Senator Miriam Defensor Santiagos speech at the Far Eastern University Central

Student Organization lecture series on 22 November 2012

Let me summarize the problem with Philippine elections: Of the 50 million voters
who will troop to the polls in May next year, the greater majority are not intelligent,
they are not educated for voting, and the candidates they choose are not educated
for serving. This problem is the result of the fact that our Constitution provides that
no literacy requirement shall be imposed on voters. Furthermore, although the
Constitution provides that a senator should be literate in that he should be able to
read and write, the same Constitution does not require any educational attainment
on the part of any candidate.
As I shall show a few minutes later, this is all very strange. Under the Police Act, no
person can be appointed a policeman, unless he has a college degree. But any
person can become president, vice-president, senator, or congressman of the
country even without a college degree!
The Concept of Representation
Most of what I have to say is based on the classic book, Modern Politics and
Government, by Ball and Peters, 7th edition, published in 2005.The Philippines is
called a representative democracy. But what does each candidate really represent?
Our political system observes two basic concepts of representation:That sovereignty
resides with the people and therefore the government is responsible to the people;
andThat the will of the majority is more important than that of a minority.In fact, our
Constitution provides as a basic principle that sovereignty resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from them. But who are the people?
They are some 50 million voters in our country who comply with the requirement
that they are at least 18 years old, and have resided in the Philippines for at least
one year. But I believe emphatically that the criteria of age and residence are no
longer enough in the 21st century.Our Constitution provides for a system for free
public education up to high school level. Thus, at the outset there is no reason why
the criteria for suffrage should not include at least a high school education. If a
person is a borderline moron, why should his vote equal the vote of a college
graduate?The Constitution further provides for a system of scholarship grants,
student loan programs, subsidies and other incentives. If this is the case, then a
truly intelligent and hardworking person will be able to find a way to finish college.
But again, as I noted earlier, the Constitution does not require candidates for public
office to possess any educational attainment. If a policeman needs to have a
college degree, why shouldnt we impose the same requirement on senators and
congressmen?
The Liberal Democratic Theory of Representation
The essential principles of a liberal democratic theory of representation which the
Philippines claims to observe, are the following:First Principle: The importance of

the individuals rights, specially his property, and the necessity of limiting the
powers of government to protect those rights.Second Principle: The principle of
rationalism, under which it is argued that humans are creatures of reason. It is
argued that humans are able to identify their own interests and their own opinions,
and are aware of the wider claims of the community. Therefore, according to this
argument, the individual will use his vote in an intelligent fashion, and is
consequently entitled to share in the selection of representatives.
Really? This argument would be correct, if the voter and the voted are educated.
But in our country, the masses tend to vote for the people whom they most often
see either in movies or on TV. They apply only a visual test to candidates. If the
candidate often plays the role of champion of the poor, then the uneducated poor
will vote him to office for this reason only. Thus, they are voting for actors.
Accordingly, when some of these TV and film personalities win in the elections, they
continue their acting in the legislature.Some of them are acting as senators or
congressmen, merely relying on their legislative staff to feed them with the proper
things to say during the sessions of Congress. In effect therefore, they are little
better than talking dummies. And in addition, I worry that they might be more
susceptible to the pressures exerted by lobby groups and other interest groups
funded by the rich.I agree with Thomas Jefferson that there should be a clear
emphasis on the importance of an educated majority, as a prerequisite for
Philippine representative government.Third Principle: Sovereignty of the people,
which is expressed through universal suffrage. The implicit goal of our electoral
system is: One person, one vote, one value. Again, I emphasize that this principle
is observed in an educated society. But if, as in the case of our country, the
majority of the voters are not educated, then there is no reason why one vote
should be equal to another vote. Not all votes are equal.As a politician for the past
15 years, I have grown increasingly anxious about what I perceive to be mob
democracy. I support the suggestion of the great writer John Stuart Mill that we
should limit the vote to the literate; and that we should increase the vote of the
people with certain superior qualities. I am very anxious about the uneducated
majority in the Philippines.

The Function of Elections

All over the world, elections are a means of choosing representatives. In the 1980s
and the 1990s, there was a general increase in electoral choice. But while elections
allow voter participation, this participation is distorted by lack of education among
the voter and the voted. Elections are also distorted because under our system, the
successful candidate might be the choice of only a minority. This was what
happened when the people and I were robbed of the presidency in 1992. The

person who claimed that he won the presidential election was admittedly only a
plurality president.
Another distortion is the control of political parties over the procedure by which
candidates should be officially presented to the electorate. As you know, I
challenged this system by running under my own independent Peoples Reform
Party in 1992, and I succeeded.The most notorious distortion of the peoples choice
is electoral corruption. There are still scientific doubts on the accuracy of the voting
machines that we started to use in the last elections. But the most important
problem is vote-buying. Rich candidates buy, and the uneducated masses are
willing to sell, their votes. Rich candidates can afford to start campaigning earlier
than poor candidates, particularly through the medium of television, where one
thirty-second spot alone can cost over P300,000.If you really think about it, election
is an opportunity for TV companies to make money at the expense of our
democracy. For, our Constitution provides as a state policy that: The State shall
guarantee equal access to opportunity for public service. Is there equal access to
public service for the rich and the poor? Dont make me laugh.
To be able to institutionalize an open democratic system, the Philippines needs to
establish norms of fairness and equal access in elections. Hence, the present
problem of electoral corruption is crucial to our democracy.
What Does a Voter Vote For?
In countries with an educated majority, normally a two-party system will develop.
One party, called the left, advocates that government should be very active by
interfering in almost every aspect of society, including the regulation of the private
sector. The other party, called the right, advocates that as much as possible,
government should merely provide social services, but should not interfere with the
private sector. In our country, there is no ideological distinction between parties. In
our country, political parties are merely groups of self-interested individuals pooling
their resources so that they can attract political contributors and thus win in the
elections. They are not committed to any particular national policy.As part of the
educated community, you should be aware of the theory of rational choice, which
was first developed in the extremely influential 1957 book, An Economic Theory of
Democracy, by Anthony Downs. He said that in the political marketplace, a voter
will cast his or her vote for the party that is most likely given the information
available to serve the ends of the voter. Social position or party loyalty are less
important factors than the rational search for the party or candidate that will serve
the individual interest often defined in economic terms of each voter.
I agree with rational choice theory. In the Philippines, the voter chooses the
candidate who will serve the voters ends. But, unfortunately, the ends sought by
the uneducated voter are usually: money in exchange for his vote; and an
appointment in the civil service, so that he can have a job. The uneducated

majority are merely seeking their selfish individual interest, particularly in economic
terms.
Role of Mass Media
In our democracy, the principal source of political information is the mass media,
specially TV. Newspapers used to be the chief source of political information, and
some newspaper columnists grew arrogant, abusive, and corrupt. But now with the
growth of TV and internet, the importance of newspapers has declined.Today, in
political advertising, TV takes the major share. This means that a candidate with
little money will most likely lose to a candidate with big political contributors that
will allow him to buy as many TV ads as possible. One bad effect of this
development is that TV provides less political information than newspapers.
According to Ball and Peters: TV emphasizes personalities and images to the
detriment of informed political analysis. Thus, on TV we see candidates singing,
dancing, and looking comical in their desperate attempt to appeal to the TV
audience. The voter who watches TV obtains no clue about the candidates
character and qualifications.TV has become preeminent in the dissemination of
public information. But it has also become more open to political interference on
the part of the government. What is the effect of the media on political attitude and
voting behavior? Ball and Peters give this answer: The media may reinforce preexisting opinion when they exist, but can shape opinion when there are not already
firmly held values.I now come to my favorite topic the internet. In Philippine
elections, consumption of political information from the internet is now increasing
rapidly. But the internet presents several problems to the political system, as
follows:
The internet represents narrowcasting rather than broadcasting. I refer to the
phenomenon that each political group accepts only information that supports its
own views.The information contained on the internet is unmediated and not
reviewed by professionals. Thus, it happens that internet sources lack objectivity or
accuracy.The problem with elections is that Filipino voters, if they are uneducated,
are often swayed by the personal appeal of a candidate. Public opinion is often
shaped by conscious efforts of political elites and the media. It is a myth that
Philippine voters make rational choices of candidates. Often, the uneducated voter
is merely expressing support for the system, or merely expressing emotional
attachments to certain symbols.For this reason, I invite the FEU Central Student
Organization to start a social media campaign to encourage smart voting among
the uneducated. You could call this campaign smart vote and give a score of Yes
or No to each candidate as political issues develop. You could insist that candidates
should have a record of academic and professional excellence, as well as a record of
moral positions on national policy issues. For example, you should campaign so
that voters will say Yes to candidates who favor the bills that I have filed, such as
the RH bill, sin tax bill, Magna Carta for internet freedom bill, and freedom of
information bill. Conversely, you should campaign so that voters will say No to epal

candidates, political dynasties, and premature campaigning.Unfortunately, there is

no scientific test for the most important criterion of all: honesty. What we really
need in a corrupt country are honest leaders with character borne out of higher
education will not steal the peoples money; will personally study national policy
issues; if necessary, refuse to compromise; and will remain stubbornly noble and
idealistic. In short, we need a person with the courage of his convictions. I am
depending on you to provide this kind of leadership in the future, characterized by
honesty, competence, and efficiency.
MANILA, Philippines - Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said only the taxpayers
should be allowed to participate in the elections to prevent patronage politics in the
country.
Santiago said those who don't pay taxes are among the poorest of the poor and are
vulnerable to receiving money from politicians, which she said is a form of
patronage politics."Change the Charter so that only taxpayers will be allowed to
vote. Kasi kung hindi siya nagbabayad ng tax, mahirap na mahirap siya. Maski sino
na lang, basta bigyan siya ng pera, kahit bigyan mo ng konti, that is patronage
politics," Santiago said."The taxpayers are being ruled by the choice of the
nontaxpayers," she added.The feisty senator made the suggestion as she returned
to the senate this week after being on extended sick leave for acute chronic
fatigue.But on Wednesday, she was able to preside over a hearing of the foreign
affairs
committee
of
the
Commission
on
Appointments.by
which our
form of government was patterned (seePacifico Agabin, Mestizo: TheStory of
the Philippine Legal System, 2011).The Philippine government is a democratic state
wherein the nation derives itsmandate from the populace, it is also republican by
which people elect their representatives and their leaders to operationalize the
democratic will. To limitrepresentation to any degree would be against the very
founding provision of thePhilippine government. It defeats the very essence of
democracy; it creates a group of Filipinos who has no voice in government, who are
disenfranchised as to be denied participation in nation-building. It overturns
a constitutionalist safeguard against thetyranny of the majority. The proposal, prima
facie, is anti-democratic (or undemocratic) and anti-republican. It marginalizes the
very people whom sovereigntyis vested and from whom government authority of all
forms are created.The proposal creates an anomaly wherein the present order of
Congress could not bevalidly and demonstratively convened: legislative districts
with poorer population andsubsequently greater proportions of tax-exempt
persons may be dissolved due tofailure to muster necessary votes; the very concept
of sectoral (marginalized sector)representation through the party-list system is
made nugatory since the persons theyrepresent could not be accounted as voters;
the system of initiative and referendum is defeated; the very mandate of the House
of Representatives is insulted (seeArt. V, 1& 5); public office as a public trust
(seeArt. XI) is no longer so public.
II.THE PROPOSAL IS VIOLATIVE OF VESTED RIGHTS

The right to suffrage could not be so easily denied without showing of

extraordinarycause or circumstances. The Constitution recognized this right as the
very crux of anation founded on democratic ideals, it protects this right in a clear
and unequivocalmanner. The first paragraph of Article V, 1 of the Constitution
provides that"Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not
otherwisedisqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who
shall have residedin the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein
they propose to votefor at least six months immediately preceding the election."
The list of qualificationsmerits no further inclusion.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
. More importantly, the inviolability of this right is even more emphasized when
readwith the succeeding statement: "No literacy, property, or other
substantiverequirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage." The proposal
creates a newsubstantial requirement imposed on the exercise of suffrage, it
alienates
a
Filipino because of a questionable legal distinction. When one person is legally taxexempt(because of, usually, indigence), he loses the right to vote. Not only is this
situationabsurd, it creates a class of people who are lesser in the eyes of the law,
violative of the equal protection clause. There is arguably no meritorious distinction
between a person paying tax due to legal obligation and a person paying no tax
due to lawfullyrecognized privilege.Article III, 1 states that "No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or propertywithout due process of law, nor shall any person
be denied the equal protection of thelaws." Even assuming for the sake of argument
that a person has not paid tax for illegal reasons, the denial of suffrage becomes
automatic
and
inherent
as
to
deny
due process.The effects of the proposal therefore are similar to a bill of attainder
(see22), refusing the right of suffrage or disqualifying a person thereof due to
non- payment
of tax without regard
to fair trial, the showing of evidence
to the contraryand the rule of law. Even the Commission on Elections, mandated
with plenarypowers over election is not endowed with the power to decide upon
the right to voteas expressed in Art. IX-C, 2(3).The proposal is also inimical to the
very "heart of the Constitution" (cf. AtongPaglaum, Sereno C.J., dissenting) of social
justice. Social justice has been longdescribed as a novel concept in Philippine
political law, addressing the long-feltdiscrepancies between the haves and the havenots. Article XIII, 1 of theConstitution describes this vision, "The Congress shall give
highest priority to theenactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of
all the people to humandignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities,
and remove culturalinequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for
the common good."The removal of the right to vote due to indigence (a legal cause
for not paying tax) or poverty does not run among the ambit of the Congress'
priority of removing politicalinequalities by diffusing political power. In fact, it is very
much counter to this cause.It makes indigence a form of offense, it creates a

socially-observable and manifeststigma, instead ofevening the playing field

Between the poor and the rich. Itdestroys the freedom to self-reliance and initiative
(see2) by removing the person'svoice to the national political sphere, by trampling
a person's power to include his belief in a pluralistic, democratic arena.
III. THEPROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TOINTERNATIONAL LAW
What if we change the charter to allow the adoption of the proposal? This
approach,while superficially raising the issue to constitutional conformity, still could
not beallowed under international law. The idea of having two classes of persons in
asociety is repugnant to public international law. If the proposal should succeed,
thedistinction
described
is tantamount
to
justifying,
legitimizing
and
institutionalizing aform of political apartheid. This is in strong and clear conflict with
generally, if notuniversally, accepted peremptory norms or jus cogens. It makes the
nation a deviantin the world order that acknowledges the dignity of every human
being, in acommunity of nations that strives for inclusive progress through the
furtherance of democratic ideals.Particularly, we take notice of one of the most
fundamental international conventionin human history. The preamble statement of
the Universal Declaration of HumanRights or UDHR, ratified by the Philippines,
expresses the world's "recognition of theinherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the humanfamily is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world". Article 21 statesthat "Everyone has the right to take
part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen
representatives." Furthermore, "The will of the people shall bethe basis of the
authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic andgenuine
elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held bysecret
vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." The provisions in the UDHR could not
be any clearer in its refusal of the preposition.6Generally, the only disqualifications
to exercising the right of suffrage are for personssentenced to be imprisoned for not
less than one year; persons found to have committedrebellion, sedition, violation of
the anti-subversion and firearm laws, or any crime againstnational security or
involving disloyalty to the government; insane persons or perso noncompos mentis;
and of course, non-citizens (foreigners, persons who have lost their
Philippinecitizenship, persons convicted of disloyalty, persons who have renounced
their Philippinecitizenship and pledged allegiance to other country).The right of
suffrage is also embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which like the UDHR mandates the universality of the rightto suffrage,
equality in access to public service and the secrecy of votes ( seeArt. 25).The
doctrine of incorporation through its policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom,cooperation, and amity with all nationspresupposes the validity of the
UDHR andICCPR on Philippine soil and Philippine citizens (seeArt. III, 2) and
precludes anylegislative intent or constitutional convention in counter (cf. Dante
Gatmaytan, Can Constitutionalism Constrain Constitutional Change?, 3
NORTHWESTERN I NTERDISCIPLINARY LAW REVIEW).IV.

CONCLUSION
The proposal that only taxpayers should vote has been raised as a solution to
the political excesses in the country, as evinced by the recent controversies involvin
gPDAF. The proposal, however good in its intent, could not and must not prosper.
Itcreates Filipinos that are not recognized to be equal citizens insofar as they
arenegligible in national and international participation. The proposal creates
asemblance of despotism by a false veneer of populist and elitist authenticity, by
thedisillusion of entitlement where there should be none. It is in conflict with the
veryfoundations of our Government and our State. It is in conflict with the very
Charter by which the country is grounded. It is in conflict with the comity of nations
. The proposal is, most of all, anti-Filipino. It is an insult to the legacy and heritage
of our heroes and martyrs who have died to protect every Filipino's person, liberty
anddignity. It is an insult to our history. It is a threat to our posterity.
Allan Chester Nadate, College of Law, University of the Philippines