8/11/2019 Political Patronage Revisited-libre
1/2
1
Political patronage revisitedByRandy David|Philippine Daily
Inquirer
1:04 am | Thursday, August 14th, 2014
In a previous column, The Supreme Court as political reformer
(7/3/14), I noted that the recent rulings of the high
court striking down the Priority Development Assistance Fund and
the Disbursement Acceleration Program may give
the impression that the judicial branch has taken on the role of
political reformer. The PDAF and the DAP, as we
know, quickly emerged as the twin faces of patronage and
corruption, following the expos of Janet Lim Napoles
pork barrel scam.
But, even as we welcome the positive effects of these rulings on
our political life, we have to bear in mind that political
reform is not a function of the courts. The role of the judicial
system is to interpret the laws, and to determine what is
legal and what is illegal. It is not its business to say whether
a piece of legislation, a political practice, or a policy
measure is good or bad for the country.
This is the point that Chief Justice John Roberts of the US
Supreme Court puts across in the decision affirming the
constitutionality of the controversial Obama healthcare law:
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to
interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the
prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are
entrusted to our nations elected leaders, who can be thrown out
of office if the people disagree with them. It is not
our job to protect the people from the consequences of their
political choices.
This makes it easier for us to say that the Philippine Supreme
Court struck down the PDAF and the DAP not because
these were tools of political patronage but because, in its
view, these acts of the political branches of government
violated the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the
Constitution. The distinction may strike the nonlawyer
as superfluous. But, in fact, it is the inability to see the
difference that causes confusion.
Political patronage is a prominent feature of premodern
political systems. Even so, it is not a crime. As far as I
know,
we have no laws prohibiting politicians from extending personal
favors to their constituentslike recommending them
for appointment to government jobs, or to be the recipients of
state-sponsored educational grants, or as beneficiaries
of state-funded healthcare services. These practices are found
everywhere, particularly in hierarchical societies like
ours characterized by sharp disparities in wealth and power.
What the Supreme Courts decision on the PDAF explicitly struck
down was the practice of setting aside lump sums
in the national budget whose manner of use or purpose was to be
determined by individual lawmakers after the
budget had been enacted. The Court declared that lawmakers do
not have such powers under the Constitution.
Those functions properly belong to the executive branch.
It is naive to think that the Courts decision would effectively
put an end to political patronage. Indeed, our situation
proves that we may have the most progressive constitution and
laws in the world, and yet be saddled by an obsolete
political system. The dysfunctions of politics cannot be solved
by law; they can only be corrected by political means.
The political system itself continually evolves, sometimes
resisting, but, in the main, reflecting the basic contours of
itssocietal environment.
So, it should not at all come as a surprise that the pork barrel
funds in the 2014 national budget that were stranded
after the PDAF was pronounced unconstitutional would resurface
in another form while still bearing the mark of
patronage. The government had previously announced that these
funds would be reallocated to the relevant
government agencies in order to take care of the students and
patients who had been dependent on the PDAF for
financial assistance. It did not say exactly how these
scholarship and medical aid funds were to be administered.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/randy-davidhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/randy-davidhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/randy-davidhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/source/philippine-daily-inquirerhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/source/philippine-daily-inquirerhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/source/philippine-daily-inquirerhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/source/philippine-daily-inquirerhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/randy-david
8/11/2019 Political Patronage Revisited-libre
2/2
2
Presumably, the Commission on Higher Education and the
Department of Health would find ways of rationalizing the
disbursement of these funds.
Now, as a result of ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinios expos, we
have information that CHE d Chair Patricia
Licuanan and Health Undersecretary Janet Garin had made a
commitment to give priority access to these funds to
those individuals recommended by lawmakers. The party-list
representative cries that this arrangement violates the
Supreme Courts ruling on the PDAF, and wants President Aquino
impeached for this.
One may indeed read the statements made by the heads of these
two agencies in executive session as a
genuflection before the gods of patronage politics. But it is
difficult to see how they violate the separation of powers,
which was the Supreme Courts basis for striking down the PDAF.
Unlike the lump sums that were formally inserted
in the annual General Appropriations Act, there is nothing
official about prioritizing lawmakers recommen dations in
the disbursement of scholarship and health funds. I dont think
any court would find any reason to act unless a real
case turns up in which a qualified person is denied these
benefits because he/she does not have a legislators
endorsement. Or, unless a clearly unqualified individual can be
shown to be enjoying these privileges solely on the
strength of a lawmakers letter.
Quite obviously, neither will Representative Tinio get much
sympathy from his colleagues in the House, whose
careers have been built on the resources of patronage. The true
addressees of any program of political reform are
the voters, the ones who ultimately decide what kind of leaders
the nation needs. Alas, many of them cant see whats
wrong with patronage.
([email protected])
