Author Topic: What electoral reforms do you suggest? (Read 5265 times)

Way Nada · « **Reply #40 on:** October 25, 2007, 09:20:34 AM »

Lorenzo,

I agree to your opinion about the electoral college system of voting in America. If you have noticed and according to you; "The United States itself is having its own discourse in either ridding of the electoral college or maintaining it." So what happen? The result is still the American people maintained the electoral college system even if it is undemocratic. Why? Because they woke up to that system and it is good for them and still they called themselves as the 'champion of democracy' in the world. This lead to my hunch that, giving full democracy to the people is not politically and economically effective. Answering the point asked by Mr. Sigbin as; "What electoral reforms do you suggest?"

Of course not only democratic government has loopholes but every government in the world cannot escape its political infirmities. Democracy has a different meaning to different countries in the world. As what I said... even if America has the undemocratic system of voting we still revered them as the champion of democracy. England who inherited the tyranny of their kings and hide their brutal past is at ease to be called a democracy. Australia who grew up under the shadow of England called themselves democratic even if in Australia some laws are created by the police and decided also by the police. Mind you these nations I am mentioning are more than a hundred years old and still refrained their people to exercise their right to a full democracy.

The question raised here is, what electoral reforms does the Philippine needs?

Some people has the idea of reforming the electoral system by stopping the corruption in the Comelec, stopping vote buying, not voting actors and actresses into office, no to political dynasty and so forth. But all these things are part of growing up to be a fully democratic country. This cannot be avoided! But to avoid this is to restrict a little the democratic rights of the people. In America by restricting the people's full right to vote, the founding fathers of America wrote the provision in their constitution that an electoral college in every state should have the final verdict in an American presidential election. Therefore the popular vote is being screened by this electoral college. Kung pananglitan modaug didto sa state of New York by popular vote ang usa ka tawo nga mura ug kalidad lang ni Erap, the electoral college which composes intellectual Americans will screen the choice of the people.

Contrary to your opinion that a parliamentary system is too chaotic... I think you miss the point a lot. Pananglitan sa panahon ni Clinton sa White House. Clinton retrenched his WH staff because the opposition republicans in congress did not approve the government's budget. Today G.W. Bush Jr., a republican president has a hard time convincing the majority party in the senate who are democrats, to fund the war in Iraq making the winnability of the US troops put into a slow down. But still the government is intact because as what you said; 'The government of America is aged-time-tested system.' But if this happened in the Philippines the government won't last long. A coup d'etat will take over. And as what you said since we are still a young democracy we need guidance. Ug sa ato kinahanglan agakon una. Paluma-luma ka ug lakaw ikaw ra usa matumba ka.

But in a parliamentary system at the time of its foundation like the system in England and Australia is fully guided which right now it is a strong government with strong leadership. Technically members of parliament are not elected individually but they are elected by block voting. Meaning the people vote for a political party. You remember the election of 1978 in the Philippines? That was block voting. Once a party is put into parliament it is easy for legislation to pass because it is a caucus government. The majority party will decide in a caucus first before they will put a resolution in parliament for a debate with the opposition. Lutong macaw na daan ang balaod usa debatehan.

WN

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

Sigbin II · « **Reply #41 on:** October 25, 2007, 11:51:34 AM »

I am no fan of the late Pres. Marcos but I also do not believe in an absolute democracy where everyone, including the illiterate driven by their poverty to such desperation as to sell their votes and those who are unmindful of their duties as citizens of the State, are allowed to vote.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

Way Nada · « **Reply #42 on:** October 26, 2007, 06:57:01 AM »

Sigbin,

Sa ubang mga tawo malibug ang kutaw nila ngano man nga ining panahona sa atong nasud magasigi man ta ug usob-usob sa atong pamaagi sa pang-gobierno? Sa akong paminaw daghan ug kapasikaran kana nga naa sa tawo nga maoy kinaingnan sa kagubot bahin sa atong pulitika. Ang una mao ning kahakog sa tawo sa gahom nga mao gyud ang kinaingnan bisan pa sa ubang gobierno sa tibook kalibutan. Tungod kay bata pa ta sa pamulitika [immature] puguso ta kaayo nga bisan ug nahuman na ang eleksyon gusto gihapon mo-agaw sa gahum. Maga rebolusyon! Naunsa na man ni?

WN

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

grazie7y · « **Reply #43 on:** October 26, 2007, 07:12:06 AM »

Maayong adlaw diha, WN! Nia na pod kita hehehe! Apil bya ko rebolusyon adtong kang Marcos para ma butang si Cory Aquino (bata2x pa ko adto pero apil pod ko adto sa Davao ug pakigbisog kawat-kawat lang kay wala man kabalo ahong mga ginikanan adto!) human dayon, sa imo nang nahibaluan sa laing thread na nakigbisog pod ko para mawala si Erap sa kagamhanan! Wala pod ko gapahibalo ani sa ahong mga ginakanan pero nakit-an man ko sa tv mao tong na sakspan! Basin lahi lang gajud kita ug ideolohiya pero wala bya ko nag mahay sa akong gibuhat bisan pa na challenged pod ang pamunuan ni GMA!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

Way Nada · « **Reply #44 on:** October 26, 2007, 08:25:39 AM »

Grazie7y,

Oi maayo pung adlaw nimo diha! Ako pud kung huna-hunaon usa ko sa mga original nga mga demonstrator sa Makati batok ni Marcos. Sa pag-abot ni Ninoy Aquino sa MIA niadtong Agosto 21, 1983 diha ko mitagbo. Nagpunsisok mi didto sa sud sa MIA kay gipasud mi sa militar. Diha'y purpose adto kay aron dili makalantaw ang tawo gawas sa pader. Tungod kay igang hinggawas ko ug maoy akong nakita tong helicopter nga nag-hover sa tarmac ug diha'y naghapa nga naga barong naglantaw sa ubos sa tarmac. Abtan ug 20 minutos migawas si Laurel sunod si Butch Aquino nga nagpahibaw nga gipusil si Ninoy sa tarmac.

Mao pud sugod ang akong pagka aktibista batok ni Marcos. Pero sa napukan na si Marcos nalipay ko kay natawo na ang bag-ong demokrasya. Paghuman ni Cory sa iyang termino mipuli si Ramos. Si Ramos diha'y iyang lihok nga nawili siya sa gahum sa hapit ang iyang termino, kay boot niya usbon ang batakang balaod, pero natakpan siya gitawag ug 'public opinion'. Karon ang sunod nga napili sa katawhan mao si Erap. Ako supak ko sa iyang kandidatura mao nga ang akong giboto si JDV.. Pero wa pa gani abti si Erap ug duha ka tuig pahawa-on na pud siya sa puesta sama ki Marcos. Ngano man? Di ba ang singgit sa una batok ni Marcos nga ibalik ang demokrasya, hustisya ug ang kamatooran. Kung pahawa-on si Erap demokrasya ba?
Saa man ini ang demokrasya kung pahawa-on si Erap?

WN

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

grazie7y · « **Reply #45 on:** October 26, 2007, 08:53:52 AM »

Nakahinumdum pa jud ko kaayo adtong pag assasinate ni Ninoy Aquino bisan high school pa ko adto. Ga atang akong Lolo adto sa radyo pero gi warn na sya sa akong uncle na basin naa jud mahitabo ni Ninoy. Ang akong uncle adto na time police. Kadtong adlaw mismo pag abot ni Ninoy, ga atubang to sya sa radyo jud maoy pag abot sa akong uncle gapahibalo na gipatay jud si Ninoy Aquino but at that time wala pa gisibya sa radyo. Nag wild intawon akong Lolo!

Now, going back to Erap, WN, dili man jud ta magka uyon ani na issue kay kon karon lagi ta mag subay, kuwang nako sa detalye but I had reason to believe at that time that our democracy was impaired when Erap was the president tungod sa iyang binuhatan. Well, mura man ug impaired pa gihapon atong ginatawag na demokrasya karon pero sa panahon na nakigbisog ko didto sa Edsa, I was hopeful na naay pagbabago (Pagbabago@Pilipinas!) but kon wala man pagbabag-o sa atong pagtan aw, I still do not regret that I did what I did!

No matter what, I have huge respect on your stand in this issue, it just so happen na we are not on the same page.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #46 on:** October 29, 2007, 05:00:25 AM »

Ah, another respectable mind from Tubag Bohol. Greetings, WN, and thank you for addressing my points and concerns.

It would make sense if the Philippines adopted the parliamentary system had it been under the British Empire, which is so for nations such as Malaysia, India, Australia and Canada (for example), however, the Philippines has always been a republican state, since its conception in the First Republic in Malolos in 1898 and to the current restored republic since the fall of the Marcos regime in 1986. Though like yourself, I admonish the phenomenon of vote buying and force as witnessed in the Comelec system, it is nonetheless the closest form of republican democracy; one that addresses most of the citizens of the Republic. Is it perfect? Of course not, but what government is ever perfect. (You addressed that yourself, in great form, if I say so myself).

In my view, a nation such as the Philippines, where the people have in influential role in politics (as manifested in People Power Protests), which clearly emphasizes the fragility of our government. The passions of the people affect the policies of the executive, legislative and judicial, when in all reality it should not. In the United States, there are reasons why the constitution and bill of rights are addressed, however, there are reasons why congressional members utilize checks and balances to prevent the passions of the people, which changes from age to age, from affecting the true purpose of government, and for the benefit of the people of the United States. The Philippines, as a nation still in its infancy, needs to maintain its republican form of government--which has been the basis of how policy is implemented. In defense of the republican form, in Madison's implementation of this philosophy in the American republic, separation of powers is the means by which liberty is preserved and government's predilection to tyranny inhibited.

From the Federalist Paper No.47

One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct. In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favour of liberty. The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts. No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Madison saw that having those department's wholly separate from each other an operating in isolation was just as dangerous to liberty as having their powers collapsed into one person. Madison sought to tap the natural negative passions of humanity in the American implementation of Montesquieu's separation of powers, so that the three arms of government were balanced against each other in a kind of natural harmony. Where each arm would be maintaining a watchdog on each other. Protecting their own arm's influence and power while ensuring that the other arms do not gain more influence and power - especially at their own expense.

The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one of its branches constitutes the supreme executive magistracy, and another, on the impeachment of a third, can try and condemn all the subordinate officers in the executive department.
In the United States we see this balancing act in the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court. The Executive nominates judges. The Legislative has to confirm those appointments.

The Philippines' current system adequately fulfills this given need; though it has problems of graft and corruption, what developing third world nation is immune from such a phenomenon? Clearly you cannot argue that countries with parliamentary systems such as Canada Thailand, Malaysia, and India are free of such vices in government, as it they are not. On the contrary, corruption is rather high in both systems. The only difference is that these countries were under the British Empire (with the exception of Thailand, which was allowed to retain its autonomy only on the basis to remain a border between the British Empire and French Indochina), which at the time also utilized a parliamentary system and those countries, upon independence, adopted the system of government of the white colonizer. The Philippines, however, after independence from Spain immediately adopted a Republican form of government and during the interment years of American protectorateship, upon inception of independence in 1946, adopted, by right of the people, a Republican form. There is no historical basis of the Philippines adopting a parliamentary system, and even that example you provided in 1978 is null in void as that was during the epoch of Martial Law, when the congressional body of the Philippines was liquidated by Presidential Decree: a total example of when one governmental body supersedes its bounds, and the weakness of the secondary and tertiary bodies to keep the executive in homeostasis. Despite that ill instance, it was repaired, thanks to the People Power Movement, which saved the Republican form of government to this day.

The Philippines, is a nation that is unstable, you and I know that. Economically, it is insouciant and is subject to change as the economies of its co-dependent trading partners fluctuates, hence, there needs to be some sort of stable government to implement and address emergencies if such an event arises. This applies to natural and military events as well. A parliamentary system is unstable, by nature of its body. A voting block retains power by the masses and elects a prime minister, not according to the people's choice, but by the vote and choice of the elected parliamentarians. Hence, in all reality, a legitimate way of placing a 'democratically chosen dictator'. Additionally, parliamentary governments are fragile, governments are liquidated if a majority block looses its control in parliament, hence a totally different block with different plans might take power form a previous government, which had a totally different view on trade, economics, military, etc. Its purely unstable, and is foreign to what the Philippines is used to. We need to be optimistic realists, when it comes to Philippine politics, and not idealists.

As you addressed, there are pros to a parliamentary system, however there are cons to every pro. In the parliamentary system faction can also play a positive as well as negative role. As scrymarch noted, factions can be used to tack upstream against the political opinion of the majority. The change from protectionist policies to economic rationalism, and the volatility those policies entailed, is a good example of this.

Ironically it is likely that the factional structure of the majority government is what keeps the Prime Minister position from becoming a permanent dictator. Westminster systems suffer from a slow oscillation in the change of government, but this preferable to a usurper illegally claiming the Executive position.

The negative passions of humans include the desire for more power, and the desire to rule others in an absolute manner. In a liberal democracy the closest thing to this is the Prime Minister or Premier position. For every Prime Minister there is a Parliament full of Representatives who desire that position. A Prime Minister that reaches too far will be challenged by others wanting the throne.

The Prime Minister is not an elected position, those that occupy it do so at the pleasure and patience of the majority party. A President is a singular elected position and more open to being usurped for it. This does not mean that Parliamentary government is superior to a Presidential system. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. However, in concern for the Philippines, switching to a parliamentary form is a calculated risk, that could buckle the bureaucracy and strain the political processes of the local governments under the federal government, which have been molded and currently operates within a republican form, not a parliamentarian form. Also understand that within a parliamentarian form, the majority holds the power, and the minority are essentially ignored. Do we want to risk that? Do we want to risk changing a form of government in which so much blood, toil and sweat has been perspired in achieving? This isn't a game of chance, we are dealing with, as it seems in political theory---we are dealing with the life and progress of our Philippine Fatherland, of whom 90 million citizens rely on a properly functioning government. Weaken government, and I caution you that subvertists and secessionists will rise and take advantage of the fragility of the country in its transitional stage. Enemies within and without will see this as a chance to transgress on our beloved Republic. Would you risk the fragmentation of the republic for an experiment? Nay, good sir, I would not.

-Lorenzo

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

Way Nada · « **Reply #47 on:** November 01, 2007, 11:51:43 AM »

Lorenzo,

Greetings to you sir! Thanks for the reply.

Does it make sense also if the American founding fathers adapted a parliamentary government in America since they were also

under the British rule... Contrary to your opinion that it would not make sense for the Philippines to adapt the

parliamentary system since we were not under the British empire. When the Americans adapted the three branches form of

government and constitutionalized the 'Bill of Rights', it was only in papers. While it is mandated in the constitution that;

'All men are created equal", their government is literally grabbing the land of the Indians and enslaving the black people.

These all gave proof that during the initial phase in the birth of the American republic, it was not bed of roses for the

blacks and the Indians. It took them 200 hundred years for the black people to have their civil rights.

Admitting the fragility of the Philippine government because of its strong influential role of the people in politics is an

admission that Democracy American style is not working very well for the Filipinos. For me, it doesn't matter if the passion

of the people affect the running of government, that is normal, as long as we adhere to the rule of law. Institution like the

press, the academe or political parties should not stir the emotion of the people to revolt against duly constituted

authority. It is unpatriotic! Let us listen to the people and not the rule of the mob. I mean the people manifesting their

voice in the ballot box. The manifestation of the rule of the mob in our country, even if the initiators of people power are

members of the press, the clergy, the academe or the intellegensia, still it is a sign that we are still politically immature

people.

The American system while it is also affected by the passion of the people like what happened to America during the Vietnam

war... They lost the war! While it was the passion of the people that started it, but they did not resort to people power. Or

right now where the American passion is smoldering against G.W. Bush Jr., still the rule of law is being respected. Why?

Because America, to borrow your words... it is an 'aged-timed-tested' democratic country. But was it really democratic? When

America started a democracy it was not really democratic but a wild west government. In its history is a series of

declarations of Martial law by the state federal government. Indians were considered sub-human or savage. Women were not

allowed to vote. Legislation for women to vote was only in 1920. The civil rights of the black people was signed by President

Johnson in 1964. So what is there for the Philippines to be much interested in full swing democracy?

In the Federalist Paper No.47 which you featured, whoever wrote this dissertation, whether Madison or Jefferson, he addressed

his ideas to those people opposing the U.S. constitution to the loyalists of the king of England where at that time were many

like for example the son of Benjamin Franklin who was the governor of New Jersey. He was a staunch supporter of the king

while his father was an American patriot. This are theories at that time. Loyalists won't believed it.

Lorenzo opined; "The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law."

I think it is not the magistrate whom you said that the whole executive power resides, I think you mean the president. If it

so... This is only in theory that the president cannot of himself legislate or make a law but the American founding fathers

thought it to be so just to give impetus to the idea of separation of powers, which was also the primary objective of the

revolution. But today's government the president can issue executive orders, presidential fiats and declare Martial law. The

judiciary theoritically cannot legislate but can pronounce decision in court as a precedent that can be interpreted as the

law of the land.

Your opinion that; "The Philippines' current system adequately fulfills this given need", is deffective in itself because you

and I know that we keep on changing system every now and then. Just discount the epoch you called Martial Law. When Marcos

was ousted from power... [What did we do?] we shifted to a system which you clearly said that adequately fulfills this given

need and which was also the battlecry of people power... that we need truth, justice and democracy! Now that democracy was

restored [never mind the truth, never mind justice...] the elite who are supposedly knowledgeable about democracy and the law

led a people power revolution to topple a democratically elected president. If they revolted to a system you believed as

adequately the fulfillment of the given need then what is there to cheer for? It means that we are not yet mature to be left

alone in government. Thwarting the voice of the people is the height of our immaturity. Marcos was right when he said that to

achieve economic development, there is a need to discipline the people.

I think it needs to fully comprehend what is a republican form and a parliamentary form of government. If we want to go to a

conventional way of thinking, we can differentiate a republican form from the parliamentary form because a republican form of

government is headed by a president. Even if it is headed by a president this does give assurance that it will adapt a three

branches form of government. And there are also many republican form of government that has a law-making body that function

as a parliament. For example is the French republic... It has a strong president with a parliament headed by the prime

minister. Australia for once conducted a referendum to cease allegiance to the monarch of England, changing the job of the

governor general to a president but still the parliament will function as it is. This means that Australia will change itself

into a republic without changing the parliament. Normally parliaments all over the world are unicameral but Australia has a

bicameral parliament. It has the parliament and the senate. Another is the Philippines after Spain. President Emilio

Aguinaldo established the Philippine republic without the three branches of government. The Philippine assembly which

convened in Malolos, Bulacan was a unicameral form of government like a parliament. When the Philippines was under the

American occupation the Philippine legislature of 1907 functioned like a parliament because there was no three branches of

government at that time. It was a unicameral form of government until the ratification of the 1935 constitution which we

adapted the three branches of government. But this government was functional only after July 4th, 1946. But the most stable

government we had so far was the Batasang pambansa of the Marcos era. If you consider the start of Martial Law, there were

more laws created by Marcos and the Batasang Pambansa than the preceding governments since 1946 up to the Cory government

until now.

Lorenzo opined; "A voting block retains power by the masses and elects a prime minister, not according to the people's

choice, but by the vote and choice of the elected parliamentarians. Hence, in all reality, a legitimate way of placing a

'democratically chosen dictator'."

Is it not the electoral college an offshoot of this system of government. I think the American system is more hypocritical

compared to a parliamentary system because it pretends to give the right of suffrage to the people but the reality is, the

choice of the people for president can be defeated by a few elite members of an electoral college personally handpicked by

the governor of a state. You see! While parliamentarians are voted into parliament by the people to elect a prime minister.

Al Gore was defeated by G.W. Bush Jr. even though Al Gore garnered the more popular votes. So who has the louder voice?

The last time I came accross a UN survey of nations of leading domocratic governments in the world, I did not see and read

what place the Philippines is in. The U.S. which is the model government of the Philippines placed only in number 24, Britain

in number 18. But those countries in the top ten are Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Finland,

Israel, Austria and Canada. Australia protested why they were only in number 4. So, what are the criteria of judging these

countries? In the Philippines we boast of our rights, freedom and liberties just to be called democratic. But are these the

only standard of judgement? I think what is more important to the judges is the presence of social justice in a country. The

top ten I mentioned above are the leading countries that give social justice to its citizens like free housing, free health

care, unemployment benefits and dole money. Yes, they may have lesser freedom of the press because they cannot tolerate to

criticize their monarch, or of movements like Israel because of security reason while the Philippines is a free wheeling

democracy in terms of freedom of the press and expressions but cannot be seen in the standard of social justice.

The notion that; "A parliamentary system is unstable, by nature of its body", is a contradictory idea when it comes to its

implementation. On the contrary a parliament is a stable government because a parliamentary government will not fall. Once

parliament is in chaos it will be dissolved by the president, the governor general or the king. In the British, French or the

Australian style of parliament the prime minister don't have a ghost of a chance to become a dictator. In this kind of system

the allegiance of the military is to the king or president. Reserved powers is vested in the king or the president. Once the

parliament is dissolved the prime minister is nothing more than an ordinary citizen. The king or president will legislate

alone. Which is why the press will label a parliament as a 'breath away from dictatorship'. Marcos had this power also to

legislate during his presidency. This was in; Amendment no. 6 of the 1973 constitution.

In a parliamentary system factional differences is not a hindrance in parliament because it can be solved within the party. If a ruling majority leader is challenged by another member of the party he can submit himself for election within the party. If he is defeated by his challenger he should surrender the seat of the prime minister to the winner in the party election. Parliamentary system is a smooth kind of government. If you are still 'greenhorn' in parliament, you cannot become instantly a frontbencher. He should learn the ropes of parliamentary procedure as a backbencher. Those who are taking the cudgel of the party are the frontbenchers against the frontbenchers of the shadow government. The shadow government is a term referred to the opposition in parliament. Passing of legislations are very smooth because it's always the majority that is in government. The Philippines adapting the three branches form of government is a wait in the dark for the people because legislation are very hard to pass through because of its check and balance hindrance. The truth of this check and balance system is too much politics in the system makes the people suffers a lot. The result is only a small segment of the people are mostly benefitted by the system. And they are the capitalists.

WN

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

Way Nada · « **Reply #48 on:** November 02, 2007, 03:43:57 AM »

Lorenzo,

Greetings to you sir! Thanks for the reply.

Does it make sense also if the American founding fathers adapted a parliamentary government in America since they were also under the British rule... Contrary to your opinion that it would not make sense for the Philippines to adapt the parliamentary system since we were not under the British empire. When the Americans adapted the three branches form of government and constitutionalized the 'Bill of Rights', it was only in papers. While it is mandated in the constitution that; 'All men are created equal", their government is literally grabbing the land of the Indians and enslaving the black people. These all gave proof that during the initial phase in the birth of the American republic, it was not bed of roses for the blacks and the Indians. It took them 200 hundred years for the black people to have their civil rights.

Admitting the fragility of the Philippine government because of its strong influential role of the people in politics is an admission that Democracy American style is not working very well for the Filipinos. For me, it doesn't matter if the passion of the people affect the running of government, that is normal, as long as we adhere to the rule of law. Institution like the press, the academe or political parties should not stir the emotion of the people to revolt against duly constituted authority. It is unpatriotic! Let us listen to the people and not the rule of the mob. I mean the people manifesting their voice in the ballot box. The manifestation of the rule of the mob in our country, even if the initiators of people power are members of the press, the clergy, the academe or the intellegensia, still it is a sign that we are still politically immature people.

The American system while it is also affected by the passion of the people like what happened to America during the Vietnam war... They lost the war! While it was the passion of the people that started it, but they did not resort to people power. Or right now where the American passion is smoldering against G.W. Bush Jr., still the rule of law is being respected. Why? Because America, to borrow your words... it is an 'aged-timed-tested' democratic country. But was it really democratic? When America started a democracy it was not really democratic but a wild west government. In its history is a series of declarations of Martial law by the state federal government. Indians were considered sub-human or savage. Women were not allowed to vote. Legislation for women to vote was only in 1920. The civil rights of the black people was signed by President Johnson in 1964. So what is there for the Philippines to be much interested in full swing democracy?

In the Federalist Paper No.47 which you featured, whoever wrote this dissertation, whether Madison or Jefferson, he addressed his ideas to those people opposing the U.S. constitution to the loyalists of the king of England where at that time were many like for example the son of Benjamin Franklin who was the governor of New Jersey. He was a staunch supporter of the king while his father was an American patriot. This are theories at that time. Loyalists won't believed it.

Lorenzo opined; "The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law."

I think it is not the magistrate whom you said that the whole executive power resides, I think you mean the president. If it so... This is only in theory that the president cannot of himself legislate or make a law but the American founding fathers thought it to be so just to give impetus to the idea of separation of powers, which was also the primary objective of the revolution. But today's government the president can issue executive orders, presidential fiats and declare Martial law. The judiciary theoritically cannot legislate but can pronounce decision in court as a precedent that can be interpreted as the law of the land.

Your opinion that; "The Philippines' current system adequately fulfills this given need", is deffective in itself because you and I know that we keep on changing system every now and then. Just discount the epoch you called Martial Law. When Marcos was ousted from power... [What did we do?] we shifted to a system which you clearly said that adequately fulfills this given need and which was also the battlecry of people power... that we need truth, justice and democracy! Now that democracy was restored [never mind the truth, never mind justice...] the elite who are supposedly knowledgeable about democracy and the law led a people power revolution to topple a democratically elected president. If they revolted to a system you believed as adequately the fulfillment of the given need then what is there to cheer for? It means that we are not yet mature to be left alone in government. Thwarting the voice of the people is the height of our immaturity. Marcos was right when he said that to achieve economic development, there is a need to discipline the people.

I think it needs to fully comprehend what is a republican form and a parliamentary form of government. If we want to go to a conventional way of thinking, we can differentiate a republican form from the parliamentary form because a republican form of government is headed by a president. Even if it is headed by a president this does give assurance that it will adapt a three branches form of government. And there are also many republican form of government that has a law-making body that function as a parliament. For example is the French republic... It has a strong president with a parliament headed by the prime minister. Australia for once conducted a referendum to cease allegiance to the monarch of England, changing the job of the governor general to a president but still the parliament will function as it is. This means that Australia will change itself into a republic without changing the parliament. Normally parliaments all over the world are unicameral but Australia has a bicameral parliament. It has the parliament and the senate. Another is the Philippines after Spain. President Emilio Aguinaldo established the Philippine republic without the three branches of government. The Philippine assembly which convened in Malolos, Bulacan was a unicameral form of government like a parliament. When the Philippines was under the American occupation the Philippine legislature of 1907 functioned like a parliament because there was no three branches of government at that time. It was a unicameral form of government until the ratification of the 1935 constitution which we adapted the three branches of government. But this government was functional only after July 4th, 1946. But the most stable government we had so far was the Batasang pambansa of the Marcos era. If you consider the start of Martial Law, there were more laws created by Marcos and the Batasang Pambansa than the preceding governments since 1946 up to the Cory government until now.

Lorenzo opined; "A voting block retains power by the masses and elects a prime minister, not according to the people's choice, but by the vote and choice of the elected parliamentarians. Hence, in all reality, a legitimate way of placing a 'democratically chosen dictator'."

Is it not the electoral college an offshoot of this system of government. I think the American system is more hypocritical compared to a parliamentary system because it pretends to give the right of suffrage to the people but the reality is, the choice of the people for president can be defeated by a few elite members of an electoral college personally handpicked by the governor of a state. You see! While parliamentarians are voted into parliament by the people to elect a prime minister. Al Gore was defeated by G.W. Bush Jr. even though Al Gore garnered the more popular votes. So who has the louder voice?

The last time I came accross a UN survey of nations of leading domocratic governments in the world, I did not see and read what place the Philippines is in. The U.S. which is the model government of the Philippines placed only in number 24, Britain in number 18. But those countries in the top ten are Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Israel, Austria and Canada. Australia protested why they were only in number 4. So, what are the criteria of judging these countries? In the Philippines we boast of our rights, freedom and liberties just to be called democratic. But are these the only standard of judgement? I think what is more important to the judges is the presence of social justice in a country. The top ten I mentioned above are the leading countries that give social justice to its citizens like free housing, free health care, unemployment benefits and dole money. Yes, they may have lesser freedom of the press because they cannot tolerate to criticize their monarch, or of movements like Israel because of security reason while the Philippines is a free wheeling democracy in terms of freedom of the press and expressions but cannot be seen in the standard of social justice.

The notion that; "A parliamentary system is unstable, by nature of its body", is a contradictory idea when it comes to its implementation. On the contrary a parliament is a stable government because a parliamentary government will not fall. Once parliament is in chaos it will be dissolved by the president, the governor general or the king. In the British, French or the Australian style of parliament the prime minister don't have a ghost of a chance to become a dictator. In this kind of system the allegiance of the military is to the king or president. Reserved powers is vested in the king or the president. Once the parliament is dissolved the prime minister is nothing more than an ordinary citizen. The king or president will legislate alone. Which is why the press will label a parliament as a 'breath away from dictatorship'. Marcos had this power also to legislate during his presidency. This was in; Amendment no. 6 of the 1973 constitution.

In a parliamentary system factional differences is not a hindrance in parliament because it can be solved within the party. If a ruling majority leader is challenged by another member of the party he can submit himself for election within the party. If he is defeated by his challenger he should surrender the seat of the prime minister to the winner in the party election. Parliamentary system is a smooth kind of government. If you are still 'greenhorn' in parliament, you cannot become instantly a frontbencher. He should learn the ropes of parliamentary procedure as a backbencher. Those who are taking the cudgel of the party are the frontbenchers against the frontbenchers of the shadow government. The shadow government is a term referred to the opposition in parliament. Passing of legislations are very smooth because it's always the majority that is in government. The Philippines adapting the three branches form of government is a wait in the dark for the people because legislation are very hard to pass through because of its check and balance hindrance. The truth of this check and balance system is too much politics in the system makes the people suffers a lot. The result is only a small segment of the people are mostly benefitted by the system. And they are the capitalists.

WN

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

hazel · « **Reply #49 on:** November 02, 2007, 04:12:03 AM »

taas naman kaayo ni. padung na ni sa batakang balaod nga pag kukabildo.

WN, mao gyod ni ahong newspaper ganihang buntag pag mata.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #50 on:** November 02, 2007, 04:30:41 AM »

Way Nada, I will post my reply after a sound review and research on your points as well as on the current demographics of the Philippines. Your bring a point of view that titillates me, and I thank you for your engagement.

Yours,
Lorenzo

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4946.0

MikeLigalig.com

Author Topic: What electoral reforms do you suggest? (Read 5265 times)

Way Nada

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

Sigbin II

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

Way Nada

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

grazie7y

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

Way Nada

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

grazie7y

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

Lorenzo

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

Way Nada

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

Way Nada

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

hazel

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?

Lorenzo

Re: What electoral reforms do you suggest?