So What If The Philippines Has No Experience In Federal-Parliamentary?

One of the biggest arguments that a certain old fool can bring up is his fallacy where he cites that the Philippines supposedly had hundreds of years in experience in the presidential-unitary and zero in the federal-parliamentary. It's his favorite line of reasoning which he says isn't even fallacious or that the Philippines should just stay as it is even a thousand years from now. But did he ignore the fact the Philippines even had more experience in not being a united archipelago than being one? Hmmm... that old fool just thinks he's "older and wiser" when that's not always the case.

I agree with the fact that experience is important. Experience is so important that one will end up knowing how good or bad the system is. Unfortunately, the Philippines has had a taste of the defects of the presidential and unitary system for a very long time. The presidential system keeps producing really stupid leaders through a popularity based system. The unitary system can greatly widen the rich-poor gap and reduce inefficiency which can be seen in the Philippines' Imperial Manila system. Even some countries that practice economic liberalization still suffer from a widening rich-poor gap because of a unitary system. Such countries are China and Japan -- these countries may be progressive but the unitary system are their current weakness

The solution can be found in getting someone with more experience in handling a federal-parliamentary government. President Duterte has zero experience in a federal parliamentary governance and he knows it. The solution would be to meet with someone like the great Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia who's actually 93 years old yet he still has a healthy active mind. Another could be consulting the books of Lee Kuan Yew on how he developed Singapore from a third-world country to a first-world country. President Duterte could learn how to run a federal-parliamentary government from Malaysia. Malaysia has had experience in running it effectively while the Philippines had had so much experience in the defects of the popularity-based presidency and lack of efficiency and effectiveness in a unitary form of government.

Besides, we need to restudy the history of the Philippine constitution all over again. The Philippines has had centuries more experience in being under the rule of Imperial Spain yet one day in 1898 -- that all changed when the Philippines overthrew it. They didn't say that they didn't have any experience as a nation out of Spain. They ignored the fact that they were so used to Spanish rule and overthrew it. The first constitution that came was the 1899 Malolos Constitution then there was the 1935 Constitution under the Americans. Then there was the 1973 and the 1987 Constitution. Also, to ignore the Malolos Constitution from the Philippines' list of past constitutions is an act of cherry-picking from history.

So what's your excuse for not accepting the need to shift to federal-parliamentary aside from shifting from economic protectionism to economic liberalization?