The similarity between the political histories of South Korea and the Philippines is uncanny. First, both have been colonized nations. Korea was under Japanese rule from 1910-1945 while the Philippines was a US colony from 1899-1946 and before this, a Spanish colony for more than three centuries.
Second, both nations after World War II embraced the democratic form of government as the linchpin of their independent nation-building projects. Notably, this introductory period to democracy was interrupted by a military takeover of government in both countries as well.
On May 16, 1961, General Park Chung-hee staged a successful military coup and ruled South Korea with an iron fist from 1961-1979. He declared martial law in October 1972 and dissolved the National Assembly. In November of the same year, the Yusin Constitution was promulgated, which gave the president of South Korea, General Park himself, complete control of the parliament and allowed him to promulgate emergency decrees.
On March 16, 1967, the Philippine Congress passed a resolution calling for a convention to amend the 1935 constitution. In the midst of the drafting process, however, then-president Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No 1081 on September 21, 1972, declaring martial law. While wielding this powerful martial authority, Marcos was able to railroad the promulgation of the 1973 constitution, which in effect allowed him to stay in office indefinitely as well as to issue decrees with absolute impunity.
Indeed, until about the mid-1980s, both countries were under the grip of autocratic rulers. South Korea was under a military dictatorship while the Philippines was under a dictator supported by the military.
Finally, the restoration of democratic rule in both countries was also alike – in both, it was accomplished via popular revolt, or “people power.” More important, these two watershed moments were actually closely connected. Their historical link was expressed by Uk Heo and Terrence Roehrig in their 2010 book South Korea Since 1980, as such: “South Korea’s opposition became further energized in spring 1986 with the fall of Philippine leader Ferdinand Marcos. Perhaps it would be South Korea’s time to remove an authoritarian leader.”
After going through those terrible years of political repression, the state-building projects by both countries have been anchored on consolidating democratic rule. In particular, both nations have endeavored to establish a political framework founded on a written constitution replete with provisions on rule of law, respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and significant restraints on government.
In fact, the launching pad for this undertaking for both nations was the revision of their respective martial-law constitutions in 1987 – the Philippines in February and South Korea in October.
Latest constitutional reforms
Amazingly, as if on cue, both nations are currently undertaking constitutional reform.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte assumed office in July 2016, winning the election under the slogan of his political party, PDP-Laban: “No to Drugs, Yes to Federalism.” He is thus committed to shepherding the transition of the Philippines into a federal form of government, which is an undertaking that requires a complete overhaul of the country’s constitution.
President Moon Jae-in of South Korea also won the top post in May 2017 on the promise of rewriting his country’s own 1987 constitution, specifically to reform the presidential term of office. Notably, during the presidential election, the South Korean electorate made it clear to all the contenders that they wanted this change to happen.
Consequently, President Moon upon assumption of office immediately called for a special parliamentary committee consisting of lawmakers from different political parties to produce a set of recommendations for the National Assembly to consider. This committee has done its work and the list of recommendations has been formally submitted to the assembly. The constitutional reform process seems to be well under way.
In the Philippines though, it may not be as clear-cut as in South Korea. President Duterte issued in December 2016 Executive Order No 10 to organize a consultative committee on constitutional reform with the mandate to “study, conduct consultations, and review the provisions of the 1987 constitution.”
But this body has only recently commenced its work because members of the committee were only named in January. It is headed by former chief justice Reynato Puno, and members include the prime mover of federalism advocacy in the Philippines, former Senate president Nene Pimentel, former Supreme Court justices, distinguished law practitioners, and well-regarded academics.
This delay is understandable given that Duterte had a lot on his plate in 2017. But he is now making up for lost time and has directed the consultative committee to produce a draft federal constitution by this June. The plan is to announce this draft in his State of the Nation address in July.
But there are potential obstructions to Duterte’s timetable fo constitutional change that may come into play in the coming months. As the draft federal constitution is being written for the president, groups that are against charter change are organizing themselves to mobilize public support for their cause.
Some organizations are diligently preparing an alternative path for the same reforms sought by constitutional revision with the end view of enticing people to resist Duterte’s call to federalize the country, while some organizations intend to rally people to protests in the streets. If these social movements reach critical mass before the June deadline, it could stop the constitutional change proposition dead on its tracks.
The similarities in the political evolution of South Korea and the Philippines are indeed fascinating. But the differences, even the not so obvious ones, are utterly enlightening.
They have been organizing mass protest left and right and on every opportune occasions and holidays but they always failed to produce a "critical mass". Duterte’s 80% approval and satisfaction rating is no fluke. Even with mainstream mass media undermining him and his government and even rallying opposition against him, they were never able to influence the public to oppose him. This author is only trying to convince himself that charter change and federalism will not happen. It is free to dream in Philippine democracy.????
in terms of improvement of economy, the difference is black and white because it boils down to LOVE of country. the koreans are very nationalistic and hard working while the filipinos loves the USA and very relax (maniana habit).
The glaring difference is lust for money against love for the country…
Bitin! I was left hanging.I hope this article is to be continued, with the focus on the differences
The difference is south korea is not revising but only amendingmits constitution it is not federalizing its govt like the phils which the president wants to federalize when what is needed is decentralization
Snd debolution of powers snd resources their is no comparison and youndid not mention that they prospered during park chungs hees rule because he is not a thief and greedy he love his country unlike marcos
You can’t compare Phl to Korea, they are poles apart in terms of economy and progress. How many brand of Cars Korea produced and used worldwide? I don’t want to sound being un-patriotic.
So, are the differences which you consider enlightening bode well for the Philippines or spell doom? Bring it on and let us see if your analysis indeed has merit.
Federalism is supported by the majority of the Filipino people.
Federalization is decentralization
No its a manipulated survey by fake newslies misinformationpurveyors look at japan south korea sng taiwan
They are unitary govt but still they arecprogressive
Oding Sagz it might be but it will inly fameagment our country it will inatitutionslized dynastic families and it will be a drain tonoir budgets to setup in different states bureaucracies that will run this tate govt
World ???? politics is like watching GAME OF THRONES
Both countries experienced aurthoritarian rule, but the outcomes were very different. In 1965, when Ferdinand Marcos was elected, the per capita GDP of ther Philippines was $187.11, South Korea’s was $108.70. In 1986, when Marcos fled, The Philippine per capita gdp was $535.24; South Korea’s was $2,803,37. Both countries were oil importers and reliant on international credit markets, but one succeeded and one failed. The Philippines was left behind due to its poor leadership.
Authoritarian government is not a prescription for success: it succeeds or fails depending on the quality and honesty of those in power. Similarly, constitutional change is not necessarily going to bring success. Whether it does or not will depend on the goals and the process. A transition to federalism designed to protect and benefit the provincial dynastic elite is not likely to help anyone but the provincial dynastic elite.
can we consider the big difference in the perceived corrupt practices of Filipino leaders more than their Korean counterparts "enlightening"?
President Duterte’s not duplicating martial law as what Pres. Marcos did….. the new administration re-hauling the messy of the past and past administration not doing more on their mandates,, but hiding a persoinal interests… that;s why President Duterte,,,, doing a marathon to overhaul our country….
The many supporter of duterte are like birds riding at the backs of carabao, feeling highly esteemed. Feeds with all the insects that they want. But, when that carabao swift his tail you will catch unaware.
Ramiro Galitan….it’s not possible for Pres. Duterte is holding that tail! And you people are the insects that we want to get rid off!
Ramiro Galitan pasagasa ka na rin sa train
Ramiro Galitan Isa ka sa mga coto Ng kalabaw na dapat alisin at pisain.
One more the same in this two countries, OLIGARCHS can MANIPULATE the country president and so with the lawmakers. But for DUTERTE it seems no more.
I see in this article that while South Koreans are cooperative, Filipinos aren’t.
Manuel Solomon , because they don’t have secessionist rebels like MILF and MNLF. This problem is already 50 years old and Duterte wants to address it.