It's a relative matter

here is much to thank our forebears for: the Christian family values they instilled in our race that have made the Filipino family an institution with sacred values like family cohesiveness, respect for elders and shared responsibility. Born of personal experience, I’d like to share these insights as a Filipina.

The framers of the 1987 Constitution were very angry, very mad at the appointment of the Marcos and Romualdez family members to government positions, making them too powerful. Therein may lie the historical roots of Section 13, Article VII.

There are several reasons that may explain its rationale in preventing nepotism in our 1987 Constitution. The hiring of a spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity involves issues such as conflict of interest, misuse of office, preferential treatment, and patronage. It also involves issues of public trust by making government look like a family business run not for the nation but for the families in power. Yet these issues are commonly presumed, rather than based on fact.

Appointing relatives to public offices on the basis of relationship alone is wrong, but I think it is equally wrong to prohibit appointments on the mere basis of relationship. If it is unethical to benefit from public office by virtue of blood ties, it’s equally unethical to deprive someone of benefits on mere basis of relationship and blood ties.

Misuse of public office and corruption is what the Constitution hopes to prevent by the constitutional prohibition on appointing relatives. Yet, as our experience tells us, such prohibition does not provide any guarantee. More importantly, it tends to curtail the political rights of certain groups of individuals, even relatives, the unwitting casualty of election’s into the presidency.

There is no problem in prohibiting relatives from occupying public office if such people are unqualified or unfit for the job. The problem arises when prohibition is given as a constant, disregarding an individual’s qualification.

Look to the past… look at the present. The country’s experience tells us that appointing non-relatives does not prevent corruption from happening. Corruption, in fact, exists even if relatives don’t hold any official position in government. Appointing relatives in government post does not necessarily lead to corruption. Every clan or family shares an interest — that of protecting their name and public image.

Prohibition is not the answer to corruption. Transparency is. Secret and illegal deals can be done between or among friends, political allies, party mates, fraternity mates, schoolmates or just any other forms of relations, not necessarily just blood relatives… as our past experiences have demonstrated.

Nepotism then enters the discussion. It has a negative meaning in political literature. Nepotism is defined as the practice of making employment decisions on the basis of relationships. Worse if it’s favoring relatives because of the relationship rather than their ability and merit, competence and fitness.

In Filipino political life, nepotism is tolerated; it is not regarded as unethical or illegal. Nepotism and its more formal offspring, political dynasties, have provided some principles of politics. Mayors are succeeded by wives, wives by children, then back to the father-mayor. The cycle repeats itself “biologically.” Some may deem it wrong to quench the urge to protect one’s genes, make siblings survive and achieve power. I know it can encourage them to serve better and protect their names and lineage.

Nepotism and political dynasties are far from confined to the Philippines. Take a look at Pakistan, India and Indonesia. It is also a common practice in America and Europe. In 2002, for instance, Senator Frank Murkowski was elected governor of Alaska and promptly named his daughter Lisa to take over his seat in the US Senate, saying he wanted the person who succeeded him to share his vision and values for the future of the state. Others are House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, daughter of the former mayor of Baltimore; North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole, wife of former Senator Bob Dole, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, son of George Romney, former governor of Michigan, and New Hampshire Senator John E. Sununu, son of former Governor John H. Sununu.

While biology may provide an explanation for this, the tendency of man to promote the interests of his clan and sociology provide an even more convincing explanation.

Appointing someone close to a position of authority should not surprise anyone. Remember how John Kennedy appointed his brother Bobby to a position of trust (Attorney General)? The cliché “Blood is thicker than water” points to the fact that trust between relatives by blood is stronger than the trust that exists in other forms of relationship, even between husband and wife. The appointing authority is expected to appoint someone that he can trust, a relative or a friend, and that is the reason why relatives are the first group of possible sources of appointees — in politics of the corporate world.

Logically speaking, a relative who is appointed to a government post is expected to do well because poor performance could lead to public criticism and tarnish not just his reputation but the reputation of the whole clan. In the same way that a businessman will not appoint his son as chief executive officer or president of his company if the son lacks the competence to run his business.

Andres Bonifacio founded a revolutionary organization called the Katipunan on July 7, 1892. And among his founders and members were either brothers, uncles, cousins, or friends. The first president of the Katipunan was Deodato Arellano, brother-in-law of Marcelo H. del Pilar. Bonifacio took hold of the presidency and appointed his two brothers Cireaco and Procopio as recruiters.

During Aguinaldo’s time, most of his staff and generals were either his brother, cousins-in-laws and friends. Crispulo Aguinaldo was a general who died fighting at the bridge of Binakayan, Cavite. His cousin Baldomero Aguinaldo was the Secretary of War. Colonel Pedro Aguinaldo, his cousin, was assigned to collect tributes to be brought to Aguinaldo’s headquarters in Cavite.

There is a positive value to appointing relatives to regular government posts. It opens appointees to public scrutiny because it gives them the legal personality whose actions and decisions become legitimate and subject to public political discourse and scrutiny.

Again, appointing somebody to public office on the basis of relationship alone is wrong. It is wrong for the president to appoint to public office a member of his political party, his school mate, or his brod in the fraternity, if the person being appointed lacks the necessary qualifications, even if the appointee is not related to the president by consanguinity or affinity.

Appointing members of a political party also involves issues of conflict of interest, misuse of office, preferential treatment, and patronage. But there is no prohibition to such an appointment.

Isn’t it so that it’s often the case in government that when a Cabinet member, not related to the president, gets involved in corruption scandals, he is conveniently just replaced and the president treats the irregularity as his appointee’s irregularity? The president can simply disown wrongdoings together with the Cabinet secretary who committed it. It is certainly different when irregularity is committed by a relative of the president.

Iwrite this article not to justify nepotism or dynasticism. I agree that it is wrong to grant government positions on the basis of relationship alone, qualifications are most essential. The point I am raising is the flaw in the legal prohibition.

As sociology indicates — every human being has the natural tendency to do either good or bad like everyone else related by blood or consanguinity or friend or foe. The constitutional prohibition is deterministic as it presumes that relatives of the President, once appointed in office, can and will only do bad things. How about those who are not related with less to risk?

Again, in my opinion, when the relative of a powerful figure ascends to power seemingly without appropriate qualifications, that is unacceptable.

What the framers wanted was to prevent wrongdoings but what it prevented was the appointments of relatives that did not result in the prevention of corruption. The wrong medicine was applied to an illness! Be that as it may, I am proud I am a kamag-anak. I am proud I have the qualifications, three masters degrees and two Ph.D.s.

Under the Philippine Constitution, an appointment by the president requires confirmation by Congress through the Commission on Appointments. Thus, if relatives should ever be appointed to a Cabinet post, the public has the opportunity to ascertain the merit and fitness of such appointees. Congress can and may say no to whoever the president wants to appoint after the appointee’s qualification is ascertained.