On a Philippine Parliament

Just recently, issues regarding Charter Change through a People’s Initiative became the main content of all major broadsheets and news programs on television and radio. Advertisements by the group called Sigaw ng Bayan advocating this People’s Initiative were also shown in several local channels. They have even popularized their tagline, “Sigaw ng bayan dinggin na! Charter Change ngayon na!” Both sides of the debate have released their own propaganda supporting their arguments. Pro-charter change proponents say that a parliament would be better because the check and balance gridlock under a presidential system would be eliminated. Those against the proposed charter change, on the other hand, say that the checks and balances are necessary in order to prevent anyone from gaining too much power. In effect, they say that the presidential system we have right now is just fine. In reality, there have been few objective discussions regarding this topic. As a result, the citizens of the Philippines are left in the dark as to what the real pros and cons of a parliament are. Shifting to a parliamentary system might not be the best move at this time because of the flaws of a parliament, the political nature of the country and the character of our government officials.

A Parliamentary Setup Those who advocate charter change and shifting to a parliamentary setup “brag about…faster delivery of services… by claiming that the check and balance gridlock under the presidential system will be eliminated… under a parliamentary setup.” (Esposo, par. 3) This, however, is where the fundamental flaw of a parliament lies. In order for us to understand this, let us explore what a parliament is and let us consider the British Parliament which is the model institution of parliaments around the world (Rose 131). A parliament is a form of government where the legislative or law-making branch and the executive or law-implementing branch are merged into one. The people of the state vote