CRITIQUE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE CHARTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SHIFTING THE PRESIDENTIAL-UNITARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT INTO ONE THAT ADOPTS A PARLIAMENTARY FEDERAL SYSTEM
by PATRICK MABBAGU
President, Supreme Student Government
Vice-Mayor, Political Science Society
Former Editor in Chief, The Bonifacio Standard
Spokesperson, YOUTH Demanding for Arroyo’s Resignation (DARE);
League of the Filipino Students-Zamboanga del Norte Chapter
Fellow, National Union of Students of the Philippines
Regional Correspondent, College Editors’ Guild of the Philippines
Chairman, Andres Bonifacio College-Saint Columban College
Supreme Student Government Consultative-Partnership Program
Champion, Extemporaneous Speaking Competition,
2005 Literary and Musical Competition
“Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things; in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything for the ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand.”- Bangkong
I. INTRODUCTION
Filipinos tend to think of change as something to be achieved rather than something to be recognized. We talk of effecting changes in our values system, look into the ills of the society and criticize the structure of the government less discerning that the seeds of these changes have already been sown…that is if we begin to realize that. In light of emancipation of the truth, I shall limit my self to the practical consequences of the federal- parliamentary setup and the reasons why we need no intricate change at all but rather intrinsic and plain reformation.
In her State of the Nation Address on July 25, 2005, the beleaguered President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo said it is the time to start the great debate on Charter Change because the political system ‘has become the hindrance to the progress’. To thunderous rounds of applause from local executives and members of the House of Representatives, the President said she preferred Congress convening into a constituent assembly because it was the quickest way to change the constitution.
Ms Arroyo also said she favored the shift from the presidential-unitary to a parliamentary-federal form of government. The real issue is not adopting a federal-presidential government but it is the shift to the parliamentary-federal government where most legislators including Senator Juan Flavier and Franklin Drilon; and former University of the Philippines President Jose Abeuva gain the support.
This however has been seen a ‘graceful exit’ of GMA amidst the turbulent seas of criticisms and mudslinging in the advent of the Hello Garci wire -tapped issue aggravated by the upholding of the constitutionality of Republic Act 9337 or the Expanded Value Added Tax Law as decided by the Supreme Court through Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez; the Executive Order 464 which restricts personas under the Executive branch of the government from appearing before the congress to answer legislative inquiries; the Venable Contract and the killing of Impeachment Case which suppresses the truth and subvert the interests of the Filipinos.
I say that the shift to the federal-parliamentary form of government is no less than a center stage for more dirty and apprehensive political game plan where the majority many of whom are social and economic elites shall always heed not the battle cry of the minority even if Juan de La Cruz’s cause is on the risk.
II. ARTICULATION AND SUBSTANTIVE REASONING
It was Aristotle if I am not mistaken who in his philosophical thought, said, ‘any form of government is good so long as the leader who wields power ultimately seeks the good of all rather than his own personal interest’. The presidential-unitary and federal-parliamentary are both good forms of government. The Philippines has always been under the presidential system for we are taught to have to by the hegemonic United States of America. We have no experience whatsoever with the parliamentary set-up except during the lamented martial law years, resulting from a change in constitution in 1973 which though I am a Marcosian, not a good example.
Whom are We Voting Under the Federal-Parliamentary System?
The Filipino voter, and we have some 30 million, according to archives of COMELEC has always voted directly for the President. His choice is his and no one else’s. In a parliamentary-federal system, the campaign line will be that if candidate x, who belongs to party A, wins, he will vote for a candidate Y for the prime minister, the leader of the party A. The voter, instead of voting directly for the Prime Minister, will entrust his vote to the parliamentary candidate he will be voting for.
While the Filipinos has always participated directly in choosing who should lead the country, the planned shift to the federal-parliamentary system would deprive him of that. He will vote by proxy. This doesn’t sit well with our participatory political culture especially since we are not inclined to follow the compass of what should have been right and majority.
Danger of Autocratic rule
It is argued that it would be easier to remove an unworthy Prime Minister. We do not have to wait for his term to expire because if we found him not having the majority command, a loss of confidence vote could justify his fate. Really?
At present, in the 237-member House of Representatives, the opposition, despite the noise, hoopla, demonstrations and massive media support against a maligned President, cannot even muster the 1/3 vote needed to impeach GMA for ‘culpable violation’ of her constitutional duty. Ally they have gotten are the signatures of less than 1/5 of the membership. Whoever said that is ever easy to remove an incumbent leader of a country?
An incumbent whether in Parliamentary or in Presidential, would always have the decided advantage inherent in incumbency. On the contrary the parliamentary-federal setup is conducive to installing a Prime Minister who can stay on in perpetuity. Since the Prime Minister is not only the Chief Executive but at the same time the leader of the Parliament, patronage politics would even be worse than in the presidential set-up. Here we face the danger that parliamentarism opens the door to autocratic rule under a very strong PM who can mesmerize a docile parliamentary because the powers of the executive and the legislative are merged into one. Just try to review the likes of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi and you will know what I am trying to convey.
We don’t have Strong Political Parties
Under the proposed charter, the Prime Minister shall be elected from among the members of the Parliament to whom he is directly accountable. His cabinet, the government, so to speak, rises and falls on the continued support or loss of confidence of the legislature which can dismiss the government on a no-confidence vote. The counter weight of this is his undoubted power to establish regency and to dissolve the parliament and call for new elections. Theoretically, the existence of a strong party system which is needed under the parliamentary system, provides the “system of check and balance” within the legislature, where there are definitive ideologies or platforms of government that are delineated according to party lines against which policy directions are fully debated and voted upon in Parliament. And to say the least, we do not have any clear manifestation of strong and viable political parties since if we are to emanate a fact from the annals of our history, legislators have always flaunted and thwarted any attempt to penalize our leaders for political turncoatism.
Moreover, we are faced with a major challenge-our brand of politics is unfortunately dominated by personalities not by party platforms, ideologies or causes. We have not developed a strong party system and a meritocracy-based bureaucracy, which should provide the stability and continuity needed to withstand the constant pressures of changes at the top, a hallmark of a parliamentary government.
Our Future is Bleak and Uncertain
Developing countries like the Philippines brought under American tradition of presidential system for over a hundred years cannot experiment from the federal-parliamentary form that works well in advance countries in Europe, Japan and the Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia and New Zealand where it is developed and advanced over the years and fortified by relatively strong economies.
Legislative Efficiency on Question
It is said that the legislation would be faster in a parliamentary setting because the unicameral legislature is only of one House composition. This is obscurantism. One need not to go into the federal-parliamentary system if the objective is just to have a unicameral legislature. We had a unicameral National Assembly during the Commonwealth, from 1935 to 1941 but at the same time we had a president. But after the six-year experiment, we went back to the bicameral setup realizing that it was simply abhorrent.
A New System will not alleviate our chaos
Now, a lot of people are stressing that with the shift to a federal form of government, it will focus on functions as security and defense, foreign relations, the monetary and central banking system, citizenship and human rights in general, immigration and customs, national infrastructure, global trade, industry and globalization, the appellate judiciary and a new constitutional tribunal to deal with the constitutional issues, aren’t these the main concerns of the government that is sought to be done? For goodness sake! We are simply reinvigorating into the proposed system the same old stories, the same statements with same adjectives and adverbs!
There has been no clear and empirical evidence supporting Speaker Jose De Venecia’s claim that a shift of government can bring salvation to our country. We want to address the issue on graft and corruption, and then the answer lies not on the change of government but rather on going after these criminals tooth and nails sending them the message that the cost of being corrupt is greater than the benefits. We want to prevent the election frauds and excessive electoral spending, then overhaul the Commission on Elections and veer them from partisan politics to avoid another “I am Sorry…It was a lapse in judgment” from a bogus president. We want to create a climate of long term investments, then the answer lies not on the charter but by stopping all the political bickering and going back to out home works. We want to have democracy at the grassroots, then the answer dwells not on changing the government but by exercising our inherent rights to vote and to proper implementation and administration of the law.
Defects of Proposed 11 Federal States
The proposal to establish eleven federal states are entirely new autonomous regional governments based on some common ethno-linguistic, cultural and historical features; contagious or neighboring territory and economic potential and viability. For serious examination the 11 proposed states are:
1. Ilocos- Cagayan Valley, 2. Cordillera, 3. Central Luzon, 4. Metro Manila, 5. Southern Tagalog, 6.Bicol, 7. Central-Eastern Visayas 8. Western Visayas- Palawan 9. Zamboanga Peninsula- Northern Mindanao 10. Bangsamoro and 11. Central-Mindanao-Davao Region.
These federal states anticipate taking over the bulk of functions on matters affecting: peace and order and public safety; agriculture, agrarian reform, and fisheries; commerce, industry and tourism; natural resources, energy and environment; basic vocational-technical education; health and sanitation; water and electrification; public works, transport and communication; social welfare and development.
However, despite of the good intention there is a fear of promoting political dynasty. This was lately articulated by a Party-List legislator warning that the federal system would hand over the country to the entrenched provincial political dynasties. Bayan Muna Representative Teodoro Casiño said the country’s political culture already revolved around entrenched political clans especially in the provinces. (It is even clear that in Zamboanga del Norte, the Jalosjos are erecting an empire!) Their influence would be strengthen if more power were devolved from the national government in Manila with the proposed federal states into mere fiefdoms of these political warlords.
If we adopt a federal system at this time, we would be taking a step back and reversing history because as we have pointed out earlier, federal parliamentary government couldn’t experiment the hundred-year old republic. Thus, it is an appropriate stand that governments are not made in instantaneous process and please let us deviate from the possible argument that federal system works well in United States for it was conceived on a great compromise when the likes of Benjamin Franklin met in the Philadelphia Hall to ratify the US Charter. One must have to know history before arguing some facts!
Weaknesses of the Federal Government
According to Ursula Hicks, Political Science Professor in Oxford University who authored the “Federalism: Failure and Success”, the adoption of federalism in United States was of no choice because the 1787 confederation was found unsuccessful and a unitary system at that time was out because most of the AMERICAN PEOPLE were too deeply attached to the state governments to permit states to be subordinated to a central rule.
Federalism was chosen because the fathers of the US charter believed that it suits best for AMERICA in their fear that a single-interest national majority might capture the national government and will. THIS IS THE CASE FOR THE UNITED STATES. The case for the Philippines is different. According to Hicks, the operation of federal governments has revealed a number of inherent weaknesses and defects to wit:
First, there being a set of officials of central government and another of the component members of the federalism, there is generally an overlapping of functions resulting in waste and confusion. Ultimately, the people bear the expense of maintaining this complex government machinery.
Second, the two sets of officials are being coordinated because belonging to two sets of government that are independent, each being supreme within its own sphere, it is not very easy to secure unity. This lack of unity works out disadvantageously both in foreign and in domestic affairs. The states acting on their reserved powers oftentimes pass measures that make difficult the compliance of the national government with its treaty obligations. States in pursuance of their powers legislate differently on matters that are by their nature common to all the people of the body politic, oftentimes resulting in a state of confusion for all. Laws on such subjects as marriage, divorce, taxation and insurance are much diversified when they should be in uniform to make easier the problems of administration.
Third, the overlapping of functions may occur in many areas of government activity to the consternation of both central and local governments. Moreover, whenever governmental problems arise on the boundary line of authority as prescribed by the constitution, both federal and local governments may be hesitant to act on these problems causing unnecessary delays in solving them.
Fourth, the lack of uniform legislation on many matters makes the problems of administration more difficult.
Fifth, with the powers of each government derived from the constitution and with the latter generally rigid, it results that it is difficult to meet social and economic matters that need expeditious action for their solution or readjustment. Under the present system, it is easy to take care of the matters that need quick legislation or other treatment because the powers of the government are vested in one central organization.
Sixth, ideological bias in favor of either national or state action is likely to reflect concrete political objectives. In recent years, the stand of conservatives in favor of states’ rights and of liberals in favor of national action is no longer predictable. Shifting political issues continue to lead to shifting allegiances among the various levels of government. The politics of federalism involves more than conflicts among the various regions of nation over the distribution of federal peso that have begun to heat up.
Seventh, in a federalized state, the structure and organization of the political machinery is complex. There is a duplication of offices and personnel and maintenance of the governmental system would cause a heavy financial burden to the government. Representation to legislature in the federal governments is more likely to be unequal. A sphere of independent power is capable of blocking the execution of national policy, and there is no difficulty keeping the lines of authority clear.
Eighth, if disputes and divided authority that should be limited to internal affairs are carried into foreign relations, a federation is handicapped when opposed to a more centralized states. The members of the federal union because of their rights over persons and properties and their right to legislate in certain matters may seriously embarrass the national government in enforcing its treaty obligations. The experience of the United States of America bears witness to this difficulty. At the same time, the central government, by making treaties, may encroach upon powers which the constitution intended to leave in the hands of the states.
Ninth, the expense and delay caused by a double system of government in which much work is needlessly duplicated are recognized as serious objections to federal government. There are also serious difficulties in the administration of justice caused by the network of political boundaries with independent jurisdictions. Unwilling witnesses may leave the jurisdiction where their testimonies are needed; property may be removed to another jurisdiction to avoid taxation; and troublesome extradition proceedings are necessary in order to bring back fugitives from justice who flees from the region where the crime was committed.
The defects of the federal system would be diminished if the boundaries of the political divisions could be drawn in accordance with the political needs. These boundaries however are seldom the result of deliberate action but are usually of historical development, being those of the original sovereign states that combined to form the union. Once made, they are difficult to change, with the result of that the divisions seldom correspond to the real political needs of the country. A properly devised system of political units should meet two requirements:
a.) First, the districts should be sufficiently unlike in their conditions and problems to warrant their separate political authority and organization; and
b.) Second, each district should be sufficiently homogenous to have essential unity of political interests. The actual subdivisions of those federations that were formed by historical development seldom conform to these requirements. In most cases, the number of units could be reduced to advantage if constitutional difficulties and local pride did not prevent such action.
Tenth, fundamental difficulties in the federal form of government result from the division of lawmaking power between two distinct governmental systems. There is always the danger of diversity of legislation concerning matters that should receive uniform treatment or that centralized control will be exerted over the matters that should be left to local decision. The proper adjustment of central to local authority thus becomes a constant source of difficulty and the danger of the formation of sectional factions or even rebellion is always present. Frequent disputes concerning the respective powers of national and state governments and disputes among the commonwealth of states themselves have marked the United States history.
As conditions change, readjustments of power are constantly needed, especially in the field of economic interests. In recent years, the defects of the federal government have become particularly noticeable as a result of the growing complexity of industrial conditions. Many questions, which formerly could be left safely to the separate units for decision, now demand regulation on a larger scale. If industrial integration which seems to be the present method of economic development continues, federal form of government may be compelled to give way to a more centralized government capable of regulating or if need be, of taking control of the extensive economic activities of modern civilization. In all modern federations, the national government is extending the scope of its powers and is increasingly looked to for financial assistance and for regulatory measures.
Federalism is a Child of Constant Political Development
Based on Hicks’ rationale, naturally then, there is a considerable difference of opinion concerning the future of federal government. It is obviously unsuited to the Filipinos disinclined to respect the law and the unwilling to acquiesce in frequent compromises. Any attempt to fix specifically and permanently the respective powers of the central government and of its subdivisions will be defective, since these powers will ultimately cease to be in harmony with changed conditions. The form of organization suited to one people or to one time may be unsuited to another society or another stage of development. The federal system was created by the needs of its times and having accomplished its purpose; it may prove to be but the transition stage to a more efficient system.
Federalism is intended for the state which envisioned it since conception and that Philippines would still have to prove its viability in that political bed. As it is once said, “bago maghanap ng iba, subukan muna ang kung ano ang mayro’n ka”.
The usual belief that a unitary state is always centralized and that a federal state is invariably decentralized is not true. United States for example although a federal state, still tend to follow the trend of centralization to enforce the primacy of the federal laws over the state laws. Germany is also a federal state but in its attempt to address the difficulties of the changing contemporary global affairs tend to assert the exercise of national governmental control over the federated states.
Federalism maybe successful to United States and Canada including countries that are considered federalist which includes Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, and Switzerland because at the very start of their political landscape, they are already inclined through it and was just strengthened and fortified thorough evolutionary-historical means. US adopted Federalism in 1787; Canada in 1867; United Kingdom adopted parliamentary form long before 1689; Brazil, Nigeria envisioned federalism since its conception to world atlas; Australia conceived Federal-Parliamentary in 1901; India adopted federal-parliamentary system since the Independence movement of Mohandas Gandhi; Mexico visualized the system in 1917; Germany pictured it out in 1949 ; Malaysia had its notion on it in 1957 and Switzerland birth righted it in 1847. All of the states achieved what they are now at through time. And for me, the notion that it would also change the economic structure of the Philippines is very and imputable.
Conditions Needed to Adopt Federal System
There are four major conditions for the formations of federal government which I believe are not to be responded well by the “mamamayang Pilipino”. Further elaborations and subsequent eloquence for oral defend is needed not to amplify what I want to stress believing on a clear contention that we do not have the following characteristics necessary to derive strength and append vigor
1. The component political communities must be sufficiently similar in race, history and tradition to want really a strong nationality and political union. We might achieve our ethnic similarity but still we remain divisive. Take the case of Zamboanga Peninsula. We have already a vivid inkling that we belong to three united cultural entities, the Muslims, the Christians and the Indigenous tribes yet we could not even implicitly agree to name Pagadian City as the seat of regional power in the peninsula. The third district of ZaNorte believed that they are economically and politically inferior. Filipinos are united quickly only in ousting a leader but when we speak of subsistence, they are all willing to abdicate much their authority to them!
2. There must be a strong feeling of local unity which demands a division of political power so as to preserve local individuality. This is also questionable. Take the case of Isabela in Region II (where my father was born), Aggabao and Albano [political clans in Isabela together with the Dy’s] political families could not even agree on the preservation of the projects initiated in the Municipality of Cabagan. When an Aggabao finishes his term then the Albano takes office, instead of continuing the projects, they make new ones which are, as expected, not erected until the end of his term. This is clearly visible with the advent of the Aggabao Memorial Gymnasium and the Albano-administered Public Market.
3. There must be a written constitution defining the powers of the central and those of the federal states so neither could encroach upon the proper sphere of the other. I see no problem in the writing of the “sentinel of the rule of law” because it is assumed that there are so many legal experts who are committed into it however, the support of the Senate is still on the sensitive zone. Senators want to write the constitution through constitutional convention which would cost 7 billion. Some leaders especially GMA want to cut the long and financially-hefty process though constituent assembly which would cost to 76 million. However just look at the Consultative Commission Gloria has created and instructed to study the constitutional revisions needed. It was alleged that ten million pesos, emanating from the people’s money are squandered in luxurious hotel accommodations and expensive consultations “kuno” and they say these are simple money to initiate major leap? Why the heck these are legislator saying such imprudent and misguided enthusiasm!? As if they pay the largest share in the national revenue?---it is even some of them who are the tax evaders of the society reason! They also say it was simple money? Did these legislators ever recognize the value of sacrifice and hard work that a Filipino must accrue in order to pay devotionally their taxes so they could expect something from the government in return?
4. There must be a common tribunal with the power to interpret this constitution thereby preventing the encroachment by one government upon the domain of the others as laid down in the fundamental law. This can only be justified by satisfying the third requisite but still I am adherent to the view that even the Supreme Court is inextricably linked to the fiefdoms of politics. No matter how the Supreme Court reiterate their conscientious stand that they are legally sovereign, we could not deny the fact that they are also subjects of political alterations. The sad state of Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. on his impeachment attempt for which I consider nothing more but a breach to the separation of powers of the state and an attempt to circumvent the fundamental rule that judiciary must not be meddled by partisan politics is a manifestation that even the sentinel of the rule of law and the “last bulwark of democracy” is and will always be prone to the tentacles of the dirtiest game in the world—politics. Looking into the Davide scenario, Supreme Court experience the worst apprehension on its judicial prestige as the alleged misuse of the judiciary development fund somehow dwindled the confidence of the Filipino people. As for the interpretation of the constitution, I see no problem on the standards of the High Court for those who are seating the magistracy are no less than legal experts who pledged to uphold the constitution but under the parliamentary government Supreme Court cannot have the authority to exercise judicial power because as part of the parliamentary tradition, “no court can legally act a matter or question as null and void for any acts of parliament are considered binding to all governmental agencies not withstanding the court’s position”.
Think Again, We have a Good System
Under the present system, what we need is the authentic service and serious reform not on the government structure but to the people who are running this government structure. We have proven that a unitary system may somehow work. Cameroon, France, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Morocco, South Korea, Sweden, and Uruguay are examples of unitary systems that have proven its efficiency.
Long before we adhered to this new “dictum” of government structure, we had proven that we Filipinos can compete globally. According to James Walker, a Cambridge University economist supporting Eddie Villanueva, the Philippines before has been regarded as one of the best of in the world be it in economy and efficiency in government service. We were once hailed as the Tiger Economy of Asia. Japan was our close competitor but because of the brutish desire that have lambasted and out shaken the sanctity of government service, we have now become a laughing stock in the international community.
The Philippines according to Atty. Jose N. Nolledo, has several potential potentials. Although known as a Federalist, he wanted that the Philippines must first allow the exercise of better autonomy and local governance so that under the new government form, goals are directed to produce a parallel effect. Only through it can there be promotion of entrepreneurship and innovation which are concepts of freedom. Nolledo stressed that should we implement federalism by cutting it short without proper motivation and support from the main bulk of the populace, it will still be inadequate.
Advantages of the Present System
The present system as manifested by the 1987 constitution mentioned the following advantages on its unitary, presidential form:
First, for a small country like ours, the political machinery is greatly simplified which fact results in a great economy in governmental expenditures thru the avoidance of duplication of work.
Second, unlike the federal government, there is no set of local officials separate from and independent of officials of the national government. The local officials are part and parcel of the whole governmental machinery, looking in their respective territories not only after purely local matters but also after national ones. It is part of their duty to enforce not only local ordinances and regulations but also national laws. Consequently, the number of officials who ultimately are in the payroll of the whole people is reduced with the financial burden of the people correspondingly decreased.
Third, it is easy to allocate responsibility for any governmental anomaly because of the generally hierarchical organization of the political machinery. There could be no shifting of blame from local officials to the national officials for irregularities in the administration of justice, for inefficiency in the operation of roads and for the laxity in the administration of sanitation and of schools. There is at least a department to which the erring officials belong, with its head who must have to do the complaining.
Fourth, it is easy to bring about unity of program both in legislation and in administration because the lodgment of powers in the central government with the authority to determine what powers must be given to the local governments. Unlike in the federal government, it is possible for the people to be governed under one marriage law, one divorce law, one insurance law, and one labor law et cetera.
III. DEDUCTIVE CONCLUSION
Our government may indeed be a child of dysfunctional and obsolete political system. But this system is dysfunctional not in the sense that it blocks governance but in the sense that it serves the interests of those who monopolizes the totem pole of economy and politics. And it is obsolete not because it lags behind its counterparts in Asia or lags an imagined economic take-off but in the sense that it cannot contain the new political consciousness that is emerging among our people.
In its truest sense, ours is a country pigmented with political colors but let us not be delighted by the deceiving sparks of persuasions. A change in the system will not ever address issues plaguing and hounding the country. The present constitution has its defects we can see it and perhaps it is time and fair to correct parts of them. But let us not overhaul the basic structure pf government because to begin with, it isn’t really broken. To borrow a much repeated phrase, the problem lies upon all of us.
With the claims as to what form of government should we employ, our country is on the verge of fall caused by two nations- one experiencing vibrant economic growth and another mired in endless political bickering. Indeed the political system must be overhauled in order to ensure the economy’s unimpeded growth however, I do not agree that a shift to a parliamentary-federal form of government will be the vehicle needed for this realization. If we want change, let change find its way to the hearts and minds of the common taos. Let the three tenses of the verb measured by the realization that the best seat in public office is the heart of the people. We need not to be hypnotized by the belief that government can be the panacea in all our problems.
For as long as the same politicos would govern, the federal-parliamentary form of government will fail;
For as long as the same political immaturity binds like chains the spirit of the people, the federal-parliamentary form of government will fail;
For as long as absurdity in public service prevails, the federal-parliamentary form of government will fail;
For as long as private interests and particular intention are sustained, the federal-parliamentary form of government will fail;
For as long as corruption in the government service continues to exist, the federal-parliamentary form of government will fail;
For as long as leadership are measured in terms of popularity and not by merit-based selection process, the federal-parliamentary form of government will fail;
For as long as the rotten political landscape will be effected with its realization, the federal-parliamentary form of government will fail;
For as long as the bureaucracy is not accountable and is inefficient, the federal-parliamentary form of government will fail;
For as long as the same political butterflies lustfully hover the nectar of power, the federal parliamentary government will fail;
For as long as the economic vulnerability of the masses is not addressed, the federal-parliamentary form of government will fail;
And for as long as Filipinos continue to expand the belief that good governance, leadership and administration not good citizenship can solve the chaos and political dilemma we are struggling at, indeed no government and no parliamentary- federal form of government can claim success in the governance of the Filipino people!
