Reason & Concern

CHA – CHA Again?

By Atty. Ronquillo C. Tolentino

(Continuation of last issue)

Furthermore, a major change in the platform on which the majority party was elected cannot be carried out without a new mandate through election or a “safe” majority in Lower House. Moreover, although the legislative is elected for a definite maximum period varying from country to country, the representative character of administration is maintained throughout, because loss of popularity of those who run the country involves a change even before the term of office of the Lower House is completed. [Quezon Jr., Graphic, V. 30, pp. 10-00, May 18, 1966].
6. The present system is extremely rigid. [Briones “A New Constitution,” 3 The Law Review 375].
7. The presidential system is inevitably connected with the spoils system and the tyranny of political parties, and the conviction that the system entails frequent deadlocks and makes difficult and functioning of government. [Sinco, “A Return to Unicameralism,” 9–10 Phil. L. J. 2409;” The Need for Constitutional Revision,” The Defender, May 13, 1967].
8. There is the difficulty of electing an independent Chief Executive under the present presidential system, e.g. Osmeña vs. Roxas [Salvador Araneta, A program of Constitutional Reforms, p. 5].
9. It has been said that the greatest virtue of the presidential system is its stability. It is true that stability is generally a virtue but it is the result of continuous victory of the party in power that stability may ripen into dictatorship and that dictatorship may lead to revolution. [Kalaw, the Philippine Social Science Review, July, 1934, VI, pp. 214-247].
10. The very fact that the cabinet system tends to change governments more often that the presidential type should, under the circumstances, win us to its favor. Considering the fact that we have been so accustomed to supporting the party in power in our government, I do not think that we will change to the extent of upsetting the government on slight pretexts. Admitting the fact that all representative democracies on large scale must be governed by parties, I believe that in order to offset the evils that come from our characteristics party system, that form of government which facilities can easier change of power should be favored.
11. It has been said that we are accustomed more to the presidential rather than to the cabinet system, the contrary seems the more true. We have been more accustomed to the theory of cabinet responsibility, or personal union of legislative and executive functions, than to the other theory, e.g. Spanish governor-general was in a sense the lawgiver for the Philippines, for while laws at that time came from Spain, he was empowered with the advice of the Consejo de Administraction to make the necessary rules and regulations; the government of the Philippine Republic was a cabinet system; the Philippine Commission (1901-1906) was composed of the majority of members holding both executive and legislative positions.
12. under the presidential system, all departments of the government become partisan in nature from the office of the President down. There are really no non-partisan activities.
Under the cabinet system the titular head, although not a powerful factor in shaping the policies of the government acts as a check to purely partisan activities and is instrumental in preserving the national unity. [II 428-429 Kalaw, supra].

ARGUMENTS CONTRA

1. The presidential system is the system we know best. We have operated under it for more than 30 years. [Constitutional Revision Project, UP Law Center, First Progress report, p. 140]
2. We are emotional people; that trait is not a good basis for the parliamentary system, and is the surest indication that government under the system would be characterized by frequent cabinet changes, such as that we witness in France. And then, there is that major element of amorpropio which is manifested by a tenacious refusal on the part of government officials to leave their posts even if they have no more right to them; with this under a parliamentary system of government, we will have frequent dissolutions of the parliament of law-making body by prime ministers who cannot graciously accept a vote of lack of confidence. [Tolentino, “The Charter and the Citizen,” 8 FEU Faculty Journal, First Quarter, 1963-1964].
3. We are not ready for the parliamentary type because we have not devised an effective procedure for the conduct of honest and fraud-free elections without the aid of armed forces and the spirit of sportsmanship has not yet become energized in our elections, therefore, it is risky and dangerous to adopt the parliamentary system, with its frequent change of ministries and holding of elections. Such coming in and going out of government would upset our political equilibrium and foster chaos and uncertainty in the conduct of public affairs. [Aquino, “Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines,” 5 Ateneo Law Journal 332, 1955-1956 (III 141)] . . .

Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year!