Basic Knowledge On Politics And Economics Refute Teddy Casino's Stupid Arguments

I thought about reading through the now scrutinized zombie network known as Rappler and it shouldn't be a surprise that Teddy Casino is a contributor to said website. I decided to read through them and even if I'm not a lawyer or political analyst -- but I feel the need to really hammer his claims with what I've learned through self-study. So what's going to be the whole point of this attack against his faulty opinion piece in Rappler concerning Constitutional Reform (and don't forget to read Part 2 of his idiocy) or should I still call it as should be called as CRappler? 

Imperial Manila or Federal Philippines? 

It's no surprise he and one of his best buddies Neri Colmenares speak nonsense. I could talk about the time when Colmenares said that federalism will further empower President Duterte. I may not even be a political analyst but basic knowledge of politics and economics can take anyone a long way. So where do I start?

First, I'd like to tell them this. Here's a simple definition of federalism from the Cornell Law School:

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government is responsible for the federal governance, governing the issues that affect the entire country, while the smaller subdivisions, states, and cities, govern the issues of local concern. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. The United States has a federal system of governance consisting of the national or federal government, and the government of the individual states. In the United States, the Constitution has established a system of “dual sovereignty,” under which the States have surrendered many of their powers to the Federal Government, but also retained a “residuary and inviolable sovereignty.” See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991); See Lane Cty v. Oregon, 74 U.S. 71, 76 (1869).

Here's an excerpt from CoRRECT Philippines on how the site defines federalism and I wonder if he even read it:

Federalism will allow the achievement-oriented regions who choose good leaders to set up really good economic policies that will attract lots and lots of investors to come to their region. More investors and businesses coming in means more jobs for the people. This means more people earning salaries, which means more people paying income taxes. More companies in the region also means more corporate taxes. More income taxes + more corporate taxes, plus more consumption taxes when people spend means more tax revenue for the regional government, which means more funds for the government for improving the infrastructure, improving the salaries of government workers to have quality people and greater efficiency, improving education, improving schools, school equipment, teachers’ salaries, etc. The region will become rich. The leaders of the region can also decide on paying decent official salaries for themselves to avoid needing to go through the corruption “kick-back” route. Overall, the well-run region develops and people in that region live better lives.

So let's think about it -- is Casino still trying to defend the "effectiveness" of Imperial Manila? The comparison of him and his idiocy is like someone who wants effectiveness and efficiency in one's businesses but refuses to accept newer, better systems that's badly needed in the game of improvisation. It's like trying to get a smoke-belching factor system to become environmentally friendly rather than replacing it with an environmentally friendly factory system -- complete with environmentally friendly waste disposal. It's like eating food from the garbage can and expecting yourself to be healthy rather than eating healthy food so you will be healthy.

The real issue is that why some are against federalism? Some, it's because of ignorance but others it's because it will depower their Tagalog Imperialism. You can think of how Colmenares threw his boogeyman that it will further empower President Duterte. But it's time for a reality check -- federalism will not empower warlords and dynasties. Instead, it will decentralize the structure to ensure that everyone gets some contribution. The problem with the unitary form of government is that it's more dictatorial than democratic.

Allow me to give a common sense scenario of how federalism or decentralization works. It would mean that the government will actually be closer to the people instead of farther from the people. It's because Manila (the capital) now gives distribution of decision making power which will in turn -- decongest the Philippines' decision making flow. I don't see anything anti-democracy about the whole idea of decentralizing the Philippines while maintaining a central authority. The whole Imperial Manila system has been more pro-Tagalog than pro-Filipino since it continues to treat the rest of the Philippines as "captured territory" rather than a part of the Philippine Republic.

Presidential system or parliamentary system?

Perhaps the reason why he's against the parliamentary system is because of this -- idiots like him will have to prove themselves to be even part of the parliament. The current presidential system reveals it's number one problem where it encourages stupid voters to vote for stupid people. Do you know why people who are not qualified win? It's because they are popular. Celebrities and athletes who know nothing about running the country enter into major positions such as the Congress and the Senate because the current system says, "As long as the majority votes then he or she is the winner -- no matter how stupid the person is." Hmmm isn't it any wonder why the current system doesn't work.

Why do I think the presidential system is more dictatorial than democratic? If we're going to talk about democracy then isn't it supposedly as it is defined as, "A government for the people, of the people and by the people." and NOT "A government only for the majority, only of the majority and only by the majority." This would be the big problem of presidential systems. It only favors the majority most of the time. If you're going to be a real democracy then why aren't we hearing the voice of the minority? Remember it's not about numbers but about credibility in running an efficient and effective democracy.

So tell me how can a parliamentary system be more dictatorial if there's more distribution of power? There's the majority backbench and the minority backbench where both sides are kept in real check and balance. This is to make sure that the Prime Minister or Chancellor doesn't get absolute power. Neither side has real absolute power and there is frequently an exchange of ideas. It would mean no one would be allowed to sleep on the job or just contribute nonsense. Idiots like Casino and Colmenares wouldn't last long if they can't show how competent they are. The same happens to anyone in position. Would have Leni Robredo been Deputy Prime Minister instead of Vice President -- she would have been kicked out by a vote of no confidence due to her under-performance. Hmmm... in a way Casino is right that parliamentary is a form of dictatorship -- a dictatorship against incompetent people like him in the parliament.

The parliamentary hears both sides -- the majority and the minority in order to have a government for the people, of the people and by the people. It discourages the behavior where democracy becomes the tyranny of the majority. The problem with the Philippines right now is that it's really run by a dictatorship of the majority rather than democracy.

How does the parliamentary system work? CoRRECT Philippines says the following:

Notice also that in Parliamentary Systems, party leaders (who are in the running to become Prime Minister if their respective parties win majority of all seats or if their parties form coalitions where they have the most seats within the coalition) campaign using the pronoun “We.” They speak more collectively about their party’s platforms and their party’s past performance by always referring to “Our Party” or “My Party” unlike in Presidential Systems where presidential candidates use the pronoun “I” all the time.

Parties will be forced to compete against other parties by presenting their platforms to the public and showing that their platforms are more responsive to the needs of the people. More importantly, parties will be forced to compete against each other by choosing the best members among themselves to be the senior members of the party, the best of whom will be the party leader.

In a Parliamentary System, unlike in a presidential system, the Prime Minister and his majority bloc are always in competition against the Leader of the Opposition and his minority bloc. Active Debates ensue. The Leader of the Opposition tries to show that the Prime Minister does not know what he is talking about. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, must always be on his toes to show that indeed, he does know what he is talking about and has the facts to prove his point…

In a parliamentary system, there is an intense system of competition where the Majority’s “Government Cabinet” is always being challenged by the Minority’s “Shadow Cabinet.”

The Minister of Finance from the Government Majority is always on his toes and must always prove himself as the Shadow Minister from the Opposition Minority always challenges him and questions his decisions. In fact, since every single decision that the Minister of Finance makes within the Ministry of Finance regarding budget and other concerns is always done in the presence of the Opposition Shadow Minister of Finance, everything is above board, everything is transparent.

If you read it carefully, you will realize there is no real absolute or monopoly of power. Instead, you have it that everyone's ideas will be heard and sorted out. No idea is absolute and there will always be objections whenever there are mistakes. For example, Prime Minister Duterte wants to change the curriculum but Senator Grace Poe-Llamanzares will point out the mistakes. Now let's say Senator Poe-Llamanzares wants to control Facebook Philippines then the other side will tell her that it's unrealistic and repressive while giving her better ways to fight fake news. It would only be a dictatorship to people who are so used to having their way all the time.

Is there really a loss of freedom under President Duterte?

I thought of a number of times that I wish that the government will just eradicate those idiotic activists like Bayan Muna (Nation First), Kabataan Partylist (Youth Partylist) and the like because they are such nuisances. But even if they did fail to overthrow President Duterte -- but one can really see that they weren't gunned down. This is all but an imaginary "dictatorship".

Here's proof that democracy isn't really dead as idiots like him would claim it to be. Let's think about some of the stupidest and most rabid critics against President Duterte's rule. Some of these harsh critics against President Duterte are Agot Isidro, Leah Navarro, Cynthia Patag and Jim Paredes. As annoying as they are but why hasn't President Duterte even have them arrested? You have Jover Laurio who has continued her stupid work called Pinoy Ako Blog but why hasn't she been arrested yet? Also, Maria Ressa is subjected to due process with her license concerning Rappler. If President Duterte were a dictator then all of them would have been put to jail right now like some Marcos critics.

If he wants to use Leila De Lima as an example then forget about it. De Lima's arrest was not anything to do with criticizing the current administration. Instead, it was all about bringing up false charges in the quest to destabilize the current government. In short, De Lima may be guilty of sedition considering how she brought up bogus witnesses. Worse, what's the use of criticizing Herbert Colangco's testimony against her as void while praising Edgar Matobato's as true? Both of them are convicted criminals. The difference is Colangco is admitting his own dirt with evidence while Matobato is making bogus claims at the same time.

If he says we're losing freedom then that's partially true. What freedom has been lost under President Duterte? The freedom to violate curfews is now lost. The freedom to smoke in public places is now gone. The freedom to throw garbage anywhere without fines is now gone. These freedoms that have been lost are because these freedoms don't contribute to the Philippines. If there's one thing you have to realize neither freedom nor authority should be taken to the extreme. Give people too much freedom and you get the dictatorship of the mob which is no better than the dictatorship of the state. There should be a balance of power between both people and the government. It looks like he's pretending to be for democracy (which is ironic considering he's really a Communist) while he may just be wanting to maintain in power one way or another.

He further shows how he's so ignorant of basic economics

As said, I'm not even an economist and I've only had 12 units of basic economics and 3 units of International Marketing in College. Those textbooks do contain basic information that should challenge his stupidity.

Now this is where I really want to throw huge rocks at him where he stated the following:

Without definite limits on foreign ownership and with no preference for Filipino citizens and corporations, the Constitutional provisions on the national economy and patrimony would become a tabula rasa. It would now be up to the Federal Assembly to determine policies on foreign equity sharing and just about anything there is about the economy and our natural resources. This, of course, creates an entirely new window for corporate lobbying, putting small, underfunded Filipino citizens and corporations at a great disadvantage.

Worse, by totally removing the State’s role in developing an industrialized, self-reliant economy, in implementing agrarian reform, in promoting and protecting Filipino enterprises and producers, and in reserving our natural resources for Filipinos, Duterte’s Cha-Cha will leave small enterprises, workers and farmers having to fend for themselves from the onslaught of even more globalization.

These amendments are the culmination of 3 decades of “economic reforms” toward a totally free market, neoliberal economy. Combined with the existing policies of economic liberalization, deregulation and privatization, the amendments remove the last impediments to the total domination, control and plunder of our economy and natural resources by foreign corporations and banks.

He also writes these really stupid words concerning the economy in the last portion of Part 2 of his ignorant essay:

It will give a license to foreign powers and their corporations to dominate and control our economy and plunder our resources, at the expense of our citizens and communities.

When will get into that thick skull of his that foreign invasion is NOT foreign invasion? Basic economics and history shows this that when you do business in another country -- you are bound to that country's rules. Foreign investors regardless of how much ownership they get are required to follow Filipino laws even if they get 100% ownership. If a foreign firm does business in the Philippines then they are under the control of the Philippine government. They must comply with the necessary papers and pay their income taxes -- otherwise they will lose their right to do business. 

Does he want to know the reason why we're lacking jobs? It's because there's too many Filipinos without jobs and too little Filipino job providers. It's the law of supply and demand. Worse, his kind even want to increase the minimum wage by such a huge margin all the while the supply and demand gap is too huge. He always has that same old pessimistic mindset that says, "But only foreign investors will get rich." all the while he's enjoying stuff made by foreigners. Hmmm... if he's so nationalistic then he should really get out of the Internet because Filipinos didn't invent it for a start!

Is he still living in the fantasy of self-industrialization which is 100% unrealistic? Let's use some basic knowledge of history and economics, shall we? If the whole idea that first world countries progressed not by accepting foreign investments but through protectionism of their local businesses -- then why are islands that never had foreign investments still underdeveloped islands? It's because the idea of self-industrialization is a sick man's fantasy. It's just like how Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward indeed was a great leap forward but not in a good way. 

Besides, this also sums it up. If there are more job opportunities for Filipinos then people like him will have less power. Why do you think activist groups their their power? It's because there are people that they could pay to rally for them because job opportunities are so low. He can no longer keep appealing to nationalism because his real motives are mostly selfish. Economic liberalization will force people like him to look for a decent job or perish. 


In short, he's one miserable clown who's still desperate for attention as his relevance dies because of his stupidity. He's against the reforms because it won't give him and his kind the power to do what they do anymore.