This is only my opinion on the topic at hand. Take care and enjoy! God Bless
Although our government, in a way or another, is a limited form of parliamentary government, it is but essential to determine the difference between them in order to know what form of government would best suit our country.
Parliamentary government originated in England, hence it would be of best results, if we would concentrate the discussion on England’s concept of parliament. This is believed to be the reign of the congress because, such body, has the eminent power over the nation both in legislative and judiciary.
Parliamentary government has two houses: the House of Lords, for one, and the House of Common. Corollary our government has the Senate (Upper House) and the House of Representatives (Lower House). Although both our present congress and the parliament has two houses acting in a legislative or law making function, the House of Lord of the parliament is stripped off of the power to veto the bill passed by the House of Common. To this effect, the House of Lords is more of an ornamentation to the Parliament and its existence is of no weigh. The House of Common makes all the deliberations and discussion in law making. In other words, the House of Common does not need the assent of the House of Lords in creating a Law.
On the other hand, the Senate and the House of Representatives has an equal function in law making process. Both houses should convene, as a unicameral body, before passing a bill into law. More so, the manner of voting is divided in accordance to proportional representation, hence, though the house of representative is physically numerous than the senate, their representation is of equal standing. Both houses can veto the bill passed by each house. Therefore, the process of deliberation is comparatively more time consuming than that of a parliament.
The parliamentary government is headed by the Prime Minister. Such office exercises the administrative function of the state. It heads the executive and supervisory division of the government. It includes policy making, implementation of laws, and supervision and control of all administrative agencies. Equivalent to Prime Minister, in a certain extent, is our President. The President Heads the executive body of the state and has control and supervision over all administrative agencies. Likewise, the president implements laws and heads policy making of the state. However, the distinction lies in the process of achieving the position. A president is elected through nationwide election, after gaining the majority vote of all registered voters. On the other hand, a Prime Minister is appointed by the ruling party of the parliament. He is, ipso facto, a member of the house of common. In this case, the Prime minister voices out the representation of the ruling parliament and therefore, may be substituted upon the change of the ruling majority in the parliament.
It is of my opinion that the present state of government is better than a parliamentary form of government. Not that I would like to maintain the status quo, but as our present political system substantiate, a parliamentary form of government would be prone to abuse and exploitation would be in greater effect.
A parliamentary form of government, in my own perception, is a politically motivated and utilized form of government. The ruling political party controls the government and its subdivisions. The Prime Minister, being appointed by the parliament, would be, most of the time, if not always, in favor to the ruling majority, who by virtue of appointment, owes the office. The prime minister is at the mercy of the ruling majority. To this effect, he would be constrained from opposing the ruling majority even to the detriment of the state. It is basic knowledge that a ruling class would not want to step down for the minority. The ruling class would do anything to keep power and to maintain his superiority over the other.
As for the law making function of a parliamentary government, albeit it is true that a parliamentary passes and creates law in a faster manner, than our present congress, due to the exclusive power of the house of common, I still hold that the balance of representation is best upholded by two houses of congress. The deliberation of a bill by both congress will lessen the malevolent or malicious, if there be any, intention of the bill. In a parliament deliberation, the ruling majority holds the decisive power in creating a law, however in our present congress, the minority is well represented and the two houses serve as a check and balance for each house before a bill is passed into law. In effect, the law passed by the two houses of congress, after strict deliberations, reflects more the voice of the people.
claude requino
