SC Decision on VP Sara Impeachment: Why a Vote of No Confidence Would've Been Better

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?

What's the Use of Complaining About Celebrities and Political Dynasties Running for Politics While DEFENDING Presidential and Rejecting Parliamentary?

2025 is just around the corner for the midterm elections . People keep emphasizing the need to "defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines" for any amendments whatsoever. If that were true then we really need to remove Article XVII entirely if the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was meant to be set in stone (read here ). Several camps whether it's PDP-Laban supporters, Liberal Party of the Philippines supporters, Uniteam supporters, etc.--I can expect social media mudslinging at its finest . I keep talking about the need to amend or even replace the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, they keep acting like it's the best constitution in the world, they cite Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (and others like the Monsods) to idolatrous levels , and when I talk about the parliamentary system--I can expect the whole, "Boohoo! It will never work because we already tried it under Marcos! The proof was Cesar Virata!" However, I wrote a refute on that ...

No to Cha Cha Because of EDSA?

Back when I was in elementary, we were told that EDSA 1986 was a good thing. I don't want to deny the well-documented human rights abuses of the first Marcos Administration . The repeated call to amend or reform the constitution has unfortunately been demonized as if it's always a bad thing. I guess that's a result of people with poor reading (and listening) comprehension for so long . If only people started to read in-between the details of Philippine history, if only people read through the book From Third World to First and not just quote the late Lee Kuan Yew about the Marcoses, they'll see that using EDSA to demonize charter change is really a bad move. Startling facts during the Marcos Years that may have been ignored by anti-charter change proponents What happened during EDSA was practically a revolutionary government . Above is a video of the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy. I confess that I do tend to admire Ninoy, especially with his Los Angeles sp...

The EDSA Revolution of 1986 Would've Never Happened if People were Stuck in Nostalgia

It's something that I read crybaby comments online where people are saying, "Making EDSA a special working day is making us forget the glory of EDSA." Please, let me remind people that even 10 years later , neither the late Lee Kuan Yew's birthday nor his death anniversary has become a national holiday in Singapore! Singapore simply honored LKY's birthday by working on that day. I was laughing at the toxic Facebook page called We Are Millennials. What truly made me think that these people are stuck in nostalgia is that EDSA 1986 would never have been possible if the Filipinos were stuck in nostalgia . I remember talks about how the first Marcos administration was built on these two pillars. The first pillar was information control . The other pillar was toxic positivity. I remember back in 1995 when the social studies teacher talked about how he thought that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was a "good president" due to the long holidays. However, the holidays ...

[OPINION] Why Do Some Filipino Boomers Insist that the Marcos Years Were Under a "Parliamentary System"

This is a screenshot I got on Facebook. The Tweet is courtesy of Raissa Espinosa-Robles, who I hear is a marites or a gossiper. I'm not denying that there are some truths in what she said. It's true that the Marcos Years have their well-documented human rights abuses. However, Mrs. Robles still continues to insist in the myth of a parliamentary system under Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s regime. It's not just Mrs. Robles but also some Filipino boomers who keep saying, "Are you crazy? We had a parliamentary system under Marcos." I could show them some evidence like Marcos' severe lack of legitimacy to disprove the parliamentary systme. I even wrote about the snap elections because Marcos was a president with powers (read here ). Under a parliamentary system, the president is purely ceremonial. The president is just a door opener and credentials receiver! Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. and Salvador "Doy" Laurel both challenged the legitimacy of Marcos...

Why EDSA Should Be a Reason to Support, NOT Oppose Cha Cha

I don't doubt that the EDSA Revolution left a legacy to the world. Yesterday, I wrote a piece where I asked if EDSA should be a reason to say no to cha-cha . It was a peaceful revolution though it's often argued that the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. didn't want to further ruin his already tarnished image in front of the world. How true was it that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., in his younger days, wanted to run over the protestors? However, consider EDSA wasn't really one of a kind. The Indian pacifist Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, and his writings inspired the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy . also led a similar revolution against the unjust British occupation of India during that time. Gandhi may have been dead by the time Ninoy read about Gandhi. However, Gandhi's peaceful protests left a legacy that was probably not so well-known before. Today, the Indian economy has been doing better than the Philippines. I even consult...

A Business Graduate's Reviewing History Blog

Search This Blog