The 1987 Philippine Constitution, crafted in the aftermath of a tumultuous period, envisioned a strong, independent Vice President. However, the reality on the ground paints a starkly different picture. The Vice President, often relegated to the role of a “spare tire,” has historically struggled to wield significant power or influence, leading to a persistent friction between the two highest offices in the land. This begs the question: do we need a Vice President at all? Or is it time for a constitutional overhaul?

---

---

The Philippine Constitution grants the Vice President a few key roles: a second fiddle to the President, assuming the Presidency in case of incapacity or death, and serving as a member of the Cabinet. However, these powers are often limited in practice. The President, wielding the power of appointment and influence, often overshadows the Vice President, turning the latter into a figurehead with minimal real authority.

Comparing the Philippine system with other democracies, we see stark differences. In the United States, the Vice President is a powerful figure, often chosen for their political experience and influence. The Vice President acts as the President’s primary advisor and often takes on significant policy roles. Many US Vice Presidents have gone on to become presidents themselves, a testament to the power and stature of the office.

Other countries, like Germany and Brazil, have adopted different models. Germany’s Federal President holds a largely ceremonial role, while Brazil’s Vice President acts as a “shadow” President, ready to assume the helm should the need arise.

However, the Philippines’ unique history, rife with political intrigue and instability, has often seen a tense relationship between the President and Vice President. This dynamic, driven by a blend of indifference and rivalry, has often hindered effective governance. The lack of a clear power structure and a shared vision between the two offices often leads to gridlock and hampers national progress.

The question remains: can a federal form of government address this issue? While a federal system might shift power dynamics and potentially create more opportunities for regional autonomy, it’s unlikely to address the fundamental problem of the Vice Presidency being relegated to a secondary role. The underlying issue is not necessarily the structure of government, but rather the political culture and the lack of a strong tradition of institutional collaboration.

Furthermore, the prevailing multi-party system in the country exacerbates the conflict and contradiction of principles. Having identified in-group party affiliations with differing priority advocacy worsens the relationship between the President and Vice President, which only a parliamentary federalism could potentially eradicate.

Ultimately, the Philippines must address the question of the Vice President’s role with a serious and open dialogue. Is the current system failing to utilize the potential of the second-highest office? Should the Vice President be given more power and influence, or should the office be abolished entirely? Perhaps a complete overhaul of the Constitution, including a shift towards a more collaborative and less adversarial system of government, is necessary.

The Philippines deserves better than a spare tire. We need a system that empowers our leaders to work together, prioritizing the nation’s welfare above personal ambitions. The time for change is now.

Filipinos, our move.