The parliamentary system concentrates power (especially in the hands of politicians) instead of dispersing it; institutionalizes ‘pork barrel’ politics upon the fusion of executive and legislative powers; and enshrines ‘horse trading’ and ‘transactional decision-making’ as a way of governance between the President and congressmen.

It is not true that ‘legislative gridlock’ held back the country’s economic progress but protectionist economic policies, peace and order problems, and too much regulation and bureaucracy. There is no established connection between form of government and economic performance.

Another major objection to a parliamentary form is raised by those who claim that the same types of undesirable characters now elected to Congress in our presidential system will be elected to the parliament. Unless there is a change in the quality of people, a change in the form of government will not solve anything. Besides, the critics say, the move to change the form of government is being made with undue haste as a response to certain political scandals. Amending a constitution requires a great deal of deliberation and time.

As an advocate of chacha and a parliamentary form of government, I would like to reply to the objections. Observing the improving quality of local officials in comparison to nationally elected politicians, I am encouraged by the rise in the number of outstanding mayors and governors who are trully servant leaders. In a presidential system with a bicameral legislature, these top-quality local officials will find it very difficult to run for national positions. At the same time, they are loathe to run for the Lower House because they see Congress as a do-nothing institution. We know of a few top-quality leaders whose talents have been wasted in the House of Representatives.

In a parliamentary system, many of these outstanding local officials such as Lito Atienza, Bayani Fernando, Jesse Robredo, Josie de la Cruz, and Victor Agbayani may be motivated to run for the parliament so they can have a crack at such positions as Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister, etc. I also opine that many other outstanding professionals in the private sector, who cannot imagine themselves running for Congress, may take interest in running for a seat in the Parliament so that they can serve in some executive position which requires their talents. If these top-quality private citizens are well-known in their respective localities, they have a fighting chance against the traditional politicians. Money politics in a parliamentary system may not be as powerful as it is today in a presidential form of government. A good man with a track record of working for the local constituents can beat a seasoned politician in a small community. When Mahathir was elected to the Malaysian Parliament, he ran in an obscure district. He was then catapulted to national prominence and became the long-staying Prime Minister who was responsible for Malaysia’s ascent to economic prominence in the ASEAN.

Furthermore, as I have said before, a parliamentary form is more conducive to the creation of real political parties. Party loyalty is a condition for rising to the top in a parliamentary system. As we have painfully experienced, loyalty in our Presidential system has been to individuals, not to parties as can be seen in the rampant butterflying from one party to another of prominent politicians. Although party shifting will not be totally eliminated in a parliamentary form (after all Winston Churchill changed parties), there is a strong motivation in the system to stay loyal to one party for long-term advancement.

The alleged haste is not a valid argument to oppose a shift to the parliamentary form. The whole country has been exposed to the presidential-vs-parliamentary debate since the Constitutional Convention of 1972. The fact that former President Ferdinand Marcos manipulated the results of the Concon did not invalidate any of the positive arguments in favor of the parliamentary form put forth by some of the very qualified Concon members then, such as Dr. Jose Abueva and former President Diosdado Macapagal, Sr.

The only reason the Constitutional Commission under former President Corazon Aquino did not seriously consider a parliamentary form was the stigma attached to the former Batasan Pambansa as a Marcos puppet. But to say that the country is being rushed to consider a parliamentary form of government flies against historical facts. This is a long-debated issue and can be settled in the next few months. The pros and cons have been aired countless times. It is just a matter of undertaking a massive educational campaign. I support the efforts of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Speaker Jose de Venecia, Mayor Lito Atienza and others to bring this issue to the people. Let’s bring it to a vote as soon as possible. For comments, my email is bvillegas@uap.edu.ph.