A Parliamentary System Could Have Ousted Noynoy Aquino For A Better Prime Minister

Here's one thing that I could raise up. I guess PNoy Pridists don't want a parliamentary system because it could have ousted Noynoy Aquino. Here's what CoRRECT Philippines has to say about the differences between the two systems:

In a presidential or separation of powers system, the chief executive, or the president, is elected for a fixed, constitutionally prescribed term. He or she cannot be forced by the legislature to resign,except for cause through the highly unusual and exceptional process of impeachment.Being directly elected by the people, the president has full claim to democratic legitimacy. The legislature is an assembly of elected representatives similarly enjoying fixed and constitutionally prescribed terms. As such, it cannot be dissolved by the president and possesses as much democratic legitimacy as the executive. Because of this essential characteristics, Linz has described the presidential regime as a system of “Dual democratic legitimacy” to emphasize the autonomy and co -equal position of the executive and legislative branches of government. Similarly, Stepan and Skach have called the presidential regime a system of “mutual independence”.

In a parliamentary system, the head of government, the prime minister, is chosen from within the ranks of the legislature. He or she must, therefore, be supported by, and is dependent upon, the confidence of the legislature. The prime minister can fall and be dismissed from office by the legislature’s vote of no-confidence. On the other hand, he or she (normally in conjunction with the head of state) has the power to dissolve the legislature and call for new elections. Because of the need for close collaboration between the executive and the legislature for their mutual survival, Stepan and Skach have referred to parliamentary democracy as a system of “mutual dependence”.

When I think of the vote of no confidence, just imagine if the legislature decided to call a vote of no confidence against Noynoy for his incompetence. There were several events that could have called for a vote of no confidence especially for the MRT deterioration that happened under his watch. Other events that could have called for a vote of no confidence was when he refused to apologize to Hong Kong for the late Rolando Mendoza's hostage crisis incident. His lack of accountability could have called for a vote of no confidence but the problem is that with Noynoy being seated for a better prime minister.

The problem of leading an impeachment against Noynoy would be this. To get rid of Noynoy in the presidential system would mean giving Jejomar Binay the head of state. But a vote of no confidence would mean it's time to nominate more qualified leaders to replace Noynoy. Would have a vote of no confidence be raised against Noynoy then maybe we could have had better qualified leaders from the legislature. It wouldn't be a scenario where you jump from the pot (Noynoy) to the fire (Binay). That scenario could have been avoided if the Philippines were under a parliamentary system.