Joseph Estrada's Continuing Political Career After His Impeachment Is An Example Of Hardly Any Real Shame Under A Presidential System

People tend to say that it's just the people and not the system. The problem with that thinking can be defeated when you do a bit of a history lesson with previous terms. Do you remember when Joseph "Erap" Estrada was subjected to an impeachment trial during his term? I was only in third high school when it happened. Erap ruled from 1998 and his rule was cut short when he resigned in the midst of an impeachment trial. Some say that it proves that a presidential system can be just as good - all that's needed are people who have the guts to resign.

2010 came and the rule of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was now ending. The late Noynoy Aquino was urged by the people to run some time after his mother Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino died. Guess who also ran for president by 2010? None other than ERAP! Yup, Erap, after the SHAMEFUL impeachment trial concerning his jueteng and other changes managed to RUN AGAIN after he was pardoned by Gloria. Erap was still able to run for mayor even after his shameful record. Tell me then how is that real accountability under a presidential system?

However, things will be much different under a parliamentary system with Prime Minister Joseph Estrada 

Let us just say that the Philippines became a parliamentary republic in 1986 with Cory as the Head of State and Fidel V. Ramos as the Head of Government. Now, let's imagine that the parliamentary is dissolved and Erap's party becomes a contender for the position o the Government seats. The people voted LAMMP as the next ruling party because of Erap's charismatic personality might be good for a prime minister. Prior to that, Erap would be a member of the parliament for some time. Then came the time when Erap finally became the prime minister of the Parliamentary Republic of the Philippines. Ramos' party loses the election while Cory gets re-elected as the Head of State for the Filipino people.

The weekly question hour will pit the Government against the Opposition. Let's just say that LAMMP and LAKAS are now the two opposing sides. Let us say that Ramos, tired of being the prime minister, decides to have Jose De Venecia as the head of LAKAS. De Venecia now serves as the Opposition Leader while Erap is the prime minister. Sure, Erap got voted (for a while) due to the popularity vote. However, let's think of how Erap will answer things in the weekly question hour sooner or later. Let's say that while he had good behavior as a legislator - the same can't be said about him as the prime minister. Erap now has the responsibility of running the government. De Venecia now has the role of questioning Erap and holding him accountable. 

The parliamentary systems have the vote of no confidence. The impeachment trial is only done when an official does a crime. A vote of no confidence can be launched if legislators find any cause for any member with the failure to lead. Let's just say that Erap starts saying the stupidest things as the prime minister during the weekly question hour. Erap would eventually lose the confidence of the parliament should he fail to retain their confidence in his leadership as the prime minister. You could imagine it if De Venecia would call for a vote of no confidence as the opposition leader. This would also mean that LAMMP would see that Erap was a poor choice as their prime minister. This would cause Erap to be voted out. It would also mean that Erap might have a very high chance to be be disqualified from sitting in politics because of his shameful vote of no confidence. With that, EDSA-2 will no longer be necessary. It's because Erap got ousted by the legislative. No need for people to gather around in EDSA again to get rid of an incompetent leader. Instead, all it takes is a vote to get rid of him from office.