It’s stupid how a senile 4Ps-obsessed old man says that the Senate should need less movie stars all the while he believes that popularity should be the basis of democracy. So what’s wrong with his argument? If he wants more economists, sociologists, systems managers and no more movie stars (though he hypocritically wants less lawyers) then why is he still sticking to his beliefs that popularity is the basis of democracy and that the Philippines should stay as presidential based on the fallacy of appealing to the hundred years argument.
So how will a parliamentary system actually reduce actors and athletes from becoming part of the parliament as senators or legislators out of popularity votes? It’s because the parliamentary system will demand a lot of credibility. You have the president as a unifying figure while you have the prime minister as the one who makes important decisions. The majority may win the Government Bloc yet the minority party will be the Opposition. The Opposition is in charge of offering alternatives and point out errors as they have the keeping an eye on the Government Bloc. Both sides of the coin will have to duke it out in the weekly question hour.
I just want to imagine the situation right now with both Congress and Senate merged into one huge unicameral body. You have legislators or senators together from both sides of the coin. You have the Speaker of the House. Can you imagine Tito Sotto as the Speaker of the House? The whole Parliament whether it’s the Government Bloc or Opposition Bloc would have probably yanked him out by a vote of no confidence. Actors and athletes for legislators who know nothing will not last long. Those actors and athletes for legislators who can prove themselves will have higher chances of staying in the Philippine Parliament.