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 really the system, if you have good people." However, we need to look at history with the results of the Philippine elections to see if people will vote wisely, if you tell them to vote wisely:

1. During the 1998 elections, Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada, won the presidential race, despite his lack of common sense. He only sat until 2001. Despite Estrada's resignation, he was still able to run for mayor or even run for president in 2010. Where's the accountability in that?
2. During the 2010 elections, voters for the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III somehow only pressured him to run, because his mother, Maria Corazon "Cory" S. Cojuangco-Aquino, died of cancer before the elections.
3. During the 2016 elections, Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte was also a winner based on a popularity vote, which rendered the Dilawan "opposition", without a real voice, unlike if they were under a parliamentary system. 
4. During the 2019 elections, the #OtsoDiretso slate was created, and the same campaign went, "Vote wisely!" However, the #OtsoDiretso slate of the Liberal Party lost, and not one of them even won! It wasn't really that easy to determine who'd win the presidential race. I
   
5. During the 2022 elections, most of the bets were placed on Bongbong and Leni! It felt like Bongong and Leni were playing roulette at the casino while waiting for the actual election results.
6. One can say that the nation is "now healing" this 2025 (midterm elections) since Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino and Atty. Francisco "Kiko" Pangilinan had won the elections. But the big question is, "How long is this going to last?" 

More often than not, the elections can feel like this. Let's pretend that Bongbong and Leni were at the arcade, they both did Dance Revolution, and honestly, Leni winning or Bongbong winning is left to chance. It would be people betting on who would win the Dance Revolution match. People would be cheering for either Bongbong or Leni. It becomes the choice of popularity over credibility. Leni became popular, then Bongbong became popular. It proves that popularity is fickle. After all, it was a lack of popularity that knocked out the Liberal Party of the Philippines in 2016 and 2019. The same truth can be applied to any party that got knocked out during the elections!

Right now, one must think about how Bongbong actually won a popularity contest, not a credibility contest. If there were only two candidates, I would've probably voted for Leni over Bongbong. However, it became a gamble because the popularity of Bongbong vs. Leni was subject to change even before the election campaign began. People were hedging their bets on who would win between Bongbong and Leni. 

The real problem has been the system, not the Filipino, that causes the elections to be a gamble

It's effortless to complain about bobotantes (a combination of bobo, meaning stupid, and botante, meaning voter). However, why do you think the current system is really a wreck? We need to look at no other than the so-called "best constitution of the world", according to Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr.. We need to look at Article VII of the "best constitution in the world", and look at this provision:

Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.

The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.

The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

Since the president is elected by direct vote to rule over the country, it becomes a series of random variables. The same goes for each and every politician. They're dependent on random variables, and we should know one simple fact of life: "Popularity is fickle!" It's not just the president, but also when it comes to electing senators. They were all elected by direct vote as individual persons. It becomes conflicting variables when:

1. You tell Filipinos to vote wisely. 
   
2. However, the current system says that candidates with the most votes will be installed, whether they are credible or not. 
3. During every election, the focus isn't on the party but the candidate. One must think about how often the Liberal Party of the Philippines highlighted Noynoy, Leni, Bam, Kiko, etc., as a good example of how the candidates overshadow their party. The PDP-Laban slate was also tainted with that when the Dutertes overshadowed PDP-Laban, for some time. 

One must even ask if it's feasible to "change the system" only when there's no more (insert candidate) in power. The variables are stacked, which means:

1. For the DDS, how sure are they that there will be a time when no more Aquinos are in power? Given, Bam is an Aquino himself.
2. For the Dilawan, how sure are they that there will be a time when no more Marcoses and no more Dutertes are in power?  

It becomes a huge gamble because of random variables. The Aquinos went down in 2016, and then Bam won last 2025. The Dutertes were up in 2016, but how long will the Dutertes be in power? Those are what I mean by random variables. The Marcoses were despised because of their dictator father. However, it didn't take long for the dictator's children, such as Bonbong and Imee R. Marco,s to enter politics!  

In fact, people say, "We don't need the parliamentary system. Let's just hope (and pray for a miracle, perhaps for CBCP rallies) that we'll get a Mahathir or Lee Kuan Yew." However, this is still another gamble because to expect excellent leaders under an outdated system ignores one truth that systems influence behavior. The constitution is the very law of the land, the very system that the Philippines is meant to follow! 

How does the parliamentary system fix the gamble by relying less on "random variables" and more on party-based policies?

Again, before you keep bringing the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. up, I've already done enough research, and the late Lee Kuan Yew knew how a real parliamentary system was run! The real hard truth for those who still insist that we had a parliamentary system under Marcos, need to reexamine the history textbooks. The late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. even stated that, "We had a parliamentary form of government, without a parliament." Ninoy's own words lambasted the idea. Now, to really check the real issue with the parliamentary system. For a start, the parliamentary system lacks the use of mob rule, something that presidentiaism often does, as a dead end.

If we have to look into the parliamentary system, we need to know how it runs. If we are to look into the details, Leni supporter and economist Andrew James Masigan, says the following about the parliamentary system in Business World:

FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT

As mentioned earlier, the Duterte administration plans to a shift our form of government from a Unitary-Presidential form to a Federal-Parliamentary form. To better appreciate how a Federal-Parliamentary system works, it s best to look at it in contrast to a Federal-Presidential system.

A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.

A Federal-Parliamentary system , on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here, the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party they belong to, not on their personalities. The party with the most number of elected representatives is declared “the parliament.” The parliament elects its Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the members of his Cabinet (his ministers) from among the member of the parliament.

There are multiple advantages to this. First, the system does away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. It puts an end to the vicious cycle of presidential candidates resorting to corruption and incurring political debts just to raise funds for their campaign.

Even the poor can run for office so long as they are capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a federal-parliamentary system, we do away with people who win on the back of guns goons and gold.

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.

The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.

A parliamentary system is one where a “shadow Cabinet” exists. A shadow Cabinet is the corresponding, non-official Cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each Cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be adopted if it is deemed superior.

In the end, the systems allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate safeguards to protect the interest of the people.

Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest subscribe to a parliamentary system.

The intentions of charter change is good. Done right, it could be a game changer for the nation.

If we think about it, the gamble is lessened when parties are voted for. It's because the Opposition has a better voice. If the Philippines were under a parliamentary system right now, Bongbong would be having weekly debates with Leni. But it's not just Bongbong vs. Leni, but it would be between two parties. Team Bongbong is the government, while Team Leni is the opposition. Team Leni would have its own cabinet to scrutinize Team Bongbong, each with a corresponding shadow equivalent to each and every one. In short, it would be all about getting the best of both worlds. 

As said, we really need to consider this, "Are we still resisting the system that will stop gambles or are we too addicted to the system that causes us to get addicted to gambling?" It's a vicious cycle and people must be educated, to make a choice.