Last May, the Philippines held its midterm elections for all the seats of the House of Representatives (Congress) seats, half the Senate seats, and executive positions in various cities and provinces. Like in every election in the country, the mechanisms of patronage politics were at play.
Local politics is dominated by powerful families and clans who can maintain an active and constant political presence through a patronage relationship with voters. Politicians from these families will grant their constituencies benefits (public works projects, scholarships, employment, financial assistance, food subsidies, etc.) in exchange for political support. Voters are willing to give their loyal support to candidates who they perceive will provide them with the protection, security, and favorable treatment they seek for themselves, their families, and their interest groups. For unaffiliated or undecided voters, many candidates clandestinely offer cash, rice, or other basic goods to solicit support and buy votes. The most dominant political families can maintain their presence in politics through successive elections by consistently providing the patronage their constituents expect. Incumbent politicians call attention to projects accomplished or funded during their term to remind their voters of the benefits they have received. Candidates from rival political families compete to be perceived as the more generous and reliable patron.
The patronage relationship between politicians and their supporters can be so strong that it could be unaffected by charges of corruption or abuse of power. Even if a politician has been impeached, removed from office, arrested, and imprisoned, they would still retain a substantial and loyal following because of promises made and favors given in the past. This can partly explain why the son of the former dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, was elected President in 2022. This is also the reason why former President Rodrigo Duterte can still win as mayor in his bailiwick of Davao City in the last election, even when he has been arrested by Interpol and currently held at the Hague for alleged crimes against humanity. The style of patronage of the Marcos and Duterte families resonates with enough loyal supporters to give them the confidence to run for office despite having tainted histories.
Some candidates have also won elections based on good governance and principled politics. However, they are the exception rather than the norm. These politicians will still have to contend with expectations of patronage from their constituencies. For example, prominent political supporters and benefactors expect access to government jobs or contracts as a reward for helping them win the election. Towns and provinces where the candidate won the most votes expect a more significant share of the country’s development budget than other areas where the candidate lost votes.
Religious leaders and organizations have also learned to play the political patronage game. Some religious organizations and sects practice “bloc voting,” wherein a religious group would endorse and vote for a particular candidate in an election. Candidates meet with leaders of these groups to seek their endorsement, presenting themselves as sharing the same values and political agenda of the group. While the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has a policy of non-partisanship as a body, this has not stopped individual bishops and priests from endorsing favored candidates in local and national elections.
Patronage in Philippine politics may also have a religious dimension. With its intense devotion to the cult of saints, Filipino Catholic religiosity may reinforce the belief that patronage relationships are normal when relating with those with the power to grant favors. There is a deeply held belief among Catholic devotees that God and their patron saints will always take care of them, and every prayer will eventually be answered in one way or another. If devout Filipino Catholics expect their heavenly patrons to respond to their prayers, should they not also expect their political patrons to provide for their material needs?
The Philippine bishops have lamented and criticized the patronage politics endemic in the country’s political life through pastoral letters and homilies. However, church leaders cannot wholly escape relationships of patronage that can undermine their moral authority on social issues. Significant donors to dioceses and parishes with interests in industries such as mining, logging, and gambling can silence critical church voices against these problematic activities. Prominent families that control the political life of a province or city are often the biggest benefactors of local parishes, seminaries, and religious houses in the area. Savy government leaders endorse specific church advocacies, such as promoting natural family planning or suspending the death penalty, to ensure support from bishops when their political leadership is criticized. An egregious example was during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, when the government corporation overseeing legalized gambling operations in the country disbursed cash and SUVs to seven Catholic bishops and organizations from 2007 to 2010, supposedly for their pastoral work. When charges of corruption and political interference in elections were raised against Arroyo, the bishops’ conference was divided on whether or not to support calls for the impeachment of the President. When the media exposed the government gifts to the bishops, many Filipinos questioned the integrity and political neutrality of the leaders of the Church.
Patronage remains deeply embedded in the Philippines. Catholic clergy and religious organizations are not immune to its use and misuse. There must be constant public vigilance against political patronage that leads to preferential treatment, discrimination, nepotism, misuse of public resources, and conflicts of interest. Politicians and religious leaders need to be called out by the media and civic-minded citizens when they place personal interests above gospel values and the common good. Even if political patronage cannot be entirely eradicated from the country’s political life because of social and cultural factors, it is our religious leaders’ civic and moral duty to guard against it and call it out wherever it operates.