SESSION 1

The Basics of Political Science

and Philippine Politics
 📌 Some individuals would usually link politics to corrupt
politicians and an ineffective government. This skeptic view of and
the disinterest to study politics are ever present. But politics is
more than just about these problems of government officials and
their inefficiency. Politics also involves relationships in everyday
life—in the family, in school, in the streets, and even in the most
personal relations. In a typical Filipino family, for instance, power
determines who gets what, when, and how (Lasswell 1936).
Likewise, the question of who decides for the family is by itself a
function of politics. This unit thus intends to address these
misconceptions.
📌 The first part of discussion for Quarter 1 introduces you to the
basics of political science. Session 1 presents the fundamental
concepts of politics and governance, while session 2 discusses the
different types of political ideologies. Sessions 3 and 4 review the
concepts of power, and states, nations, and globalization,
respectively.
📌 Meanwhile, the second part provides an overview of politics
as practiced in the Philippine setting. Session 5 examines the
historical development of Philippine politics, while Sessions 6 to
9 discuss the structure and framework of the government from
the executive, legislative, and judiciary to local government.
Lesson 1: The Concepts of Politics and Governance
In this lesson, you will be able to:

◘ define politics;
◘ identify the various views on politics;
◘ differentiate governance from government;
◘ determine the general methods of inquiry in political science
(enrichment);
◘ explore the connection between the phenomenon (politics)
and the method of inquiry
(political science); and
◘ recognize the value of politics.
 Defining Politics

“Man is by nature a political animal.” – Aristotle, Politics

(Father of Political Science)

Why did the Father of Political Science utter such a

statement? Why did he say that man is a “political animal”
and what do you think did he mean by this?
 The inclination and interest of people toward anything
political is based on the fact that individuals are inherently
social. Unlike other species, humans rely on social interactions
to survive. Politics is born out of these social

Heywood (2013) defined politics as an activity that involves

the interaction of people, whose relationship is characterized
by conflict and cooperation, and who come together to solve
such disagreements through binding solutions. However,
politics is no utopian solution. There are disagreements that
remain as such.
 So, what makes social interaction a political one? Any form of
social interaction that involves the art of government, public
affairs, compromise and consensus, or power and distribution of
resources is political. This then gives you the different views on
politics, as provided in the following table.
 Given the views on politics above, one may think that politics
only involves the state or the government. It must be noted,
however, that human beings relate to each other not only in
formal structures but also in collective arrangements such as
families, religions, peer groups, or cultures. Power is also
exercised in these types of relationships, making them political
as well. For instance, who decides on specific familial matters is
a venue by which authority is manifested. In religious
organizations, the existence of authority is manifested as well in
the presence of religious leaders vis-à-vis the followers.
 What Is a Government?
Political science is a social science discipline that
studies the state and the government. The state is a political
community that involves four important elements, namely,
people, territory, sovereignty, and government. The state,
while is considered as something abstract for it has no
existence as a material object, enjoys permanence, is not
confined to a particular space, and is not embodied in any
person or collection of persons (Kukathas 2008).
 The government is the instrument of the state through
which the will of the people is expressed, carried out, and
formulated. Thus, the government serves as the bridge that
connects the people to the state. The terms state and
government are commonly used interchangeably, but in strict
political science terms, they definitely mean two different
things. This difference is further explored in lesson 4.
 At present, the terms government and governance are
also used with confusion to a large extent. As an institution, it
is the government which concretizes the policies and
addresses the problems of the state. On the other hand,
good governance arises when the government involves the
people in its agenda and in the process of policy making. The
extent, therefore, to which democratic participation is
encouraged determines whether or not governance exists.
 The Study of Politics
So how do political scientists study the political world?
How is it like to look from the perspective of political
scientists? There are several ways by which politics can be
studied. Political science is an exciting discipline because it
embraces an array of theoretical perspectives and a variety
of analytic frameworks. In his book, Heywood (2013)
summed up these major schools of thought in political
science.
 The philosophical tradition, otherwise known as
political philosophy, is regarded as the traditional approach to
politics. The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle are
usually associated with this tradition as they asked what
“should” or “ought” instead of what “is.” This tradition
underscored the analytical study of doctrines that have
become the major focus of political thought.
 Politics can also be studied through empirical tradition.
Political scientists who advocate this approach believe that
any account of political reality must be impartial and should
thus be tested through observation. Those who work in this
tradition therefore seek to analyze and explain, and not to
offer recommendations, as in the philosophical tradition.
 Mainstream political analysis has also been dominated by
the scientific tradition. This tradition promotes objective
and quantifiable ways of studying politics. The scientific
tradition was further pushed with the rise of behavioralism,
or the belief that social theories should arise from
observation and quantifiable data.
 Recent theoretical approaches contribute in widening the
perspective of studying political science. Among these
include rational choice theory, new institutionalism, and
critical theory, which includes feminism, Marxism, and other
post-positivist and postmodernist approaches. Unlike
behavioralism, post-positivism is an approach that
emphasizes how people conceive or “construct” the political
world. Make a research on these recent approaches and be
ready to present in class your ideas about their main
arguments or premises.
 Recent theoretical approaches contribute in widening the
perspective of studying political science. Among these
include rational choice theory, new institutionalism, and
critical theory, which includes feminism, Marxism, and other
post-positivist and postmodernist approaches. Unlike
behavioralism, post-positivism is an approach that
emphasizes how people conceive or “construct” the political
world. Make a research on these recent approaches and be
ready to present in class your ideas about their main
arguments or premises.
 🔑 Essential Learning
You have learned that politics is characterized by an
interaction between individuals whose relationship is
characterized by conflict and cooperation. Politics also
involves the presence of binding solutions that will solve such
differences, although politics is no utopian solution. A
particular form of social interaction could be considered
political if it involves relationships that have something to do
with the art of governance, public affairs, compromise and
consensus, and power relations, which all fall within political
research.
 The ability to determine what is political is important in
researching about or studying politics. The use of particular
approaches in political science—whether the scientific,
philosophical, or empirical ones—is crucial in understanding
what politics entails.
Lesson 2: Political Ideas and Ideologies
In this lesson, you will be able to:

◘ critique ideas that have a direct impact on how we try to

manage ourselves as a
political community;
◘ identify the basic tenets of major political ideologies (i.e.,
liberalism, socialism,
conservatism, etc.);
◘ differentiate political ideologies;
◘ examine the relationship between political ideologies and
configurations of political
communities; and
◘ analyze how political ideologies create an impact on the social
and political life of
Filipinos.
 You have learned in the previous module that politics is a
social activity through which people make and amend the
general rules that guide their political life. As a phenomenon,
politics is studied using different theoretical perspectives.
The connection between political theory and practice is
established by ideologies, among many others.
 Following Aristotle’s contention that man is by nature a
political animal, all individuals are, in essence, political
thinkers. Have you heard your parents express their opinions
on an issue of political relevance? How about you? Have you
not noticed that individuals use political ideas and concepts
when they share their opinions or whenever they speak their
mind? This module explores these ideas from the
perspective of major political ideologies.
 The Role of Ideas
Why did the Filipinos march against the dictator Ferdinand
Marcos in what became known as the 1986 EDSA People
Power Revolution? Why did people do the same during the
time of former President Joseph Estrada in 2001? What are
the reasons behind the Million People March in 2013? There
must be some motivating ideas behind their actions.
Ideas, however abstract they may seem, govern individual
behavior. While they are not ideologies by themselves, they
constitute a part of the raw material needed to create one
coherent doctrine. How did the individuals who participate in
rallies and protests illustrated in figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3
perceive the existence of inequality and injustice during their
time? How did they look at equality? What for them is
justice? Surely, these political ideas are not merely a passive
reflection of their personal interests because these inspired
and guided them in their political action.
 As what has been highlighted earlier, political theory and
political practice are inextricably linked. Political ideas did not
come out of nowhere. They are shaped and continuously
reshaped by current socio-historical, economic, and political
circumstances. Whether you are conscious or not, your
behavior is guided by a set of ideas, beliefs, or value
systems you adhere to. At a more general level and at a
definitely larger scale, political ideas shape the nature of
political systems and serve as glue that binds societies
together.
 The Nature of Political Ideology

An ideology is more or less a coherent set of ideas that

direct or organize a specific political action (Heywood 2013).
It consists of belief and value systems, a discussion of
existing power relationships, an exploration of how political
change is achieved in line with these power relations, and
an illustration of a desired future. The following are several
definitions of political ideology according to Heywood (2013).
◘ A political belief system
◘ An action-orientated set of political ideas
◘ The ideas of the ruling class
◘ The world-view of a particular social class or social group
◘ Political ideas that embody or articulate class or social
interests
◘ Ideas that propagate false consciousness amongst the
exploited or oppressed
◘ Ideas that situate the individual within a social context and
generate a sense of collective
belonging
◘ An officially sanctioned set of ideas used to legitimize a
political system or regime
◘ An all-embracing political doctrine that claims a monopoly
of truth
◘ An abstract and highly systematic set of political ideas
 Before focusing on the major political ideologies, it is
important to present first the spectrum of political attitudes.
Whether an individual is radical, liberal, moderate,
conservative, or reactionary is largely represented by his or
her political values and beliefs in political change. You must
have heard before the terms leftist or rightist, and you might
have wondered what they really mean in political discourse.
Each of the political attitudes mentioned are positioned in a
linear spectrum (figure 2.4)—either on the left, on the middle,
or on the right. Thus, to be a leftist means being supportive
of the values on the left of the spectrum, while being a
rightist means espousing the value of those on the right.
 Each of the political attitudes mentioned are positioned in
a linear spectrum (figure 2.4)—either on the left, on the
middle, or on the right. Thus, to be a leftist means being
supportive of the values on the left of the spectrum, while
being a rightist means espousing the value of those on the
right.
 Each of these is an advocate of a particular political value
and possesses a political attitude about changing the status
quo, or the existing conditions. Given the illustration in figure
2.4, to be considered a leftist means supporting the causes
of those on the left of the spectrum, where the radicals and
the liberals are located.
 These groups advocate changes in the status quo. The
conservatives and the reactionaries, on the other hand, are
located on the right side. The conservatives are the most
supportive of the status quo, which lies between the
conservatives and the reactionaries. The reactionaries, like
the conservatives, are reluctant to progressive change.
 Therefore, the farther one is from the status quo, the
more dissatisfied he or she is with it, and hence more likely
to be supportive of fundamental changes. The closer a
person to the status quo, the less likely he or she is going to
call for change.
 Regarding values, people on the left of the spectrum
emphasize political liberty, social change, human equality,
and human rights; while those on the right revere authority,
tradition, elitism, and property rights (Baradat 2012). With
these values and attitudes about change, the different major
political ideologies can be positioned in the spectrum and be
labeled as radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and
reactionary.
 This linear spectrum of political attitude is criticized for not
being able to accommodate other groups. What are the other
ways by which attitudes are presented in a political
spectrum? Who are those considered to be part of the
“center”? Where do terrorists, religious fundamentalists, and
military adventurists fall? Share your thoughts with the class.
Major Political Ideologies: Key Ideas and Theories

In this lesson, you will learn the basic tenets of the

classical ideologies (liberalism, conservatism, and socialism)
and other ideological traditions that emerged as a reaction to
these classical ones. To review, it was mentioned that these
ideologies offer a specific lens on how to see the political
world. The following presents a way of looking at this world,
particularly in terms of power relations, the type of change
that is sought and ways on how to achieve it, and a view of
the desired future.
 Ideologies and the Philippine Society
One may ask how political ideologies have affected
Philippine politics and society. According to Buendia (1992),
ideologies are critical in a country’s political life as they make
and unmake regimes and governments. He continued, “in
the Philippines, ideologies remain to be sharpened and
fashioned to the country’s needs and demands for
development. Many of the solutions proposed by various
ideologies are shaped by the way the national problems are
defined or seen” (p. 64).
 Which values and beliefs materialized in the course of
Philippine political history? Has liberalism triumphed over
other beliefs in the country? Or has communism weakened
in the Philippines? Is feminism present and how has it
influenced our society?
 While the larger portion of the Philippine society is not
motivated by any ideology, several groups, political parties,
and sections of the country espouse certain ideologies. As
Buendia (1992) claimed, these organizations and their
ideologies continue to compete in offering solutions and
programs of government to respond to the nation’s problems.
 🔑 Essential Learning
You have learned the importance of ideas in shaping the
behavior of an individual at the micro level and the society at
large. Political ideologies are powerful such that they shape
the structure of a society—the institutions and the ways of
doing things. These ideologies are comprised of beliefs and
value systems that give rise to political processes; they also
constitute ideas about change and its desired future.
Ideologies vary from the classical to the contemporary ones.
 These ideologies have different perspectives on various
issues, but also have similarities on a number of respects.
The relevance of these ideologies rises and falls depending
on their significance to explain current social, political, and
economic circumstances.
Lesson 3: What is Power?
In this lesson, you will be able to:

◘ define power;
◘ recognize the nature, dimensions, types, and consequences
of power;
◘ analyze the nature, dimensions, types, deployments, and
consequences of power; and
◘ assess how power is exercised in different situations.
 In the previous discussion on the different views on
politics, you have learned that politics also involves power
and the distribution of resources. It is thus seen as the
exercise of authority in the state. Personal relationships are
also characterized by power, whether you are conscious of
this or not. You can notice how power is practiced in
everyday life, even in the most ordinary situations. In this
module, you will be introduced to the nature and types of
power, and analyze its relevance and consequences in
shaping the structure of different
organizations and situations.
 Definition of Power
In its broadest sense, power is one’s ability to achieve a
desired outcome. However, in political terms, power is the
ability to influence another—the way one thinks or
behaves—in a manner not of his or her own choosing
(Lasswell 1936). It thus involves one’s capacity to get
things done, and to make someone do something
he or she would not otherwise do.
 Political power involves three interrelated concepts:
legitimacy, authority, and sovereignty. According to Roskin et
al. (2012), legitimacy refers to the people’s perception that
their government rules rightfully, and thus must be obeyed.
Sovereignty, on the other hand, speaks of the ability of a
national government to be the sole leader, which has the last
word of law in that society. Lastly, authority is seen as the
political leader’s ability to command respect and
exercise power.
 Power comes in different faces or dimensions. It can be
considered as decision-making, agenda setting, or thought
control.
 Power and Authority
While power is defined as the ability to command
obedience and is rested on coercion, most political systems
have developed mechanisms by which people obey orders.
Power is considered as authority when it is recognized as
legitimate. Max Weber (1922) distinguished three types of
authority: traditional, rational-legal, and charismatic.
 The Exercise of Power and Its Consequences
Power defines social and political relationships. Who gets
what, when, and how much are usually determined by power.
From political systems characterized by democratic
institutions or dictatorships, down to interpersonal
relationships between and among individuals, the struggle
for power is ever present.
 In the system of governance, power relations determine
how resources are distributed. For instance, the relationship
between the leader and the governed is shaped by inequality
in power. Such is likewise evident in the global order. In
world politics or international relations, according to realists,
power relations decide the type of relationship between
states. Realists maintain that economic, political, and military
powers usually dictate the influence of one country over the
affairs of another—if not the global order. However, liberals
argue that the adverse effects of inequality of power are
mitigated by a rules-based world order. Either way, there is a
common recognition of the existence of power even at an
international scale.
 🔑 Essential Learning
Politics cannot be studied without having a focus on
power. Power is the ability to influence another. It can also be
seen as coercion or the use of intimidation to get desired
outcomes. Power can also be legitimate—that is, the
exercise of influence is recognized and that the governed
accords obedience to the leader. Power comes in various
forms and dimensions, and it exists in different levels of
relationships: from the personal level, to the governmental,
and up to the international level. It has different
consequences, but what is notable is that it defines all types
of relationships. After all, power involves who gets what,
when, and how much.
Lesson 4: States, Nations, and Globalization
In this lesson, you will be able to:

◘ define nation and state;

◘ differentiate state from government;
◘ differentiate nation from state;
◘ explain meanings of globalization;
◘ identify several forms of globalization; and
◘ evaluate how globalization influences nation-states.
 You have learned in lesson 1 that political science is the
study of the state and the government. In this section, you
will further learn about the state and will be acquainted with
the basic differences among state, government, and nation.
You may wonder what could be the importance of states as a
political entity and as an actor in the global order, given the
increasing interconnectedness of the world at present. The
relationship between the state and globalization will also be
addressed in this part.
 States, Governments, and Nations
The state is a political community that has sovereign
jurisdiction over a clearly defined territory, and exercises
authority through several institutions, including the
government. Heywood (2013) offers five features of a state:

1. It is sovereign.
2. Its institutions are public.
3. It is an exercise of legitimation.
4. It is an instrument of domination.
5. It is a territorial association.
 The state has four elements, namely: sovereignty,
government, territory, and people. Sovereignty refers to
both jurisdiction (the ability of a state to exercise its authority
over its territory and people) and independence (the freedom
from external control). The government is the machinery of
the state through which the people’s will is formulated and
carried out. The territory includes all the land, sea, and
airspace the state exercises jurisdiction on. Finally, the
people or population is the organization of human beings
living together as a community.
 There are several classifications of states depending on
the perspective one conforms to. Roskin (2012) claimed that
while no international tribunal classifies states based on
strength, analysts provide three categories.
 Roskin (2012) held that a state is a powerful entity strong
enough to enforce its will. Political institutions, the working
structures of government are important in the proper
functioning of a state. As what you have learned in lesson 1,
the government serves as a mechanism of the state, through
which the will of the people is expressed, formulated, and
carried out. One way of studying political institutions is
through identifying the locus of power—that is, by asking the
question, “Who governs?”
 From this, governments may be classified in several
ways. One of the earliest classifications was that of Aristotle.
He distinguished governments based on who governs and
whether or not such government is positive (legitimate) or
negative (corrupt). The table below presents Aristotle’s
classic work.
 From this categorization by Aristotle, comparative political
scientists would later on provide several other government
typologies. What other types can you provide? Visit the Web
sites below. You may use the suggested matrix to guide you
in your research on the types of
governments.
 Now that you have learned these basics, how different
then is a state from a government? There are several key
differences according to Heywood (2013):
 How about a nation? How different is it from a state and
from a government?

If a state is a political community bound by political

obligations, a nation is a group of people bound together by
commonalities in language, history, traditions, and religion. In
this case, a nation is not just cultural, but could be political as
well—especially when the people share a common civic
consciousness. Although not necessary, a nation can also be
seen as psychological when people share loyalty or affection
in the form of patriotism (Heywood 2013).
 The integration of the state and the nation forms the
nation-state. This political organization is widely recognized
today. As an entity, its strength relies on the fusion of both
the cultural and political aspects present in a state and in a
nation, allowing for cultural cohesion and at the same time
political unity. However, nation-states have been met with
challenges, including, but not limited to, the growth of ethnic
politics and globalization. How has globalization influenced
the nation-state?
 Globalization and the Nation-State
Globalization is considered to be the most important
threat to the nation-state. But what is this phenomenon?
What impact does it have to people and nation-states?
Heywood (2013) defined globalization as the process
through which societies have become so intertwined or
interconnected that events and decisions in one part of the
world have significant effects on the lives of people in the
other part of the world.
 Transformations in production of goods and the flow of
financial capital can be a result of the further integration of
economies in the world economy. For example, changes in
domestic politics and economy of the Philippines can actually
be caused by events happening in different countries. To
illustrate this, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) Integration may have caused the developments in
Philippine educational policies (e.g., the implementation of
the K to 12 Basic Education Program) so that the movement
of students within the member-countries will be “free-flowing”
too. How and why does this happen? What are the
characteristics of globalization as a phenomenon? Heywood
(2013) enumerates its features.
1. Declining relevance of geographical distance

2. Lessening significance of territorial boundaries

3. Deepening and broadening of political processes, such

that the local, national, and global events constantly interact.
 Globalization resulted in a growing interdependence
among actors, activities, and processes all over the world.
Several forms of globalization can be identified, of which
Heywood (2013) listed three—economic, cultural, and
political. The following table summarizes the key features of
these forms of globalization and enumerates some
examples.
 Globalization resulted in a growing interdependence
among actors, activities, and processes all over the world.
Several forms of globalization can be identified, of which
Heywood (2013) listed three—economic, cultural, and
political. The following table summarizes the key features of
these forms of globalization and enumerates some
examples.
 🔑 Essential Learning
In ordinary language, the terms nation, state, and
government are used interchangeably. In this module, you
have seen how different these terms are from each other.
The Philippines is both a state and a nation. As a state, it is
composed of elements such as people, territory, government,
and sovereignty. As a nation, the Philippines is comprised of
individuals who share certain commonalities as to language,
identity, tradition, or history and who share a feeling of unity
and belongingness with that imagined community.
Globalization as a phenomenon poses threats to the
existence of the Philippine nation-state, or at least, for those
who are skeptic about it.
 SESSION 2

The Basics of Political Science

and Philippine Politics
Lesson 5: Historical Development of Philippine Democratic
Politics
In this lesson, you will be able to:

◘ relate the evolution of Philippine politics and governance;

◘ describe the different stages in the evolution of Philippine
politics and governance;
◘ analyze the evolution of Philippine politics and governance;
◘ assess the effects of the colonial experience on Philippine
politics and governance; and
◘ appraise the influence of prior stages of Philippine political
developments on contemporary Philippine politics.
 In the previous lesson, you have learned about the basic
concepts in political science. This and the succeeding lessons will
elaborate on the history and structure of the Philippine
government. The 1987 Philippine Constitution forms the basis for
the current governmental structure of the country. Article II, Section
1 provides that “the Philippines is a democratic and republican
state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.” But how did our government
structure evolve into what it is today? Take a look at a general
overview of the historical background of Philippine politics and
governance in this lesson.
 The Development of Philippine Government
The evolution of Philippine politics may be presented through
the various historical periods that the country has undergone. The
discussion will be divided as follows:

1. Precolonial period (before 1565)

2. Spanish period (1565–1898)
3. Revolutionary period (1868–1898)
4. American period (1898–1941)
5. Japanese occupation (1941–1945)
6. Postwar era or the Third Philippine Republic (1946–1971)
7. Martial Law era (1972–1981) and the Fourth Republic (1981–
1986)
8. Post-EDSA or the Fifth Republic (1986–present)
 Precolonial Period

Even before the Spaniards arrived in the Philippines in 1521,

there already existed a system of governance in precolonial
Philippines. Back then, the Philippines was an archipelago
organized into several independent and self-sufficient political units
known as the barangay.
 This unit is headed by a chief known as the datu. In other parts
of the archipelago, the rulers were called rajah, sultan, or hadji.
The datu held vast legislative, executive, and judicial powers. You
will learn more about these three powers in the succeeding
lessons. But for now, suffice it to say that the chieftain had powers
to create rules, implement these regulations, and decide on cases.
The datu also served as the military head.
 During this period, the barangays already had a legal system,
too. Most of the laws, which evolved based on native customs and
traditions, were unwritten and were passed on from one generation
to the next by oral tradition. In terms of justice, a system of trial in
the form of trial by ordeal was administered. A system of
punishment also existed during that time. The barangay
administered laws, and cases were settled as well through
mediation and
compromise.
 Present also during the precolonial times was the system of
stratification, which was deemed politically significant. The
stratification was based on class, which included the nobility
(maharlika), the freemen (timawa), the serfs (aliping
namamahay) and the slaves (aliping sagigilid). The datu
belonged to the maharlika class. Women also played a pivotal role
during this period as they held important positions in precolonial
Philippine society. The precolonial system was already complex
and sophisticated, such that foreign relations were already
established as early as this period. The following photos depict
such organized and systematic government our forefathers
established during that time.
 Spanish Period
Ferdinand Magellan’s arrival in the Philippines in 1521 became
the Spanish Crown’s basis for the occupation of the archipelago.
Thereafter, a number of expeditions were sent to formally colonize
the archipelago. However, it was only during Miguel Lopez de
Legazpi’s conquest of the islands in 1565 did the formal
establishment of a colonial government take place.
The Spanish takeover brought changes in the archipelago’s
governmental structure. The Philippines was indirectly governed by
the king of Spain through Mexico through the Council of Indies in
Spain. When Mexico gained independence in 1821, the Philippines
was directly ruled by Spain until 1898, when the country was
ceded to the United States of America under the Treaty of Paris.
 If the precolonial government was characterized by
independent barangays, the Spaniards consolidated power under
a centralized government, which was led by the governor-general.
With his authority based in Manila (Intramuros), the governor-
general was likewise an all-powerful individual. He had executive,
legislative, judicial, administrative, and military powers. The
centralization of power and the creation of a basic unitary
government is thus a Spanish influence.
The barangays were consolidated for the purpose of
administrative efficiency. When the Spaniards were about to
implement their imperial design, they noticed that the sparse
indigenous population were scattered in forest lands and coastal
areas. With this, the friars enticed the natives to live in towns.
 Recognizing the influence of the datus for the easier
pacification of natives, the Spaniards appointed the chieftains as
the cabeza de barangay. The datu’s traditional powers, however,
were lost and were limited to collecting taxes. The unified
barangays composed the pueblos or towns, which were led by the
gobernadorcillo (“little governor”). The consolidated towns then
formed into provinces, which could be categorized into two.
Provinces that were fully subjugated were called alcaldia, headed
by the alcalde mayor; while provinces that were not entirely
pacified under Spanish authority were called corregimiento, led
by the corregidor.
 If during the precolonial period the datu and the council of
elders created laws, laws during the Spanish period emanated
from Spain. On the other hand, there was a Royal Audiencia
which was an independent body created to hear and solve cases.
Initially, the governor-general headed the judicial body, but the
chief justice replaced him permanently. Audiencias were
established in Manila, Cebu, and Vigan. While the Audiencia was
not an exact model of the present-day Supreme Court (Santos,
n.d.), it nonetheless had influence on its structure.
 Revolutionary Period
During the second half of the 19th century, the nationalist
sentiments of the Filipinos were awakened. The Propaganda
Movement, led by key figures such as Jose Rizal, Marcelo H. del
Pilar, and Graciano Lopez Jaena, advocated reforms—such that
the same rights and freedoms being enjoyed in Spain would also
be granted to the Filipinos. They wrote novels, manifestos, and
articles that called for reforms. However, the failure of the
Propaganda to initiate changes in the society gave birth to a secret
association, the Kataas-taasang Kagalang-galangang
Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (Katipunan). Founded in 1892
by Andres Bonifacio and a group of patriots, the Katipunan sought
independence from Spain and set the 1896 Revolution in motion.
 As an organization, the Katipunan adopted its own form of
government, which had national and local levels. The Katipunan
was governed by the Kataastaasang Sanggunian (Supreme
Council), which was composed of the president,
secretary/secretaries, treasurer, and fiscal. The Sangguniang
Balangay (Provincial Council) and the Sangguniang Bayan
(Popular Council) was also organized in each province and town,
respectively. A Sangguniang Hukuman (Judicial Council) was
also created to adjudicate on cases involving members of the
organization.
 Events, however, led to the division of the Katipunan into two
factions: the Magdalo and Magdiwang. The Spaniards were about
to make an offensive in Cavite and a unified leadership was
deemed necessary. On 22 March 1897, the Tejeros Convention
was called, where Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo was elected as president.
 On 1 November 1897, Aguinaldo established the Biak-na-Bato
Republic. Its constitution declared the creation of an independent
Philippine state. The republic, however, lasted for only a month
after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato was signed. It provided for the
amnesty and monetary indemnity of Aguinaldo and other
revolutionaries, including the exile of the revolutionary government
to Hong Kong. The pact was supposed to signal the end of the
revolution, but Aguinaldo and his men purchased more arms and
ammunition to prepare themselves for another siege.
 By April 1898, the Spanish-American war broke out. Aguinaldo
sailed for Cavite from Hong Kong and by 24 May, he established a
dictatorial government. It was under this dictatorial government
that the Philippine independence from Spain was declared on 12
June in Kawit, Cavite.
 Soon after, the dictatorial government was replaced by a
revolutionary government. On 15 September 1898, months after
the declaration of independence, the Malolos Congress convened,
which produced the Malolos Constitution. On 23 January 1899, the
First Philippine Republic was established with Emilio Aguinaldo
as its president. A Supreme Court of Justice was likewise created,
which addressed cases. However, the outbreak of the Filipino-
American War suspended the activities of these institutions. In
1901, Emilio Aguinaldo was captured by American forces, leading
to the dissolution of the First Philippine Republic.
 American Period
The signing of the Treaty of Paris signaled the end of the
Spanish-American War. The treaty involved United States’
payment of $20 million to Spain after the latter ceded all its
imperial possessions, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
Philippines. The American occupation of the Philippines definitely
precipitated the Philippine-American War. Following the capture of
Emilio Aguinaldo and the defeat of revolutionary forces, the official
end of hostilities was declared in 1902. Regardless of this,
individual uprisings all over the archipelago still persisted, making
the Philippine-American War one of the longest wars the United
States has ever been to.
 In 1898, after America’s capture of Manila, the United States
forces established a military government in the Philippines. It was
led by a military governor, who exercised all powers of the
government. The military governor administered the Philippines
through the authority of the US President, who was also the
Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. The military
governors were Gen. Wesley Merritt (1898), Gen. Elwell Otis
(1898–1900), and Maj. Gen. Arthur MacArthur, Jr. (1900–1901).
The Spooner Amendment eventually ended the military regime. A
civilian governor replaced the military governor. The Americans
established the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands under
the authority of the Bureau of Insular Affairs, a division which
oversaw the civil affairs of some US foreign territories. What
ensued thereafter was the establishment of governmental
structures that would later on affect or shape the course of
Philippine politics.
 William H. Taft (in office 1901–
1904) became the first civil governor of
the Philippines. The civil governor
acted as the head of the executive
branch and also exercised legislative
powers as the head of the Philippine
Commission, a lawmaking body,
whose members were all appointed.
 In 1902, the Philippine Organic Act (Cooper Act) was
enacted, which provided for the creation of a Philippine
legislature. The legislature would be bicameral, with the all-
appointed Philippine Commission as the upper house; and the
Philippine Assembly, whose members were to be elected, as
the lower house. In 1907, the first nationwide election was held
and the Philippine legislature held its first session. By 1916, the
Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) provided for the
reorganization of the Philippine legislature into a fully elected
and Filipino-controlled bicameral body. The Philippine
Commission became the Senate, while the Philippine Assembly
became the House of Representatives.
 Meanwhile, Filipino statesmen were already working toward
total Philippine independence from the United States. Until in
1934, the Tydings-McDuffie Act (Philippine Independence Act)
was ratified by the US Congress. It established the Philippine
Commonwealth, which provided for a 10-year transition period
that would prepare the Filipinos for self-governance. The 1935
Constitution was promulgated, which paved the way for a
presidential and unicameral legislative system called the
National Assembly of the Philippines.
 The legislature was later restored to bicameral after an
amendment in the Commonwealth Constitution. An
independent judiciary was also established, with judicial power
vested in a supreme court and such other inferior courts as
provided by law. President Manuel Quezon and Vice President
Sergio Osmeña headed the first Commonwealth government.
The Commonwealth government went in exile when the
Japanese occupied the Philippines from 1942–1945.
 The influence of the American occupation on the structure of
government of the country is very evident. The democratic
political institutions established, including electoral and party
politics, constitutional law, the secret ballot, and the legislature,
are manifestations of the strong influence the Americans had on
our current political system. Similarly, our belief in the
democratic ideals that guide governance of the country is by
itself an American influence. As Teehankee (2002) noted,
colonialism became the defining force in the emergence of
democracy in the Philippine nation-state.
 Japanese Occupation
The Japanese occupation of Manila signaled the establishment
of the Japanese Military Administration on 3 January 1942. It
consequently led to the interruption of American rule in the
Philippines.

As an initial move, the Japanese military forces established the

Philippine Executive Commission (PEC), a civil government that
would temporary rule the country. It was composed of Filipinos,
with Jorge B. Vargas as its chairman. While this commission
exercised executive and legislative powers, everything was subject
to approval by the commander in chief of the Japanese forces.
In 1943, a new constitution was
promulgated and the Japanese-
sponsored Philippine Republic was
established. Jose P. Laurel served as its
president. Also called the Second
Republic, its executive, legislative, and
judiciary structures were similar to those
of the PEC. While Filipinos assumed
government positions, the Japanese
apparently influenced how the country
would be administered. Thus, the
Second Republic is commonly referred
to as a “puppet” government.
 Soon after the return of Gen. Douglas MacArthur to the
Philippines in 1944 and the eventual defeat of the Japanese
forces, the Commonwealth government was reestablished. The
1935 Constitution again became the highest law of the land.
Meanwhile, Manila suffered as the second most devastated city
after the Second World War, next to the city of Warsaw in Poland.
By 5 July 1945, MacArthur announced the liberation of the
Philippines. The reestablishment of the government under Osmeña
saw enormous problems: devastation by war, destruction of the
economy, political warfare, and guerilla violence. Thus, the primary
problem during this period was the reconstruction of the country
and of the government.
 Postwar Era

As what has been mentioned earlier, the Tydings-McDuffie Act

granted independence to the Philippines after the 10-year
transitional period. This happened on 4 July 1946, despite
the fact that the Philippines was still rising up from the ashes
brought by the war. The Third Republic was also inaugurated on
this day.
 The structure of postwar Philippine politics and government
was founded on the 1935 Constitution. The said constitution
provided for a presidential and unitary system, wherein the
president will be directly elected by the people and will serve for
four years with a maximum of two terms. There was also a
bicameral legislature composed of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, whose members are also directly elected by the
people.
 An independent judicial body—composed of the Supreme Court
and the lower courts—was also created. Philippine politics and
government were democratic in a sense that they provided for the
separation of powers and a system of checks and balances among
the three branches of the government. Electoral and party politics
(see unit II, module 10) also characterized pre- and
postwar periods.
 The first president of the Third Republic was Manuel Roxas (in
office 1946–1948), followed by Elpidio Quirino (1948–1953),
Ramon Magsaysay (1953–1957), Carlos P. Garcia (1957–1961),
Diosdado Macapagal (1961–1965), and the first term of Ferdinand
Marcos (1965– 1969). Marcos’s second term saw changes in the
governmental structure and the ratification of a new constitution in
1973.
 Martial Law Era and the Fourth Republic

In 1965, Ferdinand Marcos was elected to the presidency and

his administration was characterized by an increased agricultural
productivity, massive infrastructure development, and a defining
diplomatic policy. In 1969, he ran for reelection and succeeded,
making him the only president under the 1935 Constitution
to be elected for a second term. That time, however, the country
was undergoing worsening economic condition, deteriorating
peace and order, social discontent, and a growing Communist
insurgency.
 To “save” the Republic from this turmoil and to reform the
society, Marcos, on 23 September 1972, announced on nationwide
radio and television that he was placing the entire country under
martial law. The declaration was made through the virtue of
Proclamation 1081 which was signed on 21 September. Marcos
rationalized that martial law was the only option that would solve
the rebellion which posed a threat to the peace and order of the
country. He then instituted the Bagong Lipunan (New Society),
which envisioned a thriving and self-reliant society that is based on
new social and political values.
 Under Marcos’s administration, a new constitution was adopted
in 1973. The 1973 Constitution provided that the Philippines will
have a modified parliamentary form of government. The president
will serve as a ceremonial head of state, with the following
functions: address the National Assembly at the opening of its
regular section; proclaim the election of prime minister; dissolve
the National Assembly and call for a general election; appoint all
officers and employees in accordance with the Civil Service Law,
among others (Article VII, Section 6).
 On the other hand, the prime minister will be the head of the
cabinet (Article IX, Section 1), be responsible to the National
Assembly for the program of government approved by the
president and determine the guidelines of national policy (Section
2), and be the commander in chief of all armed forces in the
Philippines (Section 12), among others. The president and the
prime minister were to be elected by the National Assembly, a
unicameral legislative body composed of assemblymen elected by
the people.
 By 1976, the 1973 Constitution was amended. Instead of
having an election for the National Assembly, an interim Batasang
Pambansa would be established, composed of the incumbent
president, the current regional and sectoral representatives, and
the members of the cabinet. The interim Batasang Pambansa
would have the same power as that of the National Assembly.
 The third item in the 1976 amendments allowed Marcos to be
the president and the prime minister at the same time. He shall
“continue to exercise all his powers even after the interim
Batasang Pambansa is organized and ready to discharge its
functions. Likewise, he shall continue to exercise his powers and
prerogatives under the 1935 Constitution and the powers vested
on the President and the Prime Minister under this Constitution.”
Ultimately, Marcos’s legislative powers were solidified as the sixth
item allowed him to “issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters
of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land” if the
interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails
to address matters deemed requiring immediate action by the
president–prime minister.
In 1981, the constitution was again amended. With these changes
in the government structure, Marcos was able to stay in the
presidency longer and exercise greater powers.
 During martial law, the political rights and civil liberties of the
people as well as their human rights were suppressed and
violated. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus led to the
arrest and detention of any person without proper court
proceeding. There were also cases of human rights abuses among
those who were vocal against the regime. Press freedom was
suppressed as Marcos established control of mass media.
Through Letter of Instruction No. 1, Marcos ordered the closure of
media establishments in the country. He also used his power to
seize companies and industries and to place them under the
control of his trusted supporters and relatives, instituting what
came to be known as crony capitalism.
 While Marcos already lifted martial law by 1981, he continued
to exercise dictatorial powers. Calls to end his dictatorial regime
brought Filipinos to take to the streets to participate in a popular
and nonviolent uprising called the EDSA People Power, which
ousted Marcos and ended his dictatorial rule.
 Post-ESDA Period

The period from 1986 onward is the restoration of democracy.

The fall of the dictatorship marked the shift toward
redemocratization and return to constitutionalism. A revolutionary
government was created following Corazon Aquino’s ascent to
presidency. A Freedom Constitution was also framed, which served
as the foundation of the transitory government. When a new
Philippine Constitution was ratified in 1987, a democratic and
republican government was established.
 The 1987 Constitution featured aspects that reflected those of
the 1935 Constitution, albeit several changes. The post-EDSA era,
also known as the Fifth Republic, saw the revival of democracy,
wherein governmental powers emanate from the people. Elections,
political parties, and civil societies were thus reinstituted. Civilian
authority (through the president) was recognized supreme over the
military. An independent judiciary was also reestablished. The
Philippine legislature also returned to a bicameral form, with the
rebirth of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
 Corazon Aquino (in office 1986–1992) served as the first
president of the Fifth Republic. She was followed by Fidel Ramos
(1992–1998) and Joseph Estrada, who only served half of his term
(1998–2001) after being deposed by the EDSA People Power II.
Estrada was succeeded by his vice president, Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, who eventually won the 2004 presidential election and thus
served as executive for almost a decade (2001–2010). She was
followed by Benigno Simeon Aquino III (2010–2016), son of former
president Corazon Aquino. He was followed by Rodrigo Duterte
(2016-2022), the first president to have hailed from Mindanao.
Today, the Philippines is headed by Ferdinand Marcos, Jr, the the
son of the late dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, Sr.