GMA on the proposed shift to a parliamentary form of gov't

"Ang problema sa presidential form hiwalay and independent ang legislative at executive. So magkatunggali by nature. Sa parliamentary form of government, they are one, so therefore, a decision of the executive presumes already that the legislative was part of the decision making." [the problem with the presidential form is that the legislative and executive are separate and independent. so they are adversarial by nature. in the parliamentary form of government, they are one, so therefore, a decision of the executive presumes already that the legislative was part of the decision making.]

i believe that the "adversarial" relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government were put in place so that neither branch could have and accumulate excessive powers. the presidential system we follow was designed by men who were fearful and suspicious of tyrants and potential tyrants, so they made sure that the separation creates a safeguard that will allow none of the branches of government to abuse the power given them and be despots, whether they be individuals or groups. the apparent slowness of the development of laws and their execution is what they wanted as a guarantee that nobody would be "railroading" any agenda that would be advancing the interests of those in power, and if such railroading happened, then there would enough time for concerned people to set up their opposition to the agenda in the usually manner or otherwise.

apparently, the motive behind the shift to parliamentary system is to remove the slowness of the process and the difficulty of creating concensus to get things done, especially in matters pertaining to the development of the country's economy. i believe the need to somehow ease and quicken policy making and execution in order to hasten the greater good is an acceptable and legitimate reason for pursuing such a change in the charter. but since i am not fully immersed into the various considerations and nuances of the parliamentary system, i am worried about how check and balances will be implemented to curb potential abuses, especially when both legislative and executive powers are exercised by a single body. but, in the same vein, my ignorance should not lead me to condemn the system altogether.

i have not formed a strong opinion on the matter. i am rather ambivalent at this point. anyway, i have noticed that those that have adopted the presidential form of government have a common historical development: they were former colonies, including the US. whereas those that have a parliamentary system emerged from a monarchial system, and in fact in many cases, their head of state is their constitutional monarch, if they had a historic monarchy to begin with. i don't know, this observation could be flawed in many ways. but i do think that given this, the parliamentary system would be, somehow, alien to the filipino. or i could be wrong, and they would instead be ambivalent as well.