Skip to main content

A Parliamentary Philippines for Better Competitive Relations Between the Government and the Opposition

GMA News

There was a handshake between former vice president Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" Gerona-Robredo and President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. in Sorsorgon. The two shook hands despite the rivalry they had in 2016 and 2022 for two positions. Recently, Kristine PH has caused damage in certain areas of Luzon. Marcos has shown a sign of courtesy to Mrs. Robredo by sending rubber boats to Naga, Camarines Sur. It can be said, "See, we don't need a parliamentary system! Marcos and Robredo are now on good terms!" However, we can't always guarantee that the Government and the Opposition will always be on good terms. Some people still assume that systems don't matter. I even remember passing on someone on Facebook who said, "Why don't you give me a study that will prove the parliamentary system will work in the Philippines?" I fired a rebuttal and said, "Where's your study that the parliamentary system will make it worse?" The discussion went nowhere. I feel the person was an old boomer, still stuck with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. That kind of mindset is one of the many reasons why businesses fail.

However, if we look at how the parliamentary system works, it's not as easy as it seems 

No, the Marcos Years weren't a real parliamentary system (read here). Using Cesar Virata as "proof" has failed because based on history, the Marcos Years were never under a real parliamentary system (read here). As Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. mentioned, "We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament." Various changes during the first Marcos Administration already showed that there was no real parliamentary system. Virata was already considered a non-starter by the late Lee Kuan Yew--a person who ran a real parliamentary government. Instead, we need to take a look at the parliamentary system and how it works.

PARL


How does a parliamentary system work? Leni supporter and economist Andrew James Masigan gives this detail: 
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.


As illustrated, the Government has its own cabinet and the Opposition has its own cabinet. The Liberal Party of the Philippines aka Dilawan will become the Opposition if their party gets enough votes. It's not a winner-takes-all scenario. There are cases of coalition government and coalition opposition. In my favorite illustration--both Leni and her running mate Atty. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan will still have a voice with their entire party. That's only possible if we were in a parliamentary setting. 


The Government faces off against the Opposition. The Opposition party's job is to question the government and provide alternatives. Let's say that Leni is the Opposition Leader and Bongbong is the Prime Minister. Leni has her own cabinet that will provide alternatives to what Bongbong's cabinet will propose. Each side of the coin will face off against each other in a formal debate. The debate is to overall ensure better policymaking. That was something absent when Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. ruled. As Salvador Laurel said during that time, there was no legitimacy in the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines. Marcos lacked legitimacy in his position as president. At one point, Marcos became a "prime minister". Where were the debates between Marcos and Ninoy at that time in Parliament? It was non-existent because there was no parliament. 

A parliamentary Philippines would encourage friendly competition. People who think social media or the press are enough--aren't thinking clearly. In fact, it's because systems shape behavior. Come on, where is their legitimate study from a first-world country that systems don't shape behavior? Can they prove it based on empirical evidence? To quote Alex Magno from the Philippine Star--this is meaningful:
When Mahathir endorses the parliamentary form for us, he is not offering an opinion from the ivory tower. He is speaking from the vantage point of a successful leadership episode. He is speaking with the richness of experience of what this form of government has made possible for him to accomplish despite the adversities his people had to face.

It's not like Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr., the Monsod couple, or any of the Filipino lawmakers that are using some hearsay. Yes, Davide is a constitutionalist but has he really backed up his claims? The Monsod couple is composed of a lawyer (Atty. Christian Monsod) and an economics professor (Solita Collas-Monsod). Have the Monsods really backed up their claims? This isn't about seeking affirmation from foreigners all the time. However, we need affirmation and feedback from neighboring countries, like we need affirmation and feedback from people of good credibility. The vantage point of experience and results speak louder than claims made by constitutionalists, who still believe that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is some "divine revelation", never mind Article XVII says otherwise. 

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

The Three Drug Mules Executed in China Last January 30, 2011

Al Jazeera Today is March 30, 2026. It has been 15 years since the execution of the three drug mules. Their names are Sally Ordinario-Villanueva, Ramon Credo (who was cremated in China shortly after his execution), and Elizabeth Batain (whose face was never revealed, perhaps due to the loved ones requesting more privacy). Contrary to what one might think, the three drug mules weren't a trio. Instead, they were three separate cases that just happened to be scheduled to die on the same day.  They weren't a trio. They had a temporary reprieve when  former vice president Jejomar Binay tried to save them . Villanueva, together with Ramon Credo and Elizabeth Batain, was scheduled to be executed last month but got a reprieve after Vice President Jejomar Binay traveled to China and personally appealed to Chinese authorities. BBC   News even gave such a short news report, that I felt compelled to copy/paste the whole time as a reference here: Philippine Vice-President Jejomar Bin...
Read more

Mahatma Gandhi's Use of Tax Evasion, as a Form of Protest?

The 40th anniversary of the 1986 EDSA Revolution came last month. Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. said these words: "According to Gandhi, the willing sacrifice of the innocent is the most powerful answer to insolent tyranny that has yet been conceived by God and man." Basically, EDSA 1986 can't claim to be all too unique. Ninoy had made Gandhi an inspiration. The dictatorship of the First Marcos Administration may be over . However, the Philippines is still stuck in another dictatorship called the dictatorship of the Filipino First Policy . It does sound stupid, but even without Marcos or foreign colonization (please stop mistaking foreign investment with foreign invasion ), there's still some oppression to fight. You can think about decades of overly high taxes and restrictions on foreign investments.  Now, we need to look at the historical context in which Gandhi's "tax evasion" occurred. According to a Jagran Josh   article written by ...
Read more

Wrong Assumption: Those Who Wish to Reform the 1987 Constitution are Automatically Marcos Loyalists and Diehard Duterte Supporters

Orion Perez Dumdum, founder of the CoRRECT Movement was featured in the INQUIRER.net page. It's no surprise that there would be detractors every now and then. Some people still believe that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "inviolate". If that were so then why does Article XVII exist that the constitution is open for amendments ? It's no surprise that some idiot alleged that Orion is actually a Marcos supporter. The arguments by the anti-reforms are basically Nom Sequitur and Ad Hominem . The use of personal attacks and illogical conclusions are common argument flaws. In fact, one just needs to understand the poor Filipino logic . I remember all the stupidity going on. It's funny such people accuse me of Ad Hominems while doing Ad Hominems themselves! What I'd like to focus on is the Nom Sequitur. Its definition is: 1 : an inference (see inference sense 1) that does not follow from the premises (see premise entry 1 sense 1) specifically : a fallacy...
Read more

The EDSA Revolution of 1986 Would've Never Happened if People were Stuck in Nostalgia

  It's something that I read crybaby comments online where people are saying, "Making EDSA a special working day is making us forget the glory of EDSA." Please, let me remind people that even 10 years later , neither the late Lee Kuan Yew's birthday nor his death anniversary has become a national holiday in Singapore! Singapore simply honored LKY's birthday by working on that day. I was laughing at the toxic Facebook page called We Are Millennials. What truly made me think that these people are stuck in nostalgia is that EDSA 1986 would never have been possible if the Filipinos were stuck in nostalgia . I remember talks about how the first Marcos administration was built on these two pillars. The first pillar was information control . The other pillar was toxic positivity. I remember back in 1995 when the social studies teacher talked about how he thought that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was a "good president" due to the long holidays. However, the holidays ...
Read more

BRUTAL Truth: Stop HOPING for Another "PNoy-Like President" Because the Parliamentary System will Produce MUCH BETTER Leaders

Let me get this straight, I'm not here to totally dismiss the good that the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" C. Aquino III did. I'll try to be least biased  when I'm writing this to "give a shock" to those who tend to treat his term as a "magical time". However, I'm going to have to warn people about the problem of looking for "another Messiah leader". Yesterday was the would've been 66th birthday of Noynoy if he were alive. One can talk good about Noynoy's legacy. However, we need to realize that relying on Noynoy's term is a violation of the Mahathir Mohamad principle of "Never stop learning."  We need to think that there's only one Noynoy and when he died, he died . TV-5 reveals that Rep. Edgar Erice, a long-time friend of the late leader, also said the following: Caloocan City 2nd District Rep. Edgar Erice made the remark in a social media post marking Aquino’s 66th birth anniversary.  In the post, he co...
Read more