May 9 is the make-or-break day for those who are running for public office. On this day voters will cast their ballots. Once those ballots are verified and counted, the candidates for both national and local elective positions will learn who among them have been rejected by the voting public.
The will of the voters is now known, and the winners will later assume their posts as public servants.
At least, that’s how the system is supposed to work.
It was not always that way.
Precolonial time
Long before we had the concepts of councilors, mayors, governors, congressmen, senators and presidents, our political leadership generally consisted of only four persons in authority.
According to John Ray Ramos, a historian and a heritage-conservation advocate, these persons of authority consisted of the datu or lakan, panday, babaylan and bagani.
This setup was appropriate for a community of small households, consisting mainly of extended kin. This was the original barangay.
Ramos explained that the datu, who was the head of the barangay, was not considered a political leader in the modern sense. He was chosen by blood or merit (wealth, bravery or influence). Once chosen, people will pledge their personal allegiance and loyalty to the datu.
The lakan, who was also known as either hari or rajah was the political leader. He was the recognized head of a political grouping composed of two or more barangays.
“When Islam came to the islands,” Ramos added, “some rajahs became known as sultans.”
The next recognized person in authority was known as the panday.
According to Ramos, the word was derived from pande, meaning “skilled hands.”
“The title was given in recognition of the person’s skill in science and arts,” Ramos explained. “He’s a master craftsman and supervised the creation of weapons, the art of metal crafting, woodworks, pottery and other arts and crafts.”
After the panday came the babaylan.
“This person was the community’s spiritual or cultural leader,” Ramos said. “The person was also the chief healer and keeper of the community’s history and lore.”
“Unfortunately, at the onset of the Spanish colonization of the islands, the babaylan was demonized as a monster or aswang,” Ramos added.
The last person in authority was known as the bagani.
“There can be more than one bagani in a community,” Ramos said. “The datu can be a bagani. The bagani was responsible for the defense of the community and maintaining law and order in the barangay.”
The concept of public office we take for granted today was unknown in our precolonial past.
“Early Filipinos had a means to govern or organize themselves to address the needs of the community,” Ramos explained. “There was no centralized political or administrative system except for the Sultanates. There was no bureaucracy.”
Spanish colonization
With the onset of the Spanish colonization in the 16th century came the bureaucracy to administer the archipelago.
“The bureaucracy was established as part of a centralized administrative system to impose colonial rule for the purposes of consolidating the Spanish empire,” Ramos said. “Colonies under Spain were subdivided into kingdoms called ‘Las Indias.’ These were headed by governor generals or viceroys.”
“The Church and State also worked closely together to keep the natives pacified,” Ramos added. “Because of this setup, the clergy exerted great influence on civilian and military affairs.”
This setup also gave rise to the “plaza complex” found in all towns and cities in the Philippines that date back to the Spanish colonial period.
“It was an open space, usually either rectangular or square in shape,” Ramos said. “The plaza has a church, a convent, the municipal hall, a market place and a cemetery, and around it the residences were built. It was designed this way in order to control and manage the natives and centralize power.”
This setup will then be an essential factor in the later development of the country’s election history.
Under the Spanish colonial administration, the bureaucracy was filled by people from special privileged classes.
“The top administrative posts were given to peninsulares, or Spaniards who were born in Spain,” Ramos said. “The insulares, or Spaniards who were born in the Philippines, held the next level of positions.”
“Under this system, the holding of high rank in the colonial administration was seen as a grant, reward or favor from the Spanish monarch,” Ramos added. “This, in turn, led to the practice buying appointments. An administrative position can then be given to the highest bidder. Position and rank were given as a favor or sold. The people had no choice in the matter.”
According to Ramos, this was the root of our culture’s spoil or patronage system, a practice which still persists today.
This was also practiced by the principalia class in the towns.
“The principalia class were the descendants of the local tribal leaders,” Ramos explained. “The Spaniards tapped them to fill up posts in the local bureaucracy,” he added. “The principalia of each town were allowed to elect or choose among themselves a gobernadorcillo, the equivalent of today’s town mayor.”
There were about a dozen or so members of the principalia class consisting mainly of the cabeza de barangay or village leaders and they practiced the patronage system.
“For some, favors were granted if a cabeza de barangay could convince his fellows to elect him as gobernadorcillo,” Ramos said. “Often, the wealthiest among them were able to buy his way into the gobernadorcillo post. Occasionally, some among them who didn’t want additional responsibility paid his fellow cabeza de barangay in order to avoid becoming the gobernadorcillo, who had to deal directly with Spanish authorities.”
This system of spoils and patronage maintained the principalia class in wealth.
By the 19th century, there was a call for reforms in the Philippines in response to the patronage system. The Propaganda movement was born, which called for the representation in the Spanish Cortes (parliament), an improved justice system and institution of reforms in the bureaucracy to make it more professional.
When the call for reforms failed, the stage was set for the Philippine Revolution, which gave rise to the first president of the Philippines.
The first president?
Was it Emilio Aguinaldo or Andres Bonifacio?
The tale of elections in the country will not be complete without a discussion of what happened between these two historical figures.
Recently recovered documents, dating from the time of the Philippine Revolution in the late 19th century, indicated that Andres Bonifacio was the country’s first president.
But currently used history textbooks identify Emilio Aguinaldo as the country’s first president.
This controversy had its roots in an election that took place more than a hundred years ago.
Prof. Xiao Chua, a faculty member of the De La Salle University history department, said that, in 1993, five years before the centennial of Philippine independence, three historians made the claim that Bonifacio was actually the first president of the country.
These historians were Dr. Milagros Guerrero, Ramon Villegas and Emmanuel Encarnacion.
According to Chua, the three claimed that, when the Philippine Revolution ignited on August 24, 1896, the secret revolutionary society, known as the Kataas-taasang Kagalang-galangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan, became the country’s revolutionary government.
The three historians concluded that, since Bonifacio was leader of the Katipunan, Bonifacio was also the president of the new revolutionary government.
The three historians also pointed out that the succeeding government, headed by Aguinaldo, also emerged from the Katipunan.
Chua explained that the three historians had one more additional proof. Bonifacio’s government came into existence in August 1896, while Aguinaldo’s government was only established in May 1897.
This meant that Aguinaldo only became president nine months after the Katipunan transformed into a revolutionary government headed by Bonifacio.
Chua explained that two other historical documents bolstered the claim of the three historians.
The first document was an order signed by Bonifacio designating Emilio Jacinto as the commander of all revolutionary forces located in the north of Manila on April 15, 1897. This document also contained a letterhead identifying Bonifacio as president.
The second document was from a Madrid newspaper printed on July 8, 1897. The newspaper had a picture of Bonifacio with the caption identifying him as “President of the Tagala Republic.” Chua also wrote that the picture had an accompanying article identifying Bonifacio as president of the Katipunan Republic.
The controversy took an unexpected turn when a call was made to give Bonifacio a symbolic state funeral, befitting his title as a president of the country.
Ramos said the twist was a result of a declaration made by the National Historical Institute (NHI), which is now known as the National Historical Commission.
Ramos added that the NHI issued a statement on July 7, 1994, declaring Bonifacio was not eligible for a state funeral.
Chua explained that the NHI refused the state honors for Bonifacio because this would contradict the guilty verdict and death penalty imposed on the Bonifacio brothers by an Aguinaldo-constituted court.
Chua added that the NHI’s refusal to hold symbolic state honors for Bonifacio effectively legitimized the Aguinaldo’s court decision to have Bonifacio and his brother Procopio killed for being traitors and Spanish spies.
If Bonifacio was truly a traitor, why do we have a national monument for him in Caloocan?
Ramos said another historian found additional documents supporting the contention that Bonifacio was actually the first president.
“Over 150 documents were found recently in a military archive in Madrid,” Ramos said. “These documents were compiled by Jim Richardson in Light of Liberty, a book published by the Ateneo de Manila University Press in 2013.”
Ramos explained that before the documents in Madrid were found, only eight historical documents were available about the role Bonifacio and the Katipunan played in the Philippine Revolution.
Chua, in his essay “Bonifacio: Ang Unang Pangulo,” wrote that it was clear in the documents compiled by Richardson that the Katipunan was functioning as a central government during the revolution against Spain.
Tagalog Republic
Those who support Emilio Aguinaldo as the legitimate first president of the country point out historical documents only identify Bonifacio as president of the Tagalog Republic. For these people, this meant that Bonifacio only claimed leadership over small areas of Luzon, which is just one island in the Philippines.
However, Ramos and said the word Tagalog, as used by Bonifacio and the Katipunan, was different from the way it is used today. Bonifacio actually used the term Tagalog to refer to all Filipinos.
Bonifacio refused to use the name “Filipinas” because it was in honor of Spanish king.
Instead of Filipinas, Bonifacio and the Katipunan used the Haring Bayan to refer to the “sovereign nation” and the word “Tagalog” to refer to the country’s inhabitants. Hence the term Katagalugan actually referred to the entire country.
As explained in the memoirs of Carlos Ronquillo, a Cavite revolutionary who served as Aguinaldo’s secretary, the term Tagalog “has no other meaning but tagailog [from the river], which traced directly to the root, refers to people who settled along rivers,truly a trait, it cannot be denied, of those born in the Philippines, in whatever island or town.”
This point was emphasized in the book Bonifacio: Ang Unang Pangulo, Backstories to the Movie for Students and Teachers.
The split between Aguinaldo and Bonifacio was a direct result of their background within the Spanish colonial system.
Aguinaldo and his main backers hailed from the principalia class, which owed its position in society from Spanish practices, including the patronage system. This was a class that was used to keeping power, privilege and influence to themselves. Hence, they preferred to keep as much of the Spanish system as possible.
Bonifacio and his supporters came from a different background. Since they never benefited from the Spanish colonial system, they refused to use the name “Filipinas” for the country. They wanted to do away with as much of Spanish practices as possible.
This was in direct threat to the members of the principalia class to which Aguinaldo belonged to.
Aguinaldo was a gobernadorcillo under the Spanish colonial administration.
Thus the stage was set for a showdown between Aguinaldo and Bonifacio.
And that scene was the Tejeros Convention, the country’s first presidential election, which was held on March 22, 1897.
To be continued
***
Essential tips for election day
1 Vote early. Avoid the last-minute crush. You have until 5 p.m. to cast your vote.
2 The device used to record your vote is known as the vote-counting machine (VCM).
3 Campaigning for a candidate is not allowed on election day. Do not bring campaign materials or wear shirts endorsing candidates inside the polling precinct.
4 Bring a valid ID card. You can use this to prove that you are the person in the voter’s registry.
5 The ballot you should receive must have no creases, tears or any extraneous markings. If you have any doubts on your ballot, have the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) check it.
6 If the VCM rejects your ballot, you can ask for a replacement ballot if you did not do anything to spoil it. However, if you were the one who spoiled the ballot, you are not entitled to receive another ballot. See No. 5.
7 Picture taking is not allowed inside the room where the ballots are cast.
8 Report to the Board of Election Inspectors immediately if the receipt shows the names of other candidates instead of the ones you voted for. The BEI will take note of the VCM’s receipt and include your report in their official record. The casting of ballots for that precinct will continue, however. You may also report the matter to the Bantay Karapatan sa Halalan (BKH) to the Commission on Human Rights as an added record of your complaint and as part of the overall effort to protect the integrity of the voting process.
9 The VCM in your precinct will be replaced if it stops functioning under the Commission on Elections’s contingency plans. The voter has two choices if this happens. You can either wait for replacement VCM to arrive or give your filled up ballot to the BEI. The BEI will then cast the collected ballots (batch feeding) for the voters who didn’t want to wait for the replacement VCM.