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

Is It Just a Coincidence that Most Least Corrupt Countries, are Under the PARLIAMENTARY System?

It's easy to post an outrage on Facebook, whether it's on the Butthurt Philippines' Facebook page or Gerry Cacanindin's relatively open Facebook profile (except that only his friends can comment). I try to ignore the guy's page. I was wondering if Gerry has learned his lesson (that the Philippines badly needs a system upgrade) or if he still wants to believe that "It's just a matter if Leni Robredo or Vico Sotto." The latest Facebook post gives me something to think about: People often ask why some countries seem almost immune to corruption. As if their leaders are just magically more honest. But that’s not really it. The truth is actually simpler. These countries didn’t wait for good people. They built systems where doing something dirty is hard, risky, and usually not worth it. In the least corrupt countries, corruption isn’t just illegal but inconvenient. Paper trails are everywhere. Payments are digital. Contracts are public. Anyone can look up wh...
Read more

What? The Aquinos Aren't Part of a Political Dynasty?!

  I was looking at the Mahal Ko Ang Pilipinas  (I Love the Philippines)  Facebook page, which made me laugh. This is what they wrote on their post saying that the Aquino Family isn't a political dynasty: THE AQUINO FAMILY IS NOT A POLITICAL DYNASTY 🇵🇭🎗 Pro-Duterte blogger Tio Moreno says that Bam Aquino is part of a political dynasty because the Aquino family is a political dynasty. But to me, this is not true. Why is it not true that the Aquino family is a political dynasty? 🤔 1. When Ninoy Aquino entered politics, none of his children joined him in his endeavors, and even his wife Cory did not join him in politics. 2. When Ninoy was assassinated in 1983, none of his children succeeded him in politics, not even his wife. But when the opposition and his supporters were looking to be the opposition's candidate for the presidency in the snap election called by Ferdie Marcos for 1986, his housewife Cory Cojuangco-Aquino was approached, encouraged or convinced by people t...
Read more

Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad: Just a Matter of Strong Leadership Without a Good System?

Jakarta Globe It's very easy to talk about how we need character change only, not a charter change. I say that having a charter change (better termed constitutional reform ) will lead to character change. The old saying of some boomers goes, "It's common sense that nothing is wrong with the system, just the people running the system." However, when I ask something like, "If that's so then why do other nations have better leaders? What about Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew?" Their answer is, "Well, that's proof that the system isn't defective, it's just the leader." This can also come from people who believe what Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that there's nothing wrong with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, that it's the "best in the world". The arguments are clearly illogical at best . Some say that the parliamentary system worked in Malaysia and Singapore because those heading it aren't corrupt. T...
Read more

Why Philippine Elections Can Be Compared to GAMBLING

Gemini AI Art Some time ago, I wrote an essay that Filipinos can expect to lose more money betting that people will vote wisely . It's time for the truth,  and the  inconvenient truth hurts now, doesn't it? I had Gemini AI create this new AI art of President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. and Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" S. Gerona-Robredo, at the casino, just to make a point. Sure, Bongbong shook hands with Leni in Sorsogon as a step for political reconcilation . However, such events should be considered more like random variables, such as getting your ball to land on a certain color and a specific number in a game of roulette.  Let's define what a gamble means. The Cambridge Dictionary defines gamble as: to do something that involves risks that might result in loss of money or failure, hoping to get money or achieve success: The gamble of whether your candidate wins or not, because popularity is fickle It's effortless to say, "It's not rea...
Read more

My Experience with a Cataract and Laser Eye Surgery

What really scared me was when my left eye got blurred. At first, I was hoping it was just a dry eye. I had my check-up done. My worst fears were confirmed by my cloudy vision. I had a cataract but at age 37? It was pretty young. It was a developmental cataract or a developmental defect . I was told that there was no other choice but to have surgery. I was pretty scared. I decided it was time to really view cataract surgery and discover the amazing use of laser cataract surgery. It's a good thing I dismissed the bogus claims of cataract-dissolving drops.  Above is a sample video of what was shown in the hospital. I was nervous at first about what could happen. Having been told by the doctor (and will not disclose further details out of respect for the doctor's privacy) that it'll take faster than the manual surgery was a relief. I was willing to spend more on laser surgery rather than have the bladed procedure. I could say I was scared of the bladed procedure. I heard that ...
Read more