THE “UNICAMERAL PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM” IS BETTER
THAN THE “BICAMERAL PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM”
A. THREE (3) BASIC ADVANTAGES OF THE
UNICAMERAL PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
The proposed unicameral parliamentary system has three (3) basic advantages over the
present bicameral presidential system. Firstly, it avoids the institutional gridlock and duplication
of functions between the Senate and the House of Representatives, by merging the Senate with
the House of Representatives, which will be the unicameral Congress. Secondly, it avoids the
institutional gridlock between Congress and the President, by merging the President with
Congress, which will be the Parliament. Thirdly, it eliminates the bias for “rich” and “famous”
candidates, by replacing direct national elections for President and the Senators, with indirect
elections for President, regional elections for Regional Representatives (replacing Senators),
local elections for District Representatives, and sectoral elections for Sectoral Representatives.
(1) The present bicameral system allows an institutional gridlock between the Senate and
the House of Representatives, because the bifurcated organizational structure and divergent
selection processes involved, open the upper and lower chambers to control by opposing political
parties.
On the other hand, the proposed unicameral system bars any institutional gridlock,
because the Senate will be merged with the House of Representatives, which will be the
unicameral Congress. Thus, the party that assumes majority control of Congress, assumes
undivided legislative powers.
Notably, the law making process essentially involves the same methodology, resource
persons, information materials and national interest. This is so regardless of whether the
proponent is the Senate or the House of Representatives. Thus, apart from the institutional
gridlock inherent in the bicameral system, there is also the duplication of the law making process
that necessarily results in the wastage of public funds. Under the unicameral system, and
duplication of functions and wastage of resources is systematically avoided.
While the minority party retains the power to check the excesses of the majority party
through active participation in the law making processes, it loses the power to obstruct the
majority party’s legislative agenda as the minority is outvoted by the majority.
(2) The present presidential system allows an institutional gridlock between Congress and
the President, because the separated organizational structure and independent selection processes
involved, open the legislative and executive branches to control by opposing political parties.
On the other hand, the proposed parliamentary system bars any institutional gridlock,
because the President will be merged with Congress, which will be the Parliament. Thus, the
party that assumes majority control of the Parliament, also assumes the power to elect the chief
executive.
While the minority party retains the power to check the excesses of the majority party
through active participation in the law making processes, it loses the power to obstruct the
1
majority party’s execution and administration of government programs as the majority also
wields the power to elect the chief executive.
(3) The present election system for President and the Senators is inherently biased for
“rich” and “famous” candidates, because the selection process involves direct national elections
at large. The “rich” candidates are those who can afford to spend billions to campaign and make
themselves known to the Filipino voters nationwide. The “famous” candidates are the
entertainment, sports and media celebrities who no longer need not campaign nationwide
because they are already known to the Filipino voters at large. “Rich” and “famous” candidates
thrive best in direct national elections at large where popularity generally takes precedence over
performance.
On the other hand, the proposed system of indirect elections eliminates this bias, because
in the context of local, regional and sectoral elections, “fame” and “fortune” generally do not
carry as much weight as actual track records of public service. This is because there is greater
probability that the voter knows the truthful background of the candidates in smaller
constituencies as compared to larger constituencies. Thus, the proposed system promotes fair
democratic elections by effectively expanding the roster of winnable candidates for national
positions.
Notably, the combined regional elections for Regional Representatives (replacing
Senators), local elections for District Representatives, and sectoral elections for Sectoral
Representatives, also serve as the indirect national elections for chief executive. This is because
the party that wins majority control of the unicameral parliament also assumes the power to elect
the chief executive. Under parliamentary practice, the head of a political party is ordinarily the
said party's nominee for chief executive, in case such party wins the majority of the seats in the
assembly of representatives. Therefore, there is no undue curtailment of the right of suffrage,
because the voter is free to consider the party’s known choice for chief executive, when voting
for Regional Representatives, District Representatives, and Sectoral Representatives.
B. AMERICAN BICAMERALISM
NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PHILIPPINES
The bicameral structure of the United States Congress is not applicable to the Philippines,
because it arose out of a different setting and served a different purpose.
The American bicameral structure arose out of two opposing views among the component
states of the United States federation. One view advocated equal representation among all the
component states, each state being a sovereign equal of any other. Another view advocated
proportionate representation among the component states, based on their respective populations.
Eventually, the component states reached a compromise by establishing a bicameral legislature.
Thus, the Senate or the upper house now provides for equal representation (consisting of 100
members with 2 senators per state), while the House of Representatives or the lower house
provides for proportionate representation (with 435 members distributed among 50 states).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress
In the Philippines, there was never such a debate because the country has always been a
unitary state. It was never a federal state. All the people nationwide have always agreed on
2
proportionate representation among all the localities and regions depending on their respective
populations. The people never had to contend with the legalistic theory of sovereign equality
among the localities and regions. They only have to contend with the practical reality of the size
and distribution of the population. Thus, American bicameralism does not apply to the
Philippines.
The blind adoption of American bicameralism to the Philippines has resulted in
undesirable consequences. Firstly, it allows an institutional gridlock between the Senate and the
House of Representatives, because the bifurcated organizational structure and divergent selection
processes involved open the upper and lower chambers to control by opposing political parties.
Secondly, it institutionalizes the duplication of the law making process, essentially involving the
same methodology, resource persons, information materials and national interest, resulting in the
waste of public funds.
Thus, the adoption of a unicameral Congress by the country is advocated. The proposed
system avoids the institutional gridlock and duplication of functions between the Senate and the
House of Representatives, by merging the Senate with the House of Representatives, which will
be the unicameral Congress.
While the minority party retains the power to check the excesses of the majority party
through active participation in the law making processes, it loses the power to obstruct the
majority party’s legislative agenda as the minority is outvoted by the majority.
C. AMERICAN PRESIDENTIALISM
NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PHILIPPINES
The presidential system of the United States is not applicable to the Philippines, because
it arose out of a different setting and served a different purpose.
The American presidentialism arose out of the perception and judgment of their founding
fathers that the colonies suffered from an abuse of the broad legislative and executive powers of
the monarchy. Accordingly, upon the establishment of the United States of America independent
of Britain, they purposely limited the power of the federal government, by separating the
President from Congress, among other measures taken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/separation_of_powers
In the Philippines, the problem was never about a strong and aggressive government.
Rather, the problem has always been about a weak and timid government, unable or unwilling to
promote the common good, whenever the people’s interests conflict with the vested interests of
the entrenched oligarchy. It is observed that the oligarchy, comprised of a few closely knit and
immensely affluent families, has managed to exert strong influence over the politics and
economy of the country over the past eighty (80) years (since the 1935 Constitution). Thus, the
premise and purpose of American presidentialism does not apply to the Philippines.
The blind and adulterated adoption of American presidentialism has only perpetuated the
stranglehold of the oligarchy. Firstly, it weakens the capability of the government to enact and
implement law reforms, because the President is separated from Congress, turning them against
each other. Secondly, it weakens the capability of the common people to exercise representative
3
democracy because direct national elections (for President and the Senators) is inherently biased
in favor of “rich” and “famous” candidates.
Even under the American presidential system, the President and the Senators are not
elected directly at large nationwide. The federal Senators are elected at the local state level. On
the other hand, the American president is elected by a national college of electors, comprised of
representatives again elected at the local state level.
Thus, the adoption of a parliamentary system of government is advocated. Firstly, the
proposed system strengthens the capability of the government to enact and implement law
reforms, by merging the executive (President) with the legislature (Congress), which will be the
Parliament. Secondly, it strengthens the capability of the people to exercise representative
democracy, by replacing direct national elections for chief executive (President) and certain
legislators (Senators), with indirect national elections for chief executive (Prime Minister) and
regional elections for Regional Representatives (replacing the Senators), local elections for
District Representatives, and sectoral elections for Sectoral Representatives.
The localization of the selection process promotes fair democratic elections, because it
eliminates the bias for “rich” and “famous” candidates, and thus expands the roster of winnable
candidates for national positions.
While the minority party retains the power to check the excesses of the majority party
through active participation in the law making processes, it loses the power to obstruct the
majority party’s execution and administration of government programs as the majority also
wields the power to elect the chief executive.
D. INDIRECT ELECTIONS FOR PRESIDENT IS THE
BETTER METHOD OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
The proposed system of indirect national elections for President is the better method of
representative democracy, because it eliminates the inherent bias for “rich” and “famous” under
the present system of direct national elections.
The “rich” candidates are those who can afford to spend billions to campaign and make
themselves known to the Filipino voters nationwide. The “famous” candidates are the
entertainment, sports and media celebrities who no longer need to campaign because they are
already known to the Filipino voters at large.
“Rich” and “famous” candidates thrive best in direct national elections at large where
popularity generally takes precedence over performance. However, in the context of local,
regional and sectoral elections, “fame” and “fortune” generally do not carry as much weight as
actual track records of public service.
Under the proposed system, the combined regional elections for Regional
Representatives (replacing Senators), local elections for District Representatives, and sectoral
elections for Sectoral Representatives, also serve as the indirect national elections for President.
This is so because the party that assumes majority control of Congress, also assumes the power
to elect the President.
4
Under parliamentary practice, which adopts indirect elections for chief executive (Prime
Minister), the head of a party is ordinarily it's candidate for chief executive. Therefore, there is
no undue curtailment of the right of suffrage, because the voter is free to consider the party’s
known candidate for chief executive, when voting for the members of Parliament.
By analogy, where indirect elections is adopted in electing the President, there will also
be no undue curtailment of the right of suffrage, because the voter will be free to consider the
party's known candidate for President, when voting for Regional Representatives (replacing
Senators), District Representatives, and Sectoral Representatives.
Even under the American presidential system, the President is not elected through direct
national elections at large, but rather elected indirectly through a national college of electors,
comprised of representatives elected at the local state level.
Thus, the adoption of indirect national elections for President is advocated. The proposed
system promotes representative democracy, because it eliminates the bias for “rich” and
“famous” candidates. This effectively expands the roster of winnable candidates for President.
The modern private corporation may serve as a working model for indirect elections.
Under a corporation, the shareholders or members merely elect their representatives to the
governing board. The board assumes the power, not only to establish policy, but also to elect the
officers tasked to implement the established policy. The corporate system maximizes not only
flexibility but also accountability.
E. CONGRESS AS ELECTORAL COLLEGE;
DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES AS PLEDGED ELECTORS
Practical features of the Electoral College system of the United States may be adopted by
the Philippines, to strengthen our representative democracy, attain the efficient use of public and
private resources, and establish a strong government capable of promoting the common good.
Congress may serve as the Electoral College, and its District Representatives as the Pledged
Electors.
Notably, the Electoral College of the United States consists of popularly elected
representatives (electors), who formally elect the President and Vice President. Each state is
entitled to have a certain number of electors. There are 538 electors in each presidential election.
United States citizens vote for electors, rather than vote directly for the President and Vice
President. In practice, electors pledge to vote for specific candidates, even though they are free to
vote for anyone eligible to be President. The voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice
presidential candidates, by voting for their respective pledged electors. Critics argue that the
Electoral College is inherently undemocratic, and gives certain swing states disproportionate
clout. Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of
federalism, and protects the rights of smaller states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College(United_States)
At the Constitutional Convention, a majority of the states initially agreed to adopt the
Virginia Plan which called for the Legislature to elect the Executive. However, they eventually
5
adopted another mode where the election is conducted by a group of electors apportioned among
the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress. Among the reasons given for
the change, were the fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of men who
met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the President if he was
elected by the Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
The fears of “intrigue”involving the President and Congress, and concerns about the
independence of the President, may have been related to the perception and judgment of their
founding fathers that the colonies suffered from an abuse of the broad legislative and executive
powers of the monarchy. Thus, when they established the United States of America independent
of Britain, they purposely limited the power of the federal government, by separating the
President from Congress, among other measures taken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/separation_of_powers
In the Philippines, our experience with presidential elections consistently shows that only
those with known national personalities have realistic chances of success. Sadly, the system of
direct popular voting has institutionalized the bias for “rich” and “famous” candidates. The
“rich” candidates are the billionaires who can afford to spend large sums of money to campaign
and make themselves known to the voters, while the “famous” candidates are the entertainment,
sports and media celebrities who need not campaign because they are already known to the
voters. Thus, the mode of direct popular voting ironically weakens our representative democracy
because it works to limit the roster of winnable candidates from whom the voters may choose.
Furthermore, the Philippines never faced the problem of a strong and aggressive
government, except perhaps during the martial law period of the 1970s. Rather, the problem has
always been about a weak and timid government, unable or unwilling to promote the common
good, whenever the people’s interests conflict with the vested interests of the entrenched
oligarchy. Comprised of a few closely knit and immensely affluent families, the oligarchy has
managed to exert strong influence over the politics and economy of the country over the past
eighty (80) years (since the 1935 Constitution), and evidently survived the martial law years.
Thus, the premise and purpose of separating the Electoral College from Congress in the United
States does not apply to the Philippines.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no undue curtailment of the right of suffrage under the
proposed system where Congress simultaneously serves as the Electoral College, because the
candidates for District Representatives will also be Pledged Electors openly committed to their
respective presidential candidates.
By holding indirect presidential elections with Congress serving as an Electoral College,
we can (a) eliminate the systemic bias for “rich” and “famous” candidates by replacing national
elections at large with nationwide local elections, (b) mitigate the negative effects of massive
vote-buying and other forms of cheating, (c) mitigate the negative effects of massive media
manipulation of public opinion, (d) mitigate the negative effects of imprudent popular voting
which favor short-term benefits and disregard the resulting long-term burdens, (e) equalize the
comparative voting power of thinly populated rural communities in relation to heavily populated
urban communities, (f) save on substantial government expenses required for national
presidential elections at large, and (g) save on huge nationwide campaign expenses required of
presidential candidates.
6
By empowering Congress as an Electoral College, we can also avoid the institutional
gridlock between Congress and the President, because the President and the biggest voting block
in Congress will naturally come from the same political group. Thus, the arrangement promotes
the desired congruence, rather than undesirable divergence, of ideologies and priorities in the
formulation and implementation of programs and policies. While the minority party retains the
power to check the excesses of the majority party through active participation in the law making
processes, it loses the power to obstruct the majority party’s program and administration of
government as the majority party also holds the power to elect the chief executive. No one
benefits from this institutional gridlock because it delays if not prevents the delivery of essential
public services. Worse, it renders government powerless against enemies of the state that operate
outside the parameters of the law.
Thus, the assumption by Congress of the dual function of an Electoral College is
advocated. The localization of national elections will strengthen representative democracy,
because it will eliminate the systemic bias for the “rich” and “famous”, and thereby expand the
roster of winnable presidential candidates. The tie-up between the legislative and executive
branches will also build up the capability of the government to pursue reforms, because it will
institutionalize the political alliance of the President with Congress.
From the viewpoint of private governance, the private corporation may serve as a close
working model of Congress that serves the dual function of an Electoral College. Under the
corporation, the shareholders elect only the members of the board of directors. It is then the
board that elects the officers who run the daily business of the corporation.
From the viewpoint of public governance, the parliamentary system may serve as the
equivalent working model of Congress that also serves as Electoral College. Under the
parliament, the voters not only elect their representatives to the legislature by direct vote, they
also elect the prime minister by indirect vote, because the candidates for district
representatives also serve as pledged party electors who are expected to vote for their respective
candidates for prime minister.
This material was written ex-gratia by Demosthenes B. Donato
for Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc.
All intellectual property rights are granted to the public domain.
28 August 2016. Makati City, Philippines.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of TanDem.
7