This paper aims to convince its reader that the Philippines would benefit from abandoning its presidential system and adopting instead the parliamentary system

Authors Avatar

Ashley P. Maglaqui

Mr. Roy Agustin

English 12 Final Draft

19 March 2012

Parliamentary Over Presidential

Statement of Argument

        This paper aims to convince its reader that the Philippines would benefit from abandoning its presidential system and adopting instead the parliamentary system, which is more efficient in government administration and less prone to corruption. It is, however, not in the scope of this paper to show that the implementation of a parliamentary system would be smooth-sailing and chaos-free, nor is it to show that corruption would be entirely eradicated, but instead it is to show the advantages of the parliamentary system over the current presidential system of the Philippines and how it could benefit the country and significantly reduce corruption.

Relevance of Argument

        For years the Philippines has been called a “developing country” yet it has never actually reached a “developed” stage. Therefore, this paper will attempt to convince the reader that switching to a parliamentary system of government would ideally boost the progress and development of the Philippines by providing the country with a government that is united, and is therefore efficient in terms of administration and policy-making.

Parliamentary and Presidential Systems

        In order to fully appreciate and understand the argument, there is a need to be knowledgeable of the different terms involved. The argument focuses mainly on the parliamentary system versus the presidential. The differences between the two systems are analyzed for their advantages and disadvantages throughout the paper.  The term parliament generally refers to the legislature, or the law-making body of a government, more commonly known as the legislative branch of government. The head of government in a parliamentary system is called a variety of names, the most common being prime minister (Britain and the Commonwealth), and the others include premier (China), chancellor (Germany), and Taoiseach (Ireland). For the purpose of consistency, the term prime minister or PM will be used.

According to the book Parliament Versus Presidential Government, there are three fundamental distinctions between the two systems. The first would be that the prime minister and his or her cabinet, which consists of other ministers responsible for government policy, depend on the continuous support of the legislature, as shown by a majority vote of confidence. A no-confidence majority vote by parliament is a move for the dismissal of the current prime minister and his or her cabinet. On the other hand, the head of government in a presidential system is called a president, is elected for a fixed term, and cannot be removed from office unless put through the process of impeachment.

        Secondly, a president is elected by an electoral college based on the number of votes won, while the prime minister (PM) is the leader of the majority party, chosen by members of parliament (MPs). The third and final distinction is that parliamentary systems have a collective type of executive branch wherein the prime minister’s position in his cabinet could be of either preeminence—wherein the PM is the most distinguished of all cabinet members—or being the ‘first among equals’—having the highest status in cabinet. The point is that there is collegiality, or collaboration, in a parliamentary system between cabinet ministers involved in decision-making, while presidential systems have one-person executives. (Lijphart 2)

Argument #1: Parliamentary is a less expensive system that reduces corruption.

        The first argument discusses how the parliamentary system has a less expensive electoral process and how getting rid of elections that require large amounts of money for presidential campaign funds could reduce corruption in the country.

Join now!

Since parliament simply selects the prime minister, elections would cost significantly less compared to a presidential election in which presidential candidates spend millions on promotions and campaigning. However, the parliamentary system also has its elections. The elections for members of parliament occur after a fixed number of years, or whenever the Prime Minister decides to dissolve parliament, and are similar to the senatorial elections.

        The problem with having presidential candidates spend a lot on campaigning is that we are not sure where exactly the candidates get their money. It is not a case of wasting money because the economy ...

This is a preview of the whole essay