Is There No Need for Constitutional Reform, Because the Nation is Now "Healing" During the Midterm Elections 2025?

Two days ago, I voted during the Midterm Elections. Of course, I'm not allowed to post my ballot online. I'll address people who believe the nation is "healing" because Atty. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan and Paolo Benigno "Bam" A. Aquino have won the senatorial race. Okay, congratulations to Kiko and Bam for winning. The nuisance candidate Apollo C. Quiboloy had lost the elections, thankfully. Some say that success is but a step-by-step process. However, you can be taking the wrong steps. To say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the "best in the world", has made us ignore Article XVII, and even think that the Filipino First Policy is good.

Here's a screenshot I took from Butthurt Philippines' Facebook page. Is it really "healing" for the country as claimed by this person, whose name I blocked out? I usually block out the names of people who are private citizens, to protect their identity. However, I may not block out the names of public figures. Anyway, this guy is celebrating that Bam and Kiko won, that Quiboloy lost (thankfully), the stubborn old generation is collapsing (sadly, so many boomers are plain stubborn), Vico Sotto won, Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo won as mayor in her place, and that's supposedly, "Okay, see, we've got one step closer to good governance!" The only thing that's missing is for them to say, "See? We don't need charter change!" 

However, we need to realize there's such a thing as short-term benefits and long-term benefits. In business, we can have short-term success and long-term success. For example, one may have short-term benefits with cryptocurrency over investing in bonds and stocks. However, cryptocurrency's volatility may not be the best long-term investment. I've invested in stocks (using UITFs) and they don't rise (or fall) as quickly as cryptocurrency. When it comes to investment, a long-term mindset is usually necessary. The same can go for the Philippines in its quest for recovery. One might say, "See, we told you a vote-wise campaign will work." However, that may just be short term benefit, like having sudden gains with cryptocurrency!

Click to enlarge

Here's Gerry Cacanindin (whose name I may not block out, compared to lesser-known people) giving his remarks. Ironically, Gerry here is trying to stop personality politics but the guy seems to be more focused on personalities again. If I'm not wrong, this guy is against constitutional reform of any kind. Maybe, Gerry still believes that the 1987 Constitution is "so perfect". Best sources? Perhaps the mouths of the likes of Atty. Christian Monsod (who gets mocked as XTian Monsod) and Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr.. For some, I often joke that their best source is from the former Catholic Bishops' Conference in the Philippines (CBCP) president, Archbishop Socrates Villegas, or any CBCP member, who's engaging in what's often called Padre Damaso antics. To be a Padre Damaso is to be a Catholic priest who's all too resistant to change, even when change is beneficial.

I wonder if these people are aware that the presidential system is really, well, personality-based politics (read here)? Some might say it's not, citing other countries that succeeded with a presidential system. Maybe, their favorite example is the United States of America--a country whose credibility tends to shrink more than it grows. If only the Kakampink fanatics would notice that it's not just them, but almost every party, puts their leaders on the pedestal. Be it the Noytards, Dutertards, Lenitards, Marcostards, and any tards! For example, Leni was getting more exposure than the Liberal Party. The same may have happened with Bam and Kiko. The focus became Bam and Kiko, not the Liberal Party. If we were in a parliamentary system, the Philippines may not even need to have midterm elections. Another thing is that, if the Liberal Party were the Opposition, Bam and Kiko would be Members of Parliament with their entire party! Sad to say, but that's often missed out! 

People tend to cite that, "We don't need charter change, look at the success of the late Noynoy Aquino." I'm not dismissing any successes by the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III. However, to rely on past successes is a surefire recipe for long-term failure (read here)! That's why some boomers have lost their relevance--it's their inability to accept change. Come on, what happened to Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines?! Why is it that they're treating the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, like it's some holy infallible text when it isn't? The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines should be compared to an Articles of Incorporation, not sacred texts! Even worse, some people argue that the Philippines can "get worse" under a parliamentary system, still citing the same old lie that the Marcos Years were a parliamentary system (read here). Their best source? Perhaps from the "infinite wisdom" of Raissa Espinosa-Robles. Do they even realize that Cesar Virata was just an executive assistant during the martial law years (read here)? What happened to the efforts that Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel had, in actually exposing the illegitimacy of the first Marcos Administration? Ninoy even said, "We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament." Ninoy went on to mention how the 1973 Constitution was so unstable, rightfully citing 80 Days Around the World. The late Lee Kuan Yew even called Virata a nonstarter. I'm still baffled why some people insist that it was a parliamentary system. Is their reading comprehension that bad? 

What we need to realize is that any "healing" that happens right now is very short-term. Trusting Filipinos to vote wisely is a gamble. The unfortunate norm in the Philippines is that voters tend to want instant solutions. For example, why do you think former president Rodrigo R. Duterte (who's currently detained in the Netherlands, in a rather humane facility of the International Criminal Court) won? The promise of ending crime in three to six months is too good to be true. I even wonder if Leni would've won if she promised to make the Philippines like Singapore, in that same timeframe. President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. promised PHP 20.00 per kilo of rice and won. However, common sense dictates that such promises are too good to be true. You couldn't expect Filipinos to vote wisely as long as we've got a terrible education system, when poverty is still abounding, and we're starstruck, presumably as a form of escapism. 

If anything, Bam and Kiko may have won because of their promise of lower prices for food and free college. Those things aren't bad per se if funding is made transparent. Kiko may need to study agricultural techniques in more advanced countries (such as Vietnam), and Bam may need to study free education laws in developed countries. Free college should only be granted to people who belong to the lower poverty level. We need to face it that we couldn't eradicate poverty, since some people tend to keep habits that keep them poor. However, one must look and ask, "Are Bam and Kiko willing to accept badly needed reforms to get their platforms going?" Also, both Bam and Kiko need to realize that if the Philippines were under a parliamentary system, they would've been spending time presenting their views as Opposition members, with the Liberal Party of the Philippines as the Opposition party!

Why do I still hold that we need a parliamentary Philippines? 

It's because parliamentary systems would do away with nonsense personality politics. Instead, it's all about platforms. It's not (insert candidate) but it's all about focusing on the parties. For example, we have PDP-Laban and the Liberal Party of the Philippines. Both parties will need to think twice before doing anything stupid. For example, PDP-Laban even allowing that quack Quiboloy to run for senator, is a big no-no. Philip Salvador? That guy may have not been giving alimony to his illegitimate son Joshua Aquino for all we know. 

Parliamentary systems are far from perfect, but they're much better than the presidential system. Most countries that show better stability are under a parliamentary system. One could say Noynoy did this and that, but did it really put the Philippines away from the worst list, in the long run?! If you don't believe me, then check out Transparency International and do some Google research on the forms of government of the least corrupt countries. They're not corruption free but they have better methods to fight corruption.

Here's a meme I created for people with low reading comprehension. In this hypothetical scenario, we need to check how the Government and Opposition are well-defined. Not much of the system? However, if we think about it, a parliamentary Philippines would have Partido Federal Ng Pilipas (Federal Party of the Philippines) and the Liberal Party of the Philippines facing each other, weekly. When did such an event happen during the Martial Law years? Ninoy was just an Opposition Leader in name only. A real parliamentary system would've had Marcos Sr. and Ninoy debate each other, head on. No such thing happened. Marcos Sr. was his own prime minister and later handpicked Virata, while he was president with powers. Those events already dismiss the myth of a Marcos Parliamentary! 

A parliamentary system would have diverse opinions, from the Government and the Opposition. Team Bongbong and Team Leni would face each other. Team Leni would question Team Bongbong. Team Bongbong would need to answer right away. As mentioned earlier, Kiko and Bam would already be in the parliament if the Liberal Party were the Opposition party. It's because voters will vote via parties, not separate candidates. No need to look for certain candidates. Instead, people will just vote for the party that they believe will help the Philippines. There would be no monopoly of power. The Government and the Opposition have their roles. Even better, weekly debates between the two sides, can reveal which party is credible. It would also mean the removal of certain party members who may ruin the name of their respective parties. A vote of no confidence can be raised, if ever any member of the parliament loses the confidence of the Parliament. That means such leaders who are termed pasaway (incorrigible) can be easier removed compared to an impeachment trial. These moves may cause more people to resign and plead guilty, giving less room for corruption. 

Andrew James Masigan, an economist and supporter of Leni, even supports charter change. Hopefully, Kiko and Bam will change their stance on charter change. Charter change doesn't mean that it's kissing away the Bill of Rights or no more elections. Charter change, if done right, can have tremendous benefits. Sure, success is a step-by-step process. However, broken and rotten steps don't lead to success. Success often means rerouting from the path you're in, to the better path. It may also mean replacing certain roads and bridges that need replacement. Bam and Kiko need to see that their victory now is short term. They need to realize that only a parliamentary system could give the Opposition, a real voice. 

If we're to focus on long-term healing, systemic change is what we need. Short-term benefits can be good but only if they lead to long-term benefits. One must think long-term, beyond peoples, and think that the system itself badly needs updating.