On the way to obtain the documents needed for the release clearance of my wife in the hospital, I chanced upon a platoon of enforcers in black t-shirts, along a major thoroughfare (Buendia near corner Urdaneta Avenue, Makati) whom were palpably on lookout for transgressors.
I asked the cab driver, “we might get caught for not wearing seatbelts”.
He replied “No, they are only after smoke belchers”.
“So what happened to the seatbelt law?” I asked the driver anew.
This time the driver kept mum.
I realized that a colleague of ours had been harassed by the same political authorities almost in the same vicinity.
Of course there is nothing really new to expect here considering the predominant political philosophy “social democracy” espoused by mainstream Filipinos—where a huge majority had been inculcated to believe that government is an indispensable part of most of our lives.
But the incident above only goes to show the following:
Arbitrary laws dominate the Philippine setting. Implementation of laws have not been “fixed and announced beforehand” (F. A. Hayek The Road To Serfdom) but are applied unequally and whimsically according to the priorities of the political authority.
Arbitrary laws can be used against anyone for many reasons to which favors the political class.
I would further presuppose that such law isn’t binding between people and authorities because exemptions will be conferred to politically connected class and their networks.
Further I am reminded by economist Bruce Yandel’s analogy of the Bootleggers and the Baptist-where both parties are for restricting the actions of other people through regulations but for different reasons: Baptists-for moral reasons while the Bootleggers for anti-competitive purposes.
I would suspect here that the Baptists represents the 'green' environmentalist groups, who advocates for “nature” friendly energy, while the Bootleggers are probably those who benefit from the phasing out of old cars or as signalling to industries that haven’t been under the auspices of the incumbent political authorities. At the end of the day, what is restricted usually grows.
It’s been pointed out here that import restrictions of used vehicles have led to smuggling, where regulatory restrictions could have been due to big car companies in bed with political authorities.
Of course, there is always the need to be seen to “do something”, which can be no less than public image management, considering that the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) is a national agency directly under the Office of the President.
Besides, it can also mean that the central government could flexing its political muscles relative to the local authority (Local Government Units) LGUs.
While MMDA says that they will attempt to meet their goals “subject to prior coordination with and consent of the local government unit concerned”, political goals of national and local government can lead to conflicts. And the national political leadership would always want to be seen on top.
Patron client relations could also be at work here. Since MMDA is fundamentally an overlap or a redundant organization amidst the legal existence of LGUs, having boatloads of idle government employees, whom are most likely political appointees (election rewards), may put up a bad image for the national government, thus the need to be seen at work.
There are many other reasons to fill in, which you may all add up.
But there is one thing I am sure of, MMDA is just one of the many “public service” organizations which inhibits Filipinos liberty and ultimately represents a waste of taxpayer money.
Update:
I stand corrected: those operating within the Makati zone are from the Makati LGUs. Nevertheless, MMDA still conducts its own operations at EDSA as shown here. (thanks for the pointer Noynoy Oplas)
Moreover, political incentives even applied to the LGU levels, are almost similar (aimed at generating positive image for election purposes, the bootlegger-preacher incentive and posturing or projecting "public servants at work" for political appointees).
In addition, smoke belching, wang wang and seat belts signify as arbitrary laws that taints the Philippine legal environment.
