All the claims that the presidential system has "better" check and balance is laughable. For one, the Duterte-Robredo Administration is now showing how (more often than not) that the president and vice president from two different parties usually ends up in a mess. Leni Loud Robredo is simultaneously trying to drive two cars at once - the vice president mobile and the opposition leader mobile. Leni Loud needs to give up one car to drive the other. Now, there's the proposition that Rodrigo R. Duterte may become vice president. Personally, that shows the problem with term limits. If ever Leni Loud becomes president in 2022 then she might as well consider running as vice president in 2028. Then if Duterte is ever still active enough - he should be the president (again) in 2028 with Leni Loud as the vice president.
Let's just imagine 2022 comes and we're swearing in two people into two different positions. It's the same people but NOT the same position. Leni Loud becomes President Leni Loud Robredo and Duterte becomes Vice President Rodrigo R. Duterte. I could imagine the comedy that could be set in when Leni Loud is sworn in as president and Duterte as vice president. This really shows the problems of the presidential system - term limits are based on a number of years rather than capacity to serve, the president and vice president tend to come from different parties, and the president is both the chief representative and chief executive of the people at the same time. Need I mention the problem of appointees will be like mahjong? Let's say that Michael Aguinaldo's term ends and Duterte appoints a new COA chief from his party. Let's say that the appointees of Duterte will lose their term during the Robredo-Duterte administration. Leni Loud will have to appoint her own set in place of Duterte's expired appointees.
The term limits are now showing their ugly head. It's often argued that term limits are necessary to prevent Marcos-style dictatorships. However, both Mahathir Mohamad and the late Lee Kuan Yew ruled their respective countries for more than six years. Now, Lee Hsien Long ruled Singapore from the time of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo up to the present. If anything, the term limits in the parliament aren't based on a fixed number of terms but on one's capacity to serve. That is, somebody could lose the privilege to hold office if they did something stupid. For example, Joseph Estrada could've been barred for being a member of the parliament if ever he was voted out of office for his lack of common sense. Another example would be that Vitaliano Aguirre II would be barred from holding any more ministerial positions for sleeping on the job. Leila Dilemma would also lose their privilege for sleeping on the job as a justice minister. That's just how the parliamentary term limit works - terms are limited by the person's capacity to serve.
Things would be different for both Duterte and Leni Loud in the parliamentary system. For one, Duterte wouldn't need to run as a vice president to be president again. Leni Loud would have a defined post as either an opposition member or a government member - not holding both sides at once. It's because people will vote by parties and it will determine which party becomes the government or which party becomes the opposition. In some cases, there would be the coalition government and coalition opposition. If Liberal Party has to share the seats with PDP-Laban in the government then they can't become the opposition. Duterte would be able to have another term as a prime minister. If Leni Loud becomes prime minister and does good - she can have another term as a prime minister.
Fearful that having no fixed term can create another Marcos? The reason why Marcos' "parliament" granted him near-unlimited power was because it was just a parliament in NAME ONLY. Ferdinand E. Marcos was still running a presidential form of government and Cesar Virata was just a sitting duck. Instead, the parliamentary system limits the powers of the prime minister while allowing him or her multiple terms based on capacity to rule. If it was a real parliament then Marcos couldn't be president and prime minister at the same time. The parties already pick their candidates for prime minister BEFORE elections. It's like PDP-Laban can have Sara Duterte-Carpio as their candidate for prime minister while Liberal Party can have Leni Loud as their candidate for prime minister. People vote by parties which in effect that people still select their prime minister. In some cases, the president is elected as a representative of the people. The late Cory Aquino should've been a symbolic president instead because she represented but didn't lead the EDSA Revolution.
Telling people to "vote wisely" is becoming more stupid. It's because the system isn't encouraging people to vote wisely. Candidates keep winning based on popularity. I mean, campaigning periods are like beauty pageants. Duterte danced, Isko Moreno can be seen dancing, and many more will dance. The late Noynoy Aquino was launched by the death of his mother. People vote stupidly because they are too carried by emotions. Noynoy promised this and Duterte promised that. I think Leni Loud may become president if she promises to make us a first world country in three to six months. Again, we know the impossibility of Noynoy's promise and Duterte's promise. Yet, people still keep falling for them because the presidential system is all about getting your legitimate votes even if you have to make a preposterous campaign. Three to six months and the country is fixed? Zero corruption? Please, those are just wishful thinking.
Instead, the parliamentary form of government will encourage people to vote wisely. Just think about the weekly question hours. The opposition represents the minority voters who are given the right to be heard and the duty to scrutinize the government. The government is given the duty to answer the opposition and prove that they are indeed worthy of their posts and of a re-election. The opposition, if ever, they show themselves to be better, may even win the government seats. It wouldn't matter which party becomes the government or opposition - it's because voters will get to see which party deserves to be the ruling party with the weekly question hour.
It would be best to ask - are you really THAT ready for this switcheroo? Or would you rather have a parliamentary form of government for better transparency on both sides?
Comments
Post a Comment