Undeniably one of the most talked about national issue today is the charter change and the proposed move from the present Presidential system of government to a Parliamentary form, particularly Federal system. This has, in fact, been officially tagged as priority by no less than the President of the Republic herself, Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo during her State of the Nation Address this year - a move criticized by the opposition as a means to ensure or earn, or both, the support of majority of the Congress in her most trying moments. While shrouding this policy decision with political color would normally illicit more doubts than understanding, one must still take time off and consider the viability and propriety of such decision.

The Local Government Development Foundation in its publication entitled, "Primer on Local Government in a Federal System," provided a comparative overview of Presidentialism vis-a-vis Parliamentarism. It may be well to discuss at least two (2) of the most important differences between the afore-mentioned systems of government.

First is with respect to the governance structure. In a Presidential system, there exists three (3) co-equal departments, namely, Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. In a system of government such as this, the principle of inter-departmental courtesy is practiced; which promotes alienation of public policy making resulting to awkward situations such as that brought about by the issuance of Executive Order 464 directing officials under the Chief Executive to seek approval before attending Senate or Congressional hearings. In a Parliamentary system, the government power is lodged with a central body composed of a fusion of the executive and legislative functions/offices. While this set up removes the said hazard encountered in the Presidential system, it may be said that it lacks the proper check and balance present in the former.

Second is the manner by which the head of the government is chosen and the term within which he may serve. Under the Presidential system, the President is both head of government and head of state, and is chosen by the citizens through an election to serve for a fixed term. On the other hand, in a Parliamentary system of government, the President merely acts as the head of state and a Prime Minister is chosen by members of the Parliament to head the government for as long as a vote of no confidence is obtained for its termination. The two (2) mentioned characteristics of Presidential system have brought about several issues and scandals; the bes examples of which are the declaration of martial law and the blatant and massive elections cheating. While there is no absolute assurance that these will not occur under a Parliamentary system of government, it may however be maintained that the possibility of another martial rule or repetitive election manipulation may somehow be lessened, if not curtailed, due to the governance structure and period in a Parliamentary system.

It cannot be gainsaid that no form or system of government can address all problems and concerns that have hounded and are still hounding this nation. The fact that the Presidential system has not elevated the status of this country for the last seventy-five years does not necessarily mean that the system is faulted or inappropriate, or both, for our society. Also, the fact that Parliamentary system has contributed to the growth and success of other countries does not mean that it will, in the same manner, effect change once applied in this country. It is this writer's opinion that whatever form of government a country chooses to adopt, it is the people that will ultimately steer the country towards progress and development. Thus, idea of change should not be focused on the type of government but on the type of attitude one adopts under a present circumstance.

A critical editorial prior to the referendum by Raúl Isaías Baduel (former Commander-in-chief of the Venezuelan Army until 20 04) exposes many of the faults in Chavez's political undertakings and reasons why some of his closest supporters now question their allegiance. Isaías ultimately blames the Venezuelan people themselves for being courted by Chavez's populism. Despite the referendum setback, Chavez has made Venezuela almost a quintessential "delegative democracy" as he dominates the party with personalism, is relatively unaccountable to congress and the judiciary, and becomes the sole person responsible for "his" policies. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/386580.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01baduel.html?ex=1354251600&en=d83421c8f2dca455