Which is which, Parliament or Presidential?

The burning question that continues to puzzle every Filipino:  

What form of government is well fit for our country?

The Charter Change or so called “Cha-cha” train has left the station early this year. Administration politicos had purchased their tickets. Chief executive Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had confidently outlined its destination since last year. Year in, year out, the six-year-old administration has come a long way just to reach its bold destination: Parliamentary system of government.  

Malacanang generated the railroading for they consider the existing presidential system unfit to foster the economic development. With the country’s most robust investment and trade inflows, they argue that the present form of the government, with respect to the economic provisions of the 1987 Charter, is no longer to be adequate to advance economic growth in this period of free trade. And so they are certain that the proposed government form would increase economic efficiency as well as end the political turmoil, speed up the legislative process and ultimately benefit the people.  

As the train maintains full speed, a myriad of opposition leaders, sectors and groups have tried to detail it. They see the proposal as a dirty ploy to satisfy the administration’s hunger for power and corruption. Some opposition’s solons, particularly in Senate, are even skeptical that it’s just Ms. Arroyo’s flashy diversion, so she can jump off from the pool of controversies hounding her, especially the legitimacy crisis that spawned from the ‘hello garci’ tapes.  

Some political analysts further that the grand debate on the legislative merits of presidential versus parliamentary has been rather long on idle assertions and short on matter-of-fact pragmatics. When congress failed to pass the 2006 national budget, the administration dominated House of Representatives triggered calls for the Senate’s abolition and for the immediate change to a parliamentary-unicameral legislature. They believe that in this system, it is easier to pass legislation, since the executive, legislative and judicial branches are merging into one unified body called the Parliament.

And obviously the Senate welcomes this. They argue that the present presidential-bicameral legislature produces quality legislation that the other because it holds more hearings before more people and offers more opportunities for debate, reflection and a more deliberate second thought. In such a way, the legislative branch can double check and observe every action of the executive branch with different views and insights.

With this resounding issue in the open, it has invited not only ears of national politicians but of the locals as well.  

I, as a student is among Filipinos, who now stand on the verge of uncertainty, on the brink of perplexity. The more frequent matters like this make up the front pages, the more we are involved as it would shape the state of the future that dwells beyond the commercialized four-cornered classrooms.

However, is the Philippines ready to take another step? Or is the step going back or forth the journal of national success and development? Indeed, to shift from one form of administration to another has pros and cons. To say put has its own as well. But for me, as a student, one thing must be certain: it should satisfy the interest of the people to acquire basic services and needs, in our case, quality education and student representation.