A Brief Historical Review of Political Dynasties in The Philippines by Atty. Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco

A BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL DYNASTIES IN THE
PHILIPPINES
By Atty. Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco
Family dynasties have been a main feature in Philippine politics for a
very long time. This socio-political phenomenon can actually be traced
back to pre-colonial society for the power structure of the communities of
that period tended to be built around blood relations. But the leadership of
a pre-Hispanic community wrested on the datu. According to the historian
Scott, a datu was expected to govern his people, settle disputes, protect
them from their enemies, and lead them into battle. 1 And in return for
these responsibilities and services, a datu received labor and tribute from
his people.2
The position of datu could be inherited but unlike the monarchs of feudal
Europe, datus made no claims to a divine imprimatur or special access to
the heavens, no boasts about having a hotline to God. 3 Indeed,
community chiefs claim their leadership position on the basis of their
reputation as brave warriors, and not on mere noble lineage. 4 More
importantly, a datus ability to retain his office as the ruler of the
barangay depended highly on his performance as a leader. 5 Meaning,
when warranted by the circumstances, he could be replaced by the
community with a challenger who is more able to deliver the needs of the
barangay.
It is a peculiar feature of our pre-colonial history that powerful clans
emerged in leadership roles during that era underpinned by a social
contract. They enjoyed the advantage of such an elevated social status
but also assumed the role of protectorate of the community. Additionally,
it was incumbent upon them to exercise good leadership for to do
otherwise may cause their removal from their privileged position. In a
sense, the community retained the power to choose its ruler but
recognized the office of the datu, so to speak, as necessary in order to
preserve the peace and maintain order within the barangay. This maybe a
socio-anthropological leap, but this pre-colonial leadership structure looks
like a primitive manifestation of the republican principle of sovereignty
residing in the people and all government authority emanating from them.
This organic social democratic arrangement however was
completely destroyed during the Spanish colonial period. Under the
encomienda system the tribal ruling class were utilized by the colonial
government as their lackeys (i.e. tribute collectors). Those who embraced
their new role became the first among the indigenous population to be
Hispanized and were rewarded for their loyal servitude with wealth and
limited authority, thus separating them from the rest of their countrymen and
leading to a class structure more pronounced than pre-colonial days. 6 The datu
class thereafter become the principales and the barangay simply evolved
into the generic appellation, indios.
This was a fundamental transformation because the principales, unlike

their previous incarnation as datu, functioned not as a community leader
but as a servant of the towns parish priest and constabulary
commanding officer.7 The underpinning social contract was now gone and
the obligation to protect the community with it. More importantly, the
power of the community to choose its own ruler was now lost and has
found its way in the hands of a central authority. Indeed, from a mandate
to be earned, authority to govern the community has now become a
commodity that can be bargained for. 8 Consequently, the principales
became a new type of privileged class in Filipino society. This was the
point, I daresay, that they became a clique which has learned to see itself
as different from the rest of the indio population.
Not surprisingly, many from the Filipino ruling elite immediately and
willingly collaborated with the Americans when the United States replaced
Spain as the nations colonial master as this was ostensibly the best way
to preserve and expand their local power.9 However, the eagerness of
the principales to collaborate with the Americans was a critical event in
our political history. As luck would have it, their almost child-like
acceptance of the new colonizers ideas of modernity and statehood
proved to be the seed out of which grew the political dynasties we see
today. According to the noted scholar Cullinane, the structure and
operation of Filipino national politics had its origins in the municipal and
provincial elections of 1901-1902 and in the proliferation of political
networks and alliances that came into being as local elites competed for
political power through the electoral process. 10 Moreover, once
democratically ensconced in office these new breed of principales
entrenched themselves further through intricate ties with other local
elites.11 Notably, these words describe the political system in the country
at the onset of the American colonial period and yet they would still ring
true for the one we are enduring today.
It is a painful irony indeed that our nations introduction to the democratic
way of life was actually the point when public office became not just a
commodity to barter with, but also to profit from. 12 More importantly, this
was the moment when the authority to govern the nation fell completely
under the control of the privileged few. According to Abinales, Local elites
competed for control over local power via elections, and then extended
their power beyond the province into the national arena with the aid of
American patrons and allies. 13 Alliances and loyalties that gained
municipal elites access to national government largesse.14 This was the
political mechanism which paved the way for Quezon, Osmea and Roxas
to take full control of the nation in Malacaang. The very same method
used by others after them to ascend to power as well as for the 55+
political families to keep their hold on their supposedly elective offices for
the past half-century. Indeed, the Americans brought with them
democratic institutions that we enjoy and are proud of today. Sadly, they
also brought with them the politics of patronage, the bedrock of modern
day political dynasties. Abinales summed it up perfectly, Decentralized
patronage politics in the Philippines, begun in the late Spanish period and
routinized in the American....15
According to Francia, colonialism is in the Filipinos DNA.16 This is a bold
statement indeed and bears significantly in our historical review of
political dynasties. The countrys colonial past has unravelled the loss of
two extremely valuable indigenous political traditions. First, the
fundamental belief that rulers have the duty to exercise good leadership
in order to keep their privileged position in the community. Second, the
core principle that it is the community that holds the power to choose its
ruler and no one else. These losses are critical because modern political
dynasties actually sprung out from this void in our political culture. And if
this socio-political abyss is now deeply embedded in our peoples genetic
make-up, then clearly enacting a simple direct prohibition law against
political dynasties would never be enough.
Indeed, our best weapon against political dynasties could be the ancient
bayanihan spirit of pre-colonial times. We can use this power to implant in
the minds of public officials once more that the principal purpose of their
office is to exercise good leadership. To instil in their heads the constant
reminder that those who wield political power only hold it in trust for the
people. And therefore they have to fulfil their obligations in order to keep
this trust. This primordial community solidarity could be their rude reawakening to this truismPeople should not be afraid of their
governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.17
1William Henry Scott, Barangay Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society (Ateneo De Manila University Press,
2004), p130.
2 Ibid.
3Luis H. Francia, A History of the Philippines From Indios Bravos to Filipinos (The Overlook Press, New York, 2010), p33.
4 Above n1, p267.
5 Laura Lee Junker, Raiding, Trading and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms (Ateneo de Manila Press,
2000), p139.
6 Above n3 p68.
7 Apolinario Mabini, The Philippine Revolution, translated into English from Spanish by Leon Ma. Guerrero (National
Historical Institute, 1969), p28.
8 Leon Ma. Guerrero, The First Filipino (Guerrero Publishing Inc., 2010) pp147-147.
9Patricio N. Abinales, Orthodoxy and History in the Muslim-Mindanao Narrative (Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2010),
p5.
10 Michael Cullinane, Ilustrado Politics Filipino Elite Responses to American Rule, 1898-1908 (Ateneo De Manila University
Press, 2003) p3.
11 Above n9 p8.
12 James Manor, The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization (The World Bank, 1999) p35 and pp-58-59.
13 Above n10 p8.
14 Above n9 p151.
15 Above n9 p12.
16
Above n3 p10.
17 This is a quotation from the movie V for Vendetta.

A Brief Historical Review of Political Dynasties in The Philippines by Atty. Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Brief Historical Review of Political Dynasties in The Philippines by Atty. Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Brief Historical Review of Political Dynasties in The Philippines by Atty. Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL DYNASTIES IN THE

into the generic appellation, indios.

This was a fundamental transformation because the principales, unlike

17 This is a quotation from the movie V for Vendetta.

You might also like