The Blah-Blah-Blahs Of The Anti-Reformists Why They Say Parliamentary System Won't Work In The Philippines

Whether we want to admit it or not - the presidential system is really not doing marvels. One could always argue about the performances of the late Noynoy Aquino vs. President Rodrigo R. Duterte. However, it's going nowhere because of the mudslinging of the incompetents last term and this term. Events during the past presidencies that I passed through (that is from the late Corazon Aquino up to the present) made me think about why the parliamentary system would be more ideal. However, people are still making up their excuses regarding the parliamentary system in the Philippines.

Excuse #1 - We tried the parliamentary system during Marcos' time, it proved it'll never work

This is probably the most common excuse. The late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. can't be denied that he's corrupt to the core. Marcos even got the Guinness World Book of Records as the world's greatest thief during his time. People will argue that it worked with Singapore because the late Lee Kuan Yew wasn't a corrupt official. Now, we must move to dissect the REAL issue of the Marcos "parliamentary".

The late Ninoy Aquino even mentioned that the Marcos Years weren't a real parliamentary. Even Lee Kuan Yew called Cesar Virata a SITTING DUCK in the book From Third World to First. Ninoy's statements that a parliamentary without a parliament isn't a parliament. It's a MOCK PARLIAMENT at best. Mock meat isn't real meat. Meat is derived from animal flesh. Mock meat is made from vegetable proteins. Obviously, if you want real meat, you don't get it from a vegetarian restaurant. The parliament of Marcos was just for show. You can compare the Marcos "parliament" to the Imperial Senate of Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars. Marcos, like Palpatine, put on quite a show with a mockery of a legislative body.

If the Marcos Years were a real parliament - it would've been much easier to expose Marcos. Where's the Opposition that grilled Marcos every week? A real parliamentary system would've made it easy to expose Marcos Wealth. Ninoy could lead a debate against Marcos every week. If Marcos was truly a prime minister - he wouldn't be the president at the same time. Ninoy would be able to cast a no-confidence vote against Marcos. Marcos would've been expelled from the Parliament without the need for EDSA 1986. Instead, EDSA 1986 was a necessary force because Marcos had real full power. 

Besides, a real challenge for the anti-reforms is this - they need to prove Marcos' administration is a real parliamentary. If they can then they can get a billion pesos tax-free. Hehehehehehehe!

Excuse #2 - But we don't have a king or queen to be the head of state! 

It's another common argument to say that the parliament needs a king or queen. This is a very sad argument done because of a LACK OF RESEARCH. Great Britain and Japan have monarchs to serve as the symbolic head of state. However, not all parliamentary countries have a head of state via the monarch. Singapore has a PRESIDENT to represent the people. The Philippines could've gone parliamentary even way back in 1986. 

No royalty? No problem still! 1986 EDSA Revolution was run in two ways - one was a national symbol of unity and the other is the actual architect. The late Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino was the national symbol of unity during the EDSA Revolution. Fidel V. Ramos was a real planner with EDSA. IMHO, I think Ramos should've been the first prime minister in the revolutionary government. Cory herself was fitter to be the symbolic head of state to represent the Philippines. In other words, Cory should've been the chief representative of the Filipino people while Ramos acted as the chief executive. Cory wasn't fit to be part of the legislative or executive - she was a common housewife with no political experience. Though, Cory was good with diplomatic relations. Instead, Cory was made to run the country with no experience which didn't have very good results either. However, I still feel Cory would've been better as the symbolic head of state with no real powers due to her diplomacy. 

Excuse #3- Getting rid of term limits means ruling for life!

One always argues about Marcos' 20-year-rule of dictatorship as an excuse not to shift to parliamentary. However, some of the best rules ruled for more than six years. Lee Kuan Yew ruled Singapore for 31 years. Lee Hsien Loong ruled Singapore for more than 10 years under the virtue of re-election. Lee Hsien Loong was prime minister from Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's term up to the present term. Yet, Lee can only have more than one term if he upholds the confidence of the parliament or if people will re-elect his party to run the government.

The problem with the presidential term limits is based on a FIXED NUMBER of terms. Some countries run a singular term or the virtue of re-election. The USA uses the four-years-term for president with a term renewable once under re-election. The Philippines uses six years. The big problem is that six years isn't enough to make a difference. Lee Kuan Yew didn't transform Singapore into a superpower in just six years. Noynoy's achievement was more on the rising tiger side - it still needed to be nourished and fed. Yet, the presidential system holds things back. Think about how many projects Noynoy had that had to be finished by the Duterte Administration. Noynoy's late in his term deals can't be completed in such a short amount of time. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party didn't see that the term limits were holding them back too!

The big misconception is that prime ministers rule for life. On the contrary, they don't. Parliamentary elections are held every how many years depending on the country. Let's say that the Philippine Parliament is usually dissolved every six years. That would mean the Parliament is dissolved. What happens is that the prime minister of the last administration can still be re-elected if his or her party wins. For example, the Philippine Parliament was dissolved in 2016. Noynoy can still get a second term as a prime minister under the Liberal Party assuming he wasn't voted out. However, prime ministers can be disqualified if ever they exhibit scandalous behaviors. That means Joseph" Erap" Estrada wouldn't be able to run for office (in any position) after he was removed as prime minister due to his jueteng scandal. Erap may not even be able to run for mayor due to being blacklisted. 

Besides, the prime minister's powers are much more limited too. The big contrast is that prime ministers are held accountable WEEKLY. Just imagine it if Philippine presidents were held accountable weekly in questioning. The government and the opposition have their own set of appointees. Every minister has a corresponding shadow minister. The opposition leader's job is to question the government and to hold it accountable. The prime minister is answerable to the opposition leader and every minister to a shadow minister. That greatly limits the scope of powers of the prime minister when they're held accountable weekly. Can a prime minister who rules for more than six years actually have that much room to abuse his or her power IF he or she was required to be answerable every week? 

Excuse #4 - But Filipino culture and our politics!!!!

This is another problem of thinking about system change vs. culture change. Years ago, CoRRECT Philippines had written a long article on system change or culture change. One must wonder if the Filipino culture is truly static? If it was then why aren't Filipinos today still living in caves or running a tribal system? Why has Filipino cuisine adopted several foreign influences such as shaved ice from the Japanese and siopao from the Chinese? Siopao Asado is a fusion of Filipino and Chinese. Asado also gets its influence from the Spanish. Today, Filipino culture is a mixture of foreign influences. Studying Filipino cuisine will tell us how much our culture EVOLVED. Don't tell me that culture is now static in the 21st century? I guess that's what Benign0 of Get Real Philippines thinks, huh?

One can't deny that there are negative aspects of Filipino culture. Any decent-minded Filipino can observe that. For example, it's so sad to say that Filipinos tend to be stereotyped for not being time conscious. However, that doesn't mean all Filipinos aren't time conscious. The term "Filipino time" shouldn't even be used - that's just BEING LATE. The term was just used because of how tardiness is common in the Philippines. Another trait is not being financially sound. However, there are Filipinos who are both punctual and financially sound. Don't tell me that Filipinos aren't capable of improvement or evolution? Filipinos can start to learn to be better IF the system encourages them to be better. 

The proof of culture not being static is in China. China is no longer under the rule of emperors. Once, women were regarded as low, second-class citizens. Now, Chinese women even know their rights in contrast to the old neurotic ancient culture of China. China's culture got devastated during Mao Zedong's cultural revolution. Later, Deng Xiaoping's rewritten communist manifesto of Communism with Chinese Characteristics changed the way Communist China was run. Meanwhile, I would dare say President Xi Jinping's policies are now doing Chinese culture more harm than good. 

The problem is that some of the anti-reforms don't see the real problem. A lot of questions need to be answered about the CURRENT presidential system. Questions like how often are presidents held accountable? How often are presidential appointees held accountable? Is there even a formal opposition to go against the government? The problem is that the presidential system hardly has any accountability mechanisms. For example, the people demand that Health Secretary Francisco Duque be held accountable. However, how often was Duque made to answer the opposition regarding his performance DIRECTLY? It would've been much different if Duque was face-to-face with Willie Ong as the shadow minister of health. Ong then provides alternatives. Since when did that happen in the current presidential system? NONE! TBH, one must even find it funny that they want to hold the government accountable but they don't want a government where the opposition is legitimately able to do so. It's like wanting to recover from one's sickness while refusing treatment at the same time. 

Some might even say that Filipino politicians aren't mostly good at debates. What they don't see is that ability isn't static. Many people aren't good at math and argue that they just can't do math because they're not "math persons". The argument is just stupid for this good reason - don't tell me a person who's good in Math must argue, "I can't read or write an essay. I'm not a writing person!" True, there are some fields where we are stronger than the other. However, mathematicians still need to learn to communicate properly before they can write their math textbooks. Just because a person isn't good in math in their schooling years doesn't mean they can't learn math at all. For example, a student in the Hotel and Restaurant Management (HRM) will still need to learn some basic maths and sciences to cook a delicious dish. The knowledge of the metric systems will determine how much of this and that is added into the dish. The HRM student will FLUNK if he or she doesn't learn some of the mathematics needed such as algebra, business calculus, and statistics. People can get better over time in certain fields or skills if they practice long enough. It's like how I got better in certain maths over time with constant practice. If Filipino politicians were more exposed to debates - they will have to either get better over time or leave their positions if they can't handle it. 

Even worse, some even have that excuse of "As long as there's a Duterte or a Marcos or an Arroyo then no!" or "As long as there's an Aquino then no." It's because the presidential system is so rooted in PERSONALITY POLITICS. I don't mind if Bam Aquino will be the next leader of the Philippines as long as it's a PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. I don't even mind if both the Marcoses and the Aquinos will be in parliament either. If an Aquino or a Marcos can lead then why not? They would be so subjected to scrutiny that they would either shape up or be shipped out of the Philippine Parliament.