EDSA 1986 Was No System Change, Just Another REGIME CHANGE

It's already nearing the elections as the reign of President Rodrigo R. Duterte and Vice President Leni Loud Robredo comes to an end. EDSA 1986 is once again romanticized once again. Idiots would want to say that I'm being paid by presidential candidate Bobong Marcos as a "paid troll" without evidence. However, Jover Laurio of Pignoy Ako Blog has been proven to be a paid hack by the Pinklawans. Jover should've been more honest that she's on the side of the Yellows turned Pinks. This reminds me of how the EDSA celebrations ended up dead even before the passing away of the late Noynoy Aquino. Besides, the Yellowtards were acting like they owned EDSA such as what Jim Paredes did during the 2017 celebration. What they fail to realize is that the late Ninoy Aquino was a co-founder of PDP-Laban along with the late Aquilino Pimentel. Duterte's career as a mayor was launched by the late Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino. The late  Soledad Roa-Duterte was also part of the EDSA revolution. People thought that it was a system change when it wasn't. It was just a REGIME CHANGE.

When I talk about the need for constitutional reform - the whole Marcos Boogeyman is played again. Once more, I'm NOT defending the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. and the crimes that were documented for some time. I'm not endorsing his spoiled son Bobong either or defending Imee Marcos-Manotoc's "Len Len" skits. Talk about the need to shift to parliamentary you are guaranteed to get more idiotic counterarguments. Arguments like "It's so the Marcoses and Dutertes can stay in power forever!" or stuff like that keep getting out of hand. That's why I personally think ABiaS-CBN really deserves to lose its franchise - several years of MISINFORMATION about constitutional reform was given. Rappler also sponsors the like of Toady Casino as one of its writers. Should I even believe they're actually for democracy? Should I even believe Maria Ressa's "credibility" because she got a Nobel Peace Prize award? Let Ressa keep her awards and I don't care really! Though, I'm glad that Stephen Sackur well, sacked, Ressa on live TV. Let Ressa's cohorts follow in her path to also getting her awards too. All the misinformation they caused plus the award giving bodies are losing credibility anyway. 

A bit of a study of three constitutions - 1935 Constitution, the 1973 MOCK PARLIAMENTARY, and the current 1987 Constitution. The three constitutions were presidential, protectionist (even got worse during 1973 but somehow eased later with the 1987 Constitution), and unitary form of government. Hilarious Davide Jr. and the Monsod couple were among the framers. After EDSA ended, the 1987 Constitution was an amendment of the 1973 Constitution. Cory was immediately set as the ruler of the nation even if she knew nothing about ruling it. All were based on the PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM. The late Carlos P. Garcia gave his "Filipino First" policy which was further made stronger by the Marcos Years. The Marcos Years were the golden years for economic protectionism. Protectionism still prevailed even after Marcos was deposed. All three weren't system changes - just regime changes!

One of the biggest problems with people is to think system change is happening. However, they think changing the system is simply changing the one who's in charge. Both Noytards and Dutertards have that idiotic tendency. Dutertards say the system has changed simply because Duterte became president from 2016 up to his exit. Noytards say the system was better under Noynoy. However, the change from Noynoy to Duterte (as well as every other president) was purely REGIME CHANGE. The system that still governs is basically presidentialism, unitary, and semi-protectionism. True, certain industries were eased by Noynoy, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Joseph Estrada (with the help of Mar Roxas), and Fidel V. Ramos. However, the 60-40 law (as well as other EXCESSIVE restrictions) still exist and need to be removed. 

Some say that whoever is in charge is the system. However, that's not entirely true. Noynoy had a system. Duterte had a system. However, both of them are still GOVERNED by the 1987 Constitution. The wins of both Duterte and Noynoy were allowed by the 1987 Constitution. Noynoy and Duterte may have had a set of rules. However, both established rules and under what? Again, the 1987 Constitution. A good example is how the Yolanda relief aid ended up with too much red tape. The late Stinky Soliman and Noynoy were governed again by the SYSTEM. So, Noynoy isn't the system even if he has A system. Later we have Duterte's failures to account for too. For example, Health Secretary Francisco Duque's mishaps in the COVID-19 relief project is one. Yet, I would say that the bigger fault isn't with Duterte butt again the SYSTEM. What allowed any flaws in the style of Duterte's and Noynoy's style of leadership to GO UNCHECKED? Dutertards are Noytards will just blame each others' favored leaders. In my case, I will blame the SYSTEM that ruled both Duterte and Noynoy. 

It's the presidential system that truly screwed up. Why do you think Stinky screwed up Yolanda? If Stinky had to answer to a Shadow Minister of Welfare - I think she'd either do her job better or get a vote of no confidence. Why do you think Duque is also screwing up? Honestly, I don't remember since the last time Duque had to stand before legislative to give a report. That means no matter who the president is - the same blunders happen all the more. Was Noynoy all clean? Was Duterte all clean? That's what both Noytards and Dutertards need to answer when the faults of both leaders will be spilled out. It's because the system doesn't have an accountability  measure. Besides, elections are coming and the SAME BLUNDER happens all over again. Somebody needs to make a lie and the better the chances of win. Noynoy used his famous slogan and he won. Duterte made another impossible promise and he won. The same idiocy happens that all it takes is a musical performance, to be a popular actor, to be a popular athlete - chances of winning happen. How do you expect people to VOTE WISELY if the SAME SYSTEM is still there? 

The system that every president has must CONFORM to the 1987 Constitution. It's the 1987 Constitution's weaknesses that allowed the weaknesses to happen in the first place. Did we really expect both Noynoy and Duterte could change the Philippines for the best in SIX YEARS? The late Lee Kuan Yew took more than six years before Singapore was stabilized. When Noynoy stepped down - the system he had WENT WITH HIM. When Duterte will step down - the same will happen too. However, the parliamentary system would actually ensure better rules. It's because the government and the opposition are directly correlating with each other. In a parliamentary system, there's more room for open forums as the opposition is given a better voice since it's not a winner takes all. A parliamentary system is more democratic because even if majority wins - the minority gets the duty to question the majority and hold it accountable. A real democracy is a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE. 

Just imagine what if EDSA went full parliamentary instead? It would have already set up things as they should. Cory herself was more fit for representative duties instead of ruling the nation. Cory herself was purely symbolic during EDSA 1986. People rallied behind Cory as she was the national symbol of unity. Yet, after EDSA, Cory was installed as the ruler of the nation than the REPRESENTATIVE of the nation. Ramos himself was more fit to be the ruler of the nation. Just think Ramos and Juan Ponce Enrile were both the masterminds of the fall of Marcos. It would've worked better if the SYSTEM had Cory continue as a representative for tte Filipino people. A parliamentary government to replace Marcos' fake parliament would've been better. It would actually put a better position since the government and the opposition will have formal roles. A prime minister and an opposition leader debating would be better than how the post-Marcos Years were. Until now, there's no direct accountability under the presidential system.

It's more than time to ask this question. How often has the current system even held presidents and their appointees accountable? HARDLY! Is Duterte even showing up for a weekly scrutiny? Did Noynoy even show up for a weekly scrutiny? Noynoy would've probably better behaved during the Manila Hostage Bus Incident if he had to uphold confidence of the Parliament. Duterte would better watch his mouth and language to uphold the confidence of the Parliament. Right now, I even think that Richard "Dick" Gordon himself could've done a better investigation if we were in parliament. Gordon could've called a vote of no confidence against Duterte regarding Pharmally. A parliamentar system would put EVERY PRIME MINISTER under scrutiny. That means the system won't be too reliant on the head of government. That means good system won't good away with good leaders. Instead, good leaders become better under a better system. As the late Jesse Robredo said, "It's not enough to have a good leader, we must also have a good system that forces them to do good."