Image Source: Rappler
Every six years, politicians hand you a ballot and call it “power.” They flood your feeds with campaign jingles, slap posters on every wall, and tell you, “The future is in your hands.” They tell you to believe in the magic of elections, to trust that change is just one vote away. But here’s the hard truth: Your vote is never supposed to matter. You think you’re picking leaders? You’re just picking your gatekeepers. Philippine elections were never meant to represent you. They’re rigged rituals, designed to keep dynasties, billionaires, and vested interests in charge—year after year. They parade elections as democracy, but it’s just dictatorship dressed in ballots. Much like oligarchy in campaign colors. And, unless you call the bluff, you’ll never matter.
Who Runs the World? (Hint: Not You)
The numbers don’t lie: 75% of district reps, 85% of governors, and nearly 67% of mayors come from dynasties. That’s not coincidence—it’s choreography. They dominate major parties, bankroll campaigns, and steamroll every election like it’s a family reunion. And the rest of us? We’ve seen the credits before: Marcos, Villar, Binay, Estrada, and Duterte. Same old cast, new election day. We all live in dynastic déjà vu. In Philippine politics, family ties boost your election odds by at least 3.6 times. It’s like starting a race three steps from the finish line, while everyone else is still stuck behind the starting line. Imagine Candidate A, no big name, works twice as hard for a 20% chance. Then Candidate B, a dynasty-backed candidate, comes in with a 72% chance, no problem. The surname seals the deal. The name carries the clout. When 72% is your starting point, the competition is merely ceremonial.
Congrats, You Played Yourself (at the polls)
1. Win Without a Majority
The Philippine 1987 Constitution uses a first-past-the-post electoral system, where candidates can win with a mere plurality, not necessarily a majority. This means they don’t need most of you, but just enough of you. Picture five candidates. One grabs 30%, the rest split the other 70%. Guess who wins? The one barely anyone voted for. Case in point: In 2016, Duterte clinched the presidency with just 39% of the vote. Meaning 6 out of 10 voters didn’t want him, but too bad—you’re stuck. Because the system lets politicians exploit division, they don’t need the country behind them, just enough loyal diehards while everyone else cancels each other out.
2. Parties Don’t Matter, Names Do
The 1987 Constitution hardwired weak political parties into Philippine democracy. No anti-turncoat provisions. No real incentives to build cohesive platforms. Just revolving doors, where loyalty is transactional, and ideology irrelevant. The outcome? Party switching is endemic. From 1987 to 2016, 33% of congressmen switched parties, 32% of which ran straight to the president’s side. Not out of conviction but out of convenience. With no solid party system and no law against dynasties, the same families will take charge of the elections. In short, no need for a solid party. Just slap your family name on a ballot and call it a day.
3. Term Limits? Not for Families
The Philippine Constitution limits how long politicians can cling to power. But here’s the loophole: term limits apply to individuals, not dynasties. Though Article II, Section 26 acknowledges the need to prohibit political dynasties, the lack of enabling legislation renders this principle ineffective. So, when dad’s time is up, mom, son, or cousin steps in. It’s a legal political relay and its consequences are far-reaching. Not only does it hinder genuine political competition, but it also undermines the very spirit of term limits. That is, to prevent the consolidation of powers across generations.
Democratic Glitches: Update Overdue
1. Let the Majority Win
There is a need to problematize how presidents can win with as little as 30%, leaving the other 70% stuck with a leader they never chose. The fix? A two-round runoff system. In France’s 2017 elections, Emmanuel Macron only secured around 20% in the first round but won with 58.54% in the runoff. Hence, a broader mandate. Without a two-round system, plurality winners remain a systemic flaw. Leaders with weak mandates have the tendency to govern unchecked. Letting the majority win—once and for all—helps ensure greater legitimacy and reduce political fragmentation.
2. No More Party-Hopping!
You know it’s rigged when candidates can swap parties overnight, pledging loyalty only to power, not principles. The 1987 Philippine Constitution envisions a free and open party system, yet it lacks the teeth to prevent political turncoatism. The Philippines needs stronger party discipline. Strong enough for anti-turncoat provisions to strip defectors of their seats and incentivize genuine party loyalty. If parties actually stood for something, elections might, too. Other countries have already fixed this. Take for instance India’s Anti-Defection Law (1985) that disqualifies legislators who switch parties. In other words, no more convenient betrayals, please. Such a law helps curb transactional politics and force parties to build real platforms. Ultimately, the Philippines should follow suit and stop the charade.
3. Stop Electing Last Names
The Philippines needs a real Anti-Dynasty Law, not the watered-down versions that never make it past Congress. Political dynasties aren’t just a glitch in the system—they are the system. Studies show that provinces dominated by dynastic politicians tend to have significantly higher poverty rates. Meaning? The deeper a dynasty digs its claws into a province, the harder it is for the people to climb out of poverty. Perhaps for an obvious reason: dynasties distort policy priorities. This is what makes them very problematic. They channel money into political survival rather than long-term growth.
Democracy: The ‘Cap’ We All Wear
Others might say, but isn’t the Philippines still a democracy? We have elections after all. Fair point. But if elections alone made a democracy, then even the most corrupt, repressive regimes could claim the title. In the same manner, a democracy that threatens dynasties is a democracy they’d never allow. This is proof that our democracy is not for real. It is merely an illusion to make us believe we have a choice, when in reality, power never leaves the hands of the few. Real democracy shifts power. And if it were real, they’d be scared of it. No cap.
Final tea? You’re a Nobody!
You are never supposed to matter. Not to them. Not to this system. Not in a democracy designed to keep you powerless. They built this illusion so you’d vote, not question. Obey, not demand. Believe, but never see. But here’s the thing about illusions: once they crack, they never hold. Real change doesn’t come from the ballots they hand you every six years. It comes when you decide that you’re done being a nobody. So perhaps a good question to ponder is: If this system were truly democratic, why does it make sure you never matter? That’s because the moment you realize how much you actually do, their game is over. And maybe, just maybe, that’s exactly what they fear.
This was a compelling, entertaining way to put a prevalent set of problems. As a Filipino born in America, this article immediately caught my eye. Certainly lots of strong words here, but it was particularly great that you provided actionable solutions and examples of countries who have patched the loopholes that the Philippines has yet to. A vibrant way to pull attention to the issues facing the Filipino electoral system.
I really enjoyed reading your blog post about Philippine democracy—it was both eye-opening and thought-provoking. Your critique of the political system, especially regarding the dominance of dynasties and the flaws in the electoral process, really sheds light on the challenges ordinary citizens face when it comes to real change. I liked how you highlighted the issue with the first-past-the-post system, where candidates can win without a majority, and how term limits only serve to shuffle power within the same families. It’s clear that the system is rigged to keep power in the hands of a select few, rather than giving the people a real voice.
One thing that caught my attention was your suggestion for a two-round runoff system as a potential solution. While I agree that it could help ensure a leader with broader support, I’m curious if you think it might also play into the hands of the same dynastic families who can mobilize voters more effectively over multiple rounds. How can the Philippines implement this change without reinforcing the power of the elite? Your call for a deeper examination of the system is both compelling and, I believe, necessary.
What an interesting read, Christine! Indeed, in a ‘democratic’ system that only favors the powerful few, the people are left to tolerate the abuses towards them and endure a life full of “pwede na ‘to” (this is fine). Some may have even say, “You should not blame the government for everything!” or “You should not depend on the government for everything!” even if you are just demanding for bare minimum services because of years of our leaders’ make-believe that the system is doing just fine and nothing should be complained about.
I also appreciate how you enumerated possible solutions to the problems that you mentioned in your blog. However, although ideal, I wonder if a two-round runoff system is feasible in the Philippines given the costs and the number of days that it would require, considering the country’s economic standing and election-related violence threats that we face yearly.
On the other hand, I agree that we need stronger party discipline in the country. I believe that it would be best for political parties in the Philippines to be built based on ideology and policy platforms to ensure that they would be able to deliver the needs of the people. They must also strengthen their internal governance and rules, specifically by providing sanctions to erring members to ensure accountability within the party at all times.
Hi, Christine!
Your blog wasn’t just well-written; it was thought-provoking, enlightening, and genuinely compelling. You’ve captured something I’ve often found myself reflecting on, and you articulated it in a way that’s both easy to digest and impactful. In a period where many young individuals feel a lack of interest or apathy toward politics, your engaging style makes the discourse relevant and imperative. Your concise yet effective lines deliver a punch, making each topic noteworthy. The intriguing headers combined with well-researched insights kept me interested the whole time.
Your analysis of the Philippine electoral system captured my attention. I like how you mentioned the first-past-the-post system because it not only elucidates its favorable advantage over candidates with consolidated support but also highlights the potential for calculated overlooking in regions deemed weak. This observation underscores a more fundamental issue with the way campaigns are conducted—namely, their emphasis on winnability rather than representation. I strongly agree with your perspective on political parties in the Philippines. Here, they often serve primarily as instruments for electoral advantage rather than as embodiments of distinct ideological principles, in contrast to the more ideologically oriented political parties seen in other countries.
Your conclusion was really impactful. It’s a powerful reminder that we are not powerless. Genuine transformation is achievable through unity and collective efforts. We are far from being nobodies—our voices and choices matter. What we need is the courage and willpower to come together and demand the change we deserve.
This was a very thought-provoking read, Christine. It offers a sharp commentary on the state of Philippine elections amid the bold assertion that our votes “don’t matter.” Around the 1950s, Dr. Ricardo Pascual of the UP Department of Philosophy proposed the idea of a Partyless Democracy- a political and electoral system where political parties are abolished in favor of proportional representation along sectoral lines and an autonomous bureaucracy. He proposed this because of his distaste for what he perceived as the “dictatorship of the majority” and incapability of political parties to truly represent the people that are prevalent in the Philippine electoral system. Your points reminded me of his proposal.
The FPP system that the Philippines has is useful in a pluralist society where we can assume that everyone has an equal say or vote. But in the current state of affairs, our particularlist culture and the stronghold that political dynasties have over voting choices present a roadblock towards the ideal democracy that we strive for. I certainly believe that there is hope for the Philippines. If we want to make our votes matter, then a complete overhaul of the electoral system is necessary. But a prerequisite for this is a change in values as well. We can promote intolerance of corruption and opportunism, and I think that the youth is beginning this shift. It is slow, but I think we’ll get there eventually.