🎓 Academic Why the Philippines Should Amend the Constitution and Move to a Parliamentary System

[Gildarts Tale]

The system we are using today was written almost forty years ago. The 1987 presidential setup may have worked for its time, but today it often slows the country down. When the President and Congress clash, budgets stall, infrastructure projects are delayed, and reforms get stuck in endless political fights. Removing an ineffective or corrupt leader is also extremely difficult. It usually takes a full national crisis or an impeachment process that almost never succeeds.

Political parties remain weak and personality based. Turncoatism is normal. Dynasties keep their grip because power is locked into fixed terms.

This is why many experts are calling for genuine Charter Change or Cha Cha. Not to extend anyone’s term, but to move the country toward a parliamentary system that allows faster decisions, stronger accountability, and more stable institutions.

Here is why it could work better for the Philippines.

No more constant deadlock
In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet come from Parliament itself. The executive and the legislature work together as part of the same governing majority. This means laws, budgets, and national programs can move forward without the endless tug of war we see today.

A clear example is the United Kingdom. When the governing party proposes a budget or major policy, it is debated in Parliament and then voted on by the same body that supports the government. Once the majority agrees, the policy moves forward quickly. There is no separate executive branch blocking it.

Real accountability for leaders
If a Prime Minister loses the confidence of Parliament, a vote of no confidence can replace that leader quickly. The country does not have to wait six years or go through a painful national crisis before change happens.

We saw this in Japan in 2021. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga stepped down after losing support within Parliament and his own party. A new leader, Fumio Kishida, was chosen and confirmed by the Diet within days. The government continued functioning without a national crisis.

The United Kingdom also saw this in 2022 when Prime Minister Liz Truss resigned after losing the confidence of her party and Parliament. Within weeks a new Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, was chosen and government operations continued smoothly.

Stronger parties and more serious leadership
Politics becomes less about celebrity candidates and more about experienced lawmakers, clear party platforms, and discipline within parties. Coalition building also becomes normal, allowing multiple parties to work together and represent more voices in government.

Germany is a good example. No single party usually dominates, so parties negotiate coalitions and agree on a shared governing program. This encourages compromise and stable policymaking rather than personality driven politics.

Greater stability for democracies like ours
In many developing countries, parliamentary systems have proven to be more resilient and more capable of sustaining democracy over time.

India is a strong example. Despite its size, diversity, and political tensions, the parliamentary system has allowed leadership changes without threatening the stability of the state. Governments can change, but the system itself remains steady.

Several respected experts have made the same argument.

Former Congressman and Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad explained in a detailed policy paper that a parliamentary form of government provides a better framework for improving governance and strengthening democracy. He notes that parliamentary systems reduce political deadlock, discourage military intervention, strengthen party discipline, and promote genuine multiparty politics. Studies cited in his work show that parliamentary democracies survive at much higher rates than presidential systems in developing countries.

Political scientist Juan J. Linz of Yale University, in his famous study The Perils of Presidentialism, warned about the danger of what he called dual legitimacy. In presidential systems both the President and Congress claim their own mandate from the people. When they clash, the entire political system can become unstable. Parliamentary systems avoid this problem because the executive authority comes directly from the legislature.

A recent analysis published in the Inquirer Business section in February 2026, written by a former president of the Management Association of the Philippines along with former leaders of the Department of Trade and Industry and the University of the Philippines System, highlighted another advantage. A parliamentary system answers a basic governance question. How are leaders chosen, and how are they held accountable? Responsibility becomes clear, and failed leadership can be replaced without bringing the entire country to a standstill. The authors also pointed out that such a system can work well with a unitary state, provided that political parties are strengthened and rules against turncoatism and opaque campaign financing are enforced.

At the end of the day, this conversation should not be about personalities or power grabs. It should be about building a government that works better for the people. A system that responds faster, holds leaders accountable, and gives the country the stability it needs to grow in the twenty first century.

With the right safeguards, stronger local governance, and serious anti dynasty reforms, a parliamentary system could be a step toward that goal.