The Philippine Party System|1

The Philippine Party System

Political Science 14
 The Philippine Party System|2

INTRODUCTION
A political party according to Andrew Heywood is “a group of people
organized to gain formal representation or win government power; a party usually
displays some measure of ideological cohesion.” It was nineteenth century when the
emergence of parties viewed in the context of aggregation of interests into a coherent
and united party organization. A political party is a voluntary organization of
citizens having similar political ideas and principles, whose chief objective is to run
the government.
It is written in the Philippines’ 1987 constitution, Article IX-C, Section 6
allowing political parties to exist. It states “a free and open party system shall be
allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the provisions
of this Article.”
Parties are important because they serve as mediating bodies between the
government and the public.
 The Philippine Party System|3

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

According to Andrew Heywood, they serve the following functions,
(1) Representation, to respond to and articulate the views of both members
and voters.
(2) Elite formation and recruitment, to mold the political elite tasked to
govern the body politic. Political parties function as agents of elite recruitment. They
serve major building blocks for preparing, choosing and recruiting candidates to run
for public positions. A potential candidate therefore must first become a member of a
party, to seek office he must be well convincing to win party nomination.
(3) Goal formation, develop programs of government with popular support.
In the process of controlling the power of a state, political parties assume significant
role by formulating programs or government platforms with the goal of attracting
mass support to win elections. Political parties are not only as the bases of policy
direction but also they propose to initiate integrated sets of policy goals that extend
the citizen varied choices from the array of formulated plans of actions.
(4) Interest articulation and aggregation, it combine and harmonize different
demands and translate them into coherent policy formulation. Political parties acts
as agents of aggregation of interest groups from seemingly disinterested public.
They can realize a host of particular demands, concerns and need into “more
manageable packages of proposals”. Political parties then may serve as filters
between the state and society and do decide which demands are valid and most
pressing.
(5) Socialization and mobilization, from a national agenda and create a public
discourse to raise political awareness and build the necessary values and attitudes
that would constitute a larger political culture. The most important function of
political parties is to sway the electorate choice at their sides simply put getting large
number of people to vote in their favor. In campaigning for their representatives
parties are often engaged in stirring voter’s interest. In the absence of effective
campaign propaganda, at least debate and discussion, political parties would suffer
tremendously from lack of publicity, as many citizens would find no interest on
them, and on the election itself.
 The Philippine Party System|4

(6) Organization of government, political parties that gain the necessary votes
have the power to constitute the government elite and fill governmental post with
members from the party. Political parties facilitate linkage between the executive
and the legislature, sometimes to some extent, even the judiciary. In parliamentary
system, this is successfully demonstrated when a government is organized basically
by those majority or party in power which formed or comprised the executive
department. In the presidential system, the executive can wield very crucial and
influential power as existing party, being the leading political party, would have
greater propensity to realign or form a coalition government or party alliance with it.
These are the development of political parties:
(1) Elite (caucus) parties exist during the nineteenth century. These parties are
internally created inside the assembly to represent general concerns and
then to pursue efficient campaigns in bigger electorate. The elite groups
basically support them with small members limited only among their
ranks. Party funds are generated from personal donations. Examples of
early parties are, nineteenth century liberal parties, post communist
parties, the first American parties (Jeffersonians and Federalists), Chinese
Communist Party, the defunct Communist Party of Soviet Union and Nazi
Party of Germany. They are parties that originate in the legislature or
assembly rather than through the wider society.
(2) Mass Parties emerged later between1880-1960. They originate outside the
assembly and represent a social group in the legislature to advance their
aims and objectives. The working class socialist parties such as the United
Kingdom Labor Party, German Social and Democratic Party that
expanded the borders of European continent during the turn of the
twentieth century are some important examples of mass parties.
(3) Catchall parties, German analyst Otto Kirchheimer, coined the term
“catchall” to describe a new type of party, an emerging party cliques
among developing democracies. His model was the German Christian
Democratic Party, a party that sought to speak for all Germans:
businessmen, workers, farmers, Protestants, women, Catholics and so on.
 The Philippine Party System|5

The term catchall party now describes virtually all-ruling parties in

democratic lands; almost axiomatically, they’ve got to be catchall parties to
win. Catchall parties aim to govern rather than to simply represent the
members’ interest. These catchall parties would then appeal to wider
number of voters to control the government powers. They emphasize on
unity under strong leadership.
There are advantages on having a political parties including;
(1) They can organize political rallies, campaign literature and speakers
(2) They can help to mold public opinion which is essential in a democracy
(3) They can select men to run for public office
(4) They encourage collective responsibility in politics, so that in case of a bad
government the people will know whom to blame—the party in power
There are also disadvantages;
(1) In their desire to win elections, they may distort the truth and give biased
information, including black propaganda
(2) They may produce hostility and lack of unity among the people by their
rivalry
(3) They do not always choose the best men as their candidates, hence many
elected official prove incompetent and corrupt
(4) Responsible for evil political practices such as pakikisama (clannishness),
nepotism, bribery, graft, influence peddling and Turnocoastism (change of
party affiliation).
Every political party has its own “Party Platform”. This is a statement containing
the policies and promises of good government to attract the support of voters. For
example, it promises how the party will give the people of a clean and honest
government and a new era of peace and prosperity. It also contains a criticism of
policies of the other political parties.
There are different types of political parties including,
(1) One-Party System broadly means a party in dominance or a party is in
monopoly of power via the absence of other party. A domination of power
suggests a permanent power in control with no or very weak opposition.
 The Philippine Party System|6

When a party dictates the political power there seems to be no mechanism

through which it can be removed. Hence, it naturally developed an
“entrenched relationship with the state machinery”.
(2) The Dominant Party System refers to hold of power by one party which is
constantly in office controlling the governance or coalition with other party. A
single major party assumes prolonged period in power. Dominant parties are
regarded to be competitive in the sense that a number of parties compete for
power in popular and regular elections, but usually are elected and keep the
power of the government. The most dominant feature of a dominant party
according to Heywoods is the tendency for the political focus to shift from
competition between parties to factional conflict within the dominant party
itself.
(3) Two-Party System is characterized with the presence of two major parties,
alternating in power in the control of government. While the party is in power
the other acts as the opposition. Still, whatever of the two major parties is in
control of power, it is only temporary.
(4) Multi-Party System, representative democracy would be at its finest form
whenever there are competing parties for the control of power in a
government. Multiparty system cannotes varying choices and alternatives for
the electorate. Thus, they are becoming undisputable political norms in
democratic societies. A government in coalition characterizes multiparty
system. Coalition government are formal agreements between two or more
parties that involve a cross party distribution of mistrial portfolios. Multiparty
system may also be characterized as what Sartori termed as either moderate
pluralism or polarized pluralism. Moderate pluralism exists where ideological
differences between major parties are slight that is their platforms and
promises appeal to middle of the road voters. Polarized pluralism exists when
more number of parties with significant ideological differences separates
them. In some countries like the Philippines, the multiplicity of the parties
eventually resulted in the widening of gaps an opportunity to the people and
the government.
 The Philippine Party System|7

In summary, a party system is a network of relationship among varied political

actors and power machines in influencing the outcome of a political process and in
determining policy goals and objectives. In one party system a ruling party
dominates the function of the government and ultimately becomes the government
itself. Under two party system powers are up for grabs as two major parties content
the rein of power in the government. In dominant political system a single major
party under a strong totalitarian leadership worked all the way up to perpetuates
power for a long period of time. And in multiparty system, no party is too dominant
and consistent enough to assume governmental powers indefinitely thus bringing
about coalition government only to keep a considerable hold of power, at the very
least should the party in power lost in its bid to maintain or keep the political control
at its disposal.
Different countries have different ways in selecting their party candidate,
depending on the type of their party system. In most democratic societies, party
leaders are chosen on the basis of party hierarchy; in attended by “loyal, long time
members, often representing constituency organizations”. Indeed, most candidates
for public offices are drawn from the party ranks of their members. Three means of
choosing candidates exist outside of direct selection from the ranks by the
established party leadership. These are as follow:
(1) Some candidates are self-recruited. They enter the primary on their own
strength. They may be wealthy and influential persons, who hope to use
massive advertising to pull a lead or to compensate their lack of
organizational support or persons who voice points of view that bring them a
popular following but not party backing.
(2) Candidates may also be recruited by cooptation. A party may ask “big name”
who is not formally identified with it to run as its candidates. This usually
happens when the party has no strong candidate of its own and hopes to
capitalize on a popular new face.
(3) Candidates are persuaded to file for office as the agents of groups who hope
to win concessions from the established party hierarchy.
 The Philippine Party System|8

There seems no formal manner for financing political parties that are why they
are largely dependent in great part on party solicitation from rich, membership fees,
voluntary contributions and external support financing. In the Philippines, there is a
law that limits candidates’ expenses per voter during election but traditional
politicians would always have their ways to overspend.

Development of Philippine Party System

The first political party in the Philippines was the Liga Filipina, founded in
1892 by Jose Rizal. But Rizal was exiled to Dapitan because of the Liga, and some
members formed the Katipunan, which was a revolutionary society (not a political
party).
I. Party System during American Colonial Rule
One party system broadly means a party in dominance or a party is in
monopoly of power via the absence of other party. A domination of power suggests
a permanent power in control with no or very weak opposition. When a party
dictates the political power there seems to be no mechanism through which it can be
removed. This was the time when there was an initial dominance of the Federal
Party. The party advocated Philippine statehood within the United States. Later,
there was the rise and subsequent preponderance of the Nacionalista Party; the
existence of coalition of different groups advocating Philippine independence.
Philippine party politics, at that period, was characterized by clientelist
interactions between the Filipino politicians and their American colonial patrons.
Characteristic of most colonial regimes, the Americans implemented a system of
indirect administration utilizing dependable native clients. The measure of success
for an American colonial official was their ability to cultivate and manipulate
effective local clients in implementing American policies. Thus, electoral campaigns
were neither venues for the discussion of social issues nor mass appeals for voters,
but negotiations between national political personalities and the provincial
landowning elites (Grossholtz, 1964; Tancangco, 1988; Paredes, 1989).
There were two major parties – the Partido Nacionalista and the Partido Nacional
Progresista. The Nacionalista Party (NP) was formed on 12 March 1907 as a merger
 The Philippine Party System|9

of several nationalist movements and organizations pushing for Philippine

independence. The Progresista Party was formerly the Partido Federalista – the
country’s first political party organized in 1900 by a group of prominent, mostly
Manila-based ilustrados2 to push for the annexation to and statehood within the
United States (Liang, 1970; Tancangco, 1988; Lande, 1996). The Federalistas were the
original recipients of American colonial patronage who initially gravitated around
the clientelist ties between Governor General William Howard Taft and party
founder Commissioner T.H. Pardo de Tavera. However, this support shifted to the
younger, provincially based political leaders of the Nacionalistas – Sergio Osmeña
and Manuel Quezon – despite their nationalist posturing. Ironically, the Partido
Progresista would later merge with a nationalist party to form the Partido
Democrata in 1917 (Liang, 1970).
The first successful political parties started during our peaceful independence
campaign in the American Era. Thus was born the Nacionalista Party (NP), which
gave the nation many presidents, vice-presidents, congressmen and local officials
like Quezon, Osmena, Magsaysay, and Garcia.
II. Two-Party System during the Post War Period
A. What is a Two-Party System?

The two way party system is a political system where two major
parties dominate in almost all elections and as a result, most of the office are
held by members of either of the two parties. In this system that party that
hold the majority is called the majority party and the other one the minority
party.
i. Advantages

One of the advantages of a two-party system is that it leads to 1)

political stability. This stability, in turn, leads to 2) economic growth and
3) fewer unemployed citizens. Fewer hung governments are seen in a two-
party system as well. It is beneficial to the citizens in such a way that 4)
less confusion is to be had as legislation is cut and dry. It 5) encourages
governmental parties to work together and find a common ground to
 The Philippine Party System|10

solve issues and pass legislation.

ii. Disadvantages

The most obvious problem with this type of system is the failure to
look at any type of alternative views; 1) choices for policies are limited.
Another disadvantage is that 2) it limits potential for change. In a two-
party system, where there is great competition for moderate "swing"
voters, there is a reluctance to embrace new ideas until they have been
approved by a sufficient percentage of the public. 3) There is a need for
compromise. This is because there are times when two parties need to
share power. Lastly, 4) there is negative politics. This happens when a
party attacks another party through means like ads. With only two
candidates in a race, giving voters a reason not to vote for an opponent
automatically earns votes for the candidate doing the attacking.

B. The Post War Period:

1) The Roxas Administration (1946 – 1948)

When the Congress of the Philippines was convened in 1945, the

legislators elected in 1941 chose Manuel Roxas as Senate President. In
the Philippine national elections of 1946, Roxas ran for president as the
nominee of the liberal wing of the Nacionalista Party. He had the
staunch support of General MacArthur. His opponent was Sergio
Osmeña, who refused to campaign, saying that the Filipino people
knew his reputation. In the April 23, 1946 election, Roxas won 54
percent of the vote, and the Liberal Party won a majority in the
legislature. When the Philippines gained independence from the
United States on July 4, 1946, Roxas became the first president of the
new republic. He founded the Liberal Party in 1946 as a breakaway
group from the liberal wing of the Nacionalista Party.

The Roxas Administration was highly influenced by the Americans.

 The Philippine Party System|11

Although Roxas was successful in getting rehabilitation funds from the

United States after independence, he was forced to concede military
bases (23 of which were leased for 99 years), trade restrictions for the
Philippine citizens, and special privileges for U.S. property owners and
investors. His administration was marred by graft and corruption;
moreover, the abuses of the provincial military police contributed to
the rise of the left-wing Hukbalahap (Huk) movement in the
countryside. His heavy-handed attempts to crush the Huks led to
widespread peasant disaffection.

Roxas did not stay long in office because of a heart attack as he was
speaking at Clark Air Base on April 15, 1948. He was succeeded by his
vice president Elpidio Quirino.

2) Quirino Administration (1948 – 1953)

He assumed the mantle of leadership of the Liberal Party upon the

untimely demise of President Roxas. In 1949, he ran as Presidential
candidate of the Liberal Party (Quirino wing) and won. In that election,
the three Presidential candidates were Quirino, Senate Pres. Jose
Avelino (LP-Avelino wing) and Jose P. Laurel, the Nacionalista
candidate. The Party was split into the Avelino and Quirino wings
shortly before the elections. President Quirino, an economist, instituted
liberal economic reforms. LP fell apart under his watch.

Quirino's administration faced a serious threat in the form of the

communist Hukbalahap movement. Though the Huks originally had
been an anti-Japanese guerrilla army in Luzon, communists steadily
gained control over the leadership, and when Quirino's negotiation
with Huk commander Luis Taruc broke down in 1948, Taruc openly
declared himself a Communist and called for the overthrow of the
government.

His six years as president were marked by notable postwar

reconstruction, general economic gains, and increased economic aid
 The Philippine Party System|12

from the United States. Basic social problems, however, particularly in

the rural areas, remained unsolved, and his administration was tainted
by widespread graft and corruption.

Although ill, Quirino ran for re-election in 1953, but he was

overwhelmingly defeated by Ramon Magsaysay.

3) Magsaysay Administration (1953 – 1957)

In the Election of 1953, Magsaysay was elected president over the

incumbent Elpidio Quirino, with the scarcely concealed help of
American officials and funds. He was the first Nacionalista Party
member to be president during the Post War Period. He was sworn
into office wearing the Barong Tagalog, a first by a Philippine
president.

As president, he was a close friend and supporter of the United

States and a vocal spokesman against communism during the Cold
War. He led the foundation of the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization also known as the Manila Pact of 1954, that aimed to
defeat communist-Marxist movements in South East Asia, South Asia
and the Southwestern Pacific. During his term, he made Malacañan
Palace literally a "house of the people", opening its gates to the public.

One example of his integrity followed a demonstration flight

aboard a new plane belonging to the Philippines Air Force (PAF).
President Magsaysay asked what the operating costs per hour were for
that type of aircraft, then wrote a personal check to the PAF, covering
the cost of his flight.

On March 16, 1957 Magsaysay left Manila for Cebu City where he
spoke at three educational institutions. That same night, at about 1
a.m., he boarded the presidential plane "Mt. Pinatubo", a C-47, heading
back to Manila. In the early morning hours of March 17, his plane was
reported missing. It was late in the afternoon that day that newspapers
 The Philippine Party System|13

reported that the airplane had crashed on Mt. Manunggal in Cebu and
that 25 of the 26 passengers and crew aboard were killed. Only
newspaperman Néstor Mata survived. Vice President Carlos P. García,
who was on an official visit to Australia at the time, assumed the
presidency to serve out the last eight months of Magsaysay's term.

4) Garcia Administration (1957 – 1961)

Garcia, another Nacionalista member, assumed the presidency after

Ramón Magsaysay died in a plane crash on March 17, 1957, and was
elected later the same year, in the Election 1957, to a full term.

During his administration, he acted on the Bohlen–Serrano

Agreement which shortened the lease of the US Bases from 99 years to
25 years and made it renewable after every five years.

He was well known when he exercised the Filipino First Policy

during his term in office. This policy heavily favored Filipino
businessmen over foreign investors. He was also responsible for
changes in retail trade which greatly affected the Chinese businessmen
in the country. He also made a program focused on thriftiness.

At the end of his second term, he ran for re–election in the Election
1961 in November 1961, but was defeated by Diosdado Macapagal,
who served as Vice-President under him, but belonged to the opposing
Liberal Party.

5) Macapagal Administration (1961 – 1965)

In the 1961 presidential election, Macapagal, a Liberal Party

member, ran against Garcia and won by a 55% to 45% margin. Seeking
to stimulate economic development, Macapagal took the advice of
supporters and allowed the Philippine peso to float on the free
currency exchange market. His reform efforts were blocked by
the Nacionalistas, who dominated the House of Representatives and
the Senate at that time. Nonetheless, and was able to achieve growth
 The Philippine Party System|14

and prosperity for the nation.

Among the most significant achievements of Macapagal as

president were the abolition of tenancy and accompanying land reform
program in the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963. He also
changed the date of celebration of Philippine independence from July 4
to June 12, the latter date having been the day when in 1898,Emilio
Aguinaldo declared independence from Spain).

Macapagal was defeated for re-election in 1965 by Senate

President Ferdinand Marcos, a former Liberal Party ally who defected
to the Nacionalista party to challenge the incumbent President.

III. Political Parties in the Pre-Martial Law Era

About Ferdinand Marcos:
He began his political career as a Liberal congressman. He was Senate
President when he assumed the leadership of the Party as part of a compromise with
President Macapagal. He gave way to President Macapagal in the 1961 Presidential
election and in return, he would be elected Party President and be the standard
bearer of the Party in the 1965 election. Upon sensing that President Macapagal
would run for re-election, he left the Liberal Party and joined the Nacionalistas. He
ran for President and won.
Marcos ran for two terms. During his first term as president, Marcos initiated
ambitious public works projects--roads, bridges, schools, health centers, irrigation
facilities, and urban beautification projects--that improved the quality of life and also
provided generous pork barrel benefits for his friends. Massive spending on public
works was, politically, a cost-free policy not only because the pork barrel won him
loyal allies but also because both local elites and ordinary people viewed a new civic
center or bridge as a benefit. By contrast, a land reform program--part of Marcos's
platform as it had been that of Macapagal and his predecessors--would alienate the
politically all-powerful landowner elite and thus was never forcefully implemented.
Marcos’ second term was far from that of his first term. Economic growth
slowed. Ordinary Filipinos, especially in urban areas, noted a deteriorating quality
 The Philippine Party System|15

of life reflected in spiraling crime rates and random violence. Communist

insurgency, particularly the activity of the Huks--had degenerated into gangsterism
during the late 1950s, but the Communist Party of the Philippines-Marxist Leninist,
usually referred to as the CPP, was "reestablished" in 1968 along Maoist lines in
Tarlac Province north of Manila, leaving only a small remnant of the orgiinal PKP.
The CPP's military arm, the New People's Army (NPA), soon spread from Tarlac to
other parts of the archipelago. On Mindanao and in the Sulu Archipelago, violence
between Muslims and Christians, the latter often recent government-sponsored
immigrants from the north, was on the rise. In 1969 the Moro National Liberation
Front (MNLF) was organized on Malaysian soil. The MNLF conducted an
insurrection supported by Malaysia and certain Islamic states in the Middle East,
including Libya.

Factors and Events Leading to Martial Law:

A. Scarce resources, intensive intra-elite electoral compettion, and a

growing peasant and urban lower-class electorate increased pressures
for costly social services. A high birth rate, outmigration from stagnant
rural areas, and industrial growth through a process of import
substitution that relied too heavily on capital-intensive technology all
expanded the pool of surplus labor, intesifying pressures on politicians
to employ clients in the bureaucracy. Rising election costs and a large
bureaucracy fueled a cyclical and chronic inflation, which led, when
economic growth slowed, to conflict among social groups. As
pressures for social services increased and the threat of mobilization by
counter-elites grew, urban businessmen, high-level administrators, and
technocrats found further justification for limiting political interference
in administration.

B. In a privilege speech before Senate, Benigno Aquino, Jr. warned

the public of the possible establishment of a “garrison state” by
President Ferdinand Marcos. President Marcos imposed martial law on
the nation from 1972 to 1981 to suppress increasing civil strife and the
 The Philippine Party System|16

threat of a communist takeover following a series of bombings in

Manila.

On 21 August 1971, while the opposition(Liberal Party) was

having their miting de avance in Plaza Miranda, two fragmentation
grenades exploded. It took 9 lives and left more than 100 people
seriously wounded. Some Liberal Party candidates were seriously
injured including Jovito Salonga, who nearly died and was visually
impaired. Suspicion of responsibility for the blast initially fell upon
Marcos, whom the Liberals blamed for the bombing; however, in later
years, prominent personalities associated with the event have laid the
blame on the Communist Party of the Philippines under Jose Maria
Sison. In his autobiography, Salonga states his belief that Sison and the
CPP were responsible.

A month of “terrorist bombing” of public facilities in Manila

and Quezon City culminated on 22 September with a
staged assassination attempt on Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile.
Claiming chaos and lawlessness was near, Marcos declared martial
law, thereby suspending the 1935 Constitution, dissolving Congress,
and assuming absolute power. Six hours after the Enrile assassination
attempt, Marcos responded with the imposition of martial law.
Proclamation No. 1081 which imposed martial law was dated 21
September 1972, but it was actually signed on 17 September. The
formal announcement of the proclamation was made only at seven-
thirty in the evening of 23 September, about twenty-two hours after he
had commanded his military collaborators to start arresting his
political opponents and close down all media and retail (fashion, food,
religious, sports) establishments.

The Proclamation read in part:

“ My countrymen, as of the twenty-first of this month, I signed Proclamation № 1081 ”

 The Philippine Party System|17

placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law...

— Ferdinand Marcos, September 21, 1972

IV. The Revival of the One-party System during the Martial Law Period
In the early years of the Martial Law, political parties became unheard of and
were no longer part of the Philippine politics for the very reason that Marcos’ regime
was not to be challenged and thus, no elections were to be called. It was only when
an election for the Interim Batasang Pambansa was held on April 7, 1978 that
political parties had the chance to resurface. This was also the first national election
under martial Law.
With the upcoming election, two parties emerged. One is the opposition’s Lakas
ng Bayan (LABAN) with their main candidate as the late Ninoy Aquino who was in
prison during this time. Marcos’ supporters also organized a political party which
was spearheaded by the then First Lady Imelda Marcos. The party was named
Kilusan Bagong Lipunan (KBL) in honor of Marcos’ New Society. KBL candidates
prevailed in the said election and almost all elections during the rule of Marcos.
On that note, it will be safe to say that the one party domination was actually
revived and inspired by Marcos, especially during the time of Martial Law. No other
parties could survive an election against KBL and this even made them stronger
aside from the fact that they are on the side of the government and Marcos is their
main man.
According to research, KBL was formed as an “umbrella coalition” of parties
supporting President Marcos for the Interim Batasang Pambansa and later on played
a crucial role as his political vehicle all throughout his rule. The coalition proved to
be a powerful party that in the extent of his regime, bureaucrats at all levels were
welladvised to join the coalition as it offereed unlimited patronage.
V. The Post Martial Law Competitive Multi-Party System
On the seventeenth day of January, 1981, Martial Law was lifted by the
President under Proclamation Number 2045. Martial Law lasted for 8 years, 3
months and 26 days. Marcos’ reason for lifting Martial Law was to show the Filipino
people and the world that the situation in the Philippines was already back to
 The Philippine Party System|18

normal and that the government had already been functioning smoothly under the
1973 Constitution.
As the economy of the country declines dramatically, rumors were circulating
that the president is planning a “snap election”. On November 1985, Marcos
announced that a snap election will be held. February 7, 1986 was the scheduled day
for the snap election as announced by the Batasang Pambansa.
The lifting of the Martial Law brought not only the sense of normallcy for the
people but politically, political parties saw this as an opportunity to lash on the
government without the fear of persecution. So began the reemergence of different
political parties that will compete in the snap election.
The kind of parties that emerged has something in common, and that is the
great loathing in the current government especially with the Marcos family. This was
evident in slogans like Corazon Aquino’s “Tama na, Sobra na, Palitan na!” campaign
slogan. Aside from LABAN, the other parties organized to challenge KBL were the
Minadanao Alliance, the Partido Demokratiko ng Pilipinas (PDP), Bicol Saro, Pusyon
Bisaya and Pinaghiusa in Cebu. Later on these small political parties united
themselves into one umbrella organization that came to be known as the United
Nationalist Democratic Organization (UNIDO) headed by Senator Salvador H.
Laurel.
There was also no denying that after Martial Law, parties emerged like
mushrooms everywhere and the competition for seats became a serious business.
The only problem is that it also brought confusion to voters come election time.
There is an increase in electoral vandalism with the individual candidates’ streamers
hanging everywhere. Lastly and maybe the most serious issue of this competitive
multy party system is that there also emerged political aspirants who disregard their
political platform for the sake of their own individual aspirations.
The Philippines, compared to other countries, has a multi-party system where
plurality in political participation is encouraged. The Constitution also provides for a
party-list system, which is defined in the Party-list Act as “a mechanism of
proportional representation in the election of representatives in the House of
Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
 The Philippine Party System|19

coalitions registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)”. Party-list

groups accredited by the COMELEC ideally represent the marginalized sectors of
our society.
The Omnibus Election Code serves as a guide for political parties. The
following are some of the guidelines followed by the COMELEC and by political
parties during the election period:
• Parties must be furnished with a copy of COMELEC directives and orders
pursuant to the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.
• Parties must be notified by the COMELEC on how they are to use
technological and electronic devices in campaigns. Parties must be provided with the
guidelines for campaign spending and must limit their spending to PhP 1.50 per
voter for each candidate.
• The COMELEC and all parties shall each have a representative in the Board
of Election Inspector in every precinct and in the Board of Canvassers.
• All parties can assign watchers to every polling place.
• Parties may hold party conventions or meetings to nominate their official
candidates 30 days before the campaign period; for the presidential and vice-
presidential candidates, it must be done 45 days prior to the campaign period.
• Parties should be notified by the COMELEC before the printing of
emergency ballots.
• The COMELEC and all parties may send representatives to verify the
content of ballot boxes and shall be given a copy of the statement of election results.
• Parties may raise a pre-proclamation controversy (i.e any question
pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers).
The role of political parties, especially in the Philippines, is central to the
growth of democracy. A good partnership between civil society and political parties
is an important prerequisite for this growth of democracy in the whole country and
even within political parties.
 The Philippine Party System|20

SPECIAL CASE: PARTY SWITCHING VS. PARTY ALLIANCE

Politicians are switching from one political party to another, forming new
alliances. Others would merge their parties to form a powerhouse coalition.
Every time the noise of election can be heard, people get conscious of those
“balimbings” that jump from one party to another. This is clearly showing us that
they do not go by a strong political party stand or platform. Good thing we still have
some senators who want to ascend from old politics by bringing in a new wave of
political commitment to the country as they push for the passage of Senate Bill 3214,
formally called The Political Party Development Act. This bill seeks to punish
political butterflies (turncoats) and at the same time establish a state subsidy fund for
accredited political parties.
But ‘presence’ on the public’s eyes is not enough. In order to secure one’s
victory, strong alliances and coalitions must be formed. If you have to turn down
your allies and seek for a more potentially strong, winning group, then so be it. In
the political parlance, this is called ‘butterfly politics’, and the politicians who do it
are called ’political butterflies’. The term came from the butterfly’s act of flying from
flower to flower, sipping nectar from each flower. These kinds of politicians are
compared to the butterfly, who sips nectar from one flower to another. If a butterfly
has had enough of nectar - or if a politician has no more interest on a particular
group - it will transfer to another flower with nectar - or to the party who will assure
his victory and secure his interest.
Philippine election history has shown countless politicians who switched
from one political party to another, months and even weeks before the elections.
And we have heard some of their excuse; the most popular was their belief of the
party’s principles and tenets. And no, they do not admit that that move was to
secure their victory on the upcoming elections.
History has shown us that during the time of President Ferdinand Marcos, a
presidential decree (on penalizing party switchers) was issued. The penalty of which
was prohibition from running in the next election. However, in an article written by
Julio Teehankee entitled Electoral Politics in the Philippines, he said that the revival
of electoral politics under Marcos authoritarian regime greatly restricted genuine
 The Philippine Party System|21

party competition. Marcos began to institutionalize one-party dominance with the

organization of the new society movement, the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) in
1978 (Tancangco, 1988). This resulted in various opposition groups establishing new
parties. But most of these are regional parties who fielded candidates for specific
regions and not for the national level. This indicated the consolidation of the
dictatorial regime and the splintering of opposition forces (Wurfel,1988). The KBL
continued to dominate the succeeding electoral exercises.
When we regained democracy in 1986, President Corazon Aquino convened a
constitutional commission to pen a new constitution for the Philippines. But this
constitution did not specify the placement of a two-party system. From then on, until
today, we see the birth of more political parties in the country.
And the latest addition to the roster of these butterflies is no other than
the Pambansong Kamao, world-class boxing champion-turned-Saranggani
Congressman, Emmanuel ‘Manny’ Pacquiao. He formally joined Vice President
Jejomar Binay’s Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) when he
took an oath to Senator Koko Pimentel at the Makati Shangri-La. Although Manny
was a member of the Nacionalista party with Sen. Manny Villar, he was an ally of
President Aquino and the ruling Liberal Party. But this was not the first time
Manny transferred into another political party. When he first ran for the House of
Representatives in 2007, he joined the Lito Atienza faction of the Liberal Party. In
2008, he joined the Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (Kampi) formed by former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. A year later, he formed his own political party
People’s Champ Movement after declaring he would run for the lone Congressional
district of Saranggani. Shortly before the 2010 presidential elections, Senator Manny
Villar tapped him to join the Nacionalista Party. Barely a week after the elections, he
was seen ‘flirting’ with the new Liberal Party under President Aquino. During 2013
elections, he ran unopposed under the opposition United Nationalist Alliance
(UNA) coalition.
United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) is a political multi-party electoral
alliance in the Philippines. It replaced the former United Opposition (UNO) coalition
for the 2013 midterm elections and the upcoming 2016 presidential elections.
 The Philippine Party System|22

The Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP), headed by former president Joseph Estrada,
and the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban), headed by Vice
President Jejomar Binay, signed a coalition agreement on April 4, 2012 for the 2013
elections, forming the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA). The two parties were
formerly partners in the United Opposition in the 2007 election, and Estrada and
Binay were running mates during the 2010 presidential election.
Clearly, we see that our current political parties have no backbone. Our
politicos seem to only think about their own survival in their cruel world, having no
political ideology whatsoever. And mind you, such behavior becomes a hindrance in
the development of this nation. This is why there is no progress in our country. The
different political colors coming in and out of the scene tend to change the political
structure all the time losing the continuity of programs already installed through
hard work and the taxpayer’s money.
 The Philippine Party System|23

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:
The political system of the Philippines occurs within an organized framework
of a presidential, representative, and democratic republic with the president as both
the head of state and the head of government within a pluriform multi-party
system. There are ample numbers of political parties in the political system of the
Philippines with varied ideologies. This multi-party system with numerous parties
in which no one party often has a chance of gaining power alone, work with each
other to form coalition of governments.
It was during American Colonial Rule when the Philippines started its party
system there was an initial dominance of federal party, and the party advocating
Philippine statehood within United States. This was also the time when the rise and
subsequent preponderance of the Nacionalista Party, the coalition of different
groups advocating Philippine independence.
Two-party system started during the post war period. There was a split of the
Liberal Party from the Nacionalista Party. It was encouraged by the Americans to
avoid single-party hegemony. Overtime, the distinction between the two became
blurred. And there was a growing importance of personalities.
Political parties in the pre-martial law period, the existence of
Communist Party of the Philippines-Marxist Leninist, usually referred to as the CPP,
was "reestablished" in 1968 along Maoist lines in Tarlac Province north of Manila,
leaving only a small remnant of the orgiinal PKP. The CPP's military arm, the New
People's Army (NPA), soon spread from Tarlac to other parts of the archipelago. On
Mindanao and in the Sulu Archipelago, violence between Muslims and Christians,
the latter often recent government-sponsored immigrants from the north, was on the
rise. In 1969 the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) was organized on
Malaysian soil. The MNLF conducted an insurrection supported by Malaysia and
certain Islamic states in the Middle East, including Libya. It was the time when party
destroys another party.
The Revival of the One-Party System during the Martial Law period was a
clampdown of institutions. It was the rise of Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) as the
dominant party and the eventual emergence of regional political parties.
 The Philippine Party System|24

The Post Martial Law Competitive Multi-Party System, Post-EDSA last 1986,
it was the beginning of the development of a multi-party system.
The existence of party switching and party alliance is a trend in the
Philippines during elections. It may be the politicians’ cruel interests or conflicts on
political ideologies that made them switch or alliance. But at the end of the day, this
country needs effective and efficient and truthful political parties that would make
progress and development.
There are ample numbers of political parties in the political system of the
Philippines with varied ideologies. This multi-party system with numerous parties
in which no one party often has a chance of gaining power alone, work with each
other to form coalition of governments
 The Philippine Party System|25

REFERENCES
Books:
Zaide, Gregorio F. and Zaide, Sonia M. “Philippine History and Government”. All-
Nations Publishing Co., Inc. Quezon City. 2013.
Lazo, Ricardo S. “Introduction to Political Science”. Rex Book Store, Inc. Quezon
City. 2009.

Internet Websites:
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/01361006.pdf, retrieved last January 12, 2014
http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2012-06-18/818137/political-butterflies,
retrieved last January 12, 2014
http://juanrepublic.tumblr.com/post/21263066861/butterfly-carnival, retrieved last
January 15, 2014
http://idojojo.blogspot.com/2012/05/political-butterflies.html, retrieved last
January 12, 2014
http://www.123independenceday.com/philippines/political-system.html,
retrieved last January 17, 2014
http://countrystudies.us/philippines/27.htm, retrieved last January 17, 2014
http://www.liberalparty.org.ph/about-lp/presidents-of-the-liberal-party/,
retrieved last January 17, 2014
The Philippines before Martial Law: A Study in Politics and Administration
Thomas C. Nowak
The American Political Science Review
Vol. 71, No. 2 (Jun., 1977), pp. 522-539
Published by: American Political Science Association