 |
| China Daily |
Today is the entrance of a new administration of incoming Philippine president, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. aka Bongbong or BBM. For the first time in so long--we already have a president and a vice president (both from the same party) elected by the majority over plurality. Several presidents won by plurality such as former Philippine presidents Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph M. Ejercito-Estrada, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III, and Rodrigo R. Duterte. The same can be said for several vice presidents. I was thinking about it that several projects under Aquino III's were later completed during Duterte's administration. It made me think of the limits of just six years or how the presidential system isn't enough. Aquino III had some pros and cons. Duterte had some pros and cons. I feel that many promises can't be kept because of the presidential system.
Charter change can be good--if done right!
I was reading through Andrew J. Masigan's article "Understanding Charter Change". Masigan, a Duterte critic and a supporter of former Philippine Vice President Maria Leonor G. Robredo, had also pointed out some mistakes in the economic system of the Philippines. The big issue that Masigan pointed out is how protectionism is doing more harm than good. That's why I wrote that the Philippines need economic charter change now. It would be interesting that Masigan also wrote these which I'll quote here:
FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT
As mentioned earlier, the Duterte administration plans to a shift our form of government from a Unitary-Presidential form to a Federal-Parliamentary form. To better appreciate how a Federal-Parliamentary system works, it s best to look at it in contrast to a Federal-Presidential system.
A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.
A Federal-Parliamentary system , on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here, the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party they belong to, not on their personalities. The party with the most number of elected representatives is declared “the parliament.” The parliament elects its Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the members of his Cabinet (his ministers) from among the members of the parliament.
There are multiple advantages to this. First, the system does away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. It puts an end to the vicious cycle of presidential candidates resorting to corruption and incurring political debts just to raise funds for their campaign.
Even the poor can run for office so long as they are capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a federal-parliamentary system, we do away with people who win on the back of guns goons and gold.
Moreover, since the members of parliament selects the Prime Minister, they can easily remove him through a vote of no-confidence should he fail to fulfill his mandate. We do away with the tedious process of impeachment. And since the ministers are selected from the Parliament, no one gets a free ticket to the Cabinet just because they are friends with the President or nominated by a political ally. The ministers all have mandates and are accountable not only to the PM but to their constituents.
The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.
A parliamentary system is one where a “shadow Cabinet” exists. A shadow Cabinet is the corresponding, non-official Cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each Cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be adopted if it is deemed superior.
In the end, the systems allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate safeguards to protect the interest of the people.
Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest subscribe to a parliamentary system.
The intentions of charter change is good. Done right, it could be a game changer for the nation.
I remembered back when talks of charter change (referred to as cha-cha) always get demonized. It's always with the mindset that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is supposed "the best in the world". I'm always thinking about how that mindset is holding the Philippines back. Oftentimes, it's associated with the Marcos Years or the late father of incoming Philippine President, Marcos Jr. However, Masigan also has spelled out what a real parliamentary means. The late Carlos Celdran, another Duterte critic, is praiseworthy for actually pointing out what needs to be changed.
Some say it'll never work because of the quality of the politicians. However, reading From Third World to First has me look at empirical data from a wise old man. The late Lee Kuan Yew (father of incumbent Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong) had to deal with a Singapore where people weren't business savvy and corruption was rampant. The quality of the politicians is dependent on the quality of the system. Any mistakes during the Marcos Sr. Years and up to the present are because of the presidential system.
Just because I'm no political analyst doesn't mean I can't quote the experts. This is what I'm doing--citing empirical evidence instead of relying on "think tanks" like Bayan Muna, Kabataan Partylist, IBON Foundation (and I reject them as any form of economic think-tank) or those who talk and talk but don't offer evidence of success. That's why I also wrote an article as to why it's better to listen to Kishore Mahbubani over Hilario Davide Jr. when it comes to economics. Masigan's professional endorsement of Robredo, professional criticism of Duterte, and his desire to reform the constitution puts him above other Liberal Party supporters who just comment on Facebook without evidence. Hopefully, more Liberal Party supporters will take heed of Masigan's advice.
Dismissing the idea that shifting to parliamentary for the Philippines will never work
The details can be read on Pages 301-302 of From Third World to First about the Marcos Years if it was truly a parliament:
As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him (Marcos) any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$ 8 billion of the US$ 25 billion owing. The hard fact was that they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered it that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped that the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a non-starter, a a first class administrator, but no political leader, further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Enrile, was out of favor. Marcos was silent, hen he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find such a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, "You are a true friend." I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that would be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to be with "flow of money"; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people's feelings. He said that the economy was going down with no political stability.
Reading through it had me think that a Prime Minister (picked by the president) meets a real Prime Minister, picked by Parliament. This would also remind me of what the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr., the father of Aquino III, also mentioned in his speech in Los Angeles the following things about the Marcos' parliament:
And so my friends, we started with an American-type constitution, we move to a British-type constitution. We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament. Until 1978, we did not have a parliament. And yet, we were supposed to be a parliamentary from of government. And Mr. Marcos said, “I declared martial law to save democracy.” But by saving democracy, he killed it.
And so my friends, it was not until 1978 that the Batasan was convened. Now, what do we hear? Mr. Marcos once again, is up again to his new tricks. He said, “I lifted martial law but I think we should now elect a president by direct vote.” But there is not such thing. Under the new constitution now, the president is purely ceremonial. Tagabukas lang ng pinto, tagatanggap lamang ng credential ng ambassador. (Translation: The one who opens the door, the one who receives the credentials). Purely ceremonial elected by parliament, he is not elected by the people. The power of the government under a parliamentary system lies within the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister must be elected by parliament, and this prime minister may be removed from office, if there is a vote of no confidence. That is the British type. So what did Mr. Marcos do in 1976? He amended the constitution and said, “I, Ferdinand Marcos, as Prime Minister/President, may dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve me.” And then he said, “Parliament may legislate, but if I think they’re not doing their job, I will also legislate.” So now we have two parliaments, Mr. Marcos and parliament. And it’s costing us 300 million to have that tuta (puppy) parliament, what’s the use? If Mr. Marcos is doing all the legislation, why keep these 200 guys? So what do they do? They change the name of the street of Divisoria. They change the name of a school. But when it comes to public decrees, like Public Order Code 1737, only Mr. Marcos signs it. And so we have a situation, where we have a man who can dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve him. And under the Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 constitution, Mr. Marcos is a president-for-life. And now, all of a sudden, two weeks ago, sabi niya, “I have lifted martial law but I now want to go to the Filipino people, and I want their mandate of 8 years. I will defend martial law. Anybody who oppose it can oppose me. I want to go to the people and get their mandate.” But how can you get the mandate? There’s no such thing in the constitution. Sagot ni Marcos, “Let us amend it.” So now, we are going to amend again the constitution. And so we ask Mr. Marcos, but what form of government will we have? “Ahh,” sabi niya, “I want a president with powers.” What happened to the parliamentary British? Forget it. Let us now go to France. Let us have a French model. And so my friends, it is like the odyssey of Jules Verne “80 Days Around the World”. We started with America. We went to England. Now we are going to France. Under the new proposal of Mr. Marcos, we will now have a president and a prime minister. But the prime minister will be appointed by the president. And this president now will be all powerful. It will not be the American type; it will be the French type. And I suppose two years from now, when he gets tired of that, he will go to the Russian type, whatever that is. And so he announced, “I will take anybody, including Aquino.” And so, I was not inclined to oblige him, but then he added, “Pero,” sabi niya, ‘”hindi pwede si Aquino, underage.” And so naturally I went to the book, I said how come I was underage? I thought I was already 48, because the rule before, to become President of the Philippines in 1935, all you had to do is to be 40 years old. And so I looked at the book, tama nga naman si Marcos, they’ve increased the age to fifty. Kapos na naman ako ng dalawa. Of course, Mr. Marcos said, “Pero kung talagang gusto ni Aquino (But if Aquino really wants); if he really wants to come home and to fight me, I will oblige him. I will also have the constitution amended for him.” So I told Mr. Marcos and his people, “Forget me, Mr. President. I am through with your politics. Hindi na po ako kako sasama sa inyong kalokohan. (I'm not involved in your foolishness). Nagtayo kayo ng isang lapian, ang pangalan KBL, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan, mali po kako ‘yan, Kilusan ng mga Bingi at Loko-loko. (I decided to create my organization with the name KBL. Movement of the New Nation. Wrong. It means Movement of the deaf and the crazy). Hindi na ako kako sasama diyan. (I'm not joining it). Ako’y tapos na, I told them. I am through with politics, I said. I would just want to live in peace now. But I wrote Mr. Marcos and I told him, “While it’s true Mr. Marcos,” I said, “that after my 8 years in prison I have lost appetite for office, I am no longer seeking the presidency of this land, I’m not seeking any office in this country, but believe me,” I said, “When I tell you, that while I have vowed never to enter the political arena again, I shall dedicate the last drop of my blood to the restoration of freedom and the dismantlement of your martial law.”
Based on these pieces of empirical evidence--the 1973 Constitution wasn't a real parliament. Lee Kuan Yew called Virata a non-political leader which he was. Aquino II or more famously known as Ninoy also mentioned the jarring inconsistencies of Marcos Sr.'s charter change. A real parliamentary with a president is not like what South Korea has. South Korea has the president pick the prime minister. In Singapore or any parliamentary government with a president--there's the head of the state (president) and the head of the government (prime minister). It would be like what if Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino served to represent the people (and she was the representative during the EDSA Revolution) while a prime minister served to rule the nation. Meanwhile, the prime minister is directly scrutinized by the opposition leader. Both the government and the opposition are facing each other every week in a live debate.
If there's a reason why Philippine politicians may not be good in debates--I blame it on the system. How often are we seeing government appointees scrutinized by the opposition on live television? I couldn't remember one time. It could've been different for the pandemic response if all officials responsible for the pandemic response were directly scrutinized by opposition officials. You can imagine how any incompetent minister of health will either resign or be removed by a vote of no-confidence. Some may say that the parliamentary may be filled with trapo (dirty rags) type of politicians. Some of these statements can from from "thought leaders" such as the nonsense Philippine Antifa which blatantly supports the likes of Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin. However, weekly scrutiny between both sides can start to either make trapos stop being trapos or get removed on live television. The threat of a vote of no-confidence is far better than tedious impeachment as Masigan mentioned. It would really force members of the executive and legislative to be more careful. The executive (the prime minister) is directly involved with his cabinet. The prime minister can be dissolved by the parliament. That's a real parliament.
The "evidence" used is already best considered insufficient and full of reasonable doubt. I'm seeing parliamentary countries winning big time and not just Singapore. Malaysia also has Mahathir Mohamad. No parliamentary, no Mohamad, no Lee Kuan Yew. Reading of legislators resigning because of scandals is more common in parliamentary than in presidential.
How the Philippines can truly change its politics through the parliamentary system
.jpg) |
| No gossip, no hearsay, face-to-face debates, liars are slapped in the parliamentary system! |
The government determines how the nation is run. However, the opposition's job is to scrutinize the government and offer alternatives. Marcos Jr. and his cabinet sit on the left side of the Parliament. Robredo and her cabinet sit on the right. The flow goes that while Marcos Jr. determines how the Philippine government will be run--Robredo questions Marcos Jr. and offers alternatives. It would be far more democratic. It's because democracy is defined as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. What democracy isn't is a tyranny of the majority where the minority has no rights. A tyranny of a majority is in conflict with what a democracy is. Democracy can thrive if the minority has a voice. Robredo, as the opposition leader, is the voice of the minority along with her cabinet members. The majority wins the government seats but winners don't take all in a parliamentary setting.
Now, we examine the flow of the parliamentary debate. Amazing that this flowchart (credit goes ot the owner) has the colors of Marcos Jr., Duterte-Carpio, Robredo, and Pangilinan. I believe that's how things should be on this day of inauguration. Marcos Jr. pledges to be the nation's prime minister and Robredo as the nation's opposition leader. The flow of the debate would have 7.5 minutes per person to give everyone a privilege speech in Parliament. The prime minister makes the 7.5 opening remarks followed by the opposition leader's opening remarks. Both sides would be given their one massive press conference. If ever a minister fails to uphold confidence then a vote of no-confidence is at hand. Sure, there can be a few attempts but the fear of getting voted out as soon as possible is scarier than the dragging process of impeachment.
It would mean that every minister is required to make their paperwork done. Every minister must answer to their corresponding minister. This would be live and every minister must give a weekly report. The shadow ministers are also required to be ready to give alternatives. For example, the health minister proposes this to help stop the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the shadow health minister has a different proposal. Both sides are required to spill their proposals. Mistakes will be sorted out to form a better solution. It's like the health minister would require this and that for mass sanitation drives in certain areas. However, the opposition minister says that it'd be too costly in contrast to doing this and that. That would really change the way politics is done if people are required to report weekly.
It would also change the way votes happen. It's because it wouldn't be focused on the prime minister but on the party. If people would vote for a certain party--they would vote it for its performance and not because so-and-so is its choice for prime minister. Every endorsement will depend on one thing--teamwork. This will also mean popularity-based and divisive elections will be over. There wouldn't be too many extreme supporters. There will be formal discussions between both sides. It would be more advantageous if we do away with popularity-driven politics in exchange for platform-based politics for good.