Every political system is at once unique and different from all
others and is in Flux. The Philippine political system is no exception.
While it is a creation of colonialism (Its first operational constitution
an imitation of the American charter), it has undergone the subtle
process of evolution, constantly modifying the political environment.
In this process, new political actors in both local and national politics
have emerged.
The progressive POs/NGOs today have definitely emerged as important
actors in the present political arena. They have sustained their role
in getting or preventing action and in influencing government decisions
and policies. The dismantling of the US military bases is a prime
example. The 1992 elections, wherein a number of PO/NGO candidates
won, also show their significant power in local politics.
As significant actors in an evolving Philippine political stage,
progressive POs/NGOs should be interested in whatever proposal to
redesign the stage where it is currently performing. A presidential
or a parliamentary form of government? A strong or weak executive?
Bicameral or unicameral legislature? These are the issues being argued
today in an attempt to redesign the political theater.
The debate on the proposal to shift to the parliamentary form of
government has heated up after the members of the House of Representatives
passed a resolution calling for the transformation of Congress into
a constituent assembly to amend the 1987Constitution. Gridlock in
the legislative process. Checks and balance. The ancient and persistent
problem of governmental responsibility. Stability. These are the bases
being presented for or against the shift.
There is nothing new in these issues. Students of history would
point out that these are the same issues tackled by Sen. Claro M.
Recto in 1949 when he proposed a shift to parliamentary system. Or
even by Felipe Calderon in 1898 when he drafted the Malolos Constitution
and opted to adopt a unicameral assembly. However, its significance
today can be gleaned in the light that both the Senate and the House,
and even Malacañang, have vested interests in the revision
or retention of the present Constitution.
But is the proposal to revise the 1987 Constitution irrelevant to
the POs/NGOs?
The answer is, of course, no. The present debate on whether to shift
to the parliamentary form of government or not can be very relevant
if seen in the context of the progressive POs/NGOs as emerging political
actors in both local and national politics. In what system of government
can the POs/NGOs have greater influence on, and more access to, the
political leadership? In what system of government can the POs/NGOs
have more opportunities for direct intervention on government actions
and policies?
This paper will try to answer the above questions. It shall tackle
the possibilities each proposed system presents to the POs/ NGOs in
the context of its particular political institutions and processes.
What are the functions of the legislative and executive in the presidential
or parliamentary system? What are the interrelationship between them
and the restraints on them? How are the political leaders chosen?
What are the roles of the parties and the various interest groups?
In what manner can individual citizens participate in politics?
Political systems are not just fitted neatly in a given social environment.
In this regard, the reader should avoid the tendency to “choose”
between the systems presented below, in its “purest form. It
may be possible to choose features from various systems that are most
suitable to the interest of the POs/NGOs, in particular, and the Filipino
people, in general.
Systems of Government
Broadly, governmental systems can be classified by the kind of relationship
existing between the executive and the legislature. The most familiar
types are: 1. the Parliamentary or Cabinet system; 2. the Presidential
System; 3. the Assembly government; and 4. the Council government.
We shall discuss more deeply the first two types later on.
A political scientist, Michael Curtis defines Assembly government
as a system where the legislature is the dominant force over the executive,
which has little disciplined control over legislative and financial
matters. The legislature is in many ways the real decision-making
body in the system. The regimes most characteristic of this type where
the French Third (1875-1940) and Fourth (1946-1958) Republics, with
weak political executives, constant government instability and few
disciplined parties. The legislature saw itself, rather than the executive,
as the true representative of the sovereignty of the people.
Curtis also defined Council government as a system of collective
leadership. The oldest example is the Federal Council of Switzerland.
This political executive of seven, elected by the legislature, shares
ministerial duties and administers the country. Communist systems
have also experimented with this type. In the (former) Soviet Union,
collective leadership has existed for short periods before an individual
consolidated his political position.
Both systems of government are now rarely used.
