With
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo running for Representative,
speculations are ripe again that the constitution will be amended in
order to convert our form of government from presidential to the
parliamentary system. This will pave the way for her to regain her power
as Chief Executive, which is not possible under the present
constitution which bans the re-election of the president.
First, let us see the basic distinction
between a presidential system of government (which we have at present)
and a parliamentary system.
*****
A presidential system is a system of
government where an executive branch exists and presides (hence the
name) separately from the legislature, to which it is not accountable
and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it. It owes its
origins to the medieval monarchies of France, England and Scotland in
which executive authority was vested in the Crown, not in meetings of
the estates of the realm (i.e., parliament). There are three great
branches of the government which are co-equal and independent of one
another: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. These
branches of government operate under a system of checks and balances.
The concept of separate spheres of influence of the executive and
legislature was emulated in the Constitution of the United States, with
the creation of the office of President of the United States. In a
presidential system, the president is usually chosen directly by the
electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people,
separate from the legislature.
*****
A parliamentary system is a system of
government wherein the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from
the legislature, and are accountable to that body, such that the
executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system,
the head of government is both chief executive and chief legislator.
Parliamentary systems are characterized by no clear-cut separation of
powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a
different set of checks and balances compared to those found in
presidential systems. Parliamentary systems usually have a clear
differentiation between the head of government and the head of state,
with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the
head of state often being a figurehead, often either a president
(elected either popularly or by the parliament) or a hereditary monarch
(often in a constitutional monarchy).
*****
One main criticism of many parliamentary
systems is that the head of government is in almost all cases not
directly elected. The prime minister is elected by the legislature,
often under the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a
party's candidate for the head of government is usually known before the
election, possibly making the election as much about the person as the
party behind him or her. Another major criticism of the parliamentary
system lies precisely in its purported advantage: that there is no truly
independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the
parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power.
Conversely, because of the lack of inherent separation of powers, some
believe that a parliamentary system can place too much power in the
executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or
judiciary have little scope to administer checks or balances on the
executive.
*****
In a Presidential system, the president
has a fixed term, and elections are scheduled at regular intervals.
Alexander Hamilton argued for elections at set intervals as a means of
insulating the government from the transient passions of the people, and
thereby giving reason the advantage over passion in the accountability
of the government to the people. On the other hand, Parliamentarianism
allows an election to take place at any time, as may be fixed by
parliament. In some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can
schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so
avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of
elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for
longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system.
*****
The Philippines already tinkered with the
Parliamentary System in the 1973 constitution. As it turned out, it was
just a scheme perpetrated by the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who
was also prevented under the constitution then from seeking further
re-election. In order to perpetuate himself in power, he caused the
amendment of the constitution and caused the shift to the Parliamentary
System.
*****
Critics of President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo point out that her running for Congress is a repetition of what
Marcos did to remain in power indefinitely. With her presidential clout,
exacerbated by the fact that many of her cronies, including incumbent
cabinet members, are also running for congress – with others poised to
go to congress through the backdoor, via the party list system -- it is
not hard to imagine that she can easily control congress. And if the
shift to the parliamentary system is accomplished, she will handily win
election by her peers in Congress as Prime Minister. This time, there
will be no six-year limit to her term, and she will be the head of both
the Executive and the Legislative Branches of the government.
*****
Very neat, isn’t it? But very crooked.
0 comments:
Post a Comment