Abstract:
The parliamentary system has been presented as an alternative to the Philippine presidential system and has been a recurring topic of debate in constitutional reform or charter change due to the perceived superiority of its features to the presidential system. But with federalism often being the highlight of charter change, studies and discourse on the parliamentary system, specifically Filipinos’ knowledge of and perceptions of it, are almost non-existent in the Philippine context. This study seeks to address this gap by conducting semi-structured interviews with a small sample of UP Manila CAS undergraduate students on three interrelated subjects: perceptions on the Philippine presidential system, perceptions on the parliamentary system as an alternative form of government, and views on charter change, its perceived necessity and motivations for it. Using a constructivist approach, thematic analysis was utilized to interpret their responses. The results show that Filipinos generally perceive the Philippine presidential system negatively, the parliamentary system positively but negatively as an alternative form of government, and charter change as necessary but not as a priority. Political insurance theory was also tested: it appears valid for charter change, cynically viewed by the respondents as a tool for self-interest, but not very much for the parliamentary system, which they perceived more favorably. These findings help to establish a foothold on Filipinos’ knowledge of and perceptions on the parliamentary system, and can contribute to the debate on constitutional reform as well as serve as a benchmark for policymakers and scholars in said field and related topics.
