighbors, which have had strong and enlightened executives, autonomously undertaking crucial (and correct) economic decision without pandering to specific interest groups. As scholar Joel Migdal has correctly analyzed, the main problem with the Philippines is that it never had a ‘strong’ state, which normally has at its disposal an enabling combination of sufficient ‘policy autonomy’ and ‘functional capacity’ to craft and implement right decision in the interest of the country. Instead, the Philippine state is basically an instrument of extra-state, parochial interests, which hardly coincide with the broader national interest.” The Hufffington Post, April 25, 2013.

Moreover, Heydarian adds: “The modern Filipino state, largely built and upgraded during the American period, had a simplistic democratic accent: elected legislature. xxx The problem was that the ‘representative’ legislature was dominated by the landed elite, who, in turn, did their best to block any effort at developing an independent and powerful state, executive leadership, and bureaucracy, which could push for egalitarian policies such as land reform. There was no corresponding effort by the [American] colonial masters to truly establish a powerful executive and bureaucracy, capable of prospering on its own.

“In this sense, one could say that — following Isaac Berlin’s concepts of freedom – the Philippines (under its colonizers) only developed an adulterated understanding of democracy, along libertarian lines, which emphasized ‘negative freedom’ (non-interference/intrusion of the state in individual’s lives and property) at the expense of ‘positive freedom’ (basic social and economic rights for all citizens). As a result, the Philippines has had not only a defective democracy — whereby citizens are formally equal, but in reality an oligarchy is in charge — but also a weak State struggling to craft an optimal economic calculus [Emphasis added].

“In Why Nations Fail, economists Acemoglu and Robinson provide a brilliant explanation on how progress and development is largely a function of ‘inclusive’ — as opposed to extractive—governance. Using their dichotomy, the Philippines clearly falls within the extractive category, whereby the core-elite have blocked appropriate policies, which would have made the country a true democracy, anchored by a large middle class, an entrepreneurial sector, and strong institutions spurring growth and innovation. Therefore, in many ways, the developmental failure

of the Philippines has something to do with its weak and divided State, which seldom had the right ‘policy space’ to make optimal economic decisions.

“Throughout the post-War period, the Philippine State has either been at the mercy of entrenched elites, pushing for particularistic interests and blocking policies/legislations aimed at national development, or international financial institutions (World Bank and IMF), which have prescribed counterproductive policies, notably ‘Structural Adjustment Programs’ (SAPs), causing tremendous poverty, social dislocation, agricultural decline and ‘de-industrialization’ across the developing world. Sometimes, the Philippines was at the mercy of both.”

In sharp contrast to the Philippines, Heydarian states that —Japan and then the Newly Industrializing Countries (NICs) of South Korea and Taiwan, of course China dramatically, and  the ASEAN countries of Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand “were able  to transform from feudal, agricultural societies into hubs of innovation and production xxx to climb up in the global chains of production, and lift millions of people out of poverty.”  

Heydarian concludes: “In most cases, we see how a strong, autonomous state changed the national culture, created its own ‘comparative advantage’ within the global economic structures, and sidelined predatory elites for the preservation of national interest. This is where the Philippines should begin.” The Hufffington Post, April 25, 2013.

What is to be done? Although we have not reached the tipping point, for lack of top leaders who are willing to initiate the basic structural and institutional reforms needed, we are gradually waking up to our real problems in political modernization and development. As Randy David observed recently: “I am convinced that we have entered such a period of change. We are becoming less tolerant of feudal privilege, of patronage politics, and of unaccountable public officials. We sneer at the rich who avoid paying their full tax obligations. We are contemptuous of those who trade their votes for cash. And, as important, we are more inclined than ever to criticize each other, and to express our disaffection with the way we run our society. Philippine Inquirer, April 17, 2013.

In my columns and articles I have advocated specific structural and institutional reforms requiring amendments to our 1987 Constitution. I have supported reforms in the ARRM along the lines of the Framework Agreement Bangsamoro that President P-Noy and the MILF agreed to in October 2012. Our newly formed Centrist Democracy Party—Partido ng Tunay na Demokrasya sees this as the first step towards the devolution of our highly centralized and dysfunctional unitary system. Our CDP-PTD is also vigorously pushing for a parliamentary government to replace our obsolete presidential government that discourages the formation of really democratic and program-oriented political parties and a strong State.

Moreover, we are asking President P-Noy to spearhead the needed strengthening of the Philippine State through Charter change and reform legislation. We believe this is his best chance to become a transforming leader and leave a memorable and beneficial legacy. His continuing high approval and trust ratings make it possible to make the fundamental reforms we need to build a strong State that will spearhead Philippine modernization and development. He must make the potential a reality. 

Political dynasties weaken the State by JVA PD Inquirer

Commentary

An oligarchy in charge

By Jose V. Abueva. Philippine Daily Inquirer. May 3rd, 2013

In our country ruled by an oligarchy, the political dynasties in most of our provinces enjoy a monopoly of electoral power, to the disadvantage of rival leaders and the general public. “An anarchy of families,” says American historian Alfred McCoy.

Political dynasts are seen to use their superior wealth, following and access to public resources to favor themselves and undermine the state. They attract their followers and keep them loyal with government patronage and personal protection. Having captured the state, some resort to massive corruption, fraud, violence, vote-buying, and intimidation.

The issue of political dynasties has heated up in relation to the senatorial candidates who come from political families and thus bear the same surname as other senators, Vice-President Binay or President Aquino himself.

The Constitution provides: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The framers left it entirely to Congress, most of whose members belong to political dynasties, to define the term. Without a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties, the constitutional provision is inutile.

The rapid expansion of our electorate, consisting of more and more poor people and insecure and dependent voters, has increased the cost of campaigning and incumbency for the political leaders acting as patrons of their constituents. In turn, our continuing semi-feudal society, premodern political culture, weak state, and self-serving leaders shape and perpetuate our dysfunctional elections, political parties, presidential form of government, and unitary system of national-local government relations.

The cost of elections is rising in all democracies, except in the industrialized ones where many middle-class citizens contribute to the campaign of their party candidates. Moreover, their state supports the political parties through subsidies. In contrast, our middle class is not as broad, deep and effective as a countervailing force to the political establishment, although middle-class members are becoming more assertive and our media vigilant. Most politicians use their power and influence to divert public funds for their personal advantage and through wasteful pork barrel politics.

Weak, captive state

According to Richard Javid Heydarian in his revealing article, “Why the Philippines failed,” one discovers that the country’s developmental troubles have a lot to do with “state-formation”—or lack of a strong, independent state. This is precisely what differentiates the Philippines from many of its successful neighbors, which have had strong and enlightened executives autonomously undertaking crucial (and correct) economic decisions without pandering to specific interest groups.

As scholars, notably Joel Migdal, have correctly analyzed, “the main problem with the Philippines is that it never had a ‘strong’ state, which normally has at its disposal an enabling combination of sufficient ‘policy autonomy’ and ‘functional capacity’ to craft and implement right decisions in the interest of the country. Instead, the Philippine state is basically an instrument of extra-state, parochial interests, which hardly coincide with the broader national interest.” (The Huffington Post, April 25, 2013)

Adds Heydarian: “In this sense, one could say that—following Isaac Berlin’s concepts of freedom—the Philippines [under America] only developed an adulterated understanding of democracy, along libertarian lines, which emphasized ‘negative freedom’ (noninterference/intrusion of the State in individual’s lives and property) at the expense of ‘positive freedom’ (basic social and economic rights for all citizens). As a result, the Philippines has had not only a defective democracy—whereby citizens are formally equal, but in reality an oligarchy is in charge—but also a weak State struggling to craft an optimal economic calculus . [Emphasis added]

“In ‘Why Nations Fail,’ economists Acemoglu and Robinson provide a brilliant explanation on how progress and development is largely a function of ‘inclusive’—as opposed to extractive—governance. Using their dichotomy, the Philippines clearly falls within the extractive category, whereby the core-elite [has] blocked appropriate policies, which would have made the country a true democracy, anchored by a large middle class, an entrepreneurial sector, and strong institutions spurring growth and innovation. Therefore, in many ways, the developmental failure of the Philippines has something to do with its weak and divided State, which seldom had the right ‘policy space’ to make optimal economic decisions. [Emphasis added]

“Throughout the post-War period, the Philippine State has either been at the mercy of entrenched elites, pushing for particularistic interests and blocking policies/legislations aimed at national development, or international financial institutions (World Bank and IMF), which have prescribed counterproductive policies, notably ‘Structural Adjustment Programs’ (SAPs), causing tremendous poverty, social dislocation, agricultural decline and ‘de-industrialization’ across the developing world.”

In sharp contrast to the Philippines, Heydarian states, “Japan and then the Newly Industrializing Countries (NICs) of South Korea and Taiwan, of course China dramatically, and the Asean countries of Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand were able to transform from feudal, agricultural societies into hubs of innovation and production … to climb up in the global chains of production, and lift millions of people out of poverty.”

Heydarian concludes: “In most cases, we see how a strong, autonomous state changed the national culture, created its own ‘comparative advantage’ within the global economic structures, and sidelined predatory elites for the preservation of national interest. This is where the Philippines should begin.” (The Huffington Post, April 25, 2013)

What’s to be done?

I have long advocated specific structural and institutional reforms requiring amendments to our 1987 Constitution. Our newly formed Centrist Democratic Party (Partido ng Tunay na Demokrasya) advocates the devolution of our highly centralized and dysfunctional unitary system. We are also pushing hard for a parliamentary government to replace our obsolete presidential government that discourages the formation of democratic and program-oriented political parties and a strong, developmental state.

Moreover, we are asking P-Noy to spearhead the strengthening of the Philippine state through Charter change and reform legislation. We believe this is his best chance to become a truly transforming leader and leave a memorable legacy. His continuing high approval and trust ratings make it possible to undertake the fundamental reforms needed. And he must begin to make the potential a reality soon, well before his term ends in June 2016.

But, first of all, he must overcome his misguided resistance to Charter change that will strengthen our state, uplift the poor, and develop our country as never before. Ito  po  ang   daang  matuwid  na  ninanais  nating  lahat. This is the righteous path that we all desire.

 

Dr. Jose V. Abueva is president of Kalayaan College and cofounder of the new Centrist Democratic Party. He is a former president of the University of the Philippines and UP professor emeritus of political science and public administration.

O.D. Corpuz on Filipino Nationalism, Politics and Leadership

By Jose V. Abueva

In my eulogy of Dr. Onofre D. Corpuz at the U.P. Chapel of the Holy Sacrifice on 1 April 2013, I paid tribute to him as a U.P. colleague, scholar and National Scientist. I pointed to his major works as outstanding contributions to Philippine history, political science, and economic history. Each of his four works is a magnum opus, namely: Public Administration in the Philippines (1957); The Roots of the Filipino Nation (1989); An Economic History of the Philippines (1992); and Saga and Triumph: The Filipino Revolution Against Spain (1999). These books rightfully earned him the distinction of National Scientist.

On a personal note, I was happy and proud in managing the publication of Dr. Corpuz’  first work and writing its foreword.

Here I wish to comment on some of O.D. Corpuz’ valid observations on Filipino nationalism, politics, and leadership.  And also on his clear and strong bias regarding the Marcos dictatorship that he served.

On the zenith and decline of nationalism. In Dr. Corpuz’ view: “The decade 1896-1906 [the period of the Filipino Revolution against Spain and the Filipino war against the imperialist Americans] marked out the watershed of Filipino nationalism.” O.D. Corpuz. Saga and Triumph: The Filipino Revolution Against Spain. p. xii.

From that high mark of Filipino nationalism, Corpuz noted its persistent decline.    To quote him: “The fading away of nationalism as the guiding spirit and paramount value in Filipino politics might be said to have begun with the founding of the Nacionalista Party in 1907. Its leaders were untrue to their party’s proud name.” [from O.D. Corpuz’ Epilogue in his Roots of  the Filipino Nation, Vol. II. p. 568.

For the most part, in Corpuz’ view, the Filipino campaign for independence from the United States was motivated more by the selfish interests of our leaders from Quezon and Osmeña onward. In his own words: “The Nacionalista campaign for independence-without-nationalism ended with the inauguration of a republic in the Luneta on July 4, 1946.” Op. cit. p. 568.

Consequences of lack of nationalism. O.D. Corpuz discussed the consequences of our leaders’ lack of nationalism on our politics, party system, governance, and our people. He lamented the Filipinos’ dependence on, and subservience to, the United States. On this observation, Corpuz was not alone.

Many writers would share the following thoughts on Filipino dependency on the United States and American imperialism. Under U.S. colonial rule (2001-1935) Filipino political leaders were conscious of their “political apprenticeship” and ultimate U.S. political approval of Philippine independence. Post-independence Filipino leaders were subservient to the United States because they needed U.S. support for the rehabilitation of our devastated country. They felt that the U.S. government had failed to protect the country from occupation and destruction by the Japanese, while Filipino soldiers had fought and died in Bataan and guerrillas had resisted the Japanese and assisted the returning U.S. forces in fighting the Japanese army. In fact, the returning U.S. forces probably wrought more physical destruction in Manila than did the Japanese.

And, taking advantage of the destruction of the Philippines in World War II, the U.S. government demanded as the price of its rehabilitation support that the Philippine Constitution be amended to allow U.S. citizens parity (equal) rights with Filipinos in exploiting their natural resources. Under an executive agreement the U.S. also obtained the use of rent-free military bases in the former American colony until 2046 A.D. In 1991 the Philippine government would end the U.S. use of military bases in the country.

Dr. Corpuz was biased in favor of President Marcos’ leadership and dictatorship. For objectivity, I must note here that Dr. Corpuz was biased in favor of Marcos’ destructive and plundering dictatorship which he served as Minister of Education in the Batasang Pambansa (the pseudo Parliament). Neither did Dr. Corpuz mention that Marcos was all the while subservient to the United States that supported his extended dictatorship until it became impossible to do so.

In my honest assessment, the political culture and behavior of President Marcos reflected human depravity and insatiable greed and corruption. It thrives on violence and intimidation to inspire fear and submission. It exploits the frailties of democracy and the people’s vulnerability to deceit and manipulation. It defiles and destroys life in the pursuit of personal aggrandizement. It rejects public accountability in favor of self-enrichment and personal glory. And it suppresses the practice of democracy and human rights and basic reforms that would empower our people and reform our society and politics.” (Jose V. Abueva. Ramon Magsaysay:Servant Leader With A Vision of Hope. 2012. p. 20.

Overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship. In February 1986, President Ronald Reagan was forced to accept the democratic succession and rule of President Corazon Aquino following the heroic and nationalistic EDSA Revolt supported by “people power” and the military mutiny. The American president had to evacuate the ousted Filipino dictator and his family to exile in Hawaii, on February 25, 1986, to save their lives. Earlier in the same month, President Reagan had blatantly observed that there was cheating on both sides during the “snap presidential election” that Marcos claimed to have won.

Incidentally, this biased and reckless remark of the American president prompted four buses of us—irate Filipinos from New York and New Jersey—to motor to Washington, D.C. to stage a rally near the White House. On our way to the U.S. capital we heard on radio the happy report that the EDSA Revolt was in progress. On our return to New York late that evening I got my copy of the New York Times that headlined and reported the patriotic EDSA Revolt in all of five pages.

Dr. Corpuz’ quoted observations relative to Marcos’ declaration of martial law. “It might be said that ‘the discipline of the oath of loyalty to the United States’ governed the politicians from 1907 to 1946. Thereafter they were free of any checks except what each fancied.

The resulting deterioration in administrative institutions and politics in turn led to unmet needs, frustrations and injustice. The lack of one recognized unifying or guiding value in politics and society [nationalism] had to lead to crisis.

“The escalation of violence in the vocabulary of politics was a reflection of the violence in the streets of Manila [the violence of the militant left] and in the countryside [the “New People’s Army,” the CPP, and the National Democratic Front, and the fledgling Moro National Liberation Front], and in Marcos’ relations with his political enemies when he staged his coup d’ etat of 1972. It was an anti-democratic but constitutional coup.”

In President Marcos’ own language it was “constitutional authoritarianism” brought about by “the rebellion of the left” [communism] and “the rebellion of the right [the oligarchy]. So he had “to save the Republic” and “reform society” [bring about the “Ang Bagong Lipunan” or New Society.]

Dr. Corpuz was soft in his judgment of Marcos’ authoritarian rule. In Corpuz’ own words: “Many Filipinos would recall that the martial law regime began well. But it was strained by the oil crisis of 1973, the growing insurgency, and economic crises that massive foreign debts could only partly relieve. Its anti-inflation measures during the early 1980s only mopped up the ‘excess liquidity of the poor.

“The Benigno Aquino assassination in 1983 united all the people that Marcos had hurt and hounded since 1972 in a vast anti-Marcos front. When this front began to move, it was against an isolated Marcos. The general perception was that he was an ageing, ailing man, with a bad case of megalomania, prone to play loose with the constitution, quick to violate his own decrees, unwilling to rein in the outlandish and acquisitive instincts of his wife, and with no sure  loyalty from the restive military. xxx A military-led mutiny won civilian support and exploded into a democratic but unconstitutional coup in 1986. The resulting revolutionary government transformed itself into a constitutional regime in 1987 and had to cope with aborted coups.”

O.D. Corpuz’ forecast of civil war or revolution. So in 1988-1989, during the presidency of Corazon C. Aquino, O.D. made this forecast of our contemporary times: “Inside of a  generation, perhaps before the end of the century [or before 2000], Filipino politics will go through civil war or revolution or coup d’etat. The primary reason will be the proven incapacity of the political system─ its leadership and institutions─ to serve the basic needs of the masses and to win over the politicized youth.

Fortunately O.D. Corpuz’ dire forecast has not come to pass. But I, myself, and others have said that EDSA’s promise of “justice, freedom, and democracy” has not been fulfilled till now, 27 years after that glorious “people power” revolt. Our nation remains weak. We have a “Soft State” with signs of a ‘failing State,” and our democracy has yet to be consolidated. We therefore urged that basic institutional and structural reforms be instituted through constitutional change.

Essentially, the change of our highly centralized unitary system to regional and local autonomy in transition to a future Federal Republic; and a shift from presidential to parliamentary government. These fundamental reforms will also transform our elections and political parties and empower our citizens. Until now too many citizens are poor and insecure.   

I wholeheartedly agree with O.D. Corpuz that we need “nationalistic” leaders to bring about these drastic changes and transformation. I would just add “visionary and transforming” to “nationalistic” leaders. We anxiously await their emergence in our continuing discontent. 

Let’s Re-Elect Ramon “Jun” Magsaysay as Senator

A Boholano’s View by Jose “Pepe” Abueva

The Bohol Chronicle

April 21, 2013

As a political biographer of President Ramon Magsaysay, I spent several yearsdoing research on the father of Senator Ramon “Jun” Magsaysay. In 1954-55, as a young instructor in U.P., I worked as a staff assistant in the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission during the Magsaysay presidency. I had various occasions to observe our most beloved President.

Being ten years younger than I, Jun was then a teenager. Much later, when Jun grew up, he read my original biography of his father, entitled Ramon Magsaysay: A Political Biography, published in 1971.

And much later, when Jun Magsaysay was a senator (1995-2007), I came to know him more. Senator Jun would ask me if I would update my 1971 biography in the sense of reviewing the life of President Magsaysay in the perspective of the many years since his tragic death in the plane crash in Cebu on March 17, 1957.

I kept postponing writing my second edition of the biography—until 2012 when I finally did it and published Ramon Magsaysay: “Servant Leader” With A Vision Of Hope.”Hope for a good, working democracy and a better life for all, and especially the poor and forgotten folk.

Now knowing both father and son quite well, I venture to ask you, my readers, to re-elect Senator Jun Magsaysay on May 10, 2013. Handpicked by President Benigno S. Aquino to be on his “Team PNoy,” Senator Jun is a worthy leader in his own right. As the worthy son of a beloved father and President of our country, Senator Jun will serve our country again with honor and distinction. 

Senator Ramon “Jun” Magsaysay’s Accomplishments (1995-2007) 

Major Legislation.Senator Ramon “JUN” Magsaysay authored some 70 bills that became laws. Here are some of them. (1) Magna Carta for SMEs(Small and Medium Enterprises)–provides for the 8% mandatory allocation by banks of their loan portfolio for lending to SMEs;(2) Anti-Money Laundering Law—institutionalizes a system of reporting suspicious transactions of business and financial institutions that are used by criminals to launder or hide their money;  (3) The National Meat Inspection Code –-helps and protects buyers from buying spoiled meat.(4) New AFP Base Pay Law  –makes soldiers’ salaries at par with the rest of the bureaucracy;(5) New ROTC Lawto give college students the option of volunteering in civic and community services. (6) Amendments to the Intellectual Property Rights Codeto protect our copyright holders and integrated circuit owners. (7) The E-Commerce Law, a landmark law on online transactions in the Philippines and the Business Processing Organizations that create employment and protects against  cybercrime. (8) Laws on setting up science high schools in the regions to encourage many youth in taking Science and Mathematics.

In all he initiated more or less 640 bills and resolutions in the Senate from 1995 to 2007.

Advocacy and Programs.As Senator, Jun Magsaysay funded many worthy and beneficial programs which the Senate supported as an institution. (1) Iskolarni Magsaysay. This helped more than 17,000 youth. Scholarships in technical-vocational courses like car technician/repair and maintenance course in Don Bosco;  full course and short-term courses at STI throughout the Philippines; agriculture courses in UP Los Banos; full college education in Zambalesand many SUCs;  nursing and business courses in Lyceum and PWU;  engineering in De La Salle U. and graduate program in Ateneo School of Government. (2) MedicalAssistance Program. His Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) helped more than 100,000 indigent patients of partner government hospitals such asthe Philippine Heart Center, PGH, PhilippineChildren’s Medical Center,and National Kidney and Transplant Institute. (3) Water supply.  Provision of about 2,000 artesian wells for remote barangays and water systems for public elementary and high schools.(4) Off-Base Housing for the members of the military. (5) Jobs Markets.Magsaysay’s Committee sponsored some job markets that enabled many to find work. In fact, with DOLE we set up websites for job matching.  Until now this is being done by DOLE.

Senate Investigation of the Fertilizer Fund Scam.Sen. Jun Magsaysay conducted the well-known investigation of the huge Fertilizer Fund Scam that was well received and publicized.  Many commented on this courageous Senate investigation. In the words of the Philippine Daily Inquirer:  “It was a blue print for all investigations to follow.” I also initiated the investigation of the Millenium bug or Y2K.

Why Run Again? Still very strong, able and idealistic, Senator Jun Magsaysay wants to make the best use of his expertise and experience to pursue reforms. In his own words: “Gusto kong maging bahaging true reform of Philippine society. Paano ko gagawin?  Ang sundin ang aking simpleng magagawa: ang iparamdam sa tao “ang serbisyong Magsaysay.”

On Farmers and Agriculture. Jobs and Opportunities. In Jun Magsaysay’s view “agriculture is the lynchpin of our economy because about 65 percent of our population depends on farming. A hundred percent depend on food for sustenance. All complain about spiraling food prices. Yet the farmers do not appear to have benefited from the continuing rise in prices.

Says Jun: “Sa aking experience, dapat napag-ibayuhin ang promotion ng agriculture. Encourage the youth to return and actualize the Young Farmers Program.

“Noongako ay nag-dairy, ang dahilanko ay para maging model dairy farming ang nakitangtao.  I want this copied by ordinary people in all places in the Philippines.

“I like to develop R&D in the marketing of our agricultural products. We need to think ‘out of the box’ to anticipate, or even introduce new market trends. Clothing materials made from local fibers, new floral arrangements using the more abundant flowers and plants available, local delicacies for export, etc.

“I always believe that improved farmers’ incomes will substantially address our goal of poverty alleviation.”

“On Scarborough Shoal, as a Zambaleño.”Ang Scarborough Shoal o angPanatag Shoal ay parte ng Masinloc, Zambales. Ang ibigsabihin, ito ay parte ng Pilipinas. Bilang anak nga kingamanaisang Zambaleno, dapat namanatili ito at all costs.  I believe the Aquino administration is doing all its efforts to protect our territory. 

“We should be able to link with ASEAN and our partner countries like Japan and US to protect our  sovereignty.”

On Education. “At present,  the country is second to the last in Southeast Asia in terms of quality of education.Using the 2011 General Appropriations Act, a  huge chunk at 75.42 % of the budget of the Department of Education goes to salaries and other personnel benefits and expenditures while expenses for development purposes,  maintenance and for operation,  is at  16 percent and the remaining budget is allotted for capital outlays which includes classrooms constructions,  improvement of instructions,  computers,  laboratories and other expenses for learning.

“To get a decent education is one of the fundamental rights of every citizen.   Thus, Section 1, Article XIV of our Constitution imposes upon the State the responsibility to  “protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels”  and  “take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all”.

“Cognizant of the importance of education as a tool in a nation’s progress,  he advocates a “No Child Left Behind in Philippine Education” policy — patterned after the most ambitious U.S. law on education.  It addresses the challenge of quality education by introducing the system as early as the early formative years of the child.  To ensure that the fundamental right of a child to quality education is protected, he proposes compulsory education for children of school age, providing only for special circumstances as exemption. 

“Scholarships should be strengthened, in fact, voucher system for private education should be encouraged.   The State should increase scholarships in vital areas as Agriculture and Fisheries education, sciences, and teacher education.

“Likewise,   Filipino professionals must be allowed to be volunteer teachers in some specialized courses or academic modules.  The practice would offer the best quality education from those with known expertise and promote the spirit of voluntarism (Note that at present,  in order to teach,  one must be armed with at least 18 units of education).

I respectfully request the kind reader to Vote Ramon “JUN” Magsaysay for Senator on May 10. He is No. 24 on the list of senatorial candidates. Daghang Salamat! 

Magsaysay is still my Guy!

            Comments are welcome at pepevabueva@gmail.com

 

Bohol Needs Governor Edgar Chatto Much More: A Sensitive, Progressive, Modern and Transforming “Servant Leader.”

A Boholano’s View by Jose “Pepe” Abueva

The Bohol Chronicle

April 14, 2013

Knowing the exemplary Governor. It’s my privilege to know Governor Edgar M. Chatto personally as I pursue my special interest in the study of political leadership (as U.P. Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Public Administration and a political activist); and in my personal interest in Bohol as a Bol-anon.   

I have personal experience working with Governor Chatto as a member of his U.P. Advisory Council in U.P. Diliman. This multi-disciplinary Advisory Council is composed of U.P professors from Bohol, headed by U.P. Diliman Chancellor Caesar Saloma.

In our various meetings chaired jointly by Governor Chatto and Chancellor Saloma, I have observed how the Governor clearly articulates his concerns, goals, policies, and problems, and how he graciously interacts with us as his advisers and with other Bohol leaders and officials and national officials who may attend the Advisory Council meetings.

The Governor’s humble, consultative style enables us to participate fully in our meetings with him; it also enhances his understanding of the issues before him and what policies and actions he would like to take.  We all grow in our appreciation of his vision, ideals and goals as a political leader, and our respect for his leadership.

We then know even more why our Governor is so widely respected, admired, and honored. I have heard that the Governor is known to deal with his various constituents in the same respectful consultative and solicitous manner. Local government leaders whom we meet tell us so.

Responding to Governor Chatto’s interest in arts and culture and peace, I have proposed to him the setting up of a Bohol Museum of Arts and Peace. As he has thought of it himself, he is very responsive. But with so many more urgent problems and concerns demanding his prior attention, he is taking his time. First things first. He also wants to consult his many fellow leaders and constituents who are likeminded in regard to aesthetics and peace, and others who may not be.

He is sensitive to his peers and the lowly folk and he has a good sense of timing, both virtues of a good leader. In my estimate, Governor Chatto is very thoughtful “Servant Leader” who goes out of his way, untiringly, to serve his fellow leaders and constituents. By his record of accomplishments he is a transforming leader. 

Bohol is a “first-class A” province subdivided into three congressional districts, 47 municipalities, and the lone city and provincial capital, Tagbilaran.It has 1,109 barangays (1,114 barangays per NEDA) with a total population of 1,255,128 (2010) and an average household size of 5.41 persons. The province is increasingly popular as a tourist destination.

The Bohol Provincial website projects Governor Chatto’s Development Framework Agenda—in effect his Vision and Mission Statement. VISION: “HEAT [Develop] BOHOL: IN HEALTH, EDUCATION, AGRICULTURE, TOURISM.

MISSION: [Acronym]: “LIFE HELPS.” L—Generate sustainable livelihood & enterprise; I—Build/Upgrade Infrastructure; F—Ensure food sufficiency; E—Promote access to quality education as all levels.

H—Improve access to quality integrated health services and facilities; E—Ensure sound environmental management; L—Promote efficient, transparent and responsive bureaucracy; P—Maintain peace and order with citizen participation; S—Integrate sports, youth, vulnerable sectors like the elderly and differently-abled persons in relevant development programs.

Proud of Bohol and being Bol-anon (how the people of Bohol call themselves). Of course, the Philippines’ tourism slogan is: “It’s more fun in the Philippines.” Bohol’s own is “Heart of the Islands. Truly Philippines.” Neighboring Cebu purportedly wants to be known simply as “An Island in the Pacific.” Bol-anons take pride in their identity and reputation for friendliness, hospitality, civic-mindedness, peacefulness, industry, appreciation of their arts and crafts, culture and tradition; as they also welcome modernity.

Bol-anons look forward to the impending construction of their international airport in Panglao to attract even more Filipino and foreign tourists to our popular tourist desination. Bohol’s infrastructure is solid and well-maintained, attesting to the competence and integrity of our political leaders, professionals, and workers.

The Governor’s Background and Education. Edgar Migriño Chatto was born February 21, 1960, the son of Mr. Eladio Chatto and former Mayor of Balilihan, Mrs. Victoria Migriño Chatto. He is married to Maria Pureza Chatto (nee Veloso) with whom he has one daughter, Esther Patrisha Veloso Chatto. The Governor got his Bachelor in Economics at U.P. He started his law studies at Ateneo de Manila University and finished at the Holy Name University, in 1988. He got his Masters in Government Management at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila;  and took the Local Administration and Development Course at U.P. He also attended a seminar at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 1999.

Political career. Starting as Board Member representing the youth sector, in 1988 he was elected municipal mayor of Balilihan and served until 1995. He was vice governor in 1995-2001. For three terms, 2001-2010, he was a member of the House of Representatives,  representing Bohol’s first district. In 2010 he was elected as the 25th Governor of Bohol. 

House of Representatives Committee Membership. Congressman Chatto was Chairman of the Committee on Tourism and Senior Vice Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. He was also a member of the committees on Accounts; Basic Education and Culture; Ethics; Foreign Affairs; Games and Amusement; Higher and Technical Education; Labor and Employment; Legislative Franchises; Local Government; Public Works and Highways; Revision of Laws; Ways and Means; and Justice.^[4]

Among Governor Chatto’s numerous leadership awards are the following:

• National Centennial Lingkod Bayan Awardee for Outstanding Work. Performance(2000) -Civil Service Commission.
• One of the Ten Exemplary Individuals for the Visayas and Mindanao (2000) – Ramon Aboitiz Foundation, Incorporated (RAFI).
• One of Ten Outstanding Boholanos Around the World (TOBAW) 1998- Confederation of Boholanos in the USA and Canada (CONBUSAC) and the First Consolidated Bank (FCB)
• Most Outstanding Vice Governor of the Philippines (1997) – League of Vice Governors of the Philippines.
• Lesage Award for Most Outstanding Alumnus for Local Government Service (1997)- Divine Word College of Tagbilaran.
• Doña Aurora Aragon Quezon Award for Highly Distinguished Leadership in Promoting Humanitarian Objectives (1997) -Philippine National Red Cross.
• Most Outstanding Alumnus for Local Government Service (1996) – Ship for Southeast Asian Youth Program (SSEAYP).
• Most Outstanding Mayor of the Philippines (1991).
• Mayor of the Year of the Province of Bohol and Region VII (1990).
• Most Outstanding Youth Leader of Bohol – Philippine National Red Cross.
• National Presidential Leadership Award for Outstanding Youth Leaders – (Parangal sa Pamumuno), 1995.

Leadership Awards from various other institutions:

• Divine Word College of Tagbilaran
• Gerry Roxas Foundation
• Science Foundation of the Philippines
• Kabataang Barangay
• Local Admin. & Dev’t Program Alumni of the Philippines
• Office of the President, Malacañang 
• National And Regional Recognitions by:
  • National Gold HAMIS Award (Health and Management Information System)
  • Galing Pook Award
  • Clean and Green Contest.

Under Governor Chatto’s leadership, Bohol got the national award as “The Best Governed Province” in the Philippines. A real distinction for our 53-year young political leader.

 

A Tribute to Our “Manoy Teddy”

A Boholano’s View by Jose “Pepe” Abueva

The Bohol Chronicle

April 7, 2013

From “Doring” to “Teddy.” Our eldest brother was baptized Teodoro V. Abueva, Jr. Born in 1923 to our Papa Doro and Mama Nena, he was “Manoy” to us, his six siblings. To all others he was “Doring” until he went to Cebu to study at the Cebu Junior College of the University of the Philippines where he preferred to be called “Teddy” instead of “Doring.” 

Growing up in Tagbilaran, the capital town of Bohol, our Manoy was forever reading books and magazines. He was exempted from any chores that we younger ones took on. I remember that Manoy was also exempted from punishments (kneeling and belting) that  brother Billy (Napoleon) and I would bear now and then for our mischief. But we didn’t mind, for we looked up to Manoy, our leader in our exotic family games, like making paper money by the millions and gambling in Casino de Paris. I cannot forget that time when we cajoled Manoy to jump some ten feet from the ledge of our ceiling unto a pile of pillows on a mat on the floor. I remember that in high school he won second prize in a national essay contest. 

When our adventurous Manoy heard that U.S. armed forces were coming to “liberate” the Philippines from the Japanese occupation in October 1944, he went to Leyte to meet them.  So he was away when our parents and sisters in their mountain hideout in Duero were captured by Japanese soldiers. Manoy was still away when our Papa Doro and Mama Nena were executed by their brutal captors in Balitbiton, Valencia. So Manoy, our eldest, was among the most shocked by our parents’ cruel death. He was only 21 years old when he became the head of our family. 

But Manoy was able to graduate at U.P. He got us brothers and sisters a cottage at the Diliman campus. He insisted that we all study in U.P. Much later Manoy also induced me and my wife, Coring, to settle down at Beverly Hills, Antipolo and even got his architect friend to design the hillside house that has been our home since 1969. Manoy had encouraged Billy, Napoleon, in his artistic inclination that would later earn him his title of National Artist in Sculpture. Strangely, Manoy even urged me to be president of U.P. which I dismissed as a quixotic ambition I never nurtured; but it did happen many years later, in 1987. 

Manoy had lived 40 years in New York when I urged him to return to the Philippines to retire. So Billy and I took turns taking care of our Manoy. He suffered a stroke about six years ago, as did Billy himself. Over a year Teddy’s dear friend, Ms. Nora Daza, also took good care of Manoy. He had been back with us in Antipolo when Manoy, who had suffered so much from his paralyzing illness, passed away on March 11 in our home. Fortunately, two kind priests had attended to Manoy spiritually. Manoy would be 89 in July 2013.        

Here follow a news story by a friend and then an obituary by Teddy’s New Yorker friends.

Teddy Abueva’s support of Indonesia’s independence war vs the Netherlands. Part One: Indonesia, Brunei, and Thailand. By ERIK ESPINA. October 14, 2010 MANILA, Philippines – “Freedom is more important than pacifism,” with effort, whispered senior citizen Teddy Abueva, eldest brother of a recognized clan of UP (University of the Philippines) graduates who left a legacy in said institution – one a sculptor, the other a former head. Teddy is 87, a stroke patient, bedridden, and at times, wheel chair-bound, yet manages to evoke a clear hue of history back in the 1940s when our neighbor Indonesia, needed true allies in this part of Asia, in a post war era, and in a decade when their own colonial master was resurgent, resisting the grant of independence for an archipelagic nation of 17,508 islands (6,000 inhabited). Abueva, then president of the UP Political Science Society, a staunch pacifist, was however offering to raise funds, volunteer to travel, and go to war on behalf of the Indonesian cause back in 1947. Sharing the headlines in several newspapers e.g. Herald, Daily news, even a Spanish Language paper, etc. along with Teddy were six other prominent names: Salvador Doy Laurel, Jack Arroyo, Benjo Bocobo, and others. Officially, the Philippines remained neutral on the issue of a sovereign Indonesian State. Abueva however managed to invite Carlos P. Romulo as guest speaker for their campus society. Significant of the latter’s speech was a statement supporting independence for Indonesia. Teddy mentions towards the end of the conversation, a written invitation sent by the late Indonesian President Sukarno extended individually to the group to visit and be official guests, anytime. TEODORO V. ABUEVA. Obituary. Published in The New York Times on March 20, 2013

“Please accept my heartfelt condolences and prayers. Cherish…” ABUEVA–Teodoro Veloso (Teddy); died peacefully, March 11, 2013, at the home of his brother, Jose V. Abueva, in the Philippines. He was 89 years old. Teddy came from a family distinguished for its political activism, intellect and artistic talent ranging from statesmanship to the arts. He joined his parents, Teodoro and Purificacion Abueva, in resistance to the Japanese occupation. After the war ended, he completed studies at the University of the Philippines and worked in public relations. He did graduate work at the Fogg Art Museum in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Later, he was appointed Director of the Philippine Pavilion at the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair. On his way back to Manila, he stopped in New York, decided to move there, and remained until 2001. A cultural omnivore, he reveled in all manner of art, theatre, dance, music and food, discoveries he shared with his many friends. He created fabulous feasts and gardens. His artistry, generosity, kindness, joie de vivre and sense of humor will be missed by his friends around the world and his loving family who cared for him in his last years. He is survived by his brothers, Jose and Napoleon Abueva, two sisters, Amelia Martinez and Teresita Floro, and many nieces and nephews.

HAPPY EASTER 2013! Our Life’s Purpose Statement

A Boholano’s View by Jose “Pepe” Abueva

The Bohol Chronicle

March 31, 2013

By Jose Veloso Abueva & Ma. Socorro Encarnacion Abueva

Following our Catholic Catechism, Coring and I had long understood our life’s purpose as Catholics to be: To know God and to love God and serve Him; and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

We were to follow God’s commandments and the teachings of the Church. To pray always, to avoid sin, to help our neighbor in need, to confess  our sins and do penance, and thus strive to live in His grace. In this way we would live a good Christian life and hope to merit life eternal in heaven.

In fact, for very long each of us had sought our Catholic life’s purpose so imperfectly.

As orphans early in our lives, we had both felt insecure and driven in order to survive and overcome. We worked hard and sacrificed to obtain a good education, at U.P. And our parents left us a good example as Catholics.

 

My own parents, who had served in the underground provincial government, were tortured and executed by Japanese soldiers as our country was liberated from the Japanese occupation late in 1944. I recovered their broken rosary among their skulls and bones and soiled clothes at the site of their execution on a hillside in Valencia, Bohol, our home province.

Thus I had sought and valued a modest, comfortable life for myself and my family, success in my profession, a good name, and a legacy to be remembered by. But I also grew in wanting to serve my country and humankind in the various ways I was best prepared to do as a teacher, a scholar, and an activist. With some reward, I guess, in my worldly pride.

Past fifty, I became more conscious of my mortality, God’s judgment, and eternal life. More and more I learned to understand and mean my vow in my morning prayer: “Lord, make me an instrument of your love, peace, justice, and joy.” This gave clarity and direction to my life, work and relationships.

While Coring and I lived in Tokyo (1977-87) we were able to meet Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa personally on different occasions. They were honored guests and lecturers at the United Nations University where I served. It was so inspiring to be with them up close.

As we knelt the Holy Father raised me up by my arms, saying “Brother, God love your family.” I would write a poem on this encounter and on the occasion of his visit to the Philippines. And I took several long-distance photos of the Holy Father as souvenirs. And one of Mother Teresa. 

Indeed, serving and preparing for eternal life with God and our loved ones is what really matters;  as it should have mattered from the beginning.

Coring and I came to a fuller realization of this truth during our 10-day pilgrimage in the Holy Land in Israel on 9-19 March 2000, with 44 other Filipino pilgrims.

In our journey of faith, discovery and renewal we were led by Father Robert P. Reyes, of the parish of the Holy Sacrifice in U.P. Diliman, and Fr. Renato Roque C. Villanueva, of the parish of St. Vincent Ferrer, in Candelaria, Zambales.

Following in the footsteps of Jesus in the Holy Land was our new beginning. In praise and thanksgiving, and with His grace, following Jesus and His teachings and commands became our renewed vow and resolve.

Following Jesus is also the title of our anthology book on our pilgrimage that we collectively wrote and I gladly edited. Each pilgrim contributed his or her own mini memoir and reflection. As did our shepherd priests their homilies.  Our members from the Family Rosary Crusade also made a video of our days in the Holy Land.

So we have mementos and reminders of our blessed journey in the first year of the Third Millennium: Christus heri, hodie, semper (Christ yesterday, today, always).

Four years later, refocusing the purpose of our lives in each of the forty days that Coring and I read and reflected together on Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life, we realize how much more we should do to put God at the center of our lives, to love and serve others, to extend His fellowship, and help fulfill His mission on earth. We are also asked to strive for holiness!

It is good to be inspired by our first two Filipino saints: San Lorenzo Ruiz and San Pedro Calungsod. And by Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis whom we deeply admire. And also to respond to the challenge by the theologian Hanz Küng to actively participate in the affairs of our Church if our bishops allow us.

Personally, we believe that women should be allowed to become priests. Women religious  can attend to the spiritual and social needs of so many more of the faithful who are not served because of the shortage of male priests. 

This little essay is our latest “Life Purpose Statement”—my joint commitment with Coring, that summarizes our humble understanding of God’s purpose for our lives.

For this awakening we thank God with all our hearts.

We humbly pray for His grace to enable us to live our sense of our life’ purpose. As we share it with all our loved ones and our sisters and brothers in Christ.  

 This year Coring will turn 81, and I will be 85. For some time now, some of our friends and relatives would re-assure us: “You’re looking very well.”  

******

P.S. Evidently, they had not heard of a true story told by Nelson Rockefeller, one-time Governor of New York State and the Vice-President when Gerald Ford became the President. (After President Richard Nixon had to resign because of the Watergate scandal.)

Gov. Rockefeller would remind his friends of the stages of life: “Infancy, adolescence, youth, early maturity, middle age, seniority. And, finally: “You’re looking very well.”