EDSA 1986 May Not Even Be Necessary If Marcos Years Were A REAL PARLIAMENT

Granted, we're approaching the EDSA-1 celebrations and the 2022 elections are approaching. I felt like writing this article over and over again. It's really a headache that whenever I talk about shifting to parliamentary - certain people just keep making blah blah blahs as to why it wouldn't work. Before that, I even remembered writing about how the late Ninoy Aquino exposed it to be a WHOLE SHAM. I'm amazed at how the Yellowtards have elevated Ninoy to such a status unaware that he was a co-founder of PDP-Laban with the late Aquilino Pimentel. 

Ninoy made such words that revealed as to why Marcos' government was NOT a legitimate parliamentary. It was just there for show - similar to how Emperor Palpatine used the Imperial Senate in Star Wars. The speech in Boston was a real eye opener. Although Ninoy's status as a hero is debatable - he did reveal some important stuff that Marcos' constitutional reform was a mockery. Important points were pointed out that it shifted from one form of government to another. 

Now, just imagine what if the Marcos Years were a real parliament

Back then, I remembered writing about how Joseph  "Erap"Estrada would've fared as a prime minister. Chances are Erap himself would've been ousted if ever he proves himself unable to prove himself before Jose De Venecia as the opposition leader. Now, think of what if Marcos' parliament was a REAL parliament and not a mockery. A real parliamentary isn't a setting that the prime minister can't be dissolved but he can dissolve parliament. It's pretty much like how Emperor Palpatine was able to dissolve the Imperial Senate but not the other way around. A real parliamentary would be able to call for a vote of no confidence should the prime minister (or any minister) prove to be unable to uphold confidence. The big question is if the Marcos Years were a real parliament - where was the formal opposition to go against him? Why was it that the Marcos Years was a "winner takes all scenario"?

A real parliamentary has two sides of the coin - the government AND the opposition. For example, a real opposition may have selected either Ninoy or Pimentel as the opposition leader. Just think what if Batasang Pambansa (as the majority) had to contend with PDP-Laban as the Opposition. What if either Ninoy or Pimentel (or both) managed to document the Marcos anomalies so well as the opposition? Just imagine if Marcos was a real prime minister and either Ninoy or Pimentel led the opposition. You can imagine the serious grilling done.

Let's imagine that we have a weekly question hour. Marcos as a prime minister is so corrupt. However, a real parliament would have the opposition questioning him. Can you imagine what if Ninoy or Pimentel was able to face him directly in a legal confrontation. Marcos has his own cabinet. PDP-Laban will have its own cabinet. Can you imagine what if Ninoy managed to get his own appointees to prove that Marcos is such a corrupt person and incapable of leading the Parliament? Ninoy himself would first question Marcos then his appointees can follow next. Just imagine if Marcos' cabinet were exposed to Ninoy's cabinet. Ninoy's cabinet has a documentation of Imelda Romualdez-Marcos' unaccounted for expenses or overly priced infrastructures. Maybe, Ninoy sarcastically asked if people can eat those infrastructures because they were overpriced and people were starving. 

Chances are Marcos' crimes would too easily be exposed in Parliament. Can you imagine if the whole Parliament started booing and hissing at Marcos himself? You can see the gladiatorial nature of parliamentary debates. It could result in the parliament literally throwing rotten vegetables at Marcos. Maybe, it might even result in the legislators throwing away Marcos and his cronies into the garbage can like in the Ukraine incident in 2014. Marcos wouldn't have absolute power either such as demanding the TOTAL CLOSURE of ABiaS-CBN or seizing businesses that he would award to his allies. Marcos would probably not even last under a parliamentary form of government due to all his corruption.

Besides, Marcos may not even last until 1986 under a real parliament. Chances are the Marcos-led government might dissolve if almost everyone under him is just as corrupt as he is. If not, the Marcos-led government party can opt to oust Marcos for corruption changes and even call for his arrest on live television. There would be no need to fill EDSA at all. I think EDSA is just overhyped. True, EDSA did inspire the Berlin Wall incident and the end of the late Suharto's dictatorship in Indonesia. However, the model didn't work in China during the Tiananmen Square Incident.  

Besides, one can think that while EDSA indeed got rid of a dictator but it was more costly. People had to really leave their jobs and crowd the streets. However, a single vote of no confidence could've gotten rid of and sacked Marcos for good. It's because a parliamentary system isn't a winner takes all. Marcos' "parliament" should be remembered for what it is - a SHAM parliament.