Orion Perez Lectures Sen. Miriam's Sister About Federalism

Prominent international political analyst and well-known on social media as one of the proponents of Federalism for the Philippines, Orion Perez D, made headlines on social media as he lectured the sister of the late Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Atty. Paula Santiago-Knack about Federalism.

According to Orion Perez, he wondered why the veteran international lawyer and European-based pro-Duterte blogger, Atty. Paula Defensor-Knack seemingly opposed the charter change from the current set-up to Federalism suggested by no less than Pres. Duterte.

The international political analyst Perez doubts the knowledge of Atty. Knack regarding Federalism and how the Parliamentary System works even if she lived in a Federal country like Germany. Perez enumerated some of the blatant errors committed by the sister of the late Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

The statement or lectures of Orion Perez D came out after Atty. Paula Knack posted an intriguing statement on her official Facebook Page about Federalism. Atty. Knack suggested that a shift to Federalism is economically dangerous citing statements from Sec. Dominguez and Sec. Pernia.

Here's the Complete Lecture of Orion Perez D:
Paula Defensor Knack:

Several of us were told by a source that you are married to a German guy from Bavaria. After all, "Knack" is typical "Bayerisch" surname.

So in that case, WHY DON'T YOU ASK YOUR GERMAN HUSBAND ABOUT THE FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM? Hindi ba Federal-Parliamentary ang gamit nila sa Deutschland?

Also, aren't you supposed to have been exposed to how Federalism works in Germany? I mean, you do claim on your FB profile to have studied in Munich for your Masters Degree in Environmental Resource Management, so it is expected that you would have at least been able to observe how Germany's FEDERALISM works. What happened? Why do you obviously not understand Federalism at all? Anyare??

I've been reading a lot of your drivel in the past 48 hours and it is unfortunately so obvious that you know NEXT TO NOTHING about Federalism and you know so little about the Parliamentary System.

Let me enumerate just some of your so many blatant errors:

1) You confuse Head of State and Head of Government. In a Parliamentary System, the Head of State is usually CEREMONIAL and inactive in actual decision-making and merely holds symbolic and purely procedural authority. The Head of Government, on the other hand, is the ACTIVE EXECUTIVE who handles actual decision-making.

2) You think that removing term limits means having a Prime Minister who will stay on forever. GEEZ! Don't you know how a Parliamentary System works??? Practically all parliamentary systems do not have term limits. Why? Because the system just naturally weeds out lousy specimens. Lousy politicians easily get thrown out by the system or they quit by themselves. The workload of a member of parliament is much, much heavier and much more challenging than the workload of a typical Congressman under a Presidential System. Because in a Parliamentary System, MPs need to handle the concerns of their constituents ON EVERYTHING, not just on matters regarding legislation, but also on practical matters like stuff that's not working in their area, things that need improvement, etc... Now, those MPs who are very good can rise to the top of their own party to later become the Prime Minister. Being Prime Minister means you need to defend your position EVERY SINGLE DAY during parliamentary debates and question period. When you fail, your own party may decide to replace you if they see you as a liability. So there is no need for term limits because lousy Prime Minister gets thrown out almost instantaneously. On the flipside, if you are a very very very competent Prime Minister who delivers good results all the time, then you will continue to be your party's leader, and as long as your party continues to be seen as a good party and keeps winning a majority of seats, then you will stay on as Prime Minister. That's how Lee Kuan Yew stayed on as Prime Minister for 31 years and how Mahathir bin Mohamad was Prime Minister the first time for 22 years. THEY HAD TO KEEP DELIVERING GOOD RESULTS.

3) You keep talking about how Federalism will mean that people who work for the National Govenment's Bureaucracy will "lose jobs" because Federalism means shifting over responsibilities and functions to the regional levels. Well, don't you realize that in such a transition, the exercise is just simply going to be an organizational reporting-structure reassignment? Let's look at DPWH currently. There are people in DPWH assigned to the regions but they all report to the national hierarchy of DPWH. Well, under Federalism, depending on how it is implemented, some of the people in the regions can be transferred to the REGIONAL BUREAUCRACIES. They won't lose their jobs. It's just a transfer of who you report to.

4) You talk about Inflation as if Federalism is the cause of Inflation. HOGWASH! Don't you know anything about Economics? Inflation happens as the result of either (1) The currency has gotten diluted by printing too much money without a corresponding increase in reserves. Similar to adding too much water, without proportionally adding powdered juice to match the added water. So the juice becomes too watery. That's currency inflation. And then there is (2) where there is a spike in demand for several commodities and basic necessities but no corresponding rise in the supply in order to meet such an increase in demand. Please study economics more and review THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND!

5) You keep bringing up PRRD's economic managers Pernia and Dominguez, claiming ERRONEOUSLY that they are both anti-Federalism. WRONG. They aren't anti-Federalism. They are actually pro-Federalism but they were just issuing cautionary warnings about the need to be very careful in how the transition to Federalism is to be managed and implemented. They didn't say that Federalism is bad and that the Philippines shouldn't go with Federalism. NO. They simply said that we all need to be careful in how the whole exercise is planned and executed because any mistakes may have economic or financial repercussions. In fact, Dominguez clarified that he is not against Federalism but said during a Senate hearing that based on what he saw in the ConCom Draft, he was rather skeptical of that Draft working. That doesn't mean Dominguez is against Federalism. It just means he is cautious and skeptical about how the ConCom Draft was written vis-a-vis the economic implications of the transition.

6) Some 7 weeks ago at a forum with Pia Morato, Epimaco Densing III, Atty Larry Gadon, and Glenn Chong, you claimed you were pro-Federal-Parliamentary. When you were explaining the Parliamentary System, you were clearly conflating "Parliamentary System" with "NO SENATE", when in reality, it is possible for a country to be Parliamentary and still have a Senate, just like Canada, Australia, Malaysia, and so many other countries. Please take note that in Parliamentary Systems that are bicameral, the REAL POWER LIES IN THE LOWER HOUSE while the upper house tends to be more "ceremonial" and merely "advisory" when it comes to vetting legislation. In these cases, the Upper House essentially can only offer suggestions on how to improve a bill before it becomes law or add other value, but it is a more deliberative chamber as opposed to being an EXECUTIVE and ACTIVE one. DO NOT CONFUSE "Parliamentary System" with "UNICAMERAL." It is possible to be Parliamentary and BICAMERAL at the same time.

7) For some funny reason, in one of the threads on your page, someone brought up the original preference that PRRD had for emulating - as a transitional system - the French Semi-Presidential System. As soon as you saw the word "French system", you suddenly responded with a totally unrelated set of factoids, claiming that you wrote some kind of treatise about how France's prosecutorial system is based on the presumption of GUILT before being proven innocent. Well, guess what, even PRRD himself mentioned that and the French Government via its Embassy in Manila issued a rebuttal saying that France is very strongly based on the idea that a suspect or the accused is INNOCENT until proven GUILTY. Ikaw ba yung nagsabi kay PRRD ng maling info na yan?? Because guess what, France is very very big on protecting the innocence of suspects/the accused. In France, suspects' names ARE ON A NEWS BLACKOUT because as innocents, they must not be subjected to shame and negative publicity --- WHAT IF THEY ARE FOUND TO BE INNOCENT at the end of the trial? So France - like Singapore and like many other European and other Commonwealth countries (like Singapore) - tends to PROTECT THE IDENTITIES of suspects and accused and the only time their names come out in the news is AFTER the trial concludes and the verdict is GUILTY or after the accused voluntarily pleads GUILTY.


So, Paula Defensor Knack, many of us hope that you can take a step back, do some real research before DISSING Federalism and other Constitutional Reforms that so many of us have long been pushing for.


Source: Orion Perez D FB Page

Orion Perez Lectures Sen. Miriam's Sister About Federalism Orion Perez Lectures Sen. Miriam's Sister About Federalism Reviewed by Phil Newsome on December 30, 2018 Rating: 5
Powered by Blogger.