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.