Skip to main content

So How's the Impeachment Going, Huh, Die-Hard Defender of the "Infallible" 1987 Constitution of the Philippines?


Some people on Facebook are posting, "No to parliamentary system because we had it during Marcos' time." For the nth time, do I need to keep pointing out the facts that we never had a real parliamentary system? As for those anti-reform advocates who say, "The parliamentary system will worsen the Philippines", I would like to ask, "How is the Sara Duterte impeachment going?" The complaints were passed last December 2024 and again, I would like to ask in Tagalog, "How's the Sara Duterte impeachment going"? 

If we look at the definition, the Encyclopedia Britannica gives this definition of 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 other words, the legislature must wait for the public official to be guilty of serious misconduct. It means that incompetent politicians can still stay in power, as long as they don't commit serious misconduct.

When I propose a vote of no confidence, it's not synonymous with an impeachment trial. In fact, the UK Parliament gives this definition:

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. 

The Parliament of Singapore also gives this definition:

Vote of No Confidence

A motion may be moved by any Member, usually from the Opposition, to seek a vote of no confidence in the Government. 32 An affirmative vote of no confidence by the majority of Members (excluding nominated Members) present signifies that the Government has lost the support of Parliament and the Prime Minister may have to resign. The President may then appoint a new Prime Minister to form a Government or dissolve Parliament for a general election to be called. (See also Vote of Confidence) Art 39 of the CRS.

As the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. (read here) provided his details, he revealed that if the Philippines were truly a parliamentary system, there should have been a vote of no confidence. However, there was none as late Ferdinand E. Marcos Jr. was practically ruling like a king in a kingdom, not a symbolic head of state! 

Andrew James Masigan, a Duterte critic and supporter of Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" Gerona-Robredo, even said this:

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.

In other words, there would be no room for things like confidential funds. Sara would need to account for her funds, not make them confidential. Sara would need to answer the Opposition. Let's say that our Government is occupied by Uniteam and the Opposition is occupied by the Dilawans. Let's have both Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. and Mrs. Robredo leading their respective teams. For instance, if Sara, as deputy prime minister, fails to fulfill her mandate--Atty. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan (who's won the race, congratulations and hopefully, he sees the beauty of charter change) could've called for a vote of no confidence against Sara. If Sara loses the confidence of the Philippine Parliament--she would no longer be sititng as Deputy Prime Minister now. If "Bongbong" still insists in his PHP 20.00 per kilo rice--he too can be removed for failing to fulfill his mandate. In a worst-case scenario, the Dilawans may take over the Government, and a new Opposition is formed. 

If the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines were "inviolable", what happened to Article XVII then? Is it now just "good for display" as Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. would like to insinuate? I wonder what Kishore Mahbubani of the National University of Singapore (NUS) has to say about that? Honestly, Mahbubani has been more credible than Davide. Davide speaks ,but where's his evidence? Mahbubani speaks, and Singapore is the evidence.

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Rare Interview Footage of Ninoy Aquino and Doy Laurel in Japan, Reveal Marcos Years Were NEVER a Legitimate Parliamentary System

People who are afraid of shifting to a parliamentary system tend to use the Marcos Years as proof. Fearmongers on Facebook are still up to their old tricks, using the Marcos Years to say, "No to cha-cha!" Never mind that a new constitution had to be written after 1986. If anything, Article XVII was inserted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because it was never meant to be set in stone. Also, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was illegal .  Here's a video of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel. The words of Laurel here show the problem of Marcos' "parliament". Marcos' "parliament" lacked legitimacy . Where was the sporting chance of the Opposition? If it was a real parliamentary system, Ninoy would've been leading the Opposition in weekly debates against the Marcos-led government. That is if the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was the prime minister. If Cesar Vir...
Read more

A Parliamentary Philippines with Mandatory Weekly Questioning Will Be Better Than Its Mandatory Yearly Presidential SONAs

Rappler I must admit that ignorance of the difference between the parliamentary system vs. the presidential system is there. Some people still insist on the myth that the first Marcos Administration headed by President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.'s late father, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., was really a parliamentary system. In reality. the Marcos "parliamentary" years during the Martial Law era, were still presidential (read why  here ). A simple research would show that Cesar Virata was called by the late Lee Kuan Yew, as a non-starter and no leader. LKY would know how a real parliamentary system works. Sure, it's one thing that those who consider themselves Dilawan, voice their criticisms. However, the big problem of the Dilawans is their focus on political idolatry rather than solutions. I can talk with the Dilawans all they want that we do need to shift to the parliamentary system and some of them still cry foul, say that it'll be a repetition of the first Marcos Admi...
Read more

The Foolishness of Complaining About Stupid Voters and Stupid Candidates, While Insisting the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "So Perfect"

I was looking into the Facebook page of Butthurt Philippines . Honestly, it's easy to complain but what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions? The art produced by its administrator shows some problems. However, if the administrator here believes that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "perfect as it is" (and he seems to be throwing a "saving face" by saying it was just sarcasm, and I failed to detect it) then it's really something. It's one thing to keep complaining. Complaining can be good. However, what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions. Even worse, complaining about the quality of candidates for the upcoming 2025 midterm elections , while still saying, "It's not the system it's the people!" Please, that kind of thinking has been refuted even by basic psychology and political science! It's really good to point out the three problems. Distractions? Check. Keeping people hopeless? ...
Read more

Don't Expect a Mahathir-Type Leader, Under the 1987 Constitution!

ABS CBN News Happy 100th birthday, Mahathir Mohamad! It's something that not so many people live up to 100, or more. The late Fidel V. Ramos passed away on July 31, 2022, at the age of 94. Ramos's advanced age may be the reason why the Omicron variant (which isn't supposedly fatal) ended his life. I'm posting this image of Ramos and Mahathir for one reason--Ramos wanted charter change back in the 1990s. However, plenty of anti-charter change commercials came in, the late Raul Roco said we only need a change in people, and we have Hilario G. Davide Jr. (who's in his late 80s but still active), and the idea that having a president who will rule for more than six years, is supposedly scary. Please, have they even thought that the late Pol Pot ruled Cambodia for just four years, but carried millions of deaths , that would make the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s 20-year reign  look tame (read here )? I've read posts on Facebook saying the Philippines just needs l...
Read more

Why I Believe So Many Filipinos (Especially Boomers) Misunderstand (and Blindly Oppose) Charter Change

Okay, I'm no political analyst or historian. That doesn't mean I should just shut up and not share my opinion. I felt like I needed to publish this piece. This is where I want to examine another issue. I've noticed some people on Facebook are sharing the quotes of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. Some would try to do Ad Hominem attacks on me because I'm no constitutionalist (which I admit that I'm not). Just because I'm not a constitutionalist, doesn't mean, that I can't quote from the experts . Do I really need a degree in law at one of those prestigious universities in the Philippines? Sadly, some people are supposedly smarter than me but are the ones spreading nonsense.  Understanding charter change We need to see the definition first to understand why so many Filipinos, especially boomers , are so against it. The Philippine Star   gives this definition of charter change: Charter change, simply, is the process of introducing amendments or revisions to the ...
Read more