(MindaNews / 16 December) – A couple of months ago, I had the privilege to spend a week in Japan to do a series of seminar lectures in the Graduate School of Law and the Law School of Hitotsubashi University. I also gave a talk in a brown bag forum organized by the university’s Institute for Global Governance Research where I discussed the dangers of hyper-presidentialism in the Philippines and its national security implications.
I first encountered the term “hyper-presidentialism” in the seminal paper, Hyper-Presidentialism: Separation of Powers without Checks and Balances in Argentina and the Philippines (Rose-Ackerman, Desierto, and Volosin, 2011). Basically, hyper-presidentialism means an extremely powerful president by constitutional design. In such a context, “the government structure can become unbalanced so that legislatures and the judiciary take on secondary roles, undermining democratic legitimacy.”
The inherent peril in a hyper-presidential system is the predisposition of a popularly elected president to think like a monarch or an autocrat. A Chief Executive in such a scenario can convince himself that he has the authority to do anything he deems to be as “for the good of the people.” Which usually means policy decisions made on a whim or policy actions initiated without proper consultation.
During the Q&A segment of the brown bag session, one participant inquired why the Philippines chose a presidential system over a parliamentary system, given its innate conduciveness to produce tyrannical rulers. It is a decision that is deeply intertwined with our history of American colonization. Of course, the real mystery here is why we have resisted changing it given the horrible 20-year Marcos Sr. dictatorship.
The conventional thinking has always seen the presidential system as well-suited for an archipelagic nation like the Philippines. Moreover, it has been consistently argued that such a government structure is more aligned to decisive leadership and effective governance. However, such an argument also strongly relies on the separation of powers principle to prevent a collapse to autocracy. Without it, dictatorship is always a distinct possibility.
Pertinently, the world just witnessed the peril of hyper-presidentialism in South Korea. Just a few days ago its president, Yoon Suk Yeol, declared martial law out of the blue. It is utterly confounding that his own party, his cabinet (except the defense department), and even the United States were caught off guard by this move. This was a classic case of a president acting solely on his self-righteous belief and scorning the ramifications of his action.
This South Korean political crisis, however, has also shown that a fiercely independent legislature can be a potent foil to hyper-presidentialism. Lawmakers genuinely dedicated to the preservation of democratic rule can prevent the rise of a despot. Sadly, our own experience has demonstrated that a pliant Congress allows a President to dominate at will. We have recently heard lawmakers admit with regret how they merely watched in silence and fear as President Rodrigo Duterte enforced his brutal war on drugs.
Blind submissiveness to the person holding court in Malacañang likewise explains the lack of pushback to President Duterte’s policy of accommodation to Beijing. It is also the reason why every president is allowed to have billions in confidential funds and is given a free pass by Congress when it comes to the lack of transparency and accountability in its usage. Yet, these transgressions would already be sufficient grounds for impeachment.
Our President being the “sole repository of executive power” and the “guardian of the Philippine archipelago” certainly makes the duty of the legislature to check the Chief Executive and to maintain the balance of state powers even more challenging. But daunting as standing up to an imperial president may be, Congress acting as a mere rubberstamp of the administration is still unacceptable. The constant deference to Malacañang is not part of a lawmaker’s job description.
Critically, South Korea reminds us of our urgent need for lawmakers who can be relied upon to never allow one-man rule to happen ever again. The alarming truth is that our same cast of clowns are now an existential threat to our democracy and national security. With the midterm election just around the corner, the onus is now on voters to elect lawmakers who will zealously live up to their duty under the separation of powers principle. There should be no forgiveness for cowards and conspirators.
Easier said than done, of course. But if voters do not internalize the gravity of what is at stake here, then our country will always be at risk of spiraling back to autocracy. Indeed, for many of us, as well as for millions of South Koreans, the intergenerational devastation caused by dictatorship is still very real.
(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M is a law lecturer, policy analyst and constitutionalist.)
0 Comments