Catanduanes Forum

A rhetorical question: Is experience or track record an imperative qualification to be candidate for the presidency?

This question is suddenly being repeated all over the papers, blogs and tweets when Noynoy Aquino declared his presidential bid.

At first glance, the most expected response is a resounding yes. But let us take a second look at this rhetoric.

Technically speaking, the Philippine Constitution does not require experience to be an eligible candidate for the presidency. Theoretically, the enumeration of the qualifications for running as presidential candidate is exclusive, and no law may be passed modifying the same, either by adding other qualifications or removing any of the qualifications already included.

Some may say that the qualifications such as the candidate must be at least 40 years old, must be a registered voter and must be a natural born citizen are too lax that anybody who is 40 years old at least, a registered voter and a natural born citizen may be eligible as candidate for the presidency. Again while this is theoretically true, still the COMELEC is empowered by some law to "sift" the presidentiables in search for the nuisance candidate. But even the crucible in removing nuisance candidates does not include the experience requirement.

Why the constitution and the law did not require experience as one of the qualifications to be eligible to run for the presidency is a matter of public policy, and is surely backed-up by some reasonable rationale, one of which is the constitutional equal protection clause, which need not be discussed further here.

So that in a legal and technical point of view, experience is not one of the qualifications required in order for one to throw his hat in the presidential race.

For practical purposes however, it may be argued at some point, that he who aspires to lead a 90 million people, with all their diversity in ideologies, ideas, religion and some other persuasions, has to have some background in leadership. Even an applicant for a clerical position in a small office has to have some previous clerical experience before his application could be even considered.

Arguably, at first glance, it may be said that leading a country is akin to a chief executive officer cum executive operating officer of a business conglomerate who should have the business acumen and experience in order to successfully carry through, maintain and develop the business in order for profit to flow into the company. Your focus as a CEO is profit, and how the company you are managing will attain and maintain that level of market confidence wherein you have established your system, your market is steady and you do nothing else but create more ways and avenues for your company to earn more profit through diversification.

Unfortunately, becoming a president is nothing like managing a business empire. A country should not be likened to a profit driven business entity. It definitely is not a profit making venture.It is about allocating the government's scarce resources for the good of the people. It is in fact investing on the people.

A country is a political entity, a legal entity, a moral entity, a cultural entity and a social entity. A country is about the people. The purpose of its existence transcends the more mundane objects of a business conglomerate. Managing a country is not for the purpose of earning profit, nor making more profit to earn more. Managing a country is seeing to it that government resources is felt even by the most lowly of the people. Or even seeing to it that those who have more must be required to share more under the tenets of social justice.

To do this, one who aspires to be president need not have a masteral or doctorate in any of the social sciences, politics or governance and public administration. While these may be plus factors, these are not imperatives. He needs to have the heart and the resolve to focus on what is good for the people; the integrity and strength of character to resist the temptation that the presidency brings.

But good intentions alone is not enough, it is argued. A presidentiable must at least have a track record. But track record for what? If you are applying for a clerical position you should have a previous experience in clerical jobs. If you are applying for a position of a barber in a barber shop you need to have an experience as a barber. If you are applying for a position as a driver you need to have an experience in driving. If you are applying for a position as a writer you should have an experience in writing, If you are applying for a position as CEO of a land development company definitely you should have an experience in managing a land development company.

The presidency of a country however is a singular position at any given time. The presidency is not like any other government positions. It is a class of its own. Nobody knows how to be president until he becomes one. The presidency does not create the man/woman who occupies it. The man/woman who occupies the position creates his own presidency.

Unless we intend that previous presidents of this country should run again for the presidency then that is the only chance that we could truly say that experience or track record should be required from a presidentiable.

Therefore to answer the query on whether experience or track record is an imperative qualification for a presidentiable, I must say no.

To require otherwise would be engaging in a rhetoric the only purpose of which is to stress that of all the presidentiables for the 2010 elections, the only qualified candidate is Joseph Ejercito Estrada, whose qualifications definitely include being Former President of the Republic of the Philippines. Well, that would be another story.