Principles of Political Science by J.

M Aruego and Aruego-Torres

Week 3 Assigned Readings (P.1-18)

Chapter 1

THE NATURE, SCOPE, AND METHODS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Political science defined. - Writers on the subject have given various

definitions of the term political science. These definitions, however, agree on the
fact that political science treats of the phenomena of the state in its varied aspects
and relationships; in short, that it begins and ends with the state.

Among writers, a distinction has often been made be- tween the term
"theoretical" politics and the term "applied" or "practical" politics. Of them have
been Jellinek, Holt- zendorff, Janet, Cornewall Lewis, Alexander Bain, and Sir
Frederick Pollock. The first-a majority of writers at present use the term political
science instead-is concerned "with the fundamental characteristics of the state
without reference to its activities or the means by which its ends are attained;" the
second-they use at present the term politics-"with the state in action, that is, as á
dynamic institution’s

Political science as a science.-Although there have been writers who

objected to calling the study of the phenomena of the state a science, because
political phenomena are characterized by uncertainty, variableness, and a lack of
order and continuity, the majority of writers consider it a science because it
represents a mass of knowledge about the phenomena of the state, acquired by
systematic observation, experience, and study. Holtzendorff, a German writer,
writing in defense of the claim that said study is a science says: "With the
enormous growth of knowledge... it is impossible to deny that the sum total of all
the experiences, phenomena, and knowledge respecting the state may be brought
together under the collective title of political science." This has likewise been the
view of Bluntschli, Jellinek, Treitschke, Sidgwick, Lieber, Burgess, and
Willoughby, and others who have written systematically on the state.

The scope of political science -In its restricted sense, the term political
science is applied to the specialized study of government and politics. It is a study
of the nature of the state, of the nature, history and forms of political institutions,
of the laws of political growth and development, and, generally speaking, of the
problems of the state. Accordingly, the study of political science has come to be
grouped into the following divisions: (1) courses in political theory, in which an
attempt is made to trace the origin and to follow the development and spread of
political theories; (2) courses in descriptive and comparative government in which
are presented the historical setting and an analysis of the structure and workings of
various leading governmental systems of the world; (3) courses in public law,
including constitutional law, administrative law, and Jurisprudence; (4) courses in
international law, diplomacy, and international organization, in which an effort is
made to show the external relations of the state; and (5) courses in administration
in which is considered the art of managing men and materials in the
accomplishment of the purposes of the state, included among which are functional
studies, as those of legislative methods and procedure, judicial procedure and the
administration of justice, the regulation of public utilities, the supervision and
control of police, finance, labor, and many others.

The importance of the study of political science. Political science being

primarily a specialized study of government and politics, its study is of great
importance to every Filipino. In the first place, it provides a special background
for those intending to specialize in the social sciences or in professions like law,
education, business, and journalism. The activities of these professions are closely
interwoven with the affairs of the state, touching upon one phase or other of some
of its political institutions, so that a general study of this fundamental subject is
considered useful if not necessary. For this reason, the curricula of these
professional studies in institutions of higher learning here and abroad include at
least some fundamental courses in political science.

In the second place, the study of political science, even only of Philippine
government and politics, enables every Filipino to discharge more intelligently and
more efficiently his duties as a citizen. It enables him to have a more intelligent
knowledge of his own political institutions, their structure, their principles of
operation, their functions, and their workings. Consequently, he can exercise more
intelligently the right of suffrage, discuss more readily and understandingly
Philippine public questions, and exercise more efficiently the duties of a public
office.

In the third place, a knowledge of political science, local and comparative,

constitutes a particularly useful equipment for the Filipino who desires, as he
should, to participate effectively and usefully in our political growth and
development. Our country is still relatively young, with plenty of opportunities for
those trained in government. We need them for our expanding administrative and
technical services; for our foreign service; for our elective positions.

THE RELATION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE TO OTHER STUDIES

About ninety five years ago, when the study of such political subjects as
history, politics, economics, public law, and jurisprudence began to receive
systematic consideration in the universities of America and Europe, the term
political science was very commonly used in a sense to embrace all of these
studies. With the differentiation of these studies into departments markedly drawn
and separated, the term came to be used to mean a specialized study of
government and politics. With the inroads of political scientists into the domain of
these subjects and others, more recent ones, like psychology, anthropology, and
geography, making use of their findings and conclusions, in the investigation of
certain political phenomena and problems, political science has to a great extent
been transcending into the boundary lines of these other disciplines, gradually
establishing with them a relation of interdependence. For the purpose of a more
effective research, the activities of the social science departments of higher seats
of learning in America, England, and Europe, and to some extent in the
Philippines are correlated, each of them dependent upon the others for a
comprehensive, accurate treatment of given subjects for investigation. Thus,
political science, especially in its investigations of political phenomena and
problems, is dependent upon other studies which are generally spoken of as the
auxiliaries of political science.

Political science and history. – Primarily, it is the function of political

science to analyze political institutions. to describe their workings and
organization and to some extent to forecast their development; while that of
history is to trace the origin and development of the state and of its political
institutions. In his analysis of political institutions, of their nature, organization,
and development, the student of political science may find it very serviceable to
his purpose at elucidation to dwell to some extent on the reason for their
institution, on the stages of their development to their present forms, and on the
forces and factors influencing their growth and development. In many cases, the
political scientist may find very necessary to an enlightening critical analysis of
political structures, a knowledge of their past. Thus, he is constrained to resort to
his historical resources. An analysis of the present government of the Philippines
may then more clearly be made with an expository treatment of its origin, growth,
and transformations. The Constitution of the Philippines can be better understood
if studied in the light of the history of its provisions.

Political forecasts are safer when erected on historical facts. One versed in
the past of a political institution is in a better position to indicate the probable
trend of its development. We can best determine whether a certain proposed
political institution or principle will succeed or not in our country in the light of
the political history of our people.

Thus, it is seen that political science and history must be closely related
throughout. They are studies that are mutually contributory and supplementary. In
the words of Professor Seeley, "political science without history is hollow and
baseless; or to put it in rhyme: history with- out political science has no fruit; and
political science with- out history has no root."5

Political science and economics. - Political science and economics are

studies closely related in the sense that many problems of the state are problems
common to both, in the solution of which it is eminently necessary that both must
render their contribution. They are problems looked upon by the economist from
the standpoint of their effect upon the individual and his activities in the
satisfaction of wants, and by the political scientist primarily from the point of view
of public interests and from that of the state as a social unit organized to attain
cooperation in public affairs. They are, therefore, studies that touch each other
upon many points.

Many policies of the government have been deter- mined from economic
considerations. The regulation of the relations between labor and capital, the
determination of the sources of revenues, and the organization of the different
government-controlled corporations to undertake activities heretofore left to
private initiative involve policies based to a large extent on economics.

A political scientist without a background of economics is unprepared to

render the best service to the country in the solution of its economic problems.

Political science and sociology - Generally speaking, sociology is a study of

society viewed as an aggregate of individuals; while political science, with the
political aspects of a particular portion of society viewed as an organized unit.
Sociology is, thus, fundamental social science of which political science is just an
integral part.

As a specialized study of government and politics, the materials of political

science have been enriched by the contributions of sociology as a fundamental
social science. This has been so particularly with respect to its studies in various
problems which are problems of the government because they are affected with
public interest. The findings and conclusions of sociology about crimes, their
causes, methods, and solutions; about labor unrest; about housing conditions,
especially in urban communities; about the employment of children and women
and the risks and hazards to which they are exposed; about the forces of social
control; about juvenile delinquency; and many others: all of these have found
expression and embodiment in statutory legislation. Our system of social welfare
laws is the answer of political science to the demands of sociology, as a result of
its investigations.

Political science and law. - Law is defined as a rule of external conduct or

action which is prescribed or is formally recognized as binding by the supreme
governing authority and is enforced by a sanction. In this sense, the term "law"
includes any edict, decree, rescript, order, ordinance, statute, resolution, rule,
judicial decision, usage, etc., which is made or recognized, and enforced, by the
controlling authority. Political science, on the other hand, is a study of the state
with all its institutions; of which law forms a part. Thus, the study of political
science and that of law are closely linked together.

The growth of government is accompanied by the development of law.

Whatever be the ruling authority in the early stages of the political institution of
government, be it a mother, or a father of the family, or a judge, a priest or a
warrior, the community was governed by rules or customs which had the sanction
of law. With the evolution of government, there carne a demand that the rules and
customs of the community be written, and many of these rules and customs were
written and even codified. The expanding activities of the state brought about a
corresponding expansion of the body of laws. In general, it may be said that there
is no activity of the state which is not accompanied by some sort of regulation or
order which has the force of law. Thus, it is clear that government and law are
inseparable, and the study of political science and that of law touch each other in
many parts.

Political science and psychology. - Until recently, there was little thought of
the relation of psychology to political science. The studies of Gabriel Tarde in the
role of imitation in human conduct and of Professor James and other psychologists
in the relation of our thinking to our social relations gave an impetus to
investigations into the foundations of social psychology and the psychic forces in
political actions. Analyses have been made, for instance, of the psychology of the
mob, of assemblies, and of men in various walks of life, and conclusions ventured
that there is a certain way of swaying a crowd to a decision, of an assembly to a
vote, of an individual to an action. Studies in psychology have traced the
formation of many of our cherished political notions to the results of custom,
tradition, and imitation.

Psychology has been rendering invaluable aid to the government in the

management of the affairs of the state. Psychologists have been employed in
courts in the trial of criminal cases. They have been employed in the examination
and diagnosis of criminals and in the classification of the feeble-minded for
treatment. The studies in morale intended to bolster up the efficiency of the
administrative machine of the government have been primarily psycho- logical. In
recent wars, the United States government employed "psychological examiners" in
the Army, as it was desirable to measure the intelligence of each recruit as he
entered the service, for it had been found by military experience that men of low
intelligence made good officers provided that they possessed other military
qualifications, like a good physique, courage, and leadership.

The development of the study of psychology has been going on along with
its increasing usefulness in the solution of many problems of the state.

Political science and philosophy and ethics.-While the relation of political

science to philosophy is somewhat remote, the two studies touch upon each other
in some parts, especially in the realm of political theory and political philosophy.
Many of our political theories of today, like those of democracy, fascism,
socialism, individualism, nationalism, and internationalism, are expressions of the
personal philosophy of their exponents. In the studies by the political scientist of
the actuations of men in public life and of their programs and their policies, he is
greatly helped by an inquiry into their philosophy of life and into the factors and
influences that have moulded their thinking and their attitude.

Political science and geography and statistics. - To some extent, the study of
geography is related to that of political science. The distinctive function of
geography is to describe and explain the relations between man and his natural
environment; to examine and interpret the adjustments which groups of people
have made to the combinations of natural environmental conditions which exist in
the regions in which they live; to study the advantages and disadvantages, the
opportunities and handicaps, of unit regions throughout the world for utilization by
man. The forms of political institutions, the political policies that have shaped and
influenced the life of nations, the nature and character of the relationships of
political unities have been in no small way determined by environmental
conditions. A knowledge of geography proves very readily useful to the political
scientist in the solution of problems of politics, affecting land classification,
transportation, trade, and other kindred matters in which adjustment to natural
environment is involved.
 The study of statistics has become increasingly more useful with the attempt
by students of political science to measure with as much mathematical exactitude
as possible the significance of certain political phenomena. No longer are they
content with a generalized statement that political parties are an influential factor
in determining the course of legislation; they want, and studies have been made for
the purpose, to know what percentage of legislation is the result of party
discipline. In the study of financial pro- grams, as expressed in the budget, a
knowledge of statistics enables one to read readily the meaning that is interwoven
with the figures therein. In brief, statistics comes in with all scientific studies of
political problems.

THE METHODS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Of the methods employed for the study of political institutions and of

political problems, frequent use is made of the experimental method, the historical
method, the com- parative or observational method, the analytical method, the
psychological method, the juridical method, the philosophic method, the
sociological method, the biological method, and the scientific method. In some
cases, use is made exclusively of one of them, depending upon the point of view
taken; but, generally and more profitably, a combination of some or all of the
methods is called into play by the student of government and politics.

The experimental method. - The experimental method is adopted for the

study more of political problems than of existing political institutions. This
method of study seeks to discover by a series of experiments the rule of action or
the political machinery that is best adapted to or workable under given conditions;
or conversely, the conditions which are necessary for the most profitable use of
given political institutions or for the adoption of certain laws and regulations
 The method is necessarily inductive, with the discovery of a general political
truth as its aim. The nature of the subject of the experimental investigation and the
conditions under which it is conducted are such, however, that the most that can be
expected is a near approach to the general truth. The physicist or the chemist in his
scientific investigation can work out a scientific law that is invariably true, but the
social experimenter cannot; for the former can isolate his subject and control of his
own volition the surrounding influences, while the social experimenter cannot.
The former can isolate his subject in a test tube and produce the necessary
temperature that he desires, getting a certain result. He can repeat the same
experiment at another time, and produce the same result. The political
experimenter does not have the same control over his forces. While the physicist
or the chemist can tell with precision that certain given conditions will invariably
produce the same result, the political experimenter cannot. In his inductive process
of investigation, the conclusion arrived at by the political scientist is only an
approximation of the general truth. Therefore, with this conclusion, which is not
always true by the very nature of the conditions under which it is worked out, the
conclusion of his deductive reasoning may not be absolutely true. By way of
illustration, the political scientist wants to find out the conditions under which a
primary government would be successful. He sets up the machinery in a
community of two hundred thousand hectares, with a population of five thousand.
It is assumed that it is a success. He tries it in another community of almost the
same size and the same population, and again it is a success. He concludes that a
democracy is workable in a community under those conditions. But that is not an
absolute truth, so that its success is always insured in a community under those
conditions; for while in operation in this community, some extraneous forces out.
of the control of man may break out, like famines, typhoons, pestilences,
uprisings, and other local disturbances, causing a jolt in the political machinery
and making of its operation a failure. Or peradventure, a grafter may be elected or
appointed, who will embezzle the public funds or sow corruption in the
administration of the government, making of this democracy on trial a failure. The
most that can be said is that, generally speaking, a primary government is best
workable over a small area with a small population. The conclusion is not that a
primary government will always work well in that political unit. The conclusion
does not take the form of an invariable general political truth; it represents, to say
the most, the nearest approach to the general political truth.

There have been going on political experimentations in all governments. In

fact, the process of government is nothing but a series of experiments. The
government passes laws and regulations and adopts political practices and
institutions for the body politic, to serve not for all the time but only so long as
they continue to be useful and necessary. They are provisional and tentative, to be
dis- carded later or to be continued as experience with them advises.

Ideas evolved in the laboratory of political thinkers pass thru the stage of
political experiments before they are institutionalized on a large scale. The
commission form of government and the city-manager system, the municipal
ownership of transportation facilities or of lighting systems, the initiative, the
recall and the referendum all of these political inventions had to be tried and
observed first in some cities before their adoption on a large scale by American
localities. The government that was instituted in the Philippines under the
Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916 was considered to be in the
nature of an experiment by the United States to determine the practicability of
democracy in the Philippines, to determine whether the Filipinos would be fit for
self-government. Not long ago, the suggestion was made of experimenting with a
city manager plan of government for the city of Manila as a part of our program of
reforms, with a similar plan slightly modified for Baguio and advanced
municipalities in the Philippines. And to a limited extent, the suggestion is made
that a trial might be made with direct legislation in our municipalities.
 The historical method. - The historical method, in the words of Frederick
Pollock, "seeks an explanation of what institutions are and are tending to be, more
in the knowledge of what they have been and how they came to be what they are,
than in the analysis of them as they stand." As a method of study for existing
political institutions and practices, it traces their origin and follows their
development, taking note of and evaluating the forces and influences that have
directed their course; as a method of study for political problems, it is a particular
form of the comparative method, by which the: solutions are arrived at in the light
of past experiences.

Thus, a study of the Batasang Pambansa, by the historical method, will be

largely a study of the history of this political institution. It will be a study of the
origins and development of the lawmaking body, rather than an analysis of what it
is. It may take up the Congress provided by the Malolos Constitution, the
Philippine Commission and the Philippine Assembly, the Philippine Legislature,
the National Assembly provided in the original provisions of the 1935
Constitution, and the Congress of the Philippines provided in the amendments
thereof.

In the framing of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, the Constitutional

Convention used mainly the historical approach. Excepting the form of
government provided there'n, which was parliamentary, it set up institutions and
adopted principles of government tested in the experience of our people for the
past eight decades. The independence of the judiciary had been a time-honored
principle in our government. The provisions of the bill of rights had been
reproduced mainly from corresponding provisions of previous organic laws of the
country.

The comparative method. - "The comparative method," says Garner, "aims

through the study of existing politics or those which have existed in the past to
assemble definite body of material from which the investigator by selection,
comparison, and elimination may discover the ideal types and progressive forces
of political history." By the comparative method, the student of political
phenomena, therefore, considers contemporaneous institutions or practices or
those at different periods of history in an attempt to reach general conclusions by
tracing similar results to similar causes, which conclusions can serve if not as
prescriptions, at least as signposts, in solving certain problems. By this method,
the student of political institutions and practices draws out their points of
similarities or of differences, in different countries where they are used
contemporaneously or in different periods of history.

In making use of the comparative method, the utmost caution must be taken
not to overlook differences in conditions, in the temperament and genius of the
people, in their race and religion, in the climate and the occupations of the people,
in their physical resources, in their traditions, and in their political training and
experience. For these factors necessarily influence to no small extent the moulding
of political institutions and practices, and their course and development.

This method has been employed since the very beginning. Plato, considered
the father of political science, made use of this method in forming his view of
democracy from his observation of Athenian civil life. So did his disciple
Aristotle. And following them came Cicero, Ma chiavelli, Montesquieu, de
Tocqueville, and in recent times, Bryce and Finer.

In the study of political problems, the comparative method, along with the
historical method, is often used. It was used by the framers of the Malolos
Constitution. The committee that prepared it reported that "the work of which the
commission has the honor to present the results for the consideration of Congress
has been largely a matter of selection; in executing it not only has the French
Constitution been used, but also those of Belgium, Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, and Guatemala, because we have considered that those nations most
resemble the Filipino people." In the framing of the Philip- pine Bill of 1902, the
American Congress made some study of the organic law of Hawaii and of the
Constitution of Japan. In the framing of the Japanese constitution and in the task
of modernizing Japan in the closing years of the nineteenth century and in the
early period of the twentieth, different commissions were sent to the West to make
a thorough study of institutions and practices with a view of their adoption with
slight modifications to suit local conditions. In the framing of the 1935
Constitution of the Philippines, the 1934 Convention made liberal use of the
comparative method. It studied not only the previous organic laws of the
Philippines, "but also the constitutions of the different states of the United States,
including the federal Constitution, and of Mexico, Czechos lovakia, Spain, and
China. The same could be said of the 1971 Convention in the framing of the 1973
Philippine Constitution.

The analytical method. - The analytical method is another approach to the

study of political institutions and methods. It dissects a political institution into its
different parts and makes a detailed study of each, showing their interrelation.

If we study the government of the Philippines by the analytical method, we

may divide it into its departments provided in the Constitution. Then we take up
each department separately. In treating of the executive branch, we take up the
office of the President, of the Philippines, the Cabinet, and the different ministries.
We may even go further by taking up the different bureaus and offices under the
different ministries.

The psychological method. - The psychological method is a method of study

primarily for political phenomena. It is a method of study into the passions that
have brought about political movements, actions, or other phenomena of politics.
A study of election results, using the psycho- logical method, places more stress
on the whys of the figures than on the figures themselves. Why has a certain
section voted solidly for a certain candidate? What is responsible for a candidate's
victory in a certain district? Why is it that a province, formerly a majority
vanguard, has turned out to be of the opposition? Or in the study of a certain
government bureau, the student using this method is interested more in knowing
what accounts for the efficiency or inefficiency of the personnel rather than in its
history or in its interrelations to other bureaus.

The juridical method. The juridical method, to quote Garner, "treats society,
not as a social phenomenon, but as a purely juridical regime, an ensemble of
public law, rights, and obligations, founded on a system of pure logic and
reason."'10 It assumes the existence of the state and presents the network of law
that envelops the body politic. It analyzes public law relations, the establishment
of the juristic nature of the state, and the general superior juridical principles that
govern the state. The method takes 11p the legal relations between the officials of
the government and private citizens, and those among the officials themselves.

This method is used by a great number of Germans and French writers.

The philosophic or the ideal method. - By the philosophic or ideal method,

one builds up his ideal of political institutions, methods, or practices. The political
thinker sets up in an imaginative way what should be or ought to be. This was
what Plato did in his work, The Republic, where he undertook to describe the
conditions under which an ideal state might be formed in accordance with which
man might attain his highest development, material, intellectual, and moral. Other
imaginary states were those constructed by More in his Utopia, by Campanella in
the City of the Sun, and by Bellamy in his Looking Backward.

Governors and administrators in formulating their program are actually

working out their ideal under given conditions. And with their goal fixed, which
represents their ideal, they proceed to carry out their program. The goal that they
determine represents their philosophy of administration.

The sociological and biological method - Students of political science who

use the sociological method consider the state as a social organism, composed of
individuals. From the attributes of the individuals thereof, they infer the attributes
of the state. The biological method draws analogies between the state and a living
organism. Fore- most among the writers who have employed these methods were
Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Durkheim, and Le- tourneau.

Annotation. - While academic studies can afford to use each of these

methods separately and exclusively, probably without very much loss, one who
undertakes the solution of political problems cannot choose one or two of them
and ignore the others and still expect the best results. Political investigations are
not so simple as some may imagine, for the materials are not invariably fixed and
are not found under unchanging conditions. The best solution of political problems
can be arrived at only after the most thorough comprehension of their nature, and
to comprehend it thoroughly one may need a knowledge of history, psychology,
law, and many other allied subjects. It may involve all of the methods. The student
should therefore exhaust all of them if necessary. In the words of a writer, "None
of the methods... can be pursued singly with much profit. It is when all are
combined that the best results are secured in government study. And in proportion
as the art of government is enlivened and enriched by the contributions of all these
methods the management of public affairs will be elevated to a plane of
reasonable- ness and right conduct under which the greatest good of the greatest
number will be assured, and at the same time there will remain ample opportunity
for individual freedom and self-expression."11
 Principles of Political Science by J.M Aruego and Aruego-Torres
Week 4 Assigned Readings (P.19-44)
Chapter 2
THE BASES OF THE STATE
State defined — “The state, as a concept of political science and
constitutional law”, say an American authority, “is a community of persons more
or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory,
independent of external control, and possessing an organized government to which
the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.” According to this
definition, there are four requisites for state existence; namely, people, territory,
government, and independence or sovereignty.

State distinguished from government, from nation — Government, to

follow a definition quotes with approval by the Supreme Court of the Philippines,
is “ that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society
makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to
live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by
those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them. Government is the
aggregate of authorities which rule society” Although very often used
synonymously, government and state are two entirely different things. In the first
place, the government is an essential mark of the state. There cannot be a state
without a government; but there can be a government without there being a state.
In the second place, a state possesses the quality of permanence, while government
may come and go, leaving the state to continue unimpaired and unaffected. The
government of a state may be overthrown, and another government set up; but the
state remains, with the same personality. In the third place the state is an ideal
person; the government is the instrumentality of this political unity.

A state differs from a nation in that the state is a legal or political concept,
while the nation is a racial or ethnic concept. According to Pradier-Fodere, a
nation is “the union of a society oh inhabitants at the same country, speaking the
same language, governed by the same laws, connected by identity of origin,
physical characteristics, and moral dispositions, by community of interests and
sentiments and by a fusion of existence acquired by the lapse of centuries”
Burgess defines it as population having a common language and literature, a
common tradition and history, common customs, and a common consciousness of
rights and wrongs, inhabiting a territory of a geographic unity. In its perfect form,
it thus appears that in order that there can be a nation, there must be a group of
people having a common racial origin, speaking the same language, having
common civilization, common customs and traits of character, a common
literature, and common traditions. All of these traits need not be present, however,
in order that there can be a nation as it is conceived today. A society of men is said
to constitute a nation when they feel conscious of a common racial or cultural or
sentimental solidarity among themselves. ”A nation” as Renan says, “is, then, a
great solidarity constituted by the sentiment of the sacrifices that have been made,
and by those which the people are disposed to make. It supposes a past; it is,
however, summed up in the present by tangible fact; the consent, the clearly
expressed desire of continuing the common life” In brief, a nation exists where its
competent atoms believe it to be a nation. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that
Filipinos do not have a common religion or a common language, in reality there
exists a Filipino nation.

With the definitions of the terms of “state” and “nation” in mind, we ,

therefore, draw these differences: first, a state is primarily a juristic political
concept; while a nation is primarily a racial or ethnic one. Second, there can be a
nation without there being a state; but where there is a state, there is at least one or
more nations, as is the case with the United States; and a nation may occupy two
or more states, like the American nation, the German nation, or the Jewish nation.
Where a state is composed of several nations, it is called a “poly-national state”;
where there is only one nation therein, it is called a “mono-national state.” Fourth,
a state presupposes a government and a definite territory; while these are not
necessary to the existence of a nation.
 THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF THE STATE

The territory of a state — A state to be such must have territory. There can
be no such things as a wandering state. The territory of a state consists (1) of all
land and water within its external boundaries, including all lakes and rivers that
are entirely within its land boundaries, and when these lakes and rivers are
boundaries; also that portion up to the mid-channel; (2) of the sea within a three-
mile limit of its shores;(3) of narrow bays and estuaries that indent its coasts, and
narrow straits both of whose shores are in its territory; and (4) if islets fringing its
coast.

There is no rule fixing the extent of territory required for a geographical

unit to have in order to become a state. In order to live, however, it is necessary
that it possesses an extent of territory sufficient to maintain its population and to
enable it to meet the needs of an international life. As a matter of fact, the extent of
state territory today ranges all the way from the few hundred square miles of the
republic of San Marino to the millions of square miles of the United States, CHina,
and the British and the Russian Empire.

The territory of a state may increase or decrease. It may increase by the

acquisition of further territory through either (1) discovery and occupation; or (2)
conquest; or (3) accretion; or (4) prescription; or (5) cession through gift,
exchange, or purchase. It may decrease though its loss. The increase or decrease of
the territory of a state does not affect its personality as a state. It continues to live
as a state de facto if it is one or as a de jure State if it is so, unaffected by the
addition or the loss of territory, as long as there still exists a portion of its territory
as an abode for its people. In spite of the cession by Spain of the Philippines to the
United Stade, Spain still remains a state; and in spite of grant of independence to
the Philippines, the United States still continues to be a state. The same may be
said of England from which the thirteen colonies of America separated in 1776,
and of Germany notwithstanding the loss of many possessions in the first World
war. As an international entity, a state may lose personality by being annexed
entirely to another state, by being divided among other states, or forming with
another state a new state.

The people of a state — A state must have a group of people constituting

its membership. While there is no rule or political practice governing the number
of persons which a community must have in order to be entitled to recognition, the
requirements of international life demand that there be sufficient of them to make
it live and to enable it to fulfill its international obligations

The increasing or decrease of its population like that of its territory does not
affect its existence as an international personality. Of course, if the depopulation is
such as to reduce the number of its people to one making it impossible for its
government to continue operating and to keep up with its international obligations,
the state will cease to exist as such.

THE THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE STATE

People throughout the world today live under organized political authority.
The question is asked, how has it come about that people live under organized
political authority? Why is it that there is such an institution as the government?
How has it been brought about? How and when did the first state as an institution
come into existence? These questions are hard to answer positively, for the
beginnings of the state far antedate recorded history. The answers that have been
advanced are largely within the realm of conjecture; they are largely speculative.

There have been developed six or seven main theories namely, the divine-
right theory, the contact theory, the patriarchal theory and the matriarchal theories,
the instinctive theory, the necessity theory and the force theories, the economic
theory, and the historical or evolutionary theory.

The divine-right theory — Of these, the divine-right theory is the oldest,

according to the adherents of which God vested political power in certain persons
or groups of persons, who thus became his Vice-regents on earth. This doctrine
was widely held in the Middle Ages. and in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, the divine-right theory was capitalized by monarchical governments,
notably of the Stuart Kings in England and the Bourbon rulers of France, to bolster
up their claim of independence from the people, against the growing ideas of
popular sovereignty. These rulers asserted that their power to govern was derived
not from the people but from God, and, consequently, they could govern
absolutely and without any accountability to anybody except God. This claim is
supported by citations from the scriptures. The claim was advanced in defense of
absolute monarchy as in institution, with the statement that if it was blasphemous
to dispute the rule of God, it was equally blasphemous to dispute, much more, to
disobey the rule of his viceroys, the kings.

The divine-right theory which was supported by writers like Seller, Filmer,
the Protestant monarchomachs of the sixteenth century, and by Kings like James,
Charles I, Charles II, and Louis XIV of France, lost in popularity the development
of the political philosophy of Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. As a
political theory, it has already lost very much of its force, having no more standing
with political scientists. In modern times, however, we find examples of nations
whose rulers still claim divine sanction for the exercise of royal authority.
According to Prince Ito of Japan “the Emperor is Heaven-descended, divine and
sacred. He is reverenced and bent above all his subjects. He must be reverenced
and is inviolable” That was the theory on which the Japanese government was
built up until the close of the Second World War. Under the present Constitution
of Japan, sovereignty resides in the people, and all authority to govern Japan
emanates from them. While still Emperor of german Empire, Emperor William
enunciated in an address at Konigsberg, his role as Vice-regent of God on earth in
the following words;
 “My grandfather, by his own right, placed the Prusian crown upon his head
and again proclaimed it to be bestowed upon him by God’s grace alone, and not by
the parliaments, assemblages of the people, or resolutions of the people; and that
he saw himself the chosen instrument of Heaven, ans such regarded his duty as
gent and ruler…Considering myself as the instrument of the master, regardless of
passing views and opinions, I go my way which is solely devoted to the prosperity
and peaceful development of our fatherland.”

The contract theory — The contract theory, a favorite political doctrine of

the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, assumes that there was a time when men
lived in a “state of nature”, without any political organization whatsoever, when
the only laws governing their actions were those dictated by the instinct of reason
or by nature itself. This theory views the institution of political authority as the
result of contract or covenant among the members of the community. Presented by
its exponents among whom were Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau, the compact
theory resolves itself into two parts: the social compact and the governmental
compact.

According to the social compact theory, the men who were living in a “state
of nature” entered into an agreement to form a civil society, to organize
themselves into a people. With this body of politics thus organized, according to
the governmental compact theory, a ruling authority, the government, was set up
to virtue, provided that the people would render obedience to the government in
consideration of just a rule by the latter. And inferentially, the people had the right
to cease rendering obedience when the government ceased to rule wisely.

The political phase of the compact theory was the answer of political
thinkers with democratic leanings to the claim advanced by the defenders of the
royalty in defense of the divine-right theory. It was advanced by Locke, an english
political philosopher, to justify the english revolution of 1688. It was invented to
establish the right to resistance, the right of revolution, on the part of peoples
oppressed by their sovereign. The political compact theory was invoked by the
philosophers of the American revolution of 1776. The declaration of independence
boldly from the consent of the governed. Similar sentiments are found in many
state constitutions framed during the revolutionary period. The Massachusetts
constitution of 1780, for instance, open with this preamble: “The body politic is
formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it it a social compact by which
the whole people covenant witch each citizen and each citizen witch the whole
people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good”

The social compact phase of the theory is not accepted now with much
favor, for not having any foundation in history; for, to quote a political writer,
“there is no case on record in which a body of men who had never formed part of
any state deliberately fabricated a state for them- selves. Furthermore, it is difficult
to believe that a primitive folk, ignorant of government, would, or could,
consciously set about the creation of that most complex of human institutions, a
state... Still more necessary does it seem that they should have had political
experience be- fore building-if they ever did consciously build a state.”10 The
political compact phase of the theory is looked upon as absurd. To maintain, says
McKechnie, that “all men ought to have a share in molding the form of the
constitution of a state is a logical and intelligible position; but to hold that the
individual atoms vote the state itself into existence as the result of an unanimous
plebiscite is ab- surd. It is to ignore the great truth established for all time by
Aristotle, that man is by nature a political and social animal and therefore
necessarily the member of some state, however crude.”

The patriarchal and the matriarchal theories. - A third theory is that

which accounts for the state as an expansion of the family. According to this view,
the original family expanded through the marriage of the children, thereby forming
new families; but the authority of the father of the first family, the patriarch,
continued to prevail. By natural stages, the family broadened into a clan; the clan
developed into a tribe; and the tribe grew into a nation, which is the ethical basis
of the state. The family is governed by a father; the clan, by a leading kinsman or
patriarch; the tribe, by a chief; the nation, which has organized itself into a state,
by a king. The patriarchal theory finds its most notable exponent in Sir Henry
Maine, who in his Ancient Law argued that “the effect of the evidence derived
from comparative jurisprudence is to establish that view of the primeval condition
of the human race which is known as the patriarchal theory, which is defined as
the theory of the origin of society in separate families, held together by the
authority and protection of the eldest male descendant.” The patriarchal theory of
government finds support in the ancient Jewish nation, founded by the union of the
twelve tribes made up of the descend- ants of Jacob, the original first father. The
earliest form of political organization in the Philippines is said to have been
patriarchal in form. “The government of these people (the Filipinos),” says
Harrison, “was purely patriarchal, like that of their far-away forebears in Central
Asia.”

Other writers, including McLennan and Morgan, maintain that before the
patriarchal group arose, people lived in miscellaneous hordes or packs, in which
descent was traced in the female line. According to the proponents of the theory, it
was the tribe rather than the family that constituted the original social
organization. The tribe which was the primary organization broke into clans; and
the clans, into households.

Writers on Philippine history point out the fact that the political
organization in pre-Spanish times was largely personal, that it originated from the
family. The family broadened into the "house" or gens over which a chief kinsman
ruled. Then it extended to include distant relatives, broadening itself into a
barangay or confederation of barangays for mutual protection and other purposes.

According to tradition, the early Malayan immigrants to the Philippines

came in small vessels, called balangay, from which was corrupted the term
barangay, each balangay carrying one whole family, consisting of parents,
children, and relatives under one superior. On land, they settled together, each
barangay forming nothing but an enlarged family. If the head of the family was
powerful as was often the case, he became the chief or the datu of the barangay.

While instances are not lacking to show that the family was the beginning
of state foundation, this account for the origin of the state or of political authority
is, Garner holds, to be accepted as true only with particular state organizations but
hardly with all. "Our knowledge of the social institutions of primitive peoples in
historic times," says Garner, "makes it impossible to believe that either type of
family prevailed universally in ancient times, or indeed that the state should have
developed through the enlargement and expansion of either. The family and the
estate are totally different in essence, organization, functions, and purpose, and
there is little reason to suppose that one should have developed out of the other or
that there should have been any connection between them.”¹4

The instinctive theory. - The proponents of the instinctive theory hold that
political institutions are but the objective expressions of the instinct of men for
association. The state, according to them, was not brought about by force, nor
ordained by God to be erected. Neither was it the result of a voluntary agreement;
but it was the institutionalized expression of the human instinct for political
association, which is inherent in man. This view finds one of its first exponents in
Aristotle who, in his Politics, presented the view that man was by nature a political
animal. The same opinion was maintained by Cicero who, in the Commonwealth,
argued that the first cause of association was not so much the weakness of man as
the spirit of congregation which naturally belonged to him. According to Greek
philosophers, therefore, political authority was considered as a “necessity arising
from the social life of man as existing in and of and for itself and as determined by
the very nature of things.”
 The necessity and force theories. - By other thinkers, the state is looked
upon as the necessary result of man’s desire for self-protection. Before the
institution of the state, there emerged among men leaders who held by virtue of
their persuasion or prowess, command over others. The weak were drawn under
the protection of the stronger ones; and in the group warfares that ensued in a
struggle for leadership, there emerged a chieftain who later became king. The
leader thus became a chieftain; and the chieftain, a king: all through the use of
threat or compulsion.

While it may be plausibly maintained that these theories for the basis of
state authority are correct, they are not so much favored among political writers as
accounting for the institution of the original state. They may be admitted as
plausible for the consolidation of the states, for this consolidation according to
recorded history was the result of force, of war, of conquest; but they are not
satisfactory explanations of the genesis of the state as such.

The economic theory. - According to the advocates of the economic theory,

the state was erected primarily to take care of man’s multifarious needs. Men
found them- selves unable when alone to provide for all of their needs, to be
absolutely independent of one another. So the state was created. It was this theory
which Plato meant when, in the Republic, he said “that owing to our many wants,
and because each seeks the aid of others to supply his various requirements, we
gather many associates and helpers into one dwelling place and give to this joint
dwelling the name of city.” Even in the states of today, con- tend its proponents,
we have the economic motive dominant in class struggles, later expressing itself in
some sort of political control.

The critics of the theory, however, have attacked it on the ground that we
are reading into the past, forces and conditions which did not exist. The economic
motive that featured class struggles, it is asserted, was developed in more recent
years with changes resulting from the industrial revolution. Political consciousness
must have ante- dated the necessity for political control because of economic
motives.

The historical or evolution theory.- Burgess, a well- known authority on

political science, states the theory thus: “The proposition that the state is the
product of history means that it is the gradual and continuous development of
human society, out of a grossly imperfect beginning, through crude but improving
forms of manifestation, to- wards a perfect and universal organization of mankind.
It seems, to go a little deeper into the psychology of the subject, that it is the
gradual realization, in legal institutions, of the universal principles of human
nature, and the gradual subordination of the individual side of that nature to the
universal side.” The state could not have been an artificial creation that sprang up
all of a sudden, as the contract theory maintains. Neither could it have been
possible for the people through the dominance of force to mobilize themselves
instantaneously, politically conscious at the same time, and set up the necessary
governmental machinery, as the force, the necessity, and the economic theories
hold. The idea of the state must have required a long period for its development.
Political consciousness must have dawned upon some, then universalized itself in
a certain given community, and later ex- pressed itself in the political institutions
of the state. The state was thus evolved gradually.

We may, therefore, conclude that no single one of the theories mentioned

can account wholly for the erection of the state. Reason and history, however,
assure us of these things. First, the first state was not suddenly and mechanically
made. It was not created at one moment; it was not the outcome of a preconceived
plan, or a single force or influence. It was rather “a growth, an evolution, the result
of a gradual process running throughout all the known history of man, and
receding into the remote and unknown past.”

While no single one of the aforementioned theories by itself can solely

explain fully the creation of the state, there is an element of truth in each of them.
As Garner points out, “The divine element appears in the fact that the Creator has
implanted in the human breast the impulse which leads to association, and in the
part played by relig- ion in bringing primitive man out of barbarism and
accustoming him to law and authority. The element of compulsion exercised by
those who possess natural superiority is a powerful ally of both religion and
evolution in bringing the natural man into political and social relationship with his
fellows. Finally, the elements of contract and consent which lie at the basis of all
associations play an important part in the process of establishing and reorganizing
particular governments. No one of these elements alone accounts for the existence
of the state, but all working together, some more prominently than others; and all,
aided by the forces of history and the natural tendencies of mankind, enter into the
process by which uncivilized peoples are brought out of anarchy and subjected to
the authority of the state.”

THE HISTORICAL BASIS OF THE STATE

The primitive state. - From the standpoint of connected history, the states
were first found in the Orient- in the great river valleys of the Nile, the Yangtse-
Kiang, the Ganges, and the Euphrates. When the peoples of continental Europe
were still in the tribal stage of the development of the state, the peoples of the
Orient had already developed a more or less advanced state of civilization with
more or less complex political institutions. The Orientals had already invented the
alphabet, a great factor in social communication; had already learned the use of
metals; and had already developed the art of commerce. A corresponding advance
had likewise been made in political organization.

By 2500 B.C., the Egyptians had already passed through several stages in
political association-the tribal state, the city kingdom, the confederation of
numerous cities, and the fusion of two kingdoms which later on coalesced into one
nation ruled by a single official with a body of sub- ordinates. Similar progress
had also been made in Asia, chiefly in Babylonia, and Assyria, and also in Asia
Minor, with political organizations under a military ruler.

The chief features of the primitive state of the Orient were (1) the presence
of a centralized organization under one military supreme ruler and (2) the absolute
rule of the authorities, there being no political freedom and no citizenship in the
modern sense of the terms.

The political institutions of the Orient were carried into Europe on water
through the Mediterranean Seas, from Egypt to the islands of the Aegean Sea,
especially to the island of Crete; and on land, through the valleys of the Euphrates
and the Tigris rivers into Asia Minor, and thence to the mainland of Europe.

The city-state. - While the primitive state found its home in Asia, the city-
state made its appearance in the Balkan and the Italian peninsulas. The Greeks, a
branch of the Indo-European race, leaving their homes along the Eastern part of
the Caspian Sea, migrated to the islands of the Aegean sea, thereby coming in
contact with the political institutions transported there by the Orientals. The areas
of the peninsula being broken units compared to the monotonous stretches of Asia,
the tendency in political organization was toward the formation of states on a
small unit, the city. The original family organization of the tribe grew into clans or
genes, under a patriarch; the genes into phratries; and the many phratries into
tribes, under a chief. In the course of time, there developed, among the people, the
practice of calling a council of old men and also of an assembly to discuss the
advisability of waging war. The Greek city-states were primarily independent
units, each having full power to determine its external relations. Because of the
jealousies obtaining among them, the Greek city-states were never able to coalesce
into one single state, the best political organization attained being temporary
federations, as the Achaean League and the Boeotian League.
 In the Italian peninsula, there also grew the city-state. In her early political
organization, Rome possessed the threefold division of king, council of chiefs, or
senate, and a popular assembly or comitia curiata. The king of these city-states
was, however, more powerful than that of the Greek city-states. During the period
of the Republic, how- ever, many of the powers of the king were transferred to the
body of men known as consuls, censors, and praetors. Legislation rested with the
senate, whose consent was necessary to the effectivity of legislation. Under the
Empire, many of the powers of the assembly and the senate were absorbed by the
Emperor. In the expansion of the Empire, the system of Roman law was spread
throughout the conquered territories. Rome’s contribution to political thought was
more in her legal institutions than in her political theories

The Roman imperial state. - What was originally a city-state developed,

with more military conquests with their consequent annexation of territories, into
the Roman imperial state, embracing a vast expanse of territory in- habited by
millions of people. The magnitude of the Empire demanded unity, organization,
and law in order to weld together all the component units, and imperial rather than
local unity of the peoples was one of the objectives. Consequently, the imperial
rulers evolved a system of colonial organization which for a time held together the
lands under their sway, and a system of law for the different peoples. With the rise
into power of the Church, the system of world-wide organization of the imperial
state was adopted for a pattern. We find in many of our municipal governments
and in the system of colonial administration of many powers of today,
governmental methods patterned after the Roman imperial system.

The Roman imperial state lasted five hundred years in the West and fifteen
hundred years in the East. Out of its debris, there arose the feudal states, the states
of the medieval age.

The feudal stage. - The disintegration of the Roman imperial state was
brought about by causes of its own making. As the Empire expanded, the frontiers
became more extensive and consequently more difficult to defend; the rulers
incorporated into the army new peoples, making it less unified; they suppressed
democracy and liberty for the sake of unity and centralized administration and
sovereign organization, thereby creating discontent among the people and
consequently breaking their morale.

As the Roman imperial state weakened in its political control, the Teutonic
tribes of the north pushed southward their invasions, creating a state of confusion.
Carrying with them their own concepts of political organization, they erected in
the confusion the foundations of the medieval state. They occupied territories with
definite geographical boundaries, with each tribe under the leadership of a chief.
With the Teutonic concept of the relation of the individual to the chief and the
Roman concept of control over a definite portion of territory, there was set up a
feudal system, a centralized organization with a king at the apex of the hierarchy,
whose power covered a territory, the territory of the medieval state. The
transformation of the tribal lords into territorial sovereignty was first affected in
France and in England and was gradually completed in the countries of western
Europe.

The modern state. - The modern state was evolved out of the conflict of
the territorial sovereigns for supremacy. The modern state is built on the concept
of nationalism which assumes that every state, be it large or small, rich or poor, is
equally sovereign. The modern states have gradually developed certain rules and
regulations to govern their relations to one another, defining their rights and their
obligations in time of peace as well as in time of war. Of their rights, the following
may be mentioned: (1) the right of existence, the right of self. Preservation and
defense. By this is meant the right of a state to exist as a sovereign political unity
and to take such measures as may seem necessary for the safety and defense of the
state itself as well as of its territory. Corollary to this is the obligation to respect
the existence and the rights of other states. (2) The right of independence, By this
right it means the right to live free from the interference of other states. This right
is, of course, subject to the limitations established by comity, treaties, and other
agreements that might be established. (3) The right of equality. This means that all
states irrespective of their area and wealth and prestige are legally equal. (4) The
right of property. By this is meant the right of a state to hold property. (5) The
right of jurisdiction. By this is meant the right of a state, subject to the limitations
of comity and treaties, to exercise authority over all persons, things, and actions
within its territory. (6) The right of intercourse. By this is meant the right to deal
with other states, members of the family of nations.

The modern state may be dynastic or national. It is said to be a dynastic

state when it is made up of different nationalities that have remained
unassimilated; and national, when the different races living together within its
political boundaries have acquired a community of cultural and economic interests
and developed common sympathies and aspirations to the extent of amalgamation.

The world state. - The development and the career of modern states have
been influenced very largely by dictates of self-interest. In their mad scramble for
a position of supremacy in international relations, nations have not hesitated to
sacrifice the lives of their people, their time, and their energies. The horrible
aspects of these national rivalries have led men to turn to the ideal of an
international or world state under which differences will be settled by peaceful
rather than by warlike methods. The aim has been to abolish or to reduce to a
minimum at least the recourse to war in the settlement of international questions.

The basis for the world state has been provided in the settled rules and
customs by which nations, through diplomatic channels, settle their controversies
and in the formation of rules and customs known as international law.
International law, although it is not an absolute guarantee against recourse to war,
is a powerful influence toward the adoption of peaceful methods. States cannot
with impunity violate them; for the guilty ones somehow are made to pay the
price.

There have been gradually built up several agencies which are international
in their nature and in the scope of their activities. Of them may, for instance, be
mentioned the different boards of arbitration, the Permanent Court of International
Justice and the League of Nations before the Second World War, and today the
United Nations Organization, including its different agencies. The United Nations
Organization represents the latest attempt to build up a world state differing in
nature from that established by Imperial Rome or from that by the Holy Ro- man
Church in that it is a superstructure built upon the assumption of the equality of
states.

From the foregoing, therefore, it is seen that the state first appeared in the
imperial form, which emphasized caste, despotism, and centralization; then in the
city-state form of Europe which emphasized democracy and self- government;
then in the imperial form of the Roman Imperial State; then in the feudalistic form
of the medieval ages, emphasizing the dependent relation of the people to the king
and the ownership and control by the king of the territory of the state. Then, there
was evolved the modern state was founded on the basis of nationalism, geographic
unity, and representation. And lastly, we have seen attempts to construct a world
state.

THE POLITICAL BASIS OF THE STATE-SOVERIEGNTY

Sovereignty defined. - By sovereignty is meant the supreme power to

command and enforce obedience, the power to which, legally speaking, all
interests are practically subject, and all wills subordinate. Sovereignty and
independence are distinguished. – From the standpoint of public international law,
independence and sovereignty, though often used interchangeably as meaning one
and the same thing, embody different ideas. Sovereignty is the supreme power in a
state by which the state is governed. This supreme power has two aspects- internal
and external. In its internal aspect, sovereignty is the power inherent in the people
or vested in its ruler by the constitution to govern the state. Such sovereignty does
not, in any degree, depend upon its recognition by other states. A new state,
springing into existence, does not require the recognition of other states to confirm
its internal sovereignty. The existence of the state de facto is sufficient in this
respect, to establish its sovereignty de jure. In its external aspect, sovereignty
consists in the independence of one political society in respect to all other political
societies. The external sovereignty of any state requires recognition of other states
in order to render it perfect and complete. Independence, therefore, is merely a
manifestation, an external manifestation of sovereignty.

Titular vs. Actual sovereignty. - Titular sovereignty is sovereignty

fictitiously vested in a ruler who personifies the power and majesty of the state and
in whose name the government is conducted; but the real sovereignty is vested in
other hands.

Legal vs. Political sovereignty. - Legal sovereignty means the supreme

authority to enact laws. And the legal sovereign in the words of James Bryce is
“no other person than him to whose directions the law attributes legal force, the
person or body in whom resides as of right the ultimate power of laying down
general rules. “Sovereignty, on the other hand, means the supreme authority to
Political sovereign determine the person or body to be in power. It is, in other
words, the sovereignty of the electorate; or in its general sense, the sovereignty of
the whole body politic. The legislature represents the legal sovereign; the
electorate or the whole people, the political sovereign. These distinctions, it must
be borne in mind, do not imply the recognition of dual sovereignty, for
sovereignty is not divisible; rather, they are manifestations of one and the same
sovereignty.
 Essentials of sovereignty. - According to Garner, 21 the essential
characteristics of sovereignty are: (1) perpetuity; (2) comprehensiveness; (3)
exclusiveness; (4) absolutism; (5) inalienability; and (6) unity.

Perpetuity. - Sovereignty is perpetual because it is inherent in the state. It

lasts as long as the state lasts. Consequently, a change in the form of government,
in the rulers, in the area, or in the population does not affect sovereignty; for the
state remains, notwithstanding these changes.

Comprehensiveness. - Sovereignty in its operation is coextensive with

jurisdiction. From its definition, it is seen that it operates upon all persons,
associations, or things within the jurisdiction of the state. The immunity that is
granted to certain persons and things, like sovereigns, ambassadors, and other
diplomatic representatives, and war vessels and public armies is accorded as a
matter not of legal obligation, but of comity.

Exclusiveness. - Sovereignty is exclusive; therefore, it is not divisible. To

hold that it is divisible is to destroy the fact of its being supreme, to admit the
possibility of creating a state within a state. The division of govern- mental powers
or their distribution among several agencies is not proof of the divisibility of
sovereignty; for sovereignty is a matter not of power, but of authority. Sovereignty
is not the aggregate of the powers of the state, like the determination of the
constitution, the control of external relations, police power, power of taxation, etc.
These are only manifestations of sovereignty.

Absolutism. - Sovereignty, being the supreme power of the state to do

anything, is, therefore, a primary and not a derived power. This power is legally
absolute; that is to say, there is no other body that determines the nature and the
extent of the power as a matter of legal right. In the actuations of the state, there
are moral, religious, and political considerations. The state may be self- restrained
to do a certain act which will be revolting to the conscience of mankind; it may not
do a certain act that will be shocking to the religious sentiment of the civilized
world; it may abstain from doing a certain act that other nations may receive as
internationally unethical; it may impose limitations upon its absolute power. But
these are self-imposed restrictions, done not as matters of legal obligations but as
things for its own interests. Sovereignty is absolute.

Inalienability. - The possession of sovereignty cannot be transferred; to

transfer it would be to destroy the state whose very essence it is. The exercise of
sovereignty can be delegated, but this delegation is not a delegation of
sovereignty; for as we have already seen, sovereignty is a matter not of power but
of authority.

Unity. - There being no legal power back of sovereignty, and sovereignty

being the supreme power in the state, there cannot be two supreme wills in the
state; therefore, sovereignty is indivisible or unitary.

Acquisition of sovereignty. - Sovereignty cannot be acquired as a gift or

grant of State; for as Willoughby states, sovereignty cannot create sovereignty
because “legal authority cannot, by its own will or act, create another authority
legally superior or even equal to itself.” Sovereignty is inherent in state existence,
for without it there can be no state. Consequently, as soon as a state arises, there is
right away sovereignty. Dependencies do not have sovereignty; for they do not
have supreme original authority. Whatever powers they exercise are
manifestations of the sovereignty of the mother countries. The sovereignty of a
dependency arises as soon as it withdraws itself from the sovereignty of the
mother country. If it chooses to withdraw not upon the declaration by the mother
country of its independence, sovereignty arises from the moment of such
withdrawal. “The existence of its sovereignty is founded upon the fact that it no
longer recognizes allegiance or renders obedience to the old sovereignty, and not
upon the fact that the old sovereignty has by a treaty or other form of declaration
indicated that it no longer claims its allegiance.''22 If a dependency chooses to
revolt against the mother country and succeeds in the revolution, its sovereignty
arises not from the time of its success, but from the time of the declaration of its
independence. This was the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Mcilvaine vs. Cox’s Lessee, 2 Cranch, 280, when it said, “The
several states which compose this Union, so far at least as regards their municipal
regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves
independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and they did not
derive them from the concessions made by the British King. The treaty of peace
contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it.”

Location of sovereignty. - With the definition of soereignty borne in mind,

the question that is asked is, Where does this sovereignty reside? The attempt to
answer this question has led to differences of opinion, and was at the root of the
Civil War of the United States. The nationalists led by Daniel Webster maintained
that sovereignty resided in the United States Nation, while the state separatists,
with Calhoun as their leader, contended that it was lodged exclusively in the
several states, making this theory of sovereignty the prolegomena to the right of
separation. A third group, led by Hamilton and Madison, held that the United
States was sovereign as to the powers conferred upon it by the constitution and
that the states were also with respect to those reserved to them. These differences
in opinion were occasioned by a failure to draw a distinction between the authority
and the powers of government in pursuance of that authority of the state. It is now
admitted by the majority of political scientists that sovereignty resides in only one
and that it cannot be divided. In the words of Garner, "There is no partition of
sovereignty, no division of the supreme will. There is a division by the sovereign
itself of governmental powers and a distribution among two sets of organs, but no
division of the will itself... That power and that alone is sovereign in a federal
union which can in the last analysis determine the competence of the central
authority and that of the component states, and which can redistribute the powers
of government between them in such a way as to enlarge or curtail the sphere of
either. That power is not in the central government or in the states; it is over and
above both, and wherever it is, there is the sovereign." The power referred to rests
with the people. Sovereignty in the United States, as in other democratic states,
therefore, resides in the people.

Under the Constitution of the Philippines, sovereignty resides in the people

and all authority emanates from them.

In England and in some countries of Europe, sovereignty is taken in its

juristic sense. And sovereignty re- sides in any person or body of persons that can
impose the will of the state. John Austin, the great English authority, says, "If a
determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior,
receive habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate
superior is sovereign in that society and that society, including the superior, is a
society political and independent." In England, legal sovereignty resides in the
English Parliament. That body is legally omnipotent. There is no body in England
capable of making rules which can over- ride the acts of Parliament. The English
Parliament can pass a law of any kind, covering a subject matter of what- ever
nature, without any restraints whatsoever except those of a physical or moral
character. Of course back of this power is the power of the people who can
determine the composition of the Parliament. They build and unbuild Parliaments.
Political sovereignty is thus said to reside in the people; but legal sovereignty, in
Parliament.

James Bryce, in his Studies in History and Jurisprudence, observes that

there is of course a sense in which a government, or even a given part of a
government, is a sovereign. In the eyes of the lawyer, the sovereign is the
individual or body whose edicts are to be understood to be the commands of the
state, whether or not they express the wishes of the people composing the state.
Thus the legal sovereign of eighteenth-century France was the Bourbon king; and
the legal sovereign of modern Britain is Parliament.

Back of the legal sovereign, however, stands the political sovereign, i.e., the
authority that could depose a Bourbon king or bring the British Parliament to a
perpetual halt. In a democratic country, this sovereign may be understood to be the
electorate; it is ultimately the whole mass of the population whether enfranchised
or not. The real politi cal sovereign is in all states the people, whether they ac
tually control public affairs, whether they deliberately tur over these affairs to a
ruling class, or whether they volun. tarily or involuntarily submit to the
domination of a despot.
 Principles of Political Science by J.M Aruego and Aruego-Torres
Week 5 Assigned Readings (P.98-105)
Chapter 7

FORMS OF STATE AND ASSOCIATION OF STATES

Introduction — Political writers are not agreed on a single principle for

classifying the forms of state. Aristotle classified them into Monarchies,
Aristocracies; and Democracies, Garaeis, a German writer on political science,
into unitary states and composite states, the latter divisible.

Into real unions; federal unions, and confederations; and Pradier- Fodera a
french political writer; into independent states and united states. According to this
latter division,independent states are subdivided into personal unions, real unions,
and incorporate unions, united states, into confederate states and limited states.
Full states may be simple or composite and mandates. Without discussing, we
shall briefly examine each of these classifications of states in.

Monarchies, aristocracies; democracies. - A monarchical state is one in

which supreme political authority is vested in one person; although the process of
government is carried on through a body of subordinates. It is said to be a pure
monarchy when the state is identical with the ruling individual whose word is law;
and a limited monarchy when; although the bearer of sovereignty; he is a limited
in his exercise of it by a constitution which has been evolved or adopted by some
assembly or promulgated by the ruler himself.

Practically all existing monarchies today are limited monarchies.

An aristocratic state is one in which sovereignty powers are exercised by a

special and usually small class of person whose privileges arise from the fact of
theri birth, wealth, and superior knowledge. It is usually called an oligarchy
 A democratic state is one whose sovereignty resides in the mass of the
people. It is said to be a pure democracy when the people themselves meet for the
transaction and the control of public business; and a representative democracy,
when the people govern themselves though representatives chosen by a popular
vote. In the latter case, the state is often given the name “republic”. A republic,
then, is a state in which the sovereign power rests in the people but is exercised by
representatives chosen by the popular vote.

Simple and composite states — A simple state is “one which has a single
supreme government and exerts a single will, whether it be that of an individual or
assembly” It may be made up of single contiguous territory; it may embrace many
separated lands, colonies, and possessions” but it is still a simple state, provided
that the local governments are not independent by themselves, but are subject to a
central government of which they are creations, which determine the nature and
extent of their powers.

A composite state is one composed of two or more states, each with an

internally independent government and with some of the characteristics of a state.
It is erected on the foundation of two or more states. As states, the component
members have independent governments; but as a result of the information of the
composite state, the powers of these governments are limited in favor of the
government of the union. Composite states are usually classified into corporate
unions, real unions, federal unions, personal unions, and confederations.

Incorporate unions – an incorporated union is a union organically of two

or more states; that is, the internal and external affairs of what formerly used to be
separate international entities are placed under one central government of their
own. Such, for instance, was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
formed by the incorporation of England and Scotland into one realm in 1707, and
the addition of Ireland in 1800. Ireland became an independent state in 1984,
thereby being automatically separated from the union.
 Personal and real unions – A personal union is a union of two or more states
under a single head, each state having a distinct governmental organization and a
distinct international personality. Each of the component states has a government
of its own, independent of the governments of the others, its own constitution, and
its own international personality. Each state may declare war by itself, enter into a
treaty, without involving the other members. In other words, each retains its
essence and character as a state. The only bond of the union is the ruling sovereign
who may rule multiple capacities; that is, in one state, he may be president, in the
other an emperor, and in a third a king, etc. the act of the common ruler for one
state needs not affect the others. The institution of a common ruler and
consequently a personal union may be the result of a treaty stipulation of identical
succession laws which fix the crown upon the same dynasty , or of the choice by
the state of the ruler to govern.

Examples of personal unions were that of Great Britain and Hanover from
1714 to 1837; that of the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg which
ceased in 1890; and that between Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark in 1776-1863.
The dominion of the British Commonwealth and Great Britain have gradually
developed and evolved a condition of autonomy and established parity among
themselves to a great extent, so that the Commonwealth more than any other thing
is of the nature of a personal union with the king as a common sovereign. The
British Imperial Conference of November 26, 1926 voted unanimously that; “They
(Great Britain and the Dominions) are autonomous Communities within the
British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect
of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the
Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of the
Nations.”

Real unions are unions of two or more states in which the members are
organically united by constitutional bonds, having common organs of government
and in the main a single international persona;oty. Sweden and Norway from 1815
to 1905 and Austria and Hungary from1867 to 1918 were examples of such
unions.

Confederations and federal unions – A confederation is “a union strictly of

independent states which consent to forego permanently a part of their liberty of
action for certain specific objects, and they are not combined under a common
government that the latter appears to their exclusions as the international entity.” It
is a league of states, with each state maintaining its internal sovereignty, its own
dignity and political organization, and largely its external sovereignty. It is not,
therefore, a state by itself, with the component states mere geographical divisions
for administrative purposes and with their citizens and also citizens of the
confederation as a unit. The member states are not organically united by a
constitution; they are banded together by a compact or series of articles of
agreement, binding upon the individual members of each state not directly but
through their respective state governments.

While having the character of an alliance, a confederation is more than a

mere alliance in that it possesses a common administrative organ for carrying out
the will of the members, which a mere alliance does not have. The assembly which
meets from time to time deliberate on the affairs of a common interest to the
members is a meeting more than anything else of representatives of sovereign
states. The measures passed by the assembly operate not directly upon the
governments of the component states. A confederation has no machinery of its
own to compel obedience to its law if the states do not choose to follow laws. If an
individual violates a law of the confederation, there is no judicial nor executive
machinery of the confederation to take action. The due enforcement of the
measures of the confederation is to left the individual states.

Confederations are formed for a variety of purposes. They may be for

common defense, for the protection of trade interests, for offensive wars.
 Examples of confederations were those of the ancient Greeks—the Achaean
and Aetolian leagues; the Rhenish Confederation ( 1254-1350) ; the Hanseatic
League (1367- 1669) ; the confederation of the Thirteen original states of America
( 1781-1789) ; and the German confederation (1815-1866).

There is a federal union or a federal state “where several states unite

themselves together under a common sovereignty and establish common central
government for the administration of certain affairs of general concern or where a
number of provinces or dependencies are similarly united by their common
superior, the component members still remaining a large local autonomy, but
surrendering the management of the whole or nearly the whole of their external
affairs to the central government” The federal union is a state by itself, with an
international personality of its own. The component states are states viewed from
the point of view of constitutional law, but not from that of international law, their
constitutional personalities having been submerged with the creation of the
international personality of the federalism. The federal states as such has a
governmental machinery of its own, independent of each of the component states.
It operates directly upon the citizens of the states, not through their respective
governments. The people have a dual citizenship. They are citizens of their
respective states and also of the federal union. The component states are united
together not by treaties nor by articles of agreement but by a constitution.

Thus a federal union differs from a confederation in the following respects;

Firstly, in a confederation, the component elements are essentially states from the
point of view of international law; in a federal union, they are not. Secondly, the
components elements of a confederation are bound by treaties of other
international agreements; those of a federal union, by a constitution which
operates directly upon the individual citizens of the federalism. Thirdly, in a
confederation there is generally no machinery for enforcing the will of the
confederation as such, independent of that of the different states; in a federal
union, there is a separate hierarchical machinery for the federal organization, in a
federal union there is only one state; in a confederation, there are as many states as
there are component members.

Protectorates. - In its American sense, a protectorate is a state whose

complete independence is limited by the control of another. Consequently, it has
an international personality, although its capacity is limited by virtue of a treaty
entered into by its supposedly sovereignty, exercising all the power that other
states may legally exercise, subject to the provisions of the limiting treaty. An
example of a protectorate in this is Panama.

In its international sense, the term protectorate has indifferent periods of time
given slightly different meanings. Originally, it meant a state placed under the
protection of another state by virtue of a treaty arrangement. Such is the Republic
of San Marino under Italy. Later, it was used to refer to territory of a country,
which although not a state in the strict international sense of the term independent.
Such have been Tunis under France, Zanzibar under Great Britain, and Korea
under Japan. The term is used latest to refer to a territory placed under another
state by virtue of a treaty between the agents of the state and native chiefs, or of
occupation without such treaty, and such relationship being est1ablished as the
next step toward incorporation of the territory as a colonial possession. Such have
been the European possessions in Africa as a result of the partition of the Dark
Continent.

NEUTRALIZED STATES

Definition. - a neutralized state is one which by international government is

bound to abstain from offensive hostilities and from acs which would involve such
hostilities, in consideration of the guarantee of its independence and integrity.
 An example of a neutralized state is Switzerland whose permanent
neutralization was accorded by the eight powers in 1815, through the Congress of
Vienna.

Reason for the neutralization of the state.--- a state may be accorded the
status of neutralized state at its own request because being weak and small it may
be running the risk of being invaded at any time by ambitious and stronger
neighbors; or it may be neutralized because its geographical situation is such as
would make its occupation by another state upset the balance of power that region
and, therefore, dangerous to the safety of the neighboring countries.

Neutralization does not destroy the character of a state. The neutralized state
may enter into treaties or agreements with other states involving peaceful
relations. It may not, however, engage war except in self defense.
 Principles of Political Science by J.M Aruego and Aruego-Torres
Week 6 Assigned Readings (P.119-127)
Chapter 9

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

Government defined. — The word “government” is derived from Latin

“gubernaculum” a rudder, gubernare, to steer, direct, control. Government is “that
institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and
carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a
social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those
who possess the power of authority of prescribing them. Government is the
aggregate of authorities which rules society”

As used in the Administrative Code, the term “The Government of the

Philippine Islands” “refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout the philippine islands,
including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through
which political authority is made effective in said Islands, whether pertaining to
the central government of to the provincial or municipal branches or other form of
local government”

Origin and growth of governments. —-The Theories advanced for the origin
of the institution of government or of political authority are the same as those for
the origin of the state, which we have already discussed. As we have found out,
our knowledge of the origin of the institution of governments is based more upon
inference and conjecture than upon history proof.

Governments, like other political institutions as well as other organisms, are

in a constant process of change; and the governments of today are the product of
years of growth and development. They have not risen spontaneously, with their
machinery so intricate and complex and with their problems so manifold.
 The government of one particular country—its organization and methods, its
fundamental principles, and its constitution—is not wholly and exclusively the
product of the thinking of its people. Into them have contributed directly or
indirectly other races or nationalities. Upon their formation and growth, the
political thoughts of other peoples and other generations have had some influence.

Governments are living organisms that grow with the passing years. In
proportion as the needs of the body politic increase, the activities of the
government increase resulting in the expansion and the increasing complexity of
the governmental machinery. The task of governing correspondingly becomes
more difficult, making necessary an increase in governmental personnel and in the
burden of the people for the support of the government.

Government classified. —-Burgess, a well-known authority on political

science, classified governments as follows;

1. According to the identity or non-identity of the state with the

government, into primary and representative governments;
2. According to the nature of the political tenure, including the methods
of constituting the official relation into hereditary and elective
governments;
3. According to the relation of the legislature to the executive, into
cabinet and presidential governments; and
4. According to the distribution or concentration of governmental
powers, into unitary and federal governments.

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, classified governments according to the number

of persons in whom sovereignty resided. According to these principles of
classification, governments are classified into monarchies or autocracies,
aristocracies, and democracies. A government is autocratic or monarchical when
sovereignty resides in one person whose word is law, all political officers and
organs being his agents, and all acts of government being his acts, it may be
absolute or limited: absolute, when the exercise of sovereign power is despotic,
dictated solely by the personal whims of the sovereign: limited, when the ruling
sovereign choose to be guided by a body of rules and customs, which are generally
embodied in a written constitution.

A government is aristocratic when sovereignty resides in, and exercised by,

a special and usually small class of persons whose privilege arises from birth,
wealth, superior wisdom, or priestly function.

A democratic government is one in which the exercise of sovereign powers–

or, rather full and direct control over the agencies that wield these powers–rests
with the general masses of the people. It may be a primary democratic government
or a representative democratic government in which latter case it is called a
republic.

PRIMARY GOVERNMENTS

Primary government defined. — A primary government is one in which the

people govern themselves directly, and not indirectly through chosen
representatives. The management of the affairs of the government is actually in the
hands of the people, so that the people make their own laws, levy taxes, decide
questions of war and peace and appoint and supervise the officials who are to
carry on the functions of the government which are such a nature as would require
personal and continuous action.

Institution of primary governments. —conditions for their establishments.

— Before the institution of the representative idea, the form of democracy was
necessarily direct or primary, with the people assembling together to determine
their own laws and to appoint their own administrative officials. That was in the
days when the area of the state was so limited and body politic was small that it
was possible to have the masses come together to do their own governing. A
certain number of Greek states had direct democracies. With the growth of the
representative idea crystallized in representative institutions, the idea of direct
government has waned, with direct government being practiced today in some
governmental areas of Switzerland and in some of the New England states.

Primary government is practicable only in small areas with a small body

politic. The essential nature being the recurrent meetings of the citizens to make
laws and appoint their own officials, to make primary government plausible, the
conditions must be such that they are made able to come together. The territory of
the state must be small and compact; the transportation facilities must be fairly
adequate to insure attendance; and the people must be patriotic and interested in
the management of public business.

Advantages and disadvantages of primary government. —While a primary

government is the most perfect of all forms of government, there are several
difficulties in its operation. First, the system demands very much of the time and
energy of the citizens, making necessary their use from private pursuits to the
discharge of his public functions as legislator, administrator, judge, etc.

Second, with all the people participating directly in legislation and in

administration, and of necessity transacting public business in a very limited time,
the level of intelligence and the standard of efficiency possibly are lower, and the
measures cannot be so wisely planned and formulated as when fathered and
handled by experienced public men who spend time in highly technical
investigation of the subject matter. Third, the operation of a primary government
involves delay in governmental action, making difficult if not impossible the
consideration of matters that require immediate action. Fourth, it is physically
impossible to operate the system in a territory of a considerably large size.

Some advantages of the system of primary government are: first, there is

more likelihood that the measures of government are responsive to the needs to the
people as a whole rather than a particular class; second, the interest of the citizenry
in the affairs of the government becomes more, and thereby is avoided the general
difference of the governed which makes easy the perpetration of corruption and
fraud which characterize many representative governments; and third, it is easier
to enlist the support of the people in the promotion of certain programs
administration because they are the product of direct collective deliberation.

Tendencies toward primary government. —- The rule of today is

government by representation, with but very few exceptions which have already
been noted. The task of lawmaking and administration is entrusted to a body of
officials chosen by the people directly or indirectly, who are made amenable to
popular will in varying degrees. There has, however, been a growing
dissatisfaction with and distrust in representative governments because many of
the lawmakers chosen by the people have failed to make themselves worthy of the
public trust, combining with special “interests” to pass special legislation or
kowtowing to the whims and caprices of political bosses. There have been many
executive and administrative officials who, feeling deeply entrenched in their
government positions, openly defy public opinion and make themselves the tool of
special classes to the detriment of the people. Consequently, the people have
fought of taking a direct share in the operation of their own government through
the adoption of democratic devices, like the initiative, the referendum, and the
recall.

By the initiative, a specified number of voters may draft a law and obtain a
popular vote on the law without recourse to the legislature. It is designed to pass
acts which the majority of the electorate desires, regardless of the sentiment of the
legislature. The initiative may be direct or indirect. According to the direct
method, the measure that is drafted by the required number of voters becomes law
when approved by the majority of the people, without the necessity of its
submission to the legislature. According to the indirect method, the act signed by
the required number is sent to the legislature for action. If the action of the
legislature is, however, unfavorable, the measure is returned to the electorate for
final action.

By the referendum, certain measures which have been drafted and approved
by the legislature or by a constitutional convention are held in abeyance until the
electorate either accepts or rejects them. Its purpose is to nullify objectionable acts
passed by the legislature.

By the recall, a required number of voters may demand the surrender by a

political official of his office or may require him to submit to the test of a new
election. It has been applied to legislative and executive officers and to some
extent judicial officers.

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTS

Representative government defines. — A representative government is one

which the sovereign has delegated to an organ or organs of the power to act for it
in matters to the government. It is a form of government in which the ple govern
themselves through representatives. “A government is representative, said George
Cornwall Lewis, “when a certain portion of the community, generally consisting
of all males– or a part of them, determined according to some qualifications of
property, residence, or other accident–have the right of voting at certain intervals
of time for the election of particular members of the sovereign legislative body.”

Growth of representative government. —The idea of representative

government is distinctly modern. In the state's antiquity, lawmaking was exercised
not by representative bodies but by kings or by the people themselves in direct
assemblies.

The beginnings of the representative system are found in the folkmoots of

the early teutons of Germany, which were assemblies of the leaders of the tribe.
The Witenagemot of England, the forerunner of the present English Parliament, at
first constituted only by the leading men of the realm chosen and dismissed at will
by the king, later in the course of time was made up of men who were elected by
the freeholders. In the thirteenth century, under the leadership of Simon de
Montfort, the Witan embraced all the elements that went into making the English
Parliament. In continental Europe, representative government is also a product of
gradual growth. Originally made up of representatives of the higher classes of the
body politic. Generally speaking, the representatives' idea grew and developed out
of the necessity for the kings to consult the representatives interest in matters of
important policies and heavy taxation.

With the decline of autocratic rule and the growth of the desire for popular
representation, the representative idea has spread to all progressive nations of the
world today, institutionalizing itself in legislative assemblies and in constitutions
of the people’s making.

The representative principle is regarded as one of the greatest advances in

the art of government. It has rendered possible popular government over an
extended area with a large population.

Conditions for the establishment of representative governments. —-While

primary government is the most perfect form of government, it is only practicable
where the territory is not extensive and where the people are few, orderly, and
sufficient education politically. Where the state is large, however, and where the
population are too numerous to come together and govern directly, a
representative government is better if a democracy is at all to be instituted

Advantages and disadvantages of representative government. —As a

practical plan of political organization, the representative system has obvious
advantages over primary government. In the first place, it obviates the necessity of
calling together a very unwieldy assembly of the people, which normally has the
tendency to be disorderly. In the second place the chances are greater that better
results are obtained because the task of government is entrusted to men selected
for their special qualifications, who can have more time and better talent to devote
undividedly.

On the other hand, there are several disadvantages to the plan of

representative government. First, the representatives that are chosen have the
tendency to think of measures in terms of the welfare of their own districts rather
than of the nation. Second , the chances are great that measures do not reflect
exactly what the people want, especially in countries where there is no well-
organized public opinion. Third, the influences of fraud and corruption work more
favorably under a representative government than under a primary government.
Because of these facts in actual government, there has been a growing loss of
confidence in representative government, manifesting itself in the adoption of
popular democratic devices, as the recall, the initiative, and the referendum.

A republic,what it is. —- A republic, says Madison, is “ a government

which derives all its powers, directly or indirectly, from the great body of the
people and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a
limited period or during good behavior.” In other words the term republic is
another word for representative government

There are two classes of republics, national and federal. A national republic
is one in which the smaller communities are merely administrative subdivisions of
the whole and possess only such powers as are delegated to them, such as France.
A federal republic, on the other hand, is an aggregation of states, commonwealths,
or other divisions, each with its own inherent powers. The United States is an
example of a federal republic.

The Philippines is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and

all authority emanates from them.
 Principles of Political Science by J.M Aruego and Aruego-Torres
Week 8 Assigned Readings (P.127-135)
HEREDITARY GOVERNMENTS

Hereditary government defined. —A hereditary government is a form of

government in which the source of office is inheritance according to some rule or
principle governing the transmission of political honors and titles. In other words,
the authority to exercise political powers rests upon inheritance.

Forms of succession. —Succession may be determined in either of the

following forms; (1) Ancienete, the oldest member of the family of the deceased;
(2) anciennete in the male line, the oldest male member of the family of the
deceased; (3) primogeniture, the oldest immediate descendant of the deceased or,
in the case of no issue, the oldest immediate descendant of the the nearest ancestor
of the deceased; (4) Primogeniture, in the male line the oldest immediate male
descendant of the nearest male ancestor of the deceased; (5) appointment in the
royal family, the ruler being allowed to appoint the members of his her family who
will succeed. The most popular form of succession and the most successful one
has been that of primogeniture in the male line.

ELECTIVE GOVERNMENTS AND UNITARY GOVERNMENT

Elective government defined. - An elective government is one in which

those who manage the affairs of the state are chosen by the people or by those who
constitute the electoral body. It is a term used synonymously with popular
governments. The election may be made directly by the people or indirectly
through electoral colleges.

Unitary government defined. - A unitary government is one in which the

powers of government are concentrated in one supreme organ from which all local
governing authorities derive their existence and powers. The essence of this form
of government is the fact that a single organ- ization has been created by the
sovereign power–generally the people through the constitution, to which is left the
task of providing for the territorial distribution of governmental powers with
which it is invested. The central government may create political areas for its own
purposes, being free at any time to alter these subordinate districts in their
organization and powers or even to abolish them altogether.

Historical basis. - There are several reasons underlying the establishment

and development of present-day unitary governments. A unitary government of a
certain country might have been established in order to make more effective and
more felt the authority of a ruling sovereign. The divisions of the country-its
provinces and municipalities or counties and shires or prefectures, sub-
prefectures, and arrondissements are merely administrative devices to facilitate the
exercise of the ruler's authority; and the local officials are but his agents to carry
out his will. The foundations of the French unitary government were laid down by
Napoleon for this purpose. The unitary system of government in the Philippines
was established by the Philippine Commission to facilitate the extension of
American sovereignty to the Philippines. This form of government might have
been deliberately established by the people of a country because it was desired to
weld together strong, antagonistic internal elements or because the people were
not politically educated enough to exercise a full measure of local self-
government, thereby needing a considerable supervision by a strong central
organization.

Advantages and disadvantages of unitary government. - Among the

advantages of a unitary government may be mentioned the following: (1) Its
political machinery is greatly simplified, which fact results in a great economy in
governmental expenditures, thru the avoidance of duplication of work. Unlike in a
federal government there is no set of local officials separate from and independent
of officials of the national government. The local officials are part and parcel of
the whole governmental machinery, looking in their respective territories not only
after purely local matters but also after national ones. It is a part of their duty to
enforce not only local ordinances and regulations but also national laws.
Consequently, the number of officials who ultimately are in payroll of the whole
people is reduced with the financial burden of the people correspondingly
decreased. (3) It is easy to allocate responsibility for any governmental anomaly,
because of the generally hierarchical organization of the political machinery.
There could be no shifting of blame from the local officials to the national officials
for irregularities in the administration of justice, for inefficiency in the operation
of roads, and for laxity in the administration of sanitation and of schools. There is
at least a department to which the erring officials belong, with its head who must
have to do the explaining. (3) It is easy to bring about a unity of program both in
legislation and in administration because of the lodgment of powers in the central
government, with the authority to determine what powers must be given to the
local governments. Unlike in a federal government, it is possible for people to be
governed under one marriage law, one divorce law, one insurance law, one labor
law, etc.

There are, however, some disadvantages of a unitary government. In the first

place, the concentration of too much power in one organization, with the power to
create other organs as its agents in the localities and to destroy them when it so
pleases, is conducive to the growth of despotism. In the second place, the
institution of this government presupposes acquaintance of the officials of the
central organization with local conditions everywhere, which is not a fact. The
result is that legislative and administrative measures are passed which may be
beneficial to some localities but are detrimental to others because of their
peculiarly different conditions. This fact may retard the progress of some
communities because they are forced to grow within certain moulds that have been
adopted for others under different situations. In the third place, a unitary
government destroys local initiative and, consequently, breeds indifference to the
management of the government. The people of the localities operate within the
limits of certain powers enumerated for them having no freedom to meet their own
peculiar problems beyond these circumscriptions. The logic of their situation may
dictate that they can raise more revenues from taxing a certain activity found only
within their community; but they can not do so unless there is authority therefore
in their defined powers. They may wish to operate a certain undertaking to meet
their own peculiar needs, but they are barred from doing so unless the central
government has vested in their government that power or unless it will grant the
same to them.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS

Federal government defined. - A federal government is a form of

government in which governmental powers are by the common sovereign
distributed between a central government and the local governments, each being
supreme within its own sphere. Unlike in a unitary government where the local
governmental agencies are creations of the central government, the latter having
the authority to de- termine their powers and their existence, the local governments
in a federal state owe their creation and their powers to the common sovereign
who defines through the constitution their organization and their powers. Thus, in
a sense, the central government and the local governments are coordinate, deriving
their authority from the direct grant of the people and not being free to encroach
upon the field of authority marked for each by the constitution.

Historical basis. - A federal government might have been established in a

certain country as a compromise scheme between the ardent supporters of a strong,
national government and those who desire to have a strong local government.
States, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland were adopted The federal governments
of the United not because the framers of the constitutions really believed in the
superiority of the federal to the unitary type but because that represented the best
compromise between having a strong unified government at the expense of local
autonomy and strong local governments, enjoying complete autonomy, even at the
expense of external unity. Other countries having the federal type adopted it
merely because it had been successful in the United States. Such were Brazil,
Argentina, and Mexico.

Conditions necessary for the establishment and maintenance of a

successful federal government. - There are certain conditions necessary for the
formation and maintenance of a successful federal government. First, the
component political communities must be sufficiently similar in race, history, and
tradition to really want a strong nationality and political union. Second, there must
be a strong feeling of local unity which demands a division of political power so
as to preserve local individuality. Third, there must be a written constitution
defining the powers to be exercised by the central government and those by the
local governments, so that neither could encroach upon the proper sphere of the
other. Fourth, there must be a common tribunal with the power to interpret this
constitution, thereby preventing the encroachment by one government upon the
domain of the other as laid down in the fundamental law.

Distribution of powers under a federal government - The powers to be

exercised by the two sets of government are defined in the constitution. There are
two methods of distributing these governmental powers. First, the powers to be
exercised by the central government may be enumerated, the residuary powers
being vested in the local governments, except those specifically prohibited to
them. Second, the powers to be exercised by the local governments may be
enumerated, the central government exercising the residuary powers, together with
those specifically enumerated. The first is that followed in the government of the
United States; the second, in that of Canada.

Advantages of federal government. - The federal system of government has

been highly praised by eminent political writers, like Montesquieu, De
Tocqueville, Sidgwick, Bryce, and many others. These advantages have been
summed up by an American writer as follows: "It affords a means of uniting into a
powerful state, commonwealths more or less diverse in character and having
dissimilar institutions, without extinguishing wholly their separate existences. It
furnishes the means of maintaining an equilibrium of centrifugal and centripetal
forces in a state of widely different tendencies... It excels all other forms of
government in the effectiveness with which it combines the advantages of
nationality, unity and power with those of local autonomy. It secures at the same
time all the advantages of uniformity in the regulation of af- fairs of general
concern with those of diversity in the regulation of local affairs. Instead of
concentrating the powers of the state in a single organ or set of organs, as in the
case of the unitary state, federalism distributes it between a common central
government and a number of local governments, and thus prevents the rise of a
single despotism absorbing all political power and menacing the liberties of the
people. By securing the advantages of self- government for the people in those
affairs which are peculiarly local to them, it reconciles them to the loss of power
which they have sustained through the surrender of their control over other affairs
to the general government. Furthermore, through the right of self-government, the
interest of the people in local affairs is stimulated and preserved, they are educated
in their civic duties, and this in turn reacts upon the character of the local
administration. Federalism, observes Bryce, allows experiments in local legislation
and administration which could not safely be tried in a large country having a
unitary system of government. At the same time it supplies the best means of
developing a new and vast country by allowing the particular localities to develop
their special needs in the way they think best."

Defects of federal government. - The operation of federal governments has

revealed a number of defects. First, there being a set of officials of the central
government and another of the component members of the federalism, there is
generally an overlapping of functions, resulting in waste and confusion.
Ultimately, the people bear the expense of maintaining this complex governmental
machinery. Second, the two sets of officials being coordinate because belonging to
two sets of government that are independent, each being supreme within its own
sphere, it is not very easy to secure unity. This lack of unity works out
disadvantageously both in foreign and in domestic affairs. The states acting on
their reserved powers oftentimes pass measures that make difficult the compliance
of the national government with its treaty obligations. States in pursuance of their
powers legislate differently on matters that are by their nature common to all the
people of the body politic, oftentimes resulting in a state of confusion for all. Laws
on such subjects as marriage, divorce, taxation, and insurance are very diversified
when they should be uniform to make easier the problems of administration.
Third, with the powers of each government derived from the constitution, and with
the latter generally rigid, it results that it is difficult to meet social and economic
matters that need expeditious action for their solution or readjustment. Under a
unitary government, it is easy to take care of matters that. need quick legislation or
other treatment because the powers of government are vested in one central
organization.
 Principles of Political Science by J.M Aruego and Aruego-Torres
Week 9 Assigned Readings (P.135-146)
Chapter 10
PARLIAMENTARY, PRESIDENTAL AND DICTATORIAL
GOVERNMENTS

PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENTS
Parliamentary government defined. - A parliamentary government—the
terms "ministerial," "responsible," and "cabinet" are often used synonymously
with it—"is the system in which the real executive—the cabinet or ministry—is
immediately and legally responsible to the legislature or one branch of it (usually
the more popular chamber) for its legislative and administrative acts, and
mediately or politically responsible to the electorate; while the titular or nominal
executive—the chief of state—occupies a position of irresponsibility."

Origin and growth of parliamentary government. - Parliamentary

government is a product more of evolution than of invention. It had its origin in
the long contest for supremacy between the king of England and the
representatives of the upper classes of the people. The representatives of the
nobility and of the landed estate, later on increased by those of the middle classes,
checked the free and unbridled exercise of the royal prerogatives, gradually
reducing them in favor of the representatives of the people. The political conquests
made from time to time hardened into traditions, and the traditions crystallized
into political institutions and practices that went into the making of the
parliamentary government of the country. The parliamentary government of
England is, thus, indigenous to English soil, a product of years of constant struggle
on the part of the people through their representatives for the control of the
government. Parliamentary government in England is conditioned by the customs,
conventions, usages, and understandings that constitute integral parts of the British
constitution.

From England, the parliamentary or cabinet idea spread to Continental

Europe, then to the Western hemisphere although only to a limited extent, and then
to the Far East. Parliamentary government exists today also in Australia; Canada;
France; Italy; and Japan.

General feature of parliamentary governments. - The features of

parliamentary government and its workings in the countries where it has been
adopted have not been the same. On the whole, however, the parliamentary
governments of the world present general characteristics. Firstly, there is a union
of the executive and the legislative departments, with the ministry directing the
performance of executive and legislative functions. Secondly, the members of the
ministry hold office because they have the support of the majority of the
legislature (generally of the more popular chamber). Thirdly, the members belong
to the legislature, usually being its leaders; or, they are outsiders appointed by it.
In both cases, they are responsible to the legislature for their policies and are
dependent upon it for their tenure of office, remaining in office as long as they
have its confidence. Fourthly, the chief executive is only a nominal head,
exercising his powers through the members of the ministry who countersign all his
acts.

The English Parliamentary Government. - The following may be said to be

the features of the parliamentary government of England:---(1) The legislative
branch of the government—the parliament has two chambers; namely, the House
of Lords (the upper chamber), the members of which are chosen through
inheritance and by appointment of the Crown; and the House of Commons (the
lower chamber), composed of representatives elected by popular suffrage. (2) The
executive branch of the government is composed of the king who is the nominal
chief executive, holding his office through inheritance and for life, and of the
ministers, some of whom are cabinet members, working under the direction of
their head, the prime minister. (3) The ministers are political heads of
administrative services, corresponding to departments in the United States and in
the Philippines. (4) All are members at the same time of either house of
parliament, either at the time of their appointment or subsequent to it. (5) The
prime minister is appointed by the king from the victtorious political party
following an election, or from the Opposition following a withdrawal of
confidence by the House in case the government in power chooses to resign in
favor of the minority; the other ministers, including the cabinet members, are
appointed by the king upon the recommendation of the prime minister. (6) All of
the ministers belong to the majority party, except in rare cases when there is no
party that controls the majority, when they are then recruited from the parties
forming the coalition government. (7) The ministers who are executive heads of
ministries are at the same time legislative leaders, directing the course of
legislation, participating in the discussion, and joining in the vote. (8) They remain
in power for five years unless before the expiration of that time they lose the
confidence of the House of Commons, in which case the ministry resigns in favor
of the Opposition or the House of Commons is dissolved by order of the king upon
motion of the prime minister. In the latter case, the ministry remains until the
election for a new House is over. If the people in the election have supported the
party of the ministry, it remains; if they have not, the members tender their
resignation, and the king calls upon the leader of the new victorious party to form
a new ministry.

Advantages and disadvantages of a parliamentary system of government. -

In general, it may be said that a parliamentary system of government makes for
unity between the executive branch and the legislative branch of the government
and renders possible a coordinated program of legislation and administration at
least during the time the "government" is in power. It brings about unity of
authority on the part of those that run the government, enabling them to manage its
affairs more smoothly and to meet more readily its needs that require expedient
action. The unity of authority that is brought about means necessarily a unity of
responsibility. Consequently, the people are enabled to fix responsibility for all
acts of misgovernment. In the second place, the admission of executive officials in
the discussion of measures in the halls of the legislature brings to that body
information on the con- ditions of the country which the members otherwise could
not so readily have. As heads of the different departments of the government, they
acquire a wealth of information that is very serviceable to intelligent legislation. In
the third place, the system means greater responsiveness to the public will on the
part of the officials in power. A change in the sentiment of the people bears
pressure upon the members of the legislature for the adoption or the change of a
policy of the ministry. The ministry must heed the dictate of the mobilized
sentiment or face the alternative of resignation or the dissolution of the legislature.

On the other hand, there is political instability in a parliamentary

government where there is no bi-party system; that is, where there is no single
party that controls the majority of the chamber to which the ministry is made
responsible. Consequently, no ministry can remain long enough to develop a
continuity of policy, foreign or domestic. In the second place, the system
strengthens the position of the central government at the expense of the local
government, a fact which is naturally objected to by those who believe in local
self-government as the basis of democratic institutions. At least this has been the
experience of countries that adopted parliamentary governments. In the third
place, it is alleged that the fusion of legislative and executive powers furnishes a
fertile ground for the growth of despotism.
 Conditions for the establishment of parliamentary government.
Considering the experience of the countries that have been under this system, we
may state in general that the presence of the following conditions gives a
reasonable assurance of the success of a parliamentary government in a given
country: (1) the existence of a bi-party system; (2) a political tradition of the
people to look upon the legislature for supremacy in governmental matters; and (3)
a reasonably high degree of political education of the body politic.

Ministerial responsibility does not postulate a two-party system, for as in

France, Italy, and Japan, it can be maintained when there are several party groups;
but the principle of ministerial responsibility can be much more smoothly operated
when there exists a bi-party system, with one party controlling the government and
the other serving as the "opposition." A parliamentary government works best
where the ministry counts with a solid working majority behind it, not too large
though to intrench it too deeply in control and to enable it even to defy public
opinion. There must be a vigorous "opposition" sufficiently strong to keep the
ministry on its guard and to make its responsibility real. It must be numerous
enough to force A change in the ministry, with the votes of some members of the
majority who heed a change in public sentiment even at the expense of party
discipline, when public opinion has made its meaning clear and unmistakable. The
history of parliamentary governments indicates that cabinets which are formed
from a single party and are sup- ported by a single party do far better work than
those which represent coalitions and are supported by blocs.

In a parliamentary government, the legislature is superior to the other

branches of the government. With the development of a political tradition of the
people to look upon the supremacy of the legislature in governmental matters,
there is thus prepared the ground for the success of the system; for it is a fact of
common knowledge that that government is best for the people which is rooted in
their own tradition, psychology, and experience.
 A parliamentary system of government requires a higher degree of political
capacity of the body politic than what obtains in a presidential form of
government. The doctrine of responsibility implies that a change in public
sentiment in between elections must be heeded either in a corresponding change in
the program of the "government" or in the resignation of the ministry, in favor of
the opposition which by its strength shows that there has been a break in the ranks
of the supporters of the ministry, indicative of the deflection of public opinion
from its direction during the last election. For a parliamentary system of
government to work well, the people must keep up with the activities of the
government and be ready to participate in the discussion of national questions
either in the press or in their meetings, so that those that govern may be able to
sense out the sentiments of the people from time to time and to make
readjustments either in their program or in the machinery of the government. In
the elections that follow the dissolution of parliament where the system has this
for one of its features, the people are called upon to decide which is right on the
question at issue—the ministry or the legislature. Necessarily, for the people to
decide accurately, they must have the facts clearly, must understand them
thoroughly, and must interpret them correctly. To be able to do all of these, their
political education must necessarily be more than ordinary.

PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENTS

Presidential government defined. - A presidential government is a form of

government "in which the executive is constitutionally independent of the
legislature as regards his tenure and to a large extent as regards his policies and
acts." It rests upon the principle that the executive is independent of the
legislature, not owing his office to the latter and, therefore, not removable by it.

General features of presidential governments. - (1) The executive is

independent of the legislature, neither owing his office to the latter nor removable
by it in case of friction. (2) There is no nominal executive. The chief executive is a
real executive, assisted in his work of administration by a cabinet composed of
members chosen by him and responsible to him alone. They are chosen without
regard to the political complexion of the legislature or to the wishes of the
majority in the latter. (3) The executive and the members of the cabinet do not
have entré to either branch of the legislature, not having the power to introduce in
their names measures, to discuss them in the halls of the chambers, and to vote on
them. (4) The members of the cabinet are responsible to the executive and to him
alone. Consequently, there is no system of interpellation and no dissolution of the
cabinet nor of the legislature in case of an adverse vote. (5) There is a strict
separation of powers. And by usage or by law, the courts are given the power to
pass on the constitutionality of legislative measures, with the power to declare
them valid or null and void and, therefore, of no effect.

The presidential government of the United States. - (1) The legislative

branch of the government is composed of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. The members of the Senate are elected by the people for a period
of six years; those. of the House of Representatives, for two years. (2) The
executive branch is composed of the President, elected for four years by the direct
suffrage of the people through presidential electors, and of the departmental
secretaries (constituting the cabinet), appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The cabinet secretaries are responsible to the
President and may be removed by him at any time. They are under no obligation
either. by law or by usage to resign upon the demand of the legislature, as long as
the President chooses to keep them with him. (3) Regardless of what the
legislature will do — disapproves his measures, censures him, or passes a vote of
lack of confidence in him—the President remains in office for the four years for
which he has been elected by the people. He may be impeached but only for the
commission of certain designated crimes, never for his differences with the
legislature on legislative or administrative policies. (4) The President and the
members of his cabinet do not have as a matter of right the power to appear in the
halls of either chamber to introduce measures, to discuss them, or to vote on them;
although they may have their favorite measures introduced, discussed, and voted
for them by some of the members in either house. (5) The courts have the power to
pass upon the constitutionality of legislative measures, with the consequent power
to declare them valid or null and void and, therefore, of no effect.

Advantages and disadvantages of presidential government. It may be said

in favor of a presidential system of government that it assures the executive a term
of office long enough to permit the accomplishment of substantial results and that
the separation of the authorities to exercise the executive and the legislative
powers is an impediment to the growth of despotism and may, therefore, be said to
be a doctrine of liberty. Against these advantages may be raised the objection that
the separation and independence of the executive and the legislative branches may
result into the possibility that a conflict will occur between the two which is not
possible of speedy settlement, to the detriment of public interests. This is
especially so when the executive and the legislature do not happen to belong to the
same political party, with the usual fact that measures coming from the executive
branch are defeated by a legislature of different political complexion, not so much
because they are unwise or defective as because they are sponsored by a leader of
the other political party. The same may generally be said of measures proceeding
from the legislature, presented to the executive for his signature. The system,
moreover, encourages irresponsibility on the part of the elected officials who can
feel safe and secure in office until the expiration of their designated term, follow-
ing a line of conduct, even in defiance of the public will. In a country where the
more representative legislative chamber has a shorter term of office than the
executive, it is possible under a presidential system of government for an
executive whose policies have been repudiated at the polls, to continue in power,
in spite of the fact that he has been virtually disauthorized by the people he is
governing. This is not the case in a country under a parliamentary government. In
other words, the executive branch of the government and to some extent even the
legislative branch are not so responsible to public opinion as are their compeers in
a parliamentary government.

PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT AND SEMI-PARLIAMENTARY

GOVERNMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES

The original 1973 Philippine Constitution provided for a parliamentary

system of government. It provided for a President who was the symbolic head of
the government; for a President who should be the head of the Government and for
a lawmaking body (called National Assembly) in which the legislative power
should be vested.

Both the President and the Prime Minister should be chosen by the National
Assembly from among the Members thereof. The President should serve for a
term of six year removable only by impeachment by the National Assembly: The
Prime Minister should serve as such only as long as he retained the confidence of
the National Assembly. The National Assembly could show that it no longer had
any more confidence in the Prime Minister by electing his successor. The
members of the National Assembly should be elected by a direct vote of the
people from geographical districts into which the country would be divided. There
would be at least one member from each district. The term of office of the
members was fixed at six (6) years. But the National Assembly could be dissolved
earlier by the President upon recommendation of the Prime Minister, where it
appeared necessary to determine the will of the people on fundamental issues.

Under the 1981 Constitutional Amendments, the present system of

Government is now semi-parliamentary. In other words, it has some features of a
parliamentary system of government, and some of a presidential one.
 The President is now elected by the direct vote of the people for a term of
six (6) years, and can be removed only by impeachment by the lawmaking body.

Although elected for six (6) years, upon recommendation of the Prime
Minister, the President could dissolve the lawmaking body and call an election for
a popular vote of confidence on fundamental issues

The executive power is vested in the President of the Philippines elected by

the people. He shall be assisted by the Executive Committee designated by him,
composed of the Prime Minister as Chairman and not more than fourteen (14)
other members, at least half of whom shall be members of the Batasang Pambansa.

DICTATORSHIP

Dictatorship defined - A dictatorship is a regime "where the twin elements

of autocracy and dictation are used to perpetuate the power of a government
controlled by an individual or a group?"

There is autocracy when the government "exists beyond or in spite of the will of
its citizens."

There is dictation when it commands what is to be followed by the people not in

accordance with but even against their will.

History. There have been dictatorships throughout history. Until recent

times, the dictators were individuals. There were some of them who exercised
absolute powers over their subjects, and they were called tyrants by the Ancient
Greeks. Others were benevolent and popular not needing the support of any
particular group to maintain them in power. Some of them were hereditary rulers,
possessed of few formal powers, while the other powers of government were
reserved to and exercised by popularly elected representatives of the people.

Dictatorship, how exercised. The dictator may be, usually, an individual.

But it could be a non-individ ual—a group of individuals, like an army, a church,
or a political party. The group possesses the power of dictatorship which it
exercises through an individual, who is under its control, who stays in power as
long as it is supported by the group.

Examples of individual dictators were Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito

Mussolini of Italy before the. Second World War, Fidel Castro of Cuba and
Franco of Spain. An example of "group" dictator is the Communist Party of Soviet
Russia.

Constitutional dictatorships - There have been dictatorships which have

been called or referred to as constitutional dictatorships. Such have been those
based on constitutions previously adopted before their emergence, like those based
on the German Weimar Constitution or the Mexican Constitution, and on the 1935
and the 1973 Philippine Constitutions.

In these cases, the constitutional provisions authorizing strong executive

powers were intended for emergency cases, to terminate with the cessation of the
emergency.

But other dictatorships have developed from the assumption of powers no

longer authorized by the immediately preceding Constitution. When already in
power, such dictatorships have adopted new constitutions to preserve the changes
that they had made, and within which they intend to govern, in order to give the
appearance of legality to their acts. In these cases, in reality the new Constitutions
represent the will of the dictator (individual or group), no longer that of the
governed.

Dictatorships and totalitarianism. Some dictatorships have been

characterized by totalitarianism, which is a system based on total state control of
the life of an individual–-both public and private. A totalitarian state follows the
political philosophy that the individual is for the State, as distinguished from a
democracy where the State is for the individual. Germany under Adolf Hitler and
Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini before the Second World War were
totalitarian states. And so has been Soviet Russia under the Russian Communist
Party.

Agencies of dictatorships. - Constitutional dictatorships based on

immediately preceding constitutions have made use of the agencies provided
therein together with the other constitutional agencies, observing the limitations of
the Constitution. If their executives have become stronger, it is because there are
constitutional provisions authorizing such development.

But other dictatorships have been different. They have built up their own
armies, set up their own media, or controlled and dictated upon those privately
owned, so that in effect there is no freedom of speech, of the press, of association
—freedoms so much valued and prized in democracies.