Yesterday was the birthday of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. I still remembered when Hilario Davide Jr. (better called HILARIOUS Davide) is that it doesn't need amendments because it's supposedly the "best constitution in the world". February can be so associated with EDSA-1 which is the downfall of the Marcos Tyranny. Again, I'm not here to try and cover-up the Marcos Crimes nor am I paid for by the Marcoses nor part of the alleged troll farms of Bobong Marcos. Yet, Bobong has actually spoke better than Leni Loud Robredo during the interview with Boy Abunda. Now, Davide dares to even say that the 1987 Constitution is the only constitution to supposedly say that the public office is public trust. This makes me laugh because Davide is either straight out lying for someone, he thinks he's always right because of his age, he's becoming senile with age, or he simply lives under a rock as to why he said that RIDICULOUS STATEMENT.
Davide is still living in the stone age while we're in the digital age, huh?
Do a SIMPLE Google search on "public office public trust" may tell you that the principle is NOT exclusive to the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. The first few results may hit on Davide's favorite constitution but the phrase can be attributed to the American constitution. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson, decades ago, who also said that the public office is a public trust. So no, the 1987 Constitution isn't the constitution that says that the public office is a public trust.
Did Davide even read OTHER constitutions from OTHER COUNTRIES worldwide? Some constitutions are now available to read online. I guess Davide is too enamored with the HURRIEDLY WRITTEN 1987 Constitution which was nothing more than a band-aid to the MOCK PARLIAMENT of the 1973 Constitution. Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was NO prime minister and the late Cesar Virata was just a sitting duck. The late Lee Kuan Yew even refused to acknowledge Virata as a prime minister.Marcos picked Virata - not the people. Ninoy Aquino even said that Marcos' parliament was a MOCKERY. Ninoy NEVER said that the parliamentary system will never work in the Philippines. Instead, Ninoy pointed out that it was but a mock parliamentary.
I guess Davide read other constitutions but chose to conveniently IGNORE them because of his stubbornness or because he's allied with the oligarchs in some way. Is Davide really as honorable as I used to think he was? Is he, like the late Martin Ocampo (who presided over the Chiong Sisters' trial) turned out to be a judge who was too pressured by public opinion? Ocampo could've chosen to assume that the Chiong-7 suspects were innocent until proven guilty. Instead, Ocampo was one-sided and such an action may have made people ask, "Who REALLY carried out the crime against the sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline?" Not to mention, Davide is a relative of Thelma Jimenea-Chiong by marriage which may have influenced the course of the trial which was featured in the documentary Give Up Tomorrow.
How the parliamentary system is truly a better public trust than the presidential system
Again, RESEARCH and go to scholarly websites. The Internet is NOT limited only to sites like Rappler, Vera Files, Pignoy Ako Blog, Change Scamming, etc. The only source of truth isn't just ABiaS-CBN or the Iniquirer. I guess why the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) decided to label Get Real Philippines as "fake news" because it disagreed with them. Now, it's time to think about how the parliamentary TRULY works.
A SIMPLE Google search on Singapore and pubic trust may tell you of its Public Trustee Act of 1915. What makes Singapore's public office a better public trust? Hint: It's not just the quality of the officials. It's all about the QUALITY of the form of government. I'm amazed at how people can see that the Top 20 best countries in the world are PARLIAMENTARY. Yet, they don't want to shift to parliamentary (or not immediately) because of whatever bad reasons they have. Some reasons include because the quality of the politicians in the Philippines are so bad. Well, did Lee Kuan Yew even decide to WAIT until Singaporean politics was clean before he implemented the Singaporean Parliament? Is Lee Hsien Loong only "naturally better" than Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the late Noynoy Aquino, and President Rodrigo R. Duterte?
The parliamentary system will encourage more transparency. To say that the Philippines shouldn't shift to be parliamentary because the politicians aren't good in debates is stupid. Don't tell me students who aren't good in math should be exempted from learning elementary, middle school, and high school mathematics? The reason why Philippine politicians aren't good in debates is because the presidential system doesn't have the weekly question hour. A weekly question hour is when the Govenrment (majority) is facing off against the Opposition (minority). It's because the parliamentary system isn't a winner takes all scenario. Instead, the losing party or parties have the DUTY to hold the government accountable and provide alternatives. This is something sorely missing in Davide's favorite constitution.
Public trust in government is either regained or removed through better transparency. For example, we have the ongoing Gordon Committee. I feel it's nothing more than a futile exercise because we're in a presidential system. However, a parliamentary system may have Duterte as the Prime Minister and Richard Gordon as the Opposition Leader. The recent Pharmally case would be put under scrutiny in the form of a weekly debate. Duterte can't avoid questions and Gordon has to present the evidence. If Gordon's allegations are true then he can easily call a vote of no confidence against Duterte. This also means every other government appointee is required to answer to shadow appointees. Francisco Duque as the health minister will be answerable to Willie Ong as the shadow health minister. If Duque fails to do his job then he can also be easily voted out of his office in a vote of n confidence. If Duterte and Duque fail to regain public trust - they will either be removed or be forced to resign.
Public trust in government is either regained or removed through better transparency. For example, we have the ongoing Gordon Committee. I feel it's nothing more than a futile exercise because we're in a presidential system. However, a parliamentary system may have Duterte as the Prime Minister and Richard Gordon as the Opposition Leader. The recent Pharmally case would be put under scrutiny in the form of a weekly debate. Duterte can't avoid questions and Gordon has to present the evidence. If Gordon's allegations are true then he can easily call a vote of no confidence against Duterte. This also means every other government appointee is required to answer to shadow appointees. Francisco Duque as the health minister will be answerable to Willie Ong as the shadow health minister. If Duque fails to do his job then he can also be easily voted out of his office in a vote of n confidence. If Duterte and Duque fail to regain public trust - they will either be removed or be forced to resign.
The so-called "transparency" of the second Aquino Administration needs to be questioned too as much as the first. Some keep calling the late Corazon "Cory" Cojuangco-Aquino as the mother of Philippine democracy. However, Cory herself was more fit to play the role of a symbolic head of state like Queen Elizabeth II of England than she is fit to play the role of the late Margaret Thatcher. The issues like the Yolanda Funds would've been easier to monitor in a parliamentary system. Just think how transparency would've prevented many of the mishaps not just with the Yellow Regime but also every other regime. Joseph Estrada would've probably been ousted as the prime minister if Jose De Venecia were the opposition leader.
Listen to Davide... wut?
I think about how the "best source" might be the likes of Davide and his pals. Unfortunately, Davide hasn't reached the likes of Singaporean and Malaysian constitutionalists. Neither did the Monsods whom the 1987 Constitution lovers love to quote. What I would really point out that Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew are products of the parliamentary system. Neither Mohamad nor Lee Kuan Yew was just naturally good. Davide keeps saying this and that yet it's mostly empty words.
Davide may want to make his claims loud and clear towards the more progressive countries. For a star,t Davide could try going to Singapore and tell them we've got the best constitution in the world. Davide may want to consider going to the Singaporean Parliament and tell Lee Hsien Loong straight to his pace, "Your excellency, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines needs no amendment. It's the best constitution in the world." I bet he'd be laughed at. Granted, even Noynoy in his failures did make some important amendments that made Duterte praise the economic achievement of his predecessor. Though, I still feel Noynoy was in the wrong not to call for the immediate removal of the utility sector from excessive restrictions. Noynoy could've called for a complete economic constitutional reform than just do some selective easing.
Davide is clearly old but not wise. Older doesn't always mean wiser. Sometimes, your worst enemy can be a stubborn old fool who refuses to learn new information. I would say that Davide isn't a reliable source anymore. Sure, he may be a chief justice but the system that he defends is just so faulty, isn't it?
Comments
Post a Comment