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.