Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Philippines is in dire need of systemic reform, and the quickest, albeit the most
drastic reform that can be implemented is a change from the current American-style Presidential
adopting the parliamentary form of government will be arrived at by defining the characteristics of
a parliamentary form of government and placing them side-by-side with select characteristics of
our form of presidential government, and it will be shown that, indeed, the parliamentary form of
government enables political maturity and economic stability, compared to the current presidential
form of government.
government where the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the legislature and are
accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches of government are
intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief
legislator.1 Still another author states that parliamentary forms of government is one in which the
only democratically legitimate institution is the parliament; in such a regime, the government’s
paper3 defending his opinion of a parliamentary form of government, mentioned that the principal
difference between presidential systems and parliamentary systems lie in the relationship of the
executive vis-à-vis the legislative branches. Abad claims that in presidential systems, the chief
by the legislature to resign, except for cause via the highly unusual and exceptional, not to
mention difficult, process of impeachment. Being directly elected by the people, the president has
similarly enjoying fixed and constitutionally prescribed terms. As such, it cannot be dissolved by
the president and possesses as much democratic legitimacy as the executive. In a parliamentary
system, the head of government, the prime minister, is chosen from within the ranks of the
1
Parliamentary System. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system. Viewed July 19, 2010
2
Linz, Juan. The Perils of Presidentialism. The Journal of Democracy. Winter 1990 ed. http://
www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/linz_perils_presidencialism.pdf, Viewed July 19, 2010
3
Abad, Florencio. Should the Philippines turn Parliamentary ? Position paper
legislature. He or she must, therefore, be supported by, and is dependent upon, the confidence of
the legislature. The prime minister can fall and be dismissed from office by the legislature’s vote
of no-confidence. On the other hand, he or she (normally in conjunction with the head of state)
has the power to dissolve the legislature and call for new elections. In essence, in a presidential
government, there is high potential for tension to exist between the executive and the legislative,
while in the parliamentary form, a mutual treatment of goodwill between the head of government
and the legislative is required, rather than the adversarial concept of separation of powers and
a rigidity that is less favorable to democracy than the flexibility offered by parliamentary systems,
where governments are not elected for a fixed term of office but rather depend on the ongoing
confidence of the assembly. Because under presidentialism the chief executive cannot bolster his
or her authority either through a vote of confidence or by dissolving the parliament to call new
elections, presidential leadership can be weaker than that provided by some prime ministers.
Presidential constitutions often manifest a contradiction between the desire for a strong and stable
executive and the latent suspicion of that same presidential power.4 In other words, the
presidential system empowers the president to such an extent that he or she has vast powers for
the duration of the term, while at the same time, limits that same power to ensure that he or she
does not grow too powerful to threaten democracy and the rule of law. The best illustration of this
is the provision in the 1987 Constitution that provides “Every bill passed by the Congress shall,
before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it;
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it
originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If,
after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the
bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a
law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the
names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall
4
Mainwaring, Scott and Shugart, Matthew, quoting in part Juan Linz. Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and
Democracy: A Critical Appraisal. July 1993.
communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date
of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.”5 In plain and simple
terms, the President’s disagreement with legislative measures merely serves as a point of
information, and the legislature, if brazen enough, can still choose to pass laws which neither the
executive nor the judicial branches of government has the power to protest, so long as it does not
violate the fundamental law nor encroaches on the functions of the other co-equal branches of
government
In contrast, a parliamentary system, by unifying the functions of the executive and the
legislative in one collegial body, ensures that bills passed as laws have the concurrence of the
implementing body who will be tasked with implementing it. As pointed out by Prof. Jose Abueva,
in a position paper in favor of parliamentary federalism, “The Parliamentary System will help
ensure the coordinated and effective exercise of legislative and executive powers that are fused
or united in the Parliament. The formulation and implementation of the Government’s policies and
programs will be undertaken by the ruling political party or coalition of political parties in the
means that there is greater dynamism and synergy between the executive and the legislative
branches, resulting to timely legislative and executive interventions to resolve pressing problems
of the country.
proceedings. This inflexibility of the chief executive’s position often means an incompetent
President can continue and “wait out” the completion of his or her term, and often without any
significant accomplishments for further growth and development of the country.7 As shown in the
Philippine experience, mass dissatisfaction with the incumbent President that is not resolved via
constitutional means are resolved by taking to the streets, or People Power, as it is commonly
known.
5
Sec. 27, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Emphasis supplied by author.
6
Abueva, Jose, quoting from Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skatch. Some Advantages of Federalism and
Parliamentary Government for the Philippines. Position Paper of the Citizens’ Movement for a Federal
Philippines. June 29, 2005.
7
Parreno, Earl G. The Shift to Parliamentary System: Changing the terrain for PO/NGO Intervention.
Parliamentary systems, on the other hand, have other means of resolving deadlocks
between the executive and the legislative. In case of deadlock between the executive and the
legislative on important issues either of the following remedies are available: (a) the legislature
may force the cabinet to resign upon a vote of confidence, or, (b) the Prime Minister who feels he
has popular support may call for the dissolution of legislature and the holding of general election
where the issues are decided by the people. A defeat means a repudiation of the policies and the
Prime Minister and his cabinet then resign, and a new one is formed.8 However, since the
legislature and the executive, or the cabinet, are intertwined, disputes between the two branches
can be resolved via intra-party caucuses, among other methods, that do not require resorting to
unification of the legislative and the executive branches and the resultant ease in which legislation
can be implemented with the concurrence of the executive charged to implement it, the non-
adversarial relationship between the legislative and executive branches that ensure mutual
cooperation is the preferred course of action between and among the members of parliament, and
the procedural superiority brought about by parliamentary forms’ methods of replacement for its
leaders, will enable the Philippine government to be more responsive to the needs of the people,
and ensure that economic stability and political maturity for the country will be realized.
8
Parreno, Earl G. ibid.