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.
