Monday, January 31, 2011

Parliamentarism in the Philippines: a thrust towards parliametarism (Which is better in the Philippines? Presidential or Parliamentary)




The Philippines is a presidential type of democratic government and the present government is facing problems regarding the check and balances and the seperation of powers. Why does the parliamentary type of government is appropriate for the Philippine context? As the researchers dissected and compare the two types of government, the parliamentary type is more sufficient in addressing common Filipino problems. The legislation is faster; the accountability is consistent and offers an equal representation of the diverse culture of the Philippines. It is either pure parliamentarism of with a package of federalism. This paper will offer probable solution to address the problems especially in the southern part of the Philippines, wherein the conflict between the Bangsamoro and the government are wasting blood and lives that roots in a simple misunderstanding. The establishment of the Philippine government is originated as a presidential type and our history illustrates the vulnerability and weaknesses of the presidential type. The fix term of the president had been the major problem for the Filipinos and addressing it would always result is a revolution that distorted our society. In the Marcos regime, the use of presidential power is the factor that abused human rights. The term of Estrada wherein people power successfully oust Estrada from the presidential seat, but is there really in need of violence or bloodshed to oust a leader? In the time of GMA, it seems that people power cannot be use to remove a clever leader so as the impeachment. These are just some reasons of the weaknesses of the presidential system. The check and balance between the three branches of the government have a crisis, the issue on the centralize power of the government that cause of communal conflicts. The presidential type is like an octopus, it will become impotent when the cabinet members are incapable of doing what is the political will of the president.

          A brief introduction of parliamentarism with a package of federalism, why parliamentary type of government in the Philippines? The advantage of the parliamentary type of government has a faster law formulation or legislation because of the dependency of the executive (Prime Minister) direct or indirect support of the parliament or legislative branch, the executive is a member of the parliament chosen to be the prime minister. The incumbency of the prime minister is dependent upon the confidence of the parliament; there is no fix term so accountability and good governing will always be the major function of the executive branch. The federalism concept is to give absolute autonomy to the states under a central government. The three power of the government will enjoyed by the states, the police power, the power of taxation and eminent domain. Decentralizing the governmental functions to the local level because the localities are the frontliners to provide basic governmental services and governance to the public and this will address the problem of the conflict in Mindanao. The Bangsamoro seeks the genuine autonomy on how they can facilitate their services and utilized their resources.

          Determining the disadvantage of the Presidential type of democracy, the main critics on the parliament is the prime minister is voted by the parliament unlike in the presidential type. This paper identifies what is more democratic than the two, theoretical approach, presidential is chosen directly by the people and in the Philippine political setting it is multi-party system. The more candidates for the president seat the more democratic, the concept of majority is taken place when voting. If the president seat has four candidates, candidate 1 attained 25% of the total votes; candidate 2 attained 15% of the total votes, candidate 3 attained 20% of the total votes and candidate 4 had won by getting 40% of the total votes. As the researchers have been observed it is not the rule of the majority, it is basically pluralism. 50% plus 1 is the concept of the majority and if the three candidates combined their attained votes the result is the majority of the Philippines do not vote for the President who just won. 60% did not vote for the presidential candidate who won the election, then what is the implication of this theory? It means that presidential type of government is more prone for occurrence of a revolution, like what happened in the regime of Marcos, Estrada and GMA. Unlike in the parliamentary type of government, the parliament is directly voted by the people and it is up to the parliament to choose whoever the prime minister will be with an assurance of accountability (the no confidence vote). The will be no social disorder to remove an impotent leader. If the people lose their confidence to the prime minister, they just protest to the parliament for no confidence vote.

          Defining the benefits of parliamentary type of government for addressing the grave problems of the Philippines, the first is addressing the cultural differences that resulted to long term communal conflicts. In a parliament type it is convenient to protest for redress or to voice out the small entities. The inconsistency of the people on their trust for their leader that lead them to revolt against the government, it is important to observe the consistency of the government so that is why the presidential type of government provided a fixed term. In a parliament type it is easier to remove a leader from the office, no revolution and no impeachment that can last for years. The law formulation or the legislation is more efficient in the parliamentary type because the prime minister is part of the law making body (the parliament) and has a familiarity on law formulation. The RH Bill for example, RH Bill is a big help to eradicate poverty by means of population control because of the epic legislation in a presidential type the bill is pending, an essential law to attain development is more accessible from a parliament type. The importance of the legislation will be prioritized and the legislation that will deliver a nation to development is the main concept of a parliament type of government.

          Parliament with a touch of federalism, a twist of federalism will totally end communal conflicts because of the non-intervention of the national government to the priorities of the localities for their development. The problems of rebel group will end and the decentralization that the Bangsamo seeks will be the solution to end war in Mindanao. Giving more opportunity to undertake a national representation for different ethnicity in a parliament form, the development in political, economical and social or cultural will be the most improvement of the ARMM without the interference of the national government. The parliamentary type is an indication of representing an unity among different culture in the Philippines. Why package parliamentary with federalism? In a parliament type of government it is easier to pass a proposal federalizing the Philippines. The Philippines shift to parliamentarism is essential for reforming many myriad ills of the society 

          The electoral process is more effective to choose a leader in parliament, the people vote for the parliament to represent them as a group of different people and the parliament elects the prime minister. Why it is more effective? It is because the people choose an elite politician that can represent them in the parliament, a group of elites and knowledgeable on how to run a government chooses the prime minister. It is the wise task of the parliament to determine whether a leader is capable of running the highest governmental position in the land. The check and balance of the presidentialism has also a counter part in the parliament, the parliament can vote no confidence for the prime minister and the prime minister can abolish the parliament and can call for a new assembly.

          The power of the legislative body and the executive are combined to hasten the legislation. Unlike in the presidentialism, the rivalries arise when the legislative do things that are unnecessary for the incumbent president. The executive has the authority stop an official action, especially enactment of a piece of legislation it is call the “veto power”. In theory the separation of power are inconvenient to pursue complimenting effect on both branch of the government. Unlike in the parliament the executive will have a full-cooperation in legislation that will result in effective legislation and execution. Parliament is an unicameral, it has only one law making body (the parliament) so the procedural legislation is faster compare to the bicameral system of the presidential type of government.

          The key principles that distinguish parliamentary and presidential government entail on the origin and the survival of the popular branches. Under parliamentarism, only the assembly is elected, so the origin of the executive is derivative to that of the assembly. The requirement of parliamentary confidence means that the executive's survival is similarly tied to approval of an assembly majority (Presidential versus Parliamentary Government- JOHN M. CAREY). The executive is dependent to the parliament so the essential part of the government is the parliament. Unlike in the presidential type the executive are more prone to be a dictator because of the different privileges vested on the president. In the parliamentary system, there is fusion of powers between the executive and the legislative branches. This union serves to facilitate the exercise and coordination of governmental powers and functions to formulate desired policies and implement programs of government (Forming a government: parliamentary vs. presidential system 2006).the accountability and responsibility vested on the parliament and the prime minister is more observed because of the union of the executive and the legislative for a better formulation of laws for the interest of the people they represent. Unlikely to the presidentialism that has a bicameral law making body and has a slow legislation, so the essential laws are hindered if it is against the self-interest of some legislators or laws that may promote development are also hindered. 



For the conclusion, the presidential type of government in the Philippines faces many problems and more prone for impotent disposition of effective and good governance. A shift to parliamentary will give ways too many opportunities that are very essential for a developing country like the Philippines. As the research illustrates the fineness of the parliamentary type in the Philippine political setting that addressed and provides numerous solution to the Philippine’s problems that hinders the Philippine’s development. It addressed the diverse inhabitants of the Philippine islands. Charter Change is offering the Filipinos to think change and attaining change will open the door for many opportunities.

          As the researchers dissect every historical events, materials provided and extending further studies to illustrate the impotency of presidential type of government and also to explain the future attainment of the Philippines in a parliamentary type of government. The Filipinos are politically immature; a simple understanding on why the Philippines need to change its charter is hard to accept by the people because of their harsh experience.
          

No comments:

Post a Comment