Why I Believe EDSA 1986 Should've Been a Hint to Form the Parliamentary Republic of the Philippines

February becomes the time to celebrate the 1986 EDSA Revolution, right? I still believe that EDSA 1986 was an important event. My issue was what happened after EDSA in which the Philippines still maintained (in part) the protectionist policies of Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. and Carlos P. Garcia's Filipino First Policy. I did write about why the Marcos Sr. Administration was never a true parliamentary. Even the very words of Marcos Sr. had actually proven that the Philippines was, in fact, never a parliamentary system aside from Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr.'s speech in Los Angeles. Here are Marcos' own words from a speech in 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.

It would mean that just because there was a prime minister didn't make it a parliament. Cesar Virata was nothing more than an assistant to a president with powers. As the book From Third World to First goes, the late Lee Kuan Yew actually talked about his meetings with Virata. The way Lee described Virata was pretty much like no political leader. Virata was even, at one point, considered to be a successor to Marcos Sr. Lee's own words would verify Aquino Jr.'s own words that the Philippines had a parliamentary without a parliament. The description such as that Marcos Sr. could dissolve the parliament but the parliament couldn't dissolve him is a huge hint. Another is how can Marcos Sr. be both president and prime minister and then have a prime minister picked by the president who's still all-powerful? 

One woman's role as a national symbol of unity should've remained as such 

EDSA 1986 was considered the end of a regime that plunged the Philippines into darker times. I keep reading of missing journalists, illegal detention, and the like. There was the widow of Aquino Jr., the late Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino. People were cheering for Mrs. Aquino at that time. She was called Auntie Cory by the Filipino people. Mrs. Aquino was also featured in Lee's book From Third World to First along with the late Fidel V. Ramos. Mrs. Aquino was hiding in a convent in Cebu durign that time. Mrs. Aquino didn't lead EDSA. Instead, she was what she was or should be regarded as, a national symbol of unity. 

However, when the 1987 Constitution was enshrined, what did Mrs. Aquino really know about running the country? She had no idea what to do. Unfortunately, Mrs. Aquino's one-time regime was based on the fact she was the widow of a beloved figure at that time. The same man practically opened his mouth wide revealing that the Marcos Sr. regime wasn't a real parliamentary system. Mrs. Aquino later chose not to re-run. However, this could've been different if the Philippines were a parliamentary system. 

It's often a misconception that the Philippines can't go parliamentary because of the lack of a monarchy. However, a real parliamentary system can function with a symbolic president. One needs to take a look at the neighboring country of Singapore. Singapore has a president and a prime minister. The prime minister isn't picked by the president but by his party. The president there is purely ceremonial. That's what Aquino Jr. emphasized in his speech in Los Angeles. Mrs. Aquino herself would've been better as someone who opens the door, receives credentials, and is representative of the Philippines. Mrs. Aquino could've remained someone for the Filipino people to look up to as a national symbol of unity. 

The Philippine Parliament would be composed of two sides. One side would be the Government. The other side would be the Opposition. Meanwhile, Mrs. Aquino would be sent on delegation trips. Maybe, Mrs. Aquino would receive Lee into her office while the Prime Minister handles the daily affairs. Mrs. Aquino was fit to be president but in a parliamentary system. It's because, unlike the late Margaret Thatcher, Mrs. Aquino wasn't seasoned to run the country. Rather, Mrs. Aquino would've done better if her only job was to be a national symbol of unity like the late Queen Elizabeth II of England.

Learning from Singapore's parliamentary system to establish the Parliamentary Republic of the Philippines

Liputan6.com

It would be important to learn from Singapore. Before one can say, "But the Philippines isn't Singapore." then I'd beg you to please listen first. The book From Third World to First showed how several countries learned from Singapore, including Communist countries. We need to understand the powers of the Singaporean president. According to Singapore Legal Advice, we would want to show these roles of the symbolic head of state:

What are the role and powers of the Singapore President?

As stated on the Istana’s official website, the President plays 3 crucial roles:

Ceremonial role: As the Head of State, the President officiates at state events, and represents Singapore on the global stage in cultivating and enhancing relationships with other countries. 

Community role: The President may lend weight to and promote social and charitable causes, as well as attend community events. 

Constitutional role: The President has powers provided for under the Constitution which he or she may exercise. These powers can be classified into 3 categories, namely, financial powers, powers concerning the appointment of key office holders, and miscellaneous powers.

The miscellaneous powers of the president can be as follows:

Other than the specific powers conferred upon the President, the President is also vested with a variety of other miscellaneous powers.

The President may:

Discontinue a Parliamentary session: The President may dissolve Parliament upon the PM’s advice. 

Withhold his assent to any Bill: This excludes a Bill that aims to amend the Constitution if the Bill seeks to, directly or indirectly, circumvent or curtail the President’s discretionary powers provided for under the Constitution. 

Consent to the Director of the CPIB making inquiries or conducting investigations: Such inquiries or investigations are made in respect of any information received by the Director regarding the conduct of a person, or any allegation or complaint made against a person. 

Cancel, vary, confirm or refuse to confirm a restraining order made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act: This can be done where the advice of the Cabinet is contrary to the recommendation of the PCRH. 

Provide concurrence for preventive detention: This is required where the advisory board constituted to ascertain whether a person should be preventively detained recommends that the person be released, and the authority which advised or ordered that person’s detention does not accept such recommendation. Such person cannot be detained, or further detained, without the President’s concurrence. 

Appoint members of the Council of Presidential Advisers: The President may appoint 3 out of the 8 members that constitute the Council, and may nominate a member of the Council to be the Chairman. 

Refer questions regarding the effect of any constitutional provision: The President may refer to a tribunal, consisting of at least 3 Supreme Court Judges, any question regarding the effect of any provision in the Constitution which has arisen or appears to the President likely to arise. 

Issue a Proclamation of Emergency: The President may issue a Proclamation of Emergency where he or she is satisfied that the security or economic life of Singapore is threatened such that it constitutes a grave emergency. 

Grant an offender clemency: This power is exercised on Cabinet’s advice. The President may also remit a sentence, penalty or forfeiture imposed by law.

It's not easy to be a Member of the Parliament or to be Prime Minister either 

In Singapore, we would have the parliamentary elections (choosing parties) and the role of the president. Well, we would have this role of the president with the prime minister according to the Prime Minister Office of Singapore:

The Judiciary's function is to independently administer justice. The Judiciary is safeguarded by the Constitution.

The Prime Minister of Singapore is appointed by the President of Singapore under Article 25 of the Constitution. The President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, also appoints other Ministers from among the Members of Parliament.

The Prime Minister is the effective head of the executive branch of government. The Prime Minister chairs the Cabinet, which is constituted under Article 24 of the Constitution. The Cabinet is the central decision-making body of the executive government. It is an organ of state and central to Singapore's system of government. In practice, all significant decisions or actions taken by the Executive are first discussed and collectively agreed by Cabinet.

First, parliamentary elections are done to determine which party becomes the Government or which party becomes the Opposition. What would set this apart from the Marcos Sr. regime is that Virata himself was no political leader or executive branch. The president may have chosen the prime minister but his or her powers start to be delegated to ceremonial purposes. In short, it would be that the president's appointment of the prime minister from the winning party. This is to inspire the confidence of the Parliament. Every prime minister but be a good member of the parliament first. 

I found this article called "How to Become Singapore's Prime Minister, Explained in 7 Steps". It's no easy feat and I suggest reading the article in full. Meanwhile, I'll spell out the seven steps that can be effective safeguards:

1. Study and specialize
2. Wait for the call
3. Tea sessions and panels
4. Take a test
5. Perform well as an MP
6. Win the trust of your peers
7. Prepare for office

Nothing has been easy, especially being an MP. It would really mean tedious work such as stated by the same article:

Weeks before an election, selected candidates are ‘parachuted’ to various constituencies to shadow their MP-mentors. The candidates are also sent for courses on public speaking and communication skills to handle the media and questions thrown at them during the election. If the ministerial candidate wins their contest, they are then carefully watched to see how they discharge their duties. If they continue to perform well, they will be promoted to a junior minister after a term, then a full minister.

At the same time, fellow party members carefully watch the new ministers to see if they are suitable for the PAP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC). To make it into the CEC, the party’s highest ruling committee and its “inner circle”, candidates have to impress party members called cadres. Unlike other countries, where all members can vote on matters of party leadership, in Singapore, most political parties have adopted the cadre system, where long serving grassroots leaders and members are chosen by the CEC to vote for the new CEC.  This “closed system” has been compared to the process of electing a new pope, in which “the cardinals appoint the pope and the pope appoints the cardinals”. In other words, since the cadres are selected by the ruling elite, they are unlikely to radically dissent against them. It also means that ministers who aspire for the top job need to get in the good books of the current party elite.

In an interview with ChannelNewsAsia, PAP cadres (whose identities are a secret) talked about what they looked for in CEC candidates. These individuals must have leadership traits, be people oriented, and most importantly have empathy. One cadre, who leads the youth wing in an eastern PAP branch said that candidates’’ performance in their constituencies are equally important. . “If the individual cannot connect with his or her constituents, then there is no point to even be in the CEC,” he added.

The role of the Leader of the Opposition

The parliamentary system has its formal opposition. The Singapore Legal Advice also provides these key roles of the Leader of the Opposition (LO):

How is the Leader of the Opposition Chosen?

In a typical Westminster parliamentary system, the LO is elected through a vote of the members of the main opposition party. The LO can keep his or her position as long as he or she remains an MP and has the support of the majority of the elected opposition.

In Singapore’s case, the first LO, Mr Pritam Singh, was formally designated by the Prime Minister following the 2020 General Election results.

What are the Roles and Powers of the Leader of the Opposition?

The duties carried out by the LO in Singapore are similar to those of the LOs in other Westminster parliamentary systems. These include:

• Leading the opposition in presenting alternative views in parliamentary debates on various policies, Bills and motions.
• Scrutinising the government’s positions and actions in Parliament.
• Being consulted on the appointment of opposition members to Select Committees.
• Taking on other duties, in addition to the LO’s parliamentary duties, such as attending official state functions, as well as taking part in visits and meetings alongside members of the government and the Public Service.

The LO will also be afforded certain parliamentary privileges. These include the right of first response among other MPs, as well as the right to ask the lead question to the ministers in parliamentary debates on policies, Bills and motions, although these would be subject to existing speaking conventions. For example, one such speaking convention is that a question must not be made as a ploy for debate.

A lead question refers to the question, or questions, that is raised by the LO when the Speaker of Parliament begins Question Time during a parliamentary sitting.

The LO will also receive confidential briefings by the government on select matters concerning national security and external relations, as well as in the event of a national crisis or emergency.

In addition, the LO will also be given up to 40 minutes to make his speeches, which is equivalent to the time given to political officeholders like ministers and parliamentary secretaries. In contrast, all MPs are allowed to speak for only 20 minutes in response to questions raised, and are given up to 10 minutes to address a committee of the whole of Parliament.

Meanwhile, Singapore hasn't had a shadow cabinet, which I believe is a weakness. I can admire Singapore in many ways though I think certain laws need to be relaxed or strengthened. It would be better if the Opposition gets access to a Shadow Cabinet in contrast to other countries. I think the Philippines can form a Shadow Cabinet. Granted, the Philippines is an archipelago then we can go to Malaysia for advice to form a Shadow Cabinet. The Official Portal of Parliament of Malaysia describes the Shadow Cabinet as follows:

A team of Members from the Opposition who act as the spokesperson of the Opposition on key portfolios of the Government. Each member of the shadow cabinet is appointed to lead on a specific policy area for their party and to question and challenge their counterpart in the Cabinet. In this way the Official Opposition seeks to present itself as an alternative government-in-waiting.

That would mean that for each and every member of the Government, there's a respective counterpart to the Opposition. That would mean every minister has a shadow minister. It would mean that with more direct scrutiny--it would be easier to handle things. 

How the Philippines may have benefited from a Government vs. Opposition format 

No gossip, no hearsay, face-to-face debates,
liars are slapped in the parliamentary system!

Now, let's imagine the scenario where Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. and Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo are faced against each other weekly. If the campaign of Mrs. Robredo is to have good governance, a parliamentary system would make it more possible. It's because the Opposition scrutinizes the Government. The Marcos Jr. administration is now directly scrutinized by Mrs. Robredo's platform. That means the Marcos Jr. vs. Mrs. Robredo battle doesn't end with the elections. Instead, Marcos Jr. and Mrs. Robredo continue their competition in the Philippine Parliament. It would mean giving Mrs. Robredo the chance to prove herself and not have to wait until the next elections. 

This would mean that Marcos Jr. must uphold the confidence of the MPs. Some people have been criticizing Marcos Jr.'s statements. Well, it would be better to have Marcos Jr. on a live questioning done by Mrs. Robredo. All a member of the parliament has to do is lose the confidence of the Parliament. For example, Marcos Jr. would still insist on his platform of PHP 20.00 per kilo of rice (which is just impossible) or whatever platforms I find rather questionable. Marcos Jr. would need to show how he can do it. In the case that becomes the scenario, Mrs. Robredo can file for a motion of no confidence against Marcos Jr. as prime minister. This means that if Marcos Jr. loses 51% of the Parliament's confidence, he's automatically ousted like any MP who fails to do so. Maybe, Marcos Jr. can survive a few times but more scrutiny might either (1) make him straighten up, (2) resign if he can't do his job, or (3) be publicly humiliated by losing a motion of no confidence. 

This would mean that there would be better voices. The minority votes will have a voice. It will not be a winner-takes-all scenario. I think Mrs. Robredo has some platforms that we can use today. They could've been brought up if there was a real Parliament. Marcos Jr. will have to defend his platforms or modify his platforms. If Marcos Jr. survives, it would mean that the results of the debates between Marcos Jr. and Mrs. Robredo (as well as their subordinates) must be sorted out. That would include approval of bills into laws, and amending the constitution if ever there are defects (ex. if an anti-terrorism law has provisions that could violate the right of due process). 

I believe that establishing the Parliamentary Republic of the Philippines can benefit it. Sure, some non-charter change people are advocating removing 60-40 entirely. Some boomers are open to removing the economic restrictions while still saying it doesn't matter if it was presidential or parliamentary. The excuse, is often made, is that other presidential countries doing better than the Philippines. However, think about Malaysia vs. progressive presidential countries in terms of politics. I don't want the Philippines just to perform better economically but also politically. That's why I'm in for the parliamentary system.