Was the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines a Real Parliamentary?
It's indeed the gossip that went on for a long that the regime of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was a legitimate parliamentary government. I remembered arguing with someone on Facebook who's apparently a political science graduate on that issue. Another one was a 60-year-old former OFW dancer (and his name keeps changing). It was all about when I asked for empirical evidence to defend their claims. I decided to write this post hoping to at least shut the mouths of those two boomers who still gossip about it. It's more than time for the truth to come out, especially if their source is most likely summarized in three words, "Trust Me Bro!"
Examining the way the Marcos parliament was run
I could go ahead and keep pointing out that it wasn't. I was referred over to the House of Representatives website which talks about the formation of the Batasang Pambansa which is translated as the National Legislative in English.
When martial law was declared, the Constitutional Convention, by virtue of an Act of Congress in 1971, was in the process of drafting a new Constitution. The final draft was adopted by the Convention on November 29, 1972. This was ratified and proclaimed by President Marcos on January 17, 1973 amidst widespread protest and controversy. With the proclamation of a new Constitution, the presidential form of government was changed to a modified parliamentary form. Congress was abolished and was replaced by an elected unicameral National Assembly, known as Batasang Pambansa.
The Batasang Pambansa was made up of a maximum of 200 Members elected from different provinces with their component cities, highly urbanized cities and districts of Metropolitan Manila, appointed representatives from various sectors such as the youth, agricultural and industrial labor sectors, and those chosen by the President from the members of the Cabinet. The Members had a term of six years.
At first, the gossipers can say they have proof that the Marcos Sr. Years were a legitimate parliamentary. The "proof" is in having a prime minister (later picked) and his name is Cesar Virata. The burden of the proof of a legitimate parliamentary is how it was run. How can Virata be a prime minister while Marcos Sr. remains a president with powers? In a legitimate parliamentary government, the president is purely ceremonial.
The late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. pointed out in his Los Angeles Speech in 1981. The use of modified should be a keyword meaning a bastardized form of the parliamentary system. I laughed at what Aquino Jr. pointed out in his speech. The details he gave really showed everything wrong with the Marcos parliament. It was a parliament but the government wasn't even really a real parliamentary government. These words from his speech really contain some proof:
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.”
I love how Aquino Jr. used such harsh and funny words. To compare the amendment to 80 Days Around the World is very accurate. He even pointed out the harsh truth that there was a parliamentary without a parliament. Having a prime minister who can't be dissolved but can't dissolve the parliament is also proof. A prime minister appointed by the president is not a real parliamentary. The word modified is already proof to prove that the Marcos Sr. regime wasn't a real parliament.
Third World to First was written by the great parliamentary statesman, the late Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Kuan Yew had met Virata during that time. However, Lee's own words would have proven that Virata himself was anything but a leader. I'm really amazed that this detail is often forgotten. Lee Kuan Yew knew how a real parliamentary system was run. How can Virata ever be a prime minister and not be a leader?
As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him 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 they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered 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 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 nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find 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 could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to 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 the economy was going down with no political stability.
Marcos Sr.'s own words finally point out the big evidence that his parliamentary system wasn't what it seemed to be. These words are taken straight from The Official Gazette dated January 17, 1984:
The adoption of certain aspects of a parliamentary system in the amended Constitution does not alter its essentially presidential character. Article VII on the Presidency starts with this provision: ‘the President shall be the Head of State and Chief Executive of the Republic of the Philippines.’ Its last section is an even more emphatic affirmation that it is a presidential system that obtains in our government. Thus: all powers vested in the President who, by virtue of his election by the entire electorate, has an indisputable claim to speak for the country as a whole. Moreover, it is he who is explicitly granted the greater power of control of such ministries. He continues to be the executive, the amplitude and scope of the functions entrusted to him in the formulation of policy and its execution leading to the apt observation by LASI that there is not one aspect of which that does not affect the lives of all.
The very statement of Marcos Sr. himself proves that this wasn't a real parliamentary system. Instead, it was a far cry from the Head of State and Head of Government type of governance. For example, Singapore's president Halimah Yacob, and its prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong. The president is but a ceremonial figure. Meanwhile, Marcos Sr.'s amendment had it that the president is still overall in charge. The very statement given that Virata, the prime minister, was considered to become the president (and chief executive), proves it was more of a presidential system with parliamentary features than a real parliamentary government.
How does a real parliamentary work?
 |
| PARL |
However, a real parliamentary form of government follows a very different format. I would like to point out that the Batasang Pambansa was still shaped like a classroom. However, a real parliamentary government would use the same format (above). We would have the government on the left side and the opposition on the right side. The president (or any Head of State) remains symbolic. The president (or any monarch) is merely a national symbol of unity or someone for citizens to look up to. A housewife and widow of a politician like the late Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino can serve the duties of a chief representative of the country. Mrs. Aquino could've served in the same manner as Yacob of Singapore.
The elections in a real (not modified) parliamentary system would be different. People would vote for parties over personalities. Let's imagine the elections are going on. The parties I'd like to imagine are LAKAS-CMD and the Liberal Party of the Philippines, to name a few. People will vote according to party. Campaigns will focus on the party platform over personalities. LAKAS-CMD has set forth Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. as its prime minister. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party of the Philippines has set forth Mrs. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo as its prime minister.
The next scene is the arrangement of the Parliament. It's not a winner-takes-all scenario. Marcos Jr. becomes the prime minister with his own cabinet. Meanwhile, Mrs. Robredo is mandated by law to become the Opposition Leader. Mrs. Robredo must have her own cabinet as well. The left side is occupied by the LAKAS-CMD. The right side is occupied by the Liberal Party of the Philippines. Both sides are in equal representation. LAKAS-CMD represents the majority of voters. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party of the Philippines represents the minority of voters.
What will be observed is the presence of the Weekly Question Hour. Under a parliamentary system, Mrs. Robredo would have the sacred duty to question Marcos Jr. and hold him accountable. Marcos Jr. is required to answer Mrs. Robredo. Marcos Jr.'s appointees are also held accountable by Mrs. Robredo's appointees. Every minister will have a corresponding shadow minister. That means it would be easier to demand transparency from different government ministries. You can imagine how plans such as economic recovery, pandemic handling, and the like will be discussed in proportion.
Conclusion
I believe that the gossip that the Marcos Sr. Years were a parliament had delayed the badly-needed shift in governance. Fortunately, Andrew James Masigan, wrote an article called "Understanding Charter Change". This is what Masigan wants to present even as he is a critic of former Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte and is known to support Mrs. Robredo:
FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENTAs 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.
If the Philippines aspires to be like Singapore or Malaysia, we need to follow the parliamentary system. We've had great models such as Lee Kuan Yew and former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad. Lee Kuan Yew didn't establish Singapore as a first-world country and a bigger Asian Miracle in just one term. Neither did Mohamad. Yet, the Philippines is still stuck with unnecessary term limits regardless if the politician does well or doesn't do well!
The devil's in the details. The details have been spilled out. Yet, why do some people still the same old gossip that the Marcos Sr. Years were a real parliamentary government?
