The Only Way To Have A REAL WORKING OPPOSITION Is Charter Change From Presidential To Parliamentary

There are always talks from the Yellowtards nonetheless of the need to have a genuine opposition. I'm not saying that it's wrong to have a genuine opposition for check and balance. However, I really have to find it a BUMMER to want a genuine opposition but to reject the parliamentary system. 

First, let's handle the objections regarding the change to parliamentary AGAIN

What I find annoying is that whenever talks are done about shifting to parliamentary system - you can get a lot of anti-intellectual discourse such as:

• "But will never work! Look at the Marcos years! It was a parliamentary and it enriched his interests! Parliamentary systems means ruling for life!"
  
• "What? Give unli-terms? That will worsen corruption!"
• "It's not the form of government that matters but the quality of the leaders. It's just a coincidence that the Top 10 nations are mostly parliamentary!"

It's time to handle these objections with a little more research. We're already in the digital age and we've got libraries too. Besides, even some old school information like the speech of the late Ninoy Aquino in Boston can disprove these claims. Today, you can hear Ninoy's speech or get a transcript online. Think about that!

Ninoy in his Boston speech even called it a mockery of a parliament. The Marcos "parliament" was just for show - a farce like the Imperial Senate in the Star Wars franchise during the Galactic Empire years prior to its dissolution. How can it be a real parliament when the parliament can't dissolve the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.? A real parliament would be able to expose Marcos' ill-doings, vote him out, and ARREST him on the spot. Not in a mock parliament which is not a real parliament. Mock meat is not real meat because real meat is derived from animal sources. Mock meat is made from vegetable proteins like wheat protein and soybeans. 

The idea of unlimited terms in the parliamentary system is another lie. No, parliamentaries DO NOT grant unlimited terms. Rather, it's all about people who have a good performance are granted as many terms as possible. Meanwhile, term limits apply in the parliament not based on a fixed number of terms (such as a president can only rule one term) BUT on the performance of a member of the parliament. Any official can be disqualified immediately for bad behavior. For example, under a parliamentary system, Richard Gordon as an opposition leader could've already called a vote of no confidence against the late Noynoy Aquino and Rodrigo R. Duterte if ever there were offenses worthy of it. Noynoy (as a prime minister) could've been voted out if he kept answering "Hindi ko alam!" during the weekly question hour. Duterte can be voted out too if he can't be transparent about his SALN and the purchases with Pharmally.

The bigger absurdity is to admire the performance of the top nations but saying, "Ang lider lang kasi! Wala sa form of government." Well, this would be rather funny and they would cite other nations like Indonesia, South Korea, and Taiwan are presidential. However, some presidential countries that are doing better have their own official parliament - not a mockery like the one built by Marcos. However, take a look at how Singapore operates for example. It's stupid to criticize Duterte by citing Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong if you don't see the parliamentary. Lee himself is subjected to weekly scrutiny allowing him to rule for 15 years (via reelection) without becoming a tyrant like Marcos. Marcos' rule wasn't bad because he ruled for 20 years - it was because he was a TYRANT.

How the "working opposition" can become a real working opposition in the parliamentary system

The recent problem of the opposition is how scattered they are. For one, Leni Loud Robredo is trying to be vice president and opposition leader at the same time. Some parliamentary countries have the concept of a coalition government - where several parties agree to become the government. If that was the case then the Liberal Party and PDP-Laban would need to be a merged government until the parliament is dissolved by the end of the term. Leni Loud is now trying to occupy two slots at once - the government and the opposition.

However, such is NOT the case in the parliamentary system. It's because there's going to be a more defined role for both places. The government is the party with the majority votes. The opposition represents the minority floor. It's not a winner takes it all type of fight. Instead, it's all about that the opposition lost the majority votes but are given their voice. Do I need to keep reminding people with basic ELEMENTARY civics and culture subject that a democracy is best described as a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE. Minorities are part of the people making mob rule nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority than a real democracy. If Tarantadong Kalbo wants to show that - he should support the parliamentary system.

A parliamentary system will have a clearer-defined role. If the Liberal Party is in the opposition (instead of being part of the coalition government) then Leni Loud can't be the deputy prime minister. Instead, Leni Loud as the leader of the working opposition is working to be the alternative of the incumbent government. The Working Opposition will have to have their own set of appointees or to have its own cabinet. For example, if Francisco Duque is the minister of health then Dr. Willie Wong can be the shadow minister of health. The government is answerable to the opposition by presenting their data to each other. Duque must answer to Ong all about his performance as the health minister regarding the COVID-19 crisis. Ong then must give his alternatives to Duque on how to do the COVID-19 response better. Along with Ong is Shadow Minister of Audit Michael Aguinaldo who can point out better PPE purchases for a lower price to fit in with a better budget than the government.

Even better is that there are weekly question hours. The prime minister and the opposition leader duke it out. For example, Duterte opens his part then Leni Loud (or maybe Antonio Trillanes IV) will try to reflect back and point out the mistakes the government. The opposition's job in the parliamentary system is to question the government, offer alternatives and hold it accountable since they represent the minority votes. The weekly question hour will encourage transparency on both sides to come up with one feasible solution to UNITE, not DIVIDE, the country with fanaticism towards candidates. That means there's no room for Dutertards or Yellowtards since both DDS and Dilawan must agree that their debates is for the common good of the country.

This is a big question now. It would be stupid to want a real working opposition but to remain in our current system. After all, problems like scrambled mahjong appointees is just one. Aguinaldo obviously favors the Liberal Party because he's from the Liberal Party. Any appointee of PDP-Laban obviously favors his or her own party. It would be different if Aguinaldo worked as the opposition auditor and that would make his scrutiny of the government more fitting. Just think it would be better if both sides were formalized and legalized to be the two sides of the coin. We just can't have that under the presidential system today. That's why there's the need to shift from presidential to parliamentary.