There is no doubt about the openness of the system of the Philippine government. But is it completely open or half-open? Think with me when we try to understand not an “organization” but a “structure,” making no mistake that what we refer to is not the organization of government, but a system that goes with the government.
To ensure a balance of government power in the Philippines, with no claim of originality due to American influence, there is a system of checks and balances among the three co-equal branches of government. This system is an offshoot of the doctrine of separation of powers – judicial, executive, and legislative powers.
To illustrate: (a) Congress’ power to legislate is checked by the President through its veto power, which in turn may be overturned by the legislature; (b) Congress may not concur with an amnesty proclaimed by the President, and Senate may do the same, rejecting a treaty the President has entered into; (c) the President may pardon the likes of convicted plunderer Joseph Estrada, nullifying a conviction in a criminal case; (d) the Judiciary (the Supreme Court in particular) has the power to declare invalid acts done by the Executive and Legislative bodies and even Constitutional Commissions as what amounts to their grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is subject to what is now (no longer based on the Constitution of 1973, but of 1987) referred to as the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Simply put, the three branches of government cannot be compartmentalized (Santiago,2000); with the system of checks and balances, they resolve conflict arising from acts that impinge on their mutual interdependence (Candelaria & Gesmundo, 2012).
In other words, one department is given certain powers by which it may restrain the others from exceeding constitutional authority. The department may object or resist any encroachment upon its authority, or it may question, if necessary, any act which unlawfully interferes with its sphere of jurisdiction and authority (Suarez, 2005).
The Philippine system of checks and balances, no matter how it is patterned to that of the United States, is an open system. Supreme Court justices can still subject it to interpretation when needed. They need not look at democracy champions in the world nor will they say, “It has been settled there already, so there’s nothing to change here.”
The system is open for the world to see and for Filipino citizens to be invited to eagerly work inside of it even as it does not depend on other nations; in fact, the Philippines exercises national sovereignty and the right to self-determination without disregarding its “amity with all nations” as part of Declaration of Principles and State Policies written in the 1987 charter.
It is good to form part of an analysis of Hellriegel, Jackson, and Slocum (2005), though, that the checks and balances system is not completely sealed off from its surroundings, but the system limits its interaction as can be gleaned from mutual interdependence of the major departments of government.
We particularly see the “functions” of the system so that the three co-equals can work together to accomplish a specified mission (Ryan, 1975).
On the mission of “Atin ‘to” which is our already won case of the West Philippine Sea, is it enough to see a whole-of-government approach? No. It has to be a whole-of-society approach. But since the goal to own our territory is difficult as we have Red China which is an absolute bully-neighbor — the last time I checked, it has upped bullying tactics against neighbors (plural) — we need to make our eyes wide open. Widely open and patriotic eyes need to coordinate with the patriotic minds which may not necessarily be Filipino. The desired open minds may come from other nations.
But are all of us willing and able to open our minds to those who may help us nurture the Atin ‘to (“this is ours”) culture? Are we willing and able to fight for it? How open is the system of the Philippine government? With the quality of leaders that we have now in the Senate and House of Representatives and the breakup of the Marcos-Duterte political alliance, are we willing and able to close our doors to traitors? The 2025 midterm election is upon us, and the traitors have a good chance of winning again. The good women and men who are genuinely interested in serving have no chance of even reclaiming what is ours, the open system of government.
Democracy and democratic institutions are under attack precisely because we keep on opening the government system so wide that even non-Filipinos will and can be voted upon. As for the traitors, they continue to hold tight power and authority. Meanwhile, there are cries of help emanating from the half-open eyes in the poorest communities and they feel our system is closed for them. The civil society, academia, and the young, bright leaders have an utter failure to communicate this despite their claims that they have an open line of communication.
DC Alviar
Professor DC Alviar serves as a member of the steering committee of the Philippine International Studies Organization (PHISO). He was part of National University’s community extension project that imparted the five disciplines of a learning organization (Senge, 1990) to communities in a local government unit. He writes and edits local reports for Mega Scene. He graduated with a master’s degree in development communication from the University of the Philippines Open University in Los Baños. He recently defended a dissertation proposal for his doctorate degree in communication at the same graduate school under a Philippine government scholarship grant. He was editor-in-chief of his high school paper Ang Ugat and the Adamson News.
