Parliamentary V. Presidentialism The Philippine Case 66463y

Parliamentary vs. Presidentialism: The Philippine Case

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 Democracy, to a Parliamentary form of government. The conclusion in favor of the Philippines 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. A commonly accepted definition of a parliamentary system of government is a system of government where the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the legislature and are able 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 authority is completely dependent on parliament’s confidence.2 Rep. Florencio Abad, in a position 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 executive is elected for a constitutionally-guaranteed term. He or she cannot, in theory, be forced 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 full claim to democratic legitimacy. The legislature is an assembly of elected representatives similarly enjoying fixed and constitutionally prescribed . 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 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 2

legislature. He or she must, therefore, be ed 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 checks-and-balances espoused in American-style presidential forms. The inherent check-and-balance system in a presidential form of government introduces 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 ed 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 of such House shall agree to 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 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 voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall Mainwaring, Scott and Shugart, Matthew, quoting in part Juan Linz. Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal. July 1993. 4

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 , the President’s disagreement with legislative measures merely serves as a point of information, and the legislature, if brazen enough, can still choose to 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 ed 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 Parliament. There is collective responsibility and ability for governance.”

6

Restated, it

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. In a presidential form of government, the only legal means of removing an incumbent president is through the unwieldy, time-consuming, and often procedurally-charged impeachment 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. Sec. 27, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Emphasis supplied by author. 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. 5 6

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 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 the extreme measures of dissolution of cabinet or a call for election. In summary, the characteristics of the parliamentary form of government, specifically the 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 nonadversarial relationship between the legislative and executive branches that ensure mutual cooperation is the preferred course of action between and among the 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.