The Philippines has indeed gone through decade's worth of experiences as what has been dictated by a rich history of colonialism, revolutions, a strong impetus for independence, change in government, change in government and yeah, change in government. But all these reforms and transitions ironically didn't seem to suffice as our country is still relatively young in terms of development and progress.
             Questions on the effectiveness of the current government are inevitably raised which all the more proves the country's struggle to improve.
             The battle between a presidential and parliamentary government is all but alien to us and has been considered gravely many times.
             Rep. Florencio B. Abad, in his article "Should the Philippines Turn Parliamentary?" presented a great deal of valid claims with regards to the 'preferable' compensation a parliamentary government can offer over a presidential one. Even though his article appeared a little much too insistent in insinuating the advantages applying a parliamentary type of government could produce, consequently ignoring a presidential system's benefits and looking much into its weaknesses; I still would have to agree to most of the propositions he made.
             A parliamentary type of government provides a whole new different approach in the relationship between the legislative and executive branches of the government. They no longer are independent branches but rather possess, as Stepan and Skach have mentioned, a "mutually dependent" relationship. This, in my opinion, would prove to be a good measure especially when taking into consideration the miscommunication and gridlocks independent branches produce. The legislators make laws, the executive execute them, seems plain enough. But realistically considering the unspoken at the same time outspoken feud between these two branches, 'plain enough' duties becomes arduous tasks. Wh...