Government exists, to rephrase the famous quote from Abraham Lincoln, for the people. That however presupposes that people are informed, intelligent, and aware of how government is run. In a country. where people are uninformed sadly as they are misinformed on controversial political issues , sharply split up by economic, cultural, political, and economic conditions, Lincoln's phrase is merely proverbial. Accordingly, the age-old presidential system of government in the Philippines not only failed to act as a “government for the people”, it also aggravated corruption that override the country's pressing problem of poverty and peace and order situation. Part of the problem is the electoral system that does not guarantee elected politicians can make good legislators and even if they do, neither is the elected executive can make good execution of the law.
The electorate of course are blameworthy simply because of those who vote for the sake of voting or worse than that they vote for monetary return, or future government positions, rather than on political issues and party fundamentals. Politicians and bureaucrats are likewise culpable for simply riding out of the politics of power. Over the years the shortcomings of the government no more than provide sufficient grounds for its alternates and for that the movement for federal system, Parliamentary system, or its hybrid - the movement for Federal Parliamentary democracy serve the purpose.
Time and again, the movement for Federal Parliamentary democracy is in the limelight of political discussions and is bent to secure a nationwide advocacy. But, If and when it becomes a legislative agenda, the tight spot however is in the means the sitting Congress get down to the method of amending the constitution on one hand, and of the ratification of the new charter on the other. If it is by constituent assembly (conass), a loud and strong public protests can be expected for “con-as tactics” is perceived as merely a “game of numbers” in Congress in favor of the administration's party. If it is by people's initiative local officials who are created by and lived under the administration's party, in cahoots with the commission on election, is perceived to have the ability to arbitrarily rig the ratification of the charter through bogus people's initiative.
The only remaining constitutional means, though politically correct but admittedly difficult to accomplish, is constitutional convention (concon). In the first place, a credible concon needs members to be extremely honest and intelligent, unbiased in balancing the trade offs and benefits across the social, cultural, political, and economic positions of the people. In the second place, con-con needs a credible and transparent means of selecting its members that truly represent various interests of the society. Thirdly, much as it takes time for congress to deliberate and concur on charter amendment, admittedly it also takes enormous time and effort to educate the people on the proposed governance before they could intelligently ratify the proposed charter.
Even if all remote possibilities are well undertaken and the proposed charter effectively ratified, the provisions of the new charter per se are not self-executing. Enabling laws still have “to be or not to be” made accordingly and voted upon unanimously by the new breed of legislators and “to be or not to be realistically carried out by the head of the parliament and the cabinet. Conceivably on that account, the draft constitution for federal parliamentary government drafted by a group of Professor Abueva (2002), proposes to lump the separate and independent decision-making organs of the government - executive, the senate and the house of representatives into a single decision-making body - the parliament vested with the supreme authority to govern. The draft constitution also proposes to consolidate the 16 administrative regions into 11 states (Estados), each with a constitution of its own vested with powers theoretically not within the regulatory influence of the Federal or national government.
With the single body making decision for the country as if it is truly represented by varied interests from each legislative district and fully capable of harmonizing the costs and benefits of the proposed change. That in theory could yield more advantage, but taking into account the human factors in the creation and execution of laws, it is not beyond reproach. This is evidenced by the fact that the union of the three policy-making organs of the government does not necessarily mean union or to say the least coalition of the unyielding competing interests of the different constituencies of the parliament, whereby the interests of some quarters are well served by other quarters. Competing interests on property rights, land reform, welfare programs, trade and commerce, e.g., between individuals, within and between states and federal or national government have trade offs and benefits that need non-reciprocal consensus in the parliament (a big IF). In the absence of non-reciprocal consensus in the parliament would only make it relatively easy for the leadership elite to gather enough constituencies and gain complete control of the legislative and executive organs of the government. Such being the case, logrolling and lobbying still are age-old scenarios in the parliament.
