Talks about impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio are on. However, I'd like to show the problem with the impeachment trial. Who can remember when former president Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada was under impeachment trial? One can say that when Estrada resigned, that proved that it doesn't matter if the country is presidential or parliamentary (since some economic powerhouses are still under the presidential system, like South Korea and Taiwan). However, we need to look at the political aspect of the parliamentary system. Is impeachment just as effective as a vote of no confidence? Let's find out!
What is impeachment?
Impeachment, in common law, a proceeding instituted by a legislative body to address serious misconduct by a public official. In Great Britain the House of Commons serves as prosecutor and the House of Lords as judge in an impeachment proceeding. In the federal government of the United States, the House of Representatives institutes impeachment proceedings by authorizing a formal inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee, which may then recommend articles of impeachment (an impeachment resolution) for a vote by the full House (articles of impeachment may also be introduced in the House without a formal inquiry). If the articles are approved, a trial is held in the Senate, and conviction is obtained by a vote of at least two-thirds of the senators present. In Great Britain conviction on an impeachment has resulted in fine and imprisonment and even in execution, whereas in the United States the penalties extend no further than removal and disqualification from office.
In the presidential system, an impeachment trial is only done when a public official has serious misconduct. In short, you need to wait for so-and-so to commit a crime like stealing public funds. Estrada already showed signs of being inept. However, people needed to wait until Estrada was charged with corruption before he could even be set for an impeachment trial.
Eve more, this is a real constraint of the impeachment trial in removing erring officials:
In the United States the impeachment process has rarely been employed, largely because it is so cumbersome. It can occupy Congress for a lengthy period of time, fill thousands of pages of testimony, and involve conflicting and troublesome political pressures. Repeated attempts in the U.S. Congress to amend the procedure, however, have been unsuccessful, partly because impeachment is regarded as an integral part of the system of checks and balances in the U.S. government.
That would be the problem with doing impeachment processes. It would mean having a lengthy process. If I were in office, why would I fear being impeached if most politicians find it cumbersome? I could easily manipulate the outcome with money.
Now, let's discuss the vote of no confidence
A vote of no confidence is defined by the UK Parliament as follows:
A motion of no confidence is a motion moved in the House of Commons expressing lack of confidence in the government or a specific minister.
Having the confidence of the House of Commons has been seen as central to a government's authority to govern in the UK. Traditionally, governments that have lost a confidence vote have either resigned in favour of an alternative administration, or the Prime Minister has requested a dissolution from the Queen, triggering a general election.
What does it take to remove a person to get legally charged? All it takes is a lack of confidence. For example, Mrs. Carpio's confidential funds are questioned. In the parliamentary system, Mrs. Carpio can lose the confidence of the parliament. Let's just say that the government is ran by Uniteam and the opposition is run by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party can call for a vote of no confidence, should Mrs. Carpio, as deputy prime minister, refuse to reveal her confidential funds.
Andrew James Masigan, a supporter of Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo (and a pro-charter change proponent), also wrote this about impeachment and a vote of no confidence:
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.
If we look at the vote of no confidence, all it takes for any politician to get into trouble is for parliamentary members to lose their confidence. Things like unwillingness to disclose what needs to be disclosed, are more than enough to call for a vote of no confidence.
Whether we want to admit it or not, systems do shape behavior
It's easy to say things like Filipinos have always been like that, blah blah blah. I'm sorry to say but the problem isn't the Filipino but the system that runs the Filipino. One must explain why there are successful Filipinos in better countries and why there are more failures in the Philippines. It's all about the system. As far as OFW mishaps are concerned, there aren't that much compared to crime in the Philippines. It's because of the system in itself, not because one is Filipino. Please do some research and find out that most Filipinos are descended from Malaysian settlers! Malaysia would still be considered da "huan-a" nation by Hokkien speakers! Huan-a is a word describing natives of Southeast Asia, by ethnic Chinese! Malaysians are considered huan-a too! Why is a nation of full of huan-as doing better than another nation full of huan-as?
I issued a challenge in my post about proving systems don't matter. Please, I don't need a PhD from Ateneo De Manila or the University of the Philippines, to understand systems do matter! What's the use of graduating cum laude from either of these two difficult-to-enter schools, all the while the education system of the Philippines, is questionable?
To evaluate the problem presidential system is a people-based system. When some people say change the system in the Philippines--they only think of regime change, not constitutional reform. Please, the constitution of the Philippines, is the law of the land, therefore it's the system of the country! To talk about how bad people-based systems are--Titanium Success talks this in the business environment:
If your business requires that kind of a person, you’re always going to be putting too much out there because you’re going to be too people dependent and you do not want to build a people dependent system. You want to build a systems dependent company.And when you have a systems dependent company and then you put really great people on it and you give them really great training, imagine how good that’s going to be. What it does, it also takes some of the pressure off of your people. Because they are following a system where they know that slight errors aren’t going to cause this entire thing to fall apart.
If the business requires you to wait for a competent person, how long would you wait until this "perfect leader" (there is no such person) arrives? What happens if that competent politician or manager resigns, becomes incapacitated, or dies? The system should depend on molding employees to become the right person rather than waiting for the right person. If the person refuses to conform to the system--the person gets into trouble. Let's use some basic rules for example. Rules like No Smoking, Keep Off the Grass, No Talking During Sessions, etc. would influence behavior. I violate it, I get reprimanded by proper authorities. If those rules didn't exist, proper authorities will have no duty to reprimand me. Why would I smoke if smoking's not allowed in that area? Why would I not smoke if there was no rules against smoking? It's really that simple!
The same goes for impeachment vs. a vote of no confidence. A public official is free to be an idiot all he or she wants if the only thing that will remove them is impeachment. Impeachment only focuses on officials not doing any acts of graft of corruption. However, rampant graft and corruption is a result of incompetence in people. A vote of no confidence addresses the root cause of corruption. A vote of no confidence is based on the person's competence and not just, "Well, at least he or she isn't corrupt." Sure, a person may not be corrupt in the political sense. That idiot may not be stealing public funds but may end up becoming the unwilling accomplice of the corrupt politician. Allowing incompetence to run rampant becausethe person "isn't corrupt" will allow corrupt politicians (and some do have a shrewd mind) to perpetuate their stay in power.
In short, the two are radically different. Impeachment only addresses the symptoms. Vote of no confidence identifies the root cause.