menu Menu
Published platforms
By mlq3 Posted in Daily Dose on December 23, 2009 54 Comments 1 min read
The Long View: Wander Woman Previous Explainer: The Historical Jesus Next

See my previous entries, Platforms and Platform time begins November 30.

In chronological order, the platforms thus far, are the following.

Juan Carlos delos Angeles

His platform is the party platform and preceded his candidacy.

Ang Kapatiran Platform

Joseph Ejercito Estrada October 21, 2009.

His platform was announced during his proclamation rally, but no text has been released to date.

Benigno Aquino III November 28, 2009.

Noynoy Aquino Platform of Government Our Common Credo

Richard Gordon November 28, 2009.

Manifesto for Change

Manuel Villar Jr. December 15, 2009.

Issued as coalition document in response to Makabayan Coalition; no other document issued; Loren Legarda also says her platform has been adopted by her running mate.

Nacionalista Party Platform Legarda Plataporma

Gilbert Teodoro, Jr. Not published yet.

According to Lakas-Kampi-CMD Secretary-General Francis Manglapus, the platform will be published after the holidays.

Ang Kapatiran Benigno Aquino Jr. Daily Dose Gilbert Teodoro Jr. Joseph Ejercito Estrada Lakas-Kampi CMD Liberal Party Manuel Villar Jr. Nacionalista Party Nationalist People's Coalition Philippines platforms political parties political representation politics presidency Richard Gordon

Previous Next

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. O, di ba, maglalabasan mga platforms? As usual. The same story. So what? It’s not the silver bullet that would kill the “aswang” some pictured it to be, is it?

  2. Teka, truce muna mga guys and girls. Pasko na.


    MERRY CHRISTMAS to all you bloggers and commenters here in mlq3’s blog. You’ll all be close to my heart always even if our ideas would clash from time to time.

    And HAPPY NEW YEAR na rin.

  3. “Lahat kami iyan lang ang sasabihin.Lahat ng kandidato sasabihin iyan.We will say the same things…we will have the SAME PLATFORM.

    For after all, a platform… dadalawang speechwriters lang iyan tatanungin ka.Anong gusto ninyo, 3-point agenda , 10 point agenda 15 point agenda o 25 point agenda.” Senator Manny Villar

    The Platform:
    I thought I had made myself clear about my platform, but the media continues to ask the same questions, so for the last time… lalalalaa. I hope this clarifies things.


    * Lalalala lalalal lalala lal lal lalalalala la. Lalala lala la lalalalala lala lalalalala la lalal la lal lalal lalala lalala lala lalaalalalala lala lala laalalaaa laalaaa, laaala lalala lalalaalala lalala lala laala lala lalala lala! Lalala lalalaa lala lalaalalaaala.
    * Lalalala lalalal lalala lal lal lalalalala la lalala lala la lalalalala lala lalalalala la. Lalal la lal lalal lalala lalala lala lalaalalalala lala lala laalalaaa laalaaa laaala lalala lalalaalala lalala lala laala lala lalala lala lalala lalalaa lala lalaalalaaala. Lalala. Lalala lala lalalaalaalaa lalala laaa, lala laaalaa lalala lalalaaa? La. Lalalalalala. Lalalalala.
    * Lalalalala. Lalalala lala lala lalalalalaa laalalala lalalla. Lalalala lala lalaala lalal laalala lalalal; lalalala lalal lala lalalalalal lalaalala. Lalalala lalalala lalal, lalalalal lalalalalal, lalalla lalallalala llalal lalal lalalalalal. Lalalalala, lalalala lalal laalaaa lalaaa. Lalalala lalalal lalala lal lal lalalalala la lalala lala la lalalalala lala lalalalala la.
    * Lalal la lal lalal lalala lalala lala lalaalalalala lala lala laalalaaa laalaaa laaala lalala lalalaalala lalala lala laala lala lalala lala lalala lalalaa lala lalaalalaaala. Lalala. Lalalala lalalal lalala lal lal lalalalala la lalala lala la lalalalala lala lalalalala la. Lalal la lal lalal lalala lalala lala lalaalalalala lala lala laalalaaa laalaaa laaala lalala lalalaalala lalala lala laala lala lalala lala lalala lalalaa lala lalaalalaaala. Lalala. Lalalala lalalal lalala lal lal lalalalala la lalala lala la lalalalala lala lalalalala la. Lalal la lal lalal lalala lalala lala lalaalalalala lala lala laalalaaa laalaaa laaala lalala lalalaalala lalala lala laala lala lalala lala lalala lalalaa lala lalaalalaaala. Lalala.
    * Lalalala lalalal lalala lal lal lalalalala la. Lalala lala la lalalalala lala lalalalala la lalal la lal lalal lalala lalala lala lalaalalalala lala lala laalalaaa laalaaa, laaala lalala lalalaalala lalala lala laala lala lalala lala! Lalala lalalaa lala lalaalalaaala.
    * Lalalala lalalal lalala lal lal lalalalala la lalala lala la lalalalala lala lalalalala la. Lalal la lal lalal lalala lalala lala lalaalalalala lala lala laalalaaa laalaaa laaala lalala lalalaalala lalala lala laala lala lalala lala lalala lalalaa lala lalaalalaaala.
    * Lalala. Lalala lala lalalaalaalaa lalala laaa, lala laaalaa lalala lalalaaa? La.
    * Lalalala lalalal lalala lal lal lalalalala la. Lalala lala la lalalalala lala lalalalala la lalal la lal lalal lalala lalala lala lalaalalalala lala lala laalalaaa laalaaa, laaala lalala lalalaalala lalala lala laala lala lalala lala! Lalala lalalaa lala lalaalalaaala.
    * Lalalala lalalal lalala lal lal lalalalala la lalala lala la lalalalala lala lalalalala la. Lalal la lal lalal lalala lalala lala lalaalalalala lala lala laalalaaa laalaaa laaala lalala lalalaalala lalala lala laala lala lalala lala lalala lalalaa lala lalaalalaaala.
    * Lalala. Lalala lala lalalaalaalaa lalala laaa, lala laaalaa lalala lalalaaa? La!

  4. Most do not pass our standards of quality in terms of the following:

    (1) Clear articulation of the current (as-is) situation to serve as a context for Points 2 and 3 below and from which priority ISSUES are identified and defined;

    (2) Clarity of POSITIONS taken on specific issues pertinent to the articulation of situation (Point 1);

    (3) Clarity of ACTIONS to be taken to realise goals based on positions taken on identified issues (Point 2); and,

    (4) Structural/relational coherence of a framework tying together the issues, positions taken, and actions to be implemented identified in Points 1 to 3 above.

    Platforms need to meet the above four criteria to qualify as a well-thought-out manifesto for change befitting the collective intelligence that Pinoys imagine themselves to possess.

    You can come up with one that meets the above requirements in FOUR EASY STEPS (refer here for an intuitive guide to developing one that even a 10-year-old can understand).

    You can also refer to our sample of a really good platform statement (refer to the top most row shaded in avocado green) that meets all of the above criteria.

    If you are a politician and you wanna come across as one to be taken seriously, then STEP UP and differentiate by exhibiting a bit of INTELLIGENCE for a change. That way you can PROVE that you’re not merely insulting what meagre intelligence the Filipino has left over from years of misguided education. 😀

  5. Who cares? Bailiwick politics will trump national platforms. If Noynoy wins, that’s 3 out of the last 5 presidents as Kapampangan. If Gloria wins, that’s 2 out of the last 4.

    In your face BenK! National railroad all the way to Tarlac for the win! International airport in Angeles city for the win! Noynoy for the glory of *ahem*Pampanga*coughs* Philippines!

  6. thanks mlq3 for collating these. unfortunately these hardly make the cut. mostly motherhood statements.

    also, the initiative to get the platforms mass distributed should come from the candidates. they should prepare copies of their platforms for distribution to the various communities. after all the voting public also includes people who do not have access to the internet.

    it would also be better if the candidates made an effort to come out with versions of their detailed plans in various dialects. after all, not all filipinos can understand english that well.

    i’m sure the candidates have the resources to do this. maybe they can allocate part of their budgets for campaign posters and other less useful campaign paraphernalia for this.

    anyway, merry christmas and a happy new year to you and all your readers.

  7. Ikaw lang naman ang na-iinsulto benign0. Masyado ka kasing magaling. Takbo ka na lang for president!!!

  8. Kudos to you, Manolo, for working into the eve of Christmas! I love a good work ethic.

    On the matter at hand, one thing stands out, and this is that the NP has positioned itself to the LEFT of the Liberal Party in terms of the economy and foreign relations.

    The NP platform says it wants to subsidise and protect local businesses, review globalisation and all unequal international treaties (does it include GATT and WTO?). It espouses a greater role for the state in economic affairs. That is why Makabayan with its agenda of nationalising industries has found a home here. It is not just an alliance for convenience.

    In its more detailed party platform (the one found on its website), the LP espouses liberal, free market capitalism. This is a substantive difference with the NP’s position and is a continuation of the policies started at the end of the Marcos regime and continuing up to now.

    I can now see why the business community support the Aquino Roxas team (as shown by the recent MBC survey). Villar represents the noveau riche who have risen to the top through a combination of questionable business practices and wants to preserve the monopoly rents that he enjoys through government protection. The older business elites have more or less grown accustomed to a more liberal open market framework.

  9. An unintended consequence of GMA pardoning Erap is that he is now spoiling the chances of Villar of playing catch-up to Aquino. As Mon Casiple points out, the base of support has been set for Aquino, but had the forces of Estrada and Villar united, the election contest would be much more interesting. Should those on the side of Noy-Mar be thanking GMA at this point?

  10. Manolo,

    What’s your stand on how to make the Philippine System more PLATFORM-oriented?

    Won’t you logically concede that the reason why the Philippines is extremely personality-oriented is not only because Filipinos are petty and personality-oriented by nature, but that the situation is exacerbated by fact that the PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM is one which involves electing INDIVIDUALS, which, by default, means choosing people’s faces, backgrounds, and personalities, as opposed to a system where instead of choosing individuals, one is forced to choose PARTIES, which means that you need to look at PARTY PLATFORMS as the distinguishing factor between the parties?

    Do you realize that the Parliamentary System is a PARTY-based system, which therefore makes it a highly PLATFORM-dependent one?

    What’s your stand on shifting from the personality-oriented Presidential System (which favors personalities and celebrities) towards the more efficient, faster, and more PARTY-PLATFORM centric Parliamentary System?

    Are you going to censor this message? (I hope not)

    Please answer the question: Don’t you agree that a shift towards the Parliamentary System would actually mean an almost instantaneous shift towards true PARTIES and a shift in electoral paradigm to party platforms?

    What say you, MLQ3?

  11. Agree with nash–Kapatiran is a party of loonies because even Gibo Teodoro pointedly asked JC Gordon-de los Reyes “who was not advocating for honesty and integrity”. These loons come across as self-righteous, arrogant fundamentalists answerable only to their grand Ayatolla Pacheco.

  12. Manolo,

    It’s not enough to say “Dr., No. Disagree with most of your assertions.”

    You have to say WHY you disagree with the facts I have mentioned. Otherwise, just stating a one liner like what you just did makes you an arrogant prick.

    Can you please do that, Manolo? Please state your reasons, ok? 😉

    Because the fact is, what I said ARE VERIFIABLE and IRREFUTABLE FACTS. For you to “disagree” with them means that you should have reasons. And should you disagree, then you SHOULD PRESENT YOUR REASONS. This is not a matter of TASTE, as there is NO DISPUTING TASTE, Manolo. This is NOT about a preference for UBE over Strawberry ice-cream. This is about facts and logic, Manolo.

    As such, you need to provide your REASONS.

    The presidential system is indeed an extremely personality-oriented system and luckily for the French and Americans who use such a system, they are – as a people – far more logical and more issues-oriented than Pinoys are. So that helps in balancing out the personality-centeredness of the Presidential System’s electoral dynamics which is all about electing A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL to the post of President.

    In the Philippines, where the people have a highly personality-centric nature, this personality-based culture causes Filipinos to multiply the already personality-centric nature of the Presidential System to such a high degree that you have a circus of pitting personalities against each other so much so that celebrities or people with a “well-known name” have an upper hand, and competence and abilities are pushed way down the criteria list for choosing.

    I’m sure you’ve read about Malaysia, have you? Because Malaysia has a majority population that is similar in terms of culture and temperament to Filipinos.

    However, whenever Malaysians vote, they vote based on platform as opposed to celebrity-status and personality, because quite clearly, whenever the Islamic Party wins in its two bailiwicks of the Northern States of Terengganu and Kelantan, the electoral victories there have nothing to do with the personalities of the elected members of parliament or of the leader of the Islamic Party, but rather because the majority of the residents in said states PREFER the platform presented by the Islamic Party.

    If you look at this, it actually proves that the Parliamentary System, which is the system used in Malaysia, does indeed counteract the natural tendencies of personality-centric people to vote purely based on personalities/popularity and instead, forces them to change their style of voting to choose which party has a platform they agree with more.

    Now, Manolo, that being said, can you refute whatever it is I said?

    Or do you now concede that you actually don’t know much about the Parliamentary System in the first place which is why you disagree. 😉

    It appears that you disagree with anything you know nothing about.

    Maybe it’s time you started to read more about other countries and cultures, don’t you think? My friendly advice for you is to try reading up on the Parliamentary System and read up on all the Western European countries that use it, as well as read up on the Asian countries that use it.

    I can sense that it is myopia and lack of knowledge that is actually impeding you from making logically and factually-correct conclusions.

    Please take my friendly advice constructively. 😉

    Your good friend,

    Dr. José Rizal II

  13. Just wanted to greet everyone Merry Christmas!

    Thanks Manolo for this post.

    Oh. Am curious – why do you disagree with what that DRJR2 pointed out? It makes sense naman eh.

    If I may mention, my grandfather told me that Pinoys who have hopes of becoming a top political leader without actually being progressively qualified for the job will always prefer the current system which veers away from standing on any manner of solid substance. No wonder we get so many showbiz personalities, traitors, mindless puppets, even a convicted plunderer running for public office.

    I’m not inclined to believe my grandfather is wrong on that one so I would like an explanation too.

  14. One of the reasons why Presidential candidates never really bother articulating a clear platform as described by BenignO is because they want to take advantage of the common flaw of most Filipino voters — which is a tendency to vote according to who is popular.

    Ergo, the more popular you are with the masa, the better.

    The masa do not care about issues. All you have to do with the masa to get their vote is to drown them with commercials and ply them with favors and promises.

  15. Re: parliamentary and presidential, I’ve been writing about this for several years. You’re welcome to go through this blog.

  16. Manolo,

    All you have to do is to tell us explicitly on this board what your objections are to my assertions then briefly mention what your reasons are for disagreeing with my assertions which you disagree with.

    Very simple, Manolo. Don’t give us the run-around. Furthermore, YOU ARE WELCOME to post links to connect to specific articles in the past where you expressed your opinion on the Parliamentary versus Presidential issue as a rejoinder or an extra citation.

    One other thing, noting that there is a wealth of information that presents the superiority of the Parliamentary System over the Presidential System, I was of the impression that you might have upgraded your extremely flawed understanding (or perhaps SPIN) on the issue. As such, I probably gave you too much credit thinking that you’re intelligent enough to learn from your mistakes or at least upgrade your knowledge so that you learn to be more correct.

    Perhaps I have been mistaken and I thought too highly of your mental faculties.

    Manolo, perhaps you need to give us readers more respect when we ask you some simple questions.

    Can you please give specific answers to my questions, as well as give UPDATED reasons that may better explain your opposition to my views which are clearly superior to yours. 😉


    1. Point out my assertions which you disagree with
    2. Explain clearly, factually, and logically WHY you disagree with them
    3. And if you wish, you may then add links to other articles on this blog of yours which will show your old stand.

    Please, Manolo, it would make things clearer if you simply answered the questions I posed to you PROPERLY.

    You might want to read up on stuff by renowned Yale political scientist Dr. Juan Linz, PhD to learn more about why the Parliamentary System is way way better than the Presidential one.

    Hope you give us a good answer, Manolo…

    Your good friend,

    Dr. José Rizal II

  17. this issue on whether or not the philippines should have a parliamentary system is truly worth discussing. i don’t know much about it but to me it seems worth considering. i think it really is about time people start considering abandoning the presidential system that we currently have.

    discussions about changing the system are met with negativity not because the parliamentary system is worthless or because presidential system is great. some people don’t want to talk about it because of the pgma cha-cha connection.

    i find this unfortunate because a healthy and rational discussion of charter change and the differences between a presidential and parliamentary system would be a great eye-opener. by avoiding discussions on charter change or system shifts we seem to be dooming ourselves to stagnation.

    i wonder if any of those who have already taken the “no to charter change” position have any basis other than their pgma-phobia.

  18. Re: parliamentary and presidential, I’ve been writing about this for several years. You’re welcome to go through this blog.

    MLQ3, if indeed you’ve been writing about this for several years, then it should be no effort for you to respond properly to what is specifically being asked of you here.

    Not to presume to present myself as a comparison to you, The Noted One, but I’ve also been writing about “get real” stuff for the last NINE years. Yet when someone comes up to whatever forum or blog with SPECIFIC questions about “get real” stuff, I don’t just tell them to go to my website. I make PRECISE responses to them and resort to referring to my previous body of work only as SUPPORT or ADDITIONAL reading. But in most cases, the response I make alone (even without having to refer to the additional reading) is often sufficient for the questioner to either (a) understand my point or (b) come up with follow-up questions.

    I do agree with “Jose Rizal”. You simply come across as an arrogant prick if you respond with one liners. Has this “Noted One” thing so gone into your head that you actually think that you can simply dismiss pertinent questions about what you believe in by assuring us that you’ve written about this extensively in previous articles?

    Get over yourself and man up to these SPECIFIC questions being thrown your way, sir.

  19. Villar represents the noveau riche who have risen to the top through a combination of questionable business practices and wants to preserve the monopoly rents that he enjoys through government protection.
    The older business elites have more or less grown accustomed to a more liberal open market framework.

    Last time I checked, the 1987 constitution had protectionist clauses that were lobbied for by the “The older business elites” to “preserve the monopoly rents that he enjoys through government protection under the guise of nationalism – you have your figures mixed up.

    The Noveau Riche want a more liberal free market Рmeaning РOpening up the Philippines to more foreign investments and removing the protectionist provisions in the constitution which allowed the Lopezes, Ayalas, Cojuangos, Aquinos, Osema̱as, and oligarch families to lord it over the local economy.


    On JR2, assertion – it’s not enough to say you disagree, you ought to state why you disagree. Isn’t that a fundamental in Debating Class 101. Any “Explainer” worth his salt should be able to do that in a flash.

    Paki-esplika nga.

  20. Manolo, could you at least post your key arguments against DRJR2 in bullet points? Your body of work is a bit huge and I don’t have all the time in the world to sift thru it.

    And to be perfectly frank I’m starting to doubt you deserve your titles “The Noted Blogger” and “The Explainer” if you just swat people away like that, just like you did in another post I visited a while back. 🙁

  21. I think, even before thinking about parliamentary vs. presidential, we should embark on a number of political reforms which should include strengthening the party system.

  22. Greetings Pinoybuzz,

    Changing the rules of the game (system) automatically changes how the game is played. By shifting over to the Parliamentary System, the “Party System” will automatically get strengthened because the Parliamentary System – by itself – requires parties/coalitions in order to determine who the Head of Government (Prime Minister) will be. (Party or Coalition with majority seats leads the country)

    Here’s an analogy: Have you tried switching cellphones from, say, a Qwerty-type cellphone to a T9 or vice-versa? Did you have to learn to use the new interface first before buying the new cellphone? Or did you end up buying the cellphone (or end up receiving it as a gift), then spent the next 2 to 3 weeks getting used to the new interface, eventually realizing that after constantly using the new interface, you’re already used to it?

    The Truth is that by simply shifting over to the Parliamentary System, the politicians will immediately change their behavior as will the voters, because the dynamics of how the system works instantaneously changes. But if we don’t change the system, people (politicians and voters) will feel no need to change the way they do things.

    It is NOT ALWAYS TRUE that we need to change the peoples’ behavior first before changing the system. It is ideal, of course, but unfortunately, there is nothing to motivate people to change their way of doing things FIRST before the system change occurs. What is true is that once the system changes, people will be forced to change their behavior. That is the way the world works.

    * *


    I’d like to see your answer, my good friend.


    1. Point out my assertions which you disagree with
    2. Explain clearly, factually, and logically WHY you disagree with them
    3. And if you wish, you may then add links to other articles on this blog of yours which will show your old stand.

    Would like to hear from you.

    your good friend,

    Dr. José Rizal II

  23. benigno, may i invite you and the others to revisit the tone of your comments, perhaps if you’d like greater engagement you might want to reconsider your approach. there is the widest latitude given commenters here and that latitude extends to myself, in choosing to engage readers further or not. i am unable to attend to every single comment and regret if that hurts anyone’s feelings or leaves them dissatisfied, particularly during the holidays.

    Briefly, here are my views on the parliamentary system.

    We should be open to all democratic systems, provided a public consensus exists, and I am interested in finding ways to foster a consensus. Right now it seems to me the defects of the present Constitution would be best addressed by a Constitutional Convention- but I am not convinced a broad enough consensus exists to convene a convention in the first place; ideally a legislature-proposed package of constitutional reforms would be something worth trying first, but to do this, we have to go beyond the current divisions and the public’s mistrust of legislators’ motives for Charter Change. Confidence-building measures are possible but the ruling coalition doesn’t want debate, it wants a specific package and that package (unicameral, parliamentary, with a veneer of federalism) is neither widely accepted nor to my mind, appropriate.

    Lumping things together complicates matters. Federalism is a difficult enough issue without restricting it from the start to a particular kind: you could propose presidential and federal as much as parliamentary as federal; and unicameral, parliamentary and federal boggles the mind. A consensus in support of Federalism is difficult enough without saddling it with the most offensive part of parliamentary government for most Filipino voters, and that is, depriving them of directly electing the head of government.

    This leads us to certain realities I don’t think we can or ought to ignore. Presidential or parliamentary in a sense is a result of evolution, of an unfolding development; two tracks and nations reach a fork in the road at a certain time that leads to one or the other, this is one reason why monarchies tend to develop into parliamentary systems, those that extinguished their monarchies, into republics; and why former British colonies have the parliamentary system on the Westminster model, non-British colonies ended up republics or parliamentary systems, too, depending on their colonizer. We cannot ignore this and any proposal to return to that fork in the road to pick another path, requires acknowledging this in a sense organic development and finding out how the public can be brought on board.

    And recognizing there are some changes simply unpalatable to the public (again: depriving the national electorate of voting for the head of government). If one accepts the public desire to vote for the head of government, one could look at Israel’s experiment with nationally-electing a PM, or consider the French model which may be a more popular model to consider: the presidential system after all may be more suited to our idiosyncracies as a people. The desire for the parliamentary system seems to be anchored on a contempt for the national electorate, but substituting it with pocket boroughs isn’t a way forward except for embattled politicians who have mastered local politics and are frustrated it doesn’t translate to national success.

    Other frustrations that lead to proposing the parliamentary system also ignores the possibility changes to the rules can be put in place to strengthen parties and arm administrations with majorities required to govern effectively: consider bloc voting and runoff elections, as I’ve repeatedly advocated. The former gives parties a fighting chance to campaign as a team and build an identity in the popular imagination, giving parties and voters an incentive (a vote for one is a vote for all) that makes sense. Runoffs for the presidency gives presidents a chance to govern with a clear mandate.

    We all have our personal preferences: mine is for presidential and bicameral, which to me is best poised for an evolution to a federal system so long as we’re prepared to consider the heretical notion of subsuming provinces into regions (gerrymandering being a big problem); i am open to a hybrid presidential-parliamentary system in order to address the desire of legislators to hold executive portfolios. On other issues I am increasingly of the mind that legislative work should mean abolishing term limits but executive work requires term limits.

    But that’s just me; I do think a consensus is possible, for example the greater interest and acceptability of the idea of runoff elections. By all means we should explore other systems but at present it’s been made an all-or-nothing propositions so this hardens divisions: you cannot even begin to discuss parliamentary versus presidential when only one kind of parliamentary system is advocated, only one kind of federalism, etc. This only leads to the electorate becoming gun-shy and preferring the devil it knows.

    Anyway here are some links.

    1. Overlooked in much of the wrangling is the greater need for a civic sense, without which no reasonable debate is possible which makes a consensus we can all live with, impossible, too:

    2. A major problem is that public opinion as a force for good and more importantly, a force democratic leaders (and followers) must respect, is threatened; proposals to change the rules to abolish the court of public opinion is dangerous and unhealthy:

    3. The public has conceptions of leadership and what constitutes good governance, like it or hate it, we have to understand it. Chances are, making the effort to understand will open up avenues for discussion based on reflection:

    It (the electorate) also has long experience with elections and views them in a certain way; things may change but over time, things usually go back to tried and tested behaviors and lessons:

    4. Consensus is possible and why it’s absent now can emerge from looking at how consensus was achieved previously:

    5. What needs to be addressed to make consensus possible (that is, finding ways to reassure the public motives reflect public interest and offers something better than what we have now):

    6. By all means we should take a greater interest in our neighbors and other countries that can give us an insight both into our own system as it is, and what we propose as changes:

    7. But this also means that we may wish to consider specific, surgical changes instead of a major revision: ideally there is no contradiction if one helps gain public confidence opening up the possibility of further changes:

    8. Finally, why I oppose the specific proposal of a unicameral parliamentary system:


    Which requires addressing the obstacles to a broad public engagement in the Charter Change debate:

    9. Some interesting links:

  24. jen, in the first place the first of the “titles” you refer to is out of my hands and so not my responsibility one way or another; as for the other, it is the title of a specific show and useful only for that specific show. that being said, allow to me to ask you if you do not have all the time in the world to sift through something why then, should someone sift through it for you: particularly if one isn’t even given the courtesy of a preliminary effort? this would show good faith, would it not? there are key words, perhaps not complete but it’s a start; there are search engines, etc.

  25. Thanks for acquiescing MLQ3 and your usual patience with my usual bluntness.

    It may take some time to go over those links you provided (you might consider reducing the number of widgets on your site as it kinda crawls most times or simply fails to load), but having all of the relevant ones in one spot helps.

    For now, I did notice though that much of what you write in your [Mon, 28th Dec 2009 1:30 pm] comment seems to incline towards highlighting why changing is too hard.

    Well, sir, real change (the kind Pinoy society really needs) is always hard.

    Just because a concept or idea seems unpalatable doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. It is easy to come up with millions of reasons not to do something when one is not up to the task to see that something through. But to be truly emboldened to undertake something groundbreaking, it takes a leader with a vision. The Philippines cannot be run by consensus because there are simply too many “experts” with loud voices with lots of “agendas” at stake.

    Despite mounds of evidence that what we call “consensus”, “public opinion”, and even “the people’s mandate” (the kind of stuff that gives people like Abe Margallo a hard-on) have ZERO track records of leading our society down the path in which absolute prosperity can be seen as even a remote possibility, we continue to foolishly defer to such nebulous ideals.

    Time and again, the Filipino public has shown that their idea of participating in our “democracy” does not go beyond evaluating personalities. As you yourself point out, all the deals have already been made in the background and the “election” that everyone looks forward to in 2010 (in the same way kids lie on their beds awake on Christmas Eve waiting for Santa Claus) is just a quaint (but ridiculously disruptive) ritual to keep the masses feeling “engaged” and “consulted” when an “anointed” bozo takes his seat in Malacanang.

    Deference to the “people’s mandate” is just a cop out for people who lack real vision whether they be bloggers or politicians. Noynoy himself in many instances takes the position that he is there to “serve the people’s mandate” yet perverts that concept into one that excuses him from the whole point of being a leader, which is to implement a personal vision for the Filipino Nation — one that is the UNDERLYING MOTIVATION for his bid to become president.

    You’ve taken a big step by making a concise statement of your position on the matter of the future of our system of governance:

    We all have our personal preferences: mine is for presidential and bicameral, which to me is best poised for an evolution to a federal system so long as we’re prepared to consider the heretical notion of subsuming provinces into regions (gerrymandering being a big problem); i am open to a hybrid presidential-parliamentary system in order to address the desire of legislators to hold executive portfolios. On other issues I am increasingly of the mind that legislative work should mean abolishing term limits but executive work requires term limits. [my boldfaces]

    Perhaps build upon the above statement from hereon and refer to your previous treatises across the broad range of options only by exception.

    If we rewrite what you said above in bullet points (nothing those parts I emphasize in bold), this is how I would interpret your categorical position now:

    In order for the Philippines to progress, MLQ3 recommends that we:

    (1) Retain for now a presidential bicameral system with the aim of;

    (2) Evolving local governance to a federal system which necessarily requires;

    (3) Subsuming provinces into regions [or states].

    (4) Legislators should be given executive portfolios (presumably to give legitimacy to pork-barrel politics) and as such, transition to a hybrid presidential-parliamentary system may have to accompany the next stage of change.

    You take a position and put it out there for critique, then refer back to it cyclically. I think that is “Jose Rizal”‘s and the others’ beef with your style (which of course is yours to apply considering this is your blog). 🙂

  26. Manolo,

    I appreciate the effort you took in attempting an answer, however I do want to mention a few things first:

    1. The tone you perceive several of us who comment on this board to have when demanding that you clarify your positions on various issues is irrelevant. Stick to the facts and stick to the logic, and forget about the “tone.”


    2. You yourself take on a certain obnoxious tone whenever you attempt to put down the “current dispensation” and you also take on an extremely condescending tone towards different commenters here whenever they ask you questions that you cannot answer simply because you know deep down that your own answer cannot really hold water.


    3. You did not follow instructions. I asked you to point out which of my assertions you disagreed with AND explain why. Instead of doing so, you went off-tangent and introduced your biases on the perceived popularity and palatability or lack thereof of any proposals to change the system instead of focusing purely on the topic at hand.

    If you recall, the topic here is purely about platforms, and my point was to introduce the idea that the Parliamentary System is objectively and more observably platform-centric in contrast to the personality-centeredness of the Presidential System. I therefore reiterate that instead of concentrating on whether this move or that move is “popular” to hordes of uneducated and/or not-so-analytical so-called “educated” Filipinos, what is being discussed is purely the merits of the system itself.

    In short, if we were to transpose such a discussion into the realm of computing, the idea is not to discuss whether MacOSX is more popular when compared to MS Windows 7 or not. The idea is to talk about which of the two systems PERFORMS BETTER based on criteria such as speed, efficiency, stability, resistance to crashing, ease of use, etc. If it were all about popularity (or widespread use), then of course Windows wins.

    Your fixation in your reply is clearly on popularity, and that is not the topic at hand. I specifically sought to open up a discussion with you on the purely objective functional merits of one system versus another, but instead you’ve played up popularity. Lesson One for you Manolo, is that if the Objective Truth were to be told to Filipinos properly, and each and every Filipino was properly informed on the merits and pros-versus-cons of the two systems, most Filipinos who by then will have learned to be more objective and more well informed, will CHOOSE THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM.

    Right now, the popularity of the Presidential System is only due to it being the system in use in the USA as well as being the current system used in the Philippines. (inertia/resistance to change) Educate Filipinos properly and inform them, and the Parliamentary System will be the popular one.

    * * * * *

    I have observed that most of the time, when people draw the wrong conclusions because of two reasons: faulty logic and faulty facts. Since you come across as being an “intelligent” person, perhaps your logic is not exactly faulty. However, I have identified the fact that you have the wrong assumptions and the wrong facts, which is precisely why your conclusions are totally off.

    Now it is important that I correct you on a few things which betray your lack of information on the Parliamentary System. Your lack of information (or your having digested the WRONG information) on the Parliamentary System and your mistaken assumptions are the obvious reason for your erroneous stand against the Parliamentary System.

    Manolo, please be humble enough to admit that this is an area where you have a near absence of any real knowledge on the topic. Here are your mistakes:

    1. There is nothing offensive about the Parliamentary System’s methodology where the Head of Government is “not directly elected.”

    Truth be told, Manolo, this is PRECISELY where the Party or Coalition dynamics of the system comes in. Because the paradigm of the Parliamentary System is not that you have a single person “running the government” but rather you have The Parliament running the country, and the Parliament just happens to be run by the dominant or majority party or coalition, whose leader then leads the cabinet as the Prime Minister. Your statement clearly betrays your fixation on “individual persons ruling countries.” You need to get used to the concept of Parties running Countries.

    2. You said “Presidential or parliamentary in a sense is a result of evolution, of an unfolding development;”

    My answer: Not true. Some countries such as France instantaneously shifted from Monarchy to Republic, back to Monarchy, then into republic again, and recently in the 1960’s with the Algerian crisis, instantaneously shifted from a Parliamentary form of government to a Presidential System where Charles de Gaulle led France and the French system today is inherited from that era.

    A few years ago, Ukraine held a referendum on whether to change their system from a Presidential to a Parliamentary System: The Ukrainians voted YES, and currently, they are in the midst of shifting towards it.

    More importantly, Lebanon, which in the past used to be led by a powerful President (always a Maronite Roman Catholic), is now headed by a Prime Minister (always a Sunni Muslim), which was part of an agreement that aimed to reduce the conflict of the long-standing Civil War. In the past, the Lebanese Presidents always took center stage in the UN or in other forums, but ever since the time of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the Prime Minister has effectively run the show. These days it’s Prime Minister Fouad Siniora – also a Sunni Muslim. They still have a President as before, but while in the past, the President had real power, in the current system, the Lebanese President is a ceremonial post, and the Prime Minister is the one who really leads.

    Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf used a Presidential System, but Pakistan is normally under a Parliamentary system where a Prime Minister leads.

    Turkey, under Kemal Mustafa Atatürk was under a Presidential System as Atatürk himself was the the President and he held real power. However, today’s Turkey is Parliamentary, and it is the Prime Minister who holds real power and the Turkish President is merely ceremonial. Perhaps you need to realize that Turkey DID NOT evolve from the old Ottoman Empire into becoming a President-run Republic under Atatürk, but was instantaneously transformed into swift changes. And likewise, the shift from Presidential to Parliamentary was done in almost a flick of a switch. What evolution are you talking about, Manolo?

    So, Manolo, the answer is NO. It need not always be a result of evolution. It can also be a result of EDICT.

    3. “French System.”

    Manolo, it is obvious that you do not know the French System. The French System is a PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM. That is precisely why the French System requires directly voting the President into power. You need to understand one major thing, Manolo: A Presidential System is when it is the President who has real executive power, while a Parliamentary System is when it is the Prime Minister/Premier/Chancellor who has real power.

    I have a litmus test for you to use: Check out which leader attends the UN and other international gatherings. If the leader who attends is a President (and he/she is both Head of State and Head of Government), then the country he/she is from uses a Presidential System. If the leader who attends is a Prime Minister, then the country he/she uses a Parliamentary System. If the leader who attends is a King, Sultan, or Emir, then you have an Absolute Monarchy. Who attends international gatherings for France? Le président ou le premier ministre? Le Président, bien sûr que oui! Therefore, France is NOT parliamentary. It uses a Presidential System!

    Why do so many Filipinos think that France’s system is Parliamentary?!?!? You’re supposed to know better, Manolo.

    4. “Israel’s direct voting of the Prime Minister”:

    Manolo, it appears that you are extremely misinformed or at least very delayed vis-à-vis foreign affairs. Israel NO LONGER directly chooses its Prime Minister since 2001.

    Check out the internet, Manolo: “In 1992, Israel adopted a system of direct election of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was directly elected separately from the Knesset in 1996, 1999 and 2001. The direct election of the Prime Minister was abandoned after the 2001 election, because it failed to produce more stable governments (the 2001 elections were held less than 2 years after the previous one), and led to further fragmentation of the parliament.”

    In other words, Israel NO LONGER DIRECTLY VOTES THEIR PRIME MINISTER separately from how they voted for the Knesset because that experiment was a failure. Plus, in essence, when Israel experimented with such a system, their system actually ceased to be a strict parliamentary system.

    What Israel currently has today, however, is PARTY-CHOOSING on the ballot after returning to the normal “integrated” parliamentary voting scheme. Instead of writing down the name of the constituency’s candidate whom you prefer, you write down the name of the party. In a sense, this also allows voters to choose who they want for Prime Minister. If you want Benjamin Netanyahu to be Prime Minister, then you choose “LIKUD” on your ballot.

    5. “Bloc Voting”

    If by “bloc voting” you actually meant that you were espousing a system where instead of individually choosing candidates for various different positions, the ballot has a space for choosing the NAME OF THE PARTY from which all positions relevant to that person’s voting precinct will be credited to the chosen party (From President down to the District Representative), then you know what, THAT IS ACTUALLY NOTHING BUT A FORM OF A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM!

    Some countries already do that within the context of a Parliamentary System, where instead of choosing individual candidates, you choose the party. Post 2001 Israel implemented this and currently, people choose the name of the Party, knowing who the leader of said Party is, and assume that if their party of choice wins in their constituency, their Member of Parliament will be from that party they choice and hopefully, everywhere else in the country, people chose the same party so that the number of seats in parliament would reach a majority so that the leader of their party of choice becomes Prime Minister.

    Guess what, you are advocating a Parliamentary System, Manolo! That’s pretty much what Israel’s “write the party’s name on the ballot” system is all about!

    6. “Run off elections”

    Ordinarily, I too would go for run-off elections. The problem, however, is that it is too expensive. Instead of having one main election, you have two elections – if there is no winner in the first round getting more than 50% of the vote.

    A Parliamentary System, however, automatically requires the formation of a majority coalition in case there is no party that gets more than 50% of the parliamentary seats, so whichever coalition forms the majority can then lead the country with a clear mandate, the Prime Minister, then, being determined from within the coalition’s ranks – most often being the leader of the party in the coalition that has the most number of seats.

    7. “Subsuming Provinces into Regions”

    Whoever said that this has to be the way it’s done? In Spain, you have Regions or “Autonomous Communities” (Castilla-Leon, Castilla-La Mancha, País Vasco, Asturias, Andalucía, Cataluña, Valencia, Extremadura, etc, pretty much the names of many streets in the Sampaloc area near UST) but each Region has Provinces.

    The current proposal to shift the country into a Federal one is meant to do it in gradual phases, where – as much as possible – the regions decide how they will do it.

    One possible way (which regions may decide to do if they wish) might be to retain Provinces with Provincial Governors, but then Regions would have regional “Premiers” (as Australia calls the mini-Prime Ministers of each State). Whatever it is, there’s nothing heretical about it. Some Regions may prefer having more powerful Provinces or more powerful Regions. Whichever it is, the USA itself has states that are very different from each other due to their varying histories. Some were original colonies, others were acquired from other powers (like Louisiana), etc.

    8. MLQ3’s Preference for a Bicameral Legislature

    Why, Manolo? What are your reasons for preferring a Bicameral Legislature? Don’t you know that the Senate of the Philippines is useless?

    Allow me to revisit why the Philippines has a Senate. The Philippines has a bicameral system with an upper chamber called the Senate because THE USA HAS A SENATE.

    But do you know why the USA has a Senate, Manolo?

    Well, let me tell you: The USA has a Senate because while Congress is meant to represent districts, the Senate is meant to represent States. So each Congressman is a representative of his/her district, while each Senator represents his/her state. Senators are not elected at large, and instead, Senators are elected BY STATE.

    Question: Why the hell does the Philippines have a Senate if the Philippine Senators are NOT representatives of Regions anyway?

    The USA clearly has a reason for having a Senate: The Senate balances off the numerical numbers posed by large states that have numerous districts, so that the Senate allows small States with small populations and fewer districts to have “equal representation.”

    It is actually no wonder, thus, that the Philippine Senate continues to waste time on celebrity scandals and exposes, such as the Brunei Beauty exposes done long ago, and the recent Hayden Kho sex-video scandal. Tell me, Manolo, how exactly does having a non-constituent Philippine Senate actually help?

    You want to know something?

    The USA inserted the creation of a “nationally-elected” Senate into the 1935 Constitution because it purposely weakens the Office of the President. You know why?

    Because each of the Philippine Senators end up feeling that because they were nationally-elected – just like the President – they have the same “mandate” as the President. The natural tendency is that the Senate ends up thinking itself the equal of the President, and thus second-guesses the President. The USA did this because it was too afraid of your OWN GRANDFATHER, Manuel L. Quezon “the Original!” They felt he was too strong a personality and could undermine US interests (such as the BASES) if he chose to do so.

    By purposely creating a SENATE with a hyper-inflated sense of self-wroth, the Presidency would weaken under the constant second-guessing it would receive from the Senate and thus the President of the Philippines would be FORCED TO KEEP ASKING THE USA FOR HELP.

    It is no wonder, thus, that all pre-Ramos Presidents (After the Bases left, Ramos no longer needed to “defer to the USA” for anything) have somehow always needed the help of the US in getting things done. Why? Because of the internal politics that the existence of a self-important Senate with NO CONSTITUENCIES TO REPRESENT weakened the Philippine President so much that he/she would always need to ask old Uncle Sam for assistance.

    Does this make sense to you, Manolo? The truth is, it was because of your illustrious adoptive grandfather that the USA created a poisoned pill for us via the introduction of a nationally-elected Senate that HAD NO CONSTITUENCIES TO REPRESENT. They were afraid that Manuel L. Quezon (da orig) who was so popular could undermine US interests. They felt they needed to create a reason to keep Philippine Presidents DEPENDENT on the USA for assistance.

    There you go, Manolo. Your Senate is useless.

    * * * *

    There are, in fact, many more instances where your facts are just totally wrong and your logic is flawed, but the above-mentioned errors are the most glaring ones which seem to determine your rabid opposition to the proposed shift towards the Parliamentary System.

    I also want to underscore something which you and so many misinformed Filipino political analysts/commentators have continued to erroneously hold to: Many of you think that there are different types of Parliamentary Systems.

    No, Manolo. There is essentially only one type of Parliamentary System, the Westminster Parliamentary System, and all other systems that are termed to be true Parliamentary Systems are either modeled after it, or have turned out behaving exactly like it.

    In essence, for any system to be called a “Parliamentary System”, it cannot have a head of government who is SEPARATELY DETERMINED from the legislature. When you erroneously mentioned the “French System”, for instance, that was because you did not understand what a Parliamentary System is all about. France merely has a legislature that calls itself a parliament, and whose head is the “premier ministre.” But because France since the time of Charles de Gaulle has had a “Président” who has executive power and calls the shots, France’s system is NOT a parliamentary system.

    It would do the Philippine Media good if you, Manolo, could actually correct all other columnists and political analysts who have totally mistaken views.

    I will go further and tell you that the system that Marcos put in place with the Batasang Pambansa headed by “Prime Minister Cesar Virata” was NOT a parliamentary system at all, but rather it was still essentially a Presidential System, which just abandoned the US-System, and instead followed the lead of France. But just to be clear about it, Marcos’ System was not parliamentary because Marcos – as President – still called the shots, and in fact, “Prime Minister” Cesar Virata was the ceremonial decoration. Remember the litmus test I proposed to you? Find out first who the real leader is who calls the shots and find out which leader attends all the international gatherings. Which leader do other leaders call upon? Did they call upon Cesar Virata or did they call upon Marcos?

    * * * * * *

    Benign0 was totally spot-on in his assessment of your response as being inclined towards highlighting why changing is too hard. As I mentioned earlier, your focus seems to be so much more on the “popularity” (or unpopularity) of the proposed changes as opposed to making an objective and scientific analysis on the logical merits of one system over the other. You will need to review your facts and perhaps read up more on the Parliamentary System.

    As I said, you need to read more of Dr. Juan Linz, PhD’s work to find out the truth. Don’t read only articles that support your biases. Read all sides, and from there, take on the most logical and factually-accurate point-of-view.

    * * * *

    Now, going back to why the Parliamentary System is superior to the Presidential System – especially when looking at the Philippine Presidential System, you will find that:

    a. The Philippine Presidential System has always been (and always will be) a contest of personalities and celebrities, and very rarely will ever be one which focuses on platforms and policies. No amount of intellectualizing on the contrary or pambobola can change this.

    b. The Parliamentary System, on the other hand, ensures that you won’t end up with stupid bozos and empty suits like Erap, FPJ, or Noynoy ending up as Prime Minister. Why? Because the Parliamentary System is a party-based system that requires real parties with real constituencies. Only people who are party leaders CAN BECOME ELIGIBLE for Prime Minister. And only people who are competent and intelligent enough will ever be chosen by their own peers and party mates to become party leaders. Tell me, Manolo, why is it that Noynoy Aquino is being turned into the LP Standard-bearer, yet no one in the LP ever thought of making him the LP Party Leader? As you will see, Manolo, the Parliamentary System is more Darwinian because only competent and intelligent people will rise to the top of their parties, and in a parliamentary system, the party that forms the majority gets their leader becoming the Prime Minister.

    c. In a Parliamentary System, the contest of campaigns is focused on “which party has a better platform.” Why? Because in a Parliamentary System, you’re selling the party to the public, not personalities in the party. As such, instead of wasting time thinking only about winnability and popularity-based politicking, parties all focus on policy-making and in strategizing ways to make their policy stands stand out above the rest. There is only one focus before and after elections: Policy Making.

    d. In a Presidential System, the contest is focused on personalities. Especially in an intellectually-bankrupt society like the Philippines, campaigns focus too much on presidential candidates’ winnability and popularity among the public. Hardly anyone focuses on formulating sound policies and selling them to the Public. The focus first is “winning the election” and ONLY AFTER WINNING do people scramble to cobble up policies for governance. Indeed, time is taken from policy-formulation because the system favors personality-based politicking, thereby causing political candidates to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort focusing everything they do only on gaining “pogi-points.” Under a Parliamentary System, the LP would not do anything to give an incompetent legislator like Noynoy any real airtime, because a parliamentary system’s dynamics are focused on platforms and policies.

    * * * * *

    Read up on more on the Parliamentary System, Manolo.

    As I said, I have exposed your lack of knowledge on the topic and I have exposed far too many errors in your understanding. It is obvious that these errors and this lack of knowledge is what has caused you to take on an erroneous stand.

    Please do the Filipino Public a favor and read up more on these areas where you are deficient so that you can do a better job of informing the Filipino People about the right choices that need to be made in order to improve the country.

    Wrong Information = Wrong Decisions

    Wrong Decisions = Wrong Direction

    Wrong Direction = FAILURE

    You don’t want to be part of the cause for why the Philippines is a failure, right? So do your part, Manolo.

    Read up more so that you can make better and more informed decisions on the stands you take.

    I hope you take my advice constructively, Manolo.

    your good friend,

    Dr. José Rizal II

  27. Dr. ,

    I’m sorry if I don’t call you by the name of iour national hero because I believe you’re not worthy of carrying his name, so cut it out.
    I guess you’re some sort of wiseguy looking to impress us all with all these unsolicited advice and lecture on parliamentary systems, or another pseudo intellectual trying to make a name for himself and attracting bloggers to a particular site. Have your own blog, your own say, and do it on your own time and blogspace! The topic is about “platforms” if you still don’t get it so go shove your parliamentary crap somewhere where the sun doesn’t shine! You’re wasting our time and irritating the bejesus out of us. Go have a debate with Gloria Arroyo instead, that will be more interesting and maybe people will give you what you always craved for…sheeeesh mga kulang sa pansin!

  28. I will go further and tell you that the system that Marcos put in place with the Batasang Pambansa headed by “Prime Minister Cesar Virata” was NOT a parliamentary system at all, but rather it was still essentially a Presidential System, which just abandoned the US-System, and instead followed the lead of France. But just to be clear about it, Marcos’ System was not parliamentary because Marcos – as President – still called the shots, and in fact, “Prime Minister” Cesar Virata was the ceremonial decoration. Remember the litmus test I proposed to you? Find out first who the real leader is who calls the shots and find out which leader attends all the international gatherings. Which leader do other leaders call upon? Did they call upon Cesar Virata or did they call upon Marcos?

    Thats your opinion, unfortunately, it doesn’t hold water anywhere…if Marcos calls it modified parliamentary form of government, thats it, period, nothing you can do about it because he was in power, whereas what power fo you have except the nuclear potential of your armpit?

  29. @Dr Jose

    the problem is that parliamentary systems dont cause more party-centric politics. unless you have evidence to the contrary?

  30. Noynoy Aquino should do himself a favour and come up with a real platform. I illustrate how a lack of a sound and definitive stand on ANYTHING is resulting in his own supporters running around like headless chickens. Abe Margallo himself in his recent article on FV runs with the ball the wrong way as far as his “support” for Noynoy.

    Below is a comment to Margallo’s article that was banned on FV (I suppose they deemed it not “friendly” enough with regard to some relationships FV Admins had formed offline in the last few months 😉 ):


    Again, Mr Margallo, like most Noynoy supporters, you are copping out for your candidate. You are already pre-empting his performance of President of the Philippines by making this pre-emptive excuse for what your subconcious already tells you will be a mediorcre 2010-2016 adminsitration:

    The president’s role in the process is administrative in nature (i.e., execution of those policies) except where other presidential powers are granted or recognized by the Constitution.

    By saying the above you seemingly (though unsurprisingly) unwittingly undermine the very fundamental source of the fervour by which most Noynoy-supporters build their perception of Noynoy as embodiment of their hope and dreams.

    So as the esteemed Abe Margallo highlights in this blog article:

    Administrator lang pala ang mapapala ninyo kay Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III.

    That’s the real tragedy with Noynoy. He could have been an ok politician if it weren’t for his “supporters” and handlers. Because he lacks a clear stand or position on just about anything, his “supporters” (and I don’t mean his jockstraps) are left scrounging around for something to work with. The result is wholesale internally-contradicting approaches to pitching his bid for the presidency.

    Abe Margallo here in his usual form delivers one such doozey. Excusing the presidency — Noynoy’s presidency — as one to be characterised primarily by administrative duty rather than real leadership.

    Kawawang Noynoy campaign nga naman. Margallo gets passed the ball and he runs the wrong way and kicks it down the wrong goal.

    Imagine a second Aquino administration characterised by a no-character man surrounded by bumbling mouthpieces and action-jacksons with no over-arching framework to rein in their individual agendas.

    That’s what the future holds for the Philippines under Margallo’s vision for a Noynoy presidency.

    Trouble with the political “experts” is that their brains are imprisoned by Pinoy-style politics. Pinoy-style politics is short sighted. And the Aquino Constitution is a charter premised on the renowned pillars of shortsightedness that prop up Pinoy Thinking.

    Indeed, as Margallo demonstrates here:

    In a single-term presidential system, the opportunity for the public to hold an elected president accountable to his election promises is practically nil. Where the breach of promise is not an impeachable offense, the intra-constitutional recourse of the public is to wait for the next election.

    The above illustrates Tragedy Number Two: Margallo already somehow grasps that platforms are not just (as if they ever were in Pinoy society) a key means to win elections in our context. They are also a means to hold politicians accountable. But then like the flaccidity of the people he presumes to speak for, he cops out saying that this is something all but impossible under the current “system”.

    That’s because he cannot see beyond the system.

    For Margallo, presidents need to be under the threat of punitive action (impeachment, say) for “breach of promise” to make good on their word. Indeed, to be fair to the Elder “Expert”, this view relfects the character of Da Pinoy — a people who do the right thing only under threat of severe punishment. Foolish is one who expects Pinoys to do something properly because doign so is right.

    Again the Elder “Expert” contradicts the already vacuous sensibilities of the average Noynoy supporter — that Noynoy is a man of “integrity”. How could he be, when the Elder “Expert” now asserts that even such a man seen to be of utmost “integrity” will find the whole exercise of coming up with a platform pointless because he is under no threat of punishment anyway if he breaches its stipulations when he starts “driving the bus” (to cite the term used by that other “expert”).

    My recommendation to Noynoy “supporters” is that you at least plant a few brain seeds now. Four or five months is enough time to grow one to the size one needs to live under Aquino 2.0.

  31. ramrod,

    Being pikon will never get you anywhere. For you to effectively join in the discussion you need to meet these pre-requisites:

    1. grow a brain
    2. learn to use your brain logically
    3. fill it up with the relevant information
    4. stay away from making ad hominems
    5. focus on the message and content, not on the messenger 😉

    Now, as to what Marcos said, it is obvious you don’t come from a scientific background (or any field that requires solid logic) because you think everything is just a matter of subjectivity or “it is what you call it.” Wrong, ramrod.

    Even if Marcos had all the power he ever wanted, if he said that the Moon was made of cheese, that doesn’t make it so. If Marcos said that the Earth is Flat, that doesn’t make it so. In like manner, if he described the system he put in place with the Batasang Pambansa was a “modified parliamentary system”, that doesn’t make it so, because in the end, a system is a Parliamentary System IF AND ONLY IF the country is effectively ruled by the PARLIAMENT (whose head is the Prime Minister). Was the Philippines during Marcos’ time effectively ruled/governed by the Batasang Pambansa headed by Prime Minister Cesar Virata? Obviously not.

    Ergo, ramrod, you don’t know what you’re talking about. 😉

    Read up, boy. 😉

    * * * * * * *


    So, what say you? Are you now going to start reading up on the Dr. Juan Linz, PhD’s body of work? Are you now going to read up more on the Parliamentary System? Are you going to go past your biases, tastes, and preferences, and SUBORDINATE THEM to the overwhelming evidence out there as well as reason?

    I hope you’ve made it your New Year’s Resolution (you have time as tomorrow is New Year’s Eve) to:

    1. Suspend all judgment until all relevant information has been researched

    2. Remove all biases and emotion in making such conclusions

    3. Read up more on topics where you’ve been exposed to be deficient

    Hope you take all this advice constructively, Manolo… 😉

    your good friend,

    Dr. José Rizal II

    * * * * * * * *

    Greetings Gabby Angelo Domingo,

    It is obvious that you were unfortunately unable to study the different systems in your undergrad at UP and your masters at UC Davis, GabbyD. It must be stressed that the evidence is out there in the internet, but anyway, here is something that can help you out:

    In the article, you will find this being mentioned:

    “It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of parliamentarianism. The prime minister seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person.”

    (Found under the “Advantages of the Parliamentary System.”)

    Just as I had advised Manolo Quezon to do so, I will reiterate the same for you… Please read up on the work of Dr. Juan Linz, PhD. There is one major work up on the internet called “The Perils of Presidentialism” and it’s easy to find. Check it out.

    There are a lot more articles on the internet that prove that the Parliamentary System is more platform and party centric, and it is extremely OBVIOUS to everyone why this is so:

    Because in a Parliamentary System, the contest is not about individuals fighting over the singular post of “President.”

    It’s about Parties fighting againt each other to gain more seats than the other parties. Think of how things work in Britain, Canada, Australia, India, Malaysia, {insert name of country that uses a Parliamentary System here}: Before a person becomes a Prime Minister, he must first:

    1. Become the leader of his party
    2. He must lead his party well enough so that his party is able to come up with a platform that trumps the platforms of other parties
    3. He must lead his party well enough so that the members of his party who run for MP in the various constituencies embody the principles in the platform/manifesto.
    4. He must lead his party well enough so that the members of his party who did win in their own constituencies are able to effectively carry out the platform/manifesto’s action plans and gain the trust of the people in MOST (if not all) constituencies

    5. He must lead his party well enough for his party’s candidates to win in most constituencies so that his party WINS A MAJORITY of the seats in parliament.

    Now, Gabby Domingo, as you can see, the requirements for anyone to become Prime Minister are extremely PARTY-ORIENTED because it requires that various candidates for MP win in MOST constituencies in order to gain a majority of the seats. Doesn’t that show that the dynamics of the Parliamentary System is extremely PARTY-CENTRIC?

    Use your brains, Gabby Domingo. And please read the examples I’ve mentioned once again! I mentioned Malaysia and I clearly showed how it is that people there have subordinated personalities to party platforms, so that in the two northern states of Kelantan and Terengganu, the Islamic Party took control purely because the voters preferred the Islamic Party’s platform and stated policy objectives.

    People in Kelantan and Terengganu DID NOT vote the candidates for MP there because those candidates were “popular figures” who did song and dance routines or were actors. Those candidates are strict preacher-types, many of whom aren’t exactly the types who would win in Philippine Elections. But the Islamic Party won in those two states anyway because the people PREFER THE ISLAMIC PARTY’S PLATFORM and POLICIES.

    There you go, Gabby Domingo. Please read some more.

    By the way, how’s the Economics Department at UC Davis treating you? Perhaps you should shift majors and do Political Science? 😉

    Please make reading up on a lot of the things you wish to comment on be your NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION, ok? 😉

    your new mentor,

    Dr. José Rizal II.

  32. @Dr.

    why the condescending attitude? i’m not disputing (yet) that parliamentary systems are more inclined towards party politics.

    what i’m saying is that it doesnt CAUSE it to happen. do you have any evidence on CAUSALITY?

  33. Gabby Angelo Domingo,

    There is nothing wrong with how I treat you. You deserve to be treated the way I treat you. By the way, I have seen your posts in a variety of places, and I noted that you’ve been very “pilosopo” to the point of annoying several different people on one site. One comment about your inability to establish logical connections and determine trends, correlations, causality, and other obvious relationships between objects and/or phenomena caused one fellow commenter of yours to describe you in the following way:

    “If you say the Pope is Catholic, GabbyD will ask you to prove it and when you do, he will pester you some more to prove what is already extremely obvious to everyone.”

    Let’s look back at what your comment was earlier on this board: “the problem is that parliamentary systems dont cause more party-centric politics. unless you have evidence to the contrary?”

    After having proven causality by establishing the facts, you’re now trying to say that it doesn’t CAUSE it to happen.

    Again, Gabby Angelo Domingo of the UC Davis Economics Department, it is extremely obvious that you are unable to determine the relationship between two things which are actually quite obvious.

    Allow me to explain once again, this time, focusing on the election campaigns done in both the Philippine Presidential System versus election campaigns done in a Parliamentary System.


    In the Philippine Presidential System, you will notice that campaign posters and TV campaign ads feature the Presidential Candidate with his/her image, showing him/her talking, and basically expressing the idea “Vote for {insert particular Presidential Candidate’s name here}.” Well, that in itself is proof enough that the election campaign in the Philippine Presidential System is PERSONALITY-CENTRIC, and very often does not talk much about platforms and policies, and instead highlights the positive perception of he candidate’s personal traits.

    It is no wonder, thus, that come election time, winners who do emerge often tend to be the candidates with the most favorable combination of name-recall, popularity, and perceived suitability for the job, with hardly any real emphasis placed on policy platform/manifesto, track record, and party positions on issues, as Philippine Society at large – being largely intellectually bankrupt – tends to take a short-cut and puts name recall and popularity (or even celebrity status) at the forefront of the selection criteria.

    It is thus no wonder that Philippine Elections are popularity contests which often feature celebrity candidates such as actors or people with “names” who often don’t even make attempts to prove that they have a professional track record.

    In this, the Presidential System’s essence of choosing individuals for a single post, when juxtaposed with the Filipino penchant for pageantry and personality-centered relations, CAUSES the Philippine incarnation of the Presidential System to be the circus popularity contest that it is.


    As for the Parliamentary System – and again, this explanation is done because you simply couldn’t put two and two together even if it was so obvious – what you have is the contest of parties for SEATS IN PARLIAMENT.

    The Parliamentary System DOES NOT FEATURE a contest between individual candidates for the top post of Prime Minister. Instead, it features a contest between PARTIES, for whom the party that gets majority of the seats becomes the dominant force within Parliament, and from where its leader then emerges as the Prime Minister.

    Consider how Parliamentary Election Campaigns are often run in Britain, Canada, India, or in whatever other country that uses a Parliamentary System: Instead of having posters and TV ads that focus on individual candidates, you have posters that present the PARTIES, with the individual candidates for Member of Parliament (equivalent of Congressman) in each Constituency (equiv of District) often being much smaller than the name of the Party he/she is a member of.

    When doing nationwide campaigns be they live campaign rallies or TV ads, the Party Leader – who is poised to become Prime Minister should his party win – DOES NOT TELL VOTERS “VOTE FOR ME” but instead, he says “PLEASE VOTE FOR MY PARTY!” But of course, it can’t just stop there… When saying “Vote for my PARTY” the leader needs to say “WHY” and that is why such campaigns are heavily policy, platform, and manifesto-centric.

    Why does the Party Leader say “Vote for my party”, Gabby Domingo? That’s because no one votes for specific party leaders to become Prime Minister. Instead, each of the voters in the various constituencies have to vote for the candidate of that constituency WHO COMES FROM HIS PARTY.

    The very system itself CAUSES party politics to happen because that is the way parties get power: Parties – not individual people – must get a majority of seats, and therefore voters all around the country should be convinced to choose one party over other parties. Hence, the behavior of PARTY POLITICS is caused, encouraged, and FAVORED by the Parliamentary System much more the Presidential System.

    Do you now understand, Gabby Angelo Domingo?

    In short, this is a comparison of how a person who wants to become Head of Government campaigns in both a Presidential versus a Parliamentary System campaigns in order to become Head of Government:

    Presidential: “Vote for me!”
    Parliamentary: “Vote for my Party!”

    Now I think this makes it extremely obvious, Gabby Domingo… I also hope that this explanation has helped Manolo himself understand that his continued opposition to Charter Change (and the shift towards a Parliamentary System) has largely been baseless, unfounded, and irresponsible.

    * * * * *


    Happy New Year, my good friend!

    The New Year is upon us… I hope you’ve made your New Year’s Resolution to be one of READING UP and coming up with QUALITY ANALYSIS on topics where you’ve been shown to be deficient.

    Surely, you aren’t serious about continuing to have a “Philippines run like hell by Filipinos”, right? Then maybe it’s about time you corrected your misguided opinion against the Parliamentary System in light of the obvious facts I have mentioned which you previously were unaware of.

    (Can’t blame you, maybe it’s because you – unlike me – haven’t really observed and painstakingly followed in detail how Parliamentary Systems work)

    But now you know. Now you know how a Parliamentary System works. Now you know that a Parliamentary System is AUTOMATICALLY MORE PARTY-CENTRIC and PLATFORM-FOCUSED than a Presidential System. So now, you should spread the word.

    I hope you make that your New Year’s Mission, Manolo.

    your good friend,

    Dr. José Rizal II

  34. @dr

    first, i deserve it? so its ok to be condescending if you ask for proof? i mean, if its so easy, and so obvious, proof should be easy to show, right? if u believe i’m stupid, thats your right. i might actually believe you 🙂

    second, its easy to prove that the pope is catholic. he is catholic, by definition.

    actually, i was thinking of this scenario: do you know of any country that SWITCHED from non-parliamentary to parliamentary and got the results you suggest here.

    that is the relevant question, coz that is what you want to do, right?

    now, its true that voters elect parties in parliamentary. BUT, the just pushes the question down one step — what should a party be, and will a shift to parliamentary ?

    if the answer to the question is “a party is a uniting set of political beliefs”, which is what i think a party should be, then i wonder if a parliamentary form can make parties become more party-like.

    BUT, if parties are not that, its say, a group of people with the same ethnic background, class background, or are united by a wealthy patron — will a shift to parliamentary change that and turn it into parties that reflect political beliefs.

    also, i wonder if some parliamentary systems are so devoid of personalities as you suggest. if so, then the identity of the prime minister should have no bearing. But we are constantly reminded of the strong personalities of several prime ministers, mahathir, lee quan yew, blair, etc.

    please if you have something to share, go ahead and share…

  35. Gabriel Angelo Domingo,

    It’s alright to scold people who waste others’ time, and if by scolding timewasters, the one doing the scolding has to seem condescending, then “sorry ka na lang.”. As was previously highlighted, you are the type of person who would figuratively question whether the Pope is Catholic. I myself didn’t say that, but someone else described you as such on another website, and judging from how you’ve behaved in the various forums including here, he was totally spot-on in assessing you. As much as I can see that you often fail to connect the dots, I do not BELIEVE that you are stupid. (Because I try not to stick in the realm of belief – which is all about assumptions) Instead, I can simply point to the fact that you often ACT stupid, and that is obvious to everyone. 😉

    As for the examples, it is obvious that I have already given you some examples previously. Those that came from a Presidential system and went Parliamentary did in fact become much more party-centric in terms of electoral behavior. However, in contrast to the Philippines (which is one of the most rambunctious and least party-centric of societies), most such countries were already fairly party-centric to begin with, and shifting over to the Parliamentary System just strengthened the party-centeredness all the more.

    The better way of looking at things, though, is to look at societies that are actually SIMILAR to the Philippines in terms of cultural temperament and behavioral inclination or even level of economic, social, and political development who use a Parliamentary system.

    In this situation, Malaysia is the one that comes closest due to the fact that Malaysia’s ethnic majority is culturally similar (and shares similar cultural roots) with the indigenous cultures of the Philippines. I have already discussed/mentioned this earlier – but this seems to have escaped you. But just to reiterate, Gabby Domingo, Malaysia’s use of the Parliamentary System has FORCED, and yes – CAUSED, the indigenous ethnic majority (Bumiputras: Malays, Kadazan-Dusuns, Ibans, etc) to vote according to Party Lines, even if they would naturally gravitate toward strong personalities as they are actually culturally similar to Filipinos.

    I already very clearly mentioned the reasons – and of course – you probably didn’t read it – so I’ll say it again: The people in Malaysia vote based on policy platforms that they agree with or prefer. In the two Northern States of Terengganu and Kelantan, the people there have voted in the Islamic Party because it is their policies which resonate with most of them – even among those who are NOT MALAY or MUSLIM.

    In other areas too, if people – regardless of ethnicity – are dissatisfied with the National Front (“Barisan Nasional”), they vote for opposition candidates. The point, Gabriel Angelo Domingo, is that elections in Malaysia – which is a country whose ethnic majority bloc (Bumiputras) are culturally and behaviorally similar to Filipinos (they too are generally personality-centric), their elections are undoubtedly so much more policy, and party/coalition platform-based than the elections here in the Philippines have ever been.

    (In Malaysia, it is the coalitions that often take on the character of the party, since the historical parties often bear ethnicity names such as “Malaysian Chinese Association”, “Malaysian Indian Congress”, “United Malays’ National Organisation” – and all these form the “Barisan Nasional” – the “National Front.” For all intents and purposes, the Barisan Nasional is the coalition which acts as the dominant “party” which stands for “progress” and “modernization” and the BN presents its opponents, mainly the Islamic Party as being a force for backwardness and medievalism.)

    Also, look at India. India’s people are like the Pinoy people: extremely personality-oriented especially in the entertainment scene. Bollywood Actors and Actresses are not always the best actors/actresses. They often just happen to look good. In fact, the producers and director of Slumdog Millionaire had to look OUTSIDE OF BOLLYWOOD (and found an overseas Britain-based Indian) to find the lead male role because Bollywood actors were too “handsome” and they needed someone who looked more believable. India is a highly personality-centric country, but India’s election campaigns, because of its Parliamentary nature, are much more sober, in contrast.

    * * * * * *

    AND I NEVER SAID THAT PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMS ARE DEVOID OF PERSONALITIES, Gabriel Angelo Domingo. Never did I say that. (Don’t be a liar, GabbyD. Don’t make up stuff, ok?) All I said is that the elections and election campaigns in societies using Parliamentary Systems are undoubtedly far more policy, party, and platform-centric than elections and election campaigns are in countries using the Presidential System.

    Indeed, there are strong personalities that do emerge. However, DUE TO THE ELECTION DYNAMICS of the Parliamentary System, where the Party Leaders CANNOT BE DIRECTLY ELECTED NATIONWIDE, Party Leaders who wish to become the Prime Minister of their Country’s Parliament must campaign to the electorate in such a way as saying “Please vote for the candidates in my Party because {insert key policy positions here}” (clearly something that is Policy-oriented) instead of saying “Please vote for me!” (something that is Personality-oriented)

    Gabby Angelo Domingo, it’s time you stopped wasting time and went back into reading all my posts from the beginning. Go back to the top of this comment section, and look for my first post. Read it in full. Then move on to the next and so on and so forth. READ ALL OF THEM IN FULL.

    As far as I can see, all you do in different forums is to waste other peoples’ time by making them repeat and re-repeat themselves as I’ve done because I simply want you to learn.

    But of course, if you really are going to act stupid, there’s nothing I can do.

    Then again, you’re supposed to be smart, Gabby Angelo Domingo. You’re taking up a Masters degree in UC Davis. So please use your brains, Gabby Domingo.

    Now, going back to those Prime Ministers with “strong personalities” you mentioned: Mahathir Mohamad, Lee Kuan Yew, Tony Blair, heck, let’s even add people like Margaret Thatcher, or John Major to the mix…

    Are there any brainless idiots among them, huh Gabby Domingo? Are there any actor, singer, celebrity-types among them? Or are these people achievers who GOT THINGS DONE and could effectively explain why their policies needed to be done?

    Even some of the most flamboyant ones, like Silvio Berlusconi, aren’t AIR-HEAD celebrities. Silvio Berlusconi, for all the fanfare he generates, IS – at the very least – AN ACHIEVER IN HIS OWN RIGHT.

    You see the point here, Gabby Angelo Domingo? You can’t become a Prime Minister just by simply being a famous celebrity such as an actor, singer, TV talk-show host, etc. You need to first RISE TO THE TOP OF YOUR PARTY!

    And will your party mates make you their party leader if you’re an airhead?

    Sure, you can probably go ahead and start your own party, and since you founded and started the party, you’ll automatically be the leader of that party, but WILL YOUR PARTY WIN MAJORITY OF THE SEATS IN PARLIAMENT? Again, that’s the other question… So you can’t just be some ordinary “famous person who wants to become Prime Minister.” You’ve got to be someone who can deliver! You’ve got to be someone who can get things done! You’ve got to be someone who can lead his party, and you’ve got to be someone who can make his party win.

    If you’re a famous celebrity, but a lousy party leader, you WON’T BE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING YOUR PARTY WINNING ENOUGH SEATS. And if you don’t get the majority (but get the most number of seats), you have to be GOOD ENOUGH at making deals with other parties (if there are more than two main parties) in order to form a coalition-bloc that then gets majority of all parliamentary seats.

    See how Darwinian the Parliamentary System is, Gabriel Angelo Domingo?

    As you can see, in a Parliamentary System, YOU WON’T HAVE THE LIKES OF ERAP, FPJ, or NOYNOY becoming Prime Minister.

    With Erap, he couldn’t even be the real leader of his own party, because people like Maceda were the real leader. Same with FPJ. With Noynoy, the Liberal Party (which doesn’t have a real congressional line-up) put him up as Presidential Standard Bearer, but they never turned him into the LP Party Leader!

    If the current system were Parliamentary, NOYNOY could NEVER EVER become Prime Minister because his party wouldn’t even turn him into their leader.

    This is where you need to at least admit that the Parliamentary System has an advantage.

    And then again, in Parliamentary Systems, while having eloquent and party leaders with strong personalities helps, IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT in order for the party to get in power. It is not a requirement for the party leader to have a “strong personality” with a bombastic “stage presence.” I heard this in a recent podcast where two main examples were mentioned: The Prime Minister of India and Prime Minister of Canada.

    Both PM’s are extremely boring personalities, but it doesn’t matter because they DELIVER RESULTS and get things done. They lead their parties well and make their parties effectively gain majority through gaining seats in general elections or through effective coalition-building, as well as sound policy-formation that delivers positive results.

    As you can see, there are way too many advantages that the far more party-based Parliamentary System has over the extremely personality-oriented PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM.

    In summary, the Parliamentary System trumps the Presidential because:

    1. The Parliamentary System is far more party-centric as opposed to the personality-centeredness of the Presidential System

    2. The election campaigns of Parliamentary Systems focus on parties and party platforms because party leaders who wish to become Prime Minister effectively campaign for their PARTIES, by emphasizing their party-platforms as the reason, instead of campaigning for their own selves. The general message is “Vote for my party” instead of “Vote for me”

    3. Anyone who aspires to become Prime Minister must first RISE TO THE TOP within his own party and thus get chosen by his own party-mates. In order to do this, the person who wishes to become the leader of his party must PROVE HIMSELF through hard work and positive results, and competence. Merely having popularity and a “well-known name” won’t get you up there. In short, you can’t just be popular. You need to be competent enough to convince your own party-mates that you’re worthy of becoming the party leader.

    4. A Prime Minister in a Parliamentary System-based country NEED NOT HAVE A STRONG PERSONALITY. While having an eloquent, charismatic personality HELPS A LOT, it is not the most important thing in countries that use a Parliamentary System. Instead, the most competent person within a party often becomes its leader, even if he may not be an extremely charismatic person, because what matters is the party’s policy platform and its ability to deliver on its policy platform’s promises. As such, some countries like Canada and India currently have Prime Ministers who are rather boring personalities, but hold such posts because they are competent in getting things done and achieving positive results.

    5. A Parliamentary System is more results-oriented than a Presidential System. Like number 4…

    6. Idiot Air-heads CANNOT become Prime Minister in a Parliamentary System, but Idiot Air-heads CAN BECOME PRESIDENT in a Presidential System – especially if the system is like the 1987 Cory Constitution which allows any idiot with name-recall to run for office… The Party-based nature of the Parliamentary System ensures that one must first rise to the top of his party in order to become eligible to become head of government. But in a Presidential System, as long as you satisfy the minimum requirements to run for the office of President, any idiot airhead such as clueless actors, celebrities, or people who just happen to have famous surnames can run for President and win, never mind that they aren’t the best for the job… The Philippines, with its chaotic and rambunctious Presidential system seems to be one of the worst in this regard, as people care more about “winnability” (another word for “popularity”) instead of competence and ability, thereby favoring flamboyant celebrities over quiet-but-effective get-the-job-done leaders.

    * * * *

    Anyway, Gabriel Angelo Domingo, I hope the stuff I wrote here helps. You have actually once again wasted my time, but you know, I care for you in the sense that I really want you to learn.

    However, please do not give me or anyone else any more reasons to be condescending towards you. READ MY POSTS IN FULL, and re-read them if necessary. Plus, if there’s anything you want to know more about, you can simply GOOGLE THEM first, since most of the stuff I mentioned here is actually google-able, but unfortunately you’re too lazy to look for it yourself.

    If you really are interested in this series of topics, then please take the time and make the effort to do some real research on it, instead of wasting my time asking me to repeat and re-repeat myself here simply because you never cared to read through my posts carefully. Everything is already here for you to see and plus the internet has other details on the same stuff I’ve mentioned which are just waiting to be googled.

    Stop being stupid and stubborn, ok, Gabriel Angelo Domingo? Don’t waste our time. Read all my stuff over and over again until you can recite it by heart, then go try searching stuff ON YOUR OWN in case you have follow-up questions.

    I also need to tell you that your approach to stuff is extremely wrong. If there’s something you don’t know or aren’t sure about, the correct DEFAULT position is not to go against what it is that one person explains to be so, but rather you should just continue on saying “I don’t know” instead of taking on the opposite.

    For instance: If you don’t know whether or not God exists, then don’t call yourself an Atheist, but call yourself an Agnostic instead.

    If you don’t know yet whether the Parliamentary System is indeed better than the Presidential System, then don’t immediately assume that the Presidential System is better. Take on an “agnostic” position of “I don’t know which system is better” and only when you’re able to establish that there are indeed MORE REASONS to describe one system as being better than the other should you take on a position.


    Your new mentor,

    Dr. José Rizal II

    * * * * * * * *

    My good friend Manolo,

    I hope you’re taking notes while reading through my posts. The information here should actually give you a better glimpse into the obvious superiority of the Parliamentary System over the Presidential System.

    You know, sometimes the problem with us Filipinos is that we are extremely infatuated with calling our leader “President” and cannot imagine calling him/her “Prime Minister” simply because that’s how it’s been done in the past and plus we are extremely US-oriented as well as crazy about all these Hollywood movies and TV shows that feature the American President. (Air Force One, Dave, the West Wing, First Daughter, etc)

    In that case maybe you might want to consider following what SPAIN does… While the English-language press often refers to the Spanish HEAD OF GOVERNMENT as “Prime Minister”, the formal title that the Spanish Head of Goverment holds is “Presidente del Gobierno” (President of the Government), and as such, during Pan-Iberian Summits and Caucuses where the leaders of Spain, Portugal, Latin American countries, as well as some African countries formerly under Iberian rule, ALL THE LEADERS are often referred to as “Presidente” because even the Spanish “Prime Minister” technically holds the title of “President” even if Spain is parliamentary in contrast to its former colonies in Latin America.

    Anyway, all I hope is that you keep an open mind, Manolo.

    Instead of being closed to the Parliamentary System due to, say, sentimental or emotional reasons as well as reasons of INERTIA (“Well, that’s how it’s always been done here in the Philippines, so that’s how it should remain to be!”), please be open to making an OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT of the pros-and-cons and merits of which system really is better.

    If you do this objectively, you will actually agree with me that the Parliamentary System is WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY better than the Presidential System, and especially better than the current Presidential System we have which operates under the 1987 Cory Constitution which is extremely flawed. 😉

    your good friend,

    Dr. José Rizal II

  36. Manuel L Quezon III,

    I find it rather carnival-like that you would go on blogging about certain things that are obviously not your expertise. It is also disturbing that you would pose as an intellectual who really has nothing to say.

    Everything you write or say is just based on hearsay. Come to think of it, would it not hurt to just accept you are wrong and focus on reading up to make up for your lack of knowledge than just pretend to be this intellectual?

    The truth hurts Mr. Quezon, but it will liberate you.


  37. Manuel L. Quezon III,

    It seems that you are not replying to your readers’ comments. JR2’s beating you up in your own blog… Show him who’s boss by coming up with a good counter attack.


  38. Jose Rizal II,

    Leave Manolo alone. It is obvious that you have no honest intent on discussion; intellectual hitman ka ba ni GMA?

    Manolo is a true patriot. That is why we are trying to draft him to the Senate, where he could complete his training to be a future president of our country.

    The Force is great in him. You cannot turn him to the Dark Side.

    See you at Starbucks 🙂

  39. Estimado Sr. Coño,

    No hay nada que discutir con el niño. Manolito tiene que aprender más cosas para evitar la tontería que va a hacer como líder de nuestra pátria adorada. La verdad es que soy su maestro, pero no quiere aprender por causa de su orgullo en la cabeza. Entonces, es mi trabajo corregir sus errores.

    ¿Entiendes lo que digo?

    ¿Hablas español, Coño?

    con afecto,

    Dr. José Rizal II

  40. Estimado Sr. Rizal,

    Manolito será un gran líder de nuestro país adorado. Él necesita ser entrenado en el senado primero. La verdad es que usted tiene miedo que su grandeza hará le mirada débil.

    ¿Usted bebe el café?

    Véale en Starbucks:)

  41. Dr Rizal,

    I asked around. I think I know who you are.

    You are “The Real Deal” are you not? wink. wink.

    I’ll be at the Greenbelt Starbucks today if you wanna “hook up.”

    See you there 🙂