Was Cesar Virata's Position as "Prime Minister" the Best Proof That a Parliamentary System Won't Work in the Philippines?

Kahimyang Project

It's often said by some of the now-old folks that the Philippines was once under a parliamentary system. I had some insults from a close-minded political scientist, some former dancer of an OFW, and others whenever I said, "We must shift to the parliamentary system!" They would say, "Look stupid! We already had a parliamentary system back in the Marcos Years!" I ask for the proof and they keep using Cesar Virata. By using insults, they start to make me doubt their credibility. It's because insults and other forms of Ad Hominem attacks are often the favorite tools of sore losers. 

I would like to give this an example. One of their best sources is Cesar Virata. At first, it sounds like, "Okay, we had a parliamentary system." However, we must take note that not every country that has a prime minister, is under a parliamentary system. Some of them are still presidential in nature with parliamentary features. I wonder if Mrs. Raissa Robles is going to say that South Korea, China, Taiwan, and France are parliamentary countries--because they have a prime minister. However, if we're doing a basic study--there was no way that Virata is good proof. 

For the basics, please Google the differences between presidential and parliamentary. If you need to pay, please pay. Now, I'd like to address the area where Mrs. Robles unfortunately shot her own foot:

On the part of Marcos, his 1973 Constitution provided for a Vice-President but this post was only made available during the snap election in 1986. Marcos was allergic to vice-presidents, having quarreled with his vice-president, Fernando Lopez, whom he accused of plotting against him. Sounds familiar?

The 1986 Edsa People Power put an end to Marcos’ semi-presidential-parliamentary set-up and restored the presidential form of government with all its checks and balances.

Duterte has made no bones about his deep dislike for checks and balances. In August last year, Duterte threatened to declare Martial Law if Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno stopped his war on drugs. In the same month, Duterte also threatened to shut down Congress if it bungled his plan to change the Constitution and set up a parliamentary-federal system.

The fruit of the 1986 Edsa people Power is the 1986 Constitution.

Mrs. Robles has confessed with was semi-presidential--not a real parliamentary system! Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. had given details. Salvador "Doy" Laurel even challenged the legitimacy of Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. during the martial law days. However, the details are with Ninoy's Boston speech, which was a few years before he died: 

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.”

Ninoy revealed the loopholes as to why there was really no parliamentary system. Virata was hand-picked but Marcos will be all-powerful. I laughed at Ninoy's direct jab against Marcos' "parliament". It's because the Philippines never had a parliamentary form of government! I wonder what Mrs. Robles has to say. As Laurel and Ninoy said--there were no meaningful elections. A real parliamentary system would've had meaningful elections. Instead, Marcos was in power that long because there were no meaningful elections. 

Later on, the great Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore wrote about his meetings with Virata. Virata is in his 90s so it'll be hard for him to recall the event. Fortunately, LKY recorded his memoirs including how his son Lee Hsien Loong rose to power. As I was reading the book From Third World to First--I wonder what rebuttal Mrs. Robles will have for this:

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.

I beg people not to just quote LKY about the Marcoses but also the rest. LKY wasn't a bit impressed with Virata as a potential successor to Marcos. LKY even called Virata a nonstarter and no political leader. In a parliamentary system, a prime minister has to be a political leader. Marcos' term was well-defined as a presidential system, even by the words of the man himself! 

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.

Again, even the records of Philippine history refute the idea. Just because Virata was designated the office of prime minister--it doesn't mean that the Philippines was parliamentary. Marcos was deposed as a president with powers--not as some ceremonial head of state! That's already more than enough proof that Virata wasn't even in a parliamentary system. 

The Prime Minister may advise the President in writing to dissolve the Batasang Pambansa whenever the need arises for a popular vote of confidence on fundamental issues, but on a matter involving his own personal integrity. Whereupon, the President may dissolve the Batasang Pambansa not earlier than seven nor later than fourteen days from his receipt of the advice, and call for an election on a date set by him which shall not be earlier than forty-five nor later than sixty days from the date of such dissolution.

Once again, Virata was just another first-class administrator but no leader. LKY headed a real parliamentary system. However, the Philippines was still presidential even with Virata as a prime minister. Marcos was even both president and prime minister--more proof that there was really no parliamentary system. Ninoy's statement of a parliamentary without a parliament means there was really no parliamentary system. LKY having been prime minister of Singapore for some time, would know Virata was nothing more than an administrator but no leader. If we were under a real parliamentary, Virata would've been leading the country and Marcos would have been delegated to symbolic status.

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

Under a real parliamentary system, the seating arrangement will not be like the Batasang Pambansa or National Assembly. Instead, it would be the two sides namely the government and the opposition debating each other. Where was Ninoy in all of that? Ninoy went to jail and later in exile. Ninoy was allegedly involved in a terrorist plot. It's possible that Ninoy never had a fair trial either. If there was a real parliamentary with Marcos as the prime minister--why wasn't there any debate between the Marcos-led government and the Ninoy-led opposition? There was none of that. Ninoy was an opposition in the sense that he opposed the Marcos presidency.

I expect my opponents to hurl insults at this argument because I'm writing on a free domain. They would be quick to say that I'm actually using Ad Hominens. As if calling me names like moron and idiot, aren't Ad Hominem attacks! However, I need to say my piece and I did some research. Virata couldn't be proof for all those reasons. I don't expect people to believe me. However, I still feel the need to say my piece, "Virata can't be proof that the Philippines was under a parliamentary system or that it'll never work in the Philippines!"