Above is a hilariously stupid video called "Dumb Ways to Vote". I remember back in the 2010s when I said, "How can the Philippines become better if Filipinos don't vote wisely?" I would spell out things like, "When will Filipinos learn to vote for doctors, lawyers, and economists instead of actors and athletes who know nothing about politics?" What's even stranger is that the same people addicted to personality politics (and I even assume that both Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo and President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. won because of personality politics) throw Ad Hominem attacks towards Senator Robinhood Padilla, who's still pushing for charter change. Some would call him names like Boy Chili or remind people of his already ex-convict status. I didn't vote for Padilla because I've had enough of voting for athletes and actors. However, I prefer to backfire, "Do you ever wonder why Robin Padilla won first place in the Senate, during the 2022 elections?" These people choose to blame the voters instead of the system that allowed the voters to even vote for Padilla!
The presidential system creates too many dumb voters because people vote based on popularity
If I recall correctly, former president Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada, was on the cover of Time Magazine. The caption said, "Is he unstoppable?" Jose De Venecia, who was House Speaker at that time, was more qualified to sit for president. Right now, some people say that Mrs. Robredo is more fit than Marcos Jr. However, it may be because of Marcos Jr.'s father, the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.--who caused so much controversy such as the Marcos Wealth issue and his widow Imelda Romualdez-Marcos' massive shoe collection. After watching The Kingmaker--I'm not going to deny there's massive plunder that was involved. However, Marcos Jr. won anyway, even if the promise of PHP 20.00 kilo rice is obviously unfeasible, to begin with.
People can say, "It's not the system! It's just the people! It's just the voters!" Do I need to state over and over again that systems influence behavior? Some people still say, "But the people make the system!" I wonder if such people are demanding a "perfect leader"-- something that they would need to create (which is impossible). Some even used Mrs. Robredo as an example that there's no need to amend even one part of the "sacred" 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. The big question is what's Article XVII for anyway? Just for a decorative piece? That's why I even wrote an article asking if the framers are willing to amend Article XVII to make the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, to make it unamendable. That would be a dilemma that they really need to answer! That means if the Philippine constitution will be amended--there's even going to be the need to replace it. The 1987 Constitution may not be entirely faulty. However, even one fault can totally disrupt the flow or even give full implementation!
People can say, "It's not the system! It's just the people! It's just the voters!" Do I need to state over and over again that systems influence behavior? Some people still say, "But the people make the system!" I wonder if such people are demanding a "perfect leader"-- something that they would need to create (which is impossible). Some even used Mrs. Robredo as an example that there's no need to amend even one part of the "sacred" 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. The big question is what's Article XVII for anyway? Just for a decorative piece? That's why I even wrote an article asking if the framers are willing to amend Article XVII to make the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, to make it unamendable. That would be a dilemma that they really need to answer! That means if the Philippine constitution will be amended--there's even going to be the need to replace it. The 1987 Constitution may not be entirely faulty. However, even one fault can totally disrupt the flow or even give full implementation!
Even worse, these people still insist on the same lie over and over again that the first Marcos Administration was supposedly a "parliamentary system" (read here). When I raised the late Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad, they would say, "Eh, that's just a matter of a strong leader!" However, I wrote a simple refutation on that (read here). If we're going to consider the circumstances set towards the two great leaders I mentioned vs. any Filipino leader--they're really that different. For other people, they would call me demeaning names and say nonsense stuff like, "Are you a traitor to our country? Why not listen to the Monsods and the great Atty. Hilario Davide Jr.?" The Monsod couple (who are namely Atty. Christian Monsod and Solita Collas-Monsod) and Davide can talk all they want. However, Mohamad isn't giving advice from an ivory tower. Mohamad is talking about his experience as a prime minister in Malaysia. In short, would Filipinos really vote for a Filipino candidate, who like Mohamad, is described by the Philippine Star as, "Tough-talking, brutally frank and often abrasive"?
The real issue is that people wouldn't vote wisely because the system encourages popularity-based politics. Let's say that one day, a tough-talking, brutally frank candidate, and often abrasive competent leader shows up. Now, the other candidate is a popular movie actor. The results were clear when de Venecia and Estrada ran against each other. De Venecia proved himself to be the better person. However, Estrada won anyway because of how popular he was. Should the people keep doing EDSA protests which may not always be successful? Please, don't give EDSA too much credit as the late Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi also did a similar protest. Gandhi's writing inspired the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. in the peaceful protests. Aquino Jr. even pointed out the harsh reality that, "We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament!" (read here). So much for claiming that the first Marcos Administration was a "parliamentary system", especially when LKY, who ruled a real parliamentary government, called Cesar Virata a non-starter. Virata as a prime minister, was only an executive assistant, like a chief minister to a ruling king or president. The South Korean government has a prime minister but it's still presidential overall.
How will the parliamentary system help remedy that?
I'm not calling for a magical solution but a real one. I don't claim the parliamentary system is perfect. No system is perfect, far from it. However, the parliamentary system is based on parties. It doesn't mean absolution of an election like what Marcos Sr. did during his mockery of a "parliament". People will vote by parties based on their platforms. For example, the candidates would be PDP-Laban and the Liberal Party of the Philippines. Right now, the Liberal Party of the Philippines could've been the opposition if we were in the parliamentary system. That means Mrs. Robredo and her party will be responsible for questioning Marcos Jr. and his party. However, becoming a prime minister is no easy feat. Take for example that Singapore has rigid requirements before one can even dream of leading the nation. After doing some readings, I have the right to doubt that Marcos Jr. would've even been leading the nation now if the Philippines had a parliamentary system. If Marcos Jr. didn't follow the steps in a parliamentary system--no one can expect him to sit as prime minister. Marcos Jr. can still expect to be removed by a vote of no confidence--if he ever became prime minister!
Sure, it may first start with the same set of people. However, parliamentary elections are party-focused. That means no more dance numbers or focus on figures. That means the Liberal Party of the Philippines would try to treat Mrs. Robredo, Atty. Leila De Lima, Manuel A. Roxas Jr., Atty. Jose Manuel "Chel" Diokno, Atty. Florin Hilbay, etc. like celebrities or by name recall. Instead, the focus of the Liberal Party of the Philippines is what it aims to do. That means even if the Liberal Party of the Philippines wins the Government seats, choosing the prime minister shouldn't be based on popularity but on credibility. What should also be noted is that if the Liberal Party of the Philippines should ever lose but gather enough support--the members become the Opposition. The Liberal Party of the Philippines will be required to form its Opposition or Shadow Government. If Mrs. Robredo is qualified to lead it, why not? Mrs. Robredo wouldn't be the focus but her entire party. It would force people to behave properly because they carry the name of the party.
.jpg) |
| No gossip, no hearsay, face-to-face debates, liars are slapped in the parliamentary system! |
Even better, people will know which party is doing better because of the weekly question hour. Let's give a scenario of how it works. Party A (headed by Marcos Jr.) is face-to-face with Party B (headed by Mrs. Robredo). For example, if Atty. De Lima should challenge Marcos Jr.--it's not going to be in the comfort of her own office. Instead, Atty. De Lima would challenge her direct counterpart in Marcos Jr.'s cabinet. Party B holds Party A accountable through the debates. Fears of so many traps (dirty rags) in the Parliament? Well, that can be remedied because of the penalizing system. It's broadcast live on television and it can be shameful to be unable to answer. Even better, it's done weekly. Party A vs. Party B would be facing off against each other--not the Opposition making individual press conferences. Party A members and Party B members are required to behave professionally, because they carry the name of their parties. The Opposition directly questions the government.
Amazingly, the colors here are akin to Marcos Jr., Sara Duterte-Carpio, Mrs. Robredo, and Atty. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan. Right now, Pangilinan would be the Deputy Opposition Leader if Mrs. Robredo were the Opposition Leader. The members of both Party A and Party B debate each other. Marcos Jr. begins the line with 7.5 minutes, followed by Mrs. Robredo, and up to the next set of ministers and shadow ministers. It's a "we" than "I", which means teamwork. That means whatever concerns that a party member brings, is unified. Both teams would show which members are fit for their office and not fit for the office. The prime minister or any party member doesn't need to do a crime to be removed. Instead, it's all about losing the confidence in one's ability to lead. For example, if the prime minister keeps saying stuff like, "I didn't know...", "I don't know..." or "It's the fault of the previous administration..."--it could easily yank off the prime minister. The same applies to people who aren't doing their jobs.
It's time to get out of the familiar territory just because it's familiar. I'm not saying the Philippines should enter into unfamiliar waters, because it's unfamiliar. Instead, we're talking about the results of parliamentary countries. Critics have passed me saying, "Where can you show that the Philippines will be better with a parliamentary system! Listen to Monsod and Davide..." accompanied by an insult. I'd like to ask, "Where's any study that will prove that the parliamentary system will make us worse? That study should come from a first world country and not just Monsod and Davide!"