How many more dead bodies until 2010?

GMA up to 2010? At what cost to the nation? Can we survive with our institutions (and self-respect as a people) intact? O irreversible damage na by then?

One main criticism of many parliamentary systems is that the head of government is in almost all cases not directly voted on. Occasionally, an electorate will be surprised just by who is elevated to the premiership. In a presidential system, the president is usually chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature. However, in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the legislature, often under the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a party’s candidate for the head of government is usually known before the election, possibly making the election as much about the person as the party behind him or her.

Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage: that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power. Conversely, because of the lack of inherent separation of powers, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive.

In the United Kingdom, the prime minister is traditionally thought of as the “first among equals” of the cabinet. It has been alleged in The Economist and by a former UK Member of Parliament Graham Allen that the prime minister’s power has grown so much in recent years that he or she is now dominant over the government and that collegiality is no more. Rather than being “first among equals,” the modern British prime minister is “like the moon among the stars,” as The Economist once put it. “Instead of a healthy balance we have an executive [the prime minister] who stands like an 800 lb. gorilla alongside a wizened legislature and judiciary.” (Allen, 12)

Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a dominant party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. Critics point to Israel, Italy, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, no confidence votes, and threats of no confidence votes, make or have made effective governance impossible.

the question is can a diferent system change man’s behaviour? to many it can not but i say, YES IT CAN.

consider the following:

100 employees puched-in their daily time card, 10 were discreet cheaters.

IN came the priest who preaches morality at the office as a result 5 former cheaters became honest punchers, still weve left with 5 recalcitrant cheaters.

now came the finger scan that resulted in 99% “honest” punchers. why 99% ? because there is this one employee who is a hardened punch card cheater who found a way to cheat.

the lesson here- it is hard to change the hearts of men, weve been doing that from the biblical times up to our generation. but devising a system can reform a person’s behaviour, whether he like it or not. but that system should be moral and ethical to begin with. and technology should keep a pace ahead with the technology of fraud and /or theft.

same is true with our present presidential/bicameral form of government- parliamentary/unicameral can be the better system. a system can not change our hearts, but it can alter our behaviour.

how about you, cvj, who would you take a bullet for? Joma Sison? Ka Roger? Or is it Lacson, Legarda, or Villar, as Rego suggests?

If many Filipinos seem to hate PGMA (albeit not enough to oust her from office a la Marcos and Erap), her situation is far from unique. In fact all Philippine presidents in history who completed their tenure alive suffered the same calumny and opprobrium toward the end of their administration.

Uhm, not true. Among the post-Marcos presidents, GMA is BY FAR the most hated. In fact, she’s the ONLY ONE who has received negative net satisfaction ratings, and her net ratings from the people have been consistently negative for over 2 years now.
http://www.sws.org.ph/pr070313.htm

And it’s not like she’s is suffering “calumny and opprobrium” for no reason. She is reviled for many many valid reasons, many of which have been discussed here before (some of which I repeated in my comment above.)