Okay, We've Heard These Wise Words by the Late Luis V. Teodoro, But Ever Heard of His Words About th PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM?!

There's nothing wrong with complaining. Complaining can be productive. However, the problem with the likes of Butthurt Philippines (where I got the quote above) is that they'd rather stick to complaining than getting solutions. Even worse, it seems that the administrator of the Butthurt Philippines Facebook page is that he'd rather look at me as some "DDS troll". Is that the best answer that its owner, who I heard is Lico Reloj (if that's his real name), could even come up with? They'd dismiss me because I'm part of the CoRRECT Movement Moderated Public Forum. I've been insulted for my supposed poor ability in detecting sarcasm. Maybe I should've researched word elongation to detect sarcasm. However, with the way Butthurt Philippines' Facebook page carries things--I doubt that it's productive complaining. 

The quote by the late Luis V. Teodoro is right. I was reminded of why I wanted to move out of the Philippines. I always felt it was the people, not the system, that was the problem. I felt like the Philippines was a hopeless basket case because of things like a misplaced sense of Filipino pride (such as shouting "Pinoy Pride" just to stroke one's ego), people who keep voting for celebrities over the more knowledgeable people, people who refuse to follow the rule of law, etc. The real problem though, is with the system. Whether people want to admit it or not, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is already outdated. Why do you think Article XVII was even put there in the first place? 

Now, for some words of wisdom by Teodoro, which may have been ignored by Lico, the administrator of Butthurt Philippines:

The proposal for a shift to a parliamentary system is thus getting short shrift, not because it is without merit, but because it is the politicos making it.

And yet the parliamentary system has other, not as selfishly motivated, proponents. Former University of the Philippines president Jose V. Abueva, for example, heads a group of civil-society people and academicians that has been proposing a shift to the parliamentary system, among other reasons to break the gridlock between the executive and the legislature that often afflicts Philippine governance.

Members of parliament would also be elected by district, a process that could put an end to the expensive and fraud-ridden elections that make a mockery of democratic participation in the Philippines.

Elections would theoretically be less expensive and cleaner. Although it is true that candidates for parliament could spend millions for a seat, the very same thing is happening right now. What would be eliminated are the costs of waging national campaigns, since the prime minister would not be elected directly, but chosen from among members of parliament on the basis of which party has the majority.

The parliamentary system, says the Abueva group, would not solve all the country’s problems. It would not make the electorate any more likely to elect MPs of vision, dedication and honesty any more than the presidential system has led them not to elect clowns and idiots.

No system can, by itself, impart that kind of wisdom. The key to any system’s success or failure is the state of political literacy of the electorate. For that, a period of education on the new system, which could also educate the electorate on its responsibilities and on democratic values, will be needed.

The Abueva group thus proposes constitutional amendments no earlier than 2010, to give the citizenry enough time to acquire the information it has to have so it can weigh with some degree of understanding the consequences and implications of the changes being proposed. This means going through with the election of 2004, and electing delegates to a Constitutional Convention at the same time, or immediately after.

This is one of the areas where the Abueva group departs from the House initiatives, which are based on a supposed “public clamor” for constitutional changes by 2004. If the House proposal were to prevail, the 2004 election would be suspended and everyone now in office would remain there for three years. What’s worse is that there would be no period of citizen education, and the electorate would in effect be rushed into making uninformed decisions crucial to the country’s present and future.

The Abueva group is also proposing the establishment of a federal system of government in the Philippines as a necessary companion to a parliamentary system. Under that proposal, the Philippines’ 80 provinces would be integrated in eight or 10 states which would deal with the immediate concerns of the population. A federal system would enhance the capacity of the people and the government to deal with the country’s problems, while at the same time protecting citizen rights because government power would be dispersed.

In short, a parliamentary system in a federal republic could do wonders in, indeed, throwing the rascals out and keeping and putting in power the men and women with an authentic concern for the country, who could begin to address its immense problems. The country has a supply of such people, except that only a few of them are, and would like to be, in government.

The way things are turning out, however, the parliamentary system as an option yet to be tried in this country (forget the Marcos period; his Batasang Pambansa was just a rubber-stamp “parliament”), and which the obvious failure of the presidential system should at least encourage, is losing out because of its loudest and most self-serving proponents.

It shouldn’t be, and to be so misled is to miss an opportunity to put in place a system which, if well-thought out and seriously implemented, could make a huge difference in the fortunes of the country of our despair.

Yes, the real truth is that the first Marcos Administration, under the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., wasn't even under a real parliamentary system. For more information, you may read my article talking about boomers insisting that the first Marcos Administration was supposedly under a "parliamentary" system.