Still defending the 1987 Constitution? Some time ago, I wrote asking about the current vice president, Sara Duterte-Carpio's impeachment. I tagged a certain someone, and all he did was hurl more insults at my face. Eventually, that certain someone blocked me. A recent development of impeachment against Sara herself. What's really not too surprising is that the Supreme Court of the Philippines deemed the move unconstitutional. Still a problem of who runs the system than the system itself?!
The lower house of Congress had impeached Duterte in February, accusing her of misusing public funds, amassing unusual wealth and threatening to kill Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, the First Lady, and the House Speaker.
The problem with the impeachment trial is that it's really cumbersome. Who can remember the impeachment proceedings done against former president Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph "Erap" Estrada? Who can remember the impeachment trial against the late Renato Corona, during the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III's regime?
Before anybody can keep throwing the "Marcos Parliament" narrative (read here), please do more research on how a parliamentary government works! Now, we must look into how a vote of no confidence would've been better.
The Parliament of Singapore 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.
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.
If the Philippines were under a parliamentary system, some of Sara's actions already caused the House of Representatives to lose confidence in Sara's performance. If Sara has been supposedly misusing public funds, that should already be a call to summon her. Sara would need to face the entire parliament. Either Sara gives an account of the accusations, or she could lose the confidence of the Parliament. That means Sara could've been removed from office by a vote of no confidence.
Under the parliamentary system, the Government and the Opposition are entire parties. That means Atty. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan and Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino don't even need to run in the midterm elections. If the Liberal Party of the Philippines is the Opposition--all active members must participate as Opposition members. The Uniteam Government would face a "Behave or else" scenario. Every Government minister has a corresponding Opposition minister. That would force a more direct means of accountability.
All it would take is for Sara to behave in such a way, that she will lose the confidence of the Parliament. It could've called a vote of no confidence against Sara for her misbehavior. Instead, we all stuck with the "best constitution of the world" and its slow impeachment. It's already 2025 and 2026 is coming. How many more years before the next election?