As a young political scientist and professor at the University of the Philippines, I deeply admired Maning whom I regarded an extraordinary man and political leader. As an occasional consultant, I worked with Maning when he was senator, vice-president and secretary of foreign affairs, and later as chairman of the local government reform commission and of the government panel in the peace talks with Nur Misuari and Conrado Balweg in 1987. Our working relations made us close personal and family friends. .

As I saw Maning up close and from a distance, he stood out among his contemporaries with his rare combination of talent and character, manner and looks. As a lawyer, he had a sharpintellect, a cultured mind, a quiet eloquence unspoiled by legalese. Born and educated well, he topped the bar examination. He was relaxed in his self-confidence. As an intellectual, he constantly sought the knowledge and expertise of scholars and professionals in the service of power and public office. Maning’s good sense and facile expression, and his patrician bearing, good looks and ready smile, became his popular trademark.

Starting as a journalist then a public prosecutor in the People’s Court that tried war criminals after World War II, Maning was elected congressman from Misamis Oriental and came to know well his peer from Zambales, Ramon Magsaysay. Elevated to the Senate, the young and articulate Maning stood tall in the company of his seniors, Jose P. Laurel, Claro M. Recto, Lorenzo M. Tañada, and Cipriano Primicias. Maning became a trusted friend and adviser of Ramon Magsaysay, our incomparable president and beloved man of the people.

Much later, during the Marcos dictatorship, Maning nearly died from gunshot wounds after he criticized in the Batasan Pambansa (National Assembly) the crony monopoly on the coconut industry that hurt thousands of small coconut farmers.

Magsaysay’s concern for the well-being of the common tao and interest in developing the rural areas deepened Maning’s own sense of social justice and passion for local autonomy and development. After RM passed away, Maning championed democracy and development at the grassroots as author of the Barrio Charter and the Rural Electrification Act and co-author of the Agricultural Tenancy Act. Moreover, he headed a legislative-executive local government reform commission in the late 1960s. Today’s advocates of federalism benefit from Maning’s initiatives in local autonomy and decentralization.

Had RM not died in that plane crash on Mt. Manunggal, he certainly would have been re-elected in 1957. Maning might have been RM’s second Vice-President and maybe RM’s successor to the presidency in 1961. This was thepalpable feeling and growing expectation of many a political cognoscenti during RM’s last year in Malacañang, 1956-1957.

But this was not to be Maning’s destiny, for Vice-President Carlos Garcia succeeded Magsaysay and was elected to a full term as president in 1957. However, Maning’s political star would rise again. In 1961 Vice-President Diosdado Macapagal challenged the re-electionist President Garcia and won. As Macapagal’s running mate, Maning was elected Vice-President and served concurrently as Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

As fellow Liberal Party leaders, first Maning Pelaez then Ferdinand Marcos parted ways with President Macapagal and were invited by the Nacionalistas who were in search of a winner in 1965 against President Macapagal. In the presidential nomination of the Nacionalista Party, neither Marcos nor Maning obtained a majority in the first balloting, so they had to fight it out in the run-off and to bargain for the support of rivals Fernando Lopez, Gil Puyat, Jose Laurel, Jr., and Arturo Tolentino, and their supporters in the convention.

Many Nacionalista leaders admired Maning’s integrity and abilities but a number of them were wary that, in our kind of politics, Maning was too principled and law-abiding. They saw Ferdie as politically savvy, quick to the deal, and ready to pay for favors. Besides, the Marcoses passed around a great deal of money in violation of the gentlemen’s agreement against the use of money in the party convention.

In retrospect, we should realize that the fateful decision of the Nacionalista Party convention and the Filipino people in choosing Marcos to become President in 1965 led to his prolonged dictatorship (1972-1986) and its destructive consequences on our government, economy and society. To this day, the politicization of the military as Marcos’ partner in authoritarian rule, has obstructed the peaceful consolidation of our democracy.

Hindsight and analysis also make it clear that Pelaez and Marcos represented two sharply contrasting political cultures and behavior.

The political culture and behavior that Pelaez stood for is marked by human decency, honesty and integrity. The other reflects human depravity and insatiable greed and corruption. The first prefers peace with freedom and justice. The other thrives on violence and intimidation to inspire fear and submission. The first upholds and enhances democracy and the people’s empowerment and participation in public governance. The other exploits the frailties of democracy and the people’s vulnerability to deceit and manipulation.

The political culture and behavior that Pelaez represented upholds and defends human life as God’s priceless and inviolable gift. The other defiles and destroys life in the process of personal aggrandizement. The first cherishes human dignity and human rights for the good of all. The other violates them in order to suppress the enemies of an indefinite authoritarian rule. The first believes in and practices public accountability in the exerciseof power and authority. The other rejects public accountability in favor of self-enrichment and personal glory.

Let us celebrate Emmanuel Pelaez, the exemplary leader and the ideal and ennobling political culture and behavior that he embodied and upheld in his public and private life. To honor and thank Maning, let us resolve to live and spread the public values and virtues he exemplified and fostered as a brother in Christ, a truly good man, and a great Filipino. He could have been our president in 1965 to 1969, and a second term in stead of Ferdinand Marcos.

Wrong time for ChaCha?

In its editorial on July 8, the Philippine Daily Inquirer declared it was the wrong time to consider Charter change, and gave these reasons.

There was no mandate to President Benigno S. Aquino to change the Constitution. His election even meant rejection of former President Arroyo’s failed ChaCha initiative which she has revived in her new proposal as a Representative. It would be distracting to President Aquino whose priority should be to push his legislative agenda. Better to have  his proposed commission to study the need for Charter change, and to effect the change in connection with the elections in 2013.

No, now is the best time!

On the contrary, I strongly believe that now is the best time. The initiative for Charter change is a supreme act of the national leadership. Our new President’s legitimacy and high popular trust (88 per cent according to the latest survey of the Social Weather Stations) will make his initiative to change the Constitution most welcome and the least suspicious.

As a student of politics and governance, I believe it is the primordial duty of President Benigno S. Aquino III to initiate policy and institutional changes in our Constitution by asking Congress to act soon after as he settles down in his presidency. No need for a commission as he has said, or a referendum to consult the people on the question.

A constitutional convention would be the most acceptable mode of Charter change because of lingering distrust of Congress. Why? Unfortunately, with some exceptions, our representatives and senators are no longer held in high regard as they used to be. Right or wrong, most of them are seen as self-serving, untrustworthy, and ineffectual as political leaders.

At the latest 2013 would be a good time for a national plebiscite on the proposed constitutional amendments.

Under PGMA Charter change was demonized, trivialized, and junked.

On hindsight, I believe that under President Arroyo Charter Change from 2004 onward suffered mortally by her sponsorship of it, and by the wrong method of a Constituent Assembly without the Senate, or by the controversial People’s Initiative. On the whole, therefore, the attempts at Charter change suffered from wrong timing.

In 2006 the leaders of the People’s Initiative (PI) to change our presidential system to a parliamentary system gathered the required voters’ signatures in each and all the congressional districts and in the whole nation. But the Commission on Elections refused to validate the signatures. The Supreme Court by a majority vote of 8 to 7 denied the PI leaders’ petitions to compel the COMELEC to validate the signatures so that the proposed amendments could be submitted to a national plebiscite. To me, the PI exercise showed that the people are not really the sovereign source of government authority as stated in the Constitution (Article II. Section 1).

Despite many resolutions filed by its members, Congress failed jointly to propose amendments to the Constitution from 1996 to early 2005. President Arroyo formed the 2005 Consultative Commission on Charter Change and appointed its 55 members. I was chosen to chair the Commission.

We held regional consultations and then came up with our proposals for a shift to a parliamentary system, for creating autonomous territories or regions in transition to  establishing a federal republic, and for liberalizing the constitutional provisions on foreign participation in our development. Except for helping to popularize and mainstream the ideas and issues of Charter change, the serious PI exercise also failed.

Charter Change can be our new President’s foremost and enduring legacy.

For our popular and reformist new President his historic initiative would enable him to leave a major legacy of basic and enduring innovations. And also of correcting the now well known basic flaws in the 1987 Constitution, also remembered as the “Cory Constitution.”

Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino by his heroic defense of democracy and martyrdom hastened the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship. President Corazon Aquino led the nation in ending the Marcos dictatorship at the EDSA revolt and restoring our democracy. In his own time President Benigno S. Aquino III can reform and revitalize our democracy through his transforming leadership and historic Charter change.

If he takes this supreme challenge, before his term ends in 2016 we can be hopeful and confident that in due course our reformed constitutional policies and political institutions will enable our country to sustain our political, economic, and social development and modernization. We can institutionalize good governance and hasten nation-building.

“Boholano” is Spanish, English or Filipino for “Bol-anon,” the identity I prefer if I were writing in “Binol-anon” or “Binisaya.” I grew up in Bohol in my first 19 years, after my birth in Tuburan, Cebu (Sugbo) in 1928. I was born of a Bol-anon father, Teodoro (Doro) Lloren Abueva, and a Sugbo-anon(which I prefer to Cebuano) mother, Purificacion (Nena) Gonzales Veloso. Therefore, my ethnic identity is Bol-anon-Sugbo-anon or simply Bisaya, which is my mother language and geographic identity.

But Bisaya connotes all of the Visayas which should include the peoples of West, Central, and Eastern Visayas, and all the peoples there who speakIlongo or Hiligaynon, Kinaray-an, Sugbo-anon, Waray, and Binol-anon. I say “peoples” to emphasize our plural ethnic-linguistic-cultural identities: how we identify ourselves as a people or community in regard to other Filipinos.

By law (the Constitution) we, mga Bisaya, and all other Filipinos, are citizens of the Philippines. The “Filipino nation” as our inclusive community is only presumed. It is not specifically defined—in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 constitutions. The Malolos Constitution was explicit: “Article 1. The political association of all Filipinos constitutes the nation, whose state shall be known as the Philippine Republic.”

We, mga Bisaya, and many more ethno-linguistic peoples of the Philippines make up the Filipino Nation. To mention only a few others: the Tagalogs, Ilocanos, Ifugaos, Bicolanos, Maranaos, Maguindanaos, Lumads, Tausugs, Palaweños, Mindanaonons. We speak no less than 15 major Filipinolanguages, not just “dialects” as we wrongly call them.

The survival of our many mother languages shows their vigor and tenacity and our resilience as separate ethno-linguistic-cultural communities through many years of Spanish and American colonialism, and the much shorter Japanese occupation. For this our fragmented geography has been a major factor. On the other hand, many Filipinos learned English under American influence. This is a unifying element in Filipino nation-building anda distinct advantage in a globalizing world. But English is also a divisive and alienating force for Filipinos who mainly speak it, and those who don’t speak it and prefer their mother tongue, or our national language.

Like it or not, the legal imposition and learning of Filipino as the “evolving” national language and an official language based on Tagalog is unifying the nation. After all Filipino is an indigenous or native lingua franca propagated by the schools and the mass media, official usage, and domestic travel. In 1988, as President of the University of the Philippines, I initiated the policy on the development and use of Filipino as a language of undergraduate instruction in the University at par with English, and encouraged as well the development and use of other Filipino languages.

However, it should also be admitted that the widening use of Filipino is weakening and even killing our other Filipino languages, undermining our multicultural and linguistic heritage as a nation. Thus the urgency and importance of the nascent Mother Language Education (MLE) initiative that will teach our children their Mother Tongue as their bridge in learning science, mathematics, Filipino, and English.

We should realize that we are a fast-growing, developing nation and aspiring democracy. With our population of 94 million, the Philippines is now the world’s 12^th most populous nation, although in land area our homeland is among the smallest (in 71^st place). With some 10 million Filipinos abroad as permanent residents or transient workers, we are truly a Global Filipino Nation, far more multi-lingual and multi-cultural than ever before.

A weak but awakening Nation

Despite more than a century of nation-building, however, one of the reasons for our inability to develop and democratize effectively has to do with the failure of our leaders to unite, challenge and inspire our diverse peoples as one nation and to solve our problems of poverty, inequality, unemployment, and injustice. Too many of our leaders particularly, as well as citizens, may not love our country enough to transcend our selfish personal and family interests when called upon to obey the laws, elect leaders, support change and reforms, and sacrifice to promote our common good and national interest.

These deficiencies mark us as a weak nation in the face of our grave problems and challenges. We are unhappy when we observe the national unity and progress of the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Singaporeans.

One scholar has suggested that we accept the reality that we, Filipinos, are really many different nations, not one. Another has raised the question whether Mindanao belongs to the Philippines, Mindanaonons being essentially and historically “a Southeast Asian nation.”

Every nation needs social and political trust as “social capital.” In this regard the Filipino nation has a troubling deficit. In my national U.P. survey in 2001 majority of our respondents agreed with these test statements: (1) “Most Filipinos do not trust each other” (57 percent) ; and (2) “Most Filipinos would know what is for the common good but care only for what is good for them and their family” (73 percent). Moreover, there is social class animosity as may be shown by the response to this test statement: “In our society, the poor people are oppressed or exploited by the rich and powerful people” (65 percent).

All Filipinos enjoy religious freedom. However, Muslims resent their relative poverty, deprivation, exploitation, repression, and underdevelopment compared to the dominant Christians. Thus the perennial Moro struggle for political and cultural autonomy, if not secession, and the Moro rebellions since the early 1970s. Some Muslims regard themselves more as Moros, or Maranaos, Maguindanaos, and Tausogs, than as Filipinos.

On the other hand, the so-called Maoist Communist rebellion dates back to 1968, succeeding the Soviet-oriented Communism that began decades earlier. Most NPA rebels feel the noted grievances of the Muslims more than they share a Maoist communist ideology.

There is growing resentment of our highly centralized, Manila-centric governance expressed in the term “Imperial Manila.” This fuels the legitimate demand for regional and local autonomy and even federalism, to achieve national unity and development in diversity.

Ideas for nation-building and unity focus on what may be done to strengthen our weak Filipino nation. Led by Senator Leticia R. Shahani and Dr. Patricia B. Licuanan, The Moral Recovery Program in 1988 urged our people to develop: “(1) a sense of patriotism and national pride, a genuine love, appreciation and commitment to the Philippines and things Filipino; (2) a sense of the common good, the ability to look beyond selfish interests, a sense of justice, and a sense of outrage at their violation; (3) a sense of integrity and accountability, an aversion towards graft and corruption in society and an avoidance of the practice in one’s daily life; (4) the value and habits of discipline and hard work; and (5) the value and habits of self-reflection and analysis, the internalization of spiritual values, the emphasis on essence rather than form.”

We celebrate our national unity in ending the 14-year Marcos dictatorship peacefully in 1986, which the world acclaimed. We proudly commemorated our Centennial of the Filipino Revolution and the First Philippine Republic in 1996-98. We take pride in Gawad Kalinga as a people’s movement in confronting poverty and nation-building. We rejoice in every victory of Manny Pacquiao and applaud the recognition of outstanding Filipinos in other global competitions.

More than before we may want to work as one in the wake of our generally peaceful 2010 elections, with hopes of national unity, good governance, and much less corruption. Instead of pitying ourselves as victims of our colonial past and “a damaged culture,” we should assert our national identity and destiny as Indios Bravos in a borderless world.

In Gunnar Myrdal’s Asian Drama he describes “Soft States” as having the following characteristics that apply to the Philippines to some degree (Asian Drama, 1969. pp. 66, and 277). “Soft States are dominated by powerful interests that exploit the power of the State or government to serve their own interests rather than the interests of their citizens. Policies decided on are often not enforced, if they are enacted at all, and in that the authorities, even when framing policies are reluctant to place obligations on people.”

The exploiters of our “Soft State?” are (1) “rent-seeking” oligarchs or rich and powerful politicians and their families…; (2) “warlords”; (3) politicians who use force, fraud, or buy votes; (4) “rent-seeking” businessmen and government administrators and employees; (5) gambling lords, drug lords, and smuggling lords; (6) tax evaders; (7) rebels who collect “revolutionary taxes”; (8) terrorists; (9) and even poor “informal settlers” and “squatter syndicates” who occupy private or public land and are protected by politicians.

Our weak nation and “Soft State” are clearly related to many political leaders who use their  power and authority more to serve their private and political interests than to serve the common good and the national interest. On the whole they have failed to lead us towards our constitutional vision, ideals and goals through “good governance” and the rule of law.

From democracy to dictatorship. President Marcos destroyed our fledgling democratic institutions when he prolonged his powers as president from 8 to 20 years, until he was overthrown by people power at the EDSA Revolt in 1986. Meanwhile, he had plundered the government and the economy, enriched his family and cronies, reversed our economic development, corrupted politics and society, and politicized the military as his partner in power. Our democratization suffered a traumatic reversal from which we have not fully recovered.

Despite our laudable vision of democracy and “a just and humane society” and the  ideals of public office and good governance under the 1987 Constitution, we have not been able to reform and transform our weakened and ineffective political institutions. Under President Aquino, the old oligarchy and traditional politicians, including those who had collaborated with Marcos, quickly recovered their power.

Our democracy has not been consolidated. To this day, 24 years after EDSA 1, we have not “consolidated” our democracy. “Democracy is consolidated when…a particular system of institutions becomes the only game in town, and when no-one can imagine acting outside the democratic institutions” (A. Przeworski, Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. 1991. p. 26). After democracy was restored, we quickly played various extra-constitutional games. Rebel soldiers sought to remove President Aquino in nine failed coup attempts. We removed President Joseph Estrada in another “people power revolt” and withdrawal of support by the military and the police. President Gloria Arroyo became the target of “people power” revolts, coup attempts, and an aborted rebellion.

To date the killers and torturers of the Marcos regime have not been brought to justice. Despite public outcry, killings and various human rights violations occur with apparent impunity. Corruption and betrayal of public office are rampant. After 2001 free, fair, peaceful, and credible elections were not assured. The judiciary is usually too slow in doing its work, and unable to dispense justice. Rebels, warlords and private armies exist in their own territories.

The 2009 massacre in Maguindanao of 57 unarmed people, including women and 30 journalists is a tragic indicator of the failure of our political leadership and democratic institutions on the whole. There are several other places where the rule of law does not prevail.

We need functional institutions. “Good governance” in a constitutional democracy depends not only on “good leaders” and “good citizens” but also on “functional institutions” through which we are able to satisfy our various needs and fulfill our lives. These include our political parties, electoral system, the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives, the judiciary, and the bureaucracy. Our weak and opportunistic political parties, our presidential form of government, our highly centralized unitary system, and our nationalistic policy on foreign investments have not served us well and need to be reformed.

Filipino democracy is at risk. In 2004 Freedom House in New York downgraded the ranking of the Philippines from “free” to “partly free”; and in 2008 disqualified the country as an “electoral democracy.” According to Larry Diamond: “The Asian Barometer found that the percentage of Filipinos who believe democracy is always the best form of government dropped from 64 percent to 51 percent between 2001 and 2005. At the same time, satisfaction with democracy fell from 54 percent to 39 percent, and the share of the Filipino population willing to reject the option of an authoritarian ‘strong leader’ declined from 70 percent to 59 percent.” (“The Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State,” Foreign Affairs, March-April 2008)

“Emerging democracies must demonstrate that they can solve their governance problems and meet their citizens’ expectations for freedom, justice, a better life, and a fairer society. If democracies do not more effectively contain crime and corruption, generate economic growth, relieve economic inequality, and secure freedom and the rule of law, people will eventually lose faith and turn to authoritarian alternatives. Struggling democracies must be consolidated so that all levels of society become enduringly committed to democracy as the best form of government and to their country’s constitutional norms and constraints.” (Larry Diamond, “The Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State.” Foreign Affairs, March-April 2008.)

New beginning and hope for change. Fortunately, we are experiencing a rising demand for change to “a new politics and governance” of honesty, transparency, and effectiveness. The landslide election of Benigno Aquino III in May 2010 in which he won in practically all regions and among all social classes attests to the clamor for change in leadership and governance, and for solving our basic problems of corruption, poverty, injustice, unemployment, and criminality, violence and killings with apparent impunity.

But we know that “a sincere and honest president” of heroic parentage alone will not save us from our condition without our leaders’ and the people’s informed and persistent sacrifice and determination to change our political structures, institutions and policies. Our analysis of the roots of our problems as a “weak nation,” a “soft state,” an “unconsolidated democracy,” and “a democracy at risk,” tells us of a more serious, complex, and unending struggle to build a strong and effective nation-state: a functional Republic of the Philippines.

Sooner than later we should finally revise our Constitution to begin the reform and revitalization of our institutions of governance. This early President Aquino has not shown any interest in revising “the Cory Constitution” of 1987. And there are vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

Wrong time for ChaCha?

In its editorial on July 8, the Philippine Daily Inquirer declared it was the wrong time to consider Charter change, and gave these reasons.

There was no mandate to President Benigno S. Aquino to change the Constitution. His election even meant rejection of former President Arroyo’s failed ChaCha initiative which she has revived in her new proposal as a Representative. It would be distracting to President Aquino whose priority should be to push his legislative agenda. Better to have  his proposed commission to study the need for Charter change, and to effect the change in connection with the elections in 2013.

No, now is the best time!

On the contrary, I strongly believe that now is the best time. The initiative for Charter change is a supreme act of the national leadership. Our new President’s legitimacy and high popular trust (88 per cent according to the latest survey of the Social Weather Stations) will make his initiative to change the Constitution most welcome and the least suspicious.

As a student of politics and governance, I believe it is the primordial duty of President Benigno S. Aquino III to initiate policy and institutional changes in our Constitution by asking Congress to act soon after as he settles down in his presidency. No need for a commission as he has said, or a referendum to consult the people on the question.

A constitutional convention would be the most acceptable mode of Charter change because of lingering distrust of Congress. Why? Unfortunately, with some exceptions, our representatives and senators are no longer held in high regard as they used to be. Right or wrong, most of them are seen as self-serving, untrustworthy, and ineffectual as political leaders.

At the latest 2013 would be a good time for a national plebiscite on the proposed constitutional amendments.

Under PGMA Charter change was demonized, trivialized, and junked.

On hindsight, I believe that under President Arroyo Charter Change from 2004 onward suffered mortally by her sponsorship of it, and by the wrong method of a Constituent Assembly without the Senate, or by the controversial People’s Initiative. On the whole, therefore, the attempts at Charter change suffered from wrong timing.

In 2006 the leaders of the People’s Initiative (PI) to change our presidential system to a parliamentary system gathered the required voters’ signatures in each and all the congressional districts and in the whole nation. But the Commission on Elections refused to validate the signatures. The Supreme Court by a majority vote of 8 to 7 denied the PI leaders’ petitions to compel the COMELEC to validate the signatures so that the proposed amendments could be submitted to a national plebiscite. To me, the PI exercise showed that the people are not really the sovereign source of government authority as stated in the Constitution (Article II. Section 1).

Despite many resolutions filed by its members, Congress failed jointly to propose amendments to the Constitution from 1996 to early 2005. President Arroyo formed the 2005 Consultative Commission on Charter Change and appointed its 55 members. I was chosen to chair the Commission.

We held regional consultations and then came up with our proposals for a shift to a parliamentary system, for creating autonomous territories or regions in transition to  establishing a federal republic, and for liberalizing the constitutional provisions on foreign participation in our development. Except for helping to popularize and mainstream the ideas and issues of Charter change, the serious PI exercise also failed.

Charter Change can be our new President’s foremost and enduring legacy.

For our popular and reformist new President his historic initiative would enable him to leave a major legacy of basic and enduring innovations. And also of correcting the now well known basic flaws in the 1987 Constitution, also remembered as the “Cory Constitution.”

Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino by his heroic defense of democracy and martyrdom hastened the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship. President Corazon Aquino led the nation in ending the Marcos dictatorship at the EDSA revolt and restoring our democracy. In his own time President Benigno S. Aquino III can reform and revitalize our democracy through his transforming leadership and historic Charter change.

If he takes this supreme challenge, before his term ends in 2016 we can be hopeful and confident that in due course our reformed constitutional policies and political institutions will enable our country to sustain our political, economic, and social development and modernization. We can institutionalize good governance and hasten nation-building.

Unfortunately, it is true that our leaders rarely point out to the people our constitutional visions and ideals—to give us a common sense of purpose and direction. And our students are not learning about the Constitution as they should. For these reasons, we cannot fault many among our people for assuming that the visions and ideals do not exist. What we often hear, read and witness are stories of people in government and public life that deny our national visions and ideals and violate our laws.

Our Constitutional Vision of the Good Society and Ideal State and Government.

“We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order (1) “to build a just and humane society”; and

(2) “establish a government that shall embody our ideals, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy—under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.” (Preamble.)

(3) “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people, and all government authority emanates from them.” (Art. II. Sec. 1)

(4) “The prime duty of the Government is to serve the people.” (Art. II. Sec.4)

(5) “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all time be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” (Art. XI. Sec.1)

“Good Governance.” These concept and ideal of Filipino democracy have emerged after over 13 years of authoritarian rule under President Ferdinand Marcos. Blending Filipino and international ideals, we understand “good governance” as manifesting these features:

(1) people’s participation in free and fair elections and in policy and decision-making made possible by an open and accessible government in a free society with vigilant, competent and responsible media;

(2) responsiveness of the government to the needs and demands of the people who are informed, empowered and enabled to express their will to their political leaders and civil servants;

(3) transparency and accountability of public servants in response to the citizens’ will and their right to know (“the truth” in governance) as the sovereign in a democracy;

(4) honesty and fidelity of public servants and the certain punishment of those who are abusive and corrupt;

(5) efficiency and a sense of urgency in the exercise of power and authority to make the best use of scarce resources, including time especially;

(6) effectiveness in providing the needed public services, solving problems, and achieving goals, all for the common good;

(7) the protection and enhancement of human rights and the fulfillment of social justice;

(8) achieving ecological integrity and sustainable development; and

(9) 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 governed, and social harmony based on love (pagmamahalan) and compassion (pagdadamayan). (Pablo S. Trillana III. The Loves of Rizal, 2000. p. 179.)

A Vision of an Ideal Future. I have composed verses, a poem if you will, regarding a vision of our future as a nation in the global community. It is largely based on our constitutional vision and ideals but I have elaborated on them.

Building the “Good Society” We Want

United under God, we shall develop citizens and leaders who love our country,and trust and challenge one another to solve our problems and achieve our goals.

Upholding truth, honesty and excellence, we shall work together for the common good of all Filipinos at home and around the globe.

For, conscious of our roots in Asia, we are a Global Filipino Nation committed to the well-being, security, and advancement of all our people—and humankind

We want to be free and peaceful, united in our diversities, egalitarian, prosperous, life-sustaining and nonkilling.

In our quest for “the Good Life” we shall focus on the poor and powerless, the excluded, exploited, and oppressed. We shall achieve our vision of “The Good Society” through good citizenship through good citizenship, leadership and governance in inclusive democracies.

And responsive, effective and accountable institutions that enable us to satisfy our needs and fulfill our lives as individuals and as a nation.

As we shall do our share in shaping a just, humane, and nonkilling world, and safe, sustainable environments.

In sum, we want a Global Filipino Nation that is God-centered–whose people love and care for one another near and far.