-Thomas Gray, “Elegy Written in a Country Church-Yard.”
Thanks to Arnold Clavio and Vicky Morales, I was able to watch their network’s coverage of President-elect Aquino leaving his Time Street residence, dressed in a long-sleeved camisa chino. By the time his convoy (which stopped at red lights) reached the Palace, he was already dressed in a baro. The trip from Times St. to the Palace took something like 15 minutes instead of the close to an hour originally allocated according to the Official Program.
The President-elect alighted from his vehicle at Bonifacio Hall (usually referred to by its old name, the Premier Guesthouse), where President Corazon Aquino held office and where her son will also hold office. Meanwhile, over at the Palace, the outgoing cabinet hung around the “Pacto de Sangre” of Luna near the main stairs, waiting for President Arroyo. President Arroyo, dressed in an ecru terno, then shook hands with her departing official family and undertook descending the main stairs for the last time as President of the Philippines.
President Arroyo and President-elect Aquino then shook hands and departed for the Quirino Grandstand. In the coming days, people will be asking them what (if anything) they said to each other during their brief car ride to Rizal Park.
A cheerful roar came from the crowd when the presidential convoy arrived, and upon alighting from Car No. 1, the two went to their respective daises, for the military rendering its last honors to President Arroyo.
The “President’s March” was played, a 21 gun salut boomed out, and President Arroyo proceeded to review the troops as the band played “Atin Cu Pung Singsing.”
As the military honors were being given, the Vice President-elect’s special electric jeep arrived, and there’s been some undue controversy over this. Some people took it to mean the Vice President-elect barged in on the scene to steal the show.
At the time, I thought it was bungling of the protocol; the Vice President-elect is supposed to arrive ahead of the President-elect (as has been the tradition since the 1949 Quirino Inaugural; at the Quezon inaugural in 1935 the President-elect arrived ahead of the Vice President-elect).
What seems to have happened was this. The Presidential Party arrived about twenty minutes ahead of schedule -and it was the Vice President-elect who actually arrived on cue.
I noticed that what the Vice President-elect chose to do was the correct thing: he waited in his vehicle for the military honors to conclude, and with it, President Arroyo shaking hands with President-elect Aquino, and then getting into her private vehicle: at which point the President-elect went up to the ceremonial platform. Because of the circumstances surrounding the early arrival of the Presidential Party and the arrival of the Vice President-elect, it would have been unseemly for him to sprint up ahead of the President-elect; so he went up after the President-elect.
All in all, it was a courteous solution to an unintended snafu.
An interesting note was the reaction of the crowd -the official set crowding the bleachers of the Grandstand, and the public gathered across the Grandstand- to President Arroyo’s arrival and throughout the Military Honors portion.
I can’t say people jeered, or booed (at least from my vantage point) but there was a kind of highly enthusiastic applause that became particularly cheerful first, when she arrived, second, when the final honors began, then when she trooped the line and finally, when she shook hands with the President-elect and when her convoy departed. I did hear many people lustily saying “goodbye!”
Another interesting note is that some reporters told me President Arroyo twice refused to shake hands with President-elect Aquino at the Quirino Grandstand; I haven’t seen the footage and couldn’t see their interaction from my vantage point.
The Inaugural Program then commenced with an extremely moving rendition of the national anthem featuring Charice Pempengco and the Philippine Philharmonic Orchestra under the baton of Ryan Cayabyab. This was followed by the invocation.
The Madrigal Singers sang “Bayan Ko,” and then the Apo Hiking Society performed a song, and then Ogie Alcasid and friends performed the Inaugural Song.
At this point, the Senate President rose to read (with great vigor) the dispositive portions of the Proclamation of Congress announcing the results of the election. This was supposed to be followed by the oath-taking of the Vice President-elect, then the President-elect’s oath taking, followed by the military giving a salute and then the Inaugural Address.
Originally, the ceremonial to be followed conformed to tradition: no musical number was supposed to follow the Senate President; then a musical medley was inserted, then, upon the reiteration of the protocol to be followed, the song numbers were moved so that they would precede the Senate President’s reading.
However, since the whole thing started ahead of time, there would have been something like a 45 minute gap between the reading of the proclamation and the administration of the oaths of office, since as much as possible the President-elect is supposed to take his oath or conclude it, at high noon.
So the organizers improvised (this also happened during the Ramos Inaugural), to stretch things out for the purposes of the time specified by the Constitution. Personally, I think all the singing added a festive element to the proceedings and the public generally enjoyed themselves.
The Vice President-elect then took his oath, followed by the President-elect. A bystander told me the President finished taking his oath a few minutes before noon (this has happened in previous inaugurals). At this point, the military band kicked in, with its four ruffles and flourishes followed by “Mabuhay,” as a 21 gun salute boomed out; two choppers thundered overhead and scattered yellow flower petals over the crowd, which was a pretty sight indeed.
Then the President delivered his Inaugural Address. With introduction, applause, pauses, the speech ended up 21 minutes long.
After volunteers read their “Panata sa Pagbabago,” President Aquino was then given honors by the armed forces, and inspected the honor guard. He then proceeded to the Palace.
Then things started running behind schedule; he inducted his cabinet into office at around 3:20 PM. He then began his first cabinet meeting.
Tonight, there will be an Inaugural Reception for foreign delegations and the diplomatic corps and other officials who will pay their respects to the new chief executive. First comes the sole visiting head of state, the President of East Timor, followed by foreign delegations, the diplomatic corps, and other officials and guests. The President receives the visitors in the Music Room, where they are presented to the President individually. After extending their congratulations to the President, guests proceed to Rizal Hall where cocktails are served.
When all guests have had a chance to be presented to the President, he proceeds to Rizal Hall, where he will deliver a short speech and offer a toast to the delegations, diplomats, and dignitaries.
After that, he will go to attend the Inaugural Concert at the Quezon Memorial Circle.
Inaugural venues: Legislative Building, Manila (Quezon, 1935; Laurel, 1943; Roxas, May, 1946); Independence Grandstand (fronting Rizal Monument), Roxas, July, 1946; Independence Grandstand (renamed Quirino Grandstand): Quirino, 1949; Magsaysay, 1953; Garcia, 1957; Macapagal, 1961; Marcos, 1965, 1969, 1981; Ramos, 1998. Club Filipino, San Juan, Aquino, 1986; Executive Building (Kalayaan Hall), Malacañan Palace, Marcos, 1986. The inaugural addresses of Estrada, 1998, and Arroyo, 2004, were delivered at the Quirino Grandstand.
Inaugural venues outside Manila: Barasoian Church in 1899 (Aguinaldo) and 1998 (Estrada); Corregidor in 1941 (Quezon); Cebu City in 2004 (Arroyo).
Number of inaugurals: Marcos (December 30, 1965 and 1969; June 30, 1981; February 25, 1986); Quezon (November 15, 1935, December 30, 1941; retook oath of office again on November 15, 1935 in Washington, D.C.); Roxas (May 28 and July 4, 1946). Only President Osmeña, who succeeded into office on August 1, 1946 but who lost the election of 1946, and President Corazon Aquino who was inducted into office under revolutionary circumstances in 1986, never had a formal inaugural.
President:
Date:
Location:
Oath by:
Notes:
Emilio Aguinaldo
January 23, 1899
Barasoian Church, Malolos
Speaker
Inaugural
Manuel L. Quezon
November 15, 1935
Legislative Building, Manila
Chief Justice Ramon Avancena
Inaugural
Manuel L. Quezon
December 30, 1941
Corregidor
Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos
Inaugural
Jose P. Laurel
October 23, 1943
Legislative Building, Manila
Chief Justice Jose Yulo
Inaugural
Manuel L. Quezon
November 15, 1943
Washington, D.C.
(U.S.) Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter
Upon emergency wartime extension of term of office
Sergio Osmeña
August 1, 1944
Washington, D.C.
(U.S.) Associate Justice Robert Jackson
Upon death of Pres. Quezon
Manuel Roxas
May 28, 1946
Legislative Building, Manila
Chief Justice Manuel Moran
Inaugural
Manuel Roxas
July 4, 1946
Independence Grandstand
Chief Justice Manuel Moran
Retook oath after removal of pledge of allegiance to U.S.
Elpidio Quirino
April, 1948
Council of State Room, Executive Building, Malacañan Palace
Chief Justice Manuel Moran
Upon death of Pres. Roxas
Elpidio Quirino
December 30, 1949
Independence Grandstand (new)
Chief Justice Manuel Moran
Inaugural
Ramon Magsaysay
December 30, 1953
Independence Grandstand (new)
Chief Justice Ricardo Paras
Inaugural
Carlos P. Garcia
March, 1957
Council of State Room, Executive Building, Malacañan Palace
Benigno S. Aquino III will be the fifth president to take his oath of office on June 30: Marcos, Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo being the others. He will be the 15th President of the Philippines, but he is the fifth president of the Fifth Republic of the Philippines.
The constitutional title of the chief executive is “President of the Philippines.” While “President of the Republic of the Philippines” sounds nicer, it is incorrect, and used only in the 1943 and 1973 Constitutions.
Malacañang and Malacañan Palace, which one? Malacañang is the Office of the President of the Philippines, a term that officially dates to the Magsaysay adminstration. Malacañan Palace is the traditional spelling, and refers to the historic structure and official residence of the President of the Philippines.
Starting with Quezon’s second inaugural in 1941 until Marcos’ second inaugural in 1969 (with the exception of the special election called in 1946) presidents were inaugurated on Rizal Day, June 30. Six presidents Quezon (1941), Quirino (1949), Magsaysay, Garcia (1957), Macapagal, Marcos (1965, 1969) had inaugurals on December 30.
6-9:00 AM Prayer services by different Religious Faiths throughout the Philippines.
9:00 AM Assembly of the general public at Rizal Park.
Arrival of officials and distinguished guests at the Quirino Grandstand
Departure of President-elect Benigno S. Aquino III from his residence at Times Street, Quezon City, for Malacañan Palace.
According to Raul S. Gonzales, who was the Press Secretary of President Macapagal:
….continuity of government was demonstrated by having a bi-partisan committee of (officials) pick up the president-elect in his residence and take him to Malacañan. From there, the incumbent President and the incoming one, along with one member of the committee,board the presidential car for the ride to then Independence grandstand where the old and the new part ways. Ninoy Aquino was in the committee which picked up Macapagal at his mother in law’s house on Laura Street San Juan on December 30, 1961 to escort him to Malacañan to fetch President Garcia for the ride to the Luneta. Ninoy was also among those who fetched Marcos at his Ortega Street residence also in San Juan December 30, 1965 to pick up Macapagal at Malacañan. He rode with Marcos and Macapagal in the car that ultimately took Macapagal to retirement, Marcos to Makiki Heights and him, Ninoy to the tarmac of the airport which now bears his name.
9:45 AM Officials and distinguished guests with assigned seats will occupy their respective places at the Quirino Grandstand.
10:05 AM Arrival of Mrs. Jejomar C. Binay at the Quirino Grandstand
The families of the President-elect and Vice President-elect will arrive at the Quirino Grandstand ahead of the President-elect and Vice-President elect.
10:15 AM Arrival of the President-elect at Malacañan Palace.
This is a tradition that dates back to the inauguration of President Manuel Roxas, the first transfer of power from an incumbent (President Osmeña) to a president-elect (Roxas) who was his rival for the presidency.
10:25 AM Arrival of the Aquino family at the Quirino Grandstand.
10:30 AM Departure of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and President-elect Benigno S. Aquino III from Malacañan Palace.
The departure of the President, accompanied by the President-elect, marks the formal act of leaving office for the incumbent, who thus descends the stairs of the Palace for the last time. The President-elect will, of course, then mark the start of his presidency by climbing the same stairs later in the day.
10:35 AM Arrival of Vice President-elect Jejomar C. Binay at the Quirino Grandstand.
10:45 AM Arrival of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and President-elect Benigno S. Aquino III at the Quirino Grandstand.
Aquino will be the seventh president to be inaugurated at the Quirino Grandstand. Six presidents were inaugurated at the Quirino Grandstand previously: Quirino (1949), Magsaysay (1953), Garcia (1957), Macapagal (1961), Marcos (1965, etc.), Ramos (1992).
10:50 AM Honors for President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
A twenty-one gun salute, accompanied by the honor guard presenting arms, and four ruffles (drumrolls) and flourishes (trumpet blasts) and the playing of the national anthemwill accompany the arrival of the President and the President-elect. This is the last time the AFP renders honors to the incumbent President as head of state. The incumbent President will troop the line and receive the salute of the honor guard and bid farewell to the major service commanders.
Only President Osmeña in 1946, President Aquino in 1992, and President Ramos in 1998, attended the inaugurals of their successors. Osmeña attended because it was the first time power was to be transferred from one party to another; Aquino, to symbolize the first peaceful and constitutional transfer of power since 1969; and Ramos as part of the centennial celebrations of 1998.
11:05 AM Departure of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. President-elect Aquino and Vice President Elect Binay to be accompanied to the ceremonial platform by the Inaugural Committee.
This is a tradition that dates back to the inauguration of President Magsaysay in 1953, and followed in the Macapagal and Marcos inaugurals in 1961 and 1965. The symbolism is that the old administration has come to an end, and the new one begins. Ideally, as per tradition, at the moment the President-elect takes his oath as President at 12 noon, the incumbent is already at home to mark his reverting to being an ordinary citizen.
The Inaugural Ceremonies Proper:
11:10 AM National Anthem, to be sung by Charice Pempengco and the Madrigal Singers, music by the Philippine Philharmonic Orchestra.
11:15 AM Ecumenical Invocation.
From 1935 until 1969, the highest-ranking prelate of the Catholic Church traditionally delivered the invocation. President Marcos was the first President to have an ecumenical invocation in 1981.
Songs: “Bayan Ko,” performed by the Madrigal Singers.
“Minamahal Kong Bayan,” performed by the Apo Hiking Society.
Musical Ensemble: Inaugural song, “Bayang Pilipinas,” by Ogie Alcasid, Noel Cabangon, Christian Bautista, Jed Madela, Mae Paner, Jim Paredes, Gary Valenciano and Gail.
11:45 AM Reading by the President of the Senate of the Proclamation by the Congress of the Philippines announcing the results of the elections in the Philippines.
This is a practice established with the Commonwealth inauguration in 1935, and last undertaken in 1969, although a similar proclamation was read proclaiming the New Republic, in 1981. The Senate President traditionally reads the proclamation, which is the final official act of the 14th Congress. It provides the democratic and constitutional basis for the mandate of the individuals about to be inducted into office, and represents the legislative branch of government witnessing the inaugural of the executive branch. The Senate President does so as the head of the portion of the legislature that is considered a continuing body.
11:50 AM Administration of the Oath of Office to the Honorable Jejomar C. Binay, Vice President-elect of the Philippines, by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales.
The Vice President-elect will take his oath in Filipino, the bible will be held by his wife, Dr. Elenita S. Binay.
Four ruffles and flourishes will be rendered by the Armed Forces of the Philippines immediately upon the conclusion of the Vice-President’s oath of office.
The public will rise and remain standing throughout the oath-taking ceremonies of the Vice President and the President. The public will be seated upon the commencement of the President’s Inaugural Address.
12:00 Noon: Administration of the Oath of Office to the Honorable Benigno S. Aquino III, President-elect of the Philippines, by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales.
In 1899, the oath was administered by the Speaker of the Malolos Congress, since President Aguinaldo was elected by Congress. Since 1935, the judicial branch of government witnesses and participates in, the inauguration in this manner.
From Aguinaldo to Quirino, presidents did not swear on the bible, a legacy of the Revolution of 1896 and the separation of Church and State. President Magsaysay was the first president to swear on the bible, in fact using two, one from his father’s and mother’s branch of the family. The bibles were placed on the lectern. In 1957, Bohol Governor Juan Pajo held the bible as Carlos P. Garcia took his oath. President Marcos, in 1965, also swore on two bibles, one from his father, the other a gift from his wife.
Aguinaldo took his oath in Spanish. Quezon, Osmeña, Roxas, Quirino, Magsaysay, Garcia, Macapagal, Corazon Aquino, and Arroyo took their oath in English. Laurel, Marcos, Ramos, Estrada took their oath in Filipino.
“Mabuhay” was composed by bandleader Tirso Cruz Sr. (grandfather of actor Tirso Cruz III) and adopted by President Quezon as the presidential anthem during the Commonwealth. It has been used by presidents ever since.
Associate Justice will be the second Filipino Associate Justice to administer the oath of office, although this is the fourth time an associate justice has administered the oath of office to a Philippine president (this happened twice during the period in exile of the Commonwealth Government, and once during the revolutionary oath taking by Corazon C. Aquino).
The oath of office of the President of the Philippines has remained unchanged since 1935:
I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.” [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted]
In Filipino:
Matimtim kong pinanunumpaan (o pinatotohanan) na tutuparin ko nang buong katapatan at sigasig ang aking mga tungkulin bilang Pangulo (o Pangalawang Pangulo o Nanunungkulang Pangulo) ng Pilipinas, pangangalagaan at ipagtatanggol ang kanyang Konstitusyon, ipatutupad ang mga batas nito, magiging makatarungan sa bawat tao, at itatalaga ang aking sarili sa paglilingkod sa Bansa. Kasihan nawa ako ng Diyos.” (Kapag pagpapatotoo, ang huling pangungusap ay kakaltasin.)
Note that the Constitution specifies the title of the chief executive as President of the Philippines, not President of the Republic of the Philippines, which is only used in certain diplomatic documents.
Inaugural Address by His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III, President of the Philippines.
Aquino will be the ninth president to deliver his inaugural address at the Quirino Grandstand (Estrada and Arroyo were sworn into office elsewhere but delivered their inaugural address at the Quirino Grandstand in 1998 and 2004).
Shortest inaugural address in a regular inaugural: Ramon Magsaysay on December 30, 1953, 8 minutes in duration. Corazon Aquino’s in 1986 was even shorter (but under emergency circumstances).
Here is an extract from J. Eduardo Malaya & Jonathan E. Malaya, …So Help Us God: The Presidents of the Philippines and Their Inaugural Addresses, Anvil Publishing 2004:
Presidents write their speeches, or are presumed by the public to do so. Most, in fact, did…
Mariano Ezpeleta, legislative secretary to Roxas, described the drafting of the 1947 State of the Nation Address in his memoirs…
Ezpeleta and Jorge Bocobo, Roxas’s law professor at the University of the Philippines, were then asked by the president to go over the text as “corrector de estilo” (editor):
“We went over the speech. We changed some words, phrases, sentences and idioms to conform to what we know the president was used to in speaking. The gist of the speech, we kept intact. Dr. Bocobo suggested that we put in at the very last, a forceful and eloquent paragraph, in the nature of a climax. It took us rather long to agree on this climactic masterpiece…
“I gave the speech to the president the next day. Afterwards, he returned the speech to me for his stenographer to put in clean. I looked at the draft for any correction. There was none, except that the last climactic paragraph we added with so much effort, was canceled with the comment ‘not necessary.’”…
The challenge for speechwriters is to craft the speech as the president would do so, in the latter’s style: Does he speak in a formal or conversational tone? In a concrete and linear way, or circular and abstract? In short, direct sentences, or long-winded paragraphs? Does he refer to himself in the first-person, with lots of the pronoun “I”, or in the impersonal third person tone? Are his lines gentle or sharp-edged? With humor, self-deprecation or in all seriousness? If he thinks and speaks in some way, then the text should be drafted in the same manner.
The speech ought to reflect the chief executive’s thought processes and style of speaking, otherwise, it will sound artificial. The speech will convince no one that it is the president speaking. It is, after all, no one else’s but the president’s. “Find the voice of the person you’re writing for,” advised Peggy Noonan, speechwriter to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Eight of the fourteen Philippine presidents, from Quezon to Marcos, were lawyers and had extensive government experience. They tended to think and speak in concrete, linear, often stentorian ways. In contrast, Magsaysay had an aversion to big words. Recalled Narciso Reyes, a one-time speechwriter to Magsaysay… the guideline given them was to “simplify, simply,” to be in accord with the president’s style.
The speechwriting process has traditionally been kept out of the public view, and speechwriters rarely claim credit for their works. After all, what is important is the “finished product” -the words as delivered by the president. In time, the identities of the most likely wordsmiths usually surface. Quezon was a rugged individualist and a brilliant extemporaneous speaker,but he had prepared texts for important occasions. His chief speechwriter was the jurist Jose Abad Santos. Jose Reyes, executive secretary to Osmena, doubled as his speechwriter. Federico Mangahas, a noted writer-journalist, wrote not only for Roxas but also for his successor Quirino.Mangahas, with the assistance of Juan Collas, Quirino’s private secretary, is said to have drafted most of Quirino’s “fireside chats” to the nation.
Magsaysay’s stirring inaugural speech is credited to diplomat-writer Leon Ma. Guerrero. Raul Manglapus… also wrote some of Magsaysay’s later speeches. Rufino Hechanova, Rodrigo Perez, and Vicente Albano Pacis are said to have helped in drafting Macapagal’s inaugural speech. Marcos had a stable of fine wordsmiths, many drawn from literary and journalism circles, notably Adrian Cristobal, Krip Yuson, Francisco “Kit” Tatad, and Blas Ople.
Most of Aquino’s major speeches were written by Presidential Spokesman Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr. including her memorable address “Restoring Democracy by the Ways of Democracy” before the U.S. Congress…
Locsin described the relationship between the president and the speechwriter in his foreword to a collection of selected Aquino speeches:
“I am credited with the writing of some of these speehes that she alone could have inspired, instructed, and delivered with the intended effect. They could not have been written for anyone else because they express what she thought and what she felt, what she believed in. Not a line, not a word, in a draft did not originate in a thought or feeling of hers, and none remained that she had not carefully pondered and accepted.”
In essence, the task of putting policy and governance into words and phrases is a process which is solitary and personal to the chief executive. The speech is his or hers alone and no one else’s.
At the conclusion of the Inaugural address, the public will rise and recite the Panata sa Pagbabago.
Panata sa Pagbabago.
This is the innovation in the 2010 inaugural ceremonies. It is meant to respond to the President’s inaugural address by volunteers and the public at large pledging their support and participation in the democratic governance of the nation.
Conclusion of the Inaugural Ceremonies: Honors for President Benigno S. Aquino III,Recessional and departure of the President of the Philippines for Malacañan Palace.
Upon concluding the Panata sa Pagbabago, the honor guard will present arms and the President will troop the line, and be greeted by the service commanders of the AFP and PNP. He will proceed to Malacañan Palace, preceded by a motorized escort. Outside the gates of Malacañan Palace, the motorized escort will be relieved by the Presidential Guards to welcome their new commander-in-chief.
1:00 PM Ritual of the climbing of the stairs, Malacañan Palace.
The President formally takes possession of the Palace as his official residence and office, by climbing the main stairs of the Palace for the first time as President of the Philippines.
This is a tradition begun by President Quezon, who was moved by the legend that Rizal’s mother climbed the stairs on her knees, to beg for the life of her son. The climbing of the stairs signifies that the chief executive is the freely-elected head of the Filipino people, who is pledged to govern them with justice in contrast to the colonial governors who formerly inhabited the Palace.
Working Lunch in Rizal Hall, Malacañan Palace.
2:00 PM Induction into office of the Cabinet and various officials by the President of the Philippines, Rizal Hall, Malacañan Palace.
Please be advised that this has been rescheduled for 2:30 PM.
2:30 PM First Cabinet Meeting of the President of the Philippines, Aguinaldo State Dining Room, Malacañan Palace.
From 1935 to martial law, Kalayaan Hall (formerly Maharlika Hall and before that, the Executive Building) was the official office of the president. Cabinet meetings were held here (in the Cabinet, now Roxas, and Council of State, now Quirino, rooms) from the Quezon to the Macapagal administrations: among those who attended cabinet meetings in this building were Benigno Aquino Sr. as Secretary of Agriculture in the Quezon Administration; it is also the building in which Benigno Aquino Jr. held office as presidential assistant to President Ramon Magsaysay. Cabinet meetings have been held in the Aguinaldo State Dining Room since the Marcos administration.
4:00 PM Street Program, Quezon Memorial Circle begins.
6:00 PM Inaugural Reception, Reception and Rizal Halls, Malacañan Palace.
This is a reception for foreign and other dignitaries who wish to call on the new President. The term vin d’honneur will no longer be used, reverting to the premartial law practice of simpler official receptions. There will also be no Inaugural Ball (the last Inaugural Ball was for the 1981 Marcos inaugural, which was also the last time the Rigodon de Honor was danced in the Palace until June 12, 2009, when it was again danced on June 12 of that year). The President of the Philippines will offer a toast as a gesture of amity to the nations that maintain diplomatic relations with the Philippines.
7: 30 PM Toast to the Foreign Delegations and the Diplomatic Corps by the President of the Philippines, brief remarks.
8:30 PM Inaugural Concert, Quezon Memorial Circle, Quezon City.
Public concerts have been a feature of inaugurals since the Quirino administration. A public dance instead of an Inaugural Ball first took place in the Magsaysay inaugural in 1953, and restored as a practice by presidents since Macapagal in 1961. The last Inaugural Ball, complete with Rigodon de Honor, was held at Malacañan Palace in 1981. The President will return to his residence at Times Street, Quezon City, after the Inaugural Concert.
The Long View
Great expectations
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:23:00 06/14/2010
IN its exit poll, social weather stations concluded its questionnaire with three questions: the first asked whether people thought the quality of governance would a) get better (57 percent); b) be the same as now (15 percent); c) get worse (2 percent); or d) no comment (26 percent). The second asked whether in the coming 12 months the quality of life would a) be better (29 percent); b) be the same (23 percent); c) be worse (2 percent); d) no comment (26 percent). And finally, over the same period, would the economy of the Philippines a) be better (52 percent); b) be the same (19 percent); c) be worse (2 percent); and d) no comment (27 percent).
The majorities expressing optimism isn’t surprising, and neither are the steady minorities with a slightly pessimistic to highly pessimistic opinion; what’s remarkable are the significant minorities—basically a quarter of the population—who preferred not to venture an opinion in public. So on the one hand, public opinion is cautiously optimistic while a significant minority prefers to wait and see; overall a fairly healthy distribution of opinion and certainly, a working basis for sustaining what the country as a whole has achieved.
And that is, that after 2001, when we came closest to a Bangkok Moment, and came close to one again in 2005, society as a whole, regardless of the desires of its various component parts, which ranged from the administration’s preference to take public opinion—in national terms—out of the governance equation on one hand, and the Year Zero/New Society fantasies of many of its organized critics, a consensus emerged to institute a kind of political triage. Neither government nor its critics could go too far out of bounds, the whole thing quarantined, so to speak, with periodic measurements of the public pulse by way of elections.
The temptation of course is to paper over nagging problems or to view public debate as irksome, now that the patient has a new lease on life, and we are looking forward (broadly speaking) to the first administration with a widely accepted mandate since 1998. On the one hand, if many desire some peace and quiet, there is such a thing as being too quiet and pacific precisely at a time when the country not only has to rebuild its institutions, but find a way toward a productive, because inclusive and consensus-driven, civic culture.
There is no more democratic point of view than the one so eloquently put forward by Patricia Evangelista yesterday: “To critique is not to dictate, it is to participate, to speak, to engage. That promise made on May 10 when millions lined up for hours for the right to choose leaders begins its work now, and will continue for the next six years even when the applause ends, love dies and the hero is stripped of legend.” One might only add, it is one of the great expectations of a society whose opinions were consistently shrugged off as “political noise” by the present dispensation whose shredders are working overtime to deny future officials any evidence that could end up produced in hitherto “proper” forums.
The question of the role public opinion should play in a representative democracy was settled in 1922, the question put forward in a great party division and then in a special election. On Feb. 17 of that year, the assertion was first put forward that “the party never has been and never will be the people. My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins,” and with that assertion, the corresponding desire for “a government of opinion, not a government that solves vital questions without the country’s knowledge or how or when the solution was made.”
If nature abhors a vacuum, so does public opinion and by extension, so does media—to which an increasingly shrinking portion of the public pays sustained attention in general—and which has found itself treated with such a sustained combination of outright deception or hostility by official circles.
My point is that if parties aren’t the people, neither are NGOs, nor broader Civil Society, nor even the media: they are all subsets of the whole, and cannot—and should not—believe they are superior to any other. But on the other hand, they do legitimately speak out and weigh in, inevitably antagonistically at times: with officialdom having the burden of proof to justify and convince all these publics of both the relevance and correctness of government’s actions.
Where everyone seems stumped is how—and where—all the competing publics should thresh out their differences. There lies the value in recognizing the public consensus, such as it’s been, of the past few years: to thresh things out in various institutional arenas, insisting, however, that even as institutions have their assigned check-and-balance functions, the ultimate arbiter of legitimacy is public opinion.
This is the opposite of the ritual answer of the present dispensation, which has always been “in the proper forum,” and through the duly constituted authorities: but that assumed, or more precisely stubbornly insisted, on the “presumption of legality” when the foundations of that presumption, institutions and officials with mandate, were at best imperfectly present and almost entirely absent for the chief executive.
As far back as October 2005, Ricky Carandang had pointed out in his blog (in, alas, a now-vanished entry) that our society is an extremely low-trust one, to begin with; for much of the past five years, government preferred divide-and-rule rather than to rebuild trust. And yet, a healthy skepticism to anything official aside, I don’t doubt that people want to be able to trust their representatives—but it is officialdom who has to earn that trust. The mandate elected officials received on May 10 is the foundation, as firm as any we’ve had; but it will take a lot more, requiring raising the bar on how government engages its many publics.
From the time Congress proclaims a candidate as the duly-elected president, the candidate becomes known as the President-elect.
The Constitution is clear and specific: the title of the chief executive is “President of the Philippines,” and takes his oath of office as such, although in certain cases involving formal diplomatic usage, “President of the Republic of the Philippines” is used for diplomatic documents. The honorific for the President of the Philippines is “His/Your Excellency,” but the proper form of address is “Mr. President.”
At 42.08% Aquino’s percentage of the votes is the highest plurality since the restoration of democracy, and under the 1987 Constitution. The biggest first-term landslide was Magsaysay in 1953 (68.9%), followed by Quezon in 1935. The biggest second term landslide was Quezon in 1941 (81.78%) followed by Marcos in 1969 (61.5%).
Servillano Aquino y Aguilar (April 20, 1874-February 2, 1959)
Mayor of Mucia, Tarlac
1896
Katipunan
Officer and later General
1897-1898
Katipunan, Biak-na-Bato Republic
Delegate, Malolos Congress
1898-1901
First Republic
Benigno S. Aquino y Quiambao (September 3, 1894-December 20, 1947)
Representative, 2nd District of Tarlac
1919, 1922, 1925
Jones Law
Senator, 3rd Senatorial District
1928-1935
Jones Law
Assemblyman, 2nd District of Tarlac
1935-1937
Commonwealth
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
1937-1941
Commonwealth
Assistant Chairman, Preparatory Commission for Philippine Independence
1942
Japanese Military Administration
Speaker of the National Assembly
1943-1945
2nd Republic
Benigno S. Aquino Jr. y Aquino (November 27, 1932-August 21, 1986)
Mayor of Concepcion, Tarlac
1955
Third Republic
Vice-governor of Tarlac
1959
Third Republic
Governor of Tarlac
1961
Third Republic
Senator
1967-1972
Third Republic
Benigno S. Aquino III y Cojuangco
Representative, 3rd District of Tarlac
1998-2007
Fifth Republic
Senator
2007-2010
Fifth Republic
President of the Philippines
2010-2016
Fifth Republic
Some relevant numbers:
1
He is the first unmarried president in the history of the country.
He is the first president with no children.
The first deputy speaker of the House to later become president.
He is the first marksman to be come president since Ferdinand Marcos (who belonged to the U.P. rifle team).
He will be the first president since 1992 inaugurated into office without having been vice-president first.
He is the first president since Diosdado Macapagal to be elected as the candidate of the Liberal Party; also the first president since Macapagal not to have changed political parties (three presidents had no political party membership/positions: Aguinaldo, Laurel, Cory Aquino).
Aquino is the first post-Edsa president to exceed Garcia’s 1957 plurality. Majority Presidents: Quezon (68% in 1935 and 81.78% in 1941), Roxas 54% in 1946(, Quirino (51% in 1949), Magsaysay (68.9% in 1953), Macapagal (55% in 1961), Marcos (54.76% in 1965, 61.5% in 1969), Aquino (approx. 51%). Plurality Presidents: Garcia (41.3%) was the only president elected by plurality prior to 1972. The lowest plurality ever was Fidel V. Ramos in 1992 (23.6%). Estrada at 39.6% in 1998 was the first post-Edsa president to nearly match Garcia’s 1957 plurality.
He is the first to use the suffix -III (there have been no Juniors or the Thirds elected president previously).
He is the first president to have a February birthday. Two presidents were born in January: Roxas (Jan. 1), Cory Aquino (Jan. 25); three in March: Laurel (Mar. 9), Ramos (Mar. 18), Aguinaldo (Mar. 22); two in April: Arroyo (Apr. 5), Estrada (Apr. 19); two in August: Quezon (Aug. 19), Magsaysay (Aug. 31); three in September: Osmeña (Sep. 9), Marcos (Sep. 11), Macapagal (Sep. 28); two in November: Garcia (Nov. 4), Quirino (Nov. 16).
The President of the Philippines uses license plate No. 1.
2
The second child of a former president to become president in his own right (he succeeds the first presidential child to become president).
The second president from Tarlac.
He is only the second president (Aguinaldo was the only non-drinker previously) who does not drink.
He will be the second president to be sworn in by a Filipino associate justice of the Supreme Court (his mother was the first), but the fourth president sworn in by an associate justice of a Supreme Court (Quezon in 1943 for the indefinite extension of his term, and Osmeña who succeded into office in 1944, were sworn in by U.S. Associate Justices Felix Frankfurter and Robert H. Jackson, respectively, in Washington, D.C.).
He is the second president to have studied at the Ateneo de Manila, but the first to have graduated from the Ateneo de Manila University.
Two presidents only partially resided in Malacañan Palace: Laurel, and Estrada (who stayed in the Guest House).
Two presidents were elected by the legislature and not in a national election: Aguinaldo and Laurel.
Two presidents were re-elected to second terms: Quezon and Marcos.
Two presidents were brought to power by People Power revolts: Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (our two female presidents).
3
Benigno S. Aquino III is the third president with no spouse: Quirino was a widower, Corazon Aquino, a widow. Unlike Quirino and Corazon Aquino, who had children, Aquino III has none.
Aquino at 50 will be the third-youngest elected president (Magsaysay remains the youngest ever nationally-elected to the presidency), and the fourth-youngest president after Aguinaldo, Magsaysay and Marcos.
He is the youngest of the presidents who became chief executive in their 50s (age at inauguration/sucession: Aguinaldo, 29; Quezon, 57; Laurel, 51; Osmeña, 67;Roxas, 54;Quirino, 57;Magsaysay, 46;Garcia, 60;Macapagal, 51;Marcos, 48;Aquino, 53;Ramos, 64;Estrada, 61;Arroyo, 54).
The third to use his second given name as his middle initial (as Quezon and Laurel did).
The third to engage in shooting as a sport (Quezon and Marcos engaged in hunting). The third to be fond of billiards (Garcia and Macapagal also played billiards).
He will be the third president who will only hold office in, but not be a resident of, Malacañan Palace, following Corazon Aquino and Fidel V. Ramos.
He was the third generation of Aquinos to serve in the Senate: his grandfather and father were also senators.
4
He will be the fourth president not sworn in by a chief justice: Aguinaldo was the first. Quezon, when his term was extended in exile in 1943, renewed his oath of office before Justice Felix Frankfurter. Osmeña, who succeeded to the presidency in exile, was sworn in by Justice Hugo Jackson (thus, two presidents have been sworn in by foreign justices, both because they headed governments-in-exile). Corazon Aquino was sworn in by Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee. Eleven presidents were sworn in by a chief justice: Quezon (1935, 1941), Laurel, Roxas, Quirino, Magsaysay, Garcia, Macapagal, Marcos, Ramos, Estrada, Arroyo.
Four presidents were not inaugurated either on December 30 or June 30: Aguinaldo (January 23, 1899), Quezon (November 15, 1935 and November 15, 1943), Laurel (October 14, 1943), Roxas (May 28, 1946).
Four vice-presidents who succeded to the presidency also took their oaths on dates different from the traditional inaugural date: Osmeña (August 1, 1944); Quirino (April 17, 1948), Garcia (March 18, 1957), Arroyo (January, 2001).
Most number of times a president has taken the oath of office: four, for Marcos (1965, 1969, the 1981 and 1986 “inaugurals”); followed by three, for Quezon (1935 in Manila, 1941 in Corregidor, 1943 in Washington, D.C., also before three different individuals); Quirino (1948 in Malacañan, 1949); Garcia (1957, twice: upon succession in March Malacañan and election in December); Arroyo (2001 in Quezon City, 2004 in Cebu).
5′s
Aquino comes from a family of five siblings.
At age 50, is going to be the 15th President of the Philippines. He becomes president at the same age at which father, Benigno S. Aquino Jr., died.
Officially, his fourteen predecessors will be:Emilio Aguinaldo, Manuel L. Quezon, Jose P. Laurel, Sergio Osmeña, Manuel Roxas, Elpidio Quirino, Ramon Magsaysay, Carlos P. Garcia, Diosdado Macapagal, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Corazon C. Aquino, Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
He will be the 5th President of the 5th Republic. The present republic was established with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. The previous republics are the First (Malolos, 1899-1901); Second (The Japanese Occupation, 1943-1945); the Third (from independence in 1946 to 1972); the Fourth (the “New Republic” proclaimed in 1981).
Aguinaldo was the lone President of the First Republic; Quezon was the first President of the Commonwealth and Roxas the last; Laurel was lone President of the Second Republic; Roxas was the first President of the Third Republic and Marcos, the last; Marcos was the first President of the Fourth Republic and Corazon Aquino, briefly served under the Fourth Republic but proclaimed a revolutionary government. The Fifth Republic came into being with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, and Corazon Aquino, Ramos, Estrada, and Arroyo have been the presidents of the Fifth Republic.
He was elected on 05/10/10.
He received over 15 million votes; his winning margin was over 5 million votes.
He will be the fifth president to take his oath of office on June 30: Marcos, Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo being the others. Starting with Quezon’s second inaugural in 1941 until Marcos’ second inaugural in 1969 (with the exception of the special election called in 1946) presidents were inaugurated on Rizal Day, June 30. Six presidents Quezon (1941), Quirino (1949), Magsaysay, Garcia (1957), Macapagal, Marcos (1965, 1969) had inaugurals on December 30.
Aquino is also the fifth public smoker to be president: Quezon, Roxas, Garcia, Estrada were/are all smokers.
6
He is the sixth president to have been elected to a single six-year term (Quezon in 1935 [term subsequently extended by constitutional amendment], Aquino in 1986, Ramos in 1992, Estrada in 1998, Arroyo in 2004). He will be only the second President to serve an exact 6 year term (only President Ramos has, so far, served an exact 6 year term; President Quezon’s original term was modified to permit re-election for an additional two years; President Corazon Aquino’s term was extended by a few months to synchronize her term with that of new officials elected under the 1987 Constitution; President Estrada’s term was shortened by Edsa Dos; President Arroyo served the remainder of her predecessor’s term and an additional six years. Under the 1935 Constitution, only Diosdado Macapagal served an exact four year term).
7
Aquino will be the seventh president to be inaugurated at the Quirino Grandstand. Six presidents were inaugurated at the Quirino Grandstand: Quirino (1949), Magsaysay (1953), Garcia (1957), Macapagal (1961), Marcos (1965, etc.), Ramos (1992).
He will be the the seventh to use a middle initial after Manuel L. Quezon, Jose P. Laurel, Carlos P. Garcia, Marcos, Corazon C. Aquino (who used her maiden name as her middle initial), and Fidel V. Ramos. (Aguinaldo, Osmeña, Roxas, Quirino, Magsaysay, Macapagal did not use middle initials at all; Estrada uses a special name combining his real family name, Ejercito, with his screen name; Arroyo prefers to use the hyphenated Macapagal-Arroyo). Presidents Aguinaldo, Osmeña, Roxas, Quirino, Magsaysay and Macapagal did not use middle initials. The initials of President-elect Aquino are BSAIII, following the practice of his father and grandfather, he uses his second given name as his middle initial, the same practice followed by Presidents Quezon and Laurel.
8
If you include hthe pipe/cigar smoking of Laurel, Ramos and Macapagal and his daughter Arroyo who were/are occasional (social) smokers, Aquino III is the eighth president who’s a smoker.
The shortest inaugural address at a regular inaugural was Ramon Magsaysay’s in 1953: 8 minutes.
9
Juancho Dulay Barreto on Twitter also pointed out BSAIII was proclaimed president-elect on June 9, 2010. That’s exactly 9 months after his declaration of candidacy on 09/09/09.
He is the ninth to have been proclaimed president-elect by the legislature: the first was Manuel L. Quezon, followed by Manuel Roxas, Ramon Magsaysay, Diosdado Macapagal, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (eighth if you don’t count Arroyo’s proclamation on the basis of the Quirino and Garcia precedents). While Congress certified the election of Elpidio Quirino and Carlos P. Garcia, they had succeeded into office previously, and were already serving as president when elected to a full term: thus, were not referred to as presidents-elect. Aguinaldo and Laurel were not elected president in a national election, they were made president by a vote of the national assembly and thus never president-elect. Corazon Aquino assumed the presidency by means of the People Power Revolution and was not proclaimed by the Batasan Pambansa.
The ninth president to have served as a congressman.
Nine presidents lived in Malacañan Palace: Quezon, Osmeña, Roxas, Quirino, Magsaysay, Garcia, Macapagal, Marcos, Arroyo. Three presidents (Quirino and Garcia upon succession, Marcos in 1986) have take oaths of office there. Four presidents have had to flee because of war or revolution: Quezon, Laurel, Marcos and Estrada.
10
The tenth senator to become a president.
He will be the tenth president to be inaugurated in Manila: the nine previously who were inaugurated in Manila: Quezon in 1935, Laurel in 1943, Roxas in 1946, Quirino in 1949, Magsaysay in 1953, Garcia in 1957, Macapagal in 1961, Marcos in 1965 etc., Ramos in 1992.
Aquino III, who will likely use the Aquino family bible his mother used, will be the ninth president to swear on a bible and the second to use the same bible. Magsaysay was the first to take his oath on a bible: Garcia, Macapagal, Marcos, Aquino, Ramos, Estrada, Arroyo followed suit. Aguinaldo, Quezon, Laurel, Osmeña, Roxas and Quirino (belonging to generations closer to the revolutionary era, did not take their oaths on a bible). Magsaysay and Marcos took their oath on two bibles each in 1953 and 1965.
Trivia on Jejomar C. Binay
The vice presidency is even more complicated than the presidency, where one government never recognized under Philippine laws (the 2nd Republic) is still recognized in the order of presidential succession with Jose P. Laurel (1943-1945) straddling the constitutional terms of Quezon and Osmena. The complication arises from some lists including Mariano Trias even though he was made vice-president of the government that replaced the Katipunan at Tejeros (the Biak-na-Bato Republic), and when his designation predates the official start of the First Republic in 1898.
The vice-presidency was formally (constitutionally) established under the 1935 Constitution, and the line of vice-presidents begins with Sergio Osmena, elected to the position in 1935 and again in 1941. The vice-presidency was abolished under the 2nd Republic and during martial law, and then formally restored in the 4th and 5th Republics
The list of vice-presidents is therefore 13: Sergio Osmeña, Elpidio Quirino, Fernando Lopez, Carlos P. Garcia, Diosdado Macapagal, Emmanuel Pelaez, Fernando Lopez, Salvador H. Laurel, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Teofisto Guingona Jr., Manuel de Castro Jr., and Jejomar Binay. Lopez was the third and seventh vice-president because he was elected to the position under two different administrations (in 1949 and 1965 and again in 1969). Binay would be the 14th Vice-President if the brief vice-presidency of Arturo M. Tolentino is recognized.
One vice-president, Osmena, was elected twice, in 1935 and 1941; one vice-president, Lopez, was elected three times (but not in succession): he served as Quirino’s vice-president from 1949-1953 and was elected Marcos’ vice-president twice, in 1965 and 1969. One vice-president, Guingona, was never nationally-elected, only appointed (the first under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution).
Three vice-presidents became president upon the death of their predecessor: Osmena, Quirino, and Garcia; Osmena failed to obtain a presidential election, Quirino and Garcia succeeded but failed to be elected to a second presidential term. All three vice-presidents who succeeded to the presidency under the 1935 Constitution, served out the remainder of their predecessor’s terms without a vice-president: so from 1944-1946 (Osmena’s succeeding Quezon) 1948-1949 (Quirino succeding Roxas), in 1957 (Garcia succeeding Magsaysay), the country had no vice-president.
Three vice presidents, Macapagal, Estrada, Macapagal-Arroyo were elected president in their own right after concluding their vice-presidential terms. Laurel was the only incumbent vice-president to fail in a bid for the presidency. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was the first child of a vice-president to hold the same vice-presidential office as a parent. Laurel was the first child of a president to become a vice-president.
Ten vice-presidents, Osmena, Quirino, Lopez, Garcia, Pelaez, Laurel, Estrada, Macapagal-Arroyo, Guingona Jr., de Castro Jr. all served in the senate prior to becoming vice-president. Osmena, Quirino, Garcia, Pelaez, Macapagal also served in the House of Representatives. Osmena and Garcia also served as governors, while Estrada and Binay have both been mayors and both have been succeeded as mayor by their sons (both served as municipal mayors; Binay is the first city mayor to be elected vice-president).
Only Estrada, Macapagal-Arroyo, and de Castro among the vice-presidents ware non-lawyers. All the rest, including Jejomar Binay, have been lawyers. Upon his proclamation by Congress, Binay will be known as the Vice president-elect. By tradition, he will take his oath of office immediately before president-elect Benigno S. Aquino III.
The vice-president can hold a cabinet portfolio but that is purely up to the president whether he gives the vice-president a cabinet portfolio or not.By tradition, the vice-president is given the premier cabinet portfolio. Before independence, that portfolio was Secretary of Public Instruction (now known as Secretary of Education), because prior to the Commonwealth it was the only cabinet portfolio reserved for a foreigner, the Vice Governor-General. This was held by the first vice-president, Sergio Osmena. After independence, the premier cabinet portfolio became (and remains) Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Elpidio Quirino, Carlos P. Garcia, Emmanuel Pelaez, Salvador H. Laurel and Teofisto Guingona Jr. have all been Vice-Presidents who were concurrent Secretaries of Foreign Affairs.
Fernando Lopez was the first Vice-President to decline the premier portfolio, opting to be Secretary of Agriculture instead in the Quirino and Marcos administrations. Arroyo was the first vice-president to opt to be Secretary of Social Welfare and Development; Estrada (Presidential Anti-Crime Commission), de Castro (urban housing) were the vice-presidents who never headed line departments. Diosdado Macapagal was the only vice-president not to be offered any executive appointment at all. In the Quezon War Cabinet, Sergio Osmena held the combined portfolios of Secretary of Public Instruction, Health, and Public Welfare.
Macapagal was also the first vice-president who was not the running mate of the elected president. He was also the first vice-president elected by plurality (46.55%). The highest percentage by a vice-president was Osmena in 1941 wiyh 92.1%; the lowest, Estrada in 1992 with 33%.
Osmena (running mate of Quezon), Quirino (running mate of Roxas), Lopez (running mate of Quirino), Garcia (running mate of Magsaysay), Pelaez (running mate of Macapagal), Lopez (running mate of Marcos), Laurel (running mate of Aquino), de Castro (running mate of Arroyo) all served with partymates or running mates; Macapagal, Estrada, Arroyo and Binay are the vice-presidents elected who were not running mates of the elected president.
From 1935 to 1972, the vice-president also held office in Malacanan Palace. After the position was abolished during martial law, the office of the vice-president was occupied by other executive officials. During the New Society and the 4th Republic, the Prime Minister held office in the old Legislative Building, which was renamed Executive House. Salvador H. Laurel held office there until the building became the National Museum. Today the Vice-President holds office in the Philippine International Convention Center.
Binay, at 66, is the oldest to be elected vice-president. Lopez in 1969 was 65 years old and Osmena in 1941 was 63 years old, the two oldest elected vice-presidents prior to Binay. However, Guingona was 73 years old when appointed vice-president in 2001, making him the oldest to take office as vice-president.
Veep percentages since 1987 multiparty system in place: Estrada 33%, Arroyo 49.56%, de Castro 49.6%, Binay 41.65%. Majority VP’s: Osmena 87% 1935, 92.1% 1941, Quirino 52.3% 1946, Lopez 52.1% 1949, Garcia 62.9% 1957, Lopez 62.7% 1969, Laurel app. 52% 1986. Plurality VP’s: Macapagal 46.5% 1957, Pelaez 37.7% 1961, Lopez 48.4% 1965, and all post-Edsa: Estrada, Arroyo, de Castro, Binay
At 41.65% Binay’s winning percentage is between Macapagal’s 46.5% in 1957 and Pelaez’s 37.6% in 1961. Two closest VP races were Pelaez vs. Osmena in 1961 (204k votes) and Lopez vs. Roxas in 1965 (26,724 votes!)
The Long View
A diminished presidency
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:47:00 06/10/2010
This, in effect, is the legacy Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo wants her successor to inherit. That is, after she proved the ability of our already-powerful presidency to maximize its existing powers and assert powers and prerogatives never intended for presidents to exercise, but which she did anyway by manipulating the legislature, taking a tactical approach to the law, and cowing the bureaucracy while coddling the military and police.
The news items hogging the headlines—the proliferation of midnight appointments by the President—is just one aspect of what she has set out to do. The appointments are fully in keeping with what President Carlos P. Garcia set out to do in the closing days of his term, both to reward loyalists and to block the incoming administration from appointing its own people to key positions, and in contravention of the principles the President’s own father, Diosdado Macapagal, put forward in voiding Garcia’s appointments, and which was upheld by the Supreme Court and enshrined in the present Constitution.
The President has reorganized the entire Office of the President by virtue of an Executive Order (No. 330 336). Less obvious to the public is how her policy of privatizing government holdings also means that the next chief executive will find that some sources of government revenue, or positions traditionally filled by administrations, will no longer be available.
A case in point is the government’s deal with San Miguel Corp. to turn its shares into non-voting ones, in exchange for a fixed return on the shares. The privatization of Transco, too, puts strategic industries out of the hands of government at a time when a looming power crisis is being talked about (leaving government in the worst possible situation: having responsibility without authority). And I haven’t even touched on business scuttlebutt about the investments said to have been made by high officialdom in these industries.
It will take time for the new crop of officials to figure out the executive issuances and departmental orders left behind by the Arroyo administration, presenting yet another hurdle to “hitting the ground running,” as the phrase made fashionable by Fidel V. Ramos puts it. So on one hand, there will have to be a lot of forensic accounting done to figure out the true fiscal situation of the government, even as a great deal of wading through executive issuances, the determination of the legality of a plethora of appointments, takes place.
Something as simple as sweeping the Malacañan Palace complex for bugs (the electronic kind) has to be undertaken before officials can settle down to work. And even as the President’s midnight appointments are scrutinized, those she appointed can create mischief. Quite a few of them are in offices with guaranteed percentages from various taxes and fees, and are subservient to her. They have the means and the motivation to use their offices as a kind of rival government with its own entrenched pork barrel.
And of course there’s the issue of the Supreme Court.
And so it’s appropriate to revisit Macapagal’s arguments as adopted by the Supreme Court, in 1961:
(1) the outgoing President should have refrained from filling vacancies to give the new President opportunity to consider names in the light of his new policies, which were approved by the electorate in the last elections;
(2) these scandalously hurried appointments en masse do not fall within the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision authorizing the issuance of ad interim appointments;
(3) the appointments were irregular, immoral and unjust, because they were issued only upon the condition that the appointee would immediately qualify obviously to prevent a recall or revocation by the incoming President, with the result that those deserving of promotion or appointment who preferred to be named by the new President declined and were by-passed; and
(4) the abnormal conditions surrounding the appointment and qualifications evinced a desire on the part of the outgoing President merely subvert the policies of the incoming administration.
As the Supreme Court said in 1962, “It is common sense to believe that after the proclamation of the election of President Macapagal, his was no more than a ‘care-taker’ administration. He was duty bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of authority to the incoming President, and he should not do acts which he ought to know would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his successor.”
As it is, the public has given credit to those who declined midnight appointments; and there is a continuing clamor for all those who received appointments from at least the time the presidential campaign began in February, to either decline to accept their appointments, or offer the next president their courtesy resignations in order to give him the free hand he deserves at the start of his administration.
Meanwhile, all we have are things like the interesting story (shocking, if true) that Pagcor has banned camera phones and that its shredders are working overtime.
Asian Center for Journalism, Ateneo de Manila University
June 8, 2010
1.
New Media and democracy
By Manuel L. Quezon III
2.
Democracy:a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
So the dictionary defines it. And so, let us begin by accepting it. But let us also assume that we are heirs of the view that Media firmly considers itself an unelected Fourth Estate in society, in the sense that Edmund Burke coined it to repress to the reporters in the press gallery of the House of Commons.
3.
In terms of New Media let us adopt the Wikipedia definition, that “What distinguishes New media from traditional media is not the digitizing of media content into bits, but the dynamic life of the ‘new media’ content and its interactive relationship with the media consumer. Another important promise of New Media is the ‘democratization’ of the creation, publishing, distribution and consumption of media content.”
Let us look at both producers and consumers in the context of both media itself and democracy.
4.
In Freedom of the editor, dating back to April 10, 1965, the late Teodoro M. Locsin Sr. assumed, as most mainstream media does, that at worst, press freedom is a necessary evil because a fundamental bulwark of democracy: one where media played a role in terms of what it is –a mass medium. The question then was whether media should pander, should surrender to serving as the least common denominator. And his answer was in insisting on personal standards for the whole. He proposed that freedom lay in being intelligent and informed, for “Freedom is responsibility and the affluent as well as the slave hate it.” And of these freedoms, he put forward three essential ones, and for each, let me give a recent example:
5. Per Locsin: The freedom to study.
6.
Where once a reporter might get hold of a peculiar document like this one –this is a chart made by Romulo Neri Jr. to explain his theories on booty capitalism, Philippine-style- and try to make sense of it and possibly reproduce it in the pages of a newspaper requiring a subscription or pick-up from a newsstand, New Media allowed this document to be freely accessed, passed on, devoid of context but also, free of preconceived notions for the audience.
7. Per Locsin: The freedom to think.
8.
Where, again, the dizzying complexities of influence-peddler’s payoffs would have been reported according to the canons of journalism, individuals, such as the Thads Bentulan (himself an opinion writer) could interpret and illustrate concepts and facts and secure a circulation for himself exceeding even the mainstream media, whether online or off.
9. Per Locsin: The freedom to express one’s self.
10.
As an opinion writer, this is where I am the most confident because I publish my opinions in all media, old and new. So you will, I hope, pardon me if I put forward a bias for opinion writing –or speaking- and identify it as a necessary part of the formation –and maintenance- of a civic culture, in which the individual takes it as both necessary and honorable to engage in public debate –or conversations, as the current jargon prefers to call it. But I do believe that just as media must accommodate itself to being no longer involving mass audiences except in terms of entertainment, then as media practitioners we must also resign ourselves to the reality that we can no longer assume a civic culture exists.
11.
As my Inquirer colleague JV Rufino illustrated it, the old news consumption model was based on the individual, forming part of the collective audience, receiving news and views as a part of that collective, from media sources.
12.
In contrast the emerging model, according to Rufino, has individuals essentially delegated the task of filtering content for their social network peers. Various media pours in, and people trust others to pass on only the news and views they like. Critical thinking, then, ends up outsourced by many to the few, without the vigorous debate or mechanisms for consensus that civic culture formerly represented and produced.
13.
Which brings us to Jaron Lanier’s strong views on the emerging dangers of New Media, a cautionary prognosis directly relevant to today’s theme of new media and democracy. What we may tend to view as the democratic attributes of New Media are, instead, opportunities for fundamentally undemocratic behavior. Lanier has coined some pretty controversial terms for three aspects of the behavior unleashed by online life, and which imperils the supposed benefits of New Media as a more democratic space for the exchange of information and ideas.
14.
First, Digital Maoism, which he puts forward an opposite view to the currently fashionable “wisdom of crowds.” It warns of the Hive Mind, where like-minded fanatics swarm the Internet engaging in the online equivalent of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
Second, Cybernetic totalism takes off from this, and says there is a great danger in viewing technology as a kind of Great Revalation, operating on principles eerily similar to –and as dangerous as- the Scientific
And third, a Culture of Sadism, which he ties to the anonymous, spiteful commenters – the trolls in many an online comment thread- to technology which confuses online freedom with licentiousness.
15.
All of which edges out New Media as the liberal, democratic, cooperative open society untainted by hierarchy we all hoped it would be. Instead, by way of Michiko Kukatani in The New York Times Review of Books last March, Lanier suggests we are witnessing the Killing Fields –or land of the Lord of the Flies- of media as paladin of democratic exchange and discourse:
Comments about TV shows, major movies, commercial music releases, and video games must be responsible for almost as much bit traffic as porn… There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but since the Web is killing the old media, we face a situation in which culture is effectively eating its own seed stock.
And so, as the drunken Irishman bellowed at an unfamiliar person at a family wake, I am tempted to thunder, “who is this intruding on our grief?”
Just when New Media, as I see it, is sheepishly beginning to realize it is as much Media (with a big, self-important “M”) as the Old, instead of the satisfaction of New joining Old in a reinvigorated Fourth Estate, what all media is discovering is that it’s cannibalized itself to become a mere niche. The price of modernity is thus relative obscurity in the fringes of society. And thus, like democracy itself, it has become peripheral in the dominant organizing of society, which is along Consumerist lines.
16.
It is as consumers, not as citizens, that we are viewed by those who hold the real power and to whom we are expected to “speak truth to power,” as the Quakers put it and has gained currency since the 1950s. If media, whether Old or New, is expected to speak truth to power, then we must ask ourselves what truth and what power? Consider these snapshots of public opinion and public attitudes in the context of the recent presidential campaign and election.
17.
Going into the campaign, Yoly Ong of Campaigns & Grey shared this, which showed that in terms of the most influential source of information in choosing a president, TV is king, with the rest of media, including New Media, having only marginal shares; but overall, media in toto comprised a far greater influence than any other institution or part of society.
18.
These are the findings, fleshed out. They point to these preferences –this media dependence- entrenched across all classes and parts of the country.
19.
When the Manila Standard Today survey asked voters the most helpful means in deciding whom to vote for, they gave a healthy plurality to the news: though the public also put ads on par with the news as a helping in their decision process. Only about half as much in turn looked to debates, news in the papers or on radio, as helpful sources. So far, so good, perhaps?
20.
No. A closer look at this snapshot illustrates my point: you and I will agree that in terms of television news, ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol and GMA’s 24 Horas are precisely what they are: news programs, delivering news as the network sees fit to deliver it; but in terms of the public –consumer-citizens- they themselves put the noontime game show Wowowee on par with the news –as a source of news on candidates. The same applies to radio, where Bombo Radyo and DZRH deliver the news, but with Love Radio coming third, showing, incidentally, the rising tide of FM versus the traditional king, AM; and the same goes for print, where the Philippine Daily Inquirer still has pride of place, followed by the Manila Bulletin, but also, the tabloid Bulgar thumbing its nose at the broadsheets.
21.
And as anyone in the media, particularly print, will tell you, the audiences of tomorrow are already tuning out today. As a McCann study put it in 2007,
Teens are watching less TV, listening to less radio, reading less books and magazines, are doing less sports, interacting with friends face-to-face less frequently, and spending less money on traditional consumer items…. thanks to virtual connectivity technology like text messaging and the internet.
Just today, Nielsen and Yahoo revealed (you can find more via the hashtag #NetIndex2010) updated facts that I’d like to juxtapose with slightly earlier ones, courtesy of the International Social Media Research Wave that Smart Communications used in a presentation to student journalists just last year.
22.
In terms of the New Media, can we say Social Media is king? Social media, Nielsen tells us, has four distinct areas: social networking, user-generated content, community groups/forums and blogging.
23.
Yet in terms of blogging, Filipinos, for one, are passive consumers, reading instead of writing.
24.
In the Philippines, social media is used to stay in touch with friends and family (66%), send emails (64%) and IM (63%). What else do people do with their online time?
25.
They network. Friendster fell from 92% in 2009 to 84% this year, while Facebook went up from 4% in 2009 to a staggering 83% this year.
26. But most of all, what people do is entertain themselves. Most popular activity for online entertainment? Music videos: 73%, movie trailers: 26% comedy: 26%, TV shows: 17%, entertainment news: 16%, cartoons: 15%, sport clips: 15%.
People are looking for things that amuse. Searching has grown from 58% to 76% to become the dominant online activity, surpassing email and Instant Messaging. But what are people looking for? Images, 62%; videos, 52%; information, 48%; audio clips, 31%; phone numbers, 17%; blogs, 13%; jobs, 11%; news, 11% : these are the items searched online. If blogs on social and political issues are a small fringe, you can see that news is a fringe preoccupation, too.
27.
Yet all is not lost. Writing on the recently-concluded presidential campaign, my Inquirer colleague John Nery observed,
28.
In the first place, online is the only medium without specific spending restrictions; it is a gray area candidates will certainly exploit… In the second place—and this is the considered opinion of experts who have actually studied the matter—what online does very well, even in the Philippine setting, is to create buzz. It is not (yet) a tool for converting the undecideds or for raising substantial campaign donations, but it can certainly be used to create word of mouth, to pique public curiosity and interest, to drive old media coverage.
Those of us who tweet, who spend time on Facebook, who blog, all know it works along similar lines: no one has quite figured out how it actually helps our employers or ourselves, but it certainly creates buzz for offline media properties.
I don’t suggest that Nery means New Media is valuable only as titillation. But I do find his point useful in suggesting that even if relegated to a peripheral role in consumer’s lives, it can still, subtly, yet significantly, nudge us in the direction of a new civic life, a new civic consciousness.
29.
This is an apocalyptic picture, but in it lies my reason for hope, because I am extremely hopeful about New Media being a partner for a democratic renaissance in all our societies.
Ondoy followed by Pepeng, twin typhoons, twin disasters, led to a closer cooperation, even mutual dependence, between formerly increasingly detached audiences and, perhaps, overly confident media, which found itself, like all our institutions, literally swamped. Common cause was found in speaking truth to power: to fixing problems government could not or would not solve; in saving lives and contributing to the rescue and rehabilitation of the many, which inspired the comfortable few to experience the rare satisfaction of giving more than they take out of society.
It was a moment when media and the public were one, where distinctions between Old and New media disappeared, and it would take another talk to enumerate all that was demonstrated and learned. Let me give you just one example. In the aftermath of typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng, the public was able to scour official records, often in real time, analyze government policies, scrutinize official actions, and raise red flags. It resulted in the Secretary of Social Welfare Esperanza Cabral filing a libel suit against a blogger, not for herself, she claims, but for her fellow public servants. This is a reminder that those who oppose the medievalism of the Catholic Church are fully capable of launching their own inquisitions.
30.
And so, to look even further back, in terms of New Media and Democracy, what is appropriate, to me, is the lament of Titus Livy, on the decline of Rome, as quoted by William Shirer to explain the Fall of France:
We reached these last days when we could endure neither our vices nor their remedies.
Our world, our media, is now far removed from Old Media’s assumption that it was an integral part of the lives of millions as they threshed out vital issues.
31.
If all media –increasingly even TV- in normal circumstances, is only relevant to democracy in the sense that bread and circuses were relevant to governance of the caesars, then because of extraordinary circumstances like Ondoy and Pepeng, we can see our vice and the cure. Our vice is exemplified by the Greek myth of Narcissus, for New Media at its worst, is Narcissism writ digitally.
32.
We cannot be so self-absorbed as to be so fascinated with our changing circumstances, only to end up ignorant of how our place in society itself has changed. The new has conspired with the old to present us with all the challenges, and the opportunities, you see here.
We call it executive privilege, the Thais may call it lese majeste, the Chinese, their Great Firewall; everyone seems to call it National Security, and everyone in media has to wonder who its real allies are in fleshing out the distinction between legitimate official secrets and an effort to backhoe evidence of official crimes.
The other day, the House of Representatives did what everyone expected it do, which was, to wriggle its way out of ratifying the Freedom of Information Act.
The online response was peppery and immediate. But it was like a pebble thrown into a pond; the ripples radiated from the House of Representatives and then vanished: not least because how many in officialdom even encounter New Media on a regular basis?
In this they aren’t very different from the electorate they claim to serve. For it is a bother to the consumer, for the political to intrude into the commercial.
And it is a bother even to many of our brethren themselves, to not only ferret things out, but then, to also make sense and report and explain what’s been ferreted out, to an increasingly distracted public.
And all around us is a rising tide of entertaining and engrossing data but much of it susceptible to false alarms and hoaxes, yet also necessary and vital in connecting people not only with each other, but with all human institutions.
Of which we are part. So let me close with the antidote to Narcissism, which is very seductive: it can be seen in what is obviously absent in this room. Non-media, non-academic people, the very young, and the obsessively consumerist in orientation, aren’t here. Without our audiences to tell us what, in their mind, civic life requires, we cannot address the need; and if we do not address the need, we cease to be relevant.
If we cannot engage our audiences democratically, there is no sense in discussing New Media and democracy. But we have done it before, out of necessity, in times of calamity; so we should simply continue it, along the lines of that fashionable New Media cliché, by way of a continuing conversation.
The Long View
A more balanced Philippines
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:23:00 06/07/2010
LET me tackle the presentation by Dr. Mark Thompson during the roundtable on presidential elections in the Philippines, held last May 28 in Berlin, Germany. In “Cleaving Clientelism,” he approached the recently concluded election from the perspective of the dominant type of politics practiced here, which is clientelism. Coined in the 1970s from the Italian “clientelismo,” the dictionary defines it as “a social order that depends upon relations of patronage; in particular, a political approach that emphasizes or exploits such relations.”
In the Philippine context, Thompson characterizes clientelism as revolving around material or immaterial inducements/attachments to gain support; pyramidal networks based on kinship, patronage, vote-buying, coercion; and involving transactional voting behavior. Clientelism, he says, can be extremely divisive, as seen in the Philippines and Thailand, as transactional politics polarizes both the political players (as those outside the ruling circle are punished) and the public (since the normal emphasis of politics on compromise is deliberately ignored).
In contrast to this “politics of the normal,” Thompson proposes that what clashed in the campaign were reformism, represented by Aquino and Teodoro, and populism, represented by Estrada and Villar. These two approaches served to cleave, or split, the electorate along natural lines. These lines lead to lasting political divisions. These cleavages, in turn, can be polarizing, too: most particularly when along class or ethnic lines, the stuff of which civil wars and revolutions are made. But they can also lead to stability as clear divisions can end up clearly resolved, with the winning side (a social movement or a winning party) deriving a mandate society as a whole respects and adapts to. He points to Europe and North America, Brazil and Chile, and India and Indonesia as examples.
Reformism, according to him, is a “bourgeois” political narrative, has a media-based campaign strategy, is not based on clientelist political networks, and relies on voter appeals on messages like “Vote for me because I am good” or “I will not steal”: essentially a promise to govern in the national, not personal interest. Thompson points out this had broad appeal across classes, but is particularly attractive to the clergy, urban reform activists and the middle class and globalized business.
In the Philippine context, it originated with Rizal and the ilustrados; was continued by “Great Dissenters” such as Juan Sumulong (Aquino’s maternal great-grandfather), Claro M. Recto and Jovito Salonga; and involves the dynamics of questioning the ruling party, as exemplified by Ramon Magsaysay, Cory Aquino and the anti-Marcos movement, and the Defensor-Santiago and Roco campaigns from 1992-2004. Institutionally, it’s represented by technocrats and their approach to governance. Reformism also has a tradition of personal sacrifice, as represented by Rizal or Benigno S. Aquino Jr.
The problem of course is when the “outs” become “ins”: once in power, clientelism can become corrosively attractive: that is, unless “Developmental Reformism” can be upheld, which then has the potential for a “long-lasting cleavage,” focusing on the trinity of combating corruption, development-oriented economic policies and improving economic efficiency.
Populism, on the other hand, rather than being inclusive, adopts an anti-elitist political narrative. Even when its proponents themselves come from the elite, they tend to be outsiders who emphasize popular sovereignty, and who use media-based appeals in contrast to a clientelist political network, relying on appeals through messages like “I am like you,” and “I will help you.”
In the Philippine context this is a more recent line, going back to Rogelio de la Rosa’s Senate election and 1961 (aborted) presidential bid; to Imelda Marcos’ “star power,” prestige projects and welfare programs; and exemplified by Estrada’s “long” populist decade from his senatorial election in 1987 to winning the presidency in 1998 and his proving, in 2010, a constituency numbering a quarter of the entire electorate. Estrada himself and Thaksin in Thailand demonstrated the limitations of populism, too.
But unlike Thailand, somehow in the Philippines, after the shocks of Edsa Dos and Tres, society seems to have pulled back from the brink. Thompson attributes this to the ability of Philippine elites to engage in introspection and Arroyo’s antagonizing the upper and middle classes that had initially supported her. Elections in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010 focused public energies on dividing on the question of the administration, offering competing points of view for endorsement or rejection by the electorate.
The great dividing line, then, is efficiency versus equality, where reformists and their focus on developmental efficiency must contend with the populist demand for economic redistribution to the poor: and where over-emphasis on development, which increases inequality, must be balanced with an over-emphasis on equality-eroding efficiency. The need to balance both is the message of the 2010 elections: both have proven dedicated constituencies, with a shared commitment to resolving differences within the electoral framework and no longer by means of insurrections.
Thompson calls the 2010 polls the “most widely accepted election result since 1965,” in terms of the presidency. It could, he says, be the basis for long-term political stability, and signal an end to “military or people power coups,” and an era of accommodation by a small elite with the poor majority. (To be concluded)
Yesterday, I interviewed Marites Vitug on Newsbreak’s story on the President’s midnight appointments, and Nepo Malauan on the prospects of the House approving the bicameral conference committee report on the reconciled version of the Freedom of Information Act.
You can listen to both here:
Both stories are related, particularly in the context of other reports, mainly on AM radio, that PAGCOR (whose chief was extended in office by the Presdident recently) has barred the use of camera phones within its premises and that its shredders have been working overtime for some days now. There’s also scuttlebutt that the President spends part of her official day in the premises of the Presidential Management Staff busily signing stacks of antedated appointments.
On June 1, Nepo Malauan (see his Primer on the Freedom of Information Act) pointed out the House was showing signs of scuttling the Freedom of Information Act: when the bicameral conference committee report was first due to be reported out in plenary, the House leadership had the microphones on the floor switched off to prevent the Speaker’s side-stepping the matter from being questioned. You can listen to Malaluan’s account here:
On the day the House had its last chance to tackle the matter, Malauan (see June 4 episode of my radio show above) said some factors combined to suggest the leadership would fail to approve the bicam report. First, there was the little stunt involving the switching off of microphones. Then, there was that mysterious text message urging congressmen not to show up at the House to prevent a quorum. Third, there was a verified memorandum from the Secretary-General of the House urging committee staff to pack the galleries in anticipation of a mobilization by supporters of the FOI. And finally, there was the publication of the House agenda placing the FOI at the bottom of its order of business, instead of first in line as befits a priority measure. As it turned out, the grim expectations of the supporters of the FOI were fulfilled when the session was gaveled to a close when the quorum was questioned.
Malaluan also suggested that the House leadership had second thoughts because of the Law of Unintended Consequences (automation might be another example of this), where a seemingly harmless but fashionable legislative proposal ended up scuttled because its implications started to sink in.
So it’s scorched-earth complexed with sandbagging.
The Long View
The Philippines is OK
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:32:00 06/03/2010
On May 28 in Berlin, Germany, Siegfried Herzog, Mark R. Thompson and I came together under the auspices of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation to participate in a roundtable on the recently concluded elections. Herzog is the project director for the Philippines of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, a German foundation for liberal politics which has as its Philippine partner, the Liberal Party. Thompson is a professor of political science at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg and a visiting scholar at the University of California-Berkeley who has written extensively on Philippine politics.
Herzog had given another presentation to his foundation colleagues the day before, arguing that the 2010 elections featured two “Black Swan Events,” which were so surprising as to have been impossible to predict. The first was the impact of Cory Aquino’s death; the second was the campaign of Jejomar Binay and how he overtook frontrunners Loren Legarda and Mar Roxas.
Herzog’s identifying these two as “Black Swan Events” was particularly interesting because of the context in which he situated them. The outpouring of public grief also became a gigantic public demonstration because Aquino’s death was accompanied by the public scandal caused by the President’s dinner at Le Cirque. The drawn-out, highly Catholic “good death” of Aquino crystallized the contrast between the two lady presidents, one who had stubbornly continued protesting Ms Arroyo’s methods even as she was already fatally ill, while Ms Arroyo for her part showed how divorced she was from public opinion by uncorking the champagne at the precise moment the country was plunged into mourning.
On the other hand, Herzog believed that the Binay campaign was so unprecedented as to have been beyond the powers of prediction. (I was reminded of Galeazzo Ciano’s famous remark that victory has a hundred fathers while defeat is an orphan. In true Black Swan fashion, credit has been taken for the Binay campaign but only after the fact: it was, at the very least, a real nail-biter all the way down to election day itself.) On the whole, Herzog believed that the supporters of Benigno Aquino III and Joseph Estrada remained loyal to their tandems, and that what clinched matters was the mass defection of Legarda supporters to Binay instead of the poaching of Roxas supporters who remained firm in their commitment.
For the purposes of the roundtable, Herzog focused on the mixed legacy of the Arroyo administration. The Edsa Revolution in 1986, he argued, had deep repercussions in Asia, including China, and the success or failure of our democratic project since then continues to have repercussions in Asean, where until recently the democracy and human rights impetus came from three countries: the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. As for China, Herzog said it has no real interest in having successful democracies at its front door, so to speak.
The Philippine record vis-à-vis Asean and China has been downright reckless under the Arroyo administration. The country has been an unreliable ally, has thrown caution to the winds in cozying up to China, undermined the Asean position on the South China Sea, and treated otherwise friendly countries like Germany with fundamental discourtesy, whether in terms of investments (Fraport) or diplomatic relations (the humiliating replacement of Ambassador Delia Albert).
Whether the Philippines as a functioning democracy would flourish or backslide to authoritarianism depends on how the Arroyo government’s weakening of the institutional fabric would play out. Herzog identified three broad areas in which the democratic fabric was being torn: persistently toying with emergency powers; patterns of fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections; and the Mindanao peace process ending up “instrumentalized for tactical purposes,” such as using it as a means to accomplish one of the administration’s long-standing (but frustrated) efforts, which was to change the Constitution.
These three areas were pursued along three broad lines: creating political crises in order to remain relevant; treating all criticism as “political noise”; and using the presumption of legality as a defense. These were, in turn, resisted along three broad fronts: by Senate investigations; by the Supreme Court stopping Charter change, efforts to wield extraordinary emergency powers, and putting a stop to human rights abuses, though increasingly less effective over time; and by society as a whole, and government institutions, quietly moving to ensure elections would successfully take place in May whether or not the administration liked it or not.
The result, he said, is that the Philippines is OK. The backsliding has been stopped. The public itself enthusiastically followed the presidential campaign and trooped to the polls. Institutions generally strived to make the system work, enabling a transition to take place along constitutional lines and with widespread public satisfaction that the polls rendered a verdict on who should govern. The three crises—of legitimacy, dating to 2001-2004; of credibility, dating to the time the President broke her promise not to run, and her calling “Garci”; and of morality, demonstrated by the abduction of Jonas Burgos, the presidential favor bestowed on Jovito Palparan, and the Maguindanao massacre—have been resolved by repudiating Ms Arroyo.
Instead, we can look forward to six years of stability under a government that enjoys legitimacy; there is the opportunity for corruption at the top to give way to improvements; and it seems slow but sure changes in the composition of society, ranging from a more urbanized population, market pressures, the proven determination of society to stay democratic, may lead to a more balanced society.
Since May 19, I’ve been hosting an online current affairs show on Radyo Inquirer called “Quezon’s Avenue.” It’s a dry run for Radyo Inquirer as it prepares begin broadcasting in the AM band in July.
The show’s Monday to Friday, 9-10 AM. You can catch it live on Radyo Inquirer on Inquirer.net, with replays at 2 PM. The recorded show is also available on OurMedia.
May 19 episode:
1. Random Manual Audit issue, interview with Amb. Henrietta de Villa, chairwoman of PPCRV.
2. Cabinet appointments speculation;
3. Congressional Canvassing Issues.
May 20 episode:
1. Events in Thailand, interview with former Rep. Neric Acosta (married to a Thai);
2. “Koala Bear” Expose and House investigation into electoral fraud;
3. “Corona of Thorns” Inquirer editorial on Chief Justice issue.
May 21 episode:
1. Rep. Teodoro L. Locsin Jr. on his House committee’s investigation into electoral fraud;
2. Joel Rocamora on the proclamation battle in Congress;
3. 2010 Budget rider removing executive control on pork barrel releases.
May 24 episode:
1. Congressional canvassing issues, interview with Mon Casiple.
2. Preliminary recognition of Aquino by foreign governments;
3. Unsolicited advice from Palace officials.
May 25 episode: 1. Congressional canvassing rules, interviews with Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Rep. Roilo Golez.
2. Appeals for House to pass Freedom of Information Act.
3. Inquirer editorial on the Maguindanao Massacre six months later. May 31 episode:
1. Reappointment of Ephaim Genuino to PAGCOR (interview with Mon Casiple);
2. party-list math;
3. Should Aquino live in Malacanan?
June 1 episode:
1. Disqualification case vs. Mikey Arroyo and other party-list matters (interview with Atty. Romulo Macalintal);
2. interview with Nepo Malaluan on Speaker Nograles and Freedom of Information Act delays.
June 2 episode:
1. Interview with Jun Lozada on GMA being let off the hook by Ombudsman;
2. interview with Karina Constantino David on cabinet appointments.
