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
